This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं डी. एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003-05

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

नईदिल्ली, जून 12 जून18, 2011 , शनिवार/ज्येष्ठ 22-ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

सं. 25]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 12-JUNE 18, 2011 , SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 22-JYAISTHA 28, 1933

No. 251

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 II-खण्ड 3 -उप-खण्ड (in) PART II Section 3 Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं StatutoryOrders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries ofthe Government of India (Other than the Ministry ofDefence)

वित्त मंत्रालय (वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 3 जून , 2011

21Aofthe State Bank of IndiaAct, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central-Government, in consultation with Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominates Shri T. R. Loganathan (DOB: 02-11-1953) as a member ofthe Local Board of State Bank ofIndia at Chennai Region, for a period of three years with effect from the date ofnotification of his appointment or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 3/16/2010-BO- 1 . ]

SAMIR K, SINHA , Director

नई दिल्ली, 3.जून , 2011

का. आ. 1617.-भारतीय स्टेट बैंक अधिनियम, 1955 (1955 का 23 ) की धारा 21 क के साथ पठित धारा 21 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करके एतद्वारा , श्री टी. आर. लोगनाथन (जन्म -तिथि: 02-11-1953 ) , को उनकी नियुक्ति की अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा आगामी आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के चेन्नै क्षेत्र के स्थानीय बोर्ड में सदस्य के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फासं. 3/16/2010-बीओ-1 ] समीर के. सिन्हा, निदेशक

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

का. आ. 1618,- भारतीय स्टेट बैंक अधिनियम , 1955 ( 1955 का 23 ) की धारा 21 कं के साथ पठित धारा 21 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करके एत‌द्वारा , श्री तनवीर अख्तर (जन्म तिथिः 11-10-1962) , को उनकी नियुक्ति की अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा आगामी आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के पटना क्षेत्र के स्थानीय बोर्ड में सदस्य के रूप में नामित करती है ।

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2011

[फा.सं. 8/18/2009- बीओ -1 ] समीर के. सिन्हा, निदेशक S.O. 1617.-In exercise ofthe powers conferredby clause(c) ofsub-section (1 ) ofSection 21 , read with Section

(4479)

2087 G /2011-1A 28, 1933

New Delhi , the 3rd June , 2011

" जैन विश्व भारती नियमावली-1962 के नियम 2 गर द्वारा प्रदसतियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जोधपुर यूनिवर्सिटी, लाडनूं, जिला नागौर ( राजस्थान ) " प्रयोजनार्थ निर्धारण वर्ष 2011-12 से आ अधीन अनुमोदित करते हैं: -

S.O. 1618. In exercise ofthe powers conferredby clause(c) ofsub-section ( 1) ofSection 21 , read with Section la Act, 1955 ( 23 of1955), the sultation with Reserve Bank Centra of Ind bychrominates Shri Tanvir Akhtar (DOB : 11-10-1962) as amember of the Local Board ofStateBank of India at Patna Region, for a period of three years with effect from the date of notification of his appointment or until further orders , whichever is earlier.

कर निर्धारिती उसकी आय का प्रधान प्रयोग करने के लिए उसका संचयन तथा अन्नतः उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई ।

[F. No. 8/ 18/2009-BO- I ] SAMIR K. SINHA, Director

नई दिल्ली, 13 जून , 2011

2. कर निर्धारिती उपयुक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती अभ की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधासं ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से उसकी निधि ( जेनर- अपार , फर्नीचर आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथत उसे जमा नहीं करना

3. यह आदेश किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होना , जो कि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाप हो जब तक पेस्त कारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उरों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों ।

का. आ. 1619. राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) और खंड 8 के उपखंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उपधारा (3 ) के खंड ( क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् एत‌द्वारा , यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया के अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक श्री एम.बी. नायर ( जन्म तिथि 3-3-1952 ) के कार्यकाल को 31-03-2012 तक की अवधि के लिए अर्थात उनके अधिवर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त करने की तारीख तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , बढ़ाती है ής πολι

[फा. सं. 9/5/2006-बीओ -1 ]

कर निर्धारिती आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 के नों के अनुसार अपनी आय विपत्नी नियमित रूप से आर के समक्ष फाइल करेगा ।

समीर के. सिन्हा , निदेशक

New Delhi , the 13th June, 2011

5. विघटन की स्थिति में इसकी अति राशियां और परिसंपतियां सम्मान उद्देश्यों वाले धन को दे की जाएगी उसका कोई भी भान जाएगा ।

आयकर अधिनियम की भात 10 ( 23न ) 115खान में परन्तुर्क 15 की सत्र में में यह अनुमोदन लागू नहीं होना ।

7 यह अधिसूचना तक जारी रहेगी बरक

[ संदर्भ सं. मु.अ.आ./ आ.अ. ( तक) /कोष /2011-12 /891 ] S.O. 1619.-In exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (a) of sub- section (3 ) of Section 9 , of the Banking Compaines (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act , 1970/1980 read with sub -clause (1 ) of clause 3 and sub-clause ( 1 ) of Clause 8 of the Nationlized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby extends the tenure of Shri M.V. Nair (DoB: 03-03-1992) as Chairman and ManagingDirector, Union Bank of India, for a period upto 31-03-2012, 1.e. the date on which he would attain the age of superannuation or tint further orders , whichever is carlier

दिलीप शिवपुरी , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त [F. No. 9/5/2006-ΒΟ- 1. ]

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF she is SAMIR K. SINHA , Director

आयकर आयुक्त

Jodhpur , the 15th June 2011 जोधुवरक15 जून 2011

No. 01/2011-120

नं.107/2011-12

का. जी. 1620 आयकर अधिनियम 1961 ( 1961 का 43वां) की धारा 10( 23 ग ) के खण्ड ( vi ) के साथ पठित आयकर

S.O. 1670. In exercise ofthe powers conferredby clause(vi) ofSection 10(23C) of the income- tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA of the Income Tax Ruies, जून 18 , 2011 ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र :

संबंधित हैं, निम्नलिखित आदी की इसके अन

"94 एनआईएमएस

1962, I , the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur herebyapprove"Jain Vishva Bharati University, Ladnun, Distt. Nagaur (Rajasthan ) " for the purpose of the said section for the assessment year 2011-12 onwards , subject to the following conditions: -

विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर

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

2. The assessee will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contribution received and maintained in the form ofjewellery, furniture etc. ) for anyperiodduring the previous years relevantto the assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub- section (6) 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 alid no part ofthe same will go to any of the members of the Institution.

6. The approval will not apply in relation to anonymous donations in terms of the fifteenth proviso to Section 10(23C) r.ws. 115BBC ofthe Act.

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

[Ref. No. CCIT/ITO(Tech . )/Ju/2011-12/891 ] DILEEP SHIVPURI, Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार मंश

(स्वास्थ्यतथा परिवार कल्याण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 11 अप्रैल , 2011

का. आ. 1621.-केन्द्र सरकार , दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की. उप - धारा (2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारतीय अंस चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करके, एत‌द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, नामत

2. क्रम सं. 93 के सामने कालम 2 एवं 3 की मौजूदरा प्रविष्टियों में दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 16) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में, जो दंत चिकित्सा डिग्रियों की मान्यता से

लनडोर एनआई ( i ) वैचलर (यही क2-11-2019 को अबका उसके बाद प्रशन कोकौ गई हो )

[फा. सं वी-12017/128/2005-डीई ]

अनीता त्रिपाठी, अपर सचि MISTRY OF HELTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department ofHealth and Family Welfare) New Delhi , the 11th April , 2011

S.O. 1621. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India , hereby, makes the following amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the saidAct, namely:-

2. In the existing entries ofcolumn 2 & 3 after Serial No. 93, inPart-I ofthe Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees , the following entries shall be inserted thereunder:-

NIMS Dental College,

"94 NIMS University,

Jaipur

Jaipur, Rajasthan

BDS, NIMS (i ) Bachelor of Dental

Surgery (if granted on or

after 2-11-2010)

University, Jaipur:"

[F.No.V- 12017/128/2005 -DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 अप्रैल , 2011

का. ऑ. 1622, दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार , भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा' परिषद से परामर्श करके, उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है नामतः-

2. राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर के संबंध में दत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16) की अनुसूची के भाग-1 में क्रम संख्या 72 के बाद मौजूद कॉलम 2 तथा 3 की प्रविष्टियों में इसके पश्चात् निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियों को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा:-

4482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011/ JYAISTHA28, 1933

" VII एनआईएमएस डेन्टल कालेज, जयपुर , राजस्थान ( i ) बैचलर ऑफ डेन्टल. सर्जरी बीडीएस, राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर" ( यदि दिनांक 2-11-2010 को अथवा इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

[फा. सं. वी. 12017/ 128/2005-डोई]

अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 11th April, 2011

S.O. 1622. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2) of Section 10 ofthe Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948 ) , the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part -I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely: -

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

"VII NIMS Dental College, Jaipur Rajasthan

BDS, Rajasthan ( i) Bachelor ofDental University Surgery ( if granted on or after 02-11-2010) .

ofHealth Sciences, Jaipur."

[F.No.V.12017/ 128/2005 -DE] ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 6 मई, 2011

का. आ. 1623. दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप- धारा (2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार, भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करके , उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग-1 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है नामतः-

2. डॉ. भीम राव अम्बेडकर विश्वविद्यालय, आगरा के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम संख्या 58 के बाद मौजूद कॉलम 2 तथा 3 की प्रविष्टियों में इसके पश्चात् निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियों को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा:-

" कान्ती देवी डेन्टल कालेज व अस्पताल, मथुरा

मास्टर ऑफ डेन्टल सर्जरी

( i ) पब्लिक हेल्थ डेन्टिस्टरी

(यदिदिनांक 16-9-2010

को अथवा इसके बाद प्रदान

एमडीएस ( पब्लिक हेल्थ डेन्टिस्टरी ) हाँ. बी. आर. अम्बेडकर विश्वविद्यालय, आगरा

की गई हो)

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] (ii) ओरल मेडिसिन एवं रेडियोलॉजी (यदिदिनांक 16-9-2010 को अथवा इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो) एमडीएस (ओरल मेडिसिन) डॉ. बी. आर. अम्बेडकर विश्वविद्यालय , आगरा

एमडीएस कन्जरवेटिव डेन्टिस्टरी ) डॉ बी. आर. अम्बेडकर विश्वविद्यालय , आगरा"

(ⅲ) कन्जरवेटिव डेन्टिस्टरी एवं एंडोडोन्टिक्स ( यदिदिनांक 16-9-2010 को अथवा इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

[फा. सं. वी. 12017/02/2007-डीई] अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 6th May, 2011

S.O. 1623.In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) ofSection 10 of the DentistsAct, 1948 (16 of1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the saidAct, namely:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against SerialNo.58, in Part-I ofthe Schedule to the DentistsAct, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees, awarded by Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder.- "Kanti Devi Dental College & Hospital, Mathura Master ofDental Surgery

(1) PublicHealth Dentistry MDS (Public Health Dentistry, (ifgranted on or after Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University, 16-9-2010) Agra.

(11) Oral Medicine& MDS(OralMedicine), Dr. B.R. Radiology ( ifgranted Ambedkar University, Agra . onor after 16-9-2010)

() Conservative Dentistry MDS (Cons. Dentistry), Dr. B.R. and Endodontics AmbedkarUniversity,Agra" (ifgranted on or after 16-9-2010)

[F.No.V-12017/02/2007-DE]

ANITATRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई , 2011

का. आ. 1624.. दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16) की धारा 10 की उप- धारा (2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार, भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करके, उक्त अधिनियम को अनुसूची के भाग-1 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है नामत:-

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2. देवी अहिल्याविश्वविद्यालय, इंदौर (मध्य प्रदेश ) के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम संख्या 26 के बाद मौजूद कॉलम 2 तथा 3 की प्रविष्टियों में इसके पश्चात् निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियों को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा:-

" श्री अरोबिन्दो कालेज ऑफ डेन्टिस्टरी , इंदौर (मध्य प्रदेश)

बीडीएस , देवी अहिल्या विश्वविद्यालय , इंदौर (मध्य प्रदेश) "

(iii) बैचलर ऑफ डेन्टल सर्जरी (यदिदिनांक 24-1-2011 को अथवा इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो).

[फा. सं. वी. 12017/03/2004-डीई]

अनीता त्रिपाठी, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 6th May, 2011

S.O. 1624.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) ofSection 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part- I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:---

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 26, in Part-I ofthe Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees, awarded by Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore (Madhya Pradesh), the following entries shall be inserted thereunder.-

" III . Sri Aurobindo College of Dentistry, Indore(Madhya Pradesh)

(1) Bachelor of Dental Surgery (ifgrantedonor after24-1-2011 )

BDS, Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore"

[F.No. V. 12017/03/2004-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई , 2011

का. आ. 1625. दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार, भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करके, उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है नामतः-

2. पंजाब विश्वविद्यालय , चंड़ीगढ़ के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम संख्या 11 के बाद मौजूद कॉलम 2 तथा 3 की प्रविष्टियों में इसके पश्चात् निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियों को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा:-

"डॉ. हरवंश सिंह जज इंस्टीट्यूट आफ डेन्टल साइसेंज , चंडीगढ़

बीडीएस , चंडीगढ़"

(यदि दिनांक 19-6-2010 (i ) बैचलर ऑफ डेन्टल सर्जरी को अथवा इसके बाद प्रदान कीगई हो)

[ सं वी. 12017/24/2005-डीई ( भाग ) ]

अनीता त्रिपाठी, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 6th May, 2011

S.O. 1625. In exercise ofthe powers conferredby sub-section (2) ofSection 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of1948), the Central Government, after consultationwith theDental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part -I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 11 , in Part-I ofthe Schedule to the DentistsAct, 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees, awarded by Punjab University, Chandigarh, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder:-

"Dr. Harvansh Singh Judge Institute of Dental Sciences, Chandigarh

BDS Punjab

(i)Bachelor ofDental

University, Chandigarh" Surgery

(ifgrantedon or after

19-6-2010)

[F.No.V. 12017/24/2005-DE(PC) ]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई , 2011.

कर. आ. 1626.- दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार, भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करके , उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग-1 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है नामतः-

2. डॉ. भीव राव अम्बेडकर विश्वविद्यालय , आगरा के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम संख्या 58 के बाद मौजूद कॉलम 2 तथा 3 की प्रविष्टियों में इसके पश्चात् निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियों को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा:-

"डी. जे. दंत विज्ञान कालेज एवं अनुसंधान , गाजियाबाद

(ii ) मास्टर ऑफ डेन्टल सर्जरी

आर्थोडोन्टिक्स एवं डेन्टोफेसियल एमडीएस ( आर्थोडोन्टिक्स आर्थोपेडिक्स 4484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2011 /JYAISTHA 28, 1933

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii)) 16-9-2010 को एवं डेन्टोफेसियल आर्थो

न की गई हो ) पेडिक्स ) डॉ. बी. आर. अम्बेडकर विश्वविद्यालय , आगरा"

[ म. संधी. 12017/76/2005 -डीई ]

अनीता त्रिपाठी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 6th May, 2011 New Delhi , the 6th May, 2011

S.O. 1627. In exercise of the powers conferred by b- section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentist Art, 1948 ( 16 of1948), the Central Government , her commitution with the Dental Council of IndiaFrezy, makes the following amendments in Part- I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

S.O. 1626. In exercise ofthe powers conferred by motion (2) ofSection 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of1966), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India , hereby, makes the following Amendments in Part- I of the Schedule to the said Act,

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against SerialNo. 89, in Part- 1 of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees , awarded by Sumandeep Vidyapeeth (Deemed University), the following entries shall be inserted thereunder:-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 58, in Part- I ofthe Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees, awarded by Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder: -

"K.M. Shah Dental College & Hospital , Vidodara D.J. College of Dental Sciences & Research , Ghaziabad.

(i ) Bachelor of Dental Surgery

BDS, Sumandeep Vidyapeeth (Deemed University)" (ii ) Master of Dental Surgery

(ifgranted on or after 01-7-2010)

[No. V. 12017/16/99-DE( Pt . )]

ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई , 2011

Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics MDS(Orthodontics ifgranted on or after 16-9-2010 ) & Dentofacial Orthopedics) . Dr. B.R. Ambadkar University, Agra"

[F. No. V- 12017/76/2005 -DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 6 मई , 2011

का. आ. 1628. दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार , भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करके, उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है नामतः-

का. भा. 1627. दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16) की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार, भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करके, उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है नामतः-

2. डॉ. राम मनोहर लोहिया अवध विश्वविद्यालय , लखनऊ के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम संख्या 55 के बाद मौजूद्र फॉलम 2 तथा 3 की प्रविधियों में इसके पश्चात् निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियों को अंतर्षिष्ट किया जाएमाः-

" II . सरस्वती डेन्टल कालेज एवं अस्पताल , लखनम

( ii ) मास्टर ऑफ डेन्टल सर्जरी

( यदि दिनांक 18-1-2011

2. सुमनदीप विद्यापीठ ( भानद विश्वविद्यालय ) के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग- । में क्रम संख्या 89 के बाद मौजूद कॉलम 2 तथा 3 की प्रविष्टियों में इसके पश्चात् निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियों को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा:-

को अथवा इसके बाद प्रदान

एमडीएस (ओरल पैथोलॉजी एवं माइक्रोबायोलॉजी डॉ. आरएम एल अवध विश्वािलय ,

की गई हो)

लखनऊ"

"कै. एम. साह डेन्टल कालेज एवं अस्पताल , वडोदरा

( ii ) बैचलर ऑफ डेन्टल सर्जरी

[फा. सं. वी. 12017/56/2003 - डीई ( भाग ) ] बीडीएस, सुमनदीप विद्यापीठ

(यदिदिनांक 01-7-2010 (मानद विश्वविद्यालय ) "

अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव [ भाग II- खन्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : खून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

New Delhi , the 6th May 201 May

S.O. 1628.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (2) ofSection 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the saidAct, namely:-

(ख) " मान्यता प्राप्त ि कर कॉलन ( 2 ) के रूप में लिस्ट ) ] , " मीण गांधी विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , बंगलौर के प्रति रूप' [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] शीर्षक के अधिन प्रविष्टि एवं उनके संप्रविष्टि के बाद निम्मतिको अंतर्षिन्ट किया जायेगा,

"मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 55, in Part - I ofthe Schedule to the DentistsAct, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees , awarded by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh University, Lucknow, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder:-

एम.एस. ( नेत्र विक्षन )

(नेत्रविज्ञान)

" II . Saraswati Dental College & Hospital , Lucknow.

Microbiology) , Dr. R.M.L. MDS( Oral Pathology it Awadh University, Lucknow" (ii) Master ofDental Surgery Oral Pathology& Micro- biology (ifgranted on or after 18-1-2011)

[No.V. 12017/56/2003-DE(Pt.)] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 12 मई , 2011

का. आ. 1629 केन्द्र सरकारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की भहा-1 की उम- धारा ( 2 ) में प्रदत्त समों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारतीय आविधान रिसे परामर्श करके, उक्त आधनियम की प्रथम अपनी में एतदद्वारा निम्नलिमिजस और संशोधन करती है, नामतः

उक्त अनुसूची में -

(ग) मान्यता प्राप्त? त्रिक्रिया अहंवा (इसके बाद कॉलम (2 ) के रूप ) विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , फरीदकोट के सक्षिप्त रूप' इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) करे रूप में शीर्षक के अंतर्षत लिए अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संधित प्रमिले आपका के को अंतर्षिष्ट किया जायेगा , नामतः

" मास्टर ऑफ़ सर्जरी एस. एस. ( आर्थोपेडिक ing (आदि ) ?

(यह 1921 एवं अनुसंधान संगत में उसके बाद गुरू राम प्रतिकित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध

में बाबा फरीद स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान (यह मई, 2016 में उसने चपुर , कटिक में प्रशिक्षित किए जा हे कि के समय में राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविधालय , बंगलौर द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर पिता अर्हता होगी ) ।

सभी के लिए टिप्पणी: 1. स्कोर काकस के लिए स्वीकृत ऐसी मान्यता मी अवधि अधिकतम 5 होगी, जिसे बाद में नवीकरण

asure Mult 1244 में जैसा कि अपेक्षित है , की समय पर नवीकरण कराने

2012/32/ 2011 - एसई ( पी- II ) ]

suit od fish soub निता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिन πόσο 28ον τo boneq swraix

18 May 2011

S.O. 1619, exercise of the powers conferred by Bule Sétifan (2) of the said 11 of the Indian Medical - A1, 1938 (102101990,al Central Government, aking the Medical lancil of India, hereby dalus the following Turth CH Ghiendments in the First ( qualification namely

In the said Schedule-

st Baba Farid University of Health Sciencesos Euridkunder the heading Recognised Medical Qualification ' [ heroinuar toas Botanik(2)] , skipthe titry and trynelafing) thure to understrecheading στις αποροφαγίαμίgn for Registration, ther referred to as column (3 ) the fa

inserted, namely:-

4486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2011 /JYAISTHA 28, 1933

[PART II SEC. 3(i)] MS (Ortho. )

उक्तअनुसूची में-

"Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)"

2. कश्मीर विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर द्वारा प्रदान की जा रही दंत चिकित्सा डिग्रीयों की मान्यता के बारे में दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग ज्ञ में क्रम संख्या 63 कॉलम के 2 तथा 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में गवर्नमेंट डेंटल कॉलेज व हास्पिटल , श्रीनगर (जे. एंड के. ) के संबंध में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियों को उसके अंतर्गत अंतर्विष्ट किया जायेगा , नामतः-

मास्टर ऑफ डेंटल सर्जरी

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when grantedby Baba Farid University of Health Sciences , Faridkot in respect of students being trained at Shri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences & Research , Amritsar on or after November 2010.

(i ) ओरल एंड मेक्सीलोफेसियल सर्जरी

एमडीएस (ओरल एंड मेक्सीलोफेसियल सर्जरी ) कश्मीर विश्वविद्यालय

(यदिदिनांक 3-11-2010 को अथवा उसके पश्चात प्रदान की गई ) ।

कन्जरवेटिव डेन्ट्रीस्ट्री एंड इन्डोडोन्टिक्स

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

एमडीएस ( कन्जरवेटिव डेन्ट्रीस्ट्रीएंड इंन्डोडोन्टिक्स) कश्मीर विश्वविद्यालय MS(Ophth.)

(यदि दिनांक4-11-2010 को अथवा उसके पश्चात प्रदान की गई ) ।

"Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology) "

[फा. सं. यू-12012/17/2005 -डीई]

अनिता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th May, 2011 (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore in respect of students being trained at Shri B. M. Patil Medical College , Bijapur , Karnataka on or after May, 2008.

Mote toall:

S.O. 1630. In exercise ofthe powers conferredby sub- section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948 ), the Central Government, after consultation withDental Counsil of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a miximum period of 5 years , upon which it shall have to be renewed .

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 63, in part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertaining to recognition ofdental degrees awarded by University of Kashmir, the following entries in respect of Government Dental College & Hospital, Srinagar (J& K) , shall be inserted thereunder

"Master ofDental Surgery

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

MDS(Oral&

Oral&Maxillofacial Surgery

(ifgranted onor after 3-11-2010 )

[F. No. U. 12012/32/2011 - ME(P.II) ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.

Maxillofacial Surgery), University ofKashmir नई दिल्ली , 18 मई , 2011

Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics

MDS(Cons. Dentistry andEndodontics),

University of Kashmir"

(ifgranted on or after 4-11-2010)

[ F. No. V- 12017/17/2005-DE] क्र. आर. 1630.- केंद्र सरकार, दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद से परामर्श करके , उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , न्द्रामतः-

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

4487

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 24 मई , 2011

का.आ. 1631.-केन्द्र सरकार, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 के उप खण्ड ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद के परामर्श के बाद उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित संशोचन करती है , नामतः :

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में शीर्ष ' मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता ' ( कालम ( 2 ) में ) के अंतर्गत " द तमिलनाडु डा. एम जी आर चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय , तमिलनाडु " के समक्ष और शीर्ष पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण ( कालम (3 ) में ) के तहत निम्नलिखित जोड़ा जाएगा नामत

एम. बी. बी. एस

बैचलर ऑफ मेडिसिन एवं बैचलर ऑफ सर्जरी

(यह चेट्टीनाड अस्पताल एवं अनुसंधान संस्थान , कांचीपुरम , तमिलनाडु में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के बारे में दि तमिलनाडु डॉ. एमजीबार चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय , तमिलनाडु द्वारा फरवरी 2011 में या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई चिकित्सा अर्हता मान्यता प्राप्त होगी )

[फा. सं. यू. 12012/213 /2005 - एमई (पी. 11) ) अनिता त्रिपाठी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the24th May, 2011

S.O. 1631. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2 ) of Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956( 102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India hereby, makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:

Inthe said First Schedule against " The Tamilnadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Tamil Nadu" under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification ' [ in column (2 ) ) and under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration ' [in column (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted namely:-

M. B. B. S

Bachelor ofMedicine and Bachelor of Surgery

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by The Tamilnadu Dr. MGR MedicalUniversity, Tamil Nadu in respect of students trained at Chettinad Hospital & Research Institute, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu orn or after February2011 )

[F. No.U- 12012/213/2005- ME (P- II ) )

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 24 मई , 2011

का.आ. 1632.-केन्द्र सरकार , भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 के उप खण्ड ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद के परामर्श के बाद उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है, नामतः

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में शीर्ष ' मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अहंता ' ( कालम ( 2 ) में ] के अंतर्गत " एचएन बहुगुणा गढ़‌वाल विश्वविद्यालय , श्रीनगर, उत्तराखण्ड " के समक्ष और शीर्ष पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण [ कालम ( 3 ) में ] के तहत निम्नलिखित जोड़ा जाएग्न नामत

एम. बी. बी. एस

बैचलर ऑफ मेडिसिन एवं बैचलर ऑफ सर्जरी

(यह श्री गुरू राम राय चिकित्रत विज्ञान संस्थान , देहरादून, कक्राखण्ड में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विोिं के बारे में एक श्रीनगर, उतराखण्ड द्वारा फरवरी 2011 में या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई चिकित्षय अहंत मान्यता प्राप्त होगी)

[फा. सं. यू-12012/119/2004- एई (पी. ( 1) ]

अपित त्रिपाठी, अवर सचिव 2087 G1/11-24 4488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA28 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)

New Delhi , the 24th May, 2011

S.O. 1632. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2) of Section 11 ofthe Indian Medical Council Act, 1956( 102 of 1956) , the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India hereby, makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely :-

In the said First Schedule against " H.N Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar, Uttarakhand " under the heading ' Recognized Medical Qualification ' [ in column (2 ) ] and under the heading ' Abbreviation for Registration' [in dolumn (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted namely :-

M. B. B. S

Bachelor ofMedicine and Bachelor of Surgery

(Thisshall be recognized medical qualification when granted by H.N Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar, Uttarakhand in respect of students trained at Sri Guru Ram Rai Institute of MedicalSciences , Dehradun , Uttarakhand on or after February 2011 )

[F. No.U-12012/ 119/2004- ME ( P- II)] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy,

प्रवासी भारतीय कार्य मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2011

का.आ. 1633.-केन्द्र सरकार राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) अनुसरण में प्रवासी भारतीय कार्य मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली को , जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अधिसूचित करती है:--

[सं. 11011 /12/2011- हिंदी]

आर. सी. मीना , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS INDIAN AFFAIRS

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2011

S,O. 1633. In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 ofthe Official Languages (use for official purpose of the Union ) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs , New Delhi , as more than 80% ofits staff has acquired working knowledge of Hindi :-

[No. 11011 / 12/2011 -Hindi ]

R. C. MEENA , Under Secy.

कृषि मंत्रालय

( कृषि अनुसंधान एवं शिक्षा विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 13 जून , 2011

का.आ. 1634, केन्द्रीय सरकार , कृषि अनुसंधान एवं शिक्षा विभाग राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियमावली , 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में राष्ट्रीय लीची अनुसंधान केन्द्र ( भा.कृ.अ.प. ) मुजफ्फरपुर ( बिहार ) कोजिसके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , एत्त‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 13-10/2009- हिंदी/89-100]

विजय सिंह, अवर सचिव

2087 65/ 11-28 4489

मरत का राजपत्र: जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(Department ofAgricultural Research & Education)

New Delhi , the 13th June , 2011

S.O. 1634. In pursuance of sub -rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose ofthe Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government, Ministry of Agriculture, Department ofAgricultural Research & Education hereby notifies the National Research Centre For Litchi, ( ICAR) Muzaffarpur, ( Bihar) where more than 80 % of staff have acquired theworking knowledge ofHindi-:

[No.13-10/2009 - Hindi/89-100 ] VIJAY SINGH, Under Secy.

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नई दिल्ली, 13 जून , 2011

का.आ. 1635.- 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 किं जिन भारतीय मानकों के संशोधन के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

क्रम सं.

संशोधन लागूहोने की तिथि

संशोधन संख्या और

वर्ष

संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

15दिसंबर 2010 1.

संशोधन संख्या 1

वर्ष 2010

आईएस 3811 :2005 एल्कोह्वीय पेय- रम-विशिष्ट (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

15दिसंबर 2010 2.

संशोधन सख्या 1

वर्ष2010

आईएस 4449 :2005 एल्कोहीय पेय- व्हिस्की-विशिष्ट (चौथा पुनरीक्षण)

[संदर्भ: एफएडा/जा-128 ] इन संशोधनों की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भजन , 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, पूमे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं । तिथिः 13 जून 2011

डॉ. आर. के बजाज , वैज्ञानिक एक एवं प्रमुख ( खाद्य एवं कृषि) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(DepartmentofConsumerAffairs)

(Bureau of Indian Standards)

New Delhi , the 13th June , 2011

S.O. 1635. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Ruies , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the amendments to 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.

Date ofwhich the amendment shall have effect

No. and Year of

the amendment

No. andYear ofthe Indian Standards

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

15 December, 2010

Amendment No. 1

Year2010

1. IS 3811 : 2005 Alcoholic Drinks- Rum- Specification (Third Revision) 4490

(1)

(2)

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2011 /JYAISTHA 28, 1933

[PART II Sec. 3(ii) ] (3)

(4)

Amendment No.1

2. IS4449: 2005 Alcoholic Drinks- Whiskies-Specification (Fourth Revision)

15December,2010 Year2010

Copy ofthese Standard 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: 13 June, 2011

[Ref: FAD/G-128] Dr. R. K. BAJAJ , Scientist Fand Head (Food & Agri )

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2011

का.आ. 1636.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के संशोधन के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

क्रम सं. संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्क, वर्ष और शीर्षक

अनुसूची

संशोधन संख्या और

वर्ष

(2)

( )

संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि

(3)

(4)

संशोधन संख्या 2

आईएस 2557 : 1994 खाद्य उत्पादों के लिये अन्नायें रंग - (पाशा पुनरीक्षण)

1जून , 2011

वर्ष 2011

इन संशोधनों की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110 002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बकूर , गुलाहाटी , हैक्सबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

तिथिः 14जून, 2011

[संदर्भ : एफण्डी/जी-128 ] डॉ. आर. के बजाज , बैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख (खाद्य एवं कृषि)

New Delhi, the 14th June , 2011

S.O. 1636.-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 amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :-

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

SCHEDULE

Date ofwhich the

No. and Year of

the Amendment

(1)

(2)

1. IS 2557: 1994 Annatto colour

Amendment shall have effect (3)

(4)

Amendment No.2

for Food products - Specification

(FirstRevision)

IJune,2011

Year2011 4491 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

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

[Ref: FAD/G-128]

Dr. R. K. BAJAJ , Scientist " F" and Head (Food & Agri)

नई दिल्ली, 15 जून , 2011

का.आ. 1637.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 4 के उप- विनियम (5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

भाग अनु वर्ष

संका

लाइसेंसधारी का

नाम व पता

लाइसेंस संख्या

क्रम सं

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि वर्ष/माह

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(7)

(9 )

(8)

(5)

(6)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

2004

14543

है. महालक्ष्मी

30-3-2011

3726869

पीने का पानी

अरेटेड वॉटर

(पैक

इंडस्ट्रिज झोस

वाढो, सोकाले

मिनरल

पोरचोरिम,

बारडेझ , जल के

गोआ-

403501

1999

14625

दमन रबर

27-4-2011

3722255

प्रोडक्टस,

प्लॉट सं 6,

सर्वे सं 217-

पी, परसुराम

पुरियाके पीछे ,

गाँव दादर्श ,

सिलकसा

396320

2004

14543

2-5-2011 अनिकेत

3723560

पीने का पानी

एन्टरप्राइझेस ,

प्लॉट सं. एभ

मिनरल

जल के

32 , अतिरिक्त मुरबाड, एम आई डीसी,

मुरबाड,

जिला थाणे-

421401

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद

3714054

पोगो इनकॉर-

18-5-2011

पीने का पानी

पोरेट सुनिट

(पैकेजबंद

सं. 2,3 अल्पाईन

4492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28, 1933

[PART-H-SEC . 3(1)

(5)

(4)

प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट, मरोल क्रिलिटरी रोड , अंधेरी-पूर्व, मुंबई 400059

[सं. पीसी/13 : 11 ]

एस. बी. रॉय, वैज्ञानिक-" एक "

New Delhi , the 15th June , 2011

SO. 1637. In pursuance of sub - regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given in the following schedule:--

SCHEDULE

GrantDate

ISNo. Part Sec. Year Sl. No.

Licences No.

Title of the Standard

Name&

Address of

the Party

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(9)

(7) (8) 1.

