This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD . NO . D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003-05 रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05

सत्यमेव जयते भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 30]

नई दिल्ली, जुलाई 17-जुलाई 23 , 2011 , शनिवार/ आषाढ़ 26-श्रावण 1 , 1933 NEW DELHI , JULY 17- JULY 23 , 2011 , SATURDAY/ASADHA 26-SRAVANA 1 , 1933

No. 301

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II - खण्ड 3- उप - खण्ड (ii)

PART II -Section 3-Sub- section ( ii)

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

के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण गोवा राज्य के संबंध में करती है ।

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

[फा. सं. 228/7/2011-एवीडी II ] नई दिल्ली , 8 जुलाई , 2011

राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (Department of Personnel and Training )

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2011

S.O. 1884. In exercise of the powersowers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No. 25 of1946) , the Central Government with the consent ofthe State Government of Goa, Home Department (General ) , Secretariat Provorim vide Notification No. 19 / 10/2010 - HD (G) dated 16th February, 2011 and Corrigendum No. 19 / 10/ 2010-HD(G ) dated 9th June , 2011 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Goa for investigation ofCrime No. 03/2011 dated 07-01-2011 under Sections 380 , 409 , 120- B of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860 ) and Sections 7 , 11 , 12, 13 ( 1 ) (c ) and का. आ. 1884, केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए गोवा राज्य सरकार , गृह विभाग ( जनरल ) , सचिवालय , पोरवेरिम की दिनांक 16 फरवरी , 2011 की अधिसूचना सं. 19/10/2010- एचडी ( जी ) तथा दिनांक 9 जून , 2011 के शुद्धिपत्र सं. 19/ 10/2010 - एचडी ( जी ) द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से पुलिस स्टेशन सीआईडी, अपराध शाखा , डोना पाऊला , पणजी , गोवा में पंजीकृत भारतीय दंड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 380 , 409, 120 - बी तथा भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम , 1988 (1988 का अधिनियम सं. 49 ) की धारा 7 , 11 , 12 , 13 ( 1 ) ( सी ) तथा 13 ( 1 ) ( डी ) तथा नारकोटिक ड्रग्स तथा साइकोट्रोपिक सब्सटेन्स एक्ट, 1985 ( 1985 का अधिनियम सं. 61 ) की धारा 28 , 29 ,30 , 31 के साथ पठित धारा 8 सी तथा 59 ( 2 ) बी. के अंतर्गत केस सं. 03/2011 दिनांक7-1-2011 का तथा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराध के संबंध में या उससे सम्बद्ध प्रयास , दुष्प्रेरणा तथा षडयंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार के क्रम में किए गए उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध या अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना

(5165)

2589 G1/2011 5166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

13 ( 1 ) ( d) of the Preventions of Corruption Act , 1988 ( Act No. 49 of 1988 ) Sections 8 - C read with 28, 29 , 30 , 31 and 59 (2) (b ) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 ( Act No. 61 of 1985) registered at Police Station CID Crime Branch , Dona Paula , Panaji , Goa and attempt abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offence and any other offence or offences committed in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[ F. No. 228/ 7/2011 - AVD - II ] RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 11 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1885. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए त्रिपुरा राज्य सरकार , गृह विभाग अगरतला की दिनांक 30 मई , 2011 की अधिसूचना सं. एफ. 21 ( 52 ) -पीडी/2000 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से श्रीमती निलिमा देबबरमा पुत्री श्री कृष्णा देबबरमा, निवासी हदराय बॉय ( इदांगकुर ) , सिकारीबारी एडीसी गांव की बलात्कार तथा हत्या के संबंध में भारतीय दंड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 376 ( 2 ) ( जी ) , 302 , 201 तथा 34 के अधीन पुलिस स्टेशन चम्पाहोर में दर्ज मामला सं. 07/11 तथा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराध के संबंध में या उससे संबद्ध प्रयास , दुष्प्रेरण तथा षडयंत्र या इसी संव्यवहार के क्रम में या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत अन्य किन्हीं अपराधों के अन्वेषण के संबंध में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों तथा क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण त्रिपुरा राज्य के सम्बन्ध में करती है ।

[फा. सं. 228 /21 /2011 -एवीडी- II ]

राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 11th July, 2011

S.O. 1885. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 ( Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Tripura , Home Department , Agartala vide Notification No. F. 21 ( 52) - PD/2000 dated 30th May, 2011 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Tripura for investigation of Case No. 7/11 under Sections 376 ( 2 ) ( g ) , 302 , 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) registered at Police Station Champahaur relating to rape and murder of Smt . Nilima Debbarma daughter of Shri Krishna Debbarma of Hadrai Bai ( Idengkur ) , Sikaribari ADC Village and attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offence and any other offence or offences committed in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[ F. No. 228 /21 /2011 - AVD- II ] RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy.

[PART II -SEC . 3( ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 13 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1886.-केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए असम राज्य सरकार, की दिनांक 6-6-2011 की अधिसूचना सं. पी.एल.ए. 571/2010/16 एतद्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से अनुसूचित जानवरों से प्राप्त हड्डियों , खोपड़ियों , शल्कों या जानवरों के शरीर के अन्य अंगों या वस्तु के ले जाने , आपूर्ति करने या व्यापार करने या तस्करी करने संबंधी मामलों का तथा दिनांक 15-6-2010 से 19-6-2010 तक अवधि के दौरान तस्करी निरोधक एकक , सीमा शुल्क प्रभाग , गुवाहाटी द्वारा एल.जी.बी.आई. हवाई अड्डे पर बाघ एवं पैंगोलिन के शरीर के अंगों से संबंधित की गई 4 जब्ती तथा आर. एम. एस. गुवाहाटी रेलवे स्टेशन पर की गई एक जब्ती से उद्भूत मामलों की जिनकी उपायुक्त, गुवाहाटी सीमा शुल्क प्रभाग , गुवाहाटी से संख्या viii ( 48 ) 1 /एम.आई.एस.सी./टेक/सीयूएस/एएस/ जी.ए.यू./2010 दिनांक 20-5-2011 द्वारा के. अ. ब्यूरो , नई दिल्ली को भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 49 , 49-बी के साथ पठित धारा 120- बी तथा वन्यजीव ( संरक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1972 की धारा 51 के अंतर्गत जांच करने संबंधी शिकायत प्राप्त हुई है , संबंध में तथा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराधों के संबंध में या उनसे सम्बद्ध प्रयास , दुष्प्रेरणा तथा षडयंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार के क्रम में किए गए किसी अपराध /अपराधों का या उपर्युक्त पांच जब्ती संबंधी मामलों के उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध/अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के संबंध में दिल्लीविशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण असम राज्य के संबंध में करती है ।

[फा. सं. 228/79/2010- एवीडी- II ] राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव ( वी- II ) New Delhi , the 13th July, 2011

S.O. 1886. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 ofthe Delhi SpecialPolice Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Assam , Political ( A) Department , Dispur vide Notification No. PLA/ 571 /2010/ 16 -A dated 6th June , 2011 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Assam for investigation of offences punishable under Section 120 - B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860 ) , Section 51 read with 49 , 49-B ofWildlife(Protection) Act , 1972 (Act No. 53 of 1972) arising out of the four seizures of body parts of tiger and pangolin effected by the Anit- Smuggling Unit , Customs Division , Guwahati at LGBI Airport and one seizure at RMS Guwahati Railway Station during the period from 15-6-2010 to 19-6-2010 and attempt , abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offience and any other offence or offences committed in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/ 79 /2010 - AVD - II ] RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy. ( V- II ) भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 14 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1887.-केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केरल राज्य सरकार , गृह ( एम ) विभाग की दिनांक 18जून , 2011 की अधिसूचना सं. जीओ ( एम.एस. ) सं. 130/2011/गृह , तिरूअन्नतपुरम द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति के केरल राज्य में अन्य राज्यों की लाटरियों की अवैध बिक्री के संबंध में लाटरीज ( विनियमन ) अधिनियम , 1998 ( 1998 का अधिनियम सं. 17 ) के अधीन केरल राज्य में विभिन्न पुलिस स्टेशनों में दर्ज निम्नलिखित 32 मामलों का

पुलिस स्टेशन

अपराध संख्या

क्रम सं.

(3)

(2)

(1)

1 .

अपराध सं. 658/10 म्यूजियम पुलिस स्टेशन, तिरूअन्नतपुरम 2 .

अपराध सं. 764/10 म्यूजियम पुलिस स्टेशन , तिरूअन्नतपुरम अपराध सं. 1146/10

फोर्ट पुलिस स्टेशन , तिरूअन्नतपुरम अपराध सं. 30/2010 मावेलिक्कारा पुलिस स्टेशन

अपराध सं. 64/2010 कायमकुलम पुलिस स्टेशन

अपराध सं. 65/2010

6 .

कायमकुलम पुलिस स्टेशन

अपराध सं. 26/2010 मन्नार पुलिस स्टेशन , अलापुझा 7.

अपराध सं. 38/2010 चेनगन्नूर पुलिसस्टेशन

अपराध सं. 39/2010

चेनगन्नूर पुलिस स्टेशन

5167 तथा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराधों के संबंध में या उससे सम्बद्ध प्रयास , दुष्प्रेरणा तथा षडयंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार के क्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अपराध या अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण केरल राज्य के संबंध में करती है ।

[फा. सं. 228 / 18/2011 - एवीडी-II ] राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 14th July, 2011

S.O. 1887. In exercise ofthe powers conferredby sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 ( Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Kerala , Home ( M ) Department , vide Notification GO . (Ms ) No. 130/2011 / Home , Thiruvanantha- puram dated 18th June , 2011 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Kerala for investigation of the following 32 cases under the Lotteries (Regulation)Act, 1998 (Act No. 17 of 1998 ) at registeredat various Police Station in the State of Kerala relating to the illegal sale of other State Lotteries in the State of Kerala.

Police Station

Sl . No. Crime No. (3)

(1)

(2)

अपराध सं. 40/2010 चेनगन्नूर पुलिसस्टेशन

10 .

अपराध सं. 41/2010 चेनगन्नूर पुलिस स्टेशन

11 .

अपराध सं. 42/2010 चेनगन्नूर पुलिस स्टेशन

12.

Museum Police Station . Thiruvananthapuram

1. Cr. No. 658/10

2. Cr. No. 764/10 Museum Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram Fort Police Station . Thiruvananthapuram

3. Cr . No. 1146/10

अपराध सं. 24/2010

13.

ईडुक्कीपुलिस स्टेशन

Mavelikkara Police Station

4. Cr. No. 30/2010

अपराध सं. 50/2010 कट्टापाना पुलिस स्टेशन

14.

Kayamkulam Police Station

5. Cr. No. 64/2010

चिंगवनम पुलिस स्टेशन

अपराध सं . 42/2010

15.

Kayamkulam Police Station

6. Cr . No. 65/2010

अपराध सं. 82/2010 चंगनासेरी पुलिस स्टेशन

16.

Mannar Police Station . Alappuzha

7. Cr. No. 26/2010

अपराध सं. 66/2010

17.

ईटूमानूर पुलिस स्टेशन

Chengannur Police Station

8. Cr . No. 38/2010

अपराध सं. 67/2010 ईदूमानूर पुलिस स्टेशन

18 .

Chengannur Police Station

9 Cr. No. 39/2010

अपराध सं. 18/2010

19 .

अयारकुनम पुलिस स्टेशन

Chengannur Police Station

10. Cr. No. 40/2010

अपराध सं. 38/2010 गांधी नगर पुलिस स्टेशन

20.

Chengannur Police Station

11. Cr. No. 41/2010

अपराध सं. 78/2010 कोट्टयाम वेस्ट पुलिस स्टेशन 21 .

Chengannur Police Station

12. Cr. No. 42/2010

अपराध सं. 75/2010

22.

थ्रिककाकरा पुलिस स्टेशन Idukki Police Station

13. Cr. No. 24/2010

कसाबा पुलिस स्टेशन कोचि अपराध सं. 413/2010

23.

Kattappana Police Station

14. Cr . No. 50/2010

24. अपराध सं. 495/2010 एरनाकुलम टाउन नार्थ पुलिस स्टेशन Chingavanam Police Station

15. Cr . No. 42/2010

अपराध सं. 496/2010 एरनाकुलम टाउन नार्थ पुलिस स्टेशन 25.

Changanassery Police Station

16. Cr . No. 82/2010

Ettumanoor Police Station

17. Cr. No. 66/2010

कसाबा पुलिस स्टेशन , पलकाड 26. अपराध सं. 730/2010

Ettumanoor Police Station

18. Cr. No. 67/2010

अपराध सं. 96/2010 नार्थ पैशवूर पुलिस स्टेशन

27.

Ayarkunnam Police Station

19. Cr. No. 18/2010

अपराध सं. 611/2010 पलकाड टाउन साउथ पुलिस स्टेशन 28.

Gandhinagar Police Station

20. Cr . No. 38/2010

29. अपराध सं. 267/2010 मालामपूझा पुलिस स्टेशन

Kottayam West Police Station

21. Cr . No. 78/2010

पनियनकारा पुलिसस्टेशन

अपराध सं. 419/2010

30.

Thrikkakark Police Station

22. Cr . No. 75/2010

अपराध सं. 526/2010 कोझीकोड टाउन पुलिस स्टेशन Kasaba Police Station Kochi

23. Cr . No. 413/2010

31.

Ernakulam Town North Police Station

24. Cr . No. 495/2010

पलकाड टाउन साउथ पुलिस स्टेशन भारतीय दंड संहिता,

32.

Ernakulam Town North Police Station

25. Cr . No. 496/2010

1860 ( 1946 का अधि-

Kasaba Police Station Palakkad

26. Cr. No. 730/2010

नियम सं. 25 ) की धारा

North Paravur Police Station

27. Cr. No. 96/2010

436 के अधीनअपराध

सं. 640/2010

Palakkad Town South Police Station

28. Cr. No. 611/2010 5168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

(1)

(2)

(3)

29. Cr. No. 267/2010 Malampuzha Police Station

30. Cr. No. 419/2010 Panniyankara Police Station 31. Cr . No. 526/2010 Kozhikode Town Police Station 32. Cr. No. 640/2010 Palakkad Town Police Station Under section 136 of Indian Penal Code . 1860 ( Act No. 25 of 1946 )

and attempt , abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and any other offence or offences committed in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[ F.No. 228/ 18 /2011 -AVD - II ] RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 14 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1888. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए निम्नलिखित अपराधों को दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषण किए जाने के लिए विनिर्दिष्ट करती है :

(क) लाटरीज ( विनियमन) अधिनियम , 1998 ( 1998 का अधिनियम सं. 17 ) के अंतर्गत दंडनीय अपराध ( ख ) उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराधों के संबंध में या सम्बद्ध में प्रयास , दुष्प्रेरणा तथा षडयंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत कोई अन्य अपराध या अपराधों ।

[फा. सं. 228/ 18/2011 - एवीडी- II ]

राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव ( वी. II ) New Delhi , the 14th July, 2011

S.O. 1888. In exercise of the powers conferredby section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Government hereby specifies the following offences which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment , namely: -

( a) Offences punishable under The Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 ( Act No. 17 of 1998) and

(b) Attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[ F.No. 228 / 18 /2011 - AVD- II ]

RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy. (V.II) नई दिल्ली , 14 जुलाई , 2011

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii )] का.आ. 1889. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 (1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए सेशन जज का न्यायालय , अंडमान और निकोबार द्वीपसमूह , पोर्टब्लेयर में केस सं. 5 ( एस )97/सी. बी.आई. /एस.सी.बी./कोलकाता ( रशीदा बानु हत्या मामला ) का तथा विधि द्वारा स्थापित पुनरीक्षण या अपीलीय न्यायालयों में उक्त केस से उत्पन्न अपीलीय , पुनरीक्षण या अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए श्री वी.डी. बालन , एडवोकेट को विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/28/2011 - एवीडी- II ] राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 14th July, 2011

S.O. 1889.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) the Central Government hereby appoints Shri V.D. Siva Balan , Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of case No. 5 ( S )/97 /CBI/SCB - Kol ( Rashida Banu murder case ) in the Court of Sessions Judge , Andaman & Nicobar Island atPort Blair and appeals , revisions or other matter arising out of the said case in revisional or appellate courts established by law.

[ F. No. 225/ 28 /2011 - AVD - II ] RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy.

वित्त मंत्रालय

(व्यय विभाग )

( महालेखा नियंत्रक का कार्यालय )

(प्रशासन अनुभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 7 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1890.-इस कार्यालय की दिनांक 165-2008 की अधिसूचना सं. ए-28015 / 2007/एमएफसीजीए/ आरटीआई/प्रशा. तथा दिनांक 11-07-2008 , 27-07-2009 और 07-06-2010 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचनाओं के अधिक्रमण में महालेखा नियंत्रक कार्यालय के संबंध में सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम , 2005 के प्रयोजनार्थ महालेखा नियंत्रक ने श्री एम. प्राण कोनचाड़ी, संयुक्त महालेखा नियंत्रक को अपील प्राधिकारी के रूप में तथा श्री एच. के. श्रीवास्तव, उप महालेखा नियंत्रक को केन्द्रीय लोक सूचना अधिकारी ( सीपीआईओ ) के रूप में पदनामित किया है । श्री एम. प्राण कोनचाड़ी , संयुक्त महालेखा नियंत्रक तथा श्री एच. के. श्रीवास्तव , उप महालेखा नियंत्रक, सीपीआईओ के कार्यालय तथा आवास का पता इस प्रकार है: - श्री एम. प्राण कोनचाड़ी

श्री एच.के. श्रीवास्तव उप महालेखा नियंत्रक संयुक्तमहालेखा नियंत्रक

(1)

(2)

कार्यालय पता

वित्त मंत्रालय

व्यय विभाग

महालेखा नियंत्रक कार्यालय

महालेखा नियंत्रक कार्यालय [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(1)

(2)

कमरा नं. 711

कमरा नं. 701

7वां तल , सी-विंग , लोकनायक भवन

5169

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

(2)

(1)

Residential Address

Residential Address J-5A Green Park Extension New Delhi - 110 016

खान मार्किट , नई दिल्ली-110003

7वां तल , सी-विंग , लोकनायक भवन खान मार्किट , नई दिल्ली-110003

दूरभाष/फैक्स: 011-24641731 दूरभाष/फैक्स: (011-24624614

ईमेल: kumar hm @yahoo .

ईमेल: pkonchady @ hotmail.com

co.in

आवासीय पता

आई-606 , एसपीएस रेजीडेन्सी जे-5ए

18 -बी वैभव खण्ड

ग्रीन पार्क एक्टेंशन

नईदिल्ली-110016

इंदिरापुरम , गाजियाबाद

उत्तर प्रदेश -201012

दूरभाष: 0120-2276058 [सं. ए-28015/ 2007/एमएफसीजीए/ आरटीआई/प्रशा./ 63/563] आलोक रंजन , उप महालेखा नियंत्रक ( प्रशा. ) MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Expenditure)

(OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF ACCOUNTS)

(Administration Section )

New Delhi , the 7th July, 2011

S.O. 1890. In supersession of this office NotificationNo. A- 28015 /2007 / MFCGA/ RTI/Admn . dated 16-05-2008 , and notifications of even nos . dated 11-07-2008 , 27-07-2009 and 07-06-2010 , Controller General of Accounts has designated Sh.M. Pran Konchady, Joint Controller General ofAccounts as the Appellate Authority and Sh . H.K. Srivastav, Deputy Controller General of Accounts, as Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) for the purpose of Right to Information Act , 2005 in respect of the Office of the Controller General of Accounts .

The office and residential address of Sh . M. Pran Konchady, Jt . CGA and Sh . H.K. Srivastav, Dy. CGA , CPIO areas under :

Sh . H.K. Srivastav

Sh . M. Pran Konchady

It Controller General of Accounts Dy. Controller General of Accounts (1)

(2)

Office Address

Minstry of Finance

O/o Controller General of Department of Expenditure Accounts

Department of Expenditure O/o Controller General of Accounts

Romm No. 711

Room No. 701

7th Floor , C- Wing Lok Nayak 7th Floor, C-Wing Lok Nayak

Bhawan

Khan Market , New Delhi - 110003 Khan Market, New Delhi- 110003

Tele No. 001-24641731 Tele/ Fax: 011-24624614

Email: [email protected]. Email : kumar [email protected]

1-606 , SPS Residency 18 - B , Vaibhav Khand Indirapuram , Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh - 201 012 Tel : 0120-2276058 [No.A-28015/2007 / MFCGA/RTI/Admn ./63/563 ] ALOK RANJAN , Dy. Controller General ofAccounts (Admn. ) कार्यालय आयुक्त, केन्द्रीय उत्पाद एवं सीमा शुल्क भोपाल , 4 जुलाई , 2011

सं. 04/2011

का.आ. 1891.-श्री एल. के. जाम्बुलकर, अधीक्षक , केन्द्रीय उत्पाद एवं सीमा शुल्क, प्रभाग सागर आयुक्तालय भोपाल का निधन दिनांक 13 जून , 2011 को हो गया है ।

[फा. सं. 11 (03 ) 08/2010/Et.1 ] हरमीत सिंह , आयुक्त OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER , CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX Bhopal , the 4th July, 2011 No.04/2011

S.O. 1891. Shri L.K. Jambulkar, Superintendent , Central Excise & Customs , Div . Sagar, Bhopal Commissionerate has passed away on 13-06-2011 . [F.No. II (03 )08/2010/Et.I . ] HARMEET SINGH , Commissioner कार्यालय मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त जयपुर , 12 जुलाई , 2011

सं. 03/2011-12

का.आ. 1892.-आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जयपुर एत‌द्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2011-12 एवं आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से " श्री अग्रवाल शिक्षा समिति, जयपुर ( स्थाई खाता संख्या AAAAA9839Q ) " कोस्वीकृति देते हैं ।

2. बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 के उपखण्ड (23 सी) की उपधारा ( vi ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे । [क्रमांक:मुआआआआआ/( मु. )/जय/10 ( 23 सी) / ( vi ) 11-12/1447|

मुकेश भान्ती , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISIONER OF INCOME- TAX Jaipur, the 12th July, 2011

No. 03/2011-12

S.O. 1892. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -clause (vi ) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-taxAct, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA ofthe 5170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SRAVANA 1 , 1933

Income-tax Rules , 1962 the Chief Commisisoner of Income- tax , Jaipur hereby approves " Shri Agarwal Shiksha Samiti , Jaipur ( PAN - AAAAA9839Q ) " for the purpose of said sectionfrom Λ.Υ. 2011-12 & onwards .

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

[ No. CCIT/JPR/Addl.CIT( Hqrs .) / 10( 23C) ( vi ) /2011-12/1447] MUKESH BHANTI , Chief Commissioner of Income - tax (वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 13 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1893. राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खंड 9 के उपखंड ( 1 ) और ( 2 ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खंड ( च ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् एतद्वारा , इलाहाबाद बैंक के वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक श्री निर्मल कुमार बारी ( जन्म तिथि 10-10-1961 ) को उनके नामित होने की तारीख से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा जब तक वे इलाहाबाद बैंक के अधिकारी के रूप में अपना पदभार नहीं छोड़ देते अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , इनमे से जो भी पहले हो , इलाहाबाद बैंक के निदेशक मण्डल में अधिकारी कर्मचारी निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 6/37/2010-बीओ-1 ]

विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव (Department of Financial Services) New Delhi , the 13th July, 2011

S.O. 1893. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( f) of sub - section 3 of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Under takings) Act , 1970/1980 read with Sub-clause ( 1 ) & ( 2) of Clause 9 of the Nationalised Bank ( Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme , 1970/1980 , the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominates Shri Nirmal Kumar Bari ( DOB : 10-10-1961 ), Senior Manager, Allahabad Bank , as Officer Employer Director on the Board of Directors of Allahabad Bank , for a period of three years from the date of his nomination or untill he ceases to be an oflicer of the Allahabad Bank or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[F. No.6/37/2010 -BO.1 ]

VIJAY MALHOTRA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 13 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1894. राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उपधारा 3 ( च ) और 3 ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा , श्री सुरेश ठाकुर ( जन्म तिथि 24-05-1958 ) को उनकी नियुक्ति की

[PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii) ] अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , पंजाब एंड सिंध बैंक के निदेशक मण्डल में अंशकालिक गैर - सरकारी निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

फा. सं. 6/57/2010-बीओ -1 ]

[ विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th July, 2011

S.O. 1894. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section 3 (h ) and ( 3 -A) of Section 9 of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act , 1970/1980 read with sub - clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 of The Nationalised Banks ( Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980 , the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Suresh Thakur ( DoB: 24-05-1958 ) , aspart-time non - official director on the Board of Directors ofPunjab & Sind Bank, for a period of three years from the date of notification of his appointment or until further orders , whichever is earlier.

[F. No.6/57/2010 -BO- I ] VIJAY MALHOTRA , Under Secy.

स्वास्थ्यएवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 19 अप्रैल , 2011

का.आ. 1895. केन्द्रीय सरकार, दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा ( 10 ) की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् एतद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , नामतः

2. बर्कतुल्लाह विश्वविद्यालय , भोपाल द्वारा प्रदान की जाने वाली दंत चिकित्सा डिग्रियों की मान्यता के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम संख्या 69 के सामने दिए गए कॉलम 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में इनके पश्चात् निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियाँ इसके अतर्गत अंतर्विष्ट की जाएगी : -

" IV ऋषि राज दंत चिकित्सा विज्ञान महाविद्यालय " और अनुसंधान केन्द्र , भोपाल

( i ) दंत चिकित्सा सर्जरी में बैचलर बीडी एस

बर्कतुल्लाह विश्वविद्यालय , भोपाल ( यदिदिनांक 16-11-2010 को अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की गई)

[फा. सं. वी-12017/7/ 2001 - डी ई ]

अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE New Delhi , the 19th April , 2011

S.O. 1895. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2 ) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

(16 of 1948 ) , the Central Government , after consultation withthe 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. 69 , in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Barkatullah University, Bhopal , the following entries shall be inserted thereunder: -

5171

(ख) " मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " शीर्षक इसके बाद कालम ( 2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट] के अन्तर्गत " पांडिचेरी विश्वविद्यालय , " के सामने पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप [ इसके बाद कालम ( 3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टिके बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा , नामतः

(3)

एम डी ( फिजियोलॉजी )

(2)

" डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन

(फिजियोलॉजी) "

" IV. Rishi Raj College of Dental Science & Research Centre , Bhopal

(i) Bachelor of Dental Surgery (ifgranted on or after16-11-2010)

BDS , Barkatullah University, Bhopal"

[ F.No. V. -12017/7/2001 -DE ]

ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy .

स्वास्थ्यएवं परिवार कल्याण विभाग नई दिल्ली , 12 जुलाई , 2011

(यह मार्च 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद पांडिचेरी आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान , पुदुच्चेंरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पांडिचेरी विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी)।

एम डी ( माइक्रोबॉलोजी )

"डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन

(माइक्रोबॉलोजी) "

का. आ. 1896.-भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 (1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है नामतः

उक्त अनुसूची में -

(यह मार्च अप्रैल , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद पांडिचेरी आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान , पुदुच्चेंरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पांडिचेरी विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

एम डी (पैथोलोजी)

"डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन

(पैथोलोजी)"

(क) " मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " शीर्षक [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] के अन्तर्गत " भावनगर विश्वविद्यालय, गुजरात " , के सामने " पंजीकरण " के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप [ इसके बाद कॉलम (3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा , नामतः

(2)

(3)

डीएलओ

" डिप्लोमा इन लेरिंगगोलोजी औरऑटोलोजी"

(यह मार्च , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद पांडिचेरी आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान , पुदुच्चेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पांडिचेरी विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

एम डी ( कम्युनिटी मेडिसिन)

" डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन

(कम्युनिटी मेडिसिन ) "

(यह मार्च 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद राजकीय चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय , भावनगर , गुजरात में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में भाव- नगर विश्वविद्यालय, गुजरात द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

डीसी एम

" सामुदायिक मेडिसिन में डिप्लोमा "

(यह मार्च , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद पांडिचेरी आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान , पुदुच्चेंरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पांडिचेरी विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी) ।

एम डी ( एनेस्थीसिया )

"डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन

(एनेस्थीसिया) "

( यह मार्च , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद राजकीय चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय , भावनगर , गुजरात में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में भावनगर विश्वविद्यालय , गुजरात द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) । (यह मार्च, 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद पांडिचेरी आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान , पुदुच्चेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे 5172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SRAVANA 1 , 1933

(3)

(2)

विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पांडिचेरी विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी) ।

एम डी ( जनरल मेडिसिन ) " डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (जनरल मेडिसिन) "

एम डी (चर्म रतिज , यौन संक्रमित रोग तथा कुष्ठ रोग

"डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( चर्म रतिज, यौन संक्रमित रोग तथा कुष्ठ रोग) "

(यह मार्च, 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद पांडिचेरी आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान , पुदुच्चेंरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पांडिचेरी विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी) ।

एम डी (मनःचिकित्सा) " डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (मनःचिकित्सा) "

एम एस ( नेत्र रोग विज्ञान ) " मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी (नेत्र रोग विज्ञान ) "

एम एस ( ओबी जी )

" मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( प्रसूति रोग तथा स्त्री रोग विज्ञान ) "

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

(3)

(ख ) " मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " शीर्षक ( इसके बाद कॉलम (2) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ) के अन्तर्गत " पश्चिम बंगाल स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , कोलकाता " के सामने पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप ( इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ) शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, नामतः-

एम डी ( बाल चिकित्सा ) "डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (बाल चिकित्सा) "

(यह अप्रैल , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद नॉर्थ बंगाल मेडिकल कॉलेज , दार्जिलिंग में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पश्चिम बंगाल स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , कोलकाता द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी) ।

एम डी ( एनेस्थीसिया)

" डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (एनेस्थीसिया) "

(यह अप्रैल, 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद आर जी कार मेडिकल कॉलेज, कोलकाता में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पश्चिम बंगाल स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , कोलकाता द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

एम डी ( पैथोलोजी)

" डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (पैथोलोजी) "

(यह अप्रैल , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद कमांड अस्पताल , कोलकाता में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पश्चिम बंगाल स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , कोलकाता द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्साअर्हता होगी ) ।

एम डी (मेडिसिन)

" डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (जनरल मेडिसिन ) " भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(2)

(3)

(2)

5173 (3)

granted by Bhavnagar University , Gujarat in respect of students being trained at Govt. Medical College, Bhavnagar, Gujarat on or after March, 2011 .

D.C.M.

"Diploma in Community

Medicine"

एम एस ( नेत्र रोग विज्ञान ) "डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (नेत्र रोग विज्ञान) "

(यह वर्ष अप्रैल , 2011 में अथवा उसके बाद कमांड अस्पताल , कोलकाता में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पश्चिम बंगाल स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , कोलकाता द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी) ।

सभी के लिए टिप्पणी

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Bhavnagar University, Gujarat in respect of students being trained at Govt.Medical College , Bhavnagar, Gujarat on or after March , 2011 .

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

MD (Physiology )

"Doctor of Medicine

(Physiology)"

1. स्नातकोत्तर पाठयक्रम को प्रदान की गई ऐसी मान्यता की अधिकतम अवधि 5 वर्षों के लिए होगी जिसके उपरान्त इसका नवीकरण कराना होगा ।

2. उप-खंड 4 की आवश्यकता के अनसार मान्यता को समय पर नवीकरण कराने मेंविफल होने के परिणामस्वरूप संबंधित स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम में प्रवेश अनिवार्य रूप से बंद हो जाएंगे ।

[सं. यू. - 12012/39/2011 - एमई- ( पी- II ) ] अनिता त्रिपाठी, अवर सचिव (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Pondicherry University, in respect of students being trained at Pondicherry Institute ofMedical Sciences, Puducherry on or after March, 2011. )

MD (Microbiology)

"Doctor of Medicine

(Microbiology) "

(Department of Health and Family Welfare) New Delhi , the 12th July, 2011

S.O. 1896. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 2 ) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 ( 102 of 1956 ), the Central Government , afterconsulting the Medical Council of India , hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act , namely :-

In the said Schedule-

MD(Pathology)

"Doctor of Medicine

(Pathology)"

(a) against " Bhavnagar University, Gujarat " 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 :-

(3)

(2)

D.L.O.

"Diploma in Laryngology & Otology"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Pondicherry University , in respect of students being trained at Pondicherry Institute ofMedical Sciences, Puducherry on or after March , 2011. ) 5174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SRAVANA 1 , 1933

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

(3)

(2)

(3)

MD(Community Medicine)

MS (Ophthalmology) "Doctor ofMedicine (Community Medicine) "

"Master of Surgery

(Ophthalmology) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Pondicherry University, in respect of students being trained at Pondicherry Institute ofMedical Sciences, Puducherry on or after March , 2011.) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Pondicherry University, in respect of students being trained at Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Puducherry on or after March , 2011.)

MS(OBG)

MD (Anaesthesia )

"Master of Surgery (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) "

"Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesia ) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Pondicherry University, in respect of students being trained at Pondicherry Institute ofMedical Sciences , Puducherry on or after March, 2011.) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Pondicherry University, in respect of students being trained at Pondicherry Institute ofMedical Sciences, Puducherry on or after March , 2011.)

MD (General Medicine)

"Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine )"

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

MD (Paediatrics)

"Doctor ofMedicine

(Paediatrics)"

MD(DVL)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by West Bengal University ofHealth Sciences , Kolkata in respect of students being trained at North Bengal MedicalCollege , Darjeeling on orafterApril , 2011.) "Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology, Venereology & Leprosy) "

MD ( Anaesthesia)

"Doctor of Medicine

(Anaesthesia ) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by West Begal Universityof Health Sciences , Kolkata in respect of students being trained at R.G. Kar Medical College , Kolkata on or after April , 2011. ) MD( Psychiatry)

"Doctor of Medicine (Psychiatry) "

MD( Pathology)

" Doctor of Medicine

(Pathology) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by West Begal Universityof Health Sciences , Kolkata in respect of students being trained at Command Hospital , Kolkata on or after April, 2011.) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(3)

(2)

MD(GeneralMedicine) 'Doctor ofMedicine (General Medicine) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by West Begal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata in respect of students being trained at Command Hospital, Kolkata on or after April, 2011.)

MS(Ophthalmology) 'Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by West Begał University of Health Sciences, Kolkata in respect of students being trained at Command and Hospital , Kolkata on or after April , 2011. )

Note to all : 1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of5 years , upon which it shall have to be renewed.

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

[No. U - 12012/39/2011 -ME(P.II) ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.

वाणिज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय

(वणिज्य विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 14 जुलाई, 2011

का.आ. 1897. केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्थात (क्वालिटी नियंत्र और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम (2 ) के सा पठित, निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 (1963का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स एसन एंड को. जो कि 24-1-9 , तल , थोमसन स्ट्रीट , नजदीक पुराना पोस्ट आफिस , विशाखापत्तनम्-530001 में स्थित है , को इस अधिसूचना के राजप में प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए वाणिज्य मंत्रालय , की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर 1965 के साथ उपाबद्ध अनुसूचियों में विनिष्टि खनिज और अयस्क, (ग्रुप-1) अर्थात् लौह अयस्क और मैंगनीज अयस्क को उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कोंके निर्यात से पूर्व विशाखापत्तनम में निरीक्षण करने के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन एक अभिकरण की रुप में माध्य है, अर्थात्:-

(i) मैसर्स एसन एंड को. 24- प्रथम , स्ट्रीट, नजदीक पुरात पोस्ट आभिजन, विशाखापत्तनम- (निविन) निगर, 1963 के का प्रमाण - पत्र देने के

(B) एस एंड को 24-1-9 , स्ट्रीट, नजदीक पुधना पोष्ट आ 530 001 , इस के अपने पालम में निदेशक (निधीक्षण एवं क्वालिटी निर्यात निरीक्षण द्वारा समय- सम पर । निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगे ।

4/3 /2010 - निर्मा

डी. एस. केसी,

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND

(DepartmentofComm ) New Delhi , the 14th July, 2011

S.O.1897. In exercise of the powers ca sub- section ( 1 ) of the Section 7 of the Export (Quality Contral and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), roadwith sub-rule (2) ofrule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Rule, 1964, the Central Government hemby recongnises for a period of three years from the date of publication ofthis notification M/s . Essen & Co. , loca at24-1-9, 1st Floor, Thomsen Street, Near Old Post Office, Visakhapatnam -530001 , as an Agency for the inspection ofMinerals and Ores (Group-4) , namely, In Ore aut ManaganeseOre, specified in the Schedule annexed to the Ministry ofCommerce notification number S.O. 1975, dated the 20th December 1965 , prior to the expert of afroesa minerals and ores at Visakhapatnam, subject to the conditions, namely:-

1st (1) M/s. Essam & Co. , locatedat 24-1 Thomson Street , Near Old Post Visakhapatnam-530001 , shall give admin facilitiestothe officers nominated by Inspection Council in this behalf to the method of inspection followed by th granting the "Certificate of Inspection " rule 4 of thethe Export of Minerals and Group - I (Inspection ) Rules, 1965; and (ii) M/s. Essen & Co. , located4-1-9 Thomsen Street, Naur Office,Visakhapatnam- 530 001 , in performance of air function under the cnticating shalita bountyby such directive astheDirector (Inspection and QualityContibi ) maygive in waiting from time to time.

.No.4/3 /2010/Export Inspection] D. S. DHESI, Jt. Secy THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23, 2011/SRAVANA 0933

[PART - 30)) ) उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

सामने

उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग ) ( onbibo andron ) (UM

ॐ काम करनई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल , 2011

का.आओ, 1898 केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल (नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976( 1976 का 60) तथा बाट और माप मानक (बॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि मालारोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहे отні шынай

basmuss is bovina gnisd

अब अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धास और उग्र नारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत शविषयों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स पर इंस्ट्रूमेंट्स, यूएल 6 , दर्शन कम्पलैक्स , अर्जुन टावर रोड, सी पी नगर , घटलोडिया , अहमदाबाद- 382481 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथाधीन (प्रथार्थ सर्प-111 ) वाले ' डब्ल्यूटीटी -8 ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित सोलन उभा ठेपलटाप ओ माडस या जिलेडम " वगॉन" है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिये अकुमोदन हि आईएन 09 /10/ धनुवेशित किया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करती है ।

उधत मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित सोलन उपकरण ( टेबलवान प्रकार ) है। इसकी मि 30 कि.. र न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (५) प्रा. है । इसमें एक आधयतुलन युक्ति हैहैजिसका शत- व्यापक चारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्वबैंक डायोड (एलडी) पदीप्रदर्श चोलन परिणामपछि उपदर्शितपहिल करता है । उपकरण वोल्ट 50 विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

leti , noites - due

2,30 ижат в той эd flade сетио osval liarde li doidw noqu 2165 brc.jouno vtilsu ) trog

183(53ROFF????????????????????

to sine ult mot στον αστής Διοl zzangnosen i

puitingoon 'to lawanan ylamid Assz or stoli Alarmovie lindas (2 - duz ni bellipsi za vina 20 % bio 1854 15 अति-2 पॉडल की सीलिंग करने का अपाय डायग्रामसारी ( तो कीलितंग यायर निकाल प्रहार डिस्पले सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ हुई हुए काल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने

व्रकरण में केशियान तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिभिन तक पहुंच को रोकने

योगी सरकार की धारा 36 की धारा ( 12 ) के इस शक्तियों का The e r કા प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उपाय, डि करून के अनुसार और मुसी * मंडित विनिपीत किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे से । यथाँ की येि तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे उनी मॉडल के के मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की देर में सपान अधिक लिए 50 से 10,000 सताजी रेंज में सल्यानल ( एन ) सहि ग्रा. घाले हैं और " ई" 1x16, 2x10% या 5x10 , के हैं , ये धमक पूर्णांक केस या उस

बी. विज्ञान 5178

LIAO ДНТ.

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावामः 1 , 19334

[ भाग-11-खण्ड 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

e to partment of Consumer Affair

New Delhi , the 28th April 2011 ( 1 )

8.0. 1898. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report sabmittedto it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the poor inions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions বক বক সাদাক oprune autre

पुने गरी सही 0001-0 Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 ofthe salt Act, th Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatio weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy Class -III of Serien " WITT with brand name " WAGON " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ), maunfactured by M/ s . Perfect Instruments , UL-6, Darshan Complex, Arjun Tower Road, C. P. Nagar , Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad- 382481 and which is assigned the approvalmark IND/09/10/597;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based noir-automatic weighing frotrament (Table Top Type ) a maximum capacity of 30 kg and minimum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval ( e ) is Sg. It has aytare devion with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative curent power supply:

Figura- 1.

TOP BODY OF SCALE

0000

SEAL WIRI

Figure-2 Schematic Diagramof Being Pitivision of the Model .

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wing from the body of the display. The sent is quite whole in base plate and top cover of display, then seal wire is passed through these two holesholes attachedattached with scal Atypica schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

The instrument has external cocontrol to calibration . Adippswitch has also beenseen provided in A/D card/ mo to disable access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section ( 12 ) of section 36 of the Sall Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instru similar make, accuracy and performanonaf same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg with verifiuntion stalo ing (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 1 mg to 2g and with verification scale interval ( n ) in the mang of500 for ' e've 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1x16 , 2x10 , or 5x10 %, wheree is a positive or negative whol or equal to zero , mifanture by the same manufacturer in acordance with the same principle , design and in the và materials with ich , de said roved modelin been manufactured.

[ No.2 (354)/2009

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Lead 5178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART 1.3( )}

नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2011

का.आ. 1899, केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उस पॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स वेइंग केयर , कमला सुपर मार्केट के पास , तेलघनी नाका , रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- HI ) काले " डब्ल्यूपी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " डब्बू- एम ए सी " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 10/215 समनुदेशित मिस अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है । है, उक्त. मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

OTHER SIDE SEALING

SEAL WITH STAMPING PLATE

ERONT VIEW

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

इंडीकेटर के दोनों ओर दिए गए छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

उपकरण में बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए एडी कार्ड/मदर बोर्ड में किए स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिआइन के अनुसार और उसी साम्रगी से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तौलम उपकरण भी होने की 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 3000 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतसल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्र से 5000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10* या 5x10 , के हैं, जो धमात्मा शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 131 )/2010 ]

श्री. एस. दीक्षित, जिसका ति भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1, 1933

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

NewDelhi , the 5th May, 2011

S.O. 1899. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with thi provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7 ) and (8) of Section 36 of the saidAct, the CentralGovernment hereby approves and issues the certificate of approval of the model of non - automaticweighing instrument (Platform type ) with digital indication of medium Accuracy (AccuracyClass- III ) of Serica "WP " with brand name " W-MAC" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model) , maunfacturedby M/ s . Weighing Care, Nr Kanale Super Market, Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G. ) which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/215;

The saidmodel is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform Type) w device a maximum capacity of, 1000 kg and minimum capacity of 2 kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 100g. It has a tare dovior with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1

OTHER SEALING

GALL

60024

PLATFOR

ERONT VIEW

Figure-2 Sealing diagram.

Sealing is done by passing the sealing wire from the holes provided for sealing on both the side of the indic Atypical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/D card/mother to disable access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub- section ( 12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg up to 5000 kg with verifie scale interval (n) in the range of 3000 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of lx10 , 2x10kor 5x1 where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured bythe same manufacturer in accordance the same principle, design and materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F.No.WM-21 (131 )(2010)

B. N. DIXIT, Director ofLegal Metrology 5180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

PARE SEE: 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 5 मई , 2011

का.आ. 1900.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और भाप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

Ninor of bos seu bonistaur अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स बेइंग क्रेयर , कमला सुपर मार्केट के पास, तेलघनी नाका, रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता (सभार्थीन वर्षा ) वाले ' डब्ल्यू डब्ल्यू बी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक वेब्रिज ) के सॉइल की जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " डब्ल्यू- एम ए सी " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/10/216 समनदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक वेबिज है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 60 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 10.क्रि का है । इसमें युक्त आयतुलना है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) सोलन परिणाम प्रदर्शित है।उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

SEAL WITH

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

स्कूल की बाडी में दिए गए होल्ज से सीलिंग बायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती हैहै । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ort to adieuvong gulase in mingeid silerde 16: q

courviing of lotinco tomers and treminjan off और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्तः शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए सह ओममाः करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्मातां द्वापःकमी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और दफ़्ती सामग्री से जिससे उक्तअनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के सोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 3000 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मायमाम अंतराल (एन) सहित टम से 200 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 , 5x10 के है जो धनात्मक या समतुल्यहैं । के

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 131 )/2010]

बी. एन. दीक्षित, निदेशक, ब्रिधिक माप विज्ञान भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2011

S.O. 1900.-Whereas the Central Government, after, considering the report submitted to it by the authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in condon provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its securney ow sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8) ofSectil 6 ofthe said Act CentralGovernment hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non-automatin wo instrument (Electronic Weighbridge ) with digital indication of medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -111 ) of Sori and with brand.brand name " W - MAC " (hereinafter refreferred to as the said Model ), manufactured by M's . W Nr. Kamla Super Market, Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G. ) which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/ 216;

The saidModel is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Weighing with a maximum capacity of 60 tonne and minimum capacity of200 kg. The verification scale interval (c) is 10g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates # weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply. !

Figure- 1

Figure-3 Sealing provision of the indicator of the Model

Sealing is done on the display by passing the sealing wire from the body of the scale throug schematic diagram of sealing provision of the Model is given above.

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said , Act, Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing of of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 200 verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 3000 to 10,000 for de value of Sg or above and with 'e ' value of 1x10 , 2x 5x10k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer accordance with the same principle , design and materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured

[ F.No.WM-21 (131 ) 201 년

B. N. DIXIT, Director of legal Metrology 2589G1/11-3 5182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 4 जुलाई , 2011.

का.आ. 1901.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स मागोर सेल्ज एंड सर्विसिज प्रा.लि. , 475/ 1 ए, मिलर गंज , ओसवाल स्ट्रीट के पास , जी टी रोड, लुधियाना-141003 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले ' एमएसटी -11 ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रोष्ड का नाम " मागोर " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/11/87 समतुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आभेयतुलन मुक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई. डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 20 बोल्ड और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

120m

MAGOR

SEALING

FASAPING PLATH

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्पले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर डिस्पले पर सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ जुड़े हुए डिस्थले के बेस प्लेट और टॉप कवर में बने दो छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

उपकरण में बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड/ मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

R और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा.या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 * , 2x10 , 5x10 के, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (22) /2011 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2011

S.O. 1901. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the pre authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below ) is in conformity provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights an Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ; ٦٠

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, t Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighi instrument (Table top type) with digital indication ofmedium Accuracy (Accuracy class - III) of Series " MST- 11 " brand name " MAGOR" ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , maunfactured by M/s . Magor Sales and Pvt . Ltd. , 475/ 1A, Miller Ganj , Nr. Oswal Street, G T. Road, Ludhiana- 141003 and which is assigned the approv 09/11/87;

The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrunrent (Table tap Type a maximum capacity of 30 kg . and minimum capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval (e) is 5g. It has with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the wei The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1

MAGOR

SLANG Figure - 2 Sealing Diagram of sealing plovision ofthe Midd

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the dhony. whole in base plate & top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached wine schematic diagram of sealing provision of the Model is given above.

Theinstrument has external control to calibration . Adip switch has also been provided in AA to disable access to external calibration:

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said, Act, Co ernment hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Medel shell also cover the woning inste of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximura capacity upto with verifi interval ( n). in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg to 2g. and with verification scale interval ( n ) in of 500 to10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k, 2x10 %, or 5x 10 %, wherй на работ whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same prog hole, with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured.

[ F.No. 21 (22 )/2011 ] !

B.N. DEXIT Elvector of 5184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 4 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1902. केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल. यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 कीउप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स मागोर सेल्ज एंड सर्विसिज प्रा.लि. , 475/ 1 ए, मिलर गंज , ओसवाल स्ट्रीट के पास , जी.टी. रोड , लुधियाना-141003 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले ' एमएसपी-7' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " मागोर " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदनं हि आई एम डी/09/ 11 /88 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलभ परिणाम उपद‌र्शित करता । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्पले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर डिस्पले सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ जुड़े हुए डिस्पले के बेडी प्लेट की दो कवर में बने दो छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

उपकरण में बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/बी कार्डबोर्ड में विस स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वास प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और सही से उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन को ओली होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापम मापमान सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से 5000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 या 5x10 * ऋणात्मक पूणकि या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशाल [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2011

S.O. 1902. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the pla authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Wei Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series "MSP-7 " brand name "MAGOR" ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model), maunfactured by M/s . Magor Sales and Service Pvt . Ltd. ,475/ 1A, Miller Ganj , Nr. Oswal Street , G. T. Road, Ludhiana - 141003 and which is assigned the approval mark: DVD/ 09/11/88;

The saidmodel is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument (Platform Type ) with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg. and minimum capacity of2kg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 100g. It ina atare device with a 100-percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicate the vaighing mul The instrument operates 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative qurrent power supply.

STAMP

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision ofthe model

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. Weis wirole in base plate & top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holme schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

Theinstrumenthas external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/D card/me to disable access to external calibration .

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of 'Section 36 of the said, Act, the Contra Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval ofthe said model shall also cover the wà nhng insting similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 500 up to verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000for ' e' value of 5g . or more andwith value of in10 , 2x10 or 5 x10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equnt to zero , manufactured by the same manja accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said gemoval need manufactured:

[ F.No. - 2

B. N. DIXIT, DI [PART II-SEC.3(ii)] 5186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23, 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 4 जुलाई, 2011

का.आ. 1903.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976( 1976 का 60) तथ्था बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स मागोर सेल्ज एंड सर्विसिज प्रा.लि. , 475/ 1 ए, मिलर गंज , ओसवाल स्ट्रीट के पास , जी.टी. रोड, लुधियाना-141003 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एमएसडब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक बेब्रिज ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " मागोर " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 11 / 89 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक वेब्रिज़ ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 50 टन है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 कि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । '

MAGOR

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्पले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर डिस्पले को राइट साइड / बैक साइड में सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ जुड़े हुए डिस्पले के बेस प्लेट और टॉप कवर में बने दो छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

उपकरण में बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड/ मदर बो में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्मात्क्त्त द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी साम्रगी में जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 बक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से 200 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " सात 1x10 , 2x10 या 5x10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक का ऋणारचाक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएस-21 ( 22 )/2011 ]

बी, एन. दीक्षित, निदेशक , विधिक मात्र विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933

NewDelhi, the4th July, 2011

S.O. 1903. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity wh provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 ofthe saidAct, Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non -sutomatic w instrument ( Electronic Weighbridge) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series "M and with brand name " MAGOR" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , maunfacturedby M/ s . Magor Se Services Pvt . Ltd. , 475/ 1A, Miller Ganj , Nr Oswal Street, G. T. Road, Ludhiana - 141003 and which is assigned the a mark IND/09/ 11/89;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Electrcinic Wej with a maximum capacity of 50 tonne and minimum capacity of 100kg. The verification scale interval (e) is Skg . It bu tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1

MAGOR

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the modeει

Sealing is done on the right side/back side of the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the disp The seal is connected by whole in base plate & top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these twe attached with seal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

The instrument has external control to calibration . Adip switch has also been provided in A/D card/ motherliong to disable access to external calibration .

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said , Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy andand performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 200 tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g . or more and with 'e' value of Ix104,2x10 or 5x10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F.No. WM-21 (22)/2011 )

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

5188

नई दिल्ली, 4 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1904.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह सभाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स सन माइक्रो सिस्टम्स, 21 , फूलवाड़ी पार्क सोसायटी , गोविन्द वाडी के पास , इसानपुर , अहमदाबाद-382 443 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले ' पीआरजे 1011 ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " प्रीज्म " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 11/133 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारिंत आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति-1

San Micro Systern-Adilebad

आकृति 2- मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ।

डिस्पले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर डिस्पले पर सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ जुड़े हुए डिस्पले के बेस प्लैट और टॉप कवर में बने दो छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनावद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

उपकरण में बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए एडी का मेकर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है । ५ .

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती हैकि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो । मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 100,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (एन ) और 100 मि. ग्राध्या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 100,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 या 5x10 के , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 61 )/2011 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2011/श्रावण 1,1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

NewDelhi, the 4th July, 2011

S.O. 1904. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by preve authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in contestay provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and thethe Standards ofW Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and (8) ofSection 36 ofthe saidAct, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic mang instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of High Accuracy (Accuracy class -II ) of Series " PRJ- 1011 " বই । brand name " PRIZAM " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , maunfactured by M/s . Sun Micro Systems , 21 , Pulvadi Park Society, Opp .Govind Wadi , Isanpur , Ahmedabad- 382 443 and which is assigned the approval mark INEM09 /17/133 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument (Table top Type) withs a maximum capacity of 30 kg. and minimum capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval (e) is 2g. It has atare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1

Se Mere System-

Figure 2-Schematic Diagram of sealing provision ofthe model.