3726869

30-3-2011

14543

2004

Packged Drinking Water (Other thanPackaged Natural Mineral Water)

M/s. Maha- laxmi Aerated Water Industry ZosVaddo, Soccorro, Porvorim Bardez, Goa- 403501

3722255

27-4-2011

14625

1990

Plastic Feeding Bottles

M/ s. Daman RubberPro- ducts, PlotNo. 6, SurveyNo. 217 -P, Behind Parsuram Puria, VillageDadra Silvassa-396320

3723560

2-05-2011

2004

14543

Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural MineralWater)

M/s. Aniket

Enterprises,

PlotNo.M-32,

Addl.Murbad

MIDC,Murbad,

DistThane-421401

3714054

18-05-2011

2004

14543

Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

Pogo Incorporate Unit No. 2 , 3, Opp: Alpine Indl . Estate, MarolMilitary Road,Andheri(E) , Mumbai-400059

[No.CMD/13:11 ]

S.B. ROYI , Scientist "F" [ भाग IH- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का सजपत्र : जून 18, 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

4493

नई दिल्ली , 15 जून , 2011

का.आ. 1638.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम 5 के उप- विनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द/स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-

अनुसूची

लाइसेंसधारी का.

क्रम सं.

नाम व पता

लाइसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल-

0876873

जयंत कलर और केमिकल इंडस्ट्रिज , तुलसीराम गुप्ता मिल्स इस्टेट, दारूखाना , रे रोड, मुम्बई -400 010 2.

7330157

अप्लाईड प्लास्टिकस प्राईवेट लिमिटेड, प्लॉट सं. 10 , बिशेन उद्‌योग प्रिमाईसेस, हरक्युलस हॉइस्ट के सामने, ऑफ पी के रोड, मुलुंड- पश्चिम, मुंबई-400 080 3.

7915084

कुंजुनाथ एक्वा इंडस्ट्रिज, सं. 8 , उच्चाट रोड, गाँव वर्धा, पोस्ट कुडुस , वाडा, जिला थाणे-421312

रद्द करने की तिथि लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/ प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारती मानक काशीर्षक

28-04-2011 सीमेंट पेन्ट 5410 : 1992

9-05-2011

पैकेजबंद पीने का पानी (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अल्पवा) 14343: 2004

11-05-2011 पैकेजबंद पीने का पानी (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) 14543:2004

[सं. सी.एम.डी./13: 13 ]

एस. बी. रॉय , वैज्ञानिक " एक "

New Delhi , the 15th June , 2011

S.O. 1638.-In pursuance ofsub-regulation (6) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations , 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars ofwhich are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE Sl . Liences No. CM/L- Name& Address of the Licensee No.

1. 0876873

M/s. Jayant Colour & Chemical Industries , TulsiramGupta Mills Estate, Darukhana, Reay Road, Mumbai-400010

2. 7330157

M/s . Applied Plastics Pvt . Ltd. , Plot No. 10, Bishen Udyog Premises, Opp. HerculesHoist Co. , Off P.K. Road , Mulund (West) , Mumbai -400 080

3. 7915084

M/s. Kunthunath Aqua Industries No. 8, Uchat Road, Village Vardha, PostKudus , Wada Dist . Thana -421312

Article/Process with relevant Date of

Cancellation Indian Standards covered by the licence cancelled/ suspension

Cement Paint

28-04-2011 IS5410:1992

9-05-2011 Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural MineralWater) IS 14543 : 2004

11-05-2011 Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water) IS 14543: 2004

[No. CMD/13: 13 ]

S.B. ROYI , Scientist " F " - 4494

[PART II-SEC. 3( i) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2011 /JYAISTHA28, 1933

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 13 जून 2011

का.आ. 1639.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि से कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है;

और उक्त अनुसूची में उल्लिखित , भूमि के क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत आने वाले रेखांक संख्या सी- 1 ( ई ) III/जीआर/ 845-1110 , तारीख 24 नवम्बर, 2010 का निरीक्षण वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व विभाग ) ,कोल इस्टेट, सिविल लाइन्स, नागपुर -440 001 ( महाराष्ट्र ) या मुख्य महाप्रबंधक ( खोज प्रभाग ) , सेंट्रल माइन प्लानिंग एंड डिजाइन इन्स्टीट्यूट , गोदवाना प्लेस , कांके रोड , रांची या कोवला नियंत्रक, 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता के कार्यालय में या जिला कलक्टर छिंदवाड़ा ( मध्य प्रदेश ) 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 शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि से कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ;

उक्त अनुसूची में उल्लिखित 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 ) भूमि में या ऐसी भूमि पर कोई अधिकार या भूमि के प्रतिकर के हित के यदि कोई दावा, या

(iii ) खनन पट्टा अर्जन करने के अधीन अधिकारों की पूर्वेक्षण अनुज्ञप्ति प्रभावहीन हो जाने और भूमि संबंधी सभी नक्शे , चाटों तथा अन्य दस्तावेजों का परिदान , अयस्कों या अन्य खनिजों के नमूनों का भूमि से संग्रहण और उनका सम्यक् विश्लेषण करने के लिए तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 को उपधारा ( 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 , महाप्रबंधक , वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, पेंच एरिया , पोस्ट आफिस- परासिया , तहसील - परासिया , जिला- छिंदवाड़ा ( मध्य प्रदेश ) या महाप्रबंधक, भूमि और राजस्व, वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, सिविल लाइन्स, नागपुर-440 001 ( महाराष्ट्र ) को भेजेंगी ।

थिसगोरा ब्लॉक ' सी'

पेंच क्षेत्र

जिला छिन्दवाड़ा ( मध्य प्रदेश )

) पीआर/845-1110 , तारीख 24 नवम्बर , 2010 )

पटवारी सर्किल संख्या तहसील

जिला

परासिया

15.876

छिन्दवाड़ा

परासिया

218.295

छिन्दवाड़ा

204.402

छिन्दवाड़ा

11.906

छिन्दवाड़ा

छिन

114931

कुल क्षेत्र:- 565.410 चेमटर ( सनएन)

या 1397.16 एकड़ ( सगभग) 4495 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

सीमा वर्णन: -

क ख: रेखा बिन्दु ' क ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम झुरै से गुजरती हुई ग्राम झुरै तथा शासकीय वन की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' ख ' पर मिलती है ।

ख - ग: रेखा ग्राम झुरै से गुजरती हुई ग्राम झुरै और ग्राम झुरै रैय्यतवारी की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' ग ' पर मिलती है । ग - घ: रेखा ग्राम झुरै रैय्यतवारी से गुजरती हुई ग्राम झुरै रैय्यतवारी और ग्राम झुरै की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ गुजरती है तथा बिन्दु ' घ ' पर मिलती है ।

घ ङ: रेखा ग्राम झुरै से गुजरती हुई ग्राम झुरै तथा ग्राम तुमडी की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ गुजरती है तथा बिन्दु ' ङ' पर मिलती है । ङ च: रेखा ग्राम तुमडी से गुजरती हुई मगरही नाला को पार करती है और पुनः ग्राम तुमडी से गुजरती हुई गुन्नोर नदी के किनारे से जाती हुई मगरही नाले को पार करती है तथा ग्राम तुमडी से गुजरती हुई ग्राम तुमडी तथा ग्राम मोहाली की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' च ' पर मिलती है ।

च - छ: रेखा ग्राम तुमडी और ग्राम मोहाली की सम्मिलित सीमा से गुजरती हुई ग्राम, मोहाली तथा ग्राम माथनी की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' छ ' पर मिलती है ।

छ- क: रेखा ग्राम माथनी से गुजरती हुई ग्राम माथनी तथा ग्राम झुरै की सम्मिलित सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु ' क' पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/31 / 2010- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]

एस.सी. भाटिया , निदेशक

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi , the 13th June , 2011

S.O. 1639.- 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 C- 1 (E) III/GR/ 845-1110 dated the 24th Noverber, 2010 containing details of the areas of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department) , Coal Estate , Civil Lines , Nagpur -440001 (Maharashtra) or at the office ofthe ChiefGeneral Manager (Exploration Division) , Central Mine Planning and Design Institute , Gondwana Palace Kanke Road , Ranchi or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata or at the office of the District Collector, Chhindwara (Madhya Pradesh) ;

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

Any persons interested in the land described in the said Schedules 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,

tothe office of the General Manager , Western Coalfields Limited , Pench Area, Post Office Parasia, Tahsil Parasia, District- Chhindwara (Madhya Pradesh ) or General Manager (Land & Revenue ), Western Coalfields Limited Revenue Department , Coal Estate , Civil Lines, Nagpur -440001 (Maharashtra ) within ninety days from the date ofpublication ofthis notification in the Official Gazette .

2087Gl/11-3 4496

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011/JYAISTHA 28, 1933

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

SCHEDULE

Thesgora Block ' C'

Pench Area

District - Chhindwara ( Madhya Pradesh)

[Plan bearing number : C- 1 (E) III /GR/ 845-1110 , dated the 24th November, 2010]

Tahsil

SI . No.

Name of Village

Patwari Circle Number

32 1.

Parasia

Jhurrey Raitwari

Parasia

Jhurrey

Tumri

31 3.

Parasia

Mohli

Parasia

Mathni

Parasia

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION :

District

Remarks Area(in Hectares)

Chhindwara

15.876

Part

Chhindwara

218.295

Part

Chhindwara

204.402

Part

Chhindwara

11.906

Part

Chhindwara

114.931

Part

Total Area :

565.410 hectares (approximately) or 1397.16 acres (approximately)

A-B Line starts from Point " A" and passes through village Jhurrey and meets on common boundary of village Jhurrey and Government forest at Point ' B '

B-C Line passes through village Jhurrey and meets at common boundary of villages Jhurrey and Jhurrey Raitwari atPoint ' C '

C-D Line passes through village Jhurrey Raitwari and meets on common boundary of villages hurrey Raitwari and Jhurrey at Point ' D ' D-E Line passes through the village Jhurrey and meets on common boundary of villages Jhurrey and Tumri at Point'E'

E-F Line passes through village Tumri , crosses the Magrahi Nallah then again passes through village Tumri and proceeds along the bank of river Gunnor then again crosses the Magrahi Nallah and passes through village Tumri and meets on common boundary of villages Tumri and Mohli at Point ' F '

F-G

\ Line along the common boundary of villages Tumri and Mohli and meets on common boundary of Villages Mohli and Mathni at Point ' G' G-A Line passes through village Mathni and meets on common boundary of Villages Mathni and Jhurrey at Point 'A'

[F. No. 43015/31 /2010- PRIW-1 ]

S. C. BHATIA , Director भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

[ भाग 11 खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(1) (2)

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 1 जून , 2011

4497

( 5) ( 6 )

(3)

(4)

00 14

585

3. पांची (जारी)

का. आ. 1640.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोक हित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में दादरी से हरियाणा राज्य में पानीपत तक , प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा आर - एल.एन.जी. स्पर पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।

0 00 26 478

0 01 49

561

00 .

479

586

000

482

0 02

4. उकावली

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

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

220

103

0 01 68

222

00 80

00 47

0 01. 01

242

0 03

505

5. खट्टा प्रहलादपुर

कोई भी व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से , जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में, श्री विद्या शंकर सिंह , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, दादरी- पानीपत गैस पाइपलाइन परियोजना , एस.ए. - 4 , शास्त्री नगर ,नजदीक पुरानी हापुड़ चुंगी गाजियाबाद ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य : उत्तर प्रदेश

जिला : बागपत

तहसील : बागपत

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा संख्या

क्रम गांव का नाम

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग सं.

मीटर

(4) (5) ( 6 )

(3)

446

323

00 69

335

294

00 67

318

348

0 02

000

349

0 01

329

09.

481

2436

১

0 06 69 451.

0 00 ΤΠ

334-

0 01

333

0 01

490

06 89

504

1253

어 10

6. पावला बेगमाबाद

( 1) ( 2)

01 08

1324

1. चमरावल

00 36

975

00 05

1325

0 05 63

1315

0 02 78

1329

0 00 32

1326

0 05

979

529

2. खासपुर

00 29

541

0 01 13

0 00 36

00 58

579

3. पांची

0 00 34 1183

0 00 58 1055

00 19

1049

1047

12 960

00 30

999

00 16

958

00 57

1038

0 00 57 1013

0 01 26 1168

0 01 27 1169:

1181

00 31

1003 4498

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

(3)

(1) ( 2)

(3)

(4) (5) ( 6 )

(4) ( 5) ( 6 ) (1) (2)

0 1004

0 00 82

6मिन

03 66 6. पाबला बेगमाबाद

12. पुट्टी ब्रहममान

729

0 01

111

00 86 (जारी )

0 00

211

01 53 1161

0 00

212

0 959

01 95

214

1039

01 13

0 02 09

215

0 02 05

7. बसा टीकरी

210

201

0 02 72

0 02 37

97मिन

13. नरोजपुर गुर्जर

197

0 01 .98

0:01

14. ट्यौढ़ी

228

0 02 05

251

0 06 62

249

60 211

0 00 38

807.

15. राजपुर खामपुर

227

00 41

805

229

0 ΟΙ

0 00

219

जिला: बागपत राज्य : उत्तर प्रदेश

तहसील : खेकड़ा

204

00 15

खसरा संख्या

क्षेत्रफल 505

0 00 64

8. गौरीपुर

क्रम गांव का नाम सं

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग

0 01

मीटर 380

(3)

(1 ) (2)

(5) ( 6 )

(4) 491

0 00 13

0 00 64

03 56

1. गौना

562

0 379

0 02 13

0 03 73

639

357

0 01 44

577

00 43

0 00 67

01 03

579

559

0 00 506

0 00 64

0 01

584

20 63

0 01 01

0 00

587

32 507

586

508

00 81

610

00 11 500

0 01

126

0 01 502

01 05

2. शहबानपुर

511

ΟΙ

3. ललयाना

744

0 03 13

336

01 52

0 00

745

65 9. हबीबपुर माजरा

408

127

0 04 59

4. मन्सूरपुर

10. मीतली

1917

0 ΟΙ 34

189

0 01 09

199

0 00 53 50

11. बली

0 02 79

118

01 67 51

0 01 00

122

0 00 66 44

0 04 43

202

0 00 73

0 04 10

5. खैला

108

0 231

03 14

03 34

99 229

0 02 69

0 01 19

247

04 97

00 73 230

0 01 69

232

0 00

189

01 51

6. महरमपुर

273

1092

0 03 10

0 01 00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4499

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

(1) ( 2)

(3)

(4) ( 5 ) ( 6 ) (1) (2)

(3)

(4) ( 5 ) ( 6 )

0 01 85

6. महरमपुर ( जारी ) 214

273

02 178

0 04 17

0 05 55

4कोताना बांगर

(जारी)

360

0 00 14

436

001 359

252/1469

01 07

40 238

251

00 66

000 229

525

0 04

00 87

505

0 01 16 358

0 00 76

254

01 05 274

0 00 55

571

25 270

0 00 73

269

567

0 02 24 जिला : बागपत राज्य : उत्तर प्रदेश

तहसील : बड़ौत

1240

02 क्रम गांव का नाम खसरा संख्या

क्षेत्रफल

166

0 00

5. जागोस बांगर

59 सं

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग

155

0 01 45

मीटर

197

0 03 04 (2 )

( 1 )

(3)

(4) (5) ( 6 )

156

0 00 73

153

02 1. ढिकाना

583

215

0 02 87 566

144

0 04 78 18

0 00 58

2. लुहारी

164

04 47 21

0 00 73

183

0 06 84 134

0 00

203

00 73

135

157

138

[फा. सं. एल-14014/30/2010-जी.पी. ] 213

02 39

के. के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव 216

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS 1338

0 00. 92

New Delhi , the 1st June , 2011

1321

0 03 86

1351

0 00 84

1352

02 60

1493

08 88

1500

00 76

S.O. 1640. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of natural gas from Dadri in the State ofUttar Pradesh to Panipat in the State of Haryana, R-LNG Spur Pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

1501

05 09

769

0 00 23

770

3. अकबरपुर उसका बांगर

b 00 35

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

703

0 00

731

781

0 01 11

780

0 10 88

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

767

0 01 26

783

000 24

695

0 03 22

4. कोताना बांगर 511

0 00 82

559

0 00- 25

1401

0 01 39

560

00 96

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, are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Vidya Shankar Singh, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Dadri Panipat R- LNG Pipeline [PART IISEC . 3(ii)] 4500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 /JYAISTHA 28, 1933

(3)

( 5) ( 6 )

(1 ) ( 2)

(4)

Project, SA-4, Shastri Nagar, Near Old Hapur Chungi,

Ghaziabad (UttarPradesh).

0 01 57

333

5 Khatta Prahladpur

SCHEDULE

490

0 01 35

(Contd)

504

0 .06 Distt.: Baghpat State : Uttar Pradesh

Tehsil:Baghpat

0 01 10

Area

6. PawlaBegmabad 1253

Sl . Name ofVillage KhasraNo.

1183

00 No

0 00 58

1055

AreSquare Meter

Hect- are

00 19

1049

(5) ( 6 )

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

1047

0 01 30

01 08

1. Chamrawal

1324

960

975

0 00

999

1325

958

0 05

1315

0 00 57

1038

0 02

1329

0 00 57

1013

00 32

1326

0 01 26

1168

0 05 71

979

0 01 27

1169

04 12

529

2. Khaspur

0 00 14

1181

0 00 29

541

1003

0 01

0 00 82

1004

00 36

729

0 00 58

579

3 Panchi

0 00 66

1161

585

0 00 29

959

0 00

478

1039

01 13

561

210

0 02 37

7. Basa Tikri

0 00 95

479

201

00 18

586

0 01 98

197

0 00

482

228

Ukawali

249

220

00 38

211

0 01

103

0 00 41

227

0 00 58

229

01 42

222

219

0 00 29

0 00 80

0 00

204

0 00 47

0 00

505

8. Gauri Pur

242

380

0 00 98

5. Khatta Prahladpur 505

00 13

446

03 15

491

0 02 25

64 323

0 00

00 69

335

0 02

379

294

0 01

44.

357

318

00 67

01 03

348

02 61

0 00 64

506

0 01 66

329

01 01

02 09

481

507

0 00. 40

00 63

2436

0 00 81

508

0 06

451

0 01 14

500

0 00 77

334 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

4501

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28, 1933

( 1) ( 2)

(3)

(5) ( 6)

(4)

(1) ( 2)

(3)

(4) (5 ) ( 6 ) 502

01 05

744

0 03 13

3. Lalyana

8. Gauri Pur (Contd.)

511

745

01 13

0. 0065

0 01

127

336

9. Habibpur Majra

0 04 59

4. Mansurpur

189

408

01 09

199

0 00 53 10. Mitli

1917

0 01 34

118

0 01 67 11. Bali

0 02 79

122

00 66 51

0 01 00

202

00 44

5. Khaila

108

03 55

04 10

0 01 99 231

0 03 34

0 01 19 229

0 02 69

73 247

04 97

189

6. Mehrampur

230

0 01 69

273

01 232

0 00 92

214

01 85 1092

0 03 10

178

0 04 17

360

0 00 14

6 Min

12. Putti Brahamnan

03 66

359

07 111

00 86

238

0 00 66 211

0 어

229

212

04 40

214

358

00 76

02 09

274

215

0 00 55

270

0' 00 73

02.

Tehsil: Baraut

97 Min

13. Narojpur Gujjar

Distt.: Baghpat State : Uttar Pradesh

Area 56

Sl . Name ofVillage Khasra No.

0 01

14. Tyodhi

No.

251

06 62

Hect- are

AreSquare Meter 59

00 60

(1) ( 2)

(3)

(4) (5) ( 6 )

01 13

15. Rajpur Khampur 807

1. Dhikana

583

0 00 20 805

00 22

566

56 Tehsil : Khekra Distt .: Baghpat State: Uttar Pradesh

2. Luhari

0 00 58

Area

Sl . Name ofVillage Khasra No.

00 No.

134

0 00 46 Hect- . are

AreSquare Meter

135

0 00 25 (2 )

(1 )

(3)

(4) ( 5) ( 6 )

138

0 01 54 562

1. Gauna

0 03 56

213

02 39

639

03 73

216

01 23 577

0 00 43

1338

00 579

0 00 96

1321

0 03 86 559

00 04

1351

584

00 84

01 20

1352

587

00 32

0 .

1493

586

0 00

08 88 610

1500

00 11

00 76 126

1501

01 72

2. Shahwanpur

05 09 4502

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

(3)

(4) (5) ( 6)

(1) ( 2)

00 23

3. Akbarpur Taska 769

770

Bangar

703

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

731

781

780

767

00 24

783

695

03 22

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय 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 , उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

4. Kotana Bangar 511

559

00 25

1401

560

273

05 55

436

252/1469

00 40

05 00

251

525

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जन साधारण को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में, श्री दिम्बेश्वर कलिता, ए.सी.एस. , अडिशनल डिप्टी कमिशनर एवं इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड ( पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग ) में सक्षम प्राधिकारी 3211 , गुवाहाटी रिफाइनरी टाऊनशिप , सेक्टर- III , नूनमाती , गुवाहाटी-78120 (असम ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

505

254

अनुसूची

06 25

571

राज्य : असम

जिला-कामरूप ( मेट्रो )

269

क्षेत्रफल 567

02 24

ग्राम का दाग

क्र. मौजा का

1240

सं. नाम

नाम

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग

संख्या

मीटर

166

$ Jagos Bangar

155

(4) (5) (6) ( 7)

(3)

(1) (2)

197

00 03

पूव- बरागाँव 325

1. जालुकबारी

156

(सरकारी भूमि)

02 41

153

330

00 02 94

215

00 17 80

333

144

00 04 68

340

04 47

164

00 04 95

349

183

00 12 04

351

00 73

203

00 13 38

354

00 08

157

494

00 25 69

495

00 03 21 [F. No. L- 14014/30/2010-GP. ]

(सरकारी भूमि)

K. K. SHARMA , Under Secy.

498

00 11 24 नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2011

499

00 12 04

00 01 47

*2. रामसरनी पामोही 435

438

00 32 38

439

00 01

00 04 95

645

671

00 01 87 का. आ. 1641.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुवाहाटी रिफाइनरी , नूनमाती ( असम) से गुवाहाटी एयरपोर्ट, बरझार ( असम ) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा गुवाहाटी रिफाइनरी , नूनमाती ( असम ) से बरझार एयरपोर्ट, गुवाहाटी ( असम) तक एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

(3)

(1) (2)

(4) (5) ( 6) (7) (1 ) (2)

676

00 19 53

2. रामसरनी -जारी

पामोही -जारी

4503 (3)

(4) (5) ( 6) ( 7) 214

पामोही

00 0696

2. रामसरनी

जारी

677

00 13 38

684

00 14 98

685

00 23 28

690

00 14 98

694

00 00 67

695

00 14 31

697

00 05 35

700

00 0013

701

00 16 06

710

00 10 97

712

00 02 41

727

00 06 42

744

00 08 70

00 00 13

00 05 35

00 09 63

00 06 69

00 11 37

00 00 53

00 12 04

00 09 63

00 01 07

00 02 68

-जारी

232

00 23 82 233

00 05 35

00 08 56 234

235

00 05 75 236

00 02 68 237

00 01 74 238

00 06 82 239

00 08 03

41 240

00 04 243

00 00 13

252

00 53 432

00 06 02 433

00 02 14 434

00 25 29 93

00 20 74 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 05 62 651 (सरकारी भूमि)

709 (सरकारी भूमि)

713

14 05 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 29 30

3. जालुकबारी

00 06 69

00 04 95

00 12 71

00 12 58

101

00 07 63

102

00 09 90

104

00 04

108

00 04 41

109

00 02 94

110

00 17 13

152

00 09 10

153

00 06 02

158

00 20 07

रामसरनी

00 05 89

157

203

00 01 20

207

00 12 71

208

00 07 76

209

00 10 03

210

00 05 08

211

00 04 41

212

00 04 01

213

00 05 75

2087 Gl/11-4

(सरकारी भूमि) 728

पश्चिम बरागाँव

742

00 00 13 741

00 02 54 740

00 08 03 738

00 07 89 773

00 06 29 (सरकारी भूमि)

736.

00 07 36 729

00 03 34 727

00 10 30 704

00 35 19 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 0669 513

मिकिरपारा 508 चोकरदई

514

00 06 69 529

530

00 01 87

00 05 75 531

535

00 06 29 540

00 04 82 542

00 07 09 546

00 03 61 4304

THE GAZETTE OF IND 1933

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

(3)

(4)

(6) (7)

(5)

(1 ) (2)

(3)

(4)

(6) (7)

(5)

00 04 68

547

मिकिरपारा

रामसरनी

1070

मिकिरपारा 1162

रामसरनी -जारी

00 10 97

चोकरदई 591

-जारी

1192

चोकरदई

00 03 88 -जारी

594

09 37

1200

-जारी

00 01 74 600

00 00 27

1223

00 04 55 602

00 02 41

1227

00 06 603

00 04 95

1287

00 03 08 604

00 00 27

510/1407 00 09 37

607

05 22

511/1408 00 02 81 608

00 02 68

512/1409 00 02 81 612

00 00 94

517/1410 00 01 87 833

00 03 61

516/1412 00 04 95 835

00 05 75

1104/1679 00 01 20 836

00 01 34

1104/1680 00 03 48

843

1104/1681 00 10 03

845

501

00 00 27 846

00 05 08

(सरकारी भूमि) 848

00 08 03

0006 02 854

00 01 34

537 (सरकारी भूमि) 855

00 11 24

538

00 00 53 858

00 08 29

(सरकारी भूमि) 861

00 08 43

00 02 ΟΙ 876

606 (सरकारी भूमि) 878

00 02

00 09 37 879

00 01 34

851 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 01

880

877

.00 00 67 881

00 01

(सरकारी भूमि)

884

05 62

1145

00 04 885

00 05 35

(सरकारी भूमि)

00 22 75

994

00 00 94 1006

00 02 27

1050 (सरकारी भूमि) 1007

00 11 10

5. दक्षिणरानी

02 01

काहीकुची 839

1009

00 08 03

840

00 04. 아

00 23 01

1028

00 04 68

900

1030

00 08 16

905

00 10 03 1031

00 08 70

914

00 08 03 1032

00 05 08

916

00 03 34 1106

00 01 74

917

00 02 01

1113

00 03

918

1117

00 05 35

929

12 71

1118

07 22

930

12 17

00 05

1119

992

00 06 02

1120

1009

00 19 40 1147

00 01 74

1010

00 02 68

00 06 42

1148

1012

00 18 73 1149

00 08 56

1013

00 06 69

00 00 53

1151

840/1414 00 24 48 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) (5) (6) ( 7)

00 07 36 5. दक्षिण रानी काहीकुची 622

(सरकारी भूमि)

00 02 14

915 (सरकारी भूमि)

6. दक्षिण रानी जोगीपारा 152

00 12 71

154

00 03 34

155

00 08 03

156

00 12 71

157

00 08 03

159

00 02 01

160

00 02 01

161

00 04 68

163

00 03 34

165

00 03 08

173

00 09 37

176/एपी

4505

(1) (2)

(3) (4) (5) ( 6) (7 )

दक्षिणरानी

905

000067

-जारी

जोगीपाय -जारी 482

00 00 67

132

00 02. 68

(सरकारी भूमि)

00 01 60

158 (सरकारी भूमि)

00 01 34

164 (सरकारी भूमि)

0008 70

178 (सरकारी भूमि)

00: 02 68

454 (सरकारी भूमि).

00 01 47

856 (सरकारी भूमि)

900

0001 47

(सरकारी भूमि)

7. दक्षिण रानी

177

00 08 03

281

00 12 04

283

00 01 60

285

00 02 41

320

00 01 34

321/एपी 00 03 48

322

349

00 00 53

350

00 02 68

351

00 04 41

352

00 11 37

354

00 01 47

449

483

00 05 35

451

00 04 01

453

00 08 03

458

00 10 84

459

00 11 77

460

00 00 27

473/एपी

766

00 00 53

767

00 03 61

768

00 06 96

769

00 05 35

770

00 05 89

771

00 03 48

772

00 26 09

773

00 02 94

903

00 01 07

904

00 01 07

542

00 00 27 बरझार

543

00 22 08

545

0003 34

565

00 09 90

572

00 28

573

00 07 09

574

00 02 27

00 00 27

985

986

00 07 22

987

06 82

989

00 01 60

(सरकारी भूमि)

990

02 81.

991

00 09 90

993

00 13 78

994

09 37

1048

00 12 31 [फा. सं. आर-25011 /15/2011 - ओ आर-1 ]

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 9th June, 2011

S.O. 1641. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that forthetransportation of petroleum products from Guwahati Refinery, Noonmati (Assam ) to Guwahati Airport , Borjhar (Assam), a pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And,whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under 4506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

(1) ( 2) which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid , and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Ramsarani

-Contd.

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Dimbeswar Kalita, ACS , Addl. Deputy Commissioner - cum- Competent Authority in Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division) , 3211 , Guwahati Refinery Township, Sector - III, Noonmati , Guwahati - 781020 (Assam) .

SCHEDULE

State : Assam

District : Kamrup (Metro)

Sl . Name of

Area

Name of Dag

Are

No. the Mouza the Village No. Hec- tare

Sq . Mtr.

( 1 ) ( 2)

(4)

(3)

(6 ) ( 7)

(5)

Pub-

325

1. Jalukbari

00 03 75

Boragaon (Govt . land)

330

00 02 94

333

00 17 80

340

00 04 68

00 04 95

349

351

00 12 04

354

00 13 38

00 25 69

494

495

00 03 21

(Govt. land)

00 11 24

498

499

00 12 04

435

00 01 47

2. Ramsarani Pamohi

00 32 38

438

00 01 87

439

00 04 95

645

00 01 87

671

676

00 19 53

677

00 13 38

684

00 14 98

685

00 23

00 14 98

690

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

(6) (7) (3)

(5)

Pamohi 694

00 00 67 695

--Contd.

00 14 31 697

00 05 35 700

00 00 13 701

00 16. 06 710

00 10 97 712

00 02 41 727

00 06 42 744

00 08 70 9

00 00 13

35 10

00 05

63 11

00 09 13

00 06 69 17

00 11 37 39

00 00 53 40

00 12 04 46

00 09 50

00 01 07

00 02 68 51

00 06 69 76

00 04

00 12 71 94

00 12 58 101

00 07 63 102

00 09 90 104

00 04 01 .108

00 04 41 109

00 02 94 110

00 17 13 152

00 09 153

00 06 02 158

00 20 07 157

00 05 89 203

00 01 20 207

00 12 71 208

00 07 76 209

00 10 03 210

00 05 08

211

04 41 212

04 01

213

00 05 75 214

00 06 96 232

00 23 82

00 05 35 233

234

00 08 56 235

00 05 75 236

00 02 68 237

00 01 74 238

00 06 82 239

00 08 03 240

00 04 41 243 .

00 00 13 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

(1) ( 2)

(3).

(4)

( 7)

(5) ( 6)

( ( 2)

(1) ( 1)

252

Pamohi

00 00 53 Ramsarani Ramsarani -Contd. -Contd . 432

00 06 02

-Contd.

433

00 02 14

434

00 25 29

00 20 74

(Govt. land)

651

00 05 62

(Govt. land)

709

(Govt. land)

713

(Govt. land)

3. Jalukbari Pachim 728

00 29 30

Boragon (Govt. land)

742

741

00 02 54

740

00 08 03

738

00 07 89

773

00 06 29

(Govt.land)

736

00 07 36

729

00 03 34

727

00 10 30

704

00 35 19

(Govt. land)

00 06

4. Ramsarani

Mikirpara 508

Chakardoi 513

00 80

514

529

00 06 69

530

00 어 87

531

00 05 75

535

00 06 29

540

00 04 82

542

00 07 09

546

00 03 61

547

00 04 68

591

00 10 97

594

00 09 37

600

00 00 27

602

00 0241

603

00 04 95

604

00 00 27

607

00 05 22

608

00 02 68

612

00 00 94

833

00 03 61

835

00 05 75

836

00 01 34

843

00 01 34

845

00 00 94

846

00 05 08

848

00 08 03

4507 (3)

(4) (5) (6) ( 7 )

00 01 34 854

Mikirpara

00 [ ] 24 855

Chakardoi

00 08 29 858

-Contd.

861

00 08 43 876

00 00 94 878

00 02 14 879

00 01 34 880

00 01 47 881

00 01 34 884

00 05 62 885

00 05 35 994

00 22 75 1006

00 02 27 1007

00 11 10 1009

00 08 03 1028

00 23 01 1030

00 08 16 1031

00 08 70 1032

.00 05 08 1106

00 01 74 1113

00 .. 03 88 1117

00.05 35 1118

00. 07 22 1119

00 05 75 1120

00 06 02 1147

00 01 74 1148

00 06 42 1149

00 08 56 1151

00 00 53 1162

00 10 70 1192

00 03 88 1200

00 01 74 1223

00 04.55 1227

00 06 29 1287

00 03 08 510/1407 00 09 37 511/1408 00 02 81 512/1409 00

81-

517/1410 00 01 87 516/1412 00 04 95

20 1104/1679 00 01

1104/1680 00 03 48

1104/1681 00

03 501

00 00 27 (Govt. land)

537

00 06-02 (Govt. land)

538

53 (Govt. land)

606

00 02 01 (Govt. land)

851

00 09 37 (Govt. land) 4508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

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

(4)

(1) ( 2)

(2)

( 7) (1)

(3)

(4)

(5) ( 6)

(5) ( 6) ( 7)

00 00 67

451

Ramsarani

Dakhin Rani

Mikirpara 877.

Jogipara

00 04 01

-Contd .

---Contd.

-Contd. 453

00 08 03 (Govt , land)

Chakardoi

458

00 10 84 1145 00 04 01

-Contd.

459

00 11 77 (Govt. land)

1050

00 00 94

460

00 00 27

473/AP

(Govt. land)

00 02 01

766

5. Dakhin Rani Kahikuchi 839

00 00 53 840

00 04 01

767

00 03 61 900

00 04 68

768

00 06 96 905

00 10 03

769

00 05 35 914

00 08 03

770

00 05 89 916

00 03 34

771

00 03 48 917

00 02

772

00 26 09

00 40

918

773

00 02 94 929

00 12 71

00 01 07

903

930

904

00 01 07

905

00 992

00 06 02

00 67

00 1009

00 19 40

482

00 67 1010

00 02 68

132

02 68 1012

00 18 73

(Govt. land)

1013

00 06 69

158

00 01 60 840/1414 00 24 48

(Govt. land)

622

00 07 36

164

00 01 34 (Govt. land)

(Govt. land).