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body ofthe display. The seal is conthectal whole in base plate & top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

The instrument has external control to calibration . Adip switch has also been provided in A/D card/motherboard to disable access to external calibration .

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government herebydeclares that this certificate ofapproval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrumentsinstrumen of similar make , accuracy and performance of same serieseries with maximum capacity up to 50kg. with verification scale inle (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e' value of Img. to 50mg, and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 100,000 for ' e' value of 100 mg . or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k, 2x10 or 5x10 , wherek is a positive or noge whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F.No. WM-21 (61 )/2011 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 2589GI/11-4 5190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23, 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

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

नई दिल्ली, 4 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1905, केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाक्षम हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेचा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

3 अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 कीउप -धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स सन माइक्रो सिस्टम्स , 21 , फूलवाड़ी पार्क सोसायटी , गोविन्द वाडी के पास , इसानपुर , अहमदाबाद-382 443 द्वारा विभिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग-111 ) वाले ' पीआरटी -2013 ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " प्रीज्म " है , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 11 /134 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।..

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल,आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाफ टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकत्तम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जकं डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा बिद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति-1

Sun Micro System Ahmedab

1905

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्पले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर डिस्पले सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ जुड़े हुए डिस्पले के बेस प्लेट और टॉप कवर में बने दो छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

उपकरण में बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड/ मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।.

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी स्तमग्री से जिससे उक्तअनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलम उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 3 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 ", 2x10 या 5x10 *, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 61 )/2011 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान भारत का राजपत्र जुलाई 23 , 2019/ श्रवल 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

NewDelhi, the 4th July, 2011

S.O. 1905. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by issatisfied that the Model described in the said report (sce theo the figure given below) is in conformi the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Stase Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accu sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditionst

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate ofof approval of the model of non- m instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class - III) of Series " with brand name " PRIZAM" ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , maunfactured by Mix. Sun 21 , Fulvadi Park Society, Opp. Govind Wadi , Isampur, Ahmedabad (182 443 and which is assigned t IND/09/ 11/134;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -autonatic weighing instrument (Tablo a maximum capacity of 30 kg. and minimum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval (e) is Sg. Ith with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1

Sun MicroSystoreAl

Figure 2-Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is cont whole in base plate & top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal . Atyp schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/D card/mother to disable access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said, Act, the Cen Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing Instruntiend similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg, with verification solo (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . to 2g . and with verification scale interval (n ) in the enngs to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of .1x10k, 2x 10 , or 5x10k, where k is a positive.qnega number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[F.No.WM-21 (61 )/2011 )

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology $192

[PART II Sec.3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

नई दिल्ली, 4 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1906. केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और जाप मागफ (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी जमरा मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा (7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स सन माइक्रो सिस्टम्स, 21 , फूलवाड़ी पार्क सोसायटी , गोविन्द वाडी के पास , इसानपुर , अहमदाबाद -382443 द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले ' पीआरपी-307 ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " प्रीज्म " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 11 / 135 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आत्रेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

CAI WI ΓΑΜΡΙΝΟ ΡΕΑK

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ।

डिस्पले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर डिस्पले पर सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ जुड़े हुए डिस्पले के बेस प्लेट और टॉप कवर में बने दो छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

उपकरण में बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/ डी कार्ड/ मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिज़ाइन के अनुसार और उसी साम्रगी से जिससे उक्तअनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 या 5x10 के, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 61 )/2011 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित, निदेशक , विनिक माप विज्ञान भारत का राजपत्र : बुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रवण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

NewDelhi, the 4th July, 2011

S.O. 1906. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers conferredby sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series " PRP- 307" andwith brand name " PRIZAM" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model) , maunfacturedby M/s . Sun Micro Systems , 21, Fulvadi Park Society, Opp. Govind Wadi , Isanpur, Ahmedabad- 382443 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/11/135;

The saidmodel is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Platform Type ) with amaximum capacity of 1000 kg and minimum capacity of 2kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 100g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing resuk. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1

SEALING

Micro Sys

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision ofthe model.

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by whole in base plate and top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached witht seal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/D card/mother board to disable access to external calibration .

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg and up to 5000kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1x10%, 2x10k or 5x10k , wherek is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufact in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approvedmodel te manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (61 )/2011 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director ofLegal Metrology 5194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA1 , 1933

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नईदिल्ली, 1 जुलाई , 2011

का.अ. 1907.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के विलियम 5 के उप- विनियम ( 6 ) के अनुकरण में पता ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्म विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर निगम है।

अनुसूची

लाइसेंस संख्या लाइसेंसधारी का नाम

क्र. सं

व पता

लाइसेंस के अन्तर्गत वस्तु/ प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5) 1. 9804287

4-11-2010

धातवर्ष कलवें लोहे की फिटिंग्स

वन्दना इण्डस्ट्रीज , 248 , गोदाईपुर , जालन्धर ( पंजाब)

2 2344850

मिल्कपाउडर

27-01-2011 नानक मिल्क फूड ( इंडिया ) प्रा. लि.. फतेहगढ़ चूड़िया जिला गुरदासपुर अमृतसर

[सं. सी एम डी 13:13 ]

पी. के. मुखोपाध्याय, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमडीसीएच- III ) (BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi , the 1st July, 2011

S.O. 1907.-In pursuance of sub - regulation (6) of the regulation 5 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations , 1988 , ofthe 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 . No. Licence No. CM/L

Name and Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with relevant Indian Standards covered by the licence cancelled/suspension

Date of Cancellation expiry

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1. 9804287 M/ s Vandana Industrieś

4-11-2010 248Godaipur,

Malleable cast iron pipefittings

Distt. Jalandhar

Punjab

2. 2344850 M/sNanak Milkfood

Milkpowder

27-01-2011 (1)Pvt. Ltd. Fatehgarh Churia,

Distt:Gurdaspur Amritsar

[No. CMD/13: 13]

P. K. MUKHOPADHYAY, Scientist 'F ' and Head (MDCH- III) [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 15 जुलाई, 2011

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933

का.आ. 1908.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम 4 के उप- ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए

लाइसेंसधारी का

नाम व पता

क्रम सं,

लाइसेंस संख्या

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि वर्ष/माह

(1) (2)

(4)

(3)

1. 9775411 3-2-2010 गेटस इंडिया प्रा. लिमिटेड, अम्बाला चण्डीगढ़ हाईवे , गाँव सरसिनी , पी. ओ . लालडू, एस ए एस नगर मोहाली-140 501 ( पंजाब ) 2. 9776817 24- 24-2-2010 पुरदीप सिंह अवतार सिंह, रेलवे रोड , गेहरी मण्डी, अमृक्सर, जंडियाला गुरू (पंजाब) 3.

23-2-2010

9778720

एस. एस. इण्डस्ट्रीज , डी-108/ 109, फोकल प्वाइंट एक्सटेंशन, जालन्धर-144004 (पंजाब) 4 9778821 24-2-2010 नेशनल आयरन एंड स्टील क. गुरूनानक काम्पलैक्स , बस्ती ग्रावा खेल, जालन्धर ( पंजाब )

2-3-20

5. 9779217

एम बी एस एन्टरप्राइसिज्ज गुरू राम दास मैडीकल कालेज के पास , गाँव छप्पा राम सिंह, मेहता रोड, अमृतसर ( पंजाब )

19-3-2010

6. 9783713

शिवम मैटल शेपर इण्डस्ट्रीज ( यूनिट-2 ); प्लाट नं. 12 एवं 13 , फेज -2, गंगयाल जम्मू (जे एंड के) 7.

19-3-2010

9784715

देहर मिनरल वाटर, गुरूतुमनॉगपेहरू , अनन्तयाग , बारामुल्ला, जम्मू एवं काश्मीर जे एंड के 8..

28-3-2010

9784917

नैचुरल फूड प्रोडक्टस, प्लॉट नं. 786 , लेन नं 4, फूड पार्क, सिडको, इण्डस् काम्पलैक्स, जम्मू, बरी ब्रह्माणा जे एंड के (5)

(6) (7)

2396

9020

पावर बैशर

9523

पानी, गैस एवं मल जल के लिए दाय पाहून हेतु तत्द लोहे की फिटिंगें

1879

धातवर्ध्य ढलवें लोहे की पाईप फिटिंग्स 1

14543

पैकेजबन्द पेय जल

1038

स्टील के दरवाजे, शिड़कियां एवं रोशनदान

14543 5196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4) 9. 9786012012 29-3-2010 भारत बॉक्स फैक्टरी , इण्डस्ट्रीयल ग्रोथ सैन्टर, फेज-2 , जम्मूसाम्बा जे एंड के

10. 9787519 6-4-2010 अन्नपूर्णा एन्टरप्राइसिज 42 हरमन कालोनी , सरहिन्दरोड , पटियाला ( पंजाब ) 11. 9789422 25-3-2010 श्री रैमसाईडस कैमीकल्स लिमिटेड, लेन नं 2 , फेज 2 , सिडको इण्डस्ट्रीयल काम्पलैक्स , जम्मू, बरी ब्रहाणा 12. 9791005 27-4-2010 श्री गणेश फूड एवं बेवरेजीस , 123 फोकल प्वाइंट , गुरूदासपुर (पंजाब)

27-4-2010

13. 9791106

विश्वास ट्यूब इंडिया लिमिटेड, डी-100 इण्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया , फेज-7, एस ए एस नगर , मोहाली 9792815 30-4-2010

14.

हैले बेवरेजीस , 83/8 जवाहर नगर, मॉडल टाऊन, लुधियाना (पंजाब)

3-5-2010

15 9794011

बी आर कास्टिंगस इण्डस्ट्रीयल अस्टेट, गुरदासपुर, बटाला ( पंजाब )

10-5-2010

16. 9794112

वर्ल्ड स्टार इण्डस्ट्रीज , ई-30 इण्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया, फेज -7 एस ए एस नगर , मोहाली ( पंजाब )

17-5-2010

17. 9795114

मुनीश फोर्ज प्रा. लि. गांव गोबिन्दगढ़ , फेज -7 , फोकल प्वाइंट, लुधियाना ( पंजाब )

21-5-2010

18. 9795720

न्यूजम्मूकाश्मीर रोलिंग मिल्स, प्लाट नं. 19 एवं 20 , इण्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया, गंगयाल , जम्मू

21-5-2010

19. 9795922

ढिल्लोंकूल डिंगंक्स एंड बेवेरेजीस प्रा. लि. , जी. टी रोड, फिल्लोर, जालन्धर (पंजाब)

[PART II-Suc.3(ii)] (5) (6)

(8 ) (9 )

(7)

1992 13438

एलथरिन- मच्छर कॉएल

14543

2004 पैकेजबन्दपेय जल

12016

साइपरमैथरिन

1987 14543

2004 पैकेजबस्द पेय जल

1239

2004 स्टीलट्यूब

14543

2004 पैकेजबन्दपेय जल

.1986 7181

जल , गैस और मलजल के लिए क्षेतिज ढलवां लौहे कें फ्लैंज वाले पाइप

14543 2004 पैकेजबन्द पेय जल

2004 मृदु इस्पात के 1239 पाइप, नलिकाये तथापिटवां इस्पात कीफिटिंग- विशिष्ट भाग 1 मृदु

2008 कंक्रीट प्रबलन के 1786 लिए उच्च सामर्थ्य विकसित इस्पात छड़ और तार

पैकेजबन्द पेय 14543 जल 2004 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

9798120 21-5-2010

20.

हिन्दुस्तान इलैक्ट्रोडस 26 किमी स्टोन , चण्डीगढ़ अम्बाला रोड , जनेतपुर , एस ए एस नगर मोहाली , डेराबस्सी (पंजाब)

3-6-2010

9799728

21.

श्री रामसाईडस कैमीकल्स प्रा. लि. लेन नं. 2, फेज 2 , सिडको, इंडस्ट्रीयल एरिया काम्पलैक्स , जम्मू, बरी ग्रहाणा 16-6-2010

9804085

22.

प्लाट नं. 25 , गाँव फाजिलपुर, रंधावा श्री सूर्या फिटिंग्स, मसन्दा, जालन्धर (पंजाब )

29- 29-6-2010

9804287

23.

वन्दना इण्डस्ट्रीज , 248 , गोदाईपुर, जालन्धर (पंजाब)

28-6-2010

9804590

24.

मिकी रबड़ इण्डस्ट्रीज बस्ती बावा खोल जालन्धर ( पंजाब)

7-7-2010

9805794

25.

कॉप कैमीकल इंडिया लिमिटेड , सी -63 65 फोकल प्वाइंट , फरीदकोट, कोटकपूरा

(पंजाब)

24-6-2010

9806695

26.

मार्कफैड एग्रो कैमीकल , 7 और 8 बी, इण्डस्ट्रीयल अस्टेट, एस ए एस नगर, मोहाली (पंजाब) 9808497 20-7-2010

27.

चन्द्राचल इन्फ्रास्टक्चर प्रा. , लिमिटेड, प्लाट नं. 256, इण्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया , फेज 1 ,

चण्डीगढ़

8-7-2010

9809503

28.

कुबेर कास्टिंग प्रा. लि. , जी टी रोड, सरहिन्द साईड , बैंक साईड मार्डन स्टीलस लि. , फतेहगढ़ साहिब, मण्डीगोबिन्दगढ पंजाब

22-7-2010

29. 9810888

अभी एक्सपोर्ट प्रा. लि. , उधोग नगर गली नं. 5 , फोकल प्वाइंट के साथ जालन्धर ( पंजाब) 2589G1/11-5

( 7) (8 ) (9 ) (6)

(5)

संरचना इस्पात की 814 धातु आर्क वेल्डिंग केलिए आवरित इलेक्ट्रोड

2003 15335

अमिडाकलोरपिड

1987 1879

धातवर्ध्य ढलवें लोहे की पाईप फिटिंग्स

1987 1879

धातवर्ध्य ढलवें लोहे की पाईप फिटिंग्स

1960

1741

लेटेक्स फाम रबड़ प्रोडक्ट्स

1976 फैन्थोएट, ई सी 8291

2002

15160

प्रीटलाक्लोर ई सी

2001

1536

जल, गैस और मलजल के लिए अमकेन्द्री स्पन लौहे के दाब पाइप

1992

2830

कार्बन इस्पात केबिलेट

1987

1879-

धातवर्ज्य ढलवें लोहे की बाईप फिटिंग्स 5198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

(3)

(4)

(1 ) ( 2)

30. 9813490 16-8-2010 सिदौरा ब्रदर्स, गांव लोगोंवाल ब्लाक चीमा संगरूर , लोगोंवाल ( पंजाब ) 31. 9814694 19-8-2010 ईश्वर इन्टरनैशनल , 458/2 के, 1 ए सुआ रोड , इण्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया सी. धांधरी कलां, लुधियाना (पंजाब ) 32... 9815292 19-8-2010 सुपर स्टार इण्डस्ट्रीज , मेन बाजार, चडढियां धर्मशाला के पास , हादियाबाद, जालन्धर (पंजाब)

33. 9818908 16-9-2010 वाई क्यूएन्टरप्राइसिज, प्लॉट नं. 108 , सैक्टर 82 , पोस्ट ऑफिस/ गॉव मनोली, एस ए एस नगर , मोहाली 34. 9820389 8-10-2010 आई जे इन्टरनैशनल, सी- 29 , फोकल प्वाइंट, जालन्धर

35. 9820689 14-09-2010. अपर इंडिया स्टील मैन्युफेक्चरिंग , -इंजीनियरिंग क. लि. , धांधरी इण्डस्ट्रीयल फोकल प्वाइंट लुधियाना पंजाब 36. 98215907-10-2010 आर हम एक्सपोर्ट्स , 72-73 , गुलाब सिंह नगर , इण्डस्ट्रीयल अस्टेट के पीछे जालन्धर

37.

5-10-2010

9821893

ज्ञान स्टील रोलिंग मिल्स प्रा. , लिमिटेड, जी टी रोड सरहिन्द साईड फतेहगढ़ साहिब मण्डीगोबिन्दगढ़ 38. 9823594 14-10-2010 फयूचरटैक इनफ्राटेक लिमिटेड , गांव बदाली आला सिंह , फतेहगढ़ साहिब

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ] (5) (6) ( 7) ( 8 ) ( 9 )

2004 14543

पैकेजबन्द पेय जल

1999 3521

औद्योगिक सुरक्षा पेटी और बचनसज्जा

3906

1995 फसल संरक्षण उपस्कर हस्त चालित पीठ पर लादा जाने वाला संपीडक फुहारा , पिस्टन टाइप

14543

2004 पैकेजबन्द पेय जल

1879

1987 धातवर्ध्य ढलवे लोहे की पाईप फिटिंग्स

1992 2830

कार्बन इस्पात केबिलेट

1987 रबड़ वाटर होज 444

2062

2006 सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतुस्टील

2004 1239

इस्पात के पाइप , नलिकायें तथा पिटवां इस्पात भाग 1 इस्पात के पाइप [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011 /श्रावमा 1 , 1933

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

39. 9825194 14-10-2010 अरोडा मैनुफक्चुरिंग क,, जीटी रोड बाई पास , जालन्धर ।

40. 9827303 11-11-2010 जी ए मिनरल वाटर क. प्रा. लिमिटेड, गाँव नन्दनी सिहोस, तालाब टिल्लो, रैवन्यूकाम्पलैक्स के पास , जम्मू ।:

41. 9829206 23-11-2010 जीवन सिंह गिरधारी लाल , आयरन एंड स्टील री - रोलिंग मिल्स, नसराली रोड, फतेहगढ़ साहिब मण्डीगोबिन्दगढ़ । 42. 9829408 29-11-2010 डी के फूड प्रोडक्ट्स, राहों रोड, बाजरा पोस्ट ऑफिस केपास , गाँव बाजरा , लुधियाना ।

43. 9830490 7-12-2010 सचदेवा मैटल वर्क्स, सी-33 , एक्सटेंशन फोकल प्वाइंट , जालन्धर ।

44. 9835201 24-12-2010 पायनर पेस्टीसाइडस प्रा. लिमिटेड, इण्डस्ट्रीयल ग्रोथ सेन्टर , जम्मू 45. 9835302 24-12-2010 पायनर पेस्टीसाइड्स प्रा. लिमिटेड, इण्डस्ट्रीयल ग्रोथ सेन्टर, जम्मू 46. 9835908 28-12-2010 एन एन इण्डस्ट्रीज , 32मोदाईपुर, जालन्धर

47. 9836001 3-1-2011 वशिष्टिब्रदर्स,

गली नं. 6, इण्डस्ट्रीयल इन्कलेव गोदाईपुर , जालन्धर 48. 9836405 4-1-2011 पायनर पेस्टीसाइड्स प्रा.

लिमिटेड, इण्डस्ट्रीयल ग्रोथ सेन्टर, जम्मू

5198002 (5)

( 8 ) ( 9 ) (6) (7)

धातवर्ण्य दलवे 1879

लोहे की पाईप फिटिंग

14543-

पैकेजबन्दपेय जल

2006 2062

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतुस्टील

2004 पैकेजबन्द पेय 14543

जल

जल गैस और 8329

2000 मल जल के लिए अपकेन्द्री ढलवा स्पन तन्यलोहे के दाब पाइप

1987. 11997

फेनवलरेट ई सी

डिक्लोरवस ई -सी 5277

1987 धातवर्ध्य ढलवे 1879

लोहे की पाईप

फिटिंग

1987 धातवर्ध्य ढलवे 1879

लोहे की पाईप

1987 साइपरमैथरीन 12016

ईसी 5200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

5-1-2011

9837306

49.

तारा हैल्थ फूड लिमिटेड, गाँव जीतवल कलाँ, संगरूर , मलेरकोटला ।

50. 9837407 28-12-2010 सूर्या इण्डस्ट्रीज , डी-4, फोकल प्वाइंट, जालन्धर

28-12-2010

9838106

51.

द गोपाल मिल्स, गुरू की नगरी , फतेहगढ़ साहिब मण्डीगोबिन्दगढ़ ।

19-1-2011

9838611

52.

धीमान स्टील रोलिंग मिल्स, अमलेह रोड, फतेहगढ़ साहिब , मण्डीगोबिन्दगढ़ ।

7-1-2011

9838712

53.

जय श्री रसायन उद्योग लि. , इण्डस्ट्रीयल ग्रोथ सैन्टर, साम्बा, फेज -2, जम्मू

24-12-2010

9840493

54.

जय श्री रसायन उद्योग लि. , इण्डस्ट्रीयल ग्रोथ सैन्टर, साम्बा, फेज -2 , जम्मू

[PART II-SBC. 3( ii) ]

(7)

(9)

(8)

(6)

(5)

1979 पशुओं के लिये 2052

मिश्रित आहार

1987 धातवर्ध्य ढलवे 1879

लोहे की पाईप फिटिंग ।

2006.

2062

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतुस्टील

2006

2062

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतुस्टील

2003

15335

अमीडाक्लोरपिड

1990 अटाजीन डब्ल्यू 12931

पी

[सं. सीएमडी 13:11 ] पी.के. मुखोपाध्याय , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 1st July, 2011

S.O. 1908.-In pursuance of sub- regulation (5 ) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification ) Regulations , 1988 , ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given in the following schedule:-

SCHEDULE

GrantDate

SI . No.

Licence No.

Name& Address of theParty

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

M/ s . Gates India Pvt.

3-2-2010

9775411

Ltd.

Sec . Year

Part

ISNo.

Title ofthe Standard

(9)

(7) (8)

(6)

(5)

1988

2396

Rubber hose for fuel dispensing

Ambala Chandigarh

Highway,

Vill . Sirsini,

P.O. Lalru

Distt. SAS Nagar

(Mohali)

Punjab-140501

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/श्रावण 1, 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

24-2-2010

9776817

M/s. Gurdeep Singh Avtar Singh RailwayRoad,. GehriMandi , JandialaGuru Distt.Amritsar Punjab

23-2-2010

9778720

M/s . S. S. Industries, D-109, Focal Point, Extn. Jalandhar, Jalandhar City Distt. Jalandhar Punjab, 144004

24-2-2010

9778821

M/s . National Iron & SteelCo. ,Gurunanak, Complex, Basti BawaKhel, Distt. Jalandhar, Punjab

2-3-2010

9779217

(8)

(6) (7)

(5)

9020

Power Thresher Safetyrequirements

2000

9523

Ductile iron fittings forPressurepipes forwatergas and sewage

1967

1879

Malleable cast iron pipe fittings

2004

14543

M/s. MBS

enterprises

Near Guru Ram Das Medical College , Village Chhapa Ram Singlı , Mehta Road, Distt. Amritsar, Punjab

19-3-2010

9783713

M/s. Shivam Metal SaperIndustries (Unit II) Plot No. 12 & 13 Phase- II , Gangyal , Distt. Jammu, JK

19-3-2010

9784715

M/s . Dehar Mineral Water C/o Kay Lands Pharma Cheeni Chowk, Anant Naag Distt. Jammu and Kashmir, JK

28-3-2010

9784917

M/s. Natural Food Products Plot No. 786 , Lane No.4, Phase- 11, Food Park, SIDCO Industrial Complex, Bari Brahmana Distt. Jammu , JK

PackagedDrinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural MineralWater)

1983

1038

Steeldoors, windows and ventilators

2004

14543

PackagedDrinking Water(Other than PackagedNatural Mineral Water)

2004

14543

PackagedDrinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water) 5202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SRAVANA 1 , 1933

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

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(9)

(7) (8)

9786012 29-03-2010

13438

1992

Allethrin- mosquito Coils Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

M/ s. BBF Industries Limited(Unit III ). Industrial Growth Centre, Phase - II Samba

Distt:Jammu JK

10.

9787519

6-04-2010

2004

14543.

Packaged Drinking Water(Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

M/ s. Annapurna Enterprises 42,harman Colony, SirhindRoad, Distt: Patiala Punjab

11.

9789422

25-03-2010

12016

Cypermethrin EC

1987

M/s . Sree Ramcides Chemicals Ltd. Lane No.2 , Phase-2, SIDCO, Industrial Complex, Bari Brahmana .

Distt: Jammu JK

12.

9791005 27-04-2010

2004

M/ s. Shri Ganesh Food and Beverages 123 , Focal Point , Batala

Packaged Drinking 14543 Water (Other than PackagedNatural MineralWater)

Distt:Gurdaspur. Punjab , 143505

13.

9791106

27-04-2010

Mild Steel Tubes 1239 1

2004

M/ s . Vishwas Tubes India Ltd. , D-100 , Industrial Area, Phase -7, S.A.S. Nagar , Mohali ,

Distt : SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab

14.

9792815 30-04-2010

2004

14543

Packaged Drinking Water (Other than PackagedNatural Mineral Water)

M/ s . Halley Beverages 156 , Phase- I, Urban Estate, Dugri Road, Distt : Ludhiana Punjab

15.

9794011

3-05-2010

7181

1986

M/s . Bee Aar Castings Industrial Estate , Batala

'Horizontally cast irondouble flanged pipesfor water, gas and sewage'

Distt: Gurdaspur Punjab- 143505

9794112

16.

10-05-2010

2004

14543

Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural MineralWater)

M/ s . World Star Industries, E-30, Industrial Area, Phase-7 , Distt : SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab

17.

9795114

17-05-2010

2004

1239 1

M/s . Munish Forge, PrivateLimited,

Mild Steel Tubes , Tubulars and Other [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

VillageGobindgarh , Adjoining, Phase - VII, Focal Point, Ludhiana Distt: Ludhiana Punjab 18.

9795720

21-05-2010 M/ s . New Jammu Kashmir Rolling Mills PlotNo. 19&20, IndustrialArea , Gangyal ,

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9) Wrought Steel Fittings Specification -Part I: Mild Steel Tubes

1786

2008 High strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement

Distt: Jammu, JK

19..

9795922 21-05-2010 M/ s . Dhillon Kool Drinks& Beverages Pvt. Ltd. , GT. Road, Phillaur, Phillaur Distt: Jalandhar Punjab 20.

9798120

21-05-2010- M/s . Hindustan Electrodes 26K. M. Stone, Chandigarh Ambala Road , Janetpur , Derabassi

2004

14543

PackagedDrinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural MineralWater)

814

2004 Covered electrodes for manual metal arc welding ofcarbon and carbon manganese steel

Distt : SAS Nagar,

(Mohali ) Punjab

21.

9799728

3-06-2010 M/s. Sree Ramcides Chemicals Pvt . Ltd. Lane No.2, Phase-2 , SIDCO , Industrial AreaComplex, Bari Brahmana

15335

2003 Imidacloprid

Distt : Jammu

JK- 181133

22.

9804085

16-6-2010 M/ s . Sri Surya Fittings PlotNo. 25,Village Fazilpur, Randhawa Masandan, Distt: Jalandhar Punjab 23..

9804287

29-6-2010

1879

1987 Malleable cast iron pipe fittings

1879

1984 Malleable cast ironpipe fittings

M/s . Vandana

Industries

248Godaipur,

Distt: Jalandhar

Punjab

24.

9804590

28-6-2010

1741

1960 Latex foam rubber products

M/s.Miki Rubber

Industries

Basti Bawa Khel

Distt: Jalandhar

Punjab

25.

9805794

7-7-2010

8291

1976 Phenthoate Emulsifiable Concentrates

M/s.Crop

Chemical India Ltd.

C-63-65 Focal Point,

Kotkapura

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

5204

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

(6) (7) (8) (9) (5)

Distt: Faridkot

Punjab, 151204

24-06-2010 9806695

26.

M/s. Markfed Agro Chemicals 7&8 - B, Industrial Estate, Mohali. , Mohali

2002

15160

Pretilachlor Emulsifiable Concentrates

Distt : SAS Nagar,

(Mohali ) Punjab

20-07-2010 9808497

27.

M/s. Chandranchal Infrastructure.

2001

1536

Centrifugally cast (spun) iron pressure pipesfor water, gas and sewage

(P) Ltd.

PlotNo. 256,

Industrial Area,

Phase- 1

Chandigarh

8-07-2010 9809503

28.

M/s . Kuber Casting (P)Ltd.

GT. Road, Sirhind Side, Back Side Modern Steels Ltd. , Mandi Gobindgarh

1992

2830

Carbon steel cast billetingots , billets blooms and slabs for rerolling into steel for general structural purposes

Distt: Fatehgarh Sahib

Punjab

22-7-2010 9810888

29.

M/s . Abhi Exports (P) Ltd. Udyog Nagar Gali No. 5 Adjoining Focal Point

1987

1879

Malleable cast iroh pipe fittings

Distt: Jalandhar

Punjab

16-08-2010 9813490

30.

2004

14543

PackagedDrinking Water(Other than PackagedNatural Mineral Water)

M/s. Sadioura

Brothers

VillageLongowal ,

BlockCheema,

Longowal

Distt: Sangrur

Punjab

19-08-2010 9814694

31 .

M/s . Ishwar International 458 /2K/ 1A Sua Road, Industrial Area Chandari Kalan , Distt: Ludhiana Punjab

19-08-2010 9815292

32.

M/s. Super Star Industries Main Bazar Near , Chadhian Dharamshala Hadiabad Distt: Jalandhar Punjab

1999

3521

Industrial safety belts and harnesses

1995

3906

Crop Protection Equipment-Hand- operated Knapsack Sprayer, Piston Type [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 33.

9818908

16-09-2010 M/s. YQ Enterprises PlotNo. 108; Sector 82, Post Office/ VillageManauli , Mohali Distt: SASNagar (Mohali) Punjab

9820389.

34.

8-10-2010 M/s. I J International- C-29 FocalPoint Distt: Jalandhar Punjab 9820689

35.

14-09-2010 M/s. Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg . Co. Ltd. Dhandari Industrial FocalPoint, Distt : Ludhiana Punjab 36.

9821590

7-10-2010 M/s. R M Exports 72-73Gulab Singh Nagar Behind Industrial , Estate, Distt: Jalandhar Punjab 9821893

37.

5-10-2010 M/s. Gian Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. G.T. Road , Sirhind Side, Mandi Gobindgarh

Distt: Fatehgarh Sahib Punjab 38.

9823594

14-10-2010 M/s. Futuretech Infratech Limited, VillageBadaliAla Singh, Distt: Fatehgarh Sahib , Punjab 39.

9825194

14-10-2010 M/ s . Arora Manufacturing Co. GTRoadbye Pass Distt : Jalandhar Punjab 9827303

40.

11-11-2010 M/s. GA Mineral. WaterCo. (P) Ltd. , VillageNandini

2589GI/11-6

5205

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

(9) (5)

(6)

(8)

(7)

2004

14543

Packaged Drinking Water (Other than PackagedNatural Mineral Water)

1879

1987 Malleable cast ironpipe fittings

2830

1992 Carbon steel cast billet ingots, billets , blooms and slabs for rerolling into steel for general structural purposes

1987

444

General purpose rubber water hose

2006 Steel for General 2062 Structural Purposes

2004

1239

Mild Steel Tubes Tubulars and Other Wrought Steel Fittings-

Specification-Part1: Mild Steel Tubes

1879

1987 Malleable cast ironpipe fittings

2004

14543.

PackagedDrinking Water(Other than PackagedNatural 5206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SRAVANA 1 , 1933

(4)

(3)

(1)

(2)

Sehora , Talab Tillo , Near Revenue Complex, Distt: Jammu JK 9829206

23-11-2010

41 .

M/s . Jiwan Singh Girdhari Lal Iron& Steel Re- RollingMills Nasrali Road, Mandi gobindgarh Distt: Fatehgarh Sahib , Punjab 42.

9829408 29-11-2010 M/ s.Dee Kay Food Products, RahonRoad , Near BajraPostOffice, VillageBajra, Ludhiana, Disşt : Ludhiana, Punjab

17-12-2010

9830490

43.

M/ s. Sachdeva Metal Works C-33 Extension FocalPoint , Jalandhar, Distt : Jalandhar

Punjab

24-12-2010

44.

9835201

M/ s. Pioneer Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. Industrial Growth Centre, Samba Distt: Jammu JK

24-12-2010

9835302

45.

M/ s. Pioneer Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. Industrial Growth Centre, Samba Distt: Jammu

28-12-2010

46.

9835908

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

(9) (5)

(8)

(6)

(7)

Mineral Water)

2006

2062

Steel for General Structural Purposes

2004

14543

PackagedDrinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural MineralWater)

2000

8329

Centrifugally Cast (Spun) Ductile Iron Pressure Pipes for Water, Gas and Sewage

11997

1987 Fenvalerate EC

1978

5277

Dichlorvos Emulsifiable Concentrates

1987

1879

Malleable cast ironpipe fittings

M/s . Enn Enn

Industries

32Godaipur,

Distt: Jalandhar

Punjab

M/s. Vashishta.

47.

9836001

3-1-2011

Brothers

1987

1879

Malleable cast ironpipe fittings

Gali No. 6

Industrial Enclave

5207 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933

(8) (9)

(6) (7)

(2)

(5)

(1)

(3)

(4)

Godaipur,

Distt: Jalandhar

Punjab

1987 48.

9836405

4-1-2011

12016

Cypermethrin EC

M/s. Pioneer Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. Industrial Growth Centre, Samba, Distt: Jammu JK

1979

2052

49.

9837306

5-1-2011

M/s . Tara Health Compounded

Feeds for Cattle

FoodsLimited Village Jitwal Kalan, Malerkotla Distt: Sangrur

Punjab

1987

1879

9837407 28-12-2010

50.

Malleable cast

ironpipe fittings

M/s. Surya 'Industries D-4 Focal Point Distt: Jalandhar Punjab

2006 9838106

Steel for General 2062

51 .

28-12-2010 M/ s. The Gopal

Structural Purposes

Mills GuruKiNagri ,

Mandigobindgarh

Distt: Fatehgarh

Sahib,Punjab

2006 52.

19-1-2011

Steel for General 2062

9838611

M/s . Dhiman Steel

Structural Purposes

RollingMills Amloh Road,

Mandigobindgarh

Distt: Fatehgarh

Sahib , Punjab

15335

2003 7-1-2011

53.

9838712

M/s . Jai Shree

ImidaclopridSL

Rasayan Udyog Ltd. M-4, Aradhana BhawanCommercial Complex,Ajadpur,

Delhi

1990

12931

Atrazine WP

M/s. Jai Shree

9840493

24-12-2010

54.

Rasayan Udyog Ltd. M-4, Aradhana Bhawan Commercial Complex, Ajadpur, Delhi

[No. CMD/13: 11]

P. K. MUKHOPADHYAY, Scientist -F & Head 5208

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SHRAVANA 1, 1933

नई दिल्ली , 8 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1909. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम ( 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

वर्ष

भाग अनु

क्रम सं

लाइसेंस संख्या

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

भामा संख्या

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि वर्ष/माह

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

(6)

(7) (8) (9) 1.

3720251

14543

30-5-2011

2004

सेवनहिल्स बेवरेजेस गट सं.206 , खाटवाड फाटा , गाँव पिंपलनरे, तालुका दिंडोरी, जिला नासिक- 422 003

पैकेजबंद पीने का पानी (पैकेजबंद . प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

3729976

14543

2004 30-5-2011 श्री कला इण्डस्ट्रीज गट सं 4/1 , मल्हारवाडी, येवला रोड, नांदगांव, जिला नासिक

, पैकेजबंद पीने का पानी (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

3718971

2004.

14543

31-5-2011 बॉम्बे मार्केटिंग , ए-96, एम आई डीसी, तलोजा, तालुका पनवेल ,

जिला रायगड-

410210

पैकेंजबंद पीने कापानी ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिमरल जल के अलावा)

3720150

14543

2004 14-6-2011

मुबंई- 400 056

ग्लोब एन्टरप्राइजेज, पैकेजबंद पी के कंपाउंड , पीने का पानी बुल्स रॉयस कॉलोनी ( पैकेजबंद रोड, वाकोला ब्रिज , प्राकृतिक सांताक्रुज पूर्व, मिनरल जल के अलावा)

3733866

14543

2004 14-6-2011

गाँव कंबा, जिला

स्मार्ट अक्वा इंडस्ट्रि पैकेजबंद गाला सं 3 , सर्वे सं पीने का पानी 112/2 , एस्सार पेट्रोल( पैकेजबंद पंप के पीछे , प्राकृतिक कल्याण मुरबाड रोड, मिनरल थाणे- 421 301 जल के

अलावा)

[सं. सीएमडी/ 13 : 11 ]

एस. बी. रॉय , वैज्ञानिक-" एफ " [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5209

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

New Delhi , the 8th July, 2011

S.O. 1909. In pursuance of sub-regulation ( 5) of the regulation 4 ofthe 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

Licences No.

Sl . No.

ISNo. Part Sec. Year Title ofthe Standard

Name&

Address of

theParty

(3)

(1)

(2)

(4) 1.

3720251

30-5-2011 / M/s . Seven Hills BeveragesPvt. Ltd. Gat No. 206, Khatwad Phata, Village: Pimpalnare Tal: Dhindori , Dist Nashik 422003 2.

3729976

30-5-2011

(9) (5)

(6) (7) (8)

2004

14543

Packged Drinking Water(Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

14543

2004

M/s. Shree Kala Industries

GatNo.4/1 , Malharwadi

YeolaRoad, Nandgaon

DistNashik

3718971

31-5-2011 M/ s. Bomaby Marketing A-96, MIDC, Taloja Tal: Panvel , Dist Raigad 410210 4.

3720150

14-6-2011 M/s.Globe Enterprises P.K. Compound, Bulls Royce Colony Road , VakolaBridge, Sanracruze (E), Mumbai 400056 5.

14-6-2011

3733866

Smaart Aquar Industry Gala No. 3 , Survey No. 112/2, Behind Essar Petrol Pump , Kalyan-Murbad Road, Village: Kamba Dist Thane- 421301

Packged Drinking Water(Other thanPackaged Natural Mineral Water

2004

14543

Packged Drinking Water (Other thanPackaged Natural Mineral Water)

14543

2004 Packged Drinking Water(Other thanPackaged Natural Mineral Water)

2004

14543

Packged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

[No. CMD/13: 11 ] S.B. ROY, Scientist " F"

नई दिल्ली, 8 जुलाई 2011

का. आ. 1910-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानकः ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न बिवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द/स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SHRAVANA 1 , 1933

5210

अनुसूची

रद्द करने की तिथि लाइसेंसधारी का

लाइसेंस

नाम व पता

क्रम सं.

लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/ प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक काशीर्षक

संख्या सीएम/एल-

08-06-2011

सिंचाई उपस्कर स्प्रिंकलर पाइप

7329374

भाग 2 सहज संयोजी पॉलीइथलीन पाइप 14151 ( भाग 2 ): 1999

मै. किसान इरिगेशन्स लिमिटेड, प्लॉट सं. 70 , एम आई डी सी , इंडस्ट्रियल एरिआ, घातव , रोहा, जिला रायगड-402116

[सं. सी.एम.डी./ 13 : 13 ]

एस. बी. रॉय , वैज्ञानिक " एफ "

New Delhi , the 8th July, 2011

S.O. 1910. 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

Name & Address of the Licensee

Liences No. CM/L-

Dateof Cancellation Sl . No.

Article/Processwith relevant Indian Standards covered by the licence cancelled/suspension

8-06-2011

Irrigation Equipment -Sprinkler

1. 7329374

Pipes: Part 2: Quick Coupled Polyethylene Pipes

M/s. Kisan Irrigations Limited Plot No. 70 , MIDC Indl . Area, DATAV, Roha, Dist Raigad-402116

IS 14151 (Pt2): 1999

[No. CMD/13: 13 ]

S.B. ROY, Scientist " F"

नई दिल्ली, 11 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1911.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम , 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:- 1

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि

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

स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या

31जनवरी 2011 1. आई एस/ आईएसओ 14284:1996- रासायनिक संघटन ज्ञात करने के लिए इस्पात एवं लोहे के नमूने लेना तथा नमूने तैयार करना

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

[संदर्भ: एमटीडी 4/टी-19 ]

पी. घोष , वैज्ञानिक " एफ " एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी) 5211 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपन्न: जुलाई 23, 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933

New Delhi , the 11th July, 2011

S.O. 1911.- In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Date of Established

No.& year of Indian Standards ,

Sl . No. & Year of the Indian Standards Established

ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

31Jan. 2011 1. IS/ISO 14284: 1996 Steel and iron -sampling and preparation of samples for the determination ofchemical composition

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

[Ref: MTD4/1-19]

P. GHOSH, Scientist " F " & Head (MTD)

नई दिल्ली, 11 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1912.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि अधिसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:-

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या

30जून 2011

संशोधन संख्या 1 जून 2011

1. आईएस 12368 : 1988 हॉट एयर जनरेटरों के डिजाइन एवं निर्माण के मार्गदर्शी सिद्धांत

30जून 2011

संशोधन संख्या 1 जून 2011

आईएस 12826 ( भाग 3 ): 1989 औधोगिक भटिटयों की क्रमबद्धता , परीक्षण एवं स्वीकार्यता के लिए रीति- संहिता- भाग 3 औधोगिक भटिटयों के परीक्षण एवं स्वीकार्यता

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

[संदर्भः एमटीडी 26/टी-7 , 12 ]

पी. घोष, वैज्ञानिक " एफ " एवं प्रमुख (एमटीडी)

New Delhi , the 11th July, 2011

S.O. 1912.-In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

No. & year ofthe amendment

Sl . No. and Title of the standards (s)

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

30-06-2011

Amendment No. 1 June 2011

1. IS 12368 : 1988 Guidelines for design and construction of hot air generators 5212

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2011 / SHRAVANA 1 , 1933

30-6-2011

Amendment No. 1 June 2011

2. IS 12826 ( Part 3) : 1989 Code ofpractice for ordering, testing and acceptance of industrial furnaces- Part 3 Testing and acceptance of industrial furnaces

Copies of these amendments 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 , Kolkatta, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices :Ahemdabad , Banglore , Bhopal , Bhubaneswar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram .

[Ref: MTD26/T- 7, 12]

P. GHOSH, Scientist " F" & Head (Met Engg.)

नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1913.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

स्थापित तिथि संशोधित भारतीय माक (कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या

30नवंबर 2010 1.

आई एस 11816 ( भाग 1 ) : 1986/आई

एस ओ 6322-1 : 1981

आईएस 11816 ( भाग 1 ): 2010/आई एस ओ 6322-1 : 1996 अनाज एवं दालों का भंडारण भाग 1 अनाज रखने की सामान्य अनुशंसाएँ (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

31अक्टूबर 2009

आई एस 13815 : 1993/आई

एस ओ 2173-1978

2. आईएस 13815 : 2009/आई एस ओ 2173: 2003 फल और सब्जी उत्पाद- विलये ठोस अंश ज्ञात करना-अपवर्तनांकमापीय पद्धति (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

इन भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली 110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भः एफएडी/जी-128 ]

डा. आर. के. बजाज , वैज्ञानिक " एफ " एवं प्रमुख ( खाद्य एवं कृषि)

New Delhi , the 12th July, 2011

S.O. 1913. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987 the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

No. and year of the Indian Standards

Date of Established Established

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

Sl . No.

30 November 2010

IS 11816 (Part 1 ) : 1986/ISO6322-1 :

1. IS 11816 (Part 1 ): 2010/ISO 6322-1:

1981

1996 Storage of cereals and pulses Part 1 General recommendations for the keeping ofcereals ( first revision) भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1 2

31October 2009

IS 13815: 1993/ISO2173 : 1978

2. IS 13815 : 2009/ISO2173 : 2003 Fruit and vegetable products- Determination of soluble solids content-Refractometric method (first revision)

Copy ofthese standard are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkatta; Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices:Ahemdabad , Banglore , Bhopal , Bhubaneswar , Coimbatore , Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram .

[Ref: FAD/G- 128]

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

नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1914.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड (ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद् द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

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

क्रम संख्या

30 नवंबर 2011 1. आई एस/ आईएसओ 5432 चमड़ा वैट ब्लूभेड़ कीखाल- विशिष्ट

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

[संदर्भ: सीएचडी 17/आईएस/आईएसओ 5432 ]

ई देवेन्द्र , वैज्ञानिक " एफ " एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन )

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2011

S.O. 1914. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

No. & Year of the Indian Standards

No. & year of Indian Standards , if any, Date ofEstablished Superseded by the New Indian Standards

Sl. No. Established

30November 2010 1. IS/ISO 5432 : 1999 Leather Wet Blue Sheep Skins- Specification

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkatta, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices:Ahemdabad, Banglore , Bhopal , Bhubaneswar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpür, Patna , Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: CHD 17/IS/ISO 5432 ]

E. DEVENDAR, Scientist " F" & Head (Chemical)

नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2011

का.आ. 1915.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( को ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:-

2589GI /11-7 5214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SHRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

स्थापित तिथि क्रम संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

4 1.

संशोधन संख्या नं. 1 , अप्रैल, 2011

31अप्रैल, 2011 आईएस 7524 ( भाग 1 ): 1980 आँख की रक्षा के लिए परीक्षण के तरीके- भाग 1 गैर ऑप्टीकल परीक्षण

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

[संदर्भ: सीएचडी 8/आईएस 7524 ]

ई. देवेन्द्र, वैज्ञानिक " एफ " एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन )

New Delhi , the 12th July, 2011

S.O. 1915. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

No. and Year of the standards

No.& year of the amendment

Sl. No.

Date from which the amendment shall have effect 1

Amendment No. 1 , April , 2011

30April,2011 1. IS 7524 (Part 1) : 1980 Methods of Test forEye-Protectors Part 1 Non -Optical Tests

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

[Ref: CHD 8/IS 7524]

E. DEVENDAR, Scientist " F" & Head (Chemical)

नईदिल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2011

का.आ. 1916.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :-

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

स्थापिततिथि क्रम संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक (कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

4 1.

संशोधन संख्यां 5 , जून , 2011

30जून, 2011 आईएस 286: 1978 साबुन के नमूने लेने और परीक्षण की पद्धतियाँ ( द्वितीय पुनरीक्षण )

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

[संदर्भ: सीएचडी25/आईएस 286 ]

ई. देवेन्द्र, वैज्ञानिक " एफ " एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन ) 528 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933

New Delhi , the 12th July,2011

S.O. 1916. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. and Year of the standards

No.& year of the amendment Date from which the amendment shall have effect Sl . No.

30June2011

Amendment No.5, June , 2011

1. IS 286 : 1978 Methods of Sampling andTest for Soaps (Second Revision)

Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan , 9, Bhachur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkatta, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and alsoBranch Offices: Ahemdabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneswar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram .

[Ref: CHD 25/18 286]

E. DEVENDAR, Scientist " F" & Head (Chemical)

नई दिल्ली, 14 जुलाई, 2011

का.आ. 1917. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

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

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

31-05-2011 1. आई एस 15896 : 2011 कुएं में भू- जल स्तर

के मापन की हस्त विधि

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

[संदर्भः डब्लूआर डी3 /दी-15 ]

जे. सी. अरोड़ा, वैज्ञानिक " एफ " एवं प्रमुख ( जल संसाधन विभाग )

NewDelhi, the 14th July, 2011

S.O. 1917. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl . No. Tittle & Year of the Indian Standards

No.Established

No.& year of Indian Standards , ifany Date of Establishment Superseded by the New Indian Standard

4 2

31-05-2011 1. IS 15896: 2011 Manual Methods for Measurment of Ground Water Level in a well 5216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SHRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)] Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bhadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkatta, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and alsoBranch Offices: Ahemdabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneswar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[ Ref: WRD3 /T- 15 ]

J.C. ARORA, Scientist " F" & Head ( Water Resources Deptt .)

नई दिल्ली , 14 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1918.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद् द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :

अनुसूची

स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या ,

स्थापित तिथि क्रम सं वर्ष और शीर्षक

4 1.

31-05-2011 आई एस 15898 ( भाग -3 ): 2011 खुले चैनलों में द्रव प्रवाह मापन-अपरिवर्ती प्रवाह मापन- की ट्रेसर डाअलूशन पद्धति भाग 3 रासयनिक ट्रेसर

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

[संदर्भः डब्ल्यूआर डी-1/टी -76]

जे.सी. अरोड़ा, वैज्ञानिक " एफ " एवं प्रमुख ( ज. सं. वि. )

New Delhi , the 14th July, 2011

S.O. 1918.- In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

No. tittle & Year of the Indian Standards Established

No. & year of Indian Standards , if any Date of Establishment Superseded bythe New Indian Standard

31-05-2011 1. IS 15898 ( Part 3) : 2011 Measurement of Liquid Flow in open Channels - Tracer Dilution Methods fortheMeasurement of Steady Flow Part 3 Chemical Tracers

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9, Bhadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahemdabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneswar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: WRD1 /T-76]

J.C. ARORA , Scientist " F" & Head ( Water Resources Deptt .) 5217 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1919.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , सरकारी स्थान ( अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम, 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की ध ारा 3 ‌द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन कोयला और खान मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 1732 तारीख 14 जुलाई , 2004 जो भारत के राजपत्र , भाग II , खंड-3 , उपखंड (ii ) तारीख 24 जुलाई, 2004 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , द्वारा उन बातों के सिवाय अधिक्रांत करते हुए , जिन्हें ऐसे अधिक्रमण से पहले किया गया है या किए जाने का लोप किया गया है , नीचे सारणी स्तंभ ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित अधिकारियों को, जो सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी के रैंक के समतुल्य अधिकारी हैं, उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए संपदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है और उक्त अधिकारी उक्त सारणी के स्तंभ ( 3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट सरकारी स्थानों के बाबत अपनी-अपनी अधिकारिताओं की स्थानीय सीमाओं के भीतर , उक्त अधिनियम द्वारा या उसके अधीन संपदा अधिकारियों को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग और उन पर अधिरोपित कर्तव्यों का पालन करेंगे , अर्थात्

सारणी

क्रम सं.

पद

सरकारी स्थानों के प्रवर्ग

(1)

(2)

(3)

महाप्रबंधक ( संपदा ) ,

झारखंड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड , के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान जो कोयला नगर, कोल बोर्ड कालोनी , जगजीवन नगर , के नाम से ज्ञात है ।

भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड डाकघर- बीसीसीएल टाउनशिप , कोयला नगर ,

जिला- धनबाद , पिन - 826005

संपदा प्रबंधक,

भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड

डाकघर - बीसीसीएल टाउनशिप , कोयला नगर जिला- धनबाद, पिन -826005

झारखंड राज्य और पश्चिमी बंगाल राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, के स्थानःया उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान जो मधुबन वाशरी , ई. डब्ल्यू, जोन , दुग्धा वाशरी सीसीडब्ल्यूओ कालोनी , भूली टाउनशिप प्रशासन एवं कार्मिक नगर कॉलोनी के नाम से ज्ञात है ।

3. अपर महाप्रबंधक,

झारखंड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के बरोरा क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

बरोरा क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग लिमिटेड, डाकघर - नवागढ, जिला- धनबाद , पिन-828306

4. क्षेत्रीय महाप्रबंधक(योजना ) ,

बरोरा क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड ,

डाकघर- नवागढ , जिला- धनबाद , पिन-828306

5. अपर महाप्रबंधक ,

झारखंड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के ब्लॉक-2 क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

ब्लॉक-2 क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर- नवागढ, जिला- धनबाद , पिन -828306

क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक ( योजना ) ,

झारखंड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के ब्लॉक -2 क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

ब्लॉक-2 क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर- नवागढ़ , जिला- धनबाद , पिन -828306

7. अपर महाप्रबंधक,

झारखंड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के गोविंदपतु क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

गोविंदपुर क्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर-सोनारडीह , जिला- धनबाद, पिन-828125

8. क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक ( योजना ) ,

झारखंड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के गोविंदपुर क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

गोविंदपुर क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड , डाकघर-सोनारडीह , जिला- धनबाद , पिन-828125

9. अपर महाप्रबंधक (योजना ) ,

झारखंड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के कतरास क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

कतरास क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड , डाकघर-सिजुआ, जिला- धनबाद , पिन-828121 5218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SHRAVANA 1 , 1933

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

(1)

(3)

10.

क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक (योजना ) , कतरास क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर-सिजुआ, जिला- धनबाद, पिन-828121

11.

झारखंड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के सिजुआ क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

अपर महाप्रबंधक, सिजुआ क्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर- सिजुआ, जिला- धनबाद , पिन-828121

12.

क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक ( योजना) , सिजुआ क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड , डाकघर-सिजुआ, जिला- धनबाद , पिन-828121

13.

झारखंड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के कुसुंडा क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

अपर महाप्रबंधक , कुसुंडा क्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर- कुसुंडा, जिला- धनबाद , पिन-828116

14.

क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक ( योजना ) , कुसुंडा क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर- कुसुंडा, जिला- धनबाद , पिन-828116

15. अपर महाप्रबंधक ,

झारखंड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के पुटकी बलिहारी क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

पुटकी बलिहारी क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर-कुसुंडा, जिला- धनबाद , पिन-828116

16.

झारखंड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के पुटकी बलिहारी क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके‌द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक (योजना ) , पुटकी बलिकारी क्षेत्र , भारत कोल कोकिंग लिमिटेड, डाकघर-कुसुंडा, जिला- धनबाद , पिन -828116

17.