915

08 70

00 02

178

(Govt. land)

00 12 71

454

00 02 152

68 6. Dakhin Rani Jogipara

154

00 03 34

(Govt. land)

856

00 08 03

00 01 47 155

156

00 12 71

(Govt.land)

900

47 157

00 08 03

00 01 159

00 02 01

(Govt. land)

542

160

00 02 01

00.00 27

7. Dakhin Rani Borjhar

00 04 68

543

161

00 22 08

545

163

00 03 34

565

00 03 08

165

00 09 90

00 28 63 173

00 09 37

572

176/AP

573

00 07 09

574

177

02 27

00 08 03

00 12 04

985

00 00 27 281

986

00 01 60

283

00 07 22

987

00 02 41

285

06 82

00 01 60 320

00 01 34

989

321 /AP

00 03 48

(Govt. land)

990

322

00 00 67

00 02 81 349

991

00 09 90 350

00 13 78

00 02 68

993

00 09 37

00 04 41

994

351

00 11 37

352

1048

00 12 31

354

00 01

[F. No. R- 25011 / 15/2011 -OR- I ] 449

00 05 35

B. K. DATTA, Under Secy.

483 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4509

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28, 1933

नईदिल्ली, 15 जून, 2011

का. आ. 1642.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की नीचे दी गई अनुसूची में यथा उल्लिखित तारीखों की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. द्वारा उन अधिसूचनाओं से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया था;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उक्तभूमि में जो सभी विंलगमों से मुक्त है , उपयोग का अधिकार इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित किया था;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिपोर्ट दी है कि आर.एल.एन.जी. के परिवहन के लिए उत्तर प्रदेश के दादरी से हरियाणा राज्य में पानीपत तक दादरी - पानीपत आर.एल. एन .जी. पाइपलाइन परियोजना के क्रियान्वयन हेतु इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाई जा चुकी है अतः उस भूमि के बारे में , जिसका संक्षिप्त विवरण इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट किया गया है, प्रचालन की समाप्ति की जाए;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइन्स ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1963 के नियम 4 के स्पष्टीकरण -1 के अधीन अपेक्षानुसार उक्त अनुसूची के स्तंभ 6 में उल्लिखित तारीखों को प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीखों के रूप में घोषित करती है ।

अनुसूची

ग्राम

तहसील का.आ. संख्या एवं तारीख

(1)

(2)

(3) 4416दिनांक 18-11-2006

घरौण्डा

बेगमपुर

नौहरा

4418 दिनांक 18-11-2006

पानीपत

पानीपत 4418 दिनांक18-11-2006 शौदापुर

एवं 2467 दिनांक 1-9-2007

4418 दिनांक 18-11-2006 सिठाना

मतलौडा 4419 दिनांक 18-11-2006

ददलाना

पानीपत 4419 दिनांक 18-11-2006

पानीपत

रजापुरं

एवं 2467 दिनांक 1-9-07

4419 दिनांक 18-11-2006

पानीपत

सिकंदरपुर

पानीपत

जाटोल

4419 दिनांक 18-11-2006

पानीपत

पहलादपुर खलिला 4419 दिनांक 18-11-2006 बिंझोल

पानीपत एवं 2467 दिनांक 1-9-2007

4419 दिनांक 18-11-2006

पानीपत

महराना

एवं 2467 दिनांक 1-9-2007

4419 दिनांक 18-11-2006

पानीपत

दिवाना

एवं 2467 दिनांक 1-9-2007

4420 दिनांक 18-11-2006

मनाना

समालखा

करहंस

4420 दिनांक 18-11-2006

समालखा एवं 2467 दिनांक 1-9-07

जिला

राज्य

प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीख (4)

(5)

(6)

करनाल

हरियाणा

15-4-2010 पानीपत

हरियाणा

15-4-2010 पानीपत

हरियाणा

15-4-2010 पानीपत

हरियाणा

15-4-2010 पानीपत

हरियाणा

15-4-2010 पानीपत

हरियाणा

15-4-2010 पानीपत

हरियाणा

15-4-2010 पानीपत

15-4-2010

हरियाणा

पानीपत

हरियाणा

15-4-2010 पानीपत

हरियाणा

15-4-2010 पानीपत

हरियाणा

15-4-2010 पानीपत

हग्गिणा

15-4-2010 पानीपत

हरियाणा

15-4-2010 पानीपत

हरियाणा

15-4-2010 4510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 /JYAISTHA28 , 1933

(2)

(3) (1)

समालखा 4420दिनांक18-11-2006 गढ़ीछाजू

जौरासी सरफ खास समालखा 4420दिनांक18-11-2006 और 2270 दिनांक 22-8-2009 एवं 2467 दिनांक 1-9-2007

समालखा

जौरासी खालसा

4420दिनांक18-11-2006

डिकाडला

समालखा 4420दिनांक18-11-2006

देहरा

समालखा 4420दिनांक18-11-2006

माहवती

समालखा 4420दिनांक 18-11-2006

समालखा 4420दिनांक18-11-2006 बसेड़ा

रकसेडा

समालखा 4420दिनांक 18-11-2006

बेगा

गन्नौर 4417 दिनांक18-11-2006 एवं 2467 दिनांक 1-9-2007

पबनेरा

4417 दिनांक18-11-2006

गन्नौर 4417 दिनांक18-11-2006

गन्नौर

चन्दौली

गन्नौर 4417दिनांक18-11-2006 दांतौली

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

(5)

(6) पानीपत

हरियाणा

15-4-2010 पानीपत

हरियाणा

15-4-2010

हरियाणा

पानीपत

15-4-2010

हरियाणा

पानीपत

15-4-2010 पानीपत

हरियाणा

15-4-2010 पानीपत

हरियाणा

15-4-2010 पानीपत

हरियाणा

15-4-2010

15-4-2010 पानीपत

हरियाणा

15-4-2010 सोनीपत

हरियाणा

15-4-2010 सोनीपत

हरियाणा

15-4-2010 सोनीपत

हरियाणा

सोनीपत

15-4-2010

[फा. सं. एल-14014/33/2006-जीपी ]

के. के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 15th June , 2011

S.O. 1642. Whereas , by notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.and date as mentioned in the schedule attached issued under sub section ( 1) of Section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) the Central Government acquired the right ofuser in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to those notifications ;

And, whereas, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section ( 4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government vested the right of user in the said land , free from all encumbrances in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And, whereas , the Competent Authority has made a report to the Central Government that the pipeline for the purpose of transportation of RLNG from Dadri in the state of U.P to Panipat in the state of Haryana by Indian Oil Corporation Limited has been laid in the said land , so the operation may be terminated in respect ofthe land the description ofwhich in brief is specified in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, as required under explanation - 1 of rule 4 of the Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules . 1963 , the Central Government hereby declares the dates mentioned in Column 6 of the said Schedule as the dates of termination of operation .

SCHEDULE

Tehsil S.O.No & date

Nameof the Village

Gharaunda

4416 dt. 18-11-2006

Begampur

Ganaur

Pabnera

4417 dt . 18-11-2006 & 2467 dt01-09-2007

District

State

Date oftermination ofoperation 4

Karnal

15-04-2010

Haryana

15-04-2010 Sonipat Haryana भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Ganaur

Chandauli

4417 dt . 18-11-2006 & 2467 dt 01-09-2007

Ganaur 4417 dt . 18-11-2006 &

Bega

2467 dt 01-09-2007

Ganaur

Datauli

4417 dt . 18-11-2006 &

2467 dt 01-09-2007

Madlauda

Shohdapur

4418 dt . 18-11-2006

Madlauda

Nauhra

4418 dt. 18-11-2006

Madlauda

Sithana

4418 dt . 18-11-2006

Panipat 4419 dt . 18-11-2006

Pahaladpur Khalila

Diwana

Panipat 4419 dt . 18-11-2006

Mahrana

Panipat 4419 dt. 18-11-2006

Panipat

Binjhaul

4419 dt . 18-11-2006

Panipat

Jataul

4419 dt.18-11-2006

Panipat

Sikandarpur

4419 dt. 18-11-2006

Panipat

Razapur

4419 dt. 18-11-2006

Dadlana

Panipat 4419 dt.18-11-2006

Samalkha

Rakhseda

4420dt . 18-11-2006

Samalkha

Baseda

4420 dt. 18-11-2006

Samalkha

Mahawati

4420 dt. 18-11-2006

Samalkha

Dehra

4420dt. 18-11-2006

Samalkha

Dikadla

4420 dt. 18-11-2006

Samalkha

Jaurasi Surf

4420 dt . 18-11-2006

Samalkha

Khas Jaurasi

4420 dt.18-11-2006

Khalsa

Samalkha

Garhi Chhaju

4420dt. 18-11-2006

Samalkha

Karhans

4420 dt . 18-11-2006

Samalkha

Manana

4420dt . 18-11-2006

2087GI /11-5

4511

15-04-2010

Haryana

Sonipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Sonipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Sonipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

Haryana 15-04-2010

Panipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

15-04-2010

Haryana

Panipat

[L- 14014/33/2006 GP] :

K. K. SHARMA , Under Secy.

4512

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ] नईदिल्ली, 15 जून , 2011

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

2. डासना ( जारी ) 4098

3946

4007

4008

37 का. आ. 1643, केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में दादरी से हरियाणा राज्य में पानीपत तक , प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा आर.एल.एन.जी. स्पर पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

4005

4003

3989

3845

3846

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

1100

1095

1117

1131

134

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

104

248

3. रसूलपुर

262

सिकरोड़

426

267

270

907

4. सदरपुर

348

5. मटियाला

334

00 कोई भी व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से , जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाये जाने के संबंध में , श्री विद्या शंकर सिंह , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, दादरी - पानीपत गैस पाइपलाइन परियोजना , एस.ए. - 4 , शास्त्री नगर , नजदीक पुरानी हापुड़ चुंगी , गाजियाबाद ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

42मिन

0 अनुसूची

540

0 02 98

436

राज्य: उत्तर प्रदेश

तहसील : गाजियबाद जिलाः गाजियाबाद

48 गांव का नाम

खसरा सं.

606

क्षेत्रफल

627

26 हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

543

28 (1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

349

1. सादतनगर इकला 310

626

58 331

428

02 338

418

36 349

30 352

40 301

450

41 302

530

73 2. डासना

4347

635

49 4113

536

64 4114

633

4102

638

97 4097

6. कनौजा

687

50 4100

685

56 4513 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(4) (5)

(3)

(2)

(5) (1)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

297

4. मिलक चाकरपुर

786

6. कनौजा ( जारी )

268

782

0 .

269

670

292

1430

7. दुहाई

295

1421

1479

1455

1450.

291

1415

1482

1468

राज्य : उत्तर प्रदेश

जिलाः गाजियाबाद

तहसील : मोदीनगर

281

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा सं.

गांव का नाम

एयर वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर

293

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

294

405

386

1. महीउद्दीनपुर हिंसाली

341

358

2. बसन्तपुर सैंतली

: 0

5. किशनचन्द पुर

764

पट्टी

396

き

325

350

353

388

759

6. मानौली

394

755

00 0

333

390

747

295

7. सुल्ताननगर

19 361

294

छज्जूपुर

744

289

761

320

8. हुसैनपुर

762

310

387

318

304

3. नबीपुर

311

249

340

322

250

00 251

338

60 303

363

181

354

298

360

297 4514

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 /JYAISTHA 28, 1933

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

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

New Delhi , the 15th June , 2011 312

323

339

555

9. रूहेलापुर

S.O. 1643. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of natural gas from Dadri in the State of Uttar Pradesh to Panipat in the State ofHaryana, R- LNG Spur Pipeline shouldbe laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

554

568

477

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

681

557

573

566

559

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

493

10. बिहंग

494

514

492

524

1307

11. नेकपुर

साबितनगर

178

1738

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 inthe Gazette of India are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Vidya Shankar Singh , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Dadri - Panipat R- LNG Pipeline Project , SA -4 , Shastri Nagar , Near Old Hapur Chungi , Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh ) .

1939

SCHEDULE

142

Teh.:Ghaziabad

1832

Distt .: Ghaziabad

State : Uttar Pradesh

526

Khasra No

Area

25 Name ofVillage

179

Hectare Are Square 1903

Meter 1311

5 1740

310

1. Saadatnagar

98 1312

331

Iqla

88 1798

338

82 1306

ΟΙ

349

05 1787

352

15 1841

301

09 1799

302

14 1302

2. Dasna

4347

96 1795

4113

64 1309

4114

1310

4102

8 1736

4097

-00 1812

4100

4098

06 [फा. सं. एल-14014/32/2010-जीपी ]

30 के. के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव

3946

23 4515 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(2)

7. Duhai

1430

0 .

2. Dasna ( Contd.) 4007

4008

1421

54 0

4005

1479

4003

1455

3989

1450

12 0

3845

1415

3846

1482

1100

1468

37 0

1095

405

1. Mohiddinpur

1117

386

Hisali

1131

358

06 134

2. Basantpur

104

Saintli

764

57 248

02 3. Rasulpur

396

262

Sikrauda

325

04 426-

350

10 - 16 267

353

270

759

907

4. Sadarpur

755

08 0

348

5. Matiyala

333

0 . 03

334

86 42min

747

00 540

361

22 436

744

606

761

627

762

09 08 0

543

387

349

304

01 .

3. Nabipur

626

249

48 0

428

250

36 31

450

303

87 0

530

181

635

298

536

297

633

251

638

297

4. Milak

687

6. Kanauja

268

Chakarpur

685

269

786

292

782

295

670

0 4516

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

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

(2)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) (1)

554

Rohillapur-Contd.

MilakChakarpur 3

-Contd.

568

477

291

681

557

573

566

281

559

493

293

494

10. Bihang

294

514

84 4

-00

492

341

524

01 43

5. Kishan

11. Nekhpur Sabit 1307

Chandpur Patti . 15

178

Nagar

1738

.09

1939

142

388

6. Manauli

1832

00 394

526

390

179

7. Sultannagar 295

1903

294

Chajjupur

1311

80 289

1740

22 320

8.Husainpur

1312

310

1798

318

1306

311

1787

45 340

1841

322

1799

338

1302

363

1795

1309

46 354

1310

46 360

1736

312

1812

323

339

[F. No. L- 14014/32/2010-GP. ]

555

9. Rohillapur

K. K. SHARMA , Under Secy .

4517 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 ,1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

For the first party

Shri Y.K. Singh , Senior Labour Officer, Kandla Port Trust .

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 18 मई , 2011

For the second party : Shri M.L. Belani , General Secretary, Transport and Dock Workers Union

AWARD

का.आ. 1644. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कांडला पोर्ट ट्रस्ट, गांधीधाम कच्छ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या पुराना 100/2009 नई संख्या 1002/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-37011/32/95- आईआर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

Record put up in the Camp Court held at Gandhidham where both parties management of Kandla Port Trust through Senior Labour Officer on one side , and the Union , General Secretary for the workmen on the other side filed joint application containing their signature for mutually settling the dispute and making request to dispose of the Reference accordingly . Joint application submitted by the partymarked at Ext . 8 and the record was kept reserve for award.

New Delhi , the 18th May, 2011

S.O. 1644. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. Old 100/2009 New 1002/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kandla Port Trust (Kutch ) and their workmen , which was received bythe Central Government on 4-5-2011.

[No. L-37011 /32/95 - IR(M) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

The appropriate Government , Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide order No. L -37011 /32/95 - IR (Misc) dated 18-3-1996 . As per Ext . 1 referred the dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal under the schedule Reference "Whether the demand of Transport & Duck Workers Union against the management of Kandla Port Trust for stepping up of pay retrospectively of S/Sh . Pukaram L. , Jetha and Kanji Laxman , Sr. Khalasis , on the ground that their juniors (S/Shri Desar Laxman and Bindraprasad, Sr. Khalasis ) were drawing higher pay of Rs . 1480 w.e.f. 01-08-1993 , justified? If so, to what benefits the workmen are entitled and what directions are necessary in the matter ?"

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

PresidingOfficer, CGIT- cum - Labour Court ,

The second party union filing the statement of claim at Ext . 2, made grievances against the Kandla Port Trust for stepping up of pay retrospectively of S/Sh Pukaram L. others . The management of Kandla Port Trust first party filed written statement at Ext . 5 disputing the demand of the union contending therein that the demand is unjustified and without any merit and the action taken by the management is as per rules and orders of the Govt . of India.

Ahmedabad , Dated, 1st April , 2011

Reference : ITC No. 100 of 2009 Old

Reference : CGITA of 1002 of 2004 New

Kandla Port Trust ,

As per Ext . 8, all the 3 workmen Shri Pukaram L. Shri Harji Jetha and Shri Kanji Laxman who were promoted to the post of senior khalasi in April 1991 have retired one by one and so , the union agreed with the management not to pursue the case any further and for disposed of case .

A. O. Building, Gandhidham (Kutch)

..First Party

And their Workmen

Now in view of mutual understanding between the parties their remains no dispute . So , considering Ext . 8 this case is disposed of and no dispute award is passed .

Shri Hashubhai Dave .

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 18 मई , 2011

General Secretary, Transport & Dock Workers Union , 21, Yogesh Building, Plot No. 586 , Ward 12-C,

Gandhidham (Kutch) -370201 .

..... Second Party

का.आ. 1645.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कांडला पोर्ट ट्रस्ट गांधीधाम कच्छ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके 4518

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA28 , 1933

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

Shri M.L. Belani , General

For the second party :

Secretary, Transport & Dock Workers Union , Kandla

AWARD

कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या पुराना 110/2009 नई संख्या 1014/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-37011/3/96- आईआर ( एम ) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th May, 2011

Record put up in the Camp Court held at Kandla, Gandhidham were both parties management of Kandla Port Trust through Senior Labour Officer on one side . And the Union, General Secretary for the workman on the other side filed joint application contending their signature for mutually settling the dispute and making request to dispose of the Reference accordingly. Joint application submitted by the party was marked Ext . 7 and the record was kept reserve for award.

S.O. 1645. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. Old 110/2009 New 1014/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kandla Port Trust (Kutch ) and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 4-5-2011 .

[No. L -37011 /3/ 96 - IR(M ) ]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Present.

The appropriate Government , Ministry of Labour , Government of India vide order No. L- 37011 / 3/ 96- IR (Misc) dated 31-5-1995 . As per Ext. 1 referred the dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal under the schedule Reference "Whether the demand of the Transport and Dock Workers Union , Gandhidham against the management of Kandla PortTrust that the part - time sweepers Smt . Sitabai Mera , S/Sh Devji R. Chauan , Kishin Dara and Dalpat Shiva working in Schools and dispensary should be paid equal to 1/2 days wages of regular sweepers , with increase in Variable Dearness Allowances and wages revision , just , valid and legal? If so , to what benefits the workmen are entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter ? " Binay Kumar Sinha,

PresidingOfficer, CGIT-cum- Labour Court ; Ahmedabad , Dated 1st April . 2011

Reference: ITC No. 110 of 2009 Old

Reference: CGIT A of 1014 of 2004 New

The second party union by filing the statement of claim made grievances against the Kandla Port Trust for regularizing the concerned workmen to the post of part- time sweepers . The management of Kandła Port Trust first party filed written statement disputing the demand of the union contending therein that the demand is unjustified and without any merit .

Kandla Port Trust,

A.O. Building, Gandhidham (Kutch)

...First Party

And their Workmen

Smt. Sitabai Mera ,

S/Shri Devji R. Chauan , Kishin Dara and Dalpat Shiva

Subsequently the management of Kandla Port Trust considering the demand of the concerned workmen through union , regularized Shri Devji R. Chauan , Shri Kishin Dara , Shri Dalpat Shiva and Smt . Sitabai Mera to the regular post of sweeper accept Shri Dalpat Shiva who was not reporting for duty since 1994-97 . Both parties by filing a joint application at Ext . 7 have arrived at amicable settlement that the dispute which is pending for adjudication as per Reference has been satisfied and so , by filing joint application containing signatures of General Secretary, Transport of Dock Workers Union Kandla on one hand and Senior Labour Officer for the first party management on another hand , jointly request for disposing of this case.

General Secretary, Transport & Dock Workers Union , 21 , Yogesh Building , PlotNo. 586, Ward 12-C, Gandhidham ( Kutch) -370201 .

...Second Party .

Forthe first party : Shri Y.K. Singh , Senior Labour Officer , Kandla Port Trust .

Having.considered the joint application at Ext . 7 that the Union raising the demand for regularizing the workmen to the post of sweeper has been satisfied by the first party management. One of the workman concern Shri Dalpat Shiva since not reporting for duty for considerable long period the union is satisfied that other 3 workmen involved in this 4519 भारत. का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

And their Workman

Shri Issa Mussa

case have already regularized by the management. Kandla Port Trust and so , mutually agreed not to contest in this Reference.

President K.P.K.S , Τ.Ε.Χ. -S- 94, Gandhidham (Kutch) -370201

Inview ofExt . 7 the parties are having at no dispute , so no dispute award is passed .

BINAY KUMAR SINHA , Presiding Officer .

SecondParty नई दिल्ली, 18 मई , 2011

For the first party

Shri Y.K. Singh , Senior Labour Officer, Kandla Port Trust .

For the second party

: Shri Mohan Aswani , President ofK.P.K.S

AWARD

का.आ. 1646. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कांडला पोर्ट ट्रस्ट गांधीधाम कच्छ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या पुराना 774/2008 नई संख्या 955/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआं था।

[सं. एल -37012/6/92- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो,'अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th May, 2011

Record put up in the Camp Court held at Kandla , Gandhidham where both parties management of Kandla Port Trust through Senior Labour Officer on one side , and the Union , General Secretary for the workman on the other side filed joint application containing their signatures for mutually settling the dispute and making request to dispose ofthe Reference accordingly. Joint application submitted by the party was marked Ext . 19 and the record was kept reserve for award .

S.O. 1646.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. Old 774/2008 New 955/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the ' Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kandła Port Trust (Kutch ) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 4-5-2011 .

[No. L -37012/6/92- IR(M) ]

The appropriate Government, Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide order No. L- 37012/6/92 - IR ( Misc ) dated 27-12-1993 . As per Ext . I referred the dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal under the schedule Reference- "Whether the action of the management of Kandla Dock Labour Board in refusing to reinstate Shri Issa Mussa , Casual Workers in service even after producing medical certificate for the period of his absence from duty from July, 1979 to April 1991 from the Government Hospital , Gandhidham is justified ? If not , to what relief, the workman is entitled to ? "

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Present :

The second party union by filing the statement of claim at Ext. 7 made grievances against the Kandla Port Trust for reinstatement , off Shri Issa Mussa as casual worker. The management of Kandla Port Trust first party filed written statement at Ext . 10 disputing the demand of theunion contending therein that the demand is unjustified and without any merit .

Binay Kumar Sinha, PresidingOfficer, CGIT-cum - Labour Court ,

Ahmedabad, Dated 1st April , 2011

Reference : ITC No. 774 of 2008 Old

Reference : CGIT A of 955 of 2004 New

Kandla Port Trust ,

A.O. Building, : Gandhidham ( Kutch)

... First Party

The parties in this case have arrived at settlement by mutual understanding that the concerned employee Shri Issa Mussa was employed by the first party management since December 1973 and he worked for 242 days only during the entire period fro July 1973-1977 and thereafter he left the job without intimation from November 1977 το till 1991 i.e. for period of 14 years and so , having no force in demand raised by the union in his reinstatement , agreed with the management of Kandla Port Trust on mutual understanding no to pursue the case fürther , and for disposing of this case accordingly .

2087 Gl /11-6 4520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

And their Workman Shri Arjan V. Chawda

Considering the situation that the concern workman left the job and also abundant himself and so union agreed not to raise dispute any further .

General Secretary,

Transport & Dock Workers , Union ,

21, Yogesh Building ,

PlotNo. 586, ward 12-C ,

Gandhidham (Kutch) - 370201

In view of the amicable settlement through Ext. 19 the terms ofReference requires no adjudication in view of the mutual settlement . Therefore, this case is disposed off and no dispute award is passed .

BINAY KUMAR SINHA , Presiding Officer

SecondParty नई दिल्ली , 18 मई , 2011

Forthe first party : Shri Y.K. Singh , Senior Labour Officer, Kandla Port Trust.

For the second party : Shri M.L. Belani , General Secretary, Transport & Dock Workers Union , Kandla

AWARD

का.आ. 1647.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कंडला पोर्ट ट्रस्ट गांधीधाम कच्छ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालयए अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या पुराना 58/2009 नई संख्या 612/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-37012/5/94- आईआर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th May, 2011

Record put up in the Camp Court held at Kandla, Gandhidham were both parties management of Kandla Port Trust through Senior Labour Officer on one side . And the Union , General Secretary for the workman on the other side filed joint application containing their signatures for mutually setting the dispute and making request to dispose ofthe Reference accordingly. Joint application submitted by the party was marked Ext- 12 and the record was kept reserve for award .

S.O. 1647. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. Old 58/ 2009 New 612/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kandla Port Trust ( Kutch) and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-5-2011 .

[No. L-37012/ 5/94- IR( M )]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

The appropriate Government, Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide order No. L- 37012/5/94- IR (Misc) dated 07-3-1995 . As per Ext.1 referred the dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal under the schedule Reference . " Whether the action of the management of Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham, in promoting Shri Arjan V. Chawda, Cleaner, to the post of Driver ( Motor) on ad hoc basis and keeping him on ad hoc basis for more than 2 years and not regularizing him till other cleaners. became eligible and qualified for the post of Driver (Motor), is valid, just and legal? If not, to what benefits Shri A.V. Chawda is entitled for? "

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM- LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present :

Binay Kumar Sinha ,

PresidingOfficer,

CGIT-cum - Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 1st April, 2011

Reference : ITC No. 58 of 2009 Old

Reference : CGITA of 612 of 2004 New

The second party union by filing the statement of claim made grievances against the Kandla Port Trust for regularizing him to the post of driver ( Motor) . The management of Kandla Port Trust first party filedwritten statement disputing the demand of the union contending therein that the demand is unjustified and without any merit . The concern workman Aryan V. Chawda examined in chief and was cross - examined by the first party management of Kandla Port Trust. And the case was coming on for leading evidence of the first party. management

Kandla Port Trust ,

A.O. Building, Gandhidham( Kutch)

... First Party

Subsequently the management of Kandla Port Trust considering the demand of the concern workman through union , and as per office order dated 28-08-2001 , he was regularize w.e.f. 17-11-1990 to the post of driver (Motor).

4521 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Ahmedabad, Dated 1st April , 2011

Reference: ITC No. 56 of2009 Old

Reference: CGITA of 608 of2004 New

Kandla Port Trust,

On issuing of the modified order as to regularization of the concernworkman with other workman's the management ofKandla Port Trust and the union arrived at amicable settlement, in this case by filing joint application at Ext. 12, incorporating that both the parties are not willing to continue with the case, further and for disposing of the case accordingly.

A.O. Building,

Gandhidham (Kutch)

FirstParty

And their Workmen

Shri Knji Hadu Mali , President, K.P.K.S. , T.C.X-S-94,

Second Party

Gandhidham (Kutch) -370-201.

As per Ext . 12 their remains no disputes between the parties to the Refererice and the parties are not willing to continue with case , further the concern workman has been promoted as driver ( Motor) on regular basis by the management of Kandla Port Trust and thus the demand, as per schedule has been 'satisfied by the management. So, this Reference is disposed of since the demand of the union has been satisfied and there remains no any dispute. Accordingly no dispute award is passed

For the first party

Dictated

Shri Y. K. Singh, Senior Labour Officer, Kandla Port Trust.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

For the second party : Shri Mohan Aswani , President ofK.P.K.S.

नई दिल्ली , 18 मई , 2011

AWARD

का. आ.1648.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कांडला पोर्ट ट्रस्ट गांधीधाम कच्छ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या पुराना 56/2009 नई संख्या 608/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Record put up in the Camp Court held at Gandhidham where both parties management of Kandla PortTrust through Senior Labour Officer on one side , and the Union President for the workman on the other side filed joint application containing their signatures for mutually settling the dispute and making request to dispose of the Reference accordingly. Joint application submitted by the party was marked at Ext . 28 and the record was kept reserve for award.

[सं. एल -37012/6/94- आईआर (एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th May, 2011

The appropriate Government , Ministry of Labour, Government ofIndia wide order No. L-37012/6/94- IR (MISC) dated 3-2-1995 . As per Ext . 1 referred the dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal under the Schedule Reference " Whether the demand of Kandla Port Karamchari Sangh, Gandhidham , for rectification of the date of Birth of Shri Kanji Hadu Mali , under Executive Engineer (T.D.), Kandla Port Trust from 1-3-1939 as per Medical Certificate of the Chief Medical Officer, Kandla Port Trustto 5-4-1942 as per School Leaving Certificate is just, legal and valid? If so , to what benefits the workman is entitled to ? י

S.O. 1648. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. Old 56/ 2009 New 608/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum - Labour Court , Ahmedabad , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kandla Port Trust (Kutch) and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 4-5-2011 .

[No. L- 37012/6/94 - IR (M ) ]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

The second party union by filing the statement of claim at Ext . 2 made grievances against the Kandla Port Trust rectification of the date of Birth of Shri Kanji Hadu Mali . The management of Kandla Port Trust first -party filed written statement at Ext. 9 disputing the demand of the union contending therein that the demand is unjustified and without any merit .

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

PRESENT :

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Through Ext . 28 the parties arrived at such understanding that the concerned , workman Shri Kanji Hadu Mali has already been superannuated from the PresidingOfficer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court , 4522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM -LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

services of the Kandla Port Trust on attending the age of superannuation in March 1997 and admissible terminal dues had been received by the said workman and that an interim order dated 6-5-1997 had been passed by the Industrial Tribunal in this case , but the same was vacated by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat by order dated 18-6-1997 passed in C.A. No. 4287/97 further, it has been agreed by the parties that the said workman subsequently died on 1-11-2003 and due to such developments the union has decided not to pursue the case any further.

Binay Kumar Sinha , Presiding Officer, CGIT- cum-Labour Court , Ahmedabad, Dated 1st April , 2011

Reference : ITC No. 55 of 2009 Old

Reference : CGIT of 607 of 2004 New

Kandla Port Trust,

A.O.Building,

Gandhidham (Kutch)

... First Party In view of Ext. 28 there remained no dispute regarding the date ofbirth of the concerned workman now dead) according to his date of birth 1-3-1939 he was superannuated at the end of March 1997, so , there remained no issue for any adjudication on his date of birth being 5-4-1942 as per School Leaving Certificate . The union under the mutual agreement through Ext . 28 with the first party management now intends for disposal of the case accordingly.

And their Workmen Shri A. B. Thacker

President,

Inview of the aforesaid facts contained in Ext . 28 there remains no any issue for adjudication and so, the Reference is disposed of and no dispute award is passed.

Kandla Port Karamchari Sangh , T.C.X. -S-94,

Dictated

Gandhidham (Kutch ) : 370 201

Second Party BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

For the first party

नई दिल्ली , 18 मई , 2011

: Shri Y. K. Singh , Senior Labour Officer , Kandla Port Trust .

For the second party : Shri Mohan Aswani , President ofK.P.K.S.

AWARD

का.आ.1649.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कांडला पोर्ट ट्रस्ट गांधीधाम कच्छ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या पुराना 55/2009 नई संख्या 607/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-37011/ 11/94- आईआर ( एम ) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th May, 2011

Record put up in the Camp Court held at Gandhidham where both parties management of Kandla Port Trust through Senior Labour Officer on one side and the Union President for the workman on the other side filed joint application containing their signatures for mutually settling the dispute making request to dispose of the Reference accordingly. Joint application submitted by the party was marked Ext . 15 and the record was kept reserve foraward.

S.O. 1649. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. Old 55/ 2009 New 607/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Ahmedabad , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kandla Port Trust ( Kutch) and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 4-5-2011 .

[No. L-37011 / 11 /94- IR( M) ]

The appropriate Government, Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide order No. L- 37011 / 11 /94- IR (MIS C) dated 3-2-1995 . As per Ext . I referred the dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal under the Schedule Reference " Whether the demand of Kandla Port Karamchari Sangh , Gandhidham , against the management ofKandla Port Trust for considering the case of Shri A. B. Thacker , Supervisor ( W & W) for seniority promotion is just , valid and legal ? If so , to what benefits the workman is entitled to and what directions are necessary ? " JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4523 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

Kandla Port Trust, A.O. Building,

Gandhidham ( Kutch ) .

FirstParty

And their Workman Shri M. P. Bhatia,

The second party union by filing the statement of claim made grievances against the Kandla Port Trust for promoting him to the post of Supervisor for seniority. The management of, Kandla Port Trust, first party filed written statement disputing the demand of the union contending therein that the demand is unjustified and without any merit.

President,

Kandia Port Karamchari Sangh , T.C.X. - S- 94,

Gandhidham ( Kutch ) 370201

...Second Party

For the first party

: Shri Y. K. Singh , Senior Labour. Officer, Kandla Port Trust .

During pendency of this case the concern workman Shri A. B. Thacker superannuated from the services ofthe firstparty w.e.f. 30-6-1995 and admissible terminal dues have already been received by him and so , the union arriving at amicable settlement with the management of Kandla Port Trust . Now does not intend to make contest inthisReference . By filing Ext . 15 both parties have agreed that this case be disposed of accordingly.

For the second party : Shri Mohan Aswani , President ofK.P.K.S.

Now the parties are not at any dispute in this case as per mutual understanding contained in Ext . 15, so this case is disposed of and no dispute award is passed.

AWARD

Dictated

BINAY KUMAR SINHA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 मई , 2011

Record put up in the Camp Court held at Kandla, Gandhidham where both parties management of Kandła PortTrust through Senior Labour Officer on one side, and the Union , President for the workman on the other side filed joint application containing their signatures for mutually settling the dispute and making request to dispose ofthe Reference accordingly. Joint application submitted by the party was marked Ext . 8 and the record was kept reserve for award.

का.आ. 1650.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कांडला पोर्ट ट्रस्ट गांधीधाम कच्छ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या पुराना 152/2004 नई संख्या 1059/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।.