झारखंड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के कुस्तोर क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

अपर महाप्रबंधक, कुस्तोर क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर- झरिया , जिला- धनबाद , पिन-828111

18.

क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक ( योजना ) , कुस्तोर क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर- झरिया, जिला - धनबाद , पिन-828111

19.

झारखंड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के बस्ताकोला क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

अपर महाप्रबंधक, बस्ताकोला क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड , डाकघर- झरिया , जिला- धनबाद , पिन-828111

20.

क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक( योजना ) , बस्ताकोला क्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड , डाकघर- झरिया , जिला- धनबाद , पिन-828111

21 .

झारखंड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के लोदना क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

अपर महाप्रबंधक , लोदना क्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड , डाकघर-खास जीनागौरा , जिला- धनबाद, पिन-828115

22.

क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक ( योजना ) , लोदना क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर-खास जीनागौरा , जिला- धनबाद पिन -828115 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5219

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933.

(1)

(2)

(3)

23.

झारखंड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के पूर्वी झरिया क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

अपर महाप्रबंधक, पूर्वी झरिया क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड , डाकघर- भोवरा , जिला- धनबाद , पिन-828301

24.

क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक(योजना ) , पूर्वी झरिया क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर- भावेरा , जिला- धनबाद, पिन -828301

25.

झारखंड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के पश्चिमी झरिया क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

अपर महाप्रबंधक,. पश्चिमी झरिया क्षेत्र, भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड, डाकघर-मूनीडीह , जिला- धनबाद, पिन-828129

26.

झारखंड राज्य में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के पश्चिमी झरिया क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से प‌ट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक(योजना ) , पश्चिमी झस्यिा क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड , डाकघर-मूनीडीह, जिला-धनबाद, पिन-828129

27.

झारखंड राज्य और पश्चिमी बंगाल में भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड के चंच विक्टोरिया क्षेत्र के स्थान या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए स्थान ।

अपर महाप्रबंधक, चंच विक्टोरिया क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड , डाकघर - बाराकर, जिला- बर्द्धमान , पिन-713324

28.

क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक (योजना) , चंच विक्टोरिया क्षेत्र , भारत कोकिंग कोल लिमिटेड , डाकघर-बाराकर, जिला- बर्द्धमान , पिन-713324

[फा. सं. 43022/2/2004-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]

एस. सी. भाटिया, निदेशक

MINISTRY OFCOAL

New Delhi , the 6th July, 2011

S.O. 1919. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section -3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) and in supersession of Notification of Government of India in the then Ministry ofCoal and Mines , Department of Coal published in the Gazette of India, Part - II , Section 3 ( ii ) dated 24th July, 2004 vide number S.O. 1732 dated 14th July, 2004 except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby, appoints the officers mentioned in Column (2) ofthe Table below, being Officers equivalent to the rank ofGazetted Officers of the Government to be Estate Officers for the purposes of the said Act, and the said Officers shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officers , by or under the said Act, within the local limits oftheir respective jurisdiction in respect of Public Premises specified in Column (3 ) ofthe said Table:

TABLE

Sl.No.

Designation

Categories of the public premises

(1)

(2)

(3)

1. General Manager (Estate) ,

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf ofBharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand known as Koyla Nagar, Coal Board Colony, Jagjeewan Nagar.

Bharat Coking Coal Limited , P.O. BCCL Township , Koyla Nagar , Dhanbad, Pin-826005

2. EstateManager, BharatCoking Coal Limited, P.O.BCCL Township, Koyla Nagar , Dhanbad , Pin-826005

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf ofBharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand and West Bengal known as Madhuban Washery, E. W. Zone, Dugda -Washery, CCWO Colony, Bhuli Town Admn and Karmik Nagar Colony.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Barora Areaof Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the Stae of Jharkhand .

Addl . General Manager, BaroraArea. Bharat Coking Coal Limited. P.O. Navagarh , Distt. Dhanbad , Pin - 828306 3 (ii) ]

[PART II-SEC .

5220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SHRAVANA 1 , 1933

(2)

(1)

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf ofBarora Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand.

AreaManager (Planning ) , BaroraArea, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Navagarh, Distt. Dhanbad, Pin -828306

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf ofBlock- II Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the Stae of Jharkhand.

Addl . General Manager, Block- II Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Navagarh , Distt. Dhanbad, Pin- 828306

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf ofBlock- II Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the Stae of Jharkhand.

Area Manager (Planning) , Block- II Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Navagarh, Distt . Dhanbad, Pin- 828306

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Govindpur AreaofBharat Coking Coal Limited in the Stae of Jharkhand.

Addl . General Manager, Govindpura Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O.Sonardih, Distt . Dhanbad , Pin- 828125

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Govindpur Area ofBharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand.

Area Manager (Planning) , GovindpuraArea, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Sonardih, Dist . Dhanbad , Pin- 828125

Premisesbelonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Katras Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand.

Addl . General Manager, Katras Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Sijua, Dist. Dhanbad, Pin - 828121

10.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Katras Area ofBharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand.

AreaManager (Planning) , Katras Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Sijua, Dist . Dhanbad, Pin - 828121

11 .

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Sijua Area ofBharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand.

Addl . General Manager, Sijua Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited , P.O. Sijua, Dhanbad Pin- 828121

12.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Sijua Area ofBharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand.

Area Manager, Planning Sijua Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Sijua, Dist. Dhanbad, Pin- 728121

13.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Kusunda Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand.

Addl . General Manager, Kasunda Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Kasunda, Dist: Dhanbad Pin- 828116

14.

Premisesbelonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Kusunda Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand.

AreaManager (Planning) , Kasunda Area Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Kasunda, Dist. Dhanbad, Pin-828116

15.

Premisesbelonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Putkee Balihari Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand.

Addl . General Manager , Putkee Balihari Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited , P.O. Kusunda, Dist: Dhanbad, Pin - 828116

16.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Putkee Balihari Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand.

AreaManager (Planning ) , Putkee Balihari Area , Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Kasunda, Dhanbad, Pin- 828116

17.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Kustore Area ofBharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand.

Addl . General Manager, Kustore Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Jharia , Dist. Dhanbad, Pin - 828111 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

(1)

(2)

(β)

18.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Kustore Area Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand.

AreaManager (Planning) , Kustore Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Jharia, Dist . Dhanbad , Pin- 828111

19.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Bastacolla Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand.

Addl . General Manager , BastacollaArea, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Jharia, Dist. Dhanbad , Pin- 828111

20.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Bastacolla Area Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand.

Area Manager (Planning) , BastacollaArea, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Jharia, Dist. Dhanbad, Pin- 828111

21.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Lodne Area ofBharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand.

Addl .GeneralManager , LodnaArea, Bharat Coking Coal Limited , P.O. Khas Jeenagora, Dist . Dhanbad, Pin- 828115

22.

'Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf ofLodna Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand. Dhanbad,

AreaManager (Planning), LodnaArea, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Khas Jeenagora, Dist . Pin- 828115

23.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf ofEastern JhariaArea ofBharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand.

Addl.General Manager, Eastern JhariaArea, Bharat CokingCoal Limited, P.O. Bhowra, Dist. Dhanbad, Pin- 828301

24.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Eastern JhariaArea ofBharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand.

Area Manager (Planning) , Eastern JhariaArea, Bharat Coking CoalLimited, P.O. Bhowra, Dist. Dhanbad, Pin-828301

25.

Premisesbelonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf ofWestern Jharia Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand.

Addl . General Manager , Western Jharia Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Moonidih, Dist . Dhanbad, Pin- 828129

26.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalfof Western JhariaArea ofBharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand.

Area Manager (Planning) , Western Jharia Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Moonidih, Dist. Dhanbad, Pin-828129

27.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on bahalf of Chanch VictoriaArea ofBharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand and West Bengal .

Addl .General Manager, Chanch Victoria Area , Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Barakar, Dist. Burdwan, Pin- 713324

28.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Chanch Victoria Area ofBharat Coking Coal Limited in the State of Jharkhand and West Bengal .

AreaManager (Planning) , Chanch VictoriaArea, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Barakar, Dist. Burdwan, Pin- 713324

[F. No. 43022/2/2004- PRIW-1]

S. Ć. BHATIA, Director 2589GI/11-8 5222

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SHRAVANA 1 , 1933

नई दिल्ली, 13 जुलाई, 2011

का.आ. 1920.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन एवं विकास ) , अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत सरकार में कोयला मंत्रालय द्वारा जारी की गई अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 2411 तारीख 28 अगस्त, 2009 , जो भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप-खण्ड ( ii ) , तारीख 5 सितम्बर, 2009 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में जिसका माप 7.349 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 18.160 एकड़ ( लगभग ) है , कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी;

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

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 7 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित 7.349 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 18.160 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप की उक्त भूमि का अर्जन करने की अपने आशय की सूचना देती है; जो निम्न है-

( क ) सभी अधिकार , अनुसूची- क में वर्णित 1.368 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 3.38 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप की उक्त भूमि का ।

(ख ) खनन अधिकार अनुसूची- ख में वर्णित 5.981 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 14.78 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप की उक्त भूमि का ।

टिप्पण : 1 इस अधिसूचना के अधीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्या ईसीएल/एसआईएमएल /एमओयूजेडए/ एनओटीआई/06 आर, तारीख 21 जुलाई , 2010 को उपायुक्त जिला-गोड्‌डा ( झारखंड ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता-700 001 के कार्यालय में या निदेशक तकनीकी ( संचालन ) , ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , सेंकटोरिया, डाकघर-दिसेरगढ , जिला - बर्दवान ( पश्चिम बंगाल ) , पिन कोड -713 333 के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है । टिप्पप्प : 2 उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के उपबंधों की ओर ध्यान आकृष्ट किया जाता है जिसमें निम्नलिखित उपबंध हैं- अर्जन की बाबत आपत्तियाँ:-

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

स्पष्टीकरणः

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

3. इस धारा के प्रयोजनों के लिए वह व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में हितबद्ध समझा जायेगा जो प्रतिकर में हित का दावा करने को हकदार होता यदि उस भूमि या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार इस अधिनियम के अधीन अर्जित कर लिए जाते । " टिप्पणः 3 केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता-700 001 को भारत के राजपत्र , भाग II , खंड-3 , उप-खंड ( ii ) अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2520 तारीख 11 जून, 1983 को उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी नियुक्त किया है । 1

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

अनुसूची - क

सिमलोंग कोल माइनिंग ब्लॉक

जिला- पाकुड़ ( झारखण्ड)

(रेखांक संख्या ईसीएल/एसआईएमएल/एमओयूजेडए/एनओटीआई/06 आर तारीख 21 जुलाई, 2010 )

सभी अधिकार :

टिप्पणियों

क्षेत्र हेक्टर में

जिला

ग्राम संख्या

तहसील/पुलिस थाना

मौजा/ग्राम का नाम

क्र.सं.

पटवारी हल्का जेएल संख्या

1.330

लिटटी पाड़ा

सिमलोंग पहाड़

0.138

लिटटीपाड़ा

2 बड़ा घाघरी

1.368

जोड़

कुल: 1.368 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 3.38 एकड़ ( लगभग)

मौजा सिमलोंग पहाड़ सं. 05 में अर्जन किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या:

108 , 112 , भाग , 117 , 171 , 180 , 183 भाग , मौजा बड़ा घाघरी सं. 20 में अर्जन किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्याः 2. भाग , 9.

अनुसूची-छ

सिमलैंग कोल माइनिंग क

जिला पाकुड़ ( झारखण्ड)

(रेखांक संख्या ईसीएल/एसआईएमएल/एमओयूजेडए/एनओटीआई106 आर , तारीख 21 जुलाई, 2010 )

खनन अधिकार :

टिप्पणियां

त्र हेक्टर में

जिला

तहसील/पुलिस थाना

ग्राम संख्या

मौजा/ग्राम का नाम

क्र.सं.

पटवारी हस्का/ जेएल संख्या

भाग

5.334

पाकुड़

लिटटीपाड़ा

1. सिमलोंग पहाड़

भाग

0.647

पाकुड़

लिटटीपाड़ा

बड़ा घाघरी

5,981

जोडू

कुल : 5.981 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 14.78 एकड़ ( लगभग )

मौजा सिमलोंग पहाड़ सं. 05 में अर्जन किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या:

99 भाग , 104 भाग , 105 भाग , 106 , 107 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 113 , 116 , 118 भाग, 127, 128, 129 , 130, 131 , 132 , 145 , 1 , 147 , 170 , 172 भाग , 173 भाग , 175 भाग , 178 भाग , 179, 181 , 182.

मौजा बड़ा घाघरी सं. 20 में अर्जन किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या:

3 भाग , 7 , 8 .

सीमा विवरण ( ए -ए 3 ):

ए - ए

यह रेखा मौजा सिमलोंग पहाड़ सं. 05 की थाना लिटटी पड़ा जिला सकुड़ की प्लाट सं. 99 एवं 119 कर सांइम सीमा पर विन्दु है से शुरू होकर प्लाट सं. 118 उत्तरी -पूर्वी सीमा, प्लाट सं. 117 पूर्वी सीमा , प्लाट सं. 116 , 113 की उपरी सीमा से गुजली हुई सं. 112 को पार करती हुई पुनः प्लाट 127 , 128 , 129 , 132 , 145 की उत्तरी सीम्बा से मुजराती हुई मौजा सिमलोंग सं. प्लाट सं. 145, की उत्तरी - पूर्वी सीमा पर बिन्दु ए । पर मिलती है ।

ए1 - ए2 यह रेखा मौजा सिमलौंग सं. 05 की प्लाट सं. 145 उत्तरी सीमा पर बिंदु ए । से शुरू होकार , प्लाट सं. 145 , 1 की पूरी सीमा, प्लाट सं. 170 की उत्तरी सीमा , चार संख्या 178 तथा 171 की पूर्वीच से गुजरती हुई , प्लाट नं 172 , 183 को पार 5224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SHRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART I SEC. 3( ii) ] प्लाट सं. 184 की उत्तरी सीमा से गुजरती हुई, मौजा सिमलोंग पैहाड़ सं. 05 एवं बड़ा घाघरी सं. 20 सांझा सीमा पर बिन्दु ए 2 पर मिलती है ।

ए2 एउ यह रेखा मौजा सिमलोंग पहाड़ सं. 05 एवं बड़ा घाघरी सं. 20 सांझा सीमा पर बिन्दु ए 2 से शुरू होकर और प्लाट सं. 82 की उत्तरी सीमा, प्लाट सं. 7 की पूर्वी एवं दक्षिण सीमा , प्लाट सं. 8 एवं 3 की दक्षिणी सीमा से गुजरती हुई, बड़ां घाघरी सं. 20 की प्लाट सं.3 एवं सिमलढाव सं. 21 की प्लाट सं. 91 की सांझा सीमा पर बिन्दु ए 3 पर मिलती है ।

एउ - ए यह रेखा मौजा बड़ा घाघरी सं. 20 की प्लाट सं. 3 एवं सिमंलढाव सं. 21 की प्लाट सं. 91 की सांझा सीमा पर बिन्दु ए 3 से शुरू होकर , प्लाट सं . 3 , 2 मौजा बड़ा घाघरी सं. 20 , मौजा घाघरी सं. 20 तथा सिमलोंग पहाड़ सं. 5 की सांझा सीमा को पार करती हुई, मौजा सिमलोंग पहाड़ सं. 05 की प्लाट सं. 180 , 178 , 175 , 173 , 172 , 104 , 118 एवं 99 का पार करती हुई प्लाट सं. 99 एवं 119 की सांझा 'सीमा पर बिन्दु ए पर मिलती है ।

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

एस. सी. भाटिया , निदेशक

New Delhi , the 13th, July, 2011

S.O. 1920.--Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 2411 dated28thAugust, 2009 issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 4 ofthe Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said act) and published in the Gazette of India Part- II , Section 3 , sub- section ( ii ) dated 5th September, 2009, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 7.349 hectares ( approximately) or 18.160 acres (approximately ) of the lands in the locality specified in the schedule annexed to that notification;

And, whereas the Central Government is satisfied that Coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands prescribed in the schedules appended to this notification ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1) of Section 7 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intentiori to acquire the land measuring 7.349 hectares ( approximately) or 18.160 ecres ( approximately) all right in or ever the said lands described in the schedule appended hereto; as described below:-

(a) All right, 1.368 hectares ( approximately) , or 3.38 acres ( approximately) of land mentioned in Schedule-A (b) Mining right , 5.981 hectares ( approximately) ,or 14.78 acres ( approximately) of land mentioned in Schedule B.

Note 1 . : The plan bearing number ECL /SIML/ MOUZA/NOTI/ 06R dated 21st July, 2010 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, District - Godda (Jharkhand) , or at the office ofthe Coal controller, 1 , Council House Street, Kolkata - 700001 or at the office ofthe Director Technical (Operation), Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, P.O. Dishergarh, Distt . Burdwan (West Bengal ), Pin Code-713333 .

Note2. : Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows:- Objection to acquisition:

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

Explanation: -

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

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

3. For the purposes of this section , a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act . " [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Note3.

5225

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

: The Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street , Kolkata - 700001 has been appointed by the Central Govertiment as the competent authority under section 3 of the saidAct, vide Notificaiton number S.O. 2520 dated 11th June , 1983 published in part - II , sub- section ( ii ) of the Gazette of India.

Schedule-A

Simlong Coal MiningBlock,

District - Pakur (Jharkhand)

(The plan bearing number ECL/ SIML/MOUZA/NOTI/06R dated 21st July, 2010)

AllRight:

Sl . No.

VillageNumer Patwari/Halka/JL number Name of Mouza/ Village

5 Simlong Pahar

20 Bara Ghaghri

Total

Total: 1.368 hectares (approximately) or 3.38 acres ( approximately)

Plot numbers to be acquired in Mouza Simlong Pahar No. 05:

108, 112 part, 117, 171 , 180, 183 part.

Plot numbers to be acquired in Mouza Bara Ghaghri No. 20: 2part, 9.

Tahsil/PS

Remarks District Area in hectares approximatly

Litti Para

1.230

Pakur

Part Litti Para

0.138

Pakur

part

1.368

Schedule-B

Simlong Coal Mining Block,

District- Pakur(Jharkhand)

(The plan bearing number ECL/SIML/ MOUZA/NOTI/06R dated 21st July, 2010)

MiningRight :

Sl . No.

VillageNumer Patwari/Halka/JL number Name of Mouza/ Village

5. Simlong Pahar

20 Bara Ghaghri

Total

Total : 5.981 hectares (approximately) or 14.78 acres ( approximately) Plot numbers to be acquired in Mouza Simlong Pahar No. 05:

Tahsil/PS

District

Remarks

Area in hectares approximatly

Litti Para

5.334

Pakur

Part Litti Para

Pakur

0.647

part

5.981

99 part, 104 part, 105 part, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 113, 116, 118 part, 127, 128, 129 130, 131, 132, 145, 146, 147, 170, 172, 173part, 175 part, 178 part, 179, 181 , 182 .

Plot numbers tobe acquired in Mouza Bara Ghaghri No. 20 :

3part, 7, 8.

Boundary Description (Ato A3) :

A-A1 Line starts from Point A on the common boundary ofplot number 99 & 119 in the mouza Simlong No- 05 Thana. Lititi Para Distt . Pakur, passes through the northern and eastern boundary of plot number 118, eastern boundaryplot number 117 , northern boundary ofplot number 116, 113, cross the plot number 112, again passes through the northern boundary plot No. 127, 128 , 129, 132, 145 and meets at pointA.1 on the northern boundary ofplot number 145 of mouza Simlong Pahar No. 05.

A1 -A2 Line starts from Point Al on the northern boundary of plot number 145 of mouza Simlong Pahar No- 05 and passes through the eastern boundary of plot number 145 , 147 , northern boundary of 170 , eastern boundary of plot number 170 , 171 , cross the plot number 172, 183 , passes through northern boundary ofplot number 184 and meets at the point A2 on the common boundary of Mouza Pahar No.- 05 and Bara Ghaghari No. -20 .

A2 -A3 Line starts from PointA2 on the common boundary of Mouza Simlong Pahar No. -05 and Bara Ghaghari No. -20 and passes through northern boundary of plot No. 82, eastern and southern boundary of plot number 7, southern boundary ofplot No. - 8, 3 and meets at point A3 of the common boundary ofplot No. 3 ofmouzaBara Ghaghari No 20 & plot no . 91 of Simaldhab No. - 21 .

[PART 11-SEC . 3(ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SHRAVANA 1 , 1933

5226

A3 -A Line starts from Point No. A3 of the common boundary ofplot No. 3 ofmouza Bara Ghaghari no . 20 & plot no . 91 of Simaldhab No. 21. Crosses plot No. 3 , 2 of mouza - Bara Ghaghari no. -20, common boundary mouzaBara Ghaghari no . 20 and Simlong Pahar no . - 05, plot no . 180, 178 , 175, 173 , 172, 104, 105, 118, 99 and meets at the point Aonthe common boundary of plot no . 99 and 119 of mouza Simlong Pahar no .05.

[F.No. 43015/ 1/2009 -PRIW- 1 ] S. C. BHATIA, Director

नई दिल्ली, 15 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1921.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन एवं विकास ) , अधिनियम 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत सरकार में कोयला मंत्रालय द्वारा जारी की गई अधिसूचना, संख्यांक का.आ. 446 तारीख 1 फरवरी , 2010 , जो भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप - खण्ड ( ii ) , तारीख 13 फरवरी, 2010 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, उस अधिसूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में जिसका माप 1787.92 एकड़ ( लगभग ) या 723.56 हेक्टेयर (लगभग ) है , कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी ;

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

अतः केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) , अधिनियम, 1957 की धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित 1644.22 एकड़ ( लगभग ) या 665.41 हेक्टेयर ( लगभग ) माप की उक्त भूमि का अर्जन करने की अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ;

टिप्पण: 1. इस अधिसूचना के अधीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्या जीएम ( एचए ) /हिंगुला ईएक्सटीएन/2010/86 तारीख 14 दिसम्बर , 2010 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर , अंगुल ( उड़ीसा ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, । काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता के कार्यालय में या का निरीक्षण महाप्रबंधक ( भूमि/ राजस्व और पुनर्वास ) , महानदी कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , जागृति विहार , बुर्ला, संबलपुर ( उड़ीसा ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

टिप्पण: 2. उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के उपबंधों की ओर ध्यान आकृष्ट किया जाता है जिसमें निम्नलिखित उपबंध हैं :

अर्जन की बाबत आक्षेप:--

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

स्पष्टीकरण :

1. इस धारा के अन्तर्गत यह आक्षेप नहीं होंगे , कि कोई व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में कोयला उत्पादन के लिए स्वयं खनन संक्रियाएं करना चाहता है और ऐसी संक्रियाएं केन्द्रीय सरकार या किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को नहीं करनी चाहिए ।

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

3. इस धारा के प्रयोजनों के लिए वह व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में हितबद्ध समझा जाएगा जो प्रतिकर में हित का दावा करने का हकदार होता यदि भूमि या किसी ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार इस अधिनियम के अधीन अर्जित कर लिए जाते हैं । " 5227 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1, 1933

टिप्पण : 3. केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , कांउसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता 700001 को उक्त अधिनियम संख्यांक का. आ. 2015 तारीख 10 जुलाई , 1995 द्वारा सक्षम प्राधिकारी को नियुक्त किया है ।

अनुसूची

महानदी कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड

हिंगुला- II विस्तार परियोजना का ईस्टर्न पार्ट ऑफ गोपालप्रसाद ( वेस्ट ) और गोपालप्रसाद ( ईस्ट ) तालचेर कोलफील्ड्स कोल माइनिंग ब्लॉक का जिओलाजिकल ब्लॉक

जिला-अनगुल ( उड़ीसा )

(रेखांक संख्या जीएम ( एचए)/हिंगुला ईएक्सटीएन/2010/86 तारीख 14 दिसम्बर , 2010)

सभी अधिकारः

क्र.सं. ग्राम

थाना

तहसील जिला

टिप्पणी

भूमिका वर्गीकरण ( एकड़ में )

ग्राम संख्या

वन काश्तकारी

हेक्टेयर में

कुल क्षेत्र एकड़ में

सरकारी गैरवन

कोलीयरी 262

90.54 2.20 40.76

133.50 54.03 भाग कुसुमपाल

तालचेर अनगुल

263

2. गोपालप्रसाद कोलीयरी

308.01 124.65 भाग

तालचेर अनगुल: 143.63 57.26 107.12

3. मालिबन्ध कोलीयरी 265 तालचेर

215.86 87.36 भाग

16.57 10.37 188.92

अनगुल

4. आसनबाहाली कोलीयरी 264 तालचेर

20.72 63.78 25.26

109.76. 44.42

अनगुल

पूर्ण 266

कोलीयरी

तालचेर

24.05

37.50-

71.23

28.82.

भाग 5. नुआमुहिन

9.68

अनगुल

6. अम्बपाल

430

4.18

22.35

34.45 13.94 भाग

7.92

अनगुल

अनगुल अनगुल

440.00

7. नुआमुहिन

440.00 178.07 भाग अनगुल

अनगुल अनगुल

आर.एफ.

8. निशा

331.41

331.41 134.12 भाग अनगुल

अनगुल अनगुल ,

पी.एफ.

421.91 1644.22 665,41

299.69 922.62

कुल

ग्रामों के अधिग्रहित की जाने वाली जमीनों का प्लाट :

1. कुसुमपाल ( भाग): 438 से 469 , 470( भाग ) , 471 से 514,905 ( भाग ) , 960 से 979 , 977/988 , 965/993 , 435//1010 , 519/1017 , 965/1047, 480/1056 , 952/1065 , 979/1081 , 505/1086 , 474/1099 , 458/1103 , 463/1104, 463/1105, 466/1106, 467/1107 , 467/1108 , 467/1109 , 476/1110 , 467/1111 , 467/1112, 467/1128 , 473/1129 , 464/1139.

2. गोपालप्रसाद ( भाग ) 2635 ( भाग ) , 2636, 2637, 2639 से 2643 , 2650 , 2652( भाग ) , 2664 से 2667 , 2669 से 2851 , 2852 ( भाग ) , 2853, 2854, 2855 ( भाग ) , 2856( भाग ) , 2857 , 2858 , 2706/2864 , 2840/2876, 2803/2884 , 2777/2890 , 2778/2892,2832/2901 , 2803/2902, 2832/2903 , 2698/2966 , 2752/2976, 2660/2978 , 2752/2979 , 2638/2980 , 2702/2995 , 2819/2999 , 2811/3000, 2687/3002, 2693/3003, 2693/3004 , 2853/3038 , 2804/3041 , 2795/3042, 2830/3043 , 2761/3053 , 2687/3060 , 2850/3063 , 2850/3064 , 2008/3065, 771/3069, 2850/3085 , 2847/3181 , 2638/3243 , 2638/3244, 2638/3245, 2638/3246, 2850/3251 , 2850/3252, 2850/3253 , 2850/3254, 2850/3255 , 2849/3256 , 2849/3257, 2847/3258 , 2847/3259 , 2847/3260, 2847/3261 , 2847/3262, 2754/3263, 2754/3264 , 2754/3265, 2749/3266, 2849/3275, 2850/3279, 2828/3280, 2828/3283 , 2666/3303 , 2666/3304, 2755/3313 , 2749/3314, 2706/3427, 2850/3438 , 2849/3439, 2754/3440, 2847/3441, 2847/3442, 2850/3443 , 2749/3444, 2828/3500, 2828/3501 , 2827/3521 , 2763/3535 , 2764/3536, 2770/3537, 2770/3538 , 2778/3539 , 2664/3541 , 2664/3542, 2689/3543 , 2689/3544, 2830/3545 , 2830/3546, 2830/3547 , 2829/3548 , 2664/3549, 2829/3550, 2830/3551 , 2664/3552, 2788/3553 , 2850/3554, 2850/3555, 2850/3556, 2823/3557, 2770/3558 , 2778/3559, 2788/3560 , 2711/3561 , 2788/3562 , 2689/3563 , 2689/3564, 2764/3565 , 2788/3566 , 2762/3567 , 2788/3568 , 2788/3569 , 2788/3570, 2788/3571 , 2788/3572 , 2788/3573 , 2766/3574, 2801/3575 , 2823/3576 , 2827/3577, 2850/3578 , 2809/3579, 2830/3580 , [PART IISEC. 3(ii)] 5228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SHRAVANA 1 , 1933

2778/3581, 2788/3582, 2778/3583 , 2828/3584, 2828/3585, 2735/3586, 2735/3587, 2727/3588, 2770/3589, 2786/3590, 2850/3591, 2850/3592, 2850/3593, 2674/3594, 2674/3595.

3. मालिबन्ध ( भाग ) 1 से 5 , 12 से 25 , 29 से 49 , 50 ( भाग ) , 52 से 275 , 276( भाग ) , 279 से 281 , 282 ( भाग ) , 283 से 288, 289( भाग ) , 290 से 555 , 556( भाग ) , 557( भाग ) , 572 , 589 से 592 , 615 से 618 , 642 से 671 , 712, 713 , 717 से 719, 722 से 809, 20/810 , 170/811 , 131/812 , 200/813 , 716/814 , 31/816, 191/820 , 164/821 , 684/822 , 731/823 , 780/825 , 363/826, 710/827 , 118/828 , 547/829 , 743/830 , 734/831 , 722/832 , 174/835 , 725/836 , 798/837 , 712/839 , 67/840, 65/841 , 115/842 , 164/845 , 132/846, 132/847 , 402/848 , 169/849 , 178/850 , 94/851 , 650/852, 592/853 , 166/854, 741/855 , 787/856, 787/857, 787/858 , 716/859, 591/860, 453/861 , 791/862 , 147/863 , 147/864 , 147/865 , 147/866, 129/867, 51/868( भाग ) , 767/869, 734/870, 51/872 , 453/874,434/877, 463/878.

4.आसनबाहाली ( पूर्ण ) 1 से 80 , 1/81 , 1/82 , 25/83 , 63/84 , 63/85, 63/86, 63/87 , 76/88 , 76/89 , 76/90, 77/91 , 78/92 , 78/93 , 77/94, 11/95 , 6/96 , 8/97 , 8/98 , 8/99 , 14/100 , 14/101 , 8/102 , 76/103 , 8/104,

5. नुआमुहिन ( भाग ) 100 से 106, 116 से 160 , 152/169 , 124/180 , 124/181 , 123/182 , 122/183 , 129/193 , 131/194, 118/95 , 116/198 , 140/199 , 142/200 , 142/201 , 142/202 , 116/203 , 116/204, 119/205 , 119/206, 135/209 , 128/210 , 127/211 , 102/213 , 100/214 , 104/215 , 120/216 , 125/217 , 145/219 , 145/220 , 158/221 , 158/222 , 127/231 , 128/232, 117/234 , 158/236, 121/237, 121/238 , 157/264 , 157/265 , 154/266 , 154/267 , 154/268 , 159/269 , 154/270 , 154/271 , 130/272 , 129/273 , 129/274 , 133/275 , 133/276 , 140/277, 158/278 , 158/279 , 158/280 .

6. अम्बपाल ( भांग ) - 1 से 5 , 14( भाग ) , 18 से 4041 , 42, 45 , से 64, 65 ( भाग ) , 66 से 76, 86 से 99 , 100( भाग ) , 101 से 103 , 110 ( भाग ) , 113 से 165, 177 से 186, 197( भाग ) , 422 से 425 , 41/2104 , 149/2161 , 162/2162 , 160/2164, 123/2165 , 44/2204 , 44/2205, 117/2426 , 117/2427, 118/2428 , 118/2429 , 115/2574 , 23/2705 .

7. नुआमुहिन आर.एफ. ( भाग ) की अर्जित की जाने वाली भूमि 440.00 एकड़ ( लगभग ) ( नक्शा में दिखाया गया है ) । 8. निशा पी.एफ. ( भाग ) की अर्जित की जाने वाली भूमि 331.41 एकड़ ( लगभग ) ( नक्शा में दिखाया गया है) ।

सीमा विवरण:

ए - बी : रेखा बिन्दु- ए से प्रारम्भ होती है जो भालुगाडिया और कुसुमपाल ग्रामों की साझी सीमा है । इसके बाद प्लाट संख्या -446 की उत्तरी सीमा बिन्दु; प्लाट संख्या 445 की पश्चिमी और आंशिक उत्तरी सीमा और प्लाट संख्या -1010 की आंशिक उत्तरी सीमा, प्लाट संख्या 438 की पश्चिमी उत्तरी पूर्वी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या 439 की उत्तरी सीमा, प्लाट संख्या 441 की आंशिक पश्चिमी और उत्तरी सीमा, प्लाट संख्या -442 की उत्तरी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या -495 की सड़क को पार करती है ; प्लाट संख्या 1086 की पश्चिमी , उत्तरी और पूर्वी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या 506 की उत्तरी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या 1017 की आंशिक पश्चिमी, उत्तरी और पूर्वी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या-514 की उत्तरी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या -1047 की आंशिक पश्चिमी , उत्तरी सीमा और प्लाट संख्या 966 , 993 , 964, 960 की उत्तरी सीमा से सड़क पार करती हुई बिन्दु बी पर मिलती है जो कुसुमपाल और गोपाल प्रसाद ग्राम की साझी सीमा है । बी- सी: रेखा कुसुमपाल और गोपालप्रसाद ग्रामों की सांझी सीमा को पार करती हुई प्लाट संख्या 2636 की उत्तरी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या -2637 की आंशिक पश्चिमी , उत्तरी और पूर्वी सीमा, प्लाट संख्या-3246 की आंशिक उत्तरी और पूर्वी सीमा, प्लाट संख्या -2639 की आंशिक पश्चिमी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या 2643 की उत्तरी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या-2650 की पश्चिमी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या -2669 की उत्तरी और आंशिक पूर्वी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या -2652 को पार करती हुई प्लाट संख्या -2978 की उत्तरी और पूर्वी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या-2664 की आंशिक उत्तरी सीमा के बिन्दु- सी पर मिलती है , जो गोपालप्रसाद और नुआमुहिन तथा मलीबंध ग्रामों की सांझी सीमा के ट्राई जंक्शन बिन्दु पर स्थित है ।

सी- डी: रेखा मलीबन्ध और मुआमुहिम ग्रामों की साझी सीमा से आंशिक रूप से गुजरती है । इसके बाद रेखा प्लाट संख्या -4 , 5,12 , 11 , 25 की पूर्वी सीमा के साथ , प्लाट संख्या-30 की उत्तरी सीमा प्लाट संख्या -47 की उत्तरी सीमा , प्लाटं संख्या -47 की उत्तरी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या-50 ( भाग ) और 868 ( भाग ) से होकर गुजरती हुई प्लाट संख्या 52 की आंशिक पश्चिमी और उत्तरी सीमा प्लाट संख्या- 53 की उत्तरी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या 51 की पूर्वी सीमा के बिन्दु- डी पर मिलती है । [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5229

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

डी-ई: रेखा प्लाट संख्या-116, 204 , 203 की उत्तरी सीमा के साथ - साथ गुजरती हुई प्लाट संख्या-124 की पूर्वी सीमा , नुआमुहिन ग्राम की प्लाट संख्या- 105 की उत्तरी और पूर्वी सीमा के बिन्दु- ई पर मिलती है । यह नुआमहिन ग्रासः और नुआमुहिन आर. एफ. का बाई-जंक्शन बिन्दु है ।

ई- एफ-जी एच-आई: इसके बाद रेखा नुआमुहिन आरएफ से होकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु- एफ पर मिलती है । इसके बाद रेखा नुआमुहिन आर एफ से होकर दक्षिण दिशा में बढ़ती है और बिन्दु- जी पर मिलती है । यह नुआमुहिन आर. एफ. और कलमछुई ग्राम का बाई- जंक्शन बिन्दु है । रेखा नुआमुहिन आर.एफ. और कलमछुईं की आंशिक सांझी ग्राम सीमा से होकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु- एच पर मिलती है । यह नुआमुहिन आर.एफ. अम्बापाल और कलमछुई ग्रामों का ट्राईजंक्शन बिन्दु है । इसके बाद रेखा अम्बाचाल और कलमछुई ग्रामों क्की आंशिक सांझी ग्राम सीमा के साथ गुजरती हुई बिन्दु- आई पर मिलती है ।

आई-जे-के- एल: रेखा प्लाट संख्या -5 की उत्तरी और पूर्वी सीमा के साथ गुजरती है , प्लाट संख्या -14 को पार करती है , प्लाट संख्या-18की पूर्वी और दक्षिणी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या-19 की दक्षिणी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या -22 की आंशिक पूर्वी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या -28 , 29 और 34 की पूर्वी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या-36 की आंशिक उत्तरी और पूर्वी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या 41 की आंशिक उत्तरी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या-52 की आंशिक पश्चिमी एवं उत्तरी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या -55 की उत्तरी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या 60 की पूर्वी सीमा, प्लाट संख्या-64 की पूर्वी और उत्तरी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या -71 की उत्तरी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या -65 , 100 के साथ बढ़ती है, प्लाट संख्या-102 , 103 , 114 की पश्चिमी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या -113 की पश्चिमी और उत्तरी सीमा, प्लाट संख्या-112 की पूर्वी सीमा, प्लाट संख्या-110 से होकर गुजरती हुई अम्बापाल और कलमछुईं ग्राम की सांझी सीमा के बिन्दु-जे पर मिलती है । रेखा प्लाट संख्या-110 , 425 , 422 , 143 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 156, 157 , 164 की पूर्वी सीमा के साथ बढ़ती है , प्लाट संख्या -165 की पूर्वी और दक्षिणी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या -161 , 167 की दक्षिणी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या -178 की आंशिक पूर्वी सीमा, प्लाट संखा-186 की पूर्वी और दक्षिणी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या -100 की आंशिक पूर्वी एवं दक्षिणी सीमा के साथ बढ़ती हुई बिन्दु-के पर मिलती है, प्लाट संख्या-90 , 89 , 88 , 86,68 , 69, 76, 75, 74 की दक्षिणी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या-2205 की पूर्वी सीमा, प्लाट संख्या-2204, 46की पूर्वी एवं दक्षिणी सीमा, प्लाट संख्या -45 की दक्षिणी सीमा , इसके बाद प्लाट संख्या-41 की आंशिक पूर्वी और आंशिक दक्षिणी सीमा, प्लाट संख्या-42 की आंशिक पूर्वी , दक्षिणी और आंशिक पश्चिमी सीमा , प्लाट संख्या-197 से होकर गुजरती हुई बिन्दु-एल पर मिलती है । यह आम्बापाल और नुआमुहिन आर. एफ. ग्रामों की सांझी सीमा है ।

एल-एम-एन-ओ-पीः इसके बाद रेखा नुआमुहिन आर.एफ. से होकर जाती है तथा बिन्दु - एम पर मिलती है इसके बाद रेखा नुआमुहिन आर. एफ. और असनबाहाली की आंशिक ग्राम सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु -एन पर मिलती है । रेखा नुआमुहिन आरएफ से होकर गुजरती है, इसके बाद नुआमुहिन आर.एफ. और निशा पी.एफ. की आंशिक साझी सीमा के साथ गुजरती हुई बिन्दु- ओ पर मिलती है । इसके बाद रेखा निशा पी.एफ. से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु- पी पर मिलती है जो निशा पी.एफ. और बालिचंद्रपुर ग्रामों की साझी सीमा है । पी-क्यू-आर-एस: इसके बाद रेखा निशा पी.एफ. और बालिचंद्रपुर ग्रामों की आंशिक सांझी ग्राम सीमा के साथ चलती हुई बिन्दु-क्यूपर मिलती है जो निशा पी.एफ. बालिचंद्रपुर और पीरखमन ग्रामों का ट्राई- जंक्शन बिन्दु है । इसके बाद रेखा निशा पी.एफ. और बालिचंद्रपुर ग्राम की साझी सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती हुई बिन्दु- आर पर मिलती है । यह निशा पी.एफ. पीरखमन और कंकरेई ग्रामों का ट्राई-जंक्शन बिन्दु है । इसके बाद रेखा निशा पी.एफ. और कंकरेई ग्रामों की साझी ग्राम सीमा के साथ चलती हुई बिन्दु- एस पर मिलती है । यह निशा पी.एफ. कंकरेई और भालूगाडिया ग्रामों का ट्राई- जंक्शन बिन्दु है ।

एस-टी- यू- ए : इसके बाद रेखा निशा पी.एफ. और भालूगाडिया ग्रामों की सांझी ग्राम सीमा के साथ गुजरती हुई बिन्दु- टी पर मिलती है जो निशा पी.एफ. नुआमुहिन आर. एफ. और कुसुमपाल ग्रामों का ट्राई जंक्शन बिन्दु है । इसके बाद रेखा मलीबंध और भालूगाडिया की सांझी ग्राम सीमा के साथ गुजरती हुई बिन्दु- यू पर मिलती है जो भालूगाडिया , मलीबंध एवं कुसुमपाल ग्रामों का ट्राई- जंक्शन बिन्दु है । इसके बाद रेखा भालूगाडिया और कुसुमपाल ग्रामों की सांझी सीमा के साथ चलती हुई प्रारंभिक बिन्दु ए पर मिलती है ।

[फा.सं. 43015/31 /2009-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]

एस.सी. भाटिया , निदेशक

New Delhi , the 15th, July, 2011

S.O. 1921. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal , S.O. number 446 dated the 1st February, 2010 issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , published in the Part- II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India dated the 13th February, 2010 , the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect for 2589GI/11-9 5230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SHRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] Coal in 1787.92 acres ( approximately) or 723.56 hectares (approximately) of lands in the locality specified in the Schedule annexed to that notification;

And, whereas the Central Government is satisfied that Coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands prescribed in the Schedules appended to this notification ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 7 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 1644.22 acres (approximately) or 665.41 hectares ( approximately ) in all rights as described in the schedule appended hereto;

Note1. : The plan bearing number GM (HA)/HINGULA/EXTN /2010/86 dated the 14th December, 2010 of the area coveredby this notification may be inspected at the office of the Collector, Angul , (Orissa) , or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street , Kolkatta, or at the office ofthe General Manager ( Land/ Revenure and Rehabilitation ) , Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, P.O. Jagriti Vihar, Burla, District - Samblapur (Orissa).

Note 2. Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows:-

Objections to Acquisition:

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

Explanation: -

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

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

(3) For the purposes of this section , a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act . " Note 3 : The Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street, Kolkatta- 700001 has been appointed by the Central Government as the competent authority under the Act, vide notification number S.O. 2015 dated the 10th July, 1995 .

SCHEDULE .

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED

Hingula - II Extension Project of Eastern Part ofGopal Prasad (West ) and Gopal Prasad (East)

Geological Blocks of Talcher Coalfields Coal Mining Block

District-Angul (Orissa)

(Planbearing number GM ( HA)/ HINGULA EXTN /2010 /86 dated the 14th December, 2010)

AllRights :

District

Tahasil

Thana

Sl . Mauza

Vill. No.

No. Village

(6)

(5)

(3) (4)

(1) (2)

262 Talcher Angul

Colliery

1. Kusumpal

Talcher Angul

Colliery 263

2. Gopal Prasad

Remarks

TotalArea

Govt Forest TenancyIn Ac. In Ha.

Classification of lands inAcres Non Forest

(12)

(11)

(10)(9)

(7) (8)

Part

54.03 40.76 133.50

90.54 2.20

124.65 Part

308.01

107.12

143.63 57.26 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

523.1

(12)

(11)

(10)

(6) (7) (8) (9)

(4) (5)

(3)

(1) (2)

16.57

Taicher Angul 3. Mallibandha Colliery 265

Talcher

264

2072

Angul 4. Asanabahali Colliery

Talcher

24.05

Angul 5. Nuamuhin Colliery 266

430

4.18

Angul

6. Ambapal

Angul 7. Nuamuhin

Angul

RF .

Angul

8. Nisha PF

Angul

Total- Plot numbers to be acquired în villages: -

Part

87.36

215.86

188.92

1037

44.42 Full 25.26 109.76

63.78

Part

28.82

71.23

37.50

9.68

Part

13.94

34.45

22.35

7.92

Part

178.07

440.00

Part

134.12

331.41

665.41

1644.22

421.91

922.62

299.69

1. Kusumpal (Part) : - 438 to 469, 470(Part), 471 to 514, 905 (Part), 960 to 979 , 977/988, 965/993 , 435/1010519/1017, 965/1047, 480/1056,952/ 1065, 979/1081 , 505/1086, 474/1099,458/1103,463/1104, 463/1105, 466/1106, 467/1107,487/1108,467/1109,476/ 1110, 467/1111,467/1112, 467/1128, 473/1129, 464/1139.

2.Gopalprasad (Part) : - 2635 (P), 2636, 2637, 2639 to 2643, 2650, 2652(Part), 2664 to 2667, 2669 to 2851 , 2852(Part ), 2853, 2854, 2855 (Part) , 2856 (Part) , 2857 , 2858 , 2706/2864, 2840/2876, 2803/2884, 2777/2890, 2778/2892, 2832/2901 , 2803/2902, 2832/2903,2698/2966, 2752/2976, 2660/2978,2752/2979, 2638/2980, 2702/2995, 2819/2999,2811/3000, 2687/3002, 2693/3003, 2693/3004, 2853/3038, 2804/3041,2795/ 3042,2830/3043 , 2761/3053,2687/3060, 2850/3063, 2850/3064, 2008/3065,771/3069, 2850/3085,2847/3181,2638/3243,2638/3244, 2638/3245, 2638/3246, 2850/3251 , 2850/3252, 2850/3253,2850/3254,2850/3255, 2849/3256,2849/3257,2847/3258 , 2847/3259,2847/3260, 2847/3261,2847/3262,2754/3263,2754/3264,2754/3265,2749/3266, 2849/3275,2850/ 3279,2828/3280,2828/3283,2666/330303,2666/3304,2755 /3313,2749/3314,2706/3427,2850/3438,2849/3439, 2754/3440,2847/3441 , 2847/3442, 2850/3443,2749/3444, 2828/3500, 2828/3501,2827/3521,2763/3535,2764/3536,2770/3537, 2770/3538,2778/3539,2664/3541,2664/3542,2689/3543,2689/3544,2830/3545 , 2830/3546, 2830/3547, 2829/3548, 2664/3549 2829/3550, 2830/3551,2664/ 3552,2788 /3553,2850/ 3554,2850/3555,2850/ 3556, 2823/3557,2770/3558 , 2778/3559,2788/3560, 2711/3561,2788/3562,2689/3563,2689/3364,2764/3565,2788/3566,2762/3567, 2788/3568,2788/3569, 2788/3570,2788/3571 , 2788/3572,2788 /3573,2766/3574,2801/3575,2823/3576,2827/3577,2850/3578,2809 /3579,2830 /3580,2778/3581 , 2788/3882, 2778/3583,2828/3584, 2828/3585,2735/3586,2735/3587,2727 /3588 , 2770 /3589,2786/3590, 2850/3591 , 2850/3592, 2850/3593, 2674/3594,2674/3595.

3.Mallibandha (Part): - 1 to 5, 12 to 25, 29 to 49, 50 (Part), 52 to 275, 276 (Part ), 279 to 281 , 282 (Part), 283 to 288, 289 (Part ), 290 to 555, 556 (Part), 557 (Part), 572, 589 to 592, 615 to 618, 642 to 671,712 , 713,717 to 719,722 to 809, 20/810,170/811, 131/ 812,200/813 , 716/814, 31/816, 191/820, 164/821 , 684/822, 731/823 , 780/825,363/826,710/827, 118/828, 547/829, 743/830, 734/831 , 722/832, 174/835, 725/836, 798/837 , 712/839, 67/840,65/84 ' 1 , 115/842, 164/845, 132/846, 132/847,402/848, 169/849, 178/850, 94/851,650/ 852, 592/853 , 166/854, 741/855 ,787/856,787/857,787/858, 716/859, 591/860,453/861, 791/862, 147/863 , 147/864, 147/865, 147/866 , 129/867, 51/868 (Part) , 767/869, 734/870, $1 /872,453/874,434/877,463/878.

4.Asanabahali (Full): - 1 to 80, 1/81 , 1/82, 25/83, 63/84, 63/85, 63/86, 63/87, 76/88, 76/89, 76/90, 77/91 , 78/92, 78/93 , 77/94, 11/95 , 6/96, 8/97, 8/98 , 8/99, 14/100, 14/101 , 8/102, 76/103 , 8/104 .

5. Nuamuhin (Part): - 100 to 106,116 to 160,152/ 169,124/ 180,124/ 181,123 / 182,122/ 183 , 129/193 , 131/194, 118/195, 116/198, 140/199,142/200 , 142/201 , 142/202, 116/203 , 116/204, 119/205, 119/206, 135/209 , 128/210, 127/211 , 102/213 , 100/214, 104/215, 5232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011/ SHRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 120/216, 125/217, 145/219 , 145/220 , 158/221 , 158/222 , 127/231 , 128/232, 117/234, 158/236, 121/237, 121/238 , 157/264, 157/265, 154/266, 154/267 , 154/268 , 159/269 , 154/270, 154/271 , 130/272, 129/273 , 129/274 , 133/275 , 133/276 , 140/277 , 158/278 , 158/279, 158/280.

6. Ambapal (Part) : - 1 to 5, 14(Part), 18 to 40, 41 , 42, 45 to 64, 65 (Part ),66 to 76, 86 to 99 , 100(Part), 101 to 103, 110(Part) , 113 to 165 , 177 to 186, 197(Part) , 422 to 425,41 /2104, 149/2161 , 162/2162, 160/2164, 123/2165, 44/2204 , 44/2205, 117/2426, 117/2427, 118/2428 , 118/2429, 115/2574,23/2705 .

7. Land to be acquired in Nuamuhin R.F. (Part) : - An areas of 440.00 acres (approximately ) (as shown in the plan) .

8. Land to be acquired in Nisa P. F. (Part) :- An areas of 331.41 acres (approximately ) ( as shown in the plan) .

Boundary Description:-

A - B: - Line start on point ' A' which is the common boundary of village Bhalugadia and Kusumpal . Then passes over the northern point boundary of plot No.446, western and part northern boundary of plot No.445 , western and part northern boundary of plot No.1010 , western northern eastern boundary of plot No. 438, northern boundary of plot No.439 , part western and northern boundary of plot No. 441 , northern boundary of plot No.442 , cross the road ofplot No. 495, western , northern and eastern boundary of plot No. 1086 , northern boundary of plot No. 506, part western , northern and eastern boundary of plot No. 1017 , northern boundary of plot No. 514, part western , part northern boundary of plot No. 1047 , and cross the road northern boundary of plot No.966 , 993, 964, 960 meet at point ' B ' which is the common village boundary of village Kusumpal & Gopal Prasad. B - C: - Line cross the common village boundary of village Kusumpal & Gopal Prasad , northern boundary of 2636 , part western, northern & eastern boundary of plot No. 2637 , part northern and eastern boundary of plot No. 3246, part western boundary of plot No. 2639 , northern boundary of plot No. 2643 , western boundary of plot No. 2650, northern & part eastern boundary of plot No. 2669 cross plot No. 2652, northern and eastern boundary of plot No. 2978 , part northern boundary of plot No. 2664 meets at point ' C' which is the common village boundary of GopalPrasad & Nuamuhin and Mallibandha at tri -junction point.

C- D: - Line partly passes over the common village boundary of village Mallibandha & Nuamuhin . Then the line passes along eastern boundary of plot No.4, 5 , 12, 11 , 25 , northern boundary of plot No.30, northern -eastern boundary of plot No.29 , northern boundary of plot No.47 passes through plot Nos.50( Part ) & 868 (Part) , part western and northern boundary ofplot No.52, northern boundary of plot No.53 , eastern boundary of plot No.51 meets at point 'D' .

D-E:- Line passes along the northern boundary of plot No. 116, 204, 203 , eastern boundary of plot No. 124, northern and eastern boundary of plot No. 105 of village Nuamuhin meets at point ' E ' . This is the bi -junction point of village Nuamuhin and Nuamuhin RF.

E - F - G - H- I: -Then line passes through the Nuamuhin R.F. & meets at point ' F' . Then the line passes towards south direction through Nuamuhin RF meets at point 'G' . This is the bi -junction point of Nuamuhin RF & Kalamachhuin village . Line passes over the part common village boundary of Nuamuhin RF & Kalamachhuin meet at point 'H' . This is the tri -junction point of village Nuamuhir. RF, Ambapal & Kalamachhuin. Then the line passes along the part common village boundary of village Ambapal and Kalamachhuin meet point ' I' .