[सं. एल-45025/2/97- आईआर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 18th May, 2011

The appropriate Government , Ministry of Labour , Government of India vide order No. L- 45025 /2 / 97 - IR (MISC) dated 23-7-1997 . As per Ext . I referred the dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal under the schedule Reference- "Whether the action of the management of Kandla Port Trust , in changing the designation of Shri M.P. Bhatia from Mistry ( Caretaker ) to senior Caretaker without following the procedures laid down under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and retiring him at the age of 58 years instead or 60 years at par with other employees of same category is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? "

S.O. 1650.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. Old 152/2004 New 1059/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Ahmedabad , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kandla PortTrust ( Kutch) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 4-5-2011 .

[No. L-45025/2/97- IR(M ) ]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNWXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

The second party union by filing the statement of claim at Ext . 4 made grievances against the Kandla Port Trust for designation him to the post of Mistry Caretaker) to Senior Caretaker. The management of Kandla Port Trust first party filed Written statement at Ext . 7 disputing the demand of the union contending therein that the demand is unjustified and without any merit.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD

PRESENT : Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer,

CGIT- cum- Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 1st April , 2011

Reference : ITC No. 152 of 2004 Old

Reference : CGITA of 1059 of 2004 New

During pendency of this case the parties to the Reference amicably settled the matter in issue on such consideration that the concern workmen Shri M. P. Bhatia , superannuated from the services of the Kandla Port Trust w.e.f. 31-12-1987 and subsequently also died on 4524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

2-4-2008 and that admissible terminal dues of Shri M.P. Bhatia (now late) has been released by the management of Kandla Port Trust and his widow Smt . Shila M. Bhatia has been extended the benefit of admissible pension by the management on 12-5-2008 and so , looking into above developments both the parties have mutually agreed for the disposing of the case by filing joint application at Ext. 8.

Their remains no dispute between the parties as such this case is disposed of by passing no dispute award.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 18 मई , 2011

का.आ. 1651.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कांडला पोर्ट ट्रस्ट गांधीधाम कच्छ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट्र औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या पुराना 267/2009 नई संख्या 1207/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-37011 / 10/2002- आईआर ( एम ) ]

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] And their Workman Shri B. D. Mistry

President,

Kandla Port Karamchari Sangh , T.C.X. -S- 94 ,

Gandhidham ( Kutch ) 370 201

SecondParty Forthe first party : Shri Y. K. Singh , Senior Labour Officer, Kandla Port Trust .

For the second party : Shri Mohan Aswani , President ofK. P. K. S.

AWARD

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th May, 2011

Central S.O. 1651 .-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Governinent hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. Old 267/2009 New 1207/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kandla PortTrust (Kutch ) and their workman , which was received by the Government on 4-5-2011 .

[No. L- 37011 / 10/2002- IR(M) ]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM - LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD PRESENT:

Binay Kumar Sinha,

PresidingOfficer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 1st April , 2011

Reference : ITC No. 267 of 2009 Old Reference : CGITA of 1207 of 2004 New Kandla Port Trust,

ALO. Building,

Record put up in the Camp Court held at , Gandhidham where both parties management of Kandla PortTrust through Senior Labour Officer on one side and the Union , President of union for the workman on the other side filedjoint application containing their signatures for mutually settling the dispute and making request to dispose of the Reference accordingly. Joint application submitted by the party was marked Ext . 6 and the record was kept reserve for award.

The appropriate Government , Ministry of Labour , Government of India vide order No. L-37011 / 10/2002 - IR (M)dated 8-10-2002 . As per Ext . 1 referred the dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal under the schedule Reference- " Whether the action of the management of Kandla Port Trust , Gandhidham , to revert back Shri B. D. Mistry, who was promoted on regular basis on 8-9-1999 asAuto- cum-Diesel Mechanic is legal or justified? Ifnot . what relief the workman is entitled for and since when ?" The second party union by filing the statement of claim made grievances against the Kandla Port Trust for reverting him from the post ofAuto-cum - Diesel Mechanic " The management of Kandla Port Trust first party filed written statement disputing the demand of the union contending therein that the demand is unjustified and without any merit .

During pendency of this case both parties arrived at settlement by filing Ext . 6 that the management of Kandla Port Trust has subsequently promoted the concern workman Shri B. D. Mistry to the post Diesel Mechanic w.e.f. 6-6-2001 and considering such bonafied approach ofthe first party managerment , the second party union not to pursue the case further and so filed joint applicavon containing signature of President , K.P.K.S. for the second party and Senior Labour Officer for the first party management .

In view of mutually agreed position in this case between the parties their remains no disputed issue in the

... First Party

Gandhidham (Kutch) 4525 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

भारत का राजपत्र : जून

Plot No. 586, ward 12-C, Gandhidham ( Kutch) -370201 .

terms of Reference for having any adjudication , rather due to mutual agreement between the parties , their remains no dispute and the parties agreeing to disposal of case .

...Second Party Accordingly no dispute award is passed

For the first party :

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, PresidingOfficer

Shri Y. K. Singh , Senior Labour Officer, Kandla PortTrust.

नई दिल्ली , 18 मई , 2011

For the second party : Shri M. L. Belani , General Secretary, Transport & Dock Workers union (H.M.S.) , Kandla

AWARD

का.आ. 1652.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कांडला पोर्ट ट्रस्टगांधीधाम ( कच्छ ) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या पुराना 112/2009 नई संख्या 1030/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-37012/7/96- आईआर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th May, 2011

Record put up in the Camp Court held at (Gandhidham) where both parties management of Kandla Port Trust through Senior Labour Officer on one side. And the Union , General Secretary for the workman on the other side filed joint application containing their signatures for mutually settling the dispute and making request to dispose of the Reference accordingly. Joint application submitted by the party was marked Ext. 12 and the record was kept reserved for award.

S.O. 1652. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. Old 112/2009 New 1030/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kandla Port Trust (Kutch) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 4-05-2011.

[No. L- 37012/7 /96- IR(M) ]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

Theappropriate Government, Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide order No. L-37012/7/96- IR (MISC) dated 13-11-1996, as per Ext . 1 referred the dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal under the schedule Reference "Whether the action of the management of Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham in not promoting Shri B.S. Yadav, Fireman, after he passed the Station Officer's Course in December 1981 but promoting Shri B.B. Kaushik as Station Officer w.e.f. 23-8-1988 immediately after passing the Station Officer's Course and fixing his pay higher than Shri B.S. Yadav, valid, just and legal ? If not what benefits Shri B.S. Yadav, Station Officer is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?"

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD

PRESENT : BINAY KUMAR SINHA , Presiding Officer,

CGIT cum Labour Court ,

Ahmedabad , Dated 1st April , 2011

Reference : ITC No. 112 of2009 Old

The second party union by filing the statement of claim made grievances against the Kandla Port Trust for not promoting him to the post of Station Officer. The management of Kandla Port Trust first party filed written statement disputing the demand of the union contending therein that the demand is unjustified and without any merit. Shri B. K. Kaushik was senior to Shri B.S. Yadav and so his pay was fixed higher than him.

Reference: CGITA of 1030 of2004 New

Kandla Port Trust ,

A.O. Building, Gandhidham ( Kutch)

..First Party

And their Workman Shri B. S. Yadav,

General Secretary,

Transport & Dock Workers , Union ,

21 , Yogesh Building,

Subsequently the management of first party and the union arrived at amicable settlement that the basic issue regarding seniority has been diluted since Shri B.В. Kaushik has left the job ofthe first party. and the concerned workman Shri B. S. Yadav has also been promoted to the post of Deputy Fire Officer on the same date . So, their remains no force in the demand whereas the demand of the union has been satisfied. By filing joint application at Ext . 6 the parties have mutually decided to file joint representation before this Tribunal requesting to dispose ofthe case accordingly.

4526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

In view of Ext . 6 their remains no dispute between the parties and there also remains no issue in the terms ofReference as per schedule. So , no dispute award is passed.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 19 मई , 2011

का.आ. 1653.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 50/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [ सं. एल-41012/290/99- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ]

[PART I SEC. 3(ii ) ] 2. Whether the action of the management of Northerh . Railway Allahabad in not allowing duties to Sri Jagrup with effect from 24-10-93 is justified? If not, what reliefthe workman is entitled for ?

3. Brief facts are

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th May, 2011

S.O. 1653. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 50/2000 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 ofNorthen Railway and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 18-5-2011 .

[No. L-41012/290/ 99 - IR( B- I ) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 50 of2000

Between

Sri Jagrup son of Sri Ram Dularey, Gang man , Resident of Village Khargupur Bargala PostNaurangabad Begas District Fatehpur.

And

TheDivisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad .

AWARD

1. Central Government , Mol New Delhi , vide notification No :L-41012/290/99 IR ( B- 1 ) dated 24-05-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

4: It is alleged by the claimant that he was engaged as a casual labour in the year 1984 , as a gang man by the opposite party and he was asked to work under the control and supervision of Assistant Engineer ( Speciał TRT ) Northern Railway, Aligarh . To declare him as permanent he was subjected to medical test and he was found fit and he was declared fit on 03-11-87 and he was granted the scale of Rs.775-1025 . In the year 1988 he was granted temporary status under PWI PQRS Northern Railway, Tundla . GPF was also being deducted from his salary. Thereafter he was sent to work under PWI TRD N.R. Malwa and he was working there..

5. On 16-10-93 PWI TRT Malwa , issued a transfer order for him and he was transferred to work under PWI , Ludhiana . This transfer order was given to him . After taking this transfer order he went to PWI Ludhiana for his duties on 18-10-93 , but after taking the transfer order he wrote an endorsement and forwarded to PWI Jammutavi for his posting . On this the claimant appeared before PWI Jammutavi on - 19-10-93 and requested for duty, but the PWI Jammutavi made an endorsement at the reverse of . the transfer order to PWI Ludhiana making an endorsement that there is no name of the claimant in the transfer list so he sent back to PWI Ludhiana . After coming from JammuTavi he appeared before PWI Ludhiana on 20-10-93 and he requested for duty, but he did not provide him work saying that the name of the workman is not in the transfer order dated 24-2-92 , whereas in the transfer order dated 10-10-93 , there is a reference of order dated 24-02-92 . It was also written that the worker should go to Malwa and he should report for duty there. On this the claimant came back and appeared before PWI Malwa on 24-10-93 , and he produced the letter on which there was a endorsement of PWI Ludhiana and Jammutavi as well and he requested for duty, but he did consider his request . When they did not consider his request for duty then he submitted applications dated 15-1-94, 28-3-94, 21-4-97 and 27-2-98 to the Senior Officer and requested them to provide him the duty. After submission of so many letters when he did not get any reply he personally approached the office ofDivision Engineer III Northern Railway Allahabad and he came to know that the gang of TRT / PQRS has been abolished so he could not be provided duty now . He was made aware of these facts orally in the month of June 1996 thereafter also he submitted applications before the higher authorities but they did not listen his prayer. It is also alleged that other workers who working with him in PQRS gang are still working but the opposite party is not providing him the job with effect from 24-10-93 has 4527 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

of the claimant be rejected and he is not entitled to any relief.

8. Claimant has also filed rejoinder wherein nothing new has been explained.

9. Both the parties have filed documentary as well as oral evidence .

committed illegality and it is an unjustified act of the opposite party. His services have not been terminated by following any prescribed procedure like conducting inquiry or punishing him . He has not been served with any notice and had not been paid retrenchment compensation whereas he has continuously worked more than 240 days in a year there is also violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act by the opposite party.

10. Claimant has adduced himself in evidence as Jagrup , MW.1 Opposite party has adduced two witnesses Sri C B Mishra Section Engineer as M. W.I and Sri Tej Pal Singh, Assistant Engg . N.R. as M.W.2 .

11. Heard and perused the record .

6. Therefore, he has prayed that the action of the opposite party be declared as illegal and unjustified and the opposite party be directed to provide him duty with effect from 24-10-93 and he has also prayed for other consequential benefits .

12. It is an admitted fact that Sri Jagrup was engaged in the year 1984 as a gang man . He was also put to medical test where he was found fit . He was also granted a regular pay scale of Rs . 775-1025 . in this way he had been in service since 1984 to 16-10-93 , thefefore , there is no force inthe contention of the opposite party saying that no rights have accrued to the workman under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.

13. Now the short question to be decided in this case whether the workman himself has voluntarily surrendered his services , whether he did not go to join his duties, when he was transferred from PWI , Malwa to PWI , Ludhiana. This is only the crucial point where the whole case is revolving. It is a fact that a letter which is paper No. 24/1 which is original , which has been filed by the claimant, is before the Court . The whole crux lies in this letter . My Learned Predecessor has passed an order on 1-10-03 considering the nature of the case and it was directed that the management will produce PWI , Ludhiana and Jammutavi who were posted in 1993. In this compliance the opposite party has produced only one witness i.e. M.W.2 Sri Tej Pal Singh who was posted as PWI Jammutavi . His statement is very important . He has stated on oath that on 19-10-1993 he was posted as PWI , Jammutavi . He stated that one letter dated 16-10-93 relating to workman Jagrup which was issued by TRT Malwa and referred to Ludhiana was produced before him . On this letter he has sought office report . After taking the report he has passed an order which is in his hand writing. He stated that as per rules Jagrup could not be taken on duty in this way he has written his report ,

14. On the back of this letter the endorsement is like this the said employee is not included in the list of staff transferfrom PWI / PN hence he may be directed subordinate (as per list) to whom he was sent along with other employees for absorption as DCG / Man . Moreover over he has not brought his fit certificate of railway doctor which is must to take him back on duty signed by PWI Jammutavi dated 19-10-93 .

7. Opposite party has filed the written statement . Opposite has admitted his employment in the year 1984 as a casual labour as gang man . It is also admitted that he was granted the scale of Rs.775-1025 in the year 1987. It is stated that he was not granted temporary status but he was found fit in B - 1 category and in the year 1988 he was granted scale of Rs . 775-1025 on daily rate basis . It is stated that PQRS is a mobile unit and it functions in the entire northern railway wherever the need arose and accordingly the workers are deployed . It is stated that the working place of PQRS is not permanent . A temporary head quarter is created at the working place and in the sequence PQRS Tundla was shifted to Malwa. It is stated that it is wrong to say that there is no name ofthe workman in the transfer order . It is also stated that when the workman himself received the transfer letter he should have personally seen his name in the transfer list . If his name was not there he should not have gone . It is also stated that the matter is in between PWI Jammutavi and PWI Ludhiana which did fall under DRM , NR, Allahabad. It is stated that when there were no work for the whole gang then the whole gang was transferred to PWI , Ludhiana, as the working place is not permanent of gang . Therefore , providing duty under PWI Malwa question does not arise because when there is no sanctioned post, the salary cannot be drawn . It is stated that the workman has not sent letters to PWI Malwa and DRM , NR , Allahabad or Divisional Engineer NR , Allahabad . It is stated that in this way the workman should have done the correspondence with PWI , Ludhiana and DRM , NR , Ambala . It is stated that the workman does not want to work under PWI Ludhiana and PWI , Jammutavi . The demand made by claimant to work under PWI , Malwa is wrong. It is stated that the claimant has not done his duty voluntarily since 1992 and he is not an official under the pay roll . It is stated that the service book and other service record have been sent to PWI , Ludhiana whereas other employees who were transferred they have taken over the duty under PWI Ludhiana. It is stated that question of issuing notice does not arise as the worker has not been removedfrom service. The workman has not himself joined the duties at the new place . Therefore , they have prayed that the claim

2087Gl/11-7 4528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

PWI , Jammutavi and then he came back before the PWI , Malwa. This fact is proved not only by W.W.1 but the evidence of the opposite party as M. W.2 has also admitted all these facts and paper No.24/ 1 bears all these endorsements .

18. The claimant stated that he appeared before PWI Malwa . He verbally requested for providing him the duty and when he did not consider his request then he moved applications to the senior officer , photocopies of which hasbeen filed by the claimant vide list 8/1 .

19. It is also contended by the claimant that he has put in more than 8 years since 1984 to 1993 if there was any fault or misconduct against the workman then the management could have conducted an inquiry or issued him a show cause notice or charge sheet . I find that there is a force in this contention.

20. Therefore , considering all the facts and circumstances I am of the view that the action of the management in not providing the duty to the workman witheffect from 24-10-93 is not justified . It appears that it islike removal of service by an oral order which cannot be held to bejustified . Hence considering the facts workman has to be taken in service back.

21. But considering the facts and circumstances and the long period 1 found it will be just for both the parties if the workman is provided 50% of back wages since 24-10-93 , and he should also be provided all those benefits which were available to him when he was in service .

15. Witness of the opposite party has clearly proved thisdocument. The wording ( moreover he has not brought his fit certificate) indicates that the workman personally appeared . Statement given by MW.2 also nowhere indicates that workman Jagrup did not appear before him . W.W.1 has specifically stated in his claim statement as well as in his evidence on oath that after taking the transfer order i.e. the application which is paper No.24/ 1 and is dated 16-10-93 , he has personally gone and handed over this letter and had requested to provide him the duty but as his name was not in the transfer list so PWI , Ludhiana and Jammutavi refused to take him on duty. After a thorough scrutiny I found the statement of the claimant on this point is believable and the version of the opposite party on the point that the workman has not gone to join his duty after transfer is not believable . The contention of the opposite party that it was the duty of the workman to see that if his name was not there in the transfer list then he should not have gone . I think that this is a undesirable contention . Sri Jagrup was simply a casual worker, how could he raise such type of objection before a senior officer. It was the duty of the management to , check and see whether the name of the workman was in the transfer list or not. Management had also issued him a pass for his duty which is paper no.23/ 1 . This relates to the period . December 1993. On the one side the opposite party is alleging in their written statement that the claimant has surrendered his services in the year 1992. I think that this is a false aversion . Management has himself admitted that he was transferred on 16-10-93 but he did not go forjoining. theduty on transfer. These are the contradictory aversions .

22. Therefore , reference is decided accordingly in favour of the claimant and against the management. RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 19 मई , 2011

का.आ. 1654.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 762/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -17012/17/2002- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th May, 2011 16. One more contention has been raised by the opposite party that the original letter which is paper No.24/ filed by the claimant , in this letter the date has been incorporated or forged by the claimant. They have drawn my attention towards the photocopy filed by the opposite party. I have gone through both the documents . The version of the opposite party is also not believable because the statement given by M.W.2 has specifically stated on oath that the letter dated 16-10-93 was produced before him and he has made an endorsement . Moreover , it was the duty of the management to show that if this was undated then what could have been the date . Management is silent on this point . I have also gone through this fact whether putting the date 16-10-93 helps the workman in any way. I do not find any such substance that the date 16-10-93 helps to the workman in any undesirable way . So the contention raised by the management that the workman has put the date himself does not carry any weight .

S.O. 1654. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 762/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 18-5-2011 .

17. Statement given by W.W.1 on oath that after taking letter paper No.24 / 1 he appeared before PWI Ludhiana. But PWI , Ludhiana said that his name was not in the transfer list and PWI , Ludhiana has forwarded this letter to PWI , Jammutavi and he went to and appeared before PWI , Jammutavi . He was also not taken on duty by

[No. L - 17012/ 17 /2002 - IR(B- I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer 4529 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri A.K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. 762/2K5

Registered on 05-09-2005

gap arrangement . The services of the workman ended on 20-06-2000 on joining of regularly selected person appointed by the competent authority, as the workman had been engaged on contractual basis and the period of hiscontract came to an end on joining ofregular watchman . His disengagement does not amount to retrenchment as perprovisions of Section 2(oo ) (bb) of the Act and he was not entitled to any benefits of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the management the workman is not entitled to any relief.

Sh. Jasmer Singh S/o Sh . Natha Singh , R/ o V.P.O. Singh Bhagwantpur, District Ropar (Punjab)-140001 .

Onthe pleadings of the parties following issues arise for consideration :-

....Applicant

Versus

Respondent

1. Whether the termination of the services of the workman amounts to retrenchment and is bad for non- compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act ?

2. To what relief the workman is entitled ?

The Divisional Manager , LI C of India, Divisional Office, Sector 17 , Chandigarh - 160017 .

APPEARANCES

For the workman : Sh . Sandeep Sihag/ J.S . Maan , Advocates .

Sh . P.K. Longia , Advocate

For the Management :

AWARD

In support of his case the workman tendered in evidence his affidavit, Pay slips marked as WW/ 1 / 1 to WW- 1/14 and copy of the letter marked as WW- 1 / 15 . On behalf of the management affidavit of Subhash Mahajan, Assistant Administrative Officer, Regional Office, Chandigarh and documents MW- 1 /1 to MW- 1 / 10 were tendered in evidence .

Passed on May 4, 2011

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. My findings on various issues are as follows:-

Issue No. 1 .

Central Government vide Notification No. L- 17012/ 17/2002 - IR(B - I ) ) dated 10-02-2003 , 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 :-

According to the claim statement the workman remained employed with the management as Pump Operator-cum-Watchman from 21-05-97 till 20-06-2000 whenhis services were terminated in violation of Section 25F ofthe Act and he had worked for more than 240days till the termination of his services.

The management denies the appointment of workman with effect from 21-05-97 . According to the management the workman had been engaged w.e.f. 01-06-98 .

"Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India in terminating the services of Sh. Jasmer Singh , Ex - Pump Operator- cum-watchman w.e.f. 20-06-2000 without any notice retrenchment and without payment of compensation is legal and justified ? If not, what relief is the concerned workman is entitled and from which date ? "

The workman has raised an industrial dispute by stating that he had been appointed on 21-05-1997 as Pump Operator-cum- Watchman in LIC Branch at Roopnagar and hadworked for more than 240 days till 20-06-2000 when his services were terminated in violation of Section 25F of the Act . He has claimed his reinstatement and regularization.

The workman in his cross - examination has stated that before joining service with the management he wasworking as labourer and he does not possess letter to show that he had joined service on 21-05-97 . He has filed original and photo copies of certain Imprest Vouchers WW- 1/1 to WW- 1/ 14 but none of the Imprest Vouchers relates tothe period from 21-05-97 to 31-05-98 , hence, there is no ground to accept the claimant's version that he was in the employment ofthe management from 21-05-97 . It may be mentioned here that for counting 240 days service the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of termination is relevant and thus for that purpose the relevant period is from 21-06-1999 to 20-06-2000. But that is relevant when the termination of the services of the workman amounts to retrenchment .

The claim was contested by the management and it was denied that the claimant had been appointed on 21-05-1997 . According to the management the workman had been engaged after approval of the competent authority as a replacement of Shri Kuldeep Singh w.e.f. 01-06-1998 by the Senior Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ropar on contractual basis as a stop- 4530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

contract basis at a monthly payment of Rs . 1250 vide letter dated 25-04-1998 as Ex . M-4 . Ex. M -7 is the sanction ofthe Manager (O.S. ) for engaging the workman for the job on contract basis on the terms and conditions as were applicable in case of Kuldeep Singh but there is no evidence to show that the sanction order was ever conveyed to workman and he had consented to work on the same terms and conditions as were applicable in case ofKuldeep Singh . Even if it is accepted that workman had agreed to work on the same terms and conditions on which Kuldeep Singh was engaged, it may be seen that in Ex. M-2there is nothing to show that the contract was for a specific period . Neither there was any condition that the services of the workman will be terminated as and when regular employee on the post is recruited . The termination of the services of a workman has been excluded under Section 2 ( oo) ( bb ) of the Act from the definition of " retrenchment " only in two cases viz :-

(a) When it is a result of non removal of contract ofemployment on its expiry, or

(b) When contract of employment was terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein.

Therefore the plea of the management that the termination of the service of the workman is covered under the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) and is not a retrenchment cannot be accepted. The employment of regular employee on the post may be accepted as a valid reason for the termination of the services of the workman but it was retrenchment within the definition provided in Section 2(oo) oftheAct.

Learned counsel for the management argued that the services of the workman ended on 20-06-2000 on joining of regularly selected personappointed by the competent authority. As the workman had been engaged on contractual basis and the period of his contract came to end on joining of regular watchman so his disengagement does not amounts to retrenchment as per provisions of Section 2( oo) (bb ) of the Act . Accordingto the management the workman had been engaged as a replacement of one Kuldeep Singh w.e.f. 01-06-1998 . Management witness Subhash Mahajan in his cross- examination has stated that the terms of contract with Kuldeep Singh were to apply to the workman also . The terms of contract of Kuldeep Singh has been filed as Ex . M-2. The management witness has further stated in his cross-examination that the terms of contract were conveyed to the workman and he had accepted the same by writing Ex. M-5 . It is important to note that the workman during cross-examination has also filed a copy of letter Ex. M-5 . The document filed by the workman is marked as WW- 1/15. Undertaking of Kuldeep Singh is Ex . M -2 , according to which Kuldeep Singh had undertaken that he will have no right to claim service in L.I.C. of India either on temporary or permanent basis and the Corporation shall have an absolute right to terminate the contract at any time without assigning any reason . Ex. M - 5 or MW - 1 / 15 is a copy of the application-cum- Letter of the workman in which he had requested for his employment as a Watchman etc. , Ex. M-7 isthe sanction letter for the appointment of workman . Through this letter the Senior Branch Manager L.I.C. Branch Office, Ropar had been allowed to engage workman as Pump Operator- cum -Watchman on contractual basis almost on the same terms and conditions which were applicable in case of Kuldeep Singh .

The learned counsel for the workman disputed the arguments of the management . He argued that the terms ofcontract with Kuldeep Singh were not applicable to the workman . These terms of contract were never conveyed to the workman and in his application- cum- letter Ex. M- 5 orWW- 1/ 15 there is no mention of these terms and their acceptance by the workman .

Once it is held that the termination of the services of the workman amounts to retrenchment he becomes entitled to the benefit of Section 25F of the Act , if he had been in continuous service for not less than one year . As per own admission of the management the workman has been in service from 01-06-98 to 20-06-2000 . Thus he was in continuous service for more than one year. Therefore , he was entitled to the said protection . Admittedly, the workman was not given any notice or notice pay and retrenchment compensation . His retrenchment is therefore , bad for non compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of theAct . Issue No.1 is, therefore , decided in favour of theworkman.

IssueNo. 2

Aperusal of the material available on record shows that the argument of the management is not acceptable . The workman in his cross - examination has denied the suggestion of the management that he had been engaged on the same terms and conditions on which Kuldeep Singh had worked . The learned counsel for the workman is right inhis arguments that Ex . M- 5 the letter- cum - application of the workman offering his services for the job nowhere says that the workman would offer his service on the same terms and conditions as were applicable to Kuldeep Singh. In fact after this application - cum letter of the workman, the Senior Branch Manager , Ropar had written to Manager ( O.S. ) L I C of India, Divisional Office, Chandigarh for permission to appoint the workman on

A retrenchment in violation of Section 25F of the Act is void ab initio and non - est and ordinarily in such cases the workman is entitled to reinstatement . But in the present case as it is evident from Ex . M - 8 to M- 10 the regular appointment has been made on the post of Watchman and workman was not employed in due process hence , remedy of reinstatement is not available to him . He is however, entitled to compensation in lieu of [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28, 1933

4531

And

Telecom District Manager , Aligarh

AWARD

reinstatement and back wages etc. The workman was employed at a salary of Rs . 1250 per month . He remained in service for about two years . I think that a compensation of Rs . 1,50,000 will be just and proper in lieu of reinstatement and back wages . I find the workman entitled to this compensation.

1. Central Government , Mol , New Delhi vide notification no. L-40012/ 112/96 IR(DU) dated 12-03-93 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

2. Whether the action of the management ofTelecom Dept. Aligarh to terminate the services of Sri Omkar Singh workmanwith effect from 1-12-94 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?

3. Brief facts are-

From the above going discussions it is clear that the action of the management of L. 1.C. of India in terminating the services of the workman without any notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation is not legal and justified and the workman is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 in lieu of reinstatement and back wages . The management is directed to pay the aforesaid compensation to the workman within a month from receiving the copy of the award . Let two copies of award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 23 मई , 2011

का.आ. 1655-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 54/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012 / 112/96- आईआर ( डीयू) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 23rd May, 2011

4. Case of the claimant is that he was engaged as a casual labour by the opposite party Telecom Department on 1-1-85, and he worked under Assistant Engineer Cables Tax Bhawan Agra from 1-1-85 to 31-12-87.Thereafter he workedfrom 10-11-91 to 30-11-94 under SDO Telegraph Aligarh as a casual labour. But the opposite party terminated his services by an oral order on 1-12-94 in an illegal way, whereas the claimant has been working with full honesty and sincerity. He had worked for more than 240 days in calendar year before his termination . During service he was getting Rs.61 per day as salary or wages . Before termination the opposite party has not issued him any notice or notice pay or paid retrenchment compensation in lieu of notice . There was no such type of agreement that his services were required for a specific period, therefore , the opposite party has committed the breach of Section 25F of 1.D. Act 1947, therefore , he has prayed that the order of termination be declared as illegal and he be reinstated with . consequential reliefs .

S.O. 1655. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 54/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-5-2011 .

5. Opposite party has filed the written statement wherein it has been admitted by the opposite party that the claimant hadworked under SDO Telegram from November 1991 to November 1994. For a total period of 1077 days he had worked . They stated that has not worked duringMay 1992 for the whole month , did not work for three days in March 1994 and for two days in the year October 1994. It is stated that the claimant has failed to produce certified details ofhis working for the period 1-1-85 to 31-12-87 , but it is stated that the claimant has not worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year.

[ No. L -40012/ 112/96- IR (DU)] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute no . 54 of98

Between

Sri Onkar Singh , C/o Sri B. N. Singh, Civil Court, Aligarh

6. It is stated that the claimant was engaged for a specific period and for specific work . When the work was finished his services were came to end automatically. It is also stated that one month notice was issued by Inspector Telegram Charra Aligarh and information was given by Sub Inspector to SDO Telegram Aligarh. It is stated that he could not be engaged thereafter due to non- availability of work. It is also stated that the claimant has filed petition before the CAT Allahabad 'which was dismissed and thereafter the claimant filed a writ petition before the THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii )] 4532

Hon'ble High Court which is pending before the Hon'ble Court.

15. Section 25F of the Act provide-No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-

7. Claimant has also filed rejoinder but nothing new has been pleaded by him therein.

16. I would like to say that the above condition have beencomplied by the claimant.

8. Both the parties have filed oral as well as documentary evidence .

17. Now it is obligatory on the part of the employer which is provided under Section 25 - F-

18. ( a) the workman has been given one months notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice wages for the period ofthe notice.

9. Claimant has adduced himself as w.w.1 Sri Omkar Singh . Opposite party has produced two witnesses . By mistake both the witnesses of the opposite party have been marked as M.W.1 whereas M.W.1 is Sri Than Singh who was examined on 25-5-04 and N. P. Singh is M.W.2 was examined thereafter.

10. Documentary evidence will be discussed at the time of oral evidence .

19. (b) . the workman has been paid at the time of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months and

20.(c).Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate government .

21. Therefore provisions a, b , and c (supra ) are mandatory to be followed .

22. Claimant has specifically denied that any notice was served upon him .

11. Claimant has specifically stated on oath that he hadworked from November 91 to November 1994 with the opposite party as a casual labour and on 1-12-94 he was removed by oral order . At the time of removal he was not served with any notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation. He was not served with any charge sheet. He has stated that he has filed 6 documents . These are the true copies of the original and original are in possession and these documents are marked as Ext . W- l to W-6 . Paper no. 39/ 1-39/3 are the documents of his working certificate issued by the opposite party. These documents relate to the period 1991 to 1994.

23. The provision of Section 25 a, b , and c are not independent to each other but the employer is obliged to follow all the conditions prescribed in a, b and c. It is the contention of the opposite party that a notice was served through Nathu Singh who is father of the workman stating that Nathu Singh was also serving at Aligarh in Telecom Department as SIT.

12. I would like to say that the opposite party has specifically admitted in its written statement in para 2 regarding the working of the claimant since 1991 to 1993 . Even if I take the calendar year from the date of his termination that is 1-12-94, it shows that the claimant had worked for 360days in the calendar year December 1993 to November 1994 after excluding three days of March 1994 and two days of October 1994 as claimed by the opposite party. The certificate also shows the working of the claimant.

13.Opposite party witness M. W. 2 Sri NP Singh has also admitted this fact on oath in his statement .

24. Opposite party has drawn my attention towards paper No. 10/53 . Opposite party is claiming that it is a notice . I have examined this paper. This does not appear to be a statutory notice as per requirement of Section 25 (a) of theAct. It is an information given by Nathu Singh SIT to the senior officer. Opposite party has not proved that any noticewhich is mentioned in this information was given to the workman . For a moment for the sake of argument if it is taken that the opposite party has given the notice even then they have not complied with Section 25 (b ) and (c ) which is mandatory, therefore , the contention of the opposite party does not carry any weight that they have given notice and because Nathu Singh has engaged him hence he was removed .

14. Now this fact has been proved that the claimant hadbeen in the engagement or employment of the opposite party since 1991 to 1994 and he was getting salary /wages from the opposite party. Therefore , a right has accrued to the claimant under the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. It has been repeatedly said by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are in the nature of social legislation and it does not make any difference between, casual labour, temporary or permanent. The only condition is that if a workman is in continuous service within the meaning of Section 25 - B , then certain rights have accrued to him and the opposite party is bound to follow the procedure mentioned in Section 25F of the Act.

25. Opposite party has also taken a contention that the father of the workman Sri Nathu Singh was working in the department and he has engaged him . The claimant has refuted this allegation saying that there is no such type of pleadings in the written statement . It is also contended by the claimant that the claimant was working under SDO and engaged by SDO and his salary was being paid by the public exchequer by the opposite party not only for months but year together. Therefore , I don't find any weight in the contention of the opposite party.

4533 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

1. 2010 ( 125 ) FLR 187 Supreme Court in between-

Krishna Singh and Executive Engineer, Haryana StateAgricultures Marketing Board Haryana .

2. 2010 ( 124) FLR 700 S.C. in between Harjinder Singh and Punjab State Warehousing Corporation.

32. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in both the rulings (supra) Industrial Disputes and other similar legislative instruments are Social Welfare Legislations- High Courts bound to interpret them keeping in view the goals set out in the preamble of the Constitution and provisions contained in chapter V thereof-State should secure a social order for promotion of welfare ofthe people and ensure equality between men and women.

26. It is also the contention of the opposite party that the services of the workman were terminated on the basis of circular . They have drawn my attention towards paper No.10/54 . The subject of this circular is casual laborer recruited after 30-03-85-confirment of temporary status. regarding. In this circular the department had demanded the information whether any fresh casual labour has been engaged or not . This circular does not empower any officer to terminate the services of any person or workman to whom the rights have accrued under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , under Section 25F. Similarly I have gone through another paper which is paper No.10/ 56-57 dated nil . The subject is casual labours ( grant of temporary status and regularization ) scheme . This circular also does not empower any officer for terminating the services of any workman in whose favour certain rights have been accrued under the provisions of Section 25F of the Act . This circular is more concerned in granting the temporary status and regularization for casual labours .

33. In Krishan Singh's case also Hon'ble Court held, wide discretion is vested in the labour Court while adjudicating an industrial dispute relating to discharge or dismissal of a workman-If the labour Court after taking the pleadings ofthe parties and circumstances of the case came into consideration has directed reinstatement with 50% back wages . High Court could not interfere with such discretion . In this matter the labour Court had found that the respondent employer had not complied with the mandatory requirement of Section 25F of the Act. 27. Regarding the previous period of the working of the claimant from 1985 to 1987 at Agra , opposite party has doubted the authenticity of this document and opposite party has produced MW I Sri Than Singh . For a moment if we leave this period of 1985 to 1987 -even then there is confirm working of claimant for the period 1991 to 1994 which is eligible under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act.

34. Therefore, respectfully relying upon the decision ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court which is similar to the facts of this case , I find that the law propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court applies with full swings to the facts and circumstances of the present case .

35. Opposite party has placed reliance upon a decision(2006)4 SCC 1 in between Secretarys State of Karnataka and others Versus Uma Devi and others .

36. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the law cited by the contesting parties and find the law cited by the opposite party and I find that it has no applicability on the case in hand.

37. Considering the overall discussion made herein above I find that the claimant has been able to prove his case and he is entitled for his reinstatement in the service.

28. Opposite party has taken the contention that the claimant has also gone to the Hon'ble CAT, Allahabad and thereafter filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court . I have gone through both the orders passed by CAT, Allahabad and Hon'ble Court, Allahabad. CAT, Allahabad has not decided the case on merit and has simply observed that surprisingly the order of termination has not been challenged, until the same is adjudicated and found to be contrary to law a direction for reinstatement cannot be given. Document on record show that the claimant's name , figure in the live casual register. Therefore , the CAT has not gone into the termination of the claimant . Moreover such type of facts can only be proved under a reference as referred by the Central Government under the provisions ofthe Act . Claimant has also approached the Hon'ble High Court challenging the order of CAT but at subsequent stage has withdrawn the same . Therefore , the claim ofthe workman regarding illegal termination has not been adjudicated.

party. 29. I don't find any force in this plea of the opposite

38. So far as back wages is concerned , it is contended by the representative for the workman that he is not working anywhere after his termination . Workman has firstly gone to CAT, Allahabad and thereafter approached the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad and it took a long time though may be on wrong advise of legal fraternity, considering the long duration in raising the present dispute, I find that it would meet the ends of justice to both the parties that if the claimant is provided 30% of his back wages along with his reinstatement.

30. It was also contended by the opposite party that the engagement of the claimant was for a specific work and for specific period . I have examined this aspect of the matter and find that opposite party has not been able to prove this fact, therefore , the contention of the opposite party is not acceptable.

39.-Therefore, the claim is decided accordingly in favour of the claimant and against the opposite party.

31.Workman has placed reliance upon certain rulings such as :-

RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer 4534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 23 मई, 2011

का.आ. 1656. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/ एलसी/आर/ 107/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-40012/89/97-आईआर(डीयू) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 23rd May, 2011 S.O. 1656. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/ R/ 107/ 98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-5-2011 .

[No. L-40012/ 89/97 - IR (DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

NO. CGIT/LC/R/107/98

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 1986 continuously under the control of SDO, Telephone Sehore . He was terminated w.e.f. August 1988 without any notice. It is stated that he worked in the year 1986 for 78 days, in 1987 for 352 days and in the year 1988 for 242 days . It is stated that similar persons approached before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal and they had been regularized . It is submitted that the reference be answered infavour of the workman .

3. The management appeared and contested the reference by filing Written Statement . The case of the management inter alia, is that the applicant/ workman was never engaged by the non- applicant/management as per the record of SDO , Telephone Sehore . His claim for regularization is not tenable . It is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the management.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are settled .

I. Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of Shri Bhupendra Singh w.e.f. August 1988 is justified ?

II . To what reliefthe workman is entitled ?

5. Issue No. I

...Workman

Shri Bhupendra Singh , S/o Shri Rameshchand, Village Bijora ,, PostBaktal , Distt. Sehore ( MP)

Versus

ChiefGeneral Manager, Telecommunication , M.P. Circle, Deptt. ofTelecom, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal(MP)

To prove the case , the workman has adduced oral and documentary evidence . Now let us examine the evidence adduced by him . Exhibit W/1 is the letter of implementation of judgement of Assistant General Manager , Bhopal . The said photocopy of the letter is admitted by the management . This letter shows that the persons were reinstated on the basis of the judgement of the CAT, Jabalpur . These are of other persons who were casual labours . This letter does not prove that the case of the applicant/workman is similar to those workers. Exhibit W/2 isanother letter dated 9-11-2000 of the management which is also admitted document . This letter shows that it was a direction to prepare a list of workers whose name were left out or other court pending cases but the said list is also of different persons . This itself shows that on verification , the workman was not found engaged in the department of the management . This letter does not also establish that he was working with the management. Thus the documentary evidence adduced by the workman does not prove his engagement with the management .

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 4th day of May 2011 1.The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L -40012/ 89/ 97 - IR( DU) dated 8-5-1998 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecommunication in terminating the services of Shri Bhupendra Singh S / o Ramesh Chand w.e.f. Aug. 1988 is justified. If not , to what relief the workman is entitled for ?"

2. The case of the workman , in short is that the workman ShriBhupendra Singh wasworking since October 6. The workman Shri Bhupendra Singh is examined in the case . He has stated that he got appointment letter but the same was destroyed by rat. He has further stated that he got payment slips . In absence of these documents , hisevidence is not reliable .

7. On the other hand, the management has examined one witness. The management witness Shri P.N. Panse is working as Divisional Engineer. He has stated that there is no record to show that he was ever engaged with the management . There was no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman. There is nothing in his cross -examination to disbelieve this witness . Thus it is clear that there is no evidence to show that there was any relationship of employer and the 4535

भारत का राजपत्र : जून18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28,1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

employee between the management and the workman . This issue is answered in favour ofthe management and against theworkman.

8. Issue No. II

Onthe basis of the discussion made above , it is clear that the workman has failed to establish that he had worked under the Control of the management . He is therefore not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the reference is answered .

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

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

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 23 मई , 2011

का.आ. 1657. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर, संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 30/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40011 /55/2002-आईआर (डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 23rd May , 2011

S.O. 1657. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby pub'ishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court No. I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their. workmen , which was received by the Central Government on23-5-2011.

Versus

1. The General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Ludhiana. - 2. The General Manager Telecom, BSNL, Pathankot-

....Respondent APPEARANCES

None.

For the workman:

Shri G.C. Babbar.

For the management :

AWARD

Passed on 27-10-2010

Government of hodia vide notification No.L-40011/ 25/2002/IR(D.U) dated 25/02/2003, by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, (theAct in short ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of GMTD , BSNL , Ludhiana, where he served BSNL, Ludhiana for a period of 543 days and thereafter at SDOT, Dinanagar (Pathankot SSA ) regarding non -grant of temporary status and subsequent regularization in accordance with DOT OM No. 269/ 10/89 - STN dated 7-11-1989 to Shri Surti Lal S/o Sh. Sain Dass and also without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 isjust and legal ? If not, so what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

2. Case is taken up for recording evidence of the management. Workman is not present . Representative of the workman is also not present . Witness of the management is present . The case is already seven year old. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue withthe present reference . In view ofthe above , the present reference is returned to the Central Govt . for want of prosecution. Central Govt. be informed . File be consigned torecord...

GK. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh

[No. L-40011 /55/2002 - IR (DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

27-10-2010

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT - 1, CHANDIGARH

Case ID No.30/2003

Surti Lal C/o The General Secretary,

Punjab Telecom Labour Union , 27349, Mohalla Hari Nagar, Lal Singh Basti Road , Bhatinda, Punjab- 151001

Applicant.

2087 Gl /11-8

नई दिल्ली, 23 मई , 2011

का.आ. 1658. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/ एलसी/आर/ 103/98) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/ 102/97 - आईआर( डीयू) ]

जोहम तोपनो, अवर सचिव 4536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 /JYAISTHA 28, 1933

New Delhi , the 23rd May, 2011 S.O. 1658. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/ 103/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 23-5-2011 .

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] toMuster Roll employers. It is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the workman .

3. The management appeared and contested the reference by filing Written Statement . The case of the management , inter alia is that the workman was never engaged by the non- applicant/ management as per the record with SDO Telephone , Sehore . The question for regularization of the workman is baseless and is not tenable. Itissubmitted that the reference be der led in favour of the management .

[No. L-40012/ 102/ 97- IR (DU) ]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

NO . CGIT/LC/R/ 103/98

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN Shri Babulal,

S/ o Shri Dhan Singh ,

Vill . Konajir,

PO Megraram , Distt . Sehore

Workman

Versus

The Chief General Manager ,

Telecommunication ,

M.P. Circle ,

Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal

4. On the basis of the pleadings and reference order, the following issues are for adjudication .

I. Whether the Department of Telecommunication is termed as an Industry or not ?

II. Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. March 1988 isjustified ?

III . To what relief the workman , if any, is entitled?

5. Issue No. I

None of the parties have raised this issue that non - applicant/ Management is not an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( in short the Act, 1947). Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the workman.

6. Issue No. II

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 3rd day of May 2011 1. The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour vide its Notification No.L-40012/ 102/97/IR( DU ) dated 13-5-1998 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager Telecommunication in terminating the services of Sh . Babulal Sio Shri Dhan Singh w.e.f. March 1988 is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled for ? Whether the department of Telecommunication is termed as an Industry or not? If not , to what benefit they are entitled for ? "

2. The case of the workman in short is that the workman was working since August 1982 continuously on Muster Roll in the direct control and supervision of SDO Telephone Sehore but his service was terminated illegally w.e.f. March 1988 without any notice . The workman had worked more than 240 days in a calendar year . It is stated similarly situated persons approached the Central Administrative Tribunal where the Hon'ble Tribunal directed the non - applicant/ management for regularization According to the workman , he worked from August 1982 to March 1988 continuously under the direct control of SDO Telephone Sehore whereas the non - applicant/ management denied his ever engagement. The burden lies with the workman to prove engagement. The workman has filed photocopy of the letter of the implementation of judgement of the CAT, Jabalpur passed in number of cases which is marked on admission as Exhibit W/l . This letter is filed to show that the other persons who were working with the management had been terminated but by the order of the CAT they were re -employed . This letter does not show that he was also working with the management.as has been claimed by him. Another photocopy of the letter dated 9-11-2000 is filed by the workman which is also marked on admission as Exhibit W/2 . The said letter appears to have been issued by Asstt . General Manager (HRD ) for seeking permission for limited recruitment in the cadre of regular mazdoor in view of the CAT case . His name does not appear in the list of the letter. This letter further shows that the casual labour whose name was left out in the case, was to be considered with relevant documents . There is nothing on the record to show that the applicant/workman had ever approached with the management with documents ofhis continuous service from August 1982 to March 1988 and the management had not considered his case . There is no other documentary evidence to prove that he had ever worked with the management . Certain photocopies of the statements of the period said to have been worked was filed which are said to be verified by the authority but the same was denied by the management . The originals ofthe said statements are not filed and are not proved and 4537 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28. 1933

ANNEXURE

therefore these statements are inadmissible and not marked as exhibits . Thus the documentary evidence doesnot establish that the applicant/ workman was ever engaged as casual labour on muster roli .

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

NO.CGIT/LC /R/ 265 / 99

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN

Shri Rakesh Kumar Savita ,

So Shri Gajendra Singh ,

Rio Mahavirpura,

Nr. Mata Mandir,

Workman

Morena(MP)

Versus

The ChiefGeneral Manager ,

Deptt. of Telecommunication ,

Hoshangabad Road,

7. The workman Babulal is examined in the case . He has stated that he was casual labour and the affidavit is prepared on the basis of documents . As discussed above . it is clear that the documents do not prove that he was engaged by the management . His evidence appears to be not reliable . On the other hand that the management has examined Shri S.N. Panse who is working as Divisional Engineer. He has supported the fact that he was never engaged as per record of SDOT, Sehore . There appears to be no reason to conceal his document when the department had regularized number of other workers in view of the CAT Judgement . Thus it is clear that there is no sufficient evidence on the record to prove that the applicant/ workman has ever worked with the management. This issue is decided in favour of the manageinent and against the workman .

M.P. Circle ,

8. Issue No. III

...Management

Bhopal(MP)

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of May, 2011

Onthe basis ofthe discussion made above , it is clear that there is no sufficient evidence to establish that the workman was worked with the management. As such the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly answered.

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

1.The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L-40012/61 /99 /IR(DU) dated 30-7-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :-

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

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , PresidingOfficer

"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, Telecom in terminating the services of Sh.Rakesh Kumar Savita is legal and justified ? If not , to wha relief the workman is entitled ? "

नई दिल्ली , 23 मई , 2011

2. The applicant/ workman did not appear inspite of proper notice . The then Tribunal proceeded the reference exparte against the workman on 1-11-06.

का.आ. 1659. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/ एलसी/ आर/265/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/61/99 - आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ]

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement . The case of the management in short is that the applicant/workman was engaged by the contractor who had taken contract work from the Deparment of Telecommunication and the work was completed long back. He was never employed by the management at any stage of time. It is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the management .

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 23rd May, 2011

4. On the basis of the pleading and reference order, the following issues are framed .

I. Whether the action of the management in terminating the service of Shri Rakesh Kumar Savita is legal andjustified?

II . To what relief the workman is entitled?

5. Issue No. I :

S.O. 1659.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/ R/ 265 / 99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-5-2011 .

According to the management , the applicant/ workman was never employed. The burden was on the workman to establish relationship of employer and employee . The management has also not filed any evidence [No.L-40012/6 /99 -IR (DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

4538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 18, 2011 /JYAISTHA28, 1933

in support of his pleading . This is a case of no evidence . The issued is accordingly answered.

6. Issue No. IП

Since the workman has not appeared and has not claimed any relief. As such he is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered.

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

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

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 23 मई , 2011

का.आ. 1660. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार. विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/ एलसी/आर/177/99) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/108/98- आईआर ( डीयू) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 23rd May, 2011

S.O. 1660. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/ R/ 177/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-5-2011 .

[No. L-40012/ 108/98 - IR ( DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

NO.CGIT/LC/R/ 177/99

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN Shri Ranvir Singh ,

Vill:Oretti ,

Pakkapura, PO Rajodha,

Workman The Porsa, Morena (MP ) ,

Versus

ChiefGeneral Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication ,

Hoshangabad Road, M.P. Circle ,

Bhopal (MP)

...Management

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of May, 2011 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide Its Notification No.L- 40012 / 108 / 98/IR( DU) dated 23-4-99 tras referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom in terminating the services of Sh.Ranvir Singh is legal and justified ? If not, to whatrelief the workman is entitled ? "

2.The workman did not appear in the case and inspite ofproper notice . Lastly the then Tribunal proceeded exparte against the workman on 14-12-07 .

3. The management appeared in the case and filed WrittenStatement . The case of the management in short is that the Hon'ble Tribunal has already decided the reference inCGIT/ LC/R/ 12/96 on 2-8-2001 as Issue No. II . It is stated that the principle of res -judicata is applicable and therefore the reference is not maintainable . It is submitted that the reference be accordingly answered .

4. On the basis of the pleading and reference order, the following issues are framed.

I. Whether the action of the management in terminating the service of Shri Ranvir Singh is legal and justified?

II. To what relief the workman is entitled? 5. Issue No. I

The management has not adduced any oral evidence . Only the copy of the award dated 2-8-01 passed in reference case No. CGIT/LC/R/ 12/96 is filed . The learned counsel for the management has urged that by the said award , the principle of res -judicata is applicable. On perusal of the copy of the said award , it is clear that the said award is against another workman namely Ram Sevak Kori and is not against this workman of this case . This itself shows that the principle of resjudicata is nor applicable as that award was not passed against the present workman namely Shri Ranvir Singh .

6. There is no evidence on the record to show that the workman has worked for more than 240 days in twelve calendar months prior to the date with reference ..There is no other evidence to show that he was regular employee. Thus it is clear that the action of the management is justified and legal. This issue is decided in favour of the management.

7. Issue No. II

Onthe basis ofthe discussion made above , it is clear that there is no case of the workmam on the record that any provision of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 was violated in termination of his service . He is therefore not entitled to any relief . The reference is accordingly answered .

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

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

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 23 मई , 2011

का.आ. 1661, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/आर/ 184/ 95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/8/93- आई आर( डीयू) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 23rd May, 2011

S.O. 1661. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.CGIT/ LC/R/ 184/95 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-5-2011 .

[No. L -40012/8/93 - IR (DU)] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/ 184/95

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan Shri VinodKumar Chirar , S/o Shri Dalchand Chirar,

Ram Mandir Road,

ZilaZamalpura, Bhopal (MP)

Workman

Versus

The DivisiorialEngineer,

Telecommunication ,

Bhopal

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of May 2011 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L - 40012/ 8 / 93 - IR ( DU ) dated 30-10-95 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

4539

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

"Whether the action of the management ofDivisional Engineer Telecom, Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Vinod Kumar Chirar is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?" 2. The case of the workman , in short, is that the workman Shri Vinod Kumar Chirar was appointed as Driver against the vacant post on 30-7-91 and he worked continuously till 16-7-1992 when he was terminated by verbal order . He worked more than 240 days during the period of one year but he was not paid any retrenchment compensation . It is stated that while he was on leave , the said vehicle met with an accident and he was made accused falsely in the accident case . When he protested , he was terminated from the service . It is submitted that the workman be reinstated with back wages .

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement to contest the reference . The case of the management , interalia, is that he was engaged purely on casual basis subject to requirement as a driver but was never issued any appointment letter nor any assurance was given for regularization on the post of driver. It is denied that he worked 240 days in a year . It is stated that on 18-9-91 , the workman met an accident causing a loss of Rupees One Lac to the department by way of payment of compensation to the injured . After accident, the department proposed to hold enquiry. However the workman failed to report on duty from 7-7-92 . He had himself abandoned his service and the question of termination does not arise . It is stated that the provision of Section 25 - F of the Industrial DisputeAct , 1947( in short the Act , 1947) is not applicable . It is submitted that the action of the management be declared to be legal andjustified.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties , the following issues are for adjudication .

I. Whether the workman had worked 240 days in a year preceding the date with reference in accordance with Section 25 B of the Act, 1947 ?

II . Whether action of the management in terminating the service of the workman is legal and justified ?

III. To what relief the workman is entitled ?

5.On perusal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the following facts are admitted .

1. The workman Shri Vinod Kumar Chirar was engaged on casual basis as a driver .

2. He was not nouced nor any compensation was paid under the provision of the Act , 1947.

3. The workman was driving the Vehicle bearing No. MP-04E-528 .

4. The said vehicle met an accident and a criminal case was filed .

4540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28, 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 (il ) ] 5. The workman was acquitted of the criminal charges in the said accident case .

6. Log Book of the said vehicle was maintained.

the management that the workman had not worked 240 days, is not substantiated . Another management witness is Shri Firoz Ahmad . He is Sub Divisional Engineer . He was not in service at the relevant period . He has come to say about the weeding out of the Log Book. He has stated that the Log Book was not weeded out in his presence and he has no knowledge as to when it was destroyed . He appears to be not competent witness . There is no other document to rebut the oral and documentary evidence of the workman . Thus it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman worked more than 240 days during the period of 12 months preceding the date with reference . This issue is, therefore , decided in favour ofthe workman and against the management .

9. Issue No.

It is an admitted fact that the management had not given any notice nor any retrenchment compensation under the provision of Section 25F of the Act . The above discussion shows that the workman had worked for a period of one year during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference under the provision of Section 25 B(2)( a) of the Act , 1947. Since the workman was not terminated after compliance ofthe provision of Section 25 -F of the Act, 1947 the action of the management is not legal and justified. Accordingly this issue is also decided in favour of the workman and against the management .

10. Issue No. III

6. Now the important point for decision is also whether the workman completed 240 days in 12 months preceding the date with reference . The workman has stated that he was engaged on 30-7-91 and worked continuously till 16-7-92 and completed more than 240 days . Whereas the management has contended that he was engaged intermittently on casual basis and had never completed 240 days . The order dated 8-11-2007 of the reference case shows that the log book of the said vehicle was demanded by the workman to be produced in Court but management submitted that it was weeded out and in its support an affidavitwas filed . The affidavit does not show that as to on which date it was weeded out . However the workman has filed the photocopy of the log Book . This fact is supported and proved by the workman in his subsequent evidence at Para- 6 which is paper No. Ex.P/ 1 ( Pages No 1 to 51 ) . The photocopy of the Log Book shows that it is of Vehicle MP -04E - 528 . The Log Book starts from 26-9-91 and ends on 31-5-92 . This photo copy of the log book shows that he worked 245 days within 12 months preceding the date with reference . The evidence of the workman further shows that the management has not challenged the workman in cross - examination . This document establishes that the workman had worked 240 days during the period of 12months preceding the date with reference as required under Section 25 B of the Act , 1947. Moreover the management is custodian of the records of its employee and it is the obligation of the management to produce the relevant records to rebut the claim Non production of the relevant records obviously creates a presumption of the adverse inference against the management . The Hon'ble Court has also held in a decision reported in 2011 LAB 1.C. (NOC ) (P & H ) Bharat Bhushan vrs . Chandigarh Administration & ors .

On the basis of the discussion made above , it is evident that the termination of the workman was illegal and unjustified. The learned counsel for the workman submits that the workman is suffering from Cancer. I find that the workman was last engaged in the year 1992 and is suffering from cancer and therefore the relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends ofjustice .Accordingly the management is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac) to the workman in lieu of reinstatement within two months from the date of award . The reference is , thus , answered .

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

12. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment asper rules.

7. The workman Vinod Kumar Chirar is examined twice in the case . He has stated that he was engaged verbally on the post of Driver on casual basis . He has further stated that Log Book was maintained and he and his Officer Shri M.M.Sharma is also examined by the management and had also supported that officer used to sign on the Log Book . He has supported that he worked more than 240 days . His evidence corroborates the documentary evidence .

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 23 मई , 2011

8. On the other hand , the management has examined two witness . Shri Madan Mohan Sharma is presently working as Divisional Engineer, M. P. Circle Bhopal . He supported the fact that the workman was engaged on casual basis from 30-7-91 and was terminated on 7-7-92. He has stated that Log Book was maintained . He has stated that there is no record to show as to how many days he worked . This shows that the contention of

का. आ. 1662.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4541 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/आर/ 101 /98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/97/97- आई आर( डीयू) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 23rd May, 2011

giving any opportunity as he had worked more than 240 days in a calendar year and had acquired the status of . regular employee . It is stated that similarly situated persons approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Hon'ble Tribunal directed the management to regularize the services of those persons . On these ground it is submitted that the termination be declared illegal and the workman be declared to be entitled for regularization in service.

S.O. 1662.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.CGIT/ LC/R/ 101/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-5-2011 .

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement . The case of the management , interalia, is that the applicant /workman was never engaged by the management as per record available with SDO Telephone Sehore. As such the claim of regularization in service is not tenable . On these grounds , it is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the management .

[No. 1-40012/97/97- IR (DU) ]

4. On the basis ofthe pleadings , the following issues. arefor adjudication-

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

I. Whether the action of the management in terminating the service of the applicant/ workman w.e.f. August 1988 is justified?

II . To what relief the workman is entitled ?

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

5. Issue No. I

Case No. CGIT/LC /R/ 101 /98

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan

Shri Badrilal Dashwant , S/ o Siddnath Dashwant ,

Workman

C/ o Lunia Mohalla, Distt. Sehore (MP)

Versus

ChiefGeneral Manager,

Telecommunication , M.P. Circle, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 2nd day of May, 2011

According to the workman , he worked continuously since October 1986 to August 1988 whereas the management states that he was never engaged. The workman has filed a reply of the letter dated 13-1-1997 of the management which is marked as Exhibit W/ l on admission . The said letter shows that other workers filed cases before the Hon'ble CAT Jabalpur whereby the termination orders of those casual labours were quashed and they were regularized in the service . The name of the applicant doesnot appear in the said list of cases . Another letter dated 9-11-90 ofAsstt . General Manager ( HRD) is also marked as Exhibit W/ 2 on admission . This letter is filed to show that the management had verified the list of casual labours and it was directed by the AGM to forward the name with documents if any name was left out but his name doesnot appear in the said list . This shows that he was not on the roll of the management . Thus these documents do not prove that he was ever engaged by the management and had worked continuously as has been claimed by the applicant/workman .

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L -40012/97/97 - IR( DU ) dated 13-5-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager Telecommunication in terminating Shri Badrilal Dashwant S/ o Siddhnath Deshwant w.e.f. August 88 is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

6. The workman Shri Badrilal Dashwant is also examined in the case. He has orally claimed his engagement by the management . He has stated that payment slip was given to him but no such payment slip is filed to corroborate his case . The management has suggested that he was never employed with the management . In absence of the document the evidence of the workman is not reliable.

2. The case of the workman in short , is that he was working since October 1986 till August 1988 continuously onmuster roll under the direct control of the Sub Divisional Officer, Telephone Sehore . He was terminated without

7.On the other hand , the management has examined Shri S.N.Panse in support of his case . He is presently THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18, 2011 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

4542

Divisional Engineer. He has stated that he was never engaged by the management as per record . He has been cross-examined but in cross -examination he further corroborate the case of the management . There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence . Thus it is established that he was never engaged by the management . This issue is decided in favour of the management and against the workman.

8. Issue No. II

On the basis of the discussion made above , it is clear that the workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered.

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

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

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 24 मई , 2011

का.आ. 1663.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दी बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 37/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -12012/239/2005 - आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 24th May, 2011

S.O. 1663. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.37/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and their workman , received by the Central Government on 23-5-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/239 /2005 - IR (B - I) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

अनुबन्ध

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर

सी.जी.आई.टी. प्रकरण सं. 37/2006 श्री एन. के. पुरोहित , पीठासीन अधिकारी विज्ञप्ति सं. ( रेफरेन्स नं. L- 12012/239/2005- IR (B- I ) दिनांक 16-3-2006

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

TheSecretary, Bank of Rajasthan employees Union C/ o The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. , M.I.Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) V/s

The General Manager (P) , The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. , Central Office, C-3, Sardar Patel Marg . Jaipur (Rajasthan) : पंचाट:

दिनांक 29-4-2011 केंद्रीय सरकार के द्वारा उक्त विज्ञप्ति के जरिए निम्न विवाद औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 की धारा 10 के अन्तर्गत न्याय निर्णय किए जाने हेतु निर्देश किया ।

"Whether the action of the management ofthe Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Jaipur in terminating the services of Sh . Daulat Singh Chauhan , Caretaker from 23-2-2005 vide its Order no . 482 dated 23-2-2005 is legal& justified ? If not, to what reliefthe claimant is entitled to and from which date ?

निर्देश प्राप्त होने के पश्चात उभयपक्ष को रजिस्टर्ड नोटिस प्रेषित किए गए । पत्रावली के अवलोकन से प्रगट होता है कि प्रार्थी यूनियन के द्वारा क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट दिनांक 17-5-2006 को पेश किया गया था तथा अप्रार्थी की ओर से दिनांक 28-7-10 को उक्त क्लेम का जवाब प्रस्तुत किया गया जिसकी प्रतिलिपि प्रार्थी पक्ष को दी जाने के बाद प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रत्युत्तर एवं दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत करने हेतु अग्रिम तारीख 16-9-2010 निश्चित की गई । पत्रावली के अवलोकन से यह तथ्य भी प्रगट होने दिनांक 28-7-2010 के बाद प्रार्थी पक्ष की ओर से कोई उपस्थित नही हुआ व दिनांक 13-12-2010 को प्रार्थी केविरुद्ध एक- पक्षीय कार्यवाही का आदेश पारित किया गया । यह उल्लेख करना भी उचित होगा कि दिनांक 18-10-2010 को अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा यह उल्लेख किया गया कि अप्रार्थी बैंक का I.C.I.C.I. बैंक में विलय हो गया है जिसके सम्बन्ध में आवेदन प्रस्तुत किया जाना है लेकिन उसके बाद किसी भी पक्ष के द्वारा I.C.I.C.I. बैंक को विलय के आधार पर पक्षकार बनाये जाने हेतु आवेदन प्रस्तुत नही किया ।

दिनांक 20-4-2011 को अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि ने निवेदन किया कि चूकि प्रार्थी ने ही क्लेम के सम्बन्ध में कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नही की है । अतः अप्रार्थी पक्ष के द्वारा कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत किया जाना अपेक्षित नही है । अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि ने इस प्रकरण में " नो क्लेम अवार्ड" पारित किए जाने की प्रार्थना की ।.

निर्देश में सचिव बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान एम्पलोई यूनियन को पक्षकार बनाया गया था व रजिस्टर्ड नोटिस भी उन्हें ही प्रेषित किए गए थे । पत्रावली के अवलोकन से यह तथ्य प्रगट होने है कि प्राप्ति स्वीकृति पर सेक्रेट्री बैक ऑफ राजस्थान यूनियन पर रजिस्टर्ड नोटिस तामिल हुई है लेकिन क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट स्वयं श्रमिक दौलत सिंह चौहान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ने पेश किया है सिर्फ टाईटल में " मार्फत यूनियन राजस्थान बैंक एम्पलोई" अंकित है ।

राजस्थान बैंक का I.C.I.C.I. बैंक में यदि विलय हो गया है तो अनुतोष प्राप्त करने के लिए I.C.I.C.I. बैंक को पक्षकार बनाया जाने का दायित्व भी प्रार्थी पक्ष पर था लेकिन ऐसा कोई आवेदन पेश नहीं किया गया । श्रमिक के क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट में यह अभिकथित किया है किउसने वेतन बढ़ाने व स्थायी करने की जब बार- बार मांग की तो उससे नाराज होकर दिनांक 23-2-2005 को सेवा- मुक्त कर दिया जबकि जवाब में अप्रार्थी पक्ष ने उक्त अभिकथनों को अस्वीकार करते हुए कहा है कि स्टेटमेन्ट ऑफ क्लेम यूनियन के द्वारा प्रेषित नहीं किया गया है , जबकि वाद यूनियन के द्वारा उठाया गया था । जवाब में अप्रार्थी यह भी अभिवचन है कि श्रमिक को केयर- टेकर के कार्य के लिए दिसम्बर 1994 में रखा था । बैंक का गेस्ट हाऊस बन्द होने के कारण उसके लिए कोई कार्य उपलब्ध नहीं था इसलिए धारा 25 F के तहत मुआवजे की राशि व नोटिस की एवज में एक माह की राशि का भुगतान कर कार्यमुक्त किया है ।

4543

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

management of Eastern Railway and their workman , receivedbythe Central Government on 19-5-2011 .

[No. L-41012/34/95- IR(B-I) ]

RAMESH SINGH , DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2)AT DHANBAD

PRESENT:

Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) ofthe I. D.Act, 1947 .

Reference No. 5 of1996

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Eastern Railway Dhanbad and their workmen.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workmen :

Mr. R. S. Singh, Advocate. Onbehalf of the employers: Mr. B. M. Prasad, Advocate.

State: Jharkhand

यह सिद्ध करने का प्रारम्भिक भार प्रार्थी पक्ष पर था, कि उसको धारा 25 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम के प्रावधानों की पालना किए बिना हटाया है । लेकिन प्रार्थी पक्ष ने क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट में अभिकथित तथ्यों के समर्थन में कोई साक्षय प्रस्तुत नहीं की है । केवल अभिवचनों के आधार पर निर्देश का निर्णय गुणागुण पर किया जाना सम्भव नहीं है । अतः उक्त परिस्थितियों में " नो क्लेम अवार्ड " । पारित किया जाता है । निर्देश का उत्तर तदनानुसार दिया जाता है । पंचाट की प्रतिलिपि केन्द्रीय सरकार को औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 की धारा 17 ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत प्रकाशनार्थ प्रेषित की जावे ।

एन. के. पुरोहित , पीठासीन अधिकारी नई दिल्ली , 24 मई , 2011

का.आ. 1664, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. -2, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 5/1996) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/34/95- आईओर( बी-1 ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th May, 2011

S.O. 1664. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 5/1996 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court - II , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation 2087 Gl /11-0

Industry: Railway Dated, Dhanbad, the 4th May, 2011

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe 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-41012/34/95- IR (B- I ) , dated the 5th January 1996.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action ofthe Divisional Engineer (3 ), Eastern Rly, Dhanbad in removing Shri Md . Gafoor, Road Roller Driver under IOW/Dto at Ghd from 6-6- 94 isjustified ? Ifnot, to what relief Shri Md . Gafoor isentitled to and from which date ?"