I - J - K - L: -The line passes along northern and eastern boundary of plot No.5 , cross plot No.14, eastern and southern boundary of plot No.18, southern boundary of plot No. 19, part eastern boundary of Plot No. 22, eastern boundary ofplot No.28 , 29 & 34, part northern and eastern boundary ofplot No.36 , part northern boundary of plot No. 41 , part western and northern boundary of plot No. 52, northern boundary of plot No. 55 , eastern boundary ofplot No. 60 , eastern and northern boundary of plot No. 64, northern boundary of plot No. 71 , passes along plot No. 65, 100, western boundary of plot No. 102, 103 , 114, western and northern boundary of plot No. 113 , eastern boundary of plot No.112 passes through plot No.110, and meet at point ' J ' at the common village boundary of villageAmbapal and Kalamachhuin. The line passes along the eastern boundary ofplot No. 110, 425 , 422, 143 , 149, 146, 147 , 148 , 156, 157, 164 eastern & southern boundary of plot No.165 , southern boundary of plot No.161, 167, part eastern boundary of plot No. 178 , eastern & southern boundary of plot No. 186 , part eastern & southern boundary of plot No. 100 meet at point ' K' , southern boundary ofplot No. 90, 89, 88 , 86, 68, 69, 76, 73, 74, eastern boundary ofplot No. 2205 , eastern & southern boundary ofplot No. 2204, 46, southern ofplot No.45 , then part eastern and part southern boundary of plot No. 41 , part eastern , southern and part western boundary ofplot No. 42, passes through plot No. 197 meet at point ' L' . Which is the common boundary of village Ambapal &Nuamuhin RF.

5233 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

L- M - N - O - P : - Then line passes through Nuamuhin RF meet- at point ' M ' . Then line passes over the part village boundary of Nuamuhin RF & Asanbahali meet at point ' N' . Line passes through Nuamuhin RF then passes along the part common boundary of Nuamuhin RF & Nisha PF meets at point ' O ' . Then the line passes through Nisha PF meets at point ' P ' which is the common boundary of Nisha PF & village Balichandrapur.

P - Q - R - S : -Then the line passes along the part common village boundary of Nisha PF & Balichandrapur meet at point 'Q' which is the tri -junction point of village Nisha PF, Balichandrapur & Pirakhamana village . Then the line passes along the common village boundary of Nisha PF & Balichandrapur meet at point 'R' . This is the tri -junction point ofvillage Nisha PF, Pirakhamana & Kankarei village . Then the line passes along the common village boundary and Nisha PF & Kankarei meet at point'S ' . This is the tri -junction point of village Nisha PF, Kankarei & Bhalugadia village.

S - T - U - A: -Then line passes along the common village boundary of Nisha PF & village Bhalugadia meets at point ' T' which is the tri -junction point of Nisha PF, Nuamuhin RF & Kusumpal village . Then the line passes along the common village boundary of village Mallibandha & Bhalugadia meet at point ' U ' which is the tri -junction point of village Bhalugadia, Mallibandha & Kusumpal . Then the line passes along the common village boundary of Bhalugadia & Kusumpal and meet at the starting point 'A' .

[ F. No. 43015/31/2009-PRIW- 1 ]

S. C. BHATIA, Director

कृषि मंत्रालय

( कृषि एवं सहकारिता विभाग )

नईदिल्ली, 8 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1922.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम (4) के अनुसरण में कृषि एवं सहकारिता विभाग , कृषि मंत्रालय के स्वायत्त संगठन राष्ट्रीय सहकारी विकास निगम , नई दिल्ली के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रीय निदेशालय को जिसके 80% कर्मचारी वृन्द ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है राष्ट्रीय सहकारी विकास निगम,

क्षेत्रीय निदेशालय , ई -110 , नेहरु कालोनी , देहरादून - 238001

[सं. 3-3/2011-हि.नी. ] उमा गोयल , संयुक्त सचिव

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(Department ofAgriculture and Cooperation)

New Delhi , the 8th July, 2011

S.O. 1922. In pursuance of sub -rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language ( Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following office which is under the administrative control of the National Cooperative Development Corporation an Autonomous Body ofthe Department ofAgriculture and Cooperation , Ministry ofAgriculture , whereof 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :-

National Cooperative Development Corporation ,

Regional Directorate,

E- 110 , Nehru Colony,

Dehradun -248001

[No. 3-3 /2018-Hindi Neeti ]

UMA GOEL,Jt . Secy.

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii ) ] 5234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SRAVANA 1 , 1933

'पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 20 जुलाई , 2011

का. आ. 1923.- भारत सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइफलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ . 2749 तारीख 29 अक्तूवर , 2010 द्वोरा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में , मैसर्स रिलाएंस इन्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आन्ध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर काकीनाडा स्थित अपतटीय गैस प्रसंस्करण टर्मिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए, मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा विजयवाडा- नेल्लोर - चेन्नई गैस पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

2011 को अथवा उससे और , उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 14 फरवरी , पूर्व उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और , पाइपलाइन विछाने के सम्बन्ध में, जनता की ओर से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और अननुज्नात कर दिया गया;

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

और , भारत सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन विछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है ;

अतः, अव, भारत सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन विछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;

और, भारत सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से भारत सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , में निहित होगा [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) 1

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933

5235

अनुसूची

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: बुचीनायडुखन्द्रीगा जिला:चित्तूरू गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं/सब डिविजन सं .

447

1 ) कांचनपुत्तूर

188

177

181

154

153

151

149

398

397

399

400

401

366

193

230

231

295

294

293

292

298

289

186

185

11/2

11/8

11/9

11/10

11/12

11/13

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सि.एयर 3

5 00

35.

00 06

37 5236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

11/14 1) कांचनपुत्तूरू (निरंतर)

11/15

11/16

12/6

12/7

13/1

13/2

13/3

13/4

13/5

13/6

13/7

13/9

179/1

179/2

179/3

179/4

179/5

179/6

179/7

179/8ए

179/8बी

179/18

180/6

180/7

180/8

180/9

180/10

180/11

165/1

165/6

165/8

165/12

165/13

165/14

165/15

152/1

152/7

152/8

300/11

300/12

304/1

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

00 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

304/2 1. ) कांचनपुत्तुर (निरंतर )

जिला: चित्तूरू मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: वरदय्यापालेम

659

1) कांबाकम

660.

665

666

667

670

647

648

102

103

105

101

100

110

111

128

126

124

123

139

141

जिला:चित्तूरू मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: नागलापुरम

327

1 ) त्रिपुरांतकपुरम

330

338

342

346

347

352

311

314

313

2589G1 /11-10

5237

5 4

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश.

00. 12

40 16

20 18

60 00

20 14

30 20

90 04

30 16

80. 11

20 41

00 01

00 21

30 02

60 00 04

40 00 : 23

90 12

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

70 41

30 07

50 22

60 20

90 01

50 12

80 00 01

80 06

10 25

30 00 ::08

20 00 09

30 00

00 5238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

1 ) त्रिपुरांतकपुरम (निरंतर)

341

326/1

326/2

328/1

328/2

329/1

329/2

340/1

340/2

339/1

339/2

345/1

345/2

348/1

348/2

349/1

349/2

315/1

315/2

315/3

73/2

73/3

73/4

73/5

73/10

73/11

73/12

73/13

72/9

72/21

77/1

77/2

77/3

77/6

79/1

79/2

79/6

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: विजयपुरम

[Part II Sec . 3 (ii) ]

5 15

00 05

00 01

00 08

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला:चिस्तूरू

242

पन्नूर

205

238

20 भारत का राजपुत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2 1

237

1) पन्नूर (निरंतर)

207

208

213

209

210

211

176

175

163

165

159

152

148

143

142

138

101

100

204/3

204/4

204/5

204/6

204/12

204/13

204/14

206/1

206/10

206/11

206/12

212/1

212/2

212/3

212/4

164/14

164/15

153/6

153/9

153/10

5239

00 80

10 43

60 09

50 49

80 38

10 04

60 00

10 10

80 71

20 65

90 38

70 46

32 01

22 05

13 06

52 05

75 01

33 02

43 03

40 -04

76 00 00

निरंतर... 7 5240.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

2 ) पन्नूर (निरंतर)

151/1

151/2

150/2

150/5

149/4

149/5

149/6

149/7

149/8

149/11ए

144/6

144/7

144/8

144/9

144/10

144/11

139/7

139/8

139/9

140/1

140/6

140/7

102/1

102/3

102/2

102/4

102/5

102/6

-102/7

97/4

97/5

96/8

96/9

96/10

96/15

96/16

96/17

94/2

94/3

94/5

94/6

94/7

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

5 00

00 08

0015

00 10

00 03

00- 12

00.

00 . 00

00 03

00 02

00 24

00 01

00 15

98 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933

94/8

1 ) पन्नूर (निरंतर)

87/1बी

87/1सी

87/1 डी

87/1 ई

87/1ई/3ए

87/1 ई/4

87/15/5

87/1/6

87/2बी

87/ 2सी

87/ 2ड़ी

87/2ई

87/3

99/1

99/2

99/3

99/4

99/5

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: निड्रा

जिला:चित्तूरू

261/1

1 ) अत्तूर

285

273

284

19.2

286

185

1.74

176

299

300

301

179

180

165

164

162

163

183

184

262/2

262/3

262/4

5241

5 3.

00 03.

00 02

19.

00 :08

00... 13

00 02.

06.

00 00

00 05

03.

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

00 13

00 20

00 15

00 25

00 00

93 5242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

262/6 1:) अत्तूर (निरंतर)

262/7

262/8

262/9

262/10

262/11

262/12

262/13-

265/8

265/9

265/10

265/11

265/12

265/13

267/1

267/2

267/3

267/4

267/5

271/3

271/6

271/7

{

289/1

289/2

289/3

173/3

173/4

167/1

167/3

167/4

167/5

166/7

166/8ए

166/9

166/10

166/11

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii ) ]

58 00

22 00

08 00

64 00 08

48 00 04

09 00 03

16 00

.00

94 00

36 00

35 00

63 00

37 00

40 00

31 00

10 00

05 00

26 00

57 00

10 00

: 00

33 00

70 00

[फा स. एल. - 14014/75/2010-जी.पी. ] के. के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव 5243 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2011/ श्रावण. 1 , 1933

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 20th July, 2011 .

S. O. 1923.---Whereas by notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2749 dated 29th October , 2010 , issued under sub- section ( 1 ) ofSection 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , Government of India declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying Vijayawada-Nellore- Chennai gas pipeline for transportation of natural gas from on-shore gas processing terminal at Kakinada on East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/s Reliance Industries Limited by M/s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited to consumers in various parts of the country;

And whereas, the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on or before 14th February, 2011 ;

And whereas , the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority;

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

And whereas , Government of India, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire the Right of User therein;

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

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the saidAct, Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in Government of India, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, inM/sRelogistics Infrastructure Limited, free from all encumbrances .

5244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

Schedule

State: Andhra Pradesh

District: Chittoor

Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk: Buchinaldukandriga

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

Village

2 1

447

1 ) Kanchanaputturu

188

177

181

154

153

151

149

398

397

399

400

401

366

193

230

231

295

294

293

292

298

289

186

185

11/2

11/8

11/9

11/10

11/12

11/13 Area to be acquired for RoU

C-Are

Are

Hec

5 3

50 00

60 00

10 00

20 00

40 00

30 00

10 02

10 00

70 00

37 00

07 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933

11/14 1 ) KanchanaputtungContd)

11/15

11/16

12/6

12/7

13/1

13/2

13/3

13/4

13/5

13/6

13/7

13/9

179/1

179/2

179/3

179/4

179/5

179/6

179/7

179/8A

179/8B

179/18

180/6

180/7

180/8

180/9

180/10

180/11

165/1

165/6

165/8

165/12

165/13

165/14

165/15.

152/1

152/7

152/8

300/11

300/12

304/1

2589GI/11-11

5245. 3

00:

97 5246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

304/2 1 ) Kanchanaputtur (Contd)

District: Chittoor Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk : Varadhaiahpalem

659

Kambakkam

1 )

660

665

666

667

670

647

648

.79

102

103

105

101

100

110

111

128

126

124

123

139

141

District: Chittoor Mandal/Tehsil/Taluk: Nagalapuram

327

1 ) Tripuranthakapuram

330

338

342

346

347

352

311

314

313

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii)]

5 00

State:Andhra Pradesh

00:

00-

60.

000 14

12.

Stab Pradesh 00

01.

30 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 201 श्रवण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii)]

15-

1 ) Tripuranthakapuram(Contd)

341

326/1

-00

326/2

328/1

328/2

329/1

329/2

340/1

340/2

339/1

339/2

345/1

345/2

72/9

72/21

77/1

77/2

Mandal/Tel

1 ) Pannur 5248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

237

) Pannur(Contd)

207

208

213

209

210

211

176

175

163

165

159

152

148

143

142

138

101

100

204/3

204/4

204/5

204/6

204/12

204/13

204/14

206/1

206/10

206/11

206/12

212/1

212/2

212/3

212/4

164/14

164/15

153/6

153/9

153/10

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

5 00

52 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

151/1 1) Pannur(Contd)

151/2

150/2

150/5

149/4

149/5

149/6

149/7

149/8

149/11A

144/6

144/7.

144/8

144/9

144/10

144/11

139/7

139/8

139/9

140/1

140/6

140/7

102/1

102/3

102/2

102/4

102/5

102/6

102/7

97/4

97/5

96/8

96/9

96/10

96/15

96/16

96/17

94/2

94/3

94/5

94/6

94/7

5249 3

5 00

00.

98 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

5250

94/8

1) Pannur (Contd)

87/1B

87/1C

87/1D

87/ 1E

87/1E/3A

87/1E/4

87/ 1E/5

87/1E/6

87/2B

87/2C

87/2D

87/2E

87/3

99/1

99/2

99/3

99/4

99/5

District: Chittoor Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk: Nindra

261/1 1 ) Athur

285

273

284

192

286

185

174

176

299

300

301

179

180

165

164

162

163

183

184

262/2

262/3

262/4

[Part II Sec. 3 (ii)]

5 3

:90

13"

State :Andhra Pradesh

10 13

80 00

60 14

90. 36

00 00

00 20

00 01

00 00

00 15

00 00

26 00

13:

93 00

02 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

2 1) Athur (Contd)

262/6

262/7

262/8

262/9

262/10

262/11

262/12

262/13

265/8

265/9

265/10

265/11

265/12

265/13

267/1

267/2

267/3

267/4

267/5

271/3

271/6

271/7

289/1

289/2

289/3

173/3

173/4

167/1

167/3

167/4

167/5

166/7

166/8A

166/9

166/10

166/11

5251

58 00

95 00

66 00

09:

00 : 26

00.

06.

F. No. L-14014/75 /2010-GRI

K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy.

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

5252

नई दिल्ली, 21 जुलाई , 2011

का. आ. 1924.- भारत सरकार ने, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का . आ . 2390 तारीख 15 सितम्बर, 2010 द्वारा, उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में , तमिलनाडु में तिरूतन्नी के पास विजयवाडा-नेल्लोर-चेन्नई पाइपलाइन के टर्मिनल प्वाइंट से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा चेन्नई वंगलौर- मंगलौर गैस पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोपणा की थी;

और, उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 15 अप्रैल, पूर्व उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ; 2011 को अथवा उससे और, पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में, जनता की ओर से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और अननुज्नात कर दिया गया;

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

और , भारत सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है ;

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

और , भारत सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोपणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से भारत सरकार में निहित होने के वजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला:चित्तूर

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: पालसमुद्रम

गाँव कानाम

सर्वे सं/सब डिविजन सं .

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेतफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सि.एयर

155/7

) श्रीकावेरीराजुपुरम

155/6

155/9

153/1

150/8

152

150/6

151/1

136

105/3

105/2

105/7

105/8 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

105/9

) श्रीकावेरीराजुपुरम (निरंतर)

105/1

104/6

104/9

104/8

104/7

104/13

104/2

104/14

104/15

103/4

103/5

103/2

103/6

103/1

96/4

96/3

95/6

95/9

93/1

95/8

95/7

36,

38/1

35/11

35/10

35/9

35/8

34/3

34/1डी

34/2

34/1सी

34/1वी

6/3

7/1

7/3

6/6

6/4

रास्ता

6/5

9/2

10/1

10/2

174/1

2 ) वेंगळराजुकुपम

174/2

173/2वी

173/7

173/2ए

173/6

172/1

2589GI/ 11-12

00 00

00 01

00 03

00 10

00 09

70 00 00

60 00 15

20 00

00 00

08.

70 00

37-

70 00

50 00

40 00 00

60 00

20 00 00

80 00

50 00

10 00

30 00

24.

30 00

40 00

80 00

00 .

80 00

30 00

80 00 48

70 00

20 00

50 00 48

00 00

20 00 10

30 00

00 00 5254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

2 1

172/2 2 ) वेंगळराजुकुपम (निरंतर)

160/1

160/2

161

156/6

156/7

156/5

162

153/2

152/6

152/5

152/8

152/9

152/10

152/12

152/4/

152/2

152/1

148/1

148/2

110/2

110/1

111/3

111/2

111/7

111/5

111/4

112/2

112/1

103

101

74/7

74/16

74/17

74/11

74/15

74/18

74/22

74/14

74/19

74/20

75/11

75/13

75/14

75/15

75/12

75/16

75पी

75/18

75/19

75/22

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii)]

5 3

00 80.

00 00

30 02

30 00

50 00

50 04

20 00

60 13

00 00

00 10

00 00

20 00

30 00

70 00

50 26

80 30

-80.

40 19

00 01

50 03

80 00

20 00

60 03

50 07

20 00

10 02

50 11

10 01

10 00 03

00 03

10 00

70 00

70 02

60 02

90 00

30 00

60 00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii)]

भारत का राजपत्रं : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

75/21 2 ) वेंगळराजुकुपम (निरंतर)

75/20

75/2

75/1

76/26

76/28

76/24

76/23

76/22

76/6

76/9

76/8

76/3

76/11

76/13

76/12

76/2

69/2

69/1

60/3

60/2

60/5

60/1

60/7.

61/10

61/9

61/8

61/6

61/7

61/3

61/2

61/1

25/4

25/5

25/2

25/6

24/5

28/12

28/11.

28/1

18/20

18/19

18/17

5255 3

00 %

00 00

00 04

00 02 02 02

00 05

00 04

00 : 00

00 04

00 00

00 20

00 13

00 08

00 21

00 11

00 00

00 06.

00 03

00 01 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

5256

2 1

18/18

2 ) वेंगळराजुकुफ्म (निरंतर)

18/15

18/14

18/13

18/12

18/10

18/4

18/7

17/14

17/10

17/15

17/9

17/8

17/7

17/5

17/4

16/11

16/10

16/3

16/5

16/4

16/1

151/1

30/1

जिला:चित्तूर मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: चित्तूर

156/1 1) मुत्तुकूरु

156/2

155/1

155/4

155/2

155/3

157/1

151/4

151/5

151/6

150

167

168/1

145/6

144

135

134/1

134/3 [Part II-Sec. 3(ii) ]

80 06

20 07

30 00

60 09

30 00

00 13

50 10

30 01

90 04

10 09

60 00 09

00 00

50 13

20 21

10 00 14

50 23

30 00

30 09

20 10

70 00

20 00

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

60 00

30 00

80 00

10 02

10 00

00 00

70 00

11 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii )]

2 1

134/4

1) मुत्तुकूर (निरंतर)

134/5

134/6

136/1

136/9

136/10

136/7

136/8

128/2

128/1

138/12

138/14

138/15

138/16

34/7

34/12

34/11

36/1

36/2

37/4

37/3

37/1

124

40/6

40/8

109/8

109/6

109/5

109/4

109/3

109/2

108/1

108/2

108/3

108/5

108/6

108/8

93/1

92/7

92/8

96/6

5257

5 00

00 01

02.

00 02

90 04

00 14

00 11

00 5258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

91/12 1 ) मुत्तुकुरु (निरंतर)

91/8

91/11

91/9

91/10

91/7

89/1

90/7

90/6-

90/5

90/3

90/4

90/8

90/9

86/3

86/4

86/6

86/7

86/5

86/9

85/1

85/2

85/3

84 2) बंदपल्ले

119/7

119/6

119/2

119/5

119/4

119/3

119/1

179

116/1

118/4

118/3

118/1

118/2

117/1

117/2

117/5

111/2

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

5 00

60 00

10 00

04.

00- 06

00 03-

00 .00.

00.. 25

0.0 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

2 ) बंदपल्ले (निरंतर)

110/1

85/7

85/1

90/2

90/1

91/1

91/4

91/5

91/6

69/1

3 ) अनुपल्ले

69/2

69/6

70/3

70/2

70/4

70/11

70/12

63/1

63/4

51/1

51/2

51/3

50/6

50/7

50/8

50/9

50/10

50/11

50/12

50/13

50/14

41/5

41/6

41/4

41/9

41/2

41/3

40/1

5259 3

5 00 01

00 22

00 05

00 12

106

00 13

40.

00 10

00.

00 18 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

5260

2 1

40/3

3 ) अनुपल्ले (निरंतर)

40/2

39/1 ए

39/1बी

44/5

44/3

39/3

24/1

24/3

24/4

137

140

138/2

138/5

138/4

138/8

148/2

148/9

158/1

158/2

158/9

158/10

159/1

159/2

159/8

159/9

159/10

156/2

155/1

153/8

153/9

155/14

155/11

154/1

154/2

154/10

154/11

154/12

154/13

176

174

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii) ]

80 02

10 02

40 15

30 02

30 07

60 19

60 26

50 07

90 38

40 09

20 00

90 27

70 09

30 16

30 06

20 10

10 13

80 04

80 00

90 07

20 08

50 02

40 00

20 00

00 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

173 3 ) अनुपल्ले (निरंतर)

23/6

23/7

139/1

139/2

147/5

160/13

जिला:चित्तूर मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: यादमरी

257 1 ) जंगालपल्ले

258

261

285/1

285/2ए

285/ 2वी

286/ 2ए

286/1

287/4

287/3

287/2

288/3

288/2ए

288/2बी

289/4

281

290/5

290/3एच

290/3वी

290/3सी

290/1

290/2बी

290/2ए

291

306

278

275

260/2

136/17 2 ) माधवराम

135

128

125/21

125/15

125/16 2589G1/11-13

90 00

50 00

20 00

30 00 24

30 00

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

50 00 31

80 00 11

60 00 09

00 00

70. 00

20 00

00 00 11

60 00

00 00

60 00

90 00. 05

00 09

80 00

30 00

10 00

80 00

60 00

80 00

30 00

40 00 28

10-

00 5262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

125/13 2 ) माधवराम (निरंतर)

125/12

125/11

114

97/3

97/2

98/2

97/1

98/1

96/1बी

96/2इ

96/ 2डी

96/ 2सी

96/10/3

96/2ए

96/1/2

96/10/1

99/7वी

95/20

95/21

20.2

3 ) पेरीयंबडी

188

194

184/5

184/6

183/4

184/4

183/2

184/3

183/जी

183/1 एफ

183/1डी

182

119

120

155

115

156

114

113

130/2

130/1

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

00 23

00 16

00 03

07.

00 05

00 00

40 00 12

00. 01

00 00

00 01

00 06

00 : 06

00 04

00 00

00 09

00 22

00 03

00 10

00 02

00 09

00: 04

00 00

00 02

00 00

00: 00

20 [भाग II- खण्ड. 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

2 1

132/1 3 ) पेरीयंबडी (निरंतर)

132/2

139

140

141/2

72/2

142/5

142/4

142/3

142/1

71/3ए

71/2

71/1 ए

264

190/11

190/12

190/13.

190/14

191/10ए

189/4

193/1

193/2

193/3

193/7

193/8ए

30/1

4 ) यादमरी

30/2

22/1

24/2

15/5

15/4

15/3

15/2

15/1

16/14

16/13

16/11

00 00 05

00 00 09

-38

70 00 09

50 00

10 -00

20.

70, 00

10 00 07

00 25

00 00

30 00

00 02

30 0005

00 01

00 02

00 00

00 01

60 00

10 00 00

20.

00 00

90 00

00 .00 08

20 0000

40 00

20 5264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

16/12- 4 ) यादमरी (निरंतर)

16/10

16/1

910

33/6

33/7

35/1

35/2

26/1

26/2

26/3

21/1

21/2

100

5 ) मुदीतीरेडीपल्ले

21/8

21/7

30/11

30/8

30/7

30/4

30/6

30/5

30/3

30/2

30/1

31/1

9/2

10/2

10/1

3/7

3/6

3/5

3/4

3/2

14/1

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

5 00

00 .. 03

00,

10 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

2 5 ) बुदीतीरेडीपल्ले (निरंतर)

14/2

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: बंगाग्रुपालेम

जिला चित्तूर 1)

238/1 महासमुन्द्रम

2 ) कुर्मय्यपल्ले

90/14

90/13

90/9

90/10

90/8

90/7

90/6

90/3

78/4

78/3

78/2

78/1

75/11

75/10

75/9

75/8

75/7

75/1

42/7

42/8

42/5

42/4

42/3

44/3

44/1

47/1

46/2

48/4

48/3

48/1

50/3

50/2

5265 3

5 00

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

00 20

00 07

40 00 04

00 00

00 03

00 00

00 01

00 00

00 01

60,

00 07

00 -08

20.

00 06

00 00

00 50

10 5266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011/SRAVANA 1 , 1933

50/1

2 ) कुर्मय्यपल्ले (निरंतर)

94/1

94/2

39/14

140

3 ) जंबुवारीपल्ले

141

142

138

135

123

122/1

122/3

122/2

147/1

147/2

147/3

148/8

148/9

119/1

174/5

174/6

174/7

174/8

175/1

175/2

176/1

178/1

181/6

181/5

181/4

181/3

181/2

179/5

179/7

179/8

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: गंगावरम

जिला:चित्तूर

1 ) गुंडगल्लु

86/8

86/6

82/6

83/3

83/2

73/4

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

5 00

40 00

00 10

00 36 90

00 00

.00

00 08

00 06

00 05

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

73/2

1 ) गुंडगल्लु (निरंतर )

00 15、

73/1

72/1

71/2

69/1

00 14

68/2

68/1

66/5

66/2

61/2

00 48.

61/1

62/3

62/2

[फासे. एल.-14014/49/2010-बी.पी.]