2. The case of workman Md . Gafoor is that he worked honestly, loyally during his long service to the full satisfaction of his superiors , he as Road roller Driver was appointed, and permanently post at Dhanbad, yet he was temporarily but illegally transferred to work as Road Roler Driver in GHD (Garwa road) under IOW/DTO against the term ofhis service condition . Though his transfer was quite arbitrary, illegal , unwarranted as there was no waite there, and Road Roller was out of order, yet he as a leyal , humble and obedient worker reported to IOW/ DTO . The management of IOW/DTO at GHD kept him idle, and on his demand for salary and allowances it refused to pay and orally directed him to go back to Dhanbad and to collect hissalary from there . Similarly when he came to Dhanbad and demanded his salary, allowances and perks , he was told to collect it from IOW/DTO at GHD . Thus , he was made to run from pillar to post for his salary, which was not 4544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] paid . His several complaints and representations to his superior including the Divisional railway, Dhanbad remained unresponded by the management . Then he filed his claim Application LC . No. 1/92, 9/91 and 14/92 before the Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No.2 , Dhanbad for computation ofhis salary and benefits U/ s . 33 -C(2 ) of I.D. Act, still pending . Just after it, the management issued him a false chargesheet on false plea of his absence from duty. He submitted his explanation, to it that the chargesheet as vague and no supply of documents to him and that if the charges clarified and material supplied, he would have right to submt his final explanation . But without supply of particulars and documents , the management declared his explanation unsatisfactory and appointed the Enquiry Officer, despite his objection to it to participate in it . On the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority found the charge unproved against him , and directed a denove enquiry on the same charge . Even on objection to it on principle of double jeopardy, neither the DisciplinaryAuthority considered it nor the Enquiry Officer enabled him to participate in it to defend his case , rather conducting exparte proceeding, the Enquiry Officer passed an order of removal amounting to dismissal during the pendency of the Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C) as Conciliation Officer under the I. D. Act. The workman also fiied a complaint under section 33 -A of the I.D. Act before the ALC ( C) , Dhanbad .

transferred to I.O.W./D.T.O . at G.H.D. from W.F. Dhanbad purely on administrative ground in accordance with his service condition, such administrative action in no way calls for an interference, so in view of the material present , the reference case being withoutjurisdiction is not tenable . The transfer order was neither illegal nor malicious , so it cannot be called as unwarranted , unjustified, and arbitrary. His transfer was required at G. H.D. , therefore, he was transferred there, for proper functioning of administration . His statement ofreporting for duty at G. H.D. just as that of his demand for salary, allowances etc. at Dhanbad are emphatically denied as fabricated , untrue and after thought . he never reported for duty there . He never made any valid representation . He has taken action under relevant rules for his unauthorised absence from duty, without an intimation to the office. In fact, he was duly served with the Chargesheetdtd . 3-9-92 with the names of the witnesses and the documents to be relied upon but he never respected to it except submitting his only vague reply, though incidentally he was several times directed to submit his explanation reply to the chargesheet . Though he was afforded all opportunity to defend his case in accordance with the principle of natural justice, he wilfully absented from appearance before the Enquiry Officer, and thereby he did not participate in the departmental enquiry , which exparte concluded on the basis ofthe available documents . Admittedly, Mr. P.K. Kar , B.R.I / Daltongunge who was appointed as the Enquiry Officer by Competent Authority as per the rules , but on resentment of the workman , was substituted with Sri Jaswant Singh , B.R.I Daltongunge accordingly afresh . The deliberate correspondence ofthe workman with the Enquiry Officer clearly showed his knowledge of hearing date , and his evasion from appearance in the departmental enquiry. He failed tojustify his absence from duty from 30-10-91 to 13-7-92 , and the reason of his not joining his duty at his transferred place. Byaccepting the enquiry report , the Disciplinary Authority directed the removal of the workman from his services against which he did not file an appeal, as he had no grounds for it, and he directly invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal . Therefore, the order of his removal is fully justified and legal .

2. Further case of the workman is that the baseless and vague chargesheet was issued to victimise the workman for his computation case whereas he was never absented from his duty. He was provided neither an opportunity to defend his case nor Railway Travelling Pass for attending the enquiry at I.O.W/D.T.O. at GHD . The enquiry was unfair and against the principle of natural justice . The Divisional Engineer (3 ) , Eastern railway, Dhanbad without the permission of the ALC ( C) passed the order of removal amounting to dismissal in contravention ofsection 33A ofthe 1. D.Act. Moreover , the punishment is not proportionate to the misconduct of the workman, so it amounts to victimisation . Thus the action ofthe Divisional Engineer ( 3 ) for removal of the workman from his service is quite illegal , arbitrary and unjustified .

FINDING WITH REASONING

5. In the instant case the facts as apparent from materials available on the case record are as under:-

3. The workman in his rejoinder pleaded that i limitation applies to an Industrial dispute , he never absented from his duty for the aforesaid period , rather he performed hisduty satisfactorily ; he was victimised by the illegal transfer for his being an active member of his union ; and that no major punishment of the removal from service in case of the unproved charge can be awarded on the basis of ex-parte illegal enquiry report during the pendencey of the conciliation proceeding.

4. Whereas with specific denials to the allegations ofworkman , the case ofthe management is that the workman has never rendered satisfactory job in his service and absented from his duty from 30-10-91 to 13-7-92 , so he was rightly served with major chargesheet . As per rule he was

(i) The workman Md . Gafoor continuously worked for 29/30 years since his appointment as temporary Khalasi under Workshop Foreman , Dhanbad (Ext. M- 1 /6 , the photo copy of his service Book), the workman as R. R. Fireman was transferred and posted under AEN/DTG temporarily as per the OfficeOrder dated 4-1-91 (Ext . M- 1 / 1 , the photo copy of the Office Order ofAssistant Engineer- 1 , E. Rly, Dhanbad and as per the Office Order of the aforesaid management Ext. M- 1 /5 , the photo copy of the Order dt . 23-2-91 ) , he was released [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

4545 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18, 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28, 1933

from the Office of Dhanbad and he joined at Daltongunge Office on 25-2-91 where he was posted under I.O. W. worked till 29-10-91 and got hispromotion as Road Roller Driver.

6. In this case, on behalf of the management three witnesses namely, MW- 1 C. R. Moy, the ChiefOffice Super- intendent , MW- 2 Satyendra Kumar, the Clerk Grade -I and MW-3 Jaswant Singh , the Section Engineer (Bridge) as the Enquiry Officer have been examined. But on behalf ofthe workman, Md . Gafoor the workman himself as WW- 1 has been examined.

workman, yet stated he did not appear in the enquiry for the chargesheet related to his unauthorised absence; as a result, the DisciplinaryAuthority relied on the report ofthe Enquiry Officer and the workman was dismissed by Mr. R. K. Jha, the Divisional Engineer III. Proving all the Xeroxcopies ofEnquiry Papers as Ext.M- 1 series (on formal proof dispensed with) except the Xerox copy of the chargesheet which appears to be illegible. The witness has though supportedthe dismissal of the workman as fair, proper and legal admitting that they ( the management) had not submitted the original chargesheet. The witness has also accepted not to have participated at the enquiry proceeding, but after consülting office record he has stated the order ofdismissal asjustified.

It is also apparent from the case record that on behalf of the management, MW- 2 Satyendra Kumar has proved all the Xerox copies of the enquiry papers as Exts . M- 1 series ( on formal proofdispensed with) excepting the Xerox copy of the Chargesheet, admitting the fact that original enquiry papers are missing.

9. MW- 3 Jaswant Singh , the Section Officer (Bridge) Dehri -on- Sone as the Enquiry Officer has stated to have conducted the domestic enquiry against the workman in the year 1994 while he (MW-3) was posted as Bridge Inspecter, E. Rly. Daltongunge, declaring that despite the issuance ofnotices to him , the workman did not appear, so he submitted his enquiry report (Ext.M - 1 /2 ) to the Assistant Engineer, E.Rly, Daltongunge, by conducting the domestic enquiry exparte against him . He also asserted all the papers of the domestic enquiry proceeding (Ext .M- Iseries) and the Chargesheet (Ext . M- 1 /3 ) which is admittedly illegible (The witness fails to read out the aforesaid paper) . The witness also claims to have conducted the domestic enquiry fairly, properly and in accordance withthe principle ofnatural justice . Admittedly, this EnquiryOfficer was not the Officer ofthe Management yet he conducted it being nominated by the Assistant Engineer, Daltongunge, though he could not produce his nomination order, nor he possessed any paper to show the Assistant Engineer as the Disciplinary Authority to issue aChargesheet against the workman or to show the notices having been issued to the workman for his appearance in the Enquiry Proceeding or its receipt by him . The witness (MW-3 ) as the Enquiry Officer has admitted that he conducted the domestic enquiry against him without any confirmation about the receipt of the notice by the workman or without publication in the paper and factually the workman could not get any scope to defend his case, as he did not appear..

7. On the perusal of the evidences of both the parties , I find that MW- 1 C.R. Moy as the Chief Office Superintendent admitting the status and transfer of the workman to as well as his working at Garhwa under Daltongunge upto 29-10-91 , has stated that the workman had started remaining absent from 30th October, 1991 , for which the management issued letter to him to resume his duty; but the workman did not do so, for which he was chargesheeted for it, and departmental enquiry was set up in which he was found guilty though he was given full opportunity to prefer an appeal against the finding of the Enquiry Officer which was not done by him ; he had submitted a vague reply to the management and thereafter he was removed from the service quite legally. The witness (MW- 1 ) has admitted in his cross-examination that no post of khalasi existed in the Road Roller which is used for making a road ; and the person driving the steam roller used to be designated as Fireman Driver. Further statement of the witness is that the workman got his salary for the period from 25th February to 29th October, 1991 and to that extent he has (MW- 1 ) has claimed to have submitted papers, but I do not find any single chit of paper as proof for the payment of his salary since the transfer of the workman at the transferee place . He denied the enviously issuance of the chargesheet against the workman by the management during the pendency of his Reference before the CGIT No. 2, Dhanbad for non- payment of salary for the said period . However, the witness has admitted the refusal ofthe management to issue duty pass to him to attend the enquiry proceeding from Dhanbad to the place of his enquiry at Daltongunge . The witness also has admitted that as there was a procedural defect, the enquiry (concerned proceeding was cancelled and during the second enquiry proceeding on the same ground, no duty pass was also issued to the workman, and that he did not submit the attendance register of the workman to show his aforesaid unauthorised absence for the disputed period.

8. MW- 2 Satyendra Kumar, the Clerk Grade- 1 , Latehar Engineering Office , has though expressed his ignorance if any domestic enquiry was held against the

10. Whereas the averment of WW-1 Md. Gafoor, the workman himself is that when the management of Daltongunge Garwa Road or of Dhanbad refused to pay him wages for his work for 10/11 months since his joining on23-2-1991 there ( Daltongunge) on the plea that the same would be paid by Dhanbad and by Daltongunge respectively, he had initiated a case before the Labour Court for the payment of his salary, but during the pendency his aforesaid case the management issued him the Chargesheet, to which he had submitted his reply and then the management initiated the domestic enquiry against him, towhich he attended . Further statement of the workman is that the first enquiry in the midway was stopped and the second enquiry was started against him ; though he used 4546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

to attend his office at Garwa Road , yet he failed to attend theenquiry proceeding for want of his leave, so the Enquiry Officer heard the case exparte and submitted report and after removal from his service, he lodged a case before the Labour Court though he had raised the industrial dispute before theALC(C) , Dhanbad for conciliation which resulted In failure hence the present case; as such his dismissal was not justified. The workman has admitted the appointment ofMr. Yaswant Singh (MW- 3 ) as the Enquiry Officer in place ofMr. P. K. Kar on his written objection , he replied to the notice issued by the Enquiry Officer, but the management did not suspend him during its pendency and after receiving the Enquiry Report, he also submitted his representation to the management yet the management dismissed him from the service , as he was given sufficient time to defend his case .

[PART I-SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi , the 25th May, 2011

S.O. 1665.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 97/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court - I , 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 wasreceived by the Central Government on 25-5-2011 .

[No. L-20012/431 / 1999 - IR (C- I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. I , DHANBAD In the matter of a reference U/ s . 10( 1 ) ( d) (2A) ofthe I. D. Act. Reference No. 97 of 2000

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of East Bhagatdih Colliery of M/s . BCCL

And

Theirworkmen .

PRESENT : Shri H. M. Singh, PresidingOfficer APPEARANCES :

FortheEmployers

Shri H. Nath, Advocate.

For the Workman

Mr. K. N. Singh , Vice-President, J.M.S.

10. bac

State : Jharkhand

11. On the study of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidences as adduced on behalf of the management and the workman , I find that the domestic enquirywas held not fair, properly nor in accordance with the principle ofnatural justice . It is remarkable to note the chargesheet (Ext . M/3) as Memorandum of Chargesheet in the terms of the aforesaid Enquiry Officer (MW-3 ) is apparentlydateless related to his alleged absence from his dutyunauthorisedly, So far as the punishment of removal from his service at the fag and of his service careèr not only appears to be disproportionate to the alleged charge of misconduct against the workman but also apparently smacks forceful victimisation of the workman of such a lower grade at the hands of mighty management . Moreover, the management has failed to prove the alleged unauthorised absence of the workman from his duty for the disputed period. Admittedly, the workman has retired at the age of 60. Under these circumstances I find and accordingly holdthat the action of the Divisional Engineer, Eastern Railway, Dhanbad in removing , workman Md. Gafoor RoadRoller Driver under I.O.W. , D.T.O. at GHD from 6-6-1994 is not at all justified . So the workman is entitled tohiswages from 30-10-1991 till his retirement with all his retirement benefits without any delay, as he suffered a lot for the victimisation of the administration only due to the illegal remova: from his service by the management . This award be implemented within three months from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India .

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 25 मई , 2011

का.आ. 1665. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का14) 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 धनबाद नं.-। के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 97/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/431/1999- आईआर( सी -1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

Industry:Coal

Dated, the 5-4-2011

AWARD

ByOrder No. L- 20012/ 431 /99- IR (C-I) , dated 2-2-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- sec . (1) and sub - sec . (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

" Whether the action of the management of East Bhagatdih Colliery of M / s . BCCL in denying regularisation of the services of the workman Sri Madan Kumar Sharma, working as store- clerk since 10-2-92 isjustified or not ? Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. The case of the concerned workman is that he was a permanent employee of East Bhagatdih Colliery designated as General Mazdoor. He was authorised to work in store as clerk by an office, order dated 10-2-92 and since he has been working continuously against that post . He representedbefore the management for his regularisation as store clerk in the year 1998. When the management did 4547 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपुत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

In this respect the management's representative argued that there is no vacancy of store clerk so he cannot be regularised . He was assisting the store clerk in store department for this reason he cannot be regularised.

not pay any heed to his regularisation as store clerk, an industrial dispute was raised before the A.L.C. (C) . , Dhanbad by the union . But the conciliation proceeding ended in failure , which resulted in this reference for adjudication by the Hon'ble Tribunal .

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold that the action of the management in denying to the concerned workman's regularisation a store clerk w.e.f. 10-2-92 is not justified and consequently he is entitled to be regularised as store clerk and grade with back wages and other emoluments as admissible to him .

In this respect the documents proved by the concerned workman , Ext . W- 1 shows that on 10-2-92 he wasauthorised by the Agent of the management to work as store clerk . As per Ext . W-2, office order dated 5-4-96 he was authorised for work . As per Ext. W- 3 , letter of the management shows that he is working as store clerk since 10-2-1992 . Ext . W-3 / 1 management's letter also shows that the concerned workman is working as store clerk . He submitted application as per Exts . W-4, W-5 , W-6 and W-7 for his regularisation as store clerk , but the management did not pay any heed.

Inthis respect MW- 1 , S.S. Ray, has stated in his cross - examination that the concerned workman was authorised to work in the store as and when necessary. I cannot say about any developmants made in respect of the concerned workman in the said year or about issuance of any letter by the Project Officer in respect of any clerical job being performed by the concerned workman . It shows that the concerned workman was authorised by the management to work as store clerk and the Project Officer of the management issued order for doing clerical job .

3. The case of the management is that the concerned workman appointed as dependent son of Shyamlal Barhi , ex- pattern maker in the capacity of general mazdoor in category- I for underground jobs by letter dated 27-7-/2-8-1990 . The concerned workman was allowed to joinhis duty by letter dated 9-8-90 and he was advised to take one month's basic training at the vocational training centre for performing his duty at 9ft. underground mine under the Assistant Colliery Manager. He being the son of ex - employee , approached the local officers of the company and got himself posted in the store as general mazdoor in the year 1992. He took initiative in learning some clerical jobs in the, store under the guidance of the stroe clerks who got some of their works done by the concerned workman . The concerned workman approached the local management to put him as store clerk on regular basis considering his educational qualification and his performance of jobs in the store. He performed certain clerical jobs without proper authority from the competent officer solely at the instance of the store clerks on a private arrangement basis . The Headquarter issued circular directing the local management not to divert any piece rated or time rated worker into the clerical cadre and to put them on such work and them to regularise such persons on clerical cadre . It has been submitted that the demand ofthe sponsoring union for regularisation of the concerned workman as store clerk is not justified and he is not entitled to anyrelief.

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award holding that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

MW-2 , Rajmuni Ram, in his cross -examination stated that I do not know where the concerned workman is presently working and in what capacity. The concerned workman had been working in store of the said colliery under proper authorisation . Anyone who is properly authorised in that regard by the competent authority can collect the materials from the store . It is not within my knowledge that in the month of September, 1998 whether one authorisation was granted to the concerned workman or not for collecting the materials from the store . It shows that the concerned workman was working in the store and he was authorised by the management, even he was authorised to collect materials , as per Ext . W.3 , by the management in store department . The concerned workman also filed his certificate issuedby Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samiti which shows that he passed matric in1984.

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

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I hold that the action of the management in denying regularisation of the services of the workman concerned is not justified , so he is entitled to be regularised as store clerk w.e.f. 10-2-92 with all consequential benefits .

5. The management has produced MW- 1 , S.S. Ray, who proved documents as Exts . M - 1 to M -2/ 1 , Management also produced MW- 2, Jajmuni Ram .

8. Accordingly, I render the following award - The concerned workman produced WW- 1 , Madan Kumar Sharma, and proved documents as Exts . W- 1 to W-7.

The action of the management of East Bhagatdih Colliery of M/s . BCCL in denying regularisation of the services ofthe workman, Sri Madan Kumar Sharma, working as store clerk since 10-2-92 is notjustified . So, the concerned workman is entitled to be regularised as store clerk w.e.f. 10-2-92 with back wages and other consequential benefits .

6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman that he is doing the work of store clerk since 1992. The management is taking the work from him as store clerk, but is not regularising him to the post of store clerk.

4548

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA28 , 1933

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

Themanagement is directed to implement the award within 30 days from the date of publication of the award.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नईदिल्ली, 25 मई , 2011

" Whether the demand of the Union for regularisation of 16 workmen shown in the Annexure as Misc./ UnskilledMazdoor by the management ofBhagaband Colliery ofBhagaband Area ( now under P.B. Area , P.O. Kusunda (Dhanbad) isjustified ? If so , to what relief the workmen are entitled to ? "

1. Shri Gajo Gope

2. Shri Bharath Gope

3 . Shri Bhiku Gope

का.आ. 1666.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 कार 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 , धनबाद नं. - 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 108/1991 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

4. Shri Bara BholaGope

5. Shri Chhota Bhola Gope

[सं. एल-20012/237/1987--आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

6. Shri NaginaGope

7. Shri Kishto Bari

New Delhi , the 25th May, 2011

8. Shri SanatanGope

9 . Shri Bhukhal Gope

10. Shri Jagender Singh

11 . Shri Charka Manjhi

12 . Shri Jabshar Mahato

13 . Shri Sundar Mahato

S.O. 1666. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 108 / 1991 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court-I, 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 wasreceived by the Central Government on 25-5-2011 .

14. Shri Bhardul Singh

[No. L- 20012/237/ 1987 - IR ( C- I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

15 . Shri Haripado Manjhi

ANNEXURE

16. Shri Sambhu Manjhi

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. I , DHANBAD

Inthematter of a reference U/ s 10( 1 ) (d) (2A) ofthe I. D.

Act.

Reference No. 108 of 1991

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Putkee Balihari Area of M/s . B.C.C.Ltd .

And

Theirworkmen

Present: Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer

Appearances:

None

Forthe Employers: Forthe Workmen :

Shri D. Mukherjee, Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union .

State : Jharkhand

2 The case of the concerned workman , in short, is that they had been working at Bhagaband Area under P.B. Area since long in the underground of the mine in permanent and prohibited category of job continuously and had put in190/240 days attendance in each year .They were working instone cutting, coal cutting etc. and sometime they were also engage in line packing job which are prohibited category of jobs . The management was supplying them implements for execution of jobs . The management was paying them less than NCWA wages . They represented before the management for their regularisation and wages as per NCWA but without any effect . Thereafter the dispute was raised before the A.L.C. (C) which ended in failure . Thereafter , the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, after appreciating the legal position referred the dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal . The demand of the union for regularisation of these concerned workmen as Miscellaneous Mazdoors // Unskilled Mazdoors with retrospective effect with all arrears of wages is legal and justified.

Industry: Coal

Dated, the 2-5-2011

AWARD

Accordingly, it has been prayed that the Hon'ble be pleased to pass an award in favour of the workmen by directing the management to regularise and reinstate the concerned workmen as Miscellaneous Mazdoors/Unskilled Mazdoors atleast in Category - 1 with retrospective effect with all arrears of wages and consequential benefits.

ByOrder No. L-20012/237/ 87 . DIII (A)/IR ( Coal - I ) , dated 'Nil ' the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- Sec . ( 1 ) and sub- Sec . (2A) of Section 10 of the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4549

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

8. On behalf of the concerned workmen Bihar Review & Labour Journal 1981page 25 has been referred wherein by Notification dated 1-2-1975 five types ofwork, such as , (1 ) Raising or raising -cum - selling ofcoal , (2) Coal loading and unloading , (3 ) Overburden removal and earth cutting, (4) Soft Coke Manufacturing, and (5) Driving of stone drifts and miscallaneous , stone cutting underground ,' as prohibited category ofjobs .

3. The case of the management , in short, is that Sunil Das had been awarded contract in Bhagaband Colliery in making of stoppings , line packing and surface miscellaneous jobs which are of casual nature . From checking the attendance registers , it has been found that someof the labourers were employed by the contractor for doing his contract work while other workers are bogus workers . None of the workers in question have put the qualifying attendances of 190 days in any calendar years of1983 , 1984 and 1985. Sunil Das was never given contract work in any aprohibited category at Bhagaband Colliery . and no worker in question were ever employed at any time in any prohibited category of job. The employer -employee relationship never existed between the management and the workmen in question at any point of time. Therefore ,. the workmen cannot demand employment from the management ofM/ s . B.C.C.Ltd .

The workmen also referred Order passed in CWJC No. 1998 (R) dated 19-2-1999 between Damoda Colliery of M/s . BCCL Vs. Presiding Officer & Ors . in which 121 persons ' regularisation had been demanded . The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court confirmed the awardby itsorderdated 12-7-99 in LPA No. 83/99 (R) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also confirmed the Award of the Tribunal and the Division Bench Judgement by order dated 17-4-2000 in SLP ( C) No. 15253/1999. The concerned workmen also referred 2002 LLR 449 in which the Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court held that they are the employees ofthe management .

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass the award holding that the demand of the union for regularisation of 16 workmen/unskilled Mazdors ofBhagaband Area is not justified and that the concerned workmen are not entitled to have any relief.

Theconcernedworkmen also referred SCLJ ( 15 ) page 112 between Hussainbhai , Calicut Vs. The Alath Factory Thezhilali , Union Kozhikode in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the test indicated for determination of employer -employee relationship is the duty of the Court .

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

5. The management produced MW- 1 , Janardan Dey, who proved documents as Exts.M - 1 and M- 2.

The concerned workmen also referred 2007 ( 115) FLR 427 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down - Providing for appointment of dependents of deceased employees working in coal mines .

The concerned workman produced WW- 1 , Bharat Gope,who proved document as Ext. W- 1 series

9. The management filed documents , Ext.M - 1 series, contract awarded to Sunil Das for Const . of 2 Nos .. Issolation stopping at E3 panel 16 Seam and number of other works which were given to the contractor.

6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workmen that they were working with the management of Bhagaband Colliery from the year 1981 . They have been disallowed to work by the management, but the management has not given any notice before stopping the work. They are sitting idle from 1987. They were working as stone cutters which is prohibited category which cannot be taken from contractor. The working implements were being supplied by the management and their work was also supervised by the management . They werebeing paid less wages than NCWA. In a calendar year their attendance used to be more than 240 days .

Inthis respect the evidence of WW- 1 is very material . He has stated that we have not been granted any letter of appointment . We were not being issued any pay slip nor we have got any paper to show that we were getting wages from BCCL . The company has not issued any paper stopping us from work. This statement of concerned workmen shows that they have got no appointment letter. They were not issued any pay slip from the management nor they have got any paper to show that they were getting wages from the management . It shows that they were the contract workers so they cannot be regularised by the management for different type ofjobs .

10. The management referred Uma Devi case reported in 2006( 11 ) LLJ 722 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that regularisation cannot be done in public sector undertakings by the Tribunal .

11. Considering the above facts and law stated above, I hold that the demand of the Union for regularisation of 16 workmen , mentioned in the order of reference, as Misc./Unskilled Mazdor by the management ofBhagaband Colliery of Bhagaband Area ( now under P. B.Area, P. O. Kusunda, Dhanbad, is notjustified and hence, the concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief.

This is my award .

H. M. SINGH , PresidingOfficer 7. The management argued that the concerned concerned workmen were never the employees of the management . They are contractor workmen , so they cannot be regularised in the services of M/ s . BCCL . It has also been argued that not a single person has performed continuous work for 190/240 days in a calendar year. It has been argued that some of the workers quoted in the order of reference were employed by the contractor for doing his contract work while other workers are bogus workers. As per para 6 of the written statement of the management four persons , namely, Jagender Singh , Bhandul Singh , Haripada Manjhi and Sambhu Gope did not work at all in 1983, 1984 and in 1985. It has also been argued that the. contractor was never given contract work in any prohibited category ofjob.

4550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28, 1933

नईदिल्ली; 25 मई, 2011

का.आ. 1667.-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 धनबाद नं. -1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 51/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -20012/420/1999- आईआर ( सी -1 ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 25th May, 2011

S:O . 1667.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 51/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court- 1 Dhanbad , now 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 25-5-2011.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] the bi- partite agreement arrived at between the management and the union? If so , to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled ? "

[No. L- 20012/420/1999- IR(C -I )]

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I , DHANBAD In the matter of a reference U/ s . 10 (1 ) (d) (2A) of I. D. Act .

Reference No. 51 of2000 .

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of M/s.Bharat Coking Coal Limited

AND

Present: Shri H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES

: Shri B.M. Prasad, Advocate Forthe Employers

For theWorkmen : Shri S. C. Gour, Advocate State: Jharkhand : Industry: Coal

2. The case ofthe concerned workmen, as per written statement, is that they along with many others in Godhor Colliery and in other Collieries of M/ s . BCCL were engaged in wagon loading since prior to nationalisation of the collieries . After nationalisation also they continued towork as such but in many cases their services were not taken- over. But they were continued in wagon loading. Due to demand and pressure from different operating trade unions , Sri O. Maheepathi , the then Chief of Industrial Relations & Personnel made some commitment in the meeting ofTrade Unions and the Company and circulated the decision vide circular No. PA- 1/2 ( 10)/73 / 49022 dated 21-9-1973 . As per guidelines and circulars as above , the services of many such workers were regularised but many were kept continued in their existingjob in anticipation offurther absorption against the requirement . Later on vacancies of underground miners/ loaders became acute in M/ s . BCCL and for a remedial measure , Sri B. L. Wadhera , the then Chairman/MD formulated one scheme " If any casual worker, wagon loaders and others putting in 75 attendances only in three consequitive years , they may be taken as Badli miner /loader underground. As there was statutory restrictions for underground employment for female workers , it was further decided that if such women workers decided or opted to offer employment of their male nominee , they will be taken as badli miner/ loader. Thereafter the union and the management of Kusunda Area entered into agreement on 9- 12-1980 for providing employment ofmale nominees to those female workers . After this agreement management initiative to implement it, but all ofa sudden the management gave up the initiative and started passing time only to avoid the employment.

In such circumstances , it has been prayed that the Hon'ble be pleased to pass an award in favour of the workmen.

Dated, the 9-5-2011

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/420/99 -C -I dated 21-1-2000 the Central Governmnt in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise ofthe 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 action of M/ s . BCCL, Kusunda Area management in not absorbing the female 35 workers or their nominated alternate males is in violation of 3. The case of the management , as per written statement, is that the management implemented the bi- partite settlement as per the provisions of law and the present allegation relating to violation of bi -partite agreement is without any basis and is liable to be summarily rejected . Management implemented the bi - partite settlement in respect of genuine workers and when the complaints were made to the effect that the dependents enrolled as badli workers were not the genuine dependents of the workmen , they were discontinued from their services . It has been submitted that the workmen who were discontinued from their services raised industrial dispute for their re -employment and in course of reference , evidences were produced and after passing of the award, the award was implemented , in terms of settlement . The present case is nothing but arising out of certain concoction [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

by incorporating the annexure containing false and fabricated names just to induct their relatives in some form or other. It has also been submitted that the sponsoring union has referred to one settlement dated 9-12-80 and has raised the present demand in the year 1999 alleging that the 35 ladies covered in that settlement and named at the enclosure were not provided employment and their dependents were not considered for such employment . It has been submitted that the enclosure to the aforesaid settlement was manufactured after about 18 years and the present case has been raised with some malafide motive to induct into the employment of the company some job seekers with the help of litigation .

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass the award holding that the concerned ladies are not entitled to any relief.

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

5. The management has produced MW- 1 , Udai Narain Lall .

The concerned workmen have produced WW- 1 , Piyari Devi and WW-2 , Lallan Nonia .

6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that the agreement arrived at by the management with the union dated 9-12-80 has not been implemented till now.

In this respect management's representative argued thatthe reference has been made in 1999 which relates to implementation of the agreement dated 9-12-80 . They have made number of representation and meeting with the management about implementation of the above agreement. In this respect agreement dated 9-12-80 arrived at between the management and the union which has been signed by the management as well as union with list of 35 de- listed female workers who have got 75 days or more days attendance at Godhur Colliery. Para 2 of the above agreement runs as under :-

" 2. Those female workers who have got 75 days or more attendances during the year 1973 to 1976 , their husband/ son/son - in- law shall be taken into employment as Badli Miner/ Loader , as per Company's policy and subject to their physical fitness . The names of such female workers who have 75 or more days attendance during the period 1973- 76 , isattached as " B " .

After that it was discussed with the union by the management on 21-9-89. In part 2 it was discussed for implementation of the above agreement . GM ( P) explained that it relates to settlement which should be honoured. Later on , other discussions were also held by the union with the management on 31-11-89 , 24-5-90, 2087 GI /11-10

4551

भारत का सजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

24-9-90, 16-10-90, 25-10-90, 26-3-91 & 29-6-91 in whichat page 7 point no . 33 ( Item- 12) it was desolved with discussion-

"An agreement was arrived at on 9-12-80 for giving employment to the dependent of 35 delisted casual kamins of Godhar Colliery. The matter was also discussed on 21-9-89 before D(P).

The Dy. PM, Kusunda Area intimated that they have so far received the details of 8 delisted casuals of GodharColliery. The same is under scrutiny and the report in respect of those 8 delisted casuals will be sentto GM( IR)by 10-7-91 .

With regard to remaining 27 delisted casuals of Godhar Colliery, the union representative intimated that they have submitted the details in the unit . Dy. PM, Kusunda Area will get the same from the unit and after scrutiny, the same will be sent to GM(IR) by30th July, 91 .

Action: Dy. PM. Kusunda. " Again on 26-3-91 the matter was discussedby the management with the union at page 3, point no. 12 regarding giving employment to the dependents of 35 delisted casuals Kamins of Godhar Colliery. Again on letter dated 8-2-91 the management and union representatives made discussion on the above point at page 2, point no . 3. But that has not been implemented by the management .

7. In this repect the evidence of the management's witness is very much material . MW- 1 , Udai Narain Lall has stated in his cross -examination that I had been working in BCCL since the year 1977. The matter relates to the years 1973-76. It shows that he has got no knowledge about the concerned workman who had worked in the years 1973 to 1976 for which circular was issued by the management for their absorption. Again this witness (MW- 1 ) at page 2 stated that a badli worker is not being issued any Identity Card but like others his particulars are also mentioned in Form ' B ' Register. After nationalisation these ' badli workers' who were working erstwhile management were also taken on the rolls ofM/s . BCCL. The copy ofthe letter by which all those circulars which were in existence prior to 1992 were revoked or cancelled , is lying with the management . That circular has not been filed by the management which may show that prior to 1992 the circulars which have been issued have been cancelled or revoked . Again at page 3 MW- 1 stated that I do not know whether there was any circular issued in the year 1973 or not whereby it was provided that all those casual and delisted wagon loaders who had already put in 75 days working in a year continuously for three years should be taken in employment or should be absorbed , or regularised . This witness was not in service in 1973 with the management , so he cannot tell anything about the circular which was 4552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-05-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -20012/251/2000-आईआर ( सी -1 ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 25th May, 2011 issued in the year 1973 for providing employment to the casual wagon loaders who have put 75 days attendance in 3 years . He also stated that it is true that there had been onebi-partite settlement arrived at on 9-12-80 , but the name ofany ofthe concerned workmen did not figure therein . In the said settlement there is mention about 113 workers in the short recital of the settlement . It shows that this witness does state true things . The grievance of the union shows that in all discussions this found place for providing employment to the delisted casual loaders .

S.O. 1668.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 299/ 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Dhanbad, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of M/ s . C. C. Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-05-2011 .

[No. L- 20012/251 /2000- IR( C- 1 ) ]

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

In the matter of a reference U/s . 10 ( 1 )( d )(2A) of 1. D.Act . Reference No. 299 of2000 .

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Kathara Colliery of M/ s . C. C. Limited.

WW- 1 , Smt . Piyare Devi and WW-2 , Lallan Nonia supported the case of the workmen , though during cross- examination she has stated I cannot say my age stated in the affidavit . I cannot say from which year I am working. I have got no appointment letter. She said the name of Hare Singh , Manager 35 women used to work at that time . She is unable to explain her age and working days . WW- 2, LallanNonia, stated in cross -examination that my father is not alive. He died in the year 1981. At that time my age was 28/29 years . At present my age is about 60 years . 1 cannot recollect the name of all 35 Kamins / persons. Discussions were held with the management for providing employment to the delisted casual workers . Thus it isnot possible that after such long period the names of Kamins and workers can be remembered . It is matter of record. There is record about delisted workers that can be verymuch ascertained from the record.

AND

Theirworkmen

Present : Shri H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employers : Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate 8. The management being a Government Organisation is not implementing the agreement dated 9-12-80 which seems to be not fair when in several meetings between the management and the sponsoring union the management admitted and had given explanation for implementation of agreement dated 9-12-80 .

For the Workman : Shri D. Mukherjee, Advocate

State : Jharkhand Industry: Coal :

Dated, the 4-5-2011

AWARD

9. Considering the above facts and circumstances , I hold that the management is not justified in not implementing the agreement with the union regarding giving employment to the female 35 workers or their nominated alternate males , such as , their husband/ son/ son-in-law.

The management of M/ s . BCCL is directed to implement the agreement dated 9-12-80 and give employment to the female 35 workers or their nominated alternate males , husband/ son/ son -in - law within 30 days from the date of publication of the Award.

By order No. 1.- 20012/251 /2000 -C- 1 dated 29-9-2000 the Central Government in Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :--

This is myAward.

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 25 मई , 2011

"Whether the demand ofthe NCOEA that S/ Sri V. D. Murthy and D. Mandan have been working as Jeep Drivers since 1993 ? If yes , whether the demand of the union for regularisation of the concerned workmen and payment of wages as per NCWA is legal and justified? If yes , what benefit the concerned workmen are entitled and from what date? " 1

का.आ. 1668 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.सी. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण धनबाद नं. - 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 299/2000 ) को

2. The case of the concerned workmen , is that they wereworking as permanent Drivers since long continuously and as such they have put in more than 240days attendance 4553 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

for doing the work of local District Administration as drivers.

7. In this respect the concerned workman, WW- 1 , in his cross-examination stated I have got no appointment letter. I have not filed the driving licence. My name was not sponsoredfrom the Employment Exchange . This statement of the concerned workman shows that he has got no appointment letter. Even he has not filed his driving licence which may show that he was driver. His name was not sponsored by the Employment Exhange . In such circumstances it cannot be said that he is driving vehicle ofthe management because without driving licence nobody canbe engaged as driver.

in each calendar year. They had been working as per direction ofthe management and had been driving vehicles which werebeing utilised by District Administration . The management had been paying them through vouchers only to conceal the real fact . Management was not maintaining the statutory record regarding their employment with a malafide intention to camouflage the real issue and to exploit the workmen . As per NCWA the concerned workmen are entitled to get minimum starting category of category-V wages . They represented before the management for their regularisation as drivers and wages at par with NCWA but without any effect . Thereafter an industrial dispute was raised before A.L.C. ( C) but the same ended in failure and the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour referred the dispute for adjudication to this tribunal .

8. In this respect the management's representative referred 2006 (2) JLJR ( SC) 282 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in Uma Devi.case-

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to answer the reference in favour of the workman by directing the management to regularise them as Jeep Driver with retrospective effect and to pay them wages as perNCWA.

"Constitution of India - Article 226- vide powers thereunder-Courts should desist from issuing orders for continuance of those who have not secured regular appointments as per established procedure- wide powers under Article 226 are not intended tobe used for the purpose of perpetuating illegalities , irregularities of improprieties or for scuttling the whole scheme of public employment-High Court is the sentinel and guardian of equal rights protection- Courts are not to ignore , encourage or approve appointments made or engagements given outside the constitutional scheme (para 3 & 12 ) "

(19644 SCR 964-Referred to)

3. The case of the management is that the management never appointed the concerned persons and the aforesaid persons never worked under the management in any capacity. They were working under the local District Administration . The management of Kathara Colliery never supplied any vehicle to the District Administration for their use. The persons concerned are the job seekers and trying to get employment in the C.C. Ltd. through litigation by making false and fabricated story. M/ s.CCL is a Government Company registered under the Companies Act and that being the position , it is and Estate within the meaning of Art . 12 of the Constitution of India . Management can not appoint any person in violation of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution .

Constitution of India-Article 309 state is meant to beamodel employer and its power ofappointment are subjec to constitutional limitations and cannot be exercised arbitrarily when statutory rules are framed U/Art, 309, the only fair means to adopt is to make appointments based on the rules so framed -employees engaged without following due process or the rules-did not acquire any right-Court cannot direct absorption , regularisation or re -engagement of permanency ofsuch employees ( Paras 5,30 and 31 ) In such circumstances , it has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold that the demand of the union is neither legal nor justified and the concerned persons are not entitled to any relief.

2006(2) SCALE 115 : ST 2006(2) SC1 : 2006(2) PLJR (SC) 1 : 2006( 2) JLJR(SC) 80 : Relied upon.

AIR 1984 SC 363-Referred to.

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

5. The concerned workmen have produced WW- 1 , V.D. Murthy and proved documents Exts . W- 1 to W- 9 .

The management has produced MW- 1 , J.Bara .

Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workmen that they are doing the work of the management and driving vehicle provided by the management to the local District Administration . They are performing their duty ofdrivers , but they have not been regularised ..

Service Law-Appointments-no employment is envisaged outside the constitutional scheme and without following the requirements set down therein equality of opportunity in the hallmark-provisions exist for affirmative action to ensure that unoquals are not treated equals--- though the Government is not precluded from making temporary appointments , regular appointments must be the rule-constitutional scheme of public employment flows fromArticles 14, 16, 315 , 320 and 335--in absence of any right to a post or to a particular status, appointment cannot be deemed to be valid directions for re- engagement ofsuch persons in any other work would make judicial process another mode of recruitment de hors the rules. (paras 10, 12, 22, 24, 27 and40).

6. In this respect the management has argued that the concerned workmen are not the employees of the management . They have never been engaged as employees by the management and these employees were employed 4554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi , the 25th May, 2011 (1964) 4 SCR 964, ( 1992) 3 SCR 712 : AIR 1994 SC 1638 : (1996) 1 SCR972: 1996 Supply. ( 10) SCR 120 : ( 1977) 2 SCC 1 : PLJR (SC) 59-Relied upon

2003 (1 ) SCALE 187,2003 ( 10) SCALE 388 : 1913 ( 1 ) KB 398:(2004) 2 SCC 130 :(2006) 1 SCC 667 : JT 2006 ( 1 ) SC 84: (2006) (2) PLJR (SC) 37 : 2006(2 ) JLJR ( SC) 113-Referred to.

S.O. 1669. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 1 /22/ 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court - 1 , Mumbai , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . GulfAir Co. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-5-2011 .

[No. L- 11012/69/2001 - IR(C - I)] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Service Law-Regularisation- only something that is irregular for want ofcompliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised and that it along can be regularised -granting parmanence of the employment is a totally different concept -courts ought not to impose a financial burden on the state by directions for regularisation or permanence . (Paras 14 and 17) .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 , MUMBAI

Present : Justice G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT- 1 /22 of 2001

Parties : Employers in relation to the management ofGulf AirCompany

AND

Their Workman (Santosh Verma)

APPEARANCES:

For the Management : Shri . C .. S. Desai , Adv. Service Law Appointment-equality-rule of equality in public appointments is a basis constitutional feature- unless appointment is in terms of relevant rules and after a proper competition same would not confer any right on the appointees - contractual appointment ends with the contract- daily wages or casual appointment ends with discontinuation -temporary appointee cannot claim permanency on expiry of the term - by merely working for a long time one does not acquire a right for regularisation- such persons cannot invoke doctrine of legitimate expectation . (Paras 27, 34 and 38) . "

For the workman

: Shri .Mohan Bir Singh , Adv.

State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated the 5th day of May, 2011 . AWARD

9. Considering the above facts it shows that the concerned workman have no driving licence and got no appointment letters , even their names were not sponsored from the Employment Exchange for doing the job ofdrivers , so they cannot be regularised in such circumstances . It is not proved by the concerned workman that they are working as drivers since 1993 with the management . So , their demand by the union that they should be regularised and given salary as per NCWA cannot be accepted.

exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Central Government has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .

10. In the result, I under the following award-

Whether the action of the management of Gulf Air Company in dismissing the services of Shri Santosh Verma witheffect from 24-4-2001 is legal and justified ? If not , to whatrelief is the workman concerned entitled?

The demand of the NCWA that S/ Sri V.D. Murthy and D. Kandan have been working as Jeep Drivers since 1993 and for their regularisation and payment of wages as per NCWA is not justified . Hence , the concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief.

H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 25 मई , 2011

का.आ. 1669. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार गोल्फ एयर कंपनी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई नं. -1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/22/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-11012/69/2001 आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

Briefly stated the facts are that the second party workman Santosh Verma joined the first party Gulf Air Company on 1-6-1977 . The workman was issued a charge sheet bearing No. IND/PERS/ SZ/ 156 dtd . 8-.6-99 wherein it was stated that on 8-3-1999 he booked passenger Anis Ali Mohammed for travel on Gulf Air night ( GF 051 ) 3-4-1999Bom/Mct and affixed sticker on his ticket No : 0.72 4410885528 PNR SWPGZF even though the said ticket was valid only upto 30-3-1999 It was also stated in the charge sheet that the performance and , attitude of the workman were far below the minimum expected level of a Gulf Air staff. It was also stated in the charge sheet that the workman was given special attention by the supervisors . Reservation Officer and DRTM , to improve his performance and attitude but he did not show any consistent improvement in his output and attitude . According to the charge sheet the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4555

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

above acts of the workman amounted to the following serious acts of misconduct namely;

(i) Wilful insubordination or disobedience, whether alone or in combination with others to any lawful and reasonable order of a superior.

statement of claim that under the Model Standing Orders applicable to the workman it is mandatory to indicate the Appellate Authority and as no Appellate Authority has beenindicated in this case , therefore , the order of dismissal becomes void . The second party workman has , therefore , prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages and all consequential benefits.

(ii) Wilful damage to or loss of employer's goods or property.

( iii) Habitual negligence or neglect ofwork .

The Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The services of the workman were terminated by the Disciplinary Authority by letter dt.24-4-2001 with immediate effect . The workman raised an industrial dispute . The conciliation proceedings held before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) and Conciliation Officer ended in failure and thereafter the Government of India referred the dispute to this Tribunal .

According to the statement of claim filed by the second party workman the order ofdismissal is illegal as it is in violation of Section 33 of the Act . The All India Federation ofGulf Air Employees Association took up the matter of unfair enquiry and frivolous charges levelled against the workman before the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) and the Conciliation Officer who waspleased to admit the matter for conciliation vide order dated6-10-2000 but no approval application was madeby the first party before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) and Conciliation Officer as contemplated under Section 33 of the Act. Moreover, the workman was not paid, tendered or offered one month wages in lieu ofnotice. According to the statement of claim the enquiry conducted was in breach of the principles or natural justice as :

(a) it was conducted in haste and adjournments were denied even on reasonable and bonafide grounds ;

(b) the Enquiry Officer acted as a stooge and mouth piece of the management representative;

(c) the enquiry was conducted in the absence of the second party workman's defence representative on 29-7-1999 and 9-8-1999 ;

According to the written statement filed by the first party the enquiry held again the second party workman is fair, proper and in accordance with principles of natural justice. It has been admitted in the written statement that the All India Federation of GulfAir Employees Association did approach the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) with some allegations against the first party but neither the workman nor the Union appeared before the said authority when the matter was fixed for hearing . It has been denied that the said matter was admitted to conciliation as no notice of admission by the Conciliation Officer was served onthe first party. It has been stated that the direction under Section 22( 1 ) and 22(2 ) of the Act is not applicable to the first party. It has been denied that the order of dismissal is illegal for being in breach and violation of Section 33 of the Act as there were no circumstances and conditions for the first party to take steps under Section 33 ofthe Act . There was no compulsion or obligation to pay or tender one month wages in lieu of the notice to the workman as contemplated under Section 33 ofthe Act . Further, there was no obligation to file an application for approval of the action before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) and the Conciliation Officer. According to the written statement Section 33 of the Act is not applicable . The findings and report of the Enquiry Officer are based on evidence . The first party has denied that the punishment given to the workman is grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him . The first party has denied that the enquiry was held in undue haste . The first party has also denied all other allegations made in the statement of claim regarding violation of principles of natural justice and perversity or the order. According to the written statement the enquiry held into the charges is fair, proper and in accordance with principles of natural justice and the punishment awarded to the second party workman is appropriate . The first party has prayed that the reference be rejected.

(d) the Enquiry Officer disallowed most relevant pertinent questions in cross - examination of the management witnesses ;

Following preliminary issues were framed.

(e) subjected the second party to cross - examination when he had not appeared as a witness;

( f) the Enquiry Officer and the management representative acted in a most threatening and hostile manner ;

( 1 ) Whether the Gulf Air Company was bound to comply with the provisions or Section 33 (2 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 because the order dated 24-4-2001 dismissing the workman was passed during the pendency of proceedings before the authorities mentioned therein ?

(2) Whether the workman committed any misconduct as per Standing Orders applicable to him?

(3) Whether the Gulf Air Company violated the principles of natural justice ?

According to the statement of claim the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not supported by any evidence or material and are , therefore , perverse. The punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled. On a plain reading of the charge sheet the alleged actsdo not amount to misconduct . It has also been stated in the 4556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

(4) Whether these findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are pervers ?

( 5) Whether this Tribunal should set aside the order of dismissal of the workman in exercise of its powers under Section 11 - A of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 ?

Thefirst party filed affidavits of Shailesh Mazumdar and Ashok Chhaganlal Joshi who were cross - cxamined by learned counsel for the workman . The workman filed his own affidavit who was cross -examined by learned counsel for the first party.

Heard Shri GS .Desai learned counsel for the first party and Shri Mohanbir Singh learned counsel for the workman and perused the record carefully.

Issue No 1 :

Under Rule 9 (2 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central ) Rules 1957 the conciliation proceedings commence whenthe Conciliation Officer gives formal intimation in writing to the parties concerned declaring his intention to commence conciliation proceedings with effect from such date as maybe specified therein. A letterdt.6-10-2000 of the Conciliation Officer giving formal intimation to the parties concerned declaring his intention to commence conciliation proceedings is EX.W- 12 wherein the Conciliation Officer has intimated the parties to appear on 11-10-2000 . Therefore , the conciliation proceedings will be deemed to have commenced from 11-10-2000.

Under Section 20( 2 ) of the Act conciliation proceedings shall be deemed to have concluded- (a) where a settlement is arrived at , when a memorandum of the settlement is, signed by the parties to the dispute;

(b) where no settlement is arrived at , when the report of the conciliation officer is recend by the appropriate Government or when the report of the Board is published under S.17 , as the case may be ; or (c) when a reference is made to a Court , [ Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal ] under S. 10 during the pendency of conciliation proceedings .

There is no specific plea in the written statement regarding conclusion of the conciliation proceedings . However a copy of minutes of conciliation proceedingsdt . 20-1-2001 EX.M - 1 has been filed by the first party wherein it has been stated by the Conciliation Officer that the dispute is closed. It has been argued on behalf of the first party that the conciliation proceedings came to an end on 20-3-2001 ostensibly under Section 20 (2 ) ( b ) of the Act .

It isto be noted that under Section 20(2 )(b ) of the Actthe conciliation proceedings will be deemed to have concluded only when the failure report of the Conciliation Officer is received by the appropriate Government . It is thus clear that the conciliation proceedings will be deemed tohave continued and will conclude only when the failure report reaches the appropriate Government . In this case no

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] failure report was ever sent to the appropriate Government Therefore, the conciliation proceedings did not come to an end when the Conciliation Officer closed the dispute.

It is thus clear from the above discussion that the conciliation proceedings commenced on 11-10-2000 and as per Section 20 (2) ( c ) of the Act the conciliation proceedings came to an end only when a reference was made to this Tribunal on 23-11-2001 . The order or termination isdt . 24-4-2001 . Undoubtedly the termination order of the workman has been issued after the commencement ofthe conciliation proceedings and before the conciliation proceedings concluded.

Section 33 ( 1 ) (b ) or the Act provides inter alia that during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer no employer shall for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish , whether by dismissal or otherwise , any workman concerned in such dispute save with the express permission in writing of the Conciliation Officer. Section 33 (2) ( b) ofthe Act inter alia provides that during the pendency of any such proceedings in respect of an industrial dispute the employer may in accordance with the standing orders applicable to the workman concerned, for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish , whether by dismissal or otherwise , the workman provided he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the Conciliation Officer for approval of the action taken by the employer.

In this case neither the workman was paid wages for one month nor any application was made by the employer to the Conciliation Officer for approval of its action ofterminating the services or the workman .

The Gulf Air Company is bound to comply with the provisions of Section 33 of the Act and since the services of the workman have been terminated in violation of the provisions contained in Section 33 of the Act the action of the management is held to be illegal and unjustified .

Issue No. 1 is , therefore , decided against the first party and in favour of the second party workman as above:

Issue No. 2

There are three charges namely: (a) wilful insubordination or disobedience , whether alone or in combination with others , to any lawful and reasonable order of a superior: (b) wilful damage to or loss of employer's goods or property and ( c ) habitual negligence or neglect ofwork.

The witness of the first party Shailesh Mazumdar states in his cross- examination " The charge sheet does not mention the order which the workman alleges to have disobeyed . Charge No. 2 is regarding wilful damage to the employer's goods or property. I do not know of any damage caused to the goods or property of the employer " . The first party has also filed affidavit of the Enquiry Officer , Ashok Chhaganlal Doshi who states in his cross- [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4557

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई नं. 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 01/05/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -11012/33/2004-आईआर ( सी -1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 25th May, 2011

S.O. 1670. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Gov- ernment hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 01/05/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court - 1 Mumbai , as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation to the man agement of M/ s . Air India Ltd. , and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 25-5-2011 .

[No. L- 11012/33/2004- IR(C- I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer. ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , MUMBAI examination . "There is no specific instance of alleged negligence in the charge sheet ....... It is correct that the only allegation brought out in the enquiry was that the workman had put a sticker for travel by the passenger for travel on 3-4-1999 when his ticket had expired on 30-3-1999" . Admittedly the workman booked a passenger for travel on the GulfAir flight for 3-4-1999 when his ticket was valid only up to 30-3-1999 but there is absolutely no evidence to prove that this act of negligence on the part of the workman caused any damage or loss to any goods or property ofthe first party. The witness of the first party Shailesh Mazumdar himself admits that he does not know of any damage caused to goods or property of the first party. Shailesh Mazumdar states in his cross - examination that the charge sheet does not mention the order which the workman disobeyed. The Enquiry Officer Ashok Joshi admits in his cross - examination that only allegation against the workman was that the workman booked a passenger for 3-4-1999 whereas his ticket was valid only up to 30-3-1999. Only a single act of negligence stands proved by the evidence available on the record but even this act of negligence as per the admission ofShailesh Mazumdar (witness ofthe first party) has not caused any damage or loss to the goods or the property of the first party. No authority has been identified whose order has been disobeyed by the workman nor there is any proofthat the workman disobeyed any order. There is absolutely no evidence of habitual negligence on the part of the workman .

Present : JUS TICE G S. SARRAF Presiding Onieer Reference No. CGIT- 1 /05 of 2005

Parties : Employers in relation to the management ofAir IndiaLtd.

It is thus clear from the above discussion that there is no proof ofthe fact that the workman has committed any misconduct.

AND

Issue No. 2 is , therefore , decided against the first party and in favour of the second party workman.

Issue Nos: 3 and 4:

Their Workman (O. K. Mesta) through Air India EmployeesGuild

APPEARANCES:

Forthe Management Ms. Geeta Raju , Adv. Since Issue No.1 and 2 have been decided in favour of the workman, therefore, it is not necessary to decide these issues .

Forthe workman

: Ms. Ketaki Rege,Adv.

Issue No. 5:

State

: Maharashtra

The order of dismissal deserves to be set aside in accordance with the decision of Issues Nos . I and 2. This issue is, therefore , decided as above .

Mumbai , dated the 4th day of May 2011 . AWARD

ORDER

1. Inexercisc or powers conferred under clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the Industrial DisputesAct 1947 the Central Government has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .

Consequently the action of the first party GulfAir Company in dismissing the services of the second party workman Santosh Verma w.e.f. 24-4-2001 is held to be illegal and unjustified. The workman is directed tobe reinstated subject to the age of superannuation with 75 per cent back wages. The first party shall implement this order within a period of two months from the date of this Award .

An award is made accordingly.

Whetherthe demand of the Air India Employees Guild from the management of M/ s . Air India Ltd. , that Sh.O.K.Mesta be given promotion as ChiefAE Operator as per the time bound promotion policy in view of his completion of 21 years or service with Air India is justified? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled and from what date?

JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 25 मई , 2011

का.आ. 1670.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एयर इण्डिया

2.According to the statement of claim the workman O. K. Mesta is a permanent of Junior Operator and was confirmed on the same post w.e.f. 1-6-1983 . He was [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 4558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

imposed upon him . Though the workman completed 21 years of service and in normal course he could have been considered for promotion to the post of Lead Aircraft Equipment Operator as per time bound promotion policy but due to the punishment imposed upon him his number went down in the seniority list and , therefore , he could not be considered for promotion during the promotion exercise carried out on 1-7-2001 for the post of Lead Aircraft Equipment Operator . According the written statement any promotion to the higher post including time bound promotions are subject to seniority-cum -merit and also availability of vacancies and a workman cannot claim promotion as a matter of right . The first party has , therefore, prayed that the reference be rejected.

Arejoinder was filed by the second party.

O. K. Mesta filed an affidavit and he was cross- examined by learned counsel for the first party. The first party filed an affidavit of Mihir Lal Bhowmick who was cross-examined by learned counsel for the second party.

6.Heard rival submissions and perused the record .

7. Admittedly the workman was charged for committing theft of the property belonging to the first party and he was punished with stoppage of five consecutive annual increments with cumulative effect till 1-12-2000 . Admittedly the workman was promoted to the post of Master Aircraft Equipment Operator from 1-1-2001 and he has now been promoted as Lead Aircraft Equipment Opcrator w.e.f. 1-1-2005 . During the period from 1-12-1995 to 1-12-2000 the workman was undergoing punishment and, therefore . he was rightly not considered for promotion . The denial of promotion during the currency of the punishment is merely consequential result thereof and certainly it is not double jeopardy. To punish a workman and at the same time to promote him during the currency of the punishment will be contradictory. Since the workman was found guilty of misconduct in an enquiry . he was rightly not found fit for promotion at that time workman was found guilty of misconduct in an enquiry , he was rightly not found fit for promotion at that time .

8.The workman completed required number ofyears of service but he could not be considered for promotion as his name in the seniority list went down on account of the punishment imposed against him .

promoted to the post of Operator in the Ground Handling Department w.e.f.l - 7-1989 and was confirmed on the same post w.e.f.1-1-1990 . On 14-7-1994 O. K.Mesta was placed under suspension pending enquiry under clause 14( 3 )( b ) and 14(3) (h) of the Model Standing Order (Central ) Vide orderdt . 6-11-1995 and vide corrigendum issued on 22-5-1996 he was punished with stoppage of five annual increments with cumulative effect w.e.f. 1-12-1995 and it was made clear that he would be eligible to receive annual increment w.e.f. 1-12-2000 subject to his attendance , performance and conduct being found satisfactory, In 1996 the first party framed new time bound promotion policy whereby promotion , revision in gradation was awarded as per time bound plan based on minimum service eligibility. Thispolicy was effective from 1-7-1996. The promotion policy also provided that the number of employees eligible for promotion would not be restricted by standing force and a minimum percentage of employees would be promoted to the next higher grade: The minimum service eligibility for promotion was to be as per minimum number of years in the respective grade as well as total number of years from initial entry in the grade . As per the said promotion policy the promotion exercise for the level of Chief Operator was to be effected one in a calendar year and for other levels it was once in every six months on 1st January and 1st July, O. K. Mesta completed 7 years on 1-7-1996 in the grade of Operator and completed 14 years since his initial appointment as Junior Operator. As such he became eligible for the post of Senior Operator in 1996 whereas he was promoted to the post of Master Aircraft Equipment Operator, a post equivalent to Senior Operator . we.f. 22-3-2001 . Many juniors and co - workers of O. K.Mesta were given double promotions immediately after coming into effect the time bound promotion policy. According to the statement or claim no embargo was put on O. K. Mesta's promotion in the punishment order and hisseniority also was not to be affected by the punishment . According to the statement of claim the attitude ofthe first party towards the promotion or O. K. Mesta is unjust , arbitrary and discriminatory as the first party's stand that during the currency of the punishment promotion could not be given is erroneous as there was no such condition in the punishment order. According to the statement of claim the acts of the first party are in contravention of standing order no. 20 and 23 of Certified Standing Order. It hasbeen prayedthat O. K.Mesta be promoted to the post of Chief Aircraft Equipment Operator w.e.f.1-7.2001 and from that date he be paid arrears of wage difference and other attendant benefits .

9. In view ofthe above discussion I am clearly ofthe opinion that the demand of the second party for giving promotion to O. K.Mesta as Chief AE Operator as per the timebound promotion policy in view of his completion of 21 years of service is totally unjustified . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

10. The reference is answered in the manner stated hereinabove .

11. An Award is made accordingly. JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF , Presiding Officer 3. According to the written statement the workman was charged for theft of the property belonging to the first party and after enquiry he was punished with stoppage of fiveconsecutive annual increments with cumulative effect . The workman became eligible for annual increment only on 1-12-2000 and till then he was not considered for promotion. Theworkman lost his seniority consequent to punishment [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4559 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 25 मई , 2011

"Whether the action ofthe management ofP. B.Area of M/s . BCCL in dismissing Sri Ram Nath Rajak , Driver, 10/12 Pits Colliery by an order dated 9-10-2003 is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

का. आ. 1671.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 धनबाद न . - 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 91/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-5-2011 का प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/215/2003- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]

डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 25th May, 2011

S.O. 1671. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 91/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - I , Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . BCCL , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 25-05-2011 .

[No. L- 20012/215/2003- IR(C- I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , DHANBAD

2. The case of the concerned workman is that he had been working as permanent driver at 10/12 Pits Balihari Colliery since long . He was not provided house accommodation in the Colliery, so he was residing in his private house at Parsatand basti . One Sri Prithvi Pasi a resident of Allahabad implicated the concerned workman ina false criminal case for the reason that he always raises voice of protest against his criminal activities and money lending. A false criminal case was instituted against the concerned workman and against his father and brother. He surrendered on 26-3-03 and he remanded to jail custody and he was released on bail by the Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand on 28-4-03 . After coming out from the jail custody he reported for his duty but the management instead of allowing duty handed over a chargesheet being No. BI/PD/10-12/03 /87 for alleged absence from duty w.e.f. 25-3-03 . In invalid and irregular departmental enquiry the charges against the concerned workman was not established still then he was dismissed by an unauthorised person. The chargesheet was issued by an unauthorised person and the allegation as levelled in the charge- sheet doesnot constitute any misconduct as per Standing Order. An industrialdispute was raised which ended in failure and the matter has been referred to this Hon'ble Tribunal foradjudication.

Inthe matter of a reference U/ s . 10( 1 ) ( d) (2A) of 1. D.. Act.

Reference No. 91 of 2004

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to answer the reference in favour of the workman by directing the management to reinstate the concerned workman with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of P. B. Area ofM/ s . B. C. C. L. Ltd.

AND Theirworkmen

Present : Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate

Forthe Employers

For the Workmen

Shri U. N. Lal , Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated , the 6-5-2011

AWARD

1 ByOrder No. L -20012/215 /2003 - IR(C- I) dated 2-9-04 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 :

3. The case of the management is that the management issued a chargesheet to the workman concerned for his unauthorised absence from duty w.e.f. 25-3-03 without any information or permission of the competent authority vide chargesheet dated 26/ 28-4-2003 . The concerned workman submitted his reply. Thereafter the management appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer conducted domestic enqüiry in accordance with the principle of natural justice and afforded full opportunity to the concerned workman todefendhis case . The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges levelled against him . During the enquiry it was revealed that the workman concerned has committed a crime under the I.P. C. and for that a criminal case was pending against him vide G.R. Case No. 3008/83 under Sec . 379/83 , 147/452/334/380 IPC. It was also revealed that the workman concerned was convicted in the said case by Shri M.P. Singh, Judical Magistrate , Ist Class , Dhanbad vide order dated 27-3-90 . He filed an appeal against the said order before the District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad vide Criminal 2087 GI /11-11 4560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

Another argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that he has not been supplied with a copy of enquiry proceeding and enquiry report (Ext. M- 7) without complying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court . The concerned workman referred 1991 Lab.I.C. 308 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that delinguent's right to be entitled to copy thereof not lost after the 42nd amendment- Rules of natural justice- Applicability to disciplinary inquiry - not affectedby 42nd Amendment.

Appeal No. 37/90 . After hearing the parties the Hon'ble Addl . District& Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the concerned workman, and he was convicted by the Criminal Court . The management issued second show-cause notice and gave an opportunity to explain why his service should not be terminated as per the provisions of Certified Standing Orders 26.1.19 . He was convicted for two years imprisonment by the competent court of law. Since the concerned workman committed a serious and grave misconduct he has been dismissed from the service of the companyvidedismissal order dated 7-10-03 . His dismissal is legal and justified and the enquiry was conducted by the EnquiryOfficer fairly, properly and in accordance with the principles of naturaljustice .

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased tohold that the dismissal ofthe concerned workman is legal andjustified and he is not entitled to any relief.

7. Considering the above facts it shows that the charge -sheet has been issued to the concerned workman on the ground of habitual absence from duty though the actual absence has not been proved . He was dismissed from service which is against law. Moreover , when final order was passed as per Ext. M-7 , he has not been given second show- cause notice to state the things .

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

5. The enquiry has been held as fair and proper vide orderdated 9-2-2011 .

The management has produced documents which havebeen marked as Exts . M- 1to M - 7 on formal proof.

8. In the result , I hold that the action of the management of P.B. Area of M/ s.BCCL in dismissing Sri Ram Nath Rajak, Driver, 10/12 Pits Colliery by an order dated 9-10-2001 is not legal and justified. So, he is entitled for reinstatement with 75% back wages , except during the jail period. The management is directed to implement the award within 30 days from the date of publication of the award.

Thisis my Award.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2011

का. आ. 1672, 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 धनबाद न. - 2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 171/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-05-2011 का प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/555/1998- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 25th May, 2011

S.O. 1672.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 171/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-2, 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 25-05-2011 .

[No. L-20012/555/ 1998- IR(C-I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer 6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that the management issued chargesheet to the concerned workman for absence from duty and the enquiry was conducted for that, but the dismissal order was passed by the management as per Ext . M-6 on the ground hehas been convicted , so he cannot be retained in the service as per Standing Order No. 26.1.19 . In thisrespect the concerned workman referred 1983 Lab . I.C. 1909 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that misconduct must have causal connection with place of work and with duty hours . Employer has no extra - territorial jurisdiction under Standing Orders to punish for misconduct . The management has not given the copy of Standing Order which may show that a person committed misconduct cannot be retained in the service of the Company as per Certified Standing Orders 26.1.19 . The order filed by the concerned workman shows that as per Cr. Review No. 275 of 2003 in which Hon'ble High Court laid down that the petitioners were neighbour and there was dispute between the parties and a proceeding under Sec. 107 Cr. P.C.was going on between them and they have undergone harassment of trial appeal and the revision is of 1983. In that view of the matter the period undergone during trial is sufficient punishment . It shows that the concerned workman was convicted and acquitted under Sec. 380 I.P. C. However, the charge under Secs . 147, 452 & 336 of the I.P.C. has already been proved as beyond all reasonable doubt . The Trial Court has convicted them to undergo R.I. for six months under Sec . 147 1.P.C. one year under Sec . 452 IPC and six months under Sec . 336 I.P.C.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4561

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28, 1933

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO . 2) AT DHANBAD

Present : SHRI KISHORI RAM, PRESIDING OFFICER

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)

(d) ofthe I.D. Act . , 1947 .

Reference No. 171 of 1999

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Bararee Colliery of M/s . BCCL and their worman .

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman

: Mr. N. M. Kumar, Advocate

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D. K. Verma,

Advocate

it in to test the genuinness of the Medical papers filed by the workman . The dismissal has no response as to his fundamental right to appear before the Appellate Authority. Moreover, no co- workere was provided to him rather the Enquiry Officer having collusively himself arranged so called co - worker , Nanku Yadav on the spot completed the enquiry on the same day without providing him opportunity contray to the principle of natural justice . It is pertinent to note the dismissal letter that the personnel department has illegally acted otherwise , alleging his absentism from 14-6-95 but the chargesheet was issued in 1996 , the enquiry was conducted subsequently and the Project Officer signed. the dismissal letter retrospectively effecting his dismissal from 14-6-95 . Moreover , the workman never confessed his guilt , rather he was forced by the management with false assurance for his reinstatement in the service , so the alleged confession was not voluntary.

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 10th May, 2011

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferréd 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/ 555/98 -C- I dated, the 17th May, 1999.

SCHEDULE

" KYYA B.C.C. L. Bararee Colliery Key Prabandh Tantra Dwara Dinank 26-6-96 sey Shri Bhagwan Das Paswan Ki Sevae Barkhast Kiya Jana Uchit Vidhivat Evam Naya Sangat Hain ? Yadi Nahi to Karmkar Kis Rahat Key Patra Hain Tatha Kis Tarikh Sey? "

3. Whereas , specifically disputing the aforesaid allegations , the management has put its case that the workman was though a permanent employee working as aMiner / Loader of Barari Colliery ; yet not serious in performing his duty as he used to unauthorisedly remain absent from his duty. He unauthorisedly absented from hisduty w.e.f. 30-1-1993 . The Management by taking a lenient view but with strict warning allowed him to resume his duty from 1-2-93 , with a strict warning , likewise he was allowed to resume his duty for his unanuthorised absence from 5-11-93 to 2-2-94. Despite the warning, he similarly committed misconduct by absenting from his duty w.e.f. 1-9-94 unathorisedly. So the Management issued him chargesheet for his misconduct . He submitted his reply to the charge, but finding it unsatifactory, the Management appointed the EnquiryOfficer, who after conducting it fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice submitted his enquiry report , holding him guilty of the charge levelled against him . Therefore , having issued him second show cause notice and the copy of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him after taking approval from the competent authority. The workman with his co - worker fully participated in the enquiry, availing full opportunity to defend his case by cross - examining the withnesses of the management. Thus the dismissal of the workman is legal and justified.

Finding with Reasonings

2. The case of the union for the workman is that the workman , a permanent employee of M / s . BCCL was working as M.C. Loader. He was served with a chargesheet No. BBC/ 96/5124 dated 9-3-96 for his unauthorised absentism from his duty since 14-6-95 . The chargesheet was issued . He submitted his reply with proper explanation supported with documentary evidence . Without considering it , rather treating it unsatisfactory, the Management initiated a domestic enquiry against him . He was not given sufficient opportunity to defend his caseby co - worker and by overlooking the entire evidence , dismissal order was passed illegally and issued on 26-6-96 which is malafide, unjustified and against the norms of natural justice . Further alleged that the finding of the Enquiry Officer are totally based on surmises and conjectures as well as contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case . The domestic enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law, as none of the attending doctors were examined

4. In course of hearing/evidence of the management on the preliminary point , on a petition filed on behalf of the representative of the workman concerned as Mr. N.M. Kumar, the Ld . Advocate for the workman submitted for acceptance of the fairness of the domestic enquiry and the representative of the management hadn't raised any objection to it , so in 4562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 18 , 2011 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] view of the submission of the representative of the concerned workman, the Enquiry Proceeding papers were marked as Extais . M - 1 to M -9 ( on formal proof dispensed with) and side by side after careful consideration of the enquiry proceeding , the domestic enquiry was held to be fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice as per order dated 13-6-2006 passed by the Tribunal . Hence it directly came up for hearing argument on merit.

5. In exercise of the power conferred upon the Tribunal under Section 11A of the 1.D. Act . , 1947, the Tribunal would like to reappraise the evidence in the domestic enquiry and to satisfy itself whether the punishment ofdismissal to the workman by the employer for hismisconduct of absentism was just and proper in the eye of law.

Onthe perusal of the materials available on the case record by way of proving the enquiry papers (Exts . M- 1 to M -9 ) brought to the notice of the Tribunal find the following facts :

7. So far as the dismissal order by the Project Officer against the workman as a punishment for his aforesaid absentism from 14-6-95 is concerned, I find it appears to be very harsh for the workman , the permanent employee as M.C.L of the management and it is disproportionate to his dismissal as punishment for the absentism as misconduct , because he had all along justified his absence due to suffering from T.B. which took long time for his treatment as stated in his reply as well as his statement before the Enquiry Officer (Ext.M- 3 and M - 5 respectively) , besides that his Out Door Ticket ofthe BCCL Hospital ( Extt . M-5/ 1 ) discloses his treatment upto 21-2-96 in support of his reply to the aforsaid Charge . Moreover, from the perusal of the aforsaid facts it stands clear that the workman was also not given due opportunity to explain over the enquiry report despite his humble request for seven days more time on the reasonable ground . It is quite contrary to the principle of natural justice the workman was quite entitled to . As such the dismissal of the workman for the single aforesaid misconduct cannot be legally justified in view of his continuous service as defined under Section 25B of the I.D. Act . , 1947 .

(i) Workman Bhagwan Das Paswan is the permanent employee/ M.C.L of Bararee Colliery,

(ii) The Domestic enquiry was held into the single charge of absentism from his duty with effect from 14-6-1995 unathorisedly against him as per Ext . M - 2 ( Chargesheet dated 9-3-96 ) in which he had represented (Ext. M -3) that due to his suffering from T.B. he had gone under treatment for it at C.H. D. (Central Hospital , Dhanbad ) as alse affirmed byhim in his statement (Ext . M - 5 before the Enquiry Officer Mr. Lalan Pandey, Dy . P.M. ofthe Colliery) , and

8. In the result , I find and hold that the BCCL's Bararee Colliery management was not justified in . dismissing workman Bhagwan Das Paswan w.e.f .. 26-6-96, as per schedule ( as the date issuance of dismissal order) or 14-6-95 as per the letter effecting his dismissal retrospectively. Hence , the workman is entitled to be reinstated in his service with all due back wages after calculating his all kinds of leaves as per Implementation Instruction No. 5 of NCWA- V. The Management is accordingly directed to implement the Award within three months from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India.

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 25 मई , 2011

का. आ. 1673.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 न्यायालय धनबाद न. -2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

(iii) On the receipt of the Enquiry Report of the Enquiry Officer related to the charge of aforsaid absentism as per Ext . M - 7 , the workman had submitted his representation dated 7-6-96 (Ext . M- 8) that he could not prepare the representation for the enquiry report because of the fact that he had given the file to some of the local resident who were ill , so he had requested for more 7 days time to submit it but unfortunately the Project Officer of the said Colliery as per the letter dated 26-6-1996 ( Ext . M - 9) dismissed the workman from the service of the company from 14-6-95 the date of his absence which palpably appears to be his dismissal retrospectively and lastly

[सं. एल -20012/395/2000- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 25th May, 2011

( iv) The dismissal order (Ext . M - 9) against the workman no where whispers his such previous misconduct as pleaded in the pleading of the management .

S.O. 1673.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 18/2001 ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4563 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28, 1933

ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court - 2 , 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 25-05-2011 .

[No. L- 20012/395/2000- IR(C- I) ]

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 , AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

permanent vacancy thereof, and accordingly as per authorisation letter No. 4528 dt.19-4-1995 . Since they possesed the experience to be appointed as Supervisor, they should be regularised for the same from 2-5-95 . Despite several representation for it neither the Management regularised them , nor the higher Management accepted the proposal for it during the conciliation proceeding No. ID. 1/50/98 E2 raised by the Union before the ALC(C) , Dhanbad. On the failure of the conciliation , it resulted in the reference case to the Tribunal for adjudication. They are entitled to their regularisation as Supervisor (Transporting and Pit) and payment of their wages . The action of the Management for not régularising them retrospectively is illegal and unjustified.

Shri Kishori Ram , PresidingOfficer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 )

(d) ofthe I.D. Act. , 1947 .

ReferenceNo. 18 of 2001 .

Parties: Employers in relation to the management ofM/s .

BCCL and their workman ,

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe workmen : Mr. K.N.Singh,

Advocate and Vice President, J.M.S.

Mr. D.K. Verma,

Onbehalf of the employers :

Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 9th May, 2011

AWARD

3.Whereas specifically disputing the aforesaid facts the case of the Management is that Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey and Sri Ramji Tiwari, the employees ofthe company designated as Shovel Operator and Dozer Operator respectively, are working as such, and paid their wages of the said category. The terms of the reference being unspecific is vague , as it does not specify their claim for category except the two designation Transporting Supervisor and Pit Supervisor based on imagination . There is no such post or designation of Transport Supervisor in Excavation or in any other area under NCWA . None ofthe workmen is eligible for the post of Pit Supervisor as mentioned under " Nomenclature , job description , and categorisation ofCoal employees" as the JBCCI ( pages 56- 57) and none fulfills the job requirement mentioned therein . Theirclaim letterdated 19-4-95 and 2-5-95 nowhere mention as stipulation for their authorisation to work as Transport Supervisor/Pit Supervisor, rather by these letters, theywere instructed to perform the particularjob as the part oftheir own duties as Shovel Operator and Dozer Operator , nothing more . It does not mean their authorisation to act as Transport Supervisor/Pit Supervisor by any stretch of imagination.

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- 20012/395/2000 ( C- I ), dated, the 25th January, 2001 .

SCHEDULE

4. TheMar:agement in its rejoinder has pleaded that they never worked as per their respective claim . Morever, theworkmen cannot be placed or promoted to anyhigher category beyond the cadre scheme formulated by JBCCI , for no ProjectOfficer has power or delegated authorityto authorise any timerated worker for any kind of monthly rated/Clerical or supervisoryjob .

Findingwith Reasoning

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . BCCL in not regularising Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey and Sri Ramji Tiwari, GOCP of Bastacolla Area as Transporting Supervisor/Pit Supervisor. Pit Supv. w.e.f. 2-5-95 and in not making them the payment of the said grade is legal and justifed? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?"

5. In this case, both the workmen as WW- 1 Ashok Kumar Pandey and WW- 2 Ramji Tewari on behalf of the Union concerned, and one witness as MW- 1 Prakash Kumar Mishra, the Personnel Manager, from the side of the Management have been examined.

WW- 1 Ashok Kumar Pandey (workman) in course of hisdeposition has proved the photo copies of the letter 2. The case of the sponsoring Union is that the concerned workmen (Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey and Sri Ramji Tiwari ) the Dozer Operator and Shoval Operator respectively have been continuously working as Transporting and Pit Supervisor for 15 years since 19-4-1995 and 2-5-1995 respectively against the

2087 Gi/11-12 4564

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 /JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

dated 2-05-95 and 19-4-95 of his own and of another workman Ramji Tewari as Extt . W- 1 and W- 2 respectively . Out of these two letters , the original letter of the aforesaid photo copy (Ext . W-2 ) ofthe latter workman Ramji Tewari (WW-2 ) , he (WW- 1 ) has proved it as Ext . W-3 .

6. In the case , these facts being admitted are indisputable:

(1) Workman Ashok Kumar Pandey (WW- 1) isShoval Operater in Excavation Grade since his appointment in the year 1989 .

( ii) Technical and Supervisor come under Technical and Supervisory Grade A, B and C. The Dozer Operator come under Excavation Cadre , but not in Technical and Supervisory Cadre . Workman Ramji Tiwari (WW-2) is drawing his wages as DozerOperator.

7.On the perusal of the evidences available on the case record , the statement of WW- 1 Ashok Kumar Pandey, oneoftheworkman , manifests his claim for regularisation as the Coal Transport Supervisor still continuously accordingly discharging his duty under the authorisation ofthe management as per the Office Orderdt. 2-5-95 ( Ext . W- 1 ) ; that despite his representation , the Management uncosidered his prayer for regularisation but he expressed ignorance of the Coal Transport Supervisor and Pit Supervisor under the Clerical Grade.

Kumar Pandey, the Shoval Operator and Shri Ramji Tewari , the Dozer Operator respectively are the basis of their respective claim for the regularisation as Transport Supervisior / Pit Supervisor. It is remarkable to note that both the letters are the replica to each other with reference to the assigned jobs namely, for looking after three kinds ofjobs except the former letter dated 2-5-95 (Ext . W- 1 ) refering Sl.No. 4 , the assigned job for looking after the proper functioning of E.B. at the Colliery, Each ofthe letter specifies that the concerned workman shall monitor the pitstransported to the screening plant and trips of coal to it or from direct coal dumping to siding . Both the letters were issued by Mr. J.B. Gupta, the Project Officer,Golukdih Open Cast Project . Apparently both the concerned workmen namely, the Ashok Kumar Pandey as the Shovel Operator and Shri Ramji Tewari as the Dozer Operator by their aforesaid Office Order of the management were authorised towork in the Transport ofCoal from Coal Dump to siding as per the defined job mentioned above , but none oftheaforesaidOffice Orders specifies both these workman to work Transporting Supervisor or Pit Supervisor rather it shows that the workman were authorised to work in Transport of coal from old dump to siding only with the instructions to look after the jobs of preparation of coal in dump by dozer and others as specified in the letters of the respective workmen, which are appear to be falling under the nature of their job as Shovel Operator and Dozer Operator respectively. On the basis of the materials available on the case record , it is indisputable that there is no such post of Transporting Supervisor except the Pit Supervisor under the Clerical Grade prescribed by the NCWA. Therefore , none of the aforesaid letters issued by the management in favour of workmen Ashok Kumar Pandey and Sri Ramji Tewari , the Shovel Operator and Dozer Operator respectively in any way strengthens their case for the claim of their regularisation accordingly.

Likewise the statement of WW-2 Ramji Tewari , the Dozer Operator since his appointment is that though he has been discharging his duty as Transport Supervisor since 19-4-95 as per authorisation letter dated same of the management ( Ext. W-3 , the original letter of its photo copy Ext . W- 2 ) , yet the Management did not change his designation. Being ignorant of the fact whether NCWA has any provision for the post of Transport Supervisor , he has stated that there is , however, a provision for Pit Supervisor.

Under these circumstances , I find and hold that the actionofthe management ofM/ s . BCCL in not regularising Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey and Shri Ramji Tewari , G.C.C. P. of Bastacola Area as Transporting Supervisor/ Pit Supervisorw.e.f. 2-5-95 and in not making them payment of the said grade is quite legal and justified. Therefore these workmen are not entitled to any relief.

KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 जून , 2011 8.On the other hand MW- 1 Prakash Kumar Mishra is the Personnel Manager at Golukdih Open Cast Project for the last two months where both the workmen Ashok Kumar Pandey and Ramji Tiwari as the Shovel Operator and the Dozer Operator respectively are posted . According to this witness ( MW- i ) , there is no provision of Transport Supervisor or Pit Supervisor as per NCWA . The Project Officer by these letters ( Ext . W- 1 and W- 2 , W-3 ) did not designate the concerned workman as Transport Supervisor, nor they ever worked accordingly , so their demands are not justified . He has specifically denied their working as Transport Supervisor and Pit Supervisor since 2002 .

9. In reference to the oral evidences of both the parties, I findthat both the letters dated 2-5-95 and 19-4-95 (Extts. W- 1 and W- 2 equal to W- 3) of workman Shri Ashok

का. आ. 1674.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा -1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा 01 जुलाई , 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 [ धारा -76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

4565 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

के उपबंध कर्नाटक राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्ः

क्र. सं.

होबली

जिला

तालुक

राजस्व ग्राम का नाम व नगरपालिका सीमाएँ

1 .

अब्बिगेरे

बेंगलूर अर्बन

बेंगलूर उत्तर

यशवंतपुर

का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 जुलाई , 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा-77 , 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है। के उपबंध कर्नाटक राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्ः 2.

हेसरघ‌ट्टा

अड्डेविश्वनाथपुरा

बेंगलूर अर्बन

बेंगलूर उत्तर

क्र. सं.

जिल्ला

तालुक

यलहंका

चिक्कबेटहल्ली

बेंगलूरअर्बन

बेंगलूरुउत्तर

यलहंका

दोड्डबेट्टहल्ली

बेंगलूर उत्तर बेंगलूर अर्बन

राजस्व ग्राम का होबली नाम व नगरपालिका सीमाएँ

दासनपुर

हेग्गडदेवनपुरा

बेंगलूरअर्बन

बेंगलूर उत्तर

1 .

चन्नसंद्रा

कसबा

होसकोटे बेंगलूर ग्रामीण 6.

यलहंका

केंवेनहल्ली/गटिगानहल्ली

बेंगलूरअर्बन

बेंगलूर उत्तर

2. काचोहल्लीग्राम.

बेंगलूर उत्तर

दासनपुर

बेंगलूर ग्रामीण 7.

नगरूर ग्राम

बेंगलूर उत्तर

दासनपुर

बेंगलूर अर्बन

काचरकनहल्ली जडिगेनहल्ली होसकोटे बेंगलूर ग्रामीण 8 .

यलहंका

रामगुंडनहल्ली

बेंगलूर अर्बन

बेंगलूर उत्तर

कन्नल्ली ग्राम

यशवंतपुर बेंगलूर उत्तर बेंगलूर ग्रामीण 9.

यलहंका

तिरूमलनगर

बेंगलूर उत्तर बेंगलूरअर्बन

कसबा

होसकोटे

कोरलूर

बेंगलूर ग्रामीण

बेंगलूर दक्षिण बेंगलूर ग्रामीण

पट्टरेड्डी पाल्या उत्तरहल्ली

[संख्या: एस-38013/49/2011 - एस.एस.1 ] एस.डी.जेवियर , अवर सचिव

सोमनहल्ली

उत्तरहल्ली बेंगलूर दक्षिण बेंगलूर ग्रामीण New Delhi , the 7th June , 2011

अडिगेनहल्ली होसकोटे बेंगलूर ग्रामीण

तिरूमलशेट्टीहल्ली। सम्मेतनहल्ली

[संख्या:-एस-38013/48/2011 - एस.एस.1 ]

एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 7th June, 2011

S.O. 1674. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State InsuranceAct, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st July, 2011 as the date on which the provisions ofChapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter -V and VI [ except Sub -Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Karnataka namely :---

Hobli

Sl . Name of the Rev.

Taluk District

No. Village or Municipal Limits

1 . Abbigere

Yeshwanthapur Bangalore Bangalore North Urban

2. Adde Vishwanathpura Hesaraghatta

S.O. 1675. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 ( 34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st July, 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have alreadybeen brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI [ except Sub-Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Karnataka namely :-

Bangalore Bangalore North Urban

Taluk District

Hobli

Yelahanka

3. Chikkabettahalli

BangaloreBangalore

Sl. Name of the Rev. No. Village or Municipal Limits

North Urban

1. Channasandra

Kasaba

Doddabettahalli

Yelahanka

Hoskote Banglore Rural Bangalore Bangalore North Urban

2 .

Heggadadevanapura

Bangalore Bangalore

Kachohalli Village

Dasanapura

North Urban

Bangalore Bangalore North Rural Yelahanka

3. Kacharakanahalli Jadigenahalli

Urban

Bangalore Bangalore North

6. Kenchenahally/ Gantiganahally

Hoskote Bangalore Rural 7. Nagarpur Village Dasañapura

Kannalli Village

Yeshwanthpur

Bangalore Bangalore North Urban

Bangalore Bangalore North Rural Yelahanka

8. Ramagundanlially

5. Koralur

Kasaba

Bangalore Bangalore North Urban

Hoskote Bangalore Rural 9.

Yelahanka

Thirumalanagar

Uttarahalli

Bangalore Bangalore North Urban

6. Pattareddy Palya

Bangalore Bangalore South Rural [No. S - 38013/49/2011 - S.S.İ ]

7. Somanahalli

Uttarahalli Bangalore Bangalore S.D. XAVIER , Under Secy.

South Rural नई दिल्ली , 7 जून , 2011

Jadigenahalli

Sammethanahalli

8. Thirumalashettyhalli /

Hoskote Bangalore Rural का. आ. 1675.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों

[No. S-38013/48/2011 -S.S.I ] S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

4566

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii )]:

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28, 1933

New Delhi , the 7th June, 2011 नई दिल्ली, 7 जून , 2011

S.O. 1677.-In exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act , 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st July, 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter - V and VI [ except Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas inthe State ofAndhra Pradesh namely :-

का. आ. 1676, कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा 01 जुलाई , 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय-5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा-77 , 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकौ है ] के उपबंध आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्ः

"All the areas falling within the limits of Revenue Village ofDevapur in Kasipet,Mandal ofAdilabad District." " ऑध्र प्रदेश के मेदक जिले के संगारेड्डी मण्डल में चेरियाल राजस्व गॉव के सीमा के अंतर्गत स्थित सभी क्षेत्र । "

[No. S.-38013/46/2011 -SS. I ]

S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

[संख्या: एस-38013/47/2011 - एस.एस.1 ]

नई दिल्ली, 7 जून , 2011

एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 7th June , 2011

का. आ. 1678. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 जुलाई , 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा-77 , 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त, की जा चुकी ह ] के उपबंध कर्नाटक राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्ः

होबली

जिला

तालुक S.O. 1676. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st July, 2011 as the date on which the provisions ofChapter IV except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter - V and VI [ except Sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the saidAct shall come into force in the following areąs in the State of Andhra Pradesh namely:-

क्र. सं. राजस्व ग्राम का नाम व नगरपालिका सीमाएँ

1 .

कोत्तत्ती

बेलूर

मंड्या

मंड्या "All the areas falling within the limits of Revenue Village of Cheryal of Sangareddy Mandal in Medak District."

कोत्तत्ती

भूतनहोसूर

मंड्या [No. S. -38013/47/2011 -SS.I ]

कसबा

बूदुनरु

मंड्या

कोत्तत्सी

हनुजंबाडि

मंड्या

मंड्या S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

हेम्मिगे

कोत्तत्ती

मंड्या नई दिल्ली , 7 जून , 2011

कोत्तत्ती

हिंडवाल

मंड्या मंड्या

कसबा

एच.कोडिहल्ली

मंड्या

कसबा

हुम्मदहल्ली

मंड्या

कब्बिहल्ली

कोत्तत्ती

मंड्या मंड्या

10. कावेरीनगर

कसबा

मंड्या

11.

कसबा

किरंगन्दूर

मंड्या

12. क्यातनगेरे

कसबा

मंड्या

13. संपला

कसबा

मंड्या

14.

कोत्तत्ती

सूनहल्ली

मंड्या

15.

कसबा

- मंड्या

श्रीनिवासपुरा

मंड्या का. आ. 1677, कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा । की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 जुलाई , 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय-5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा-77 , 78,79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] के उपबंध आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्ः

16.

कोत्तत्ती

सुंदरहल्ली

मंड्या

17.

कसबा

विनायक बडावणे

मंड्या मंड्‌या

18.

कसबा

" आदिलाबाद जिले के काशिपेट मण्डल में देवापुर राजस्व गांव के सीमा के अंतर्गत स्थित सभी क्षेत्र । "

तूबिनगेरे

मंड्या मंड्या [संख्या:- एस-38013/46/2011 - एस.एस. 1 ]

[संख्या:-एस-38013/45/2011 - एस.एस.1 ]

सचिव एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सि एस.डी.जेवियर , अवर सचिव [भाग II- खण्ड ( ii) ]

4567

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

( 1)

New Delhi , the 7th June, 2011

(2)

(3)

(4)

(6)

3. यल्लंदूरू ( बदनमुप्पे ग्राम ) कसबा

चामराजनगर

यल्लंदूरू

[ संख्या: एसे -38013/44/2011 - एस.एस. 1 ]

एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 7th June , 2011

S.O. 1678.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the Ist July, 20:11 as the date on which the provisions. ofChapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter -V and VI [ except Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Karnataka namely :-

Sl. Name of the Rev.

Taluk

Hobli

District

No. Village or Municipal Limits

1 . Belur

Kothathi

Mandya

2. Bhuthana

Kothathi

Mandya

Hosur

S.O. 1679. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the Ist July, 2011 as the date on which the provisions ofChapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter -V and VI [ except Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Karnataka namely :-

3 . Boodunuru

Kothathi Mandya Mandya

Hobli

Taluk District Kothathi

4. Hanujambadi

Mańdya Mandya

Kothathi

5. Hemmige

Mandya Mandya

$l . Name of the Rev. No. Village or Municipal Limits

6. Hindwal

Kothathi

Mandya

Kasaba

7. H. Kodihalli

Gundlupet

Kasaba

Gundlupet Chamarajnagar Mandya Mandya

8. Hummadahalli

Kasaba

Moodalapura Village

Chamajinagar Chamarajnagar Mandya Mandya

9. Kabbinahalli

Yallandur

Kothathi

Kasaba

Mandya Mandya

Yellandur Chamarajnagar.

Kasaba

(Badanaguppe Village )

10. Kaverinagar

Mandya Mandya

Kasaba

11. Kirangandur

Mandya Mandya

[No.S -38013/44/2011 - S.S.I ] Kasaba

12. Kyathanagere

Mandya Mandya

Kasaba

S.D. XAVIER , Under Secy.

13. Mangala

Mandya Mandya

14. Soonahalli

Kothathi Mandya Mandya

नईदिल्ली, 7 जून , 2011

Kasaba

15. Srinivasapura

Mandya Mandya

16. Sundarahalli

Kothathi Mandya Mandya

Kasaba

17. Vinayaka

Mandya Mandya

Badavane

Kasaba

18. Tubinagere

Mandya Mandya

[No.S - 38013/45/ 2011 - S.S.I ]

S.D. XAVIER , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 7 जून , 2011

का. आ. 1680.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 34) की धारा -1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा 01 जुलाई , 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय-5 और 6 [ धारा -76 की उप धारा- ( 1 ) और धारा-77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] के उपबंध कर्नाटक राज्य के निम्नलिखितः क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्ः

क्र. सं. राजस्व ग्राम का

होबली

जिला

तालुक

नाम व नगरपालिका, "सीमाएँ

वड़वत्ती

बैदोड्‌डी/बिजेनगेरे

रायचूरू रायचूरू

बंटवाल

दक्षिण कन्नड

बंटवाल

अलिकेन मजलु (इदकिडु ग्राम)

उत्तरहल्ली

अंजनापुरा

का. आ. 1679.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 जुलाई , 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 ( धारा -76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा-77 , 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के, उपबंध कर्नाटक राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्ः

बेंगलूर

बेंगलूर दक्षिण

क्र. सं .

बेगूर

होबली

दोड्ड बेगूर ग्राम

बेंगलूर दक्षिण

जिला

बेंगलूर तालुक

रामनगर

बिडदी

रामनगर राजस्व ग्राम का नाम व नगरपालिका सीमाएँ

जडेनहल्ली , वाजरहल्ली ग्राम/बन्निकुप्पे ( ग्रा. पं)

कसबा

(1)

मरसूर

आनेकल

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

बेंगलूर 1.

कसबा

गुंद्दलुपेट

चामराजनगर

गुंड्लुपेट

[संख्या एस -38013/43/2011 - एस.एस. 1 ] 2.

कसबा

मूडलपुरा ग्राम

चामराजनगर चामराजनगर

एस.डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव [ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

4568

(4)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(1)

New Delhi , the 7th June , 2011

कनकनगर

चिक्कय्यन छत्रा नंजनगूड मैसूर

मैसूर

के.एस. हुंडी

चिक्कय्यन छत्रा नंजनगूह

10. कसबा

मैसूर

नंजनगूड

कातवाडीपुरा

कसबा

11 . सिंधूहल्ली

मैसूर

नंजनगूड

कसबा

12. उप्पनहल्ली

नंजनगूड मैसूर

13.

मैसूर मैसूर...

ब्यातहल्ली ( गुड्डगेरे ) वरूणा

कडकोला

14.

नंजनगूह मैसूर S.O. 1680.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the Ist July, 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter - V and VI [ except Sub -Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force ] ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas inthe State of Karnataka namely :-

15.

मैसूर

श्रीरंगपट्टणा

District

Taluk

के.आर.एस. रोड श्रीरंगपट्टणा (होसहल्ली)

Hobli

St. No

16.

वरूणा

मादरगल्ली ( गुड्‌डगेरे )

मैसूर

Name of the Rev. Village or Municipal Limits

17.

सीगूर

Raichur

Vadavatti Raichur

1. Baidoddi/Bijenagere

पिरियापट्ना(सीगूर विलेजबैलकुप्पे)

South Canara

Aliken Majalu ( Idkidu Bantwal Bantwal

सीगूर

Grama)

पिरियापट्ट‌णा मैसूर

कं. आर. नगूरु (मल्लेनाथपुरा,

Bangalore

3. Anjanapura

Uttarahalli Bangalore South

18. तातनहल्ली ,काठेनहल्ली कोप्पा,चुंचनकल्ली

Bangalore

Bangalore.

Dodda Begur Village Begur

19 . श्रीरंगपट्टणा/मोगराहली कसबा

श्रीरंगपट्टणा मैसूर Ramanagar Bangalore

5. Jadenahalli , Vajarahalli Bidadı Village/Bannikuppe

20.

वरूणा

होसहल्ली/ मोगरहल्ली

मैसूर

(G.P)

21.

वरूणा

वरूणा एस्टेट

मैसूर मैसूर Kasaba Anekal Bangalore

6. Marsur Village

[संख्या एस-38013/42/2011 - एस.एस. । ]

एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव [No.S -38013/43/2011 - S.S.I ]

S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

New Delhi , the 7th June , 2011 नई दिल्ली, 7 जून , 2011

S.O. 1681.- In exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the Ist July, 201,1 as the date on which the provisions ofChapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter - V and VI [ except Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Karnataka namely :-

का. आ. 1681.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 जुलाई , 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिभिंयम के अध्याय -4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 ( धारा -76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध कर्नाटक राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्ः

Hobli

Taluk

District

जिला

होबली

क्र. सं.

तालुक

Sl. Name of the Rev. No. Village or Municipal Limits

(3)

(1)

(5)

(2)

(4)

राजस्व ग्राम का नाम व नगरपालिका सीमाएँ

Kasaba

1. Banchalli lundi

Nanjanagudu Mysore (1)

(4)

(5)

(3)

(2)

2. Basavanapura

Chikkaiahna Nanjanagudu Mysore

Chatra

कसबा

नंजनगूड मैसूर

बंचल्लठी हुडी

Nanjanagudu Mysore

3 Chinnadagudi Hundi Kasaba

नंजनगूड मैसूर

चिक्कय्यन छत्रा

बसवनपुरा

4. Deveerammanahalli Kasaba Nanjanagudu Mysore कसबा

नंजनगूड मैसूर

चिन्नदगुडि हुंडी

5. Hejjide

Chikkaiahana Nanjanagudu Mysore

Chatra

कसबा

देवीरम्मनहल्ली

नंजनगूड मैसूर

Kasaba

6. Hosur

Mysore

Nanjanagudu हेज्जिडे

मैसूर

चिक्कय्यन छत्रा नंजनगूड

Kasaba

7. Kalale

Mysore

Nanjanagudu कसबा

नंजनगूड मैसूर

6. होसूर

8. Kanakanagar

Chikkaiahna Nanjangudu Mysore Chatra

कसबा

कल्ले

मैसूर

नंजनगूड [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4) .

(5) 9. K.S. Hundi

Nanjangudu Mysore

Chikkaiahna Chatra

Kasaba Nanjangudu Mysore 10. Kathavadipura

11. Sindhuhalli

Kasaba

Nanjangudu Mysore

Kasaba

12. Uppanahalli

Nanjangudu Mysore

Mysore Mysore 13. Byathahalli (Guddagere ) Varuna

14. Kadakola

Kadakola Nanjangudu Mysore 15. K. R. S. Road ( Hosahalli ) Srirangapatna SrirangapatanaMysore 16. Madaragalli (Guddagere) Varuna Mysore Mysore

Seegur

Periyapatna Mysore 17. Periyapatna ( Seegur Village Bylakuppe)

Seegur

Periyapatna Mysore 18. K. R. Nagar (Mallenathapura, Thathanahally, Kalenahally, Koppa , Chunchanakalli )

Kasaba

Srirangapatna Mysore 19. Srirangapatna, Mogarahalli

20. Hosahalli , Mogarahalli Varuna

Mysore Mysore

Varuna

21. Varuna Estate

Mysore

[No.S - 38013/42/2011 - S.S.I ] S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 जून , 2011

4569

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 18 , 2011 /ज्येष्ठ 28 , 1933

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4)

(5) 11.

357

मधुबनी

मुजफ्फरपुर 12.

358

मादापुरचौबे

मुजफ्फरपुर चौसीमा

13.

356'

मुजफ्फरपुर 14.

330

पकड़ीइस्माइल

मुजफ्फरपुर 15 .

327

धरमपुर

मुजफ्फरपुर 16.

333

मझौलीखेतल

मुजफ्फरपुर 17.

402

ब्रहमपुरा

मुजफ्फरपुर 18.

392

सदातपुरा

मुजफ्फरपुर 19.

331

मुजफ्फरपुर परमानन्दपुर ..

[संख्या:-एस-38013/41 /2011 - एस.एस. 1 ]

एस. डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th June , 2011

S.O. 1682. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State InsuranceAct, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the Ist July, 201,1 as the date on which the provisions ofChapter - IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI [except sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78,79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] ofthe said Act shall into force in the following areas in the State ofBihar namely :-

District

Revenue Thana

Sl . Name of the Revenue No. Village

668

1. Shekhpur

Muzzaffarpur

666

Muzzaffarpur 2. Ahiyapur

का. आ. 1682.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 जुलाई , 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय -5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा-77 , 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] के उपबंध बिहार राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्ः.

675

Muzzaffarpur 3. Barajagarnath

4. Tarma

682

Muzzaffarpur

656

5. Bakhari

Muzzaffarpur

353

Muzzaffarpur 6. Bhagwanpur

क्र. सं.

राजस्व थाना संख्या

जिला राजस्व ग्राम का नाम

7. Patahai

355

Muzzaffarpur

361

8...Mathurapur

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) 1.

668

शेखपुर

मुजफ्फरपुर

Muzzaffarpur 9. Gowarsahi

354

Muzzaffarpur

332

10. Dumari

Muzzaffarpur

357

11. Madhubani

666

2. अहियापुर

मुजफ्फरपुर 3.

675

मुजफ्फरपुर बड़ाजगरनाथ

टरमा

682

मुजफ्फरपुर

Muzzaffarpur

358

12. Madapur Choube

Muzzaffarpur

356

13. Chousima

Muzzaffarpur

330

14. Pakari Ismile

656

बखरी

भुजफ्फरपुर

Muzzaffarpur

327

Muzzaffarpur 15. Dharampur

353

भगवानपुर

मुजफ्फरपुर

333

16. Manjhoulikhetal

Muzzaffarpur

402

17. Brahmpura

पताही

355

मुजफ्फरपुर

Muzzaffarpur

392

Muzzaffarpur 18. Sadatpur

361

मुजफ्फरपुर मथुरापुर

354

गोबरसही

मुजफ्फरपुर

332

10. डुमरी

मुजफ्फरपुर

331

Muzzaffarpur 19. Permanandpur

[No. S-38013/ 41/2011 -S.S.I ]

S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy.

4570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 18 , 2011 / JYAISTHA 28 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 7 जून , 2011

का. आ. 1683, कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 जुलाई , 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78 , 19 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] के उपबंध बिहार राज्यके निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:-

जिला सं. राजस्व ग्राम का नाम

राजस्वथाना संख्या

164/2

समस्तीपुर हरपुर एलौथ

196

भँमर्कपुर

समस्तीपुर

191/2

खताग्रहीम पुर

समस्तीपुर

164/3

हरपुर एलौथ

समस्तीपुर

[संख्या:-एस-38013/40/2011 - एस.एस. 1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] New Delhi , the 7th June , 2011

S.O. 1683.-In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees' State InsuranceAct, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st July, 2011 as the date on which the provisions ofChapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI [ except Sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78,79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] ofthe said Act shall into force in the following areas in the State of Bihar namely :-

Revenue Thana District Sl . Name of the areas No. Revenue Villages

164/2

1. Harpur Alloth

Samastipur

196

2. Bhamrupur

Samastipur

191/2

3. Khaprahimpur

Samastipur

164/3

4. HarpurAlloth

Samastipur

[No.S - 38013/40/2011 - S.S.I ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

Printedby the Manager, Government of India Press , Ring Road , Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi - 110054.