के. के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 21st July, 2011

S. O. 1924. Whereas by notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2390 dated 15th September , 2010, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , Government of India declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying Chennai - Bangalore - Mangalore gas pipeline for transportation of natural gas from terminal point of Vijayawada - Nellore Chennai pipeline near Tiruttani in Tamilnadu by M/s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited to the consumers in various parts of the country;

Andwhereas, the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on or before 15th April, 2011;

And whereas, the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority;

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

And whereas, Government of India, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire the Right ofUser therein;

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

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in Government of India, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in M/s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, free from all encumbrances .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

5268

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

Schedule

State: Andhra Pradesh

District: Chittoor

Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk: Palasamudram

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

Village

2 1

155/7 1) Srikaverirajupuram

155/6

155/9

153/1

150/8

152

150/6

151/1

136

105/3

105/2

105/7

105/8

105/9

105/1

104/6

104/9

104/8

104/7

104/13

104/2

104/14

104/15

103/4

103/5

103/2

103/6

103/1

96/4

96/3

95/6

95/9

93/1

95/8

95/7

Area to be acquired fer Rou

C-Are

Are

Hec

5 3

40 00

50 00

00 00

60 00

70 00

20 00

80 00

00 00

60 09

70 00

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रवण 1 , 1933

2 1 ) Srikaverirajupuram (Contd)

38/1

35/11

35/10

35/9

35/8

34/3

34/1D

34/2

34/1C

34/1B

6/3

7/1

7/3

6/6

6/4

AsphaltRoad

6/5

9/2

10/1

10/2

174/1

2 ) Vengalarajukupam

174/2

173/2B

173/7

173 /2A

173/6

172/1

172/2

160/1

160/2

161

156/6

156/7

156/5

162

153/2

152/6

152/5

152/8

152/9

152/10

2589GI/11-14

00 00

60 -00

80 00

30 00

20 00

30 00

80 00

00 00

30 00

80 00

70 00

20 00

60` 00

90 00

00 00

50 00

20 00

30 00

80 00

40 00

00 00

10 00

00 00

60 00

70 00

20 00

10 00

40 00

10 5270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SRAVANA 1 , 1933

152/12 2) Vengalarajukupam(Contd)

152/4

152/2

152/1

148/1

148/2

110/2

110/1

111/3

111/2

111/7

111/5

111/4

112/2

112/1

103

101

74/7

74/16

74/17

74/11

74/15

74/18

74/22

74/14

74/19

74/20

75/11

75/13

75/14

75/15

75/12

75/16

75P

75/18

75/19

75/22

75/21

75/20

75/2

75/1

76/26

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

5 02

10- 00

90 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933

76/28 2) Vengalarajukupam (Contd)

76/24

76/23

76/22

76/6

76/9

76/8

76/3

76/11

76/13

76/12

76/2

69/2

69/1

60/3

60/2

60/5

60/1

60/7

61/10

61/9

61/8

61/6

61/7

61/3

61/2

61/1

25/4

25/5

25/2

25/6

24/5

28/12

28/11

28/1

18/20

18/19

18/17

5271

5 3

00.

00 .

01 5272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SR:AVANA 1 , 1933

18/18 2) Vengalarajukupam (Contd)

18/15

18/14

18/13

18/12

18/10

18/4

18/7

17/14

17/10

17/15

17/9

17/8

17/7

17/5

17/4

16/11

16/10

16/3

16/5

16/4

16/1

151/1

30/1

Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk: Chittoor

District: Chittoor

156/1 1) Muthukuru

156/2

155/1

155/4

155/2

155/3

157/1

151/4

151/5

151/6

150

167

168/1

145/6

144

135

134/1

134/3

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

5 07

State:Andhra Pradesh 00

70- 00

11 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933

2 1) Muthukuru (Contd)

134/4

134/5

134/6

136/1

136/9

136/10

136/7

136/8

128/2

128/1

138/12

138/14

138/15

138/16

34/7

34/12

34/11

36/1

36/2

37/4

37/3

37/1

124

40/6

40/8

109/8

109/6

109/5

109/4

109/3

109/2

108/1

108/2

108/3

108/5

108/6

108/8

93/1

92/7

92/8

96/6

5273 3

'00

00-

70 5274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

2 1) Muthukuru(Contd)

91/12

91/8

91/11

91/9

91/10

91/7

89/1

90/7

90/6

90/5

90/3

90/4

90/8

90/9

86/3

86/4

86/6

86/7

86/5

86/9

85/1

85/2

85/3

119/7 2 ) Bandapalle

119/6

119/2

119/5

119/4

119/3

119/1

179

116/1

118/4

118/3

118/1

118/2

117/1

117/2

117/5

111/2 [Part II-Sec . 3(ii)]

80-

00-

1 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933

2 2) Bandapalle (Contd)

110/1

85/7

85/1

90/2

90/1

91/1

91/4

91/5

91/6

3 ) Anupalle

69/1

69/2

69/6

70/3

70/2

70/4

70/11

70/12

63/1

63/4

51/1

51/2

51/3

50/6

50/7

50/8

50/9

50/10

50/11

50/12

50/13

50/14

41/5

41/6

41/4

41/9

41/2

41/3

40/1

5275 3

5 00

70 00

10.

: 60

00 .

70 5276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

40/3

3) Anupalle (Contd)

40/2

39/1A

39/ 1B

44/5

44/3

39/3

24/1

24/3

24/4

137

140

138/2

138/5

138/4

138/8

148/2

148/9

158/1

158/2

158/9

158/10

159/1

159/2

159/8

159/9

159/10

156/2

155/1

153/8

153/9

155/14

155/11

154/1

154/2

154/10

154/11

154/12

154/13

176

174

[Part 11-Sec . 3(ii)]

30 02

30 07

60 19

60 26

50 07

90 38

40 09

20 00

90 27

70 09

30 00

-00

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

173 3 ) Anupalle ( Contd)

23/6

23/7

139/1

139/2

147/5

160/13

District: Chittoor Mandal/ Tehsil / Taluk: Yadamarri

257 1 ) Jangalapalle

258

261

285/1

285/ 2A

285/2B

286/2A

286/1

287/4

287/3

287/2

288/3

288 /2A

288/2B

289/4

281

290/5

290/3H

290/3B

290/3C

290/1

290/2B

290/ 2A

291

306

278

275

260/2

136/17 2 ) Madhavaram

135

128

125/21

125/15

125/16 GI/11-15

5277 3

5 00

05.

State:Andhra Pradesh 00

80.

41.

50 5278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

2 1

125/13 2) Madhavaram(Contd)

125/12

125/11

114

97/3

97/2

98/2

97/1

98/1

96/1B

96/2E

96/2D

96/2C

96/1A/3

96/2A

96/1A/2

9 /1A/ 1

99/ 7B

95/20

95/21

202

3 ) Periyambadi

188

194

184/5

184/6

183/4

184/4

183/2

184/3

183/G

183/1F

183/1D

182

119

120

155

115

156

114

113

130/2

130/1

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

5 00

20 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

132/1 3) Periyambadi (Contd)

132/2

139

140

141/2

72/2

142/5

142/4

142/3

142/1

71/3A

71/2

71/ 1A

264

190/11

190/12

190/13

190/14

191 /10A

189/4

193/1

193/2

193/3:

193/7

193/8A

30/1 4) Yadamari

30/2

22/1

24/2

15/5

15/4

15/3

15/2

15/1

16/14

16/13

16/11

5 3

00-

70 00. 38

70 00

40.

20 00

80 00

90 00

80 00

90 00

00 00

00.

70 00

10 00

30 00

20 00

20 00 40 5280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011/ SRAVANA 1 , 1933

2 4) Yadamari (Contd)

16/12

16/10

16/1

910

33/6

33/7

35/1

35/2

26/1

26/2

26/3

21/1

21/2

100

5 ) Budithireddipalle

21/8

21/7

30/11

30/8

30/7

30/4

30/6

30/5

30/3

30/2

30/1

31/1

13-

9/2

10/2

10/1

3/7

3/6

3/5

3/4

3/2

14/1

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

5 00

10 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5281

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933

2 5) Budithireddipalle (Contd)

14/2

Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk: Bangarupalem

District: Chittoor

1 ) Mahasamundram

238/1 2 ) Kurmayyapalle

90/14

90/13

90/9

90/10

90/8

90/7

90/6

90/3

78/4

78/3

78/2

78/1

75/11

75/10

75/9

75/8

75/7

75/1

42/7

42/8

42/5

42/4

42/3

44/3

44/1

47/1

46/2

48/4

48/3

48/1

50/3

50/2

State: Andhra Pradesh 00

00 00

20.

: 40

00: 04

-60

10 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

5300

228/8 1 ) Narigepalle (Comd)

228/12

228/11

Nala between sy.no.244&263

263

262/2

262/1

244

245/1

246/1

246/2

246/4

247/2

247/1

247/3

247/7

247/4

241/4

240/4

241/2

240/3

240/2

238/3

239/3

239/2

239/1

91/1

90/6

90/5

90/4

90/3

90/2

90/1

90/7

79/1

79/2

79/3

79/4

79/5

78/1

75/4

75/5

[Part II-Sec. 3(ii)]

00..

70 00

60 00

30 03

20 00

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

2 5) Budithireddipalle ( Contd)

14/2

5281 3

5 00

District : Chittoor

Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk : Bangarupalem

238/1 Mahasamundram

2 ) Kurmayyapalle

90/14

90/13

90/9

90/10

90/8

90/7

90/6

90/3

78/4

78/3

78/2

78/1

75/11

75/10

75/9

75/8

75/7

75/1

42/7

42/8

42/5

42/4

42/3

44/3

44/1

47/1

46/2

48/4

48/3

48/1

50/3

50/2

State: Andhra Pradesh 00

00: 04

10 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

5282

2 1

50/1

2) Kurmayyapalle (Contd)

94/1

94/2

39/14

140

3 ) Jambuvaripalle

141

142

138

135

123

122/1

122/3

122/2

147/1

147/2

147/3

148/8

148/9

119/1

174/5

174/6

174/7

174/8

175/1

175/2

176/1

178/1

181/6

181/5

181/4

181/3

181/2

179/5

179/7

179/8

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

00.

70 00

10 37:

40 00

90 06

90 00

40 06

60 02

50 00

50 05

90 00

40 16

50 06

80 05

State: Andhra Pradesh

District: Chittoor

Mandal /Tehell /Taluk: Gangavaram

1) Gundagallu

86/8

86/6

82/6

83/3

83/2

73/4

10 23

90 47

30 00

20 00

00 00 5283 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

73/2

1) Gundagallu (Contd)

73/1

72/1

71/2.

69/1

68/2

68/1

.01

66/5.

66/2

61/2

61/1

62/3

62/2

F. No. L- 14014/49/2010-GP.)

K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 22 जुलाई, 2011

का. आ. 1925.- भारत सरकार ने, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के. पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2391 तारीख 15 सितम्बर,, 2010 द्वारा, उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में , तमिलनाडु में तिख्तन्नी के पास विजयवाडा-नेल्लोर-चेन्नई पाइपलाइन के टर्मिनल प्वाइंट से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा चेन्नई वंगलौर - मंगलौर गैस पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोपणा की थी;

और, उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 15 अप्रैल, पूर्वउपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ; 2011 को अथवा उससे और, पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में , जनता की ओर से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और अननुज्नात कर दिया गया;

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

और, भारत सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है ;

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

और , भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोपणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से भारत सरकार में निहित होने के कार, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 5284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SRAVANA 1 , 1933

अनुसूची मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: चित्तूर

जिला:चित्तूर गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं/सब डिविजन सं .

2 1) नारीगेपल्लि

292/5

292/4

294

293/1

293/3

293/2

291/4

291/13

291/10

291/11

291/9

297/1

297/2

298/3

298/1

298/4

299/6

299/2

280

281/10

281/8

281/11

278/1

222

223

227/13

227/12

227/11

227/10

226/2

226/4

226/3

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ] राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेतफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सिएयर 3

5 00

00 04

गट नंबर 226 और 228 बीच मे रोड

264

226/1

228/15

228/13 00

80 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011 /श्रवण 1 , 1933

[भाग II-खण्ड3 (ii) ]

2 1

228/8 1 ) नारीगेपल्लि (निरंतर)

228/12

228/11

5285

गट नंबर 244 और 263 बीच मे नाला

263

262/2

262/1

244

245/1

246/1

246/2

246/4

247/2

247/1

247/3

247/7

247/4

241/4

240/4

241/2

240/3

240/2

238/3

239/3

239/2

239/1

91/1

90/6

90/5

90/4

90/3.

90/2

90/1

90/7

79/1

79/2

79/3

79/4

79/5

78/1

75/4

75/5

2589GI/11-16

70 00

30 03

20 00

40 00 51

20 00

50 03

80 25

70 01

50 17

80 15

60 20

40 01

30 26

80 31

70. 02

10 00 03

80 07

70 10

60 00 09

80 24

70 23

00 04

60 16

90 26

20 00

10 22

60 15

10 69

00 16

90 02

00 5286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933 .

76/1

1 ) नारीगेपल्लि (निरंतर)

76/2

72/2

72/1

72/3

73/2

73/1

73/6

73/5

73/4

73/7

18/1

18/2

16/8

16/9

16/6

16/10

16/5

16/4

16/3

16/2

16/1

16/12

14/2

14/4

14/3

14/1

14/5

23/2

23/1

25/1

25/6

25/3

25/2

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: बंगारुपोलेम

जिला:चित्तूर i

339/5

कल्लूरुपल्ले

339/6

339पी

333

331/18

[Part II-Sec. 3( ii) ]

5 12

70 00

20 00

30 11

20 00 07

30 00 00

40 00

60 12

30 00

00 00

00 04

30 00

00 09

00 06

60 00

00 03

00 01

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

00 11

90 200

80 भारत का राजपत्रं : जुलाई 23, 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2 1

331/17 1) कल्लूरुपल्ले (निरंतर)

331/16

331/9

331/12

331/11

331/10

329

204

199

196/2

198

196

197/2

196/1

191

190

189

210

161

157

156/2

156/1

155

149/6

149/5

149/3

149/1

148

52/4

54/2

54/1

54/3

70/4

70/3सी

70/3वी

70/3ए

69/5

69/2

69/4

69/3

00 07

00 18

88 90

00 07

90 45

76.

10. 16.

80.

00 36

60 01

50 25

00 35

40 06

60 10

20 02

90 07

30 03

00 13

60 03

40 19

00 5288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

66/2

1 ) कल्लूरुपल्ले (निरंतर)

65/13

65/2

65/1वी

65/1ए

63/1सी

63/1डी

10/4

10/5

10/6

12/3

11/5

12/2

11/4

11/3

6/4

6/3

6/1

5/1

330/2

330/3

203/1

203/2

203/6

2 ) पालेड

45/4

56/2

55/6

55/4

55/3

55/2

64/2

64/4

64/3

65/9

64/1

65/1

65/2

62/3

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

5 00

00 00

00 11

00 07

00 19

00 01

00 45

00 09

00 06

00 14

00 01

00 31

00 17

00 25

00 04

00 03

00 06

00 02

00 05

10 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

2 1

62/2

2 ) पालेड (निरंतर)

70/1

62/1

71/1

72/1

73/2

73/1

73/3

73/4

105/1

105/2

104

82/2

82/1

83/1

82/3

84/3

84/4

84/5

84/7

84/8

176/12

176/2

176/13

176/6

176/11

174/1

175/3

172

167/2

167/7

167/4

167/3

167/1

179

180/1

188/2

188/3

191

192/7

192/8

5 00

90 00

80 00 08

60 00

00 00

20 00 29

20 00 24

90 00 11

20 00 05

20 00

40 00 19

20 00

50.

90 00

30 00

00 00

80 00 01

20 00

40 00 20

70 00 04

00 05

00 00

20 14

10 00

00 19

20 00

00 00

50 08

80 10

70 00

90 00

20 15

20 00 35

90 00 00

30 00 31

50 00

60 00

00. 26

70 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

5290

2 .

192/5

2 ) पालेड (निरंतर)

222/1

220/5

221/3

220/3

221/2

221/1

218/2

217/4

217/5

217/6

217/2

217/1

212/2

212/5

212/6

212/3

212/1

211

241

3 ) मोगिलि

242

231/1

229/1

229/ 2ए

226

228/1 ए

223/ 2ए

228/ 2ए

223/1ए

223/1बी

223/ 2सी

223/सी

222/1

200

198/24

198/21

199

198/12

193/12

193/11 [Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

5 3

30 00

50 00

90 16

20 00

40 11

80 12

00 00 01

10 00

20 00

10 00

00 03

50 01

90 00

20 00

30 00

90 01

50 00

90 00

50 33

00 00

50 00

20 00

70 00

30 00

40 05

70 00

60 10

00.

90 00

40 55

40 00

10 00

30 00

20 40

50 00

00 00

80 00

30 [भाग II- खण्ड3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/श्रवण 1,1933

2 1

193/4 3 ) मोगिलि (निरंतर)

193/3

192/6

192/4

192/3

192/2

192/1

191/1

191/2ए

190/7

190/4

190/3

185/3

185/2

190/2

185/1

190/1

186/1

187

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: गंगावरम

जिला: चित्तूर

334

1) गंगवरम

333

331

330

329/3

329/4

335

319

317

316/1

316/7

318/3

318/4

138/2

137/7

138/1

146

145

143

150

149

159/1

00 11

80 00

50 00 27

00 16

70. 00 15

00 00

30 00

00 01

10 00 02

40 00 20

10 00 08

50 00

40 00

00 00

80 00 36

00 14

00 00 ৪৪৪ राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

00 02

80 00

60 00

00 03

00 11

20 00

00 05

80 00 50

80 00

10 12

20 00 01

70 00

80 00 16

10 00 09

10 00 18

00 12

00 20

00 00

90 81

00 04 40

00 00 44

30 00

20 00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

5292

2 1

159/2 ) गंगवरम (निरंतर)

160

316पी

318/5ए

318/5वी

268/1 2 ) मारेडीपल्लि

63/3

63/1

45/1

46/1

46/3

46/2

31/8

31/7

31/6

26/3

26/4

26/1

269

13/1

13/2

11/2

996

3 ) दंडपहिल

999/3

999/1

[Part II-Sec. 3(

00 00

40 07

20 00

30 02

00 00 50

40 32

20 12

90 10

20 14

90 26

00 01

70 02

60 00

00 63

20 00

10 15

60 00

90 07

00 28

00 05

70 04

40 00

80 00

70 00

70 01

45 20

01 12

40 04

50 00

70 48

80 01

70 00

गट नंबर 999और 1008 बीच में रोड

1006/2डी

1006/2सी

1006/2वी

1007/1वी

1006/ 2ए

1007/ 1 ए

1005/3

1005/ 2 सी

10 00 43

10 00 07

20 00 01

00 02

00 16

5030040 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1005/2वी ३ ) दंडपसिल (निरंतर)

1008/1

1048

1009/2ए

1009/1 बी

1009/1 ए

692

693

694

689/1बी

981/ 2ए

981/1

682

684

685

686/3

686/1ए

752/ 2सी

752/ 2डी

752/1

780/6ए

780/1

780/4

780/5

780/3

780/2

780/6वी

780/7

780/8

778/13

778/14

777

776

771/6

775

770

827

828

829/1

846/1इ

846/1 डी 2589GI/11-17

10 27

20 00

10 09

40 19

50 34

20 08

30 15

60 04

50 34

80. 27

70 03

00.

60.

00 00 08

60 00 18

00 5294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

2 3 ) दंडपल्लि (निरंतर)

846/2

846/1बी

846/1ए

843

1029

1022

1023

1021

1020

1030

1035/3

1037/4

1037/5

727

4 मामडुगु

261/1

261/2

260/1

135/1बी

135/1ए

135/4

136/11जी

136/1 एफ

136/1 इ

136/1डी

136/1सी

136/2

136/3

136/4

137/4

137/3

137/2

137/1बी

138

49/1ए

44/1

29/3

29/1

17/16

17/18

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

5 00

80 00

00 45

00 60

00 08

00 07

00 40

00 09

20 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

17/13

4) मामडुगु (निरंतर)

17/12

17/17

262/ 1 वी

48/10/1

48/10/2

48/10/3

48/1/4

28/4

जिला: चित्तूर मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: गंगाधर नेल्लूर

272/2 1 ) महादेवमंगळम

272/3

272/4

272/6

272/1

272/7

272/8

272/5

272/9

273

274

249

248

246

245/1

245/2

245/3

244/1

243/3

243/4

243/5

243/6

243/9

241/5

241/6

241/7

241/3

241/2

241/1

235

236

5 3

20 00

00 28

60 00

50 16

40 02

80 01

46 14

68 15

37 14

36 17

70 00

राज्य :आन्ध्र प्रदेश

70 00

80 09

00 01

30 02

40 08

00 06

20 00 61

40 00

20 00 09

10 00 04

00..

70 00

-01

00 5296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

227 ) महादेवमंगळम (निरंतर)

193/17

193/4

193/3

193/1

193/2

192/4

192/5

188/3

188/2

188/4

188/5

188/7

188/6

185/13

187/9

187/1

187/5

187/2

187/3

186/9

186/10

186/8

186/1

186/5 i

186/4

186/2

169/2

168/4

170/13

170/16

170/15

170/14

170/6

171/23

171/22

156/8

156/1

154/20

153/5

153/4

154/19

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

5 00

90 00

20 00 19

60 00

00 07

00 06

00 21

00 01

00 20

00 01

00 20

00 11

00 12

00 02

00 07

00 04

00 09

00 01

00 10

00 18

00 01

00 05

00 01

00 02

00 17

00 15

00 03

00 08

00 04

90 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii)]

2 1

153/2

) महादेवमंगळम (निरंतर)

152/21

152/20

152/10

152/9

152/8

152/7

152/6

75/1

77/3

78/6

74/1

78/4सी

73/5

73/6

73/4

78/1

73/3

79/13

73/11

79/1

73/1

72/4

69/14

72/2

72/3

72/1

71/1

71/2

71/3

70/9

70/10

70/2

45/4

244/2

191/12 3

20 00 01

80 00 05

30 00 04

60 00 00

50 00 00

50 00 05

20 00

40 01

01 800088 00 [Part II-Soc.3(i)] 1

5 मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: पेद्वपंजनी

जिला चित्तूर

राज्य आन्ध्र प्रदेश

1 ) बोम्पराजपल्ले

00 88

[फा सं. एल. - 14014/51 /2010- के. के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2011

S. O. 1925.- Whereas by notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2391 dated 15 September, 2010, issued under sub- section (1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), Government of India declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying Chennai - Bangalore - Mangaloregas pipeline for transportation of natural gas from terminal point of Vijayawada - Nellore - Chennai pipeline near Tiruttani in Tamilnadu by M/s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited to the consumers in various parts of the country;

Andwhereas, the copies ofthe said Gazette notification were made available to the public on orbefore 15th April, 2011;

Andwhereas, the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered anddisallowed by the Competent Authority;

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

And whereas, Government of India, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire the Right ofUser therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of Section 6 of the saidAct, Government of India hereby declares that the Right of User in the land, specified in the Schedule, appended to this notification, is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in Government of India, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in M/s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, free from all encumbrances.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

Schedule

Mandal /Tehell /Taluk: Chittoor

District:Chittoor

Village

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

292/5 1) Narigepalle

292/4

294

293/1

293/3

293/2

291/4

291/13

291/10

291/11

291/9

297/1

297/2

298/3

298/1

298/4

299/6

299/2

280

281/10

281/8

281/11

278/1

222

223

227/13

227/12

227/11

227/10

226/2

226/4

226/3

StateAndora Prodach Ared to be acquired for Roll Hec

Are

C-Are 3

5 00

50 00

60 00

70 00

40 00

90 00

40 00

10 00

90 00

70 00

40 00

20 00

80 00

70 00

10 00

80 00

50 00

20 00

30 00

15 00

20 00

90 00

Asphalt road between sy.no 226&228 00

264

226/1

228/15

228/13

80 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1, 1933

5300

2 1

228/8 1 ) Narigepalle (Contd)

228/12

228/11

Nalabetween sy.no.244&263

263

262/2

262/1

244

245/1

246/1

246/2

246/4

247/2

247/1

247/3

247/7

247/4

241/4

240/4

241/2

240/3

240/2

238/3

239/3

239/2

239/1

91/1

90/6

90/5

90/4

90/3

90/2

90/1

90/7

79/1

79/2

79/3

79/4

79/5

78/1

75/4

75/5

[Part II-Sec. 3(ii)]

5 3

ΟΙ

70 01

50 17

60 00

30 26

70 00

80 00

60 00

80 00

00 00

20 00

60 00

10 00

90 00

02 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रवण 1, 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

76/1 1) (Conad)

76/2

72/2

72/1

72/3

73/2

73/1

73/6

73/5

73/4

73/7

18/1

18/2

16/8

16/9

16/6

16/10

16/5

16/4

16/3

16/2

16/1

16/12

14/2

14/4

14/3

14/1

14/5

23/2

23/1

25/1

25/6

25/3

25/2

339/5 Kallurupalle

339/6

339P

333

331/18 258901/1118

00:

40 00 00

12-

00.

10.

01 5302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

331/17 1) Kailurupalle (Contd)

331/16

331/9

331/12

331/11

331/10

329

204

199

196/2

198

196

197/2

196/1

191

190

189

210

161

157

156/2

156/1

155

149/6

149/5

149/3

149/1

148

52/4

54/2

54/1

54/3

70/4

70/3C

70/3B

70/3A

69/5

69/2

69/4

69/3

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

20 00

90 00

90 14

60 00

20 07

30 01

40 06

60 02

90 03

30 00

60 00

50 00

40 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

66/2 1 ) Kalkutupalle (Comed)

65/13

65/2

65/1B

65/1A

63/1C

63/1D

10/4

10/5

10/6

12/3

11/5

12/2

11/4

11/3

6/4

6/3

6/1

5/1

330/2

330/3

203/1

203/2

203/6

46 2) Paleru

45/4

56/2

55/6

55/4

55/3

55/2

64/2

64/4

64/3

65/9

64/1

65/1

65/2

62/3

00.

90 00

70 00 46

20 00

31.

00.

00 5304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

2) Paleru(Conted)

62/2

70/1

62/1

71/1

72/1

73/2

73/1

73/3

73/4

105/1

105/2

104

82/2

82/1

83/1

82/3

84/3

84/4

84/5

84/7

84/8

176/12

176/2

176/13

176/6

176/11

174/1

175/3

172

167/2

167/7

167/4

167/3

167/1

179

10/1

188/3

192/7

1920 3

60 00

20 00

90 00

20 00

40 00

00 00

10 00

90 00

30 00

02.

00 00

30 00

20 :

70 00

20 40

20 00

70 00

20 00

10 00

20 00

0001

70 पत्र 23, 2011/1 , 1933

(भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii)]

192/5 2) Paleru(Conted)

222/1

220/5

221/3

220/3

221/2

221/1

218/2

217/4

217/5

217/6

217/2

217/1

212/2

212/5

212/6

212/3

212/1

211

241 3 ) Mogili

242

231/1

229/1

229/2A

226

228/1A

223/2A

228/2A

223/1A

223/1B

223/2C

223/C

222/1

200

198/24

198/21

199

198/12

193/12

193/11 00

10 00

00:

10 00 42

00 40

00 10

00 5306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

2 3) Mogili ( Contd)

193/4

193/3

192/6

192/4

192/3

192/2

192/1

191/1

191/2A

190/7

190/4

190/3

185/3

185/2

190/2

185/1

190/1

186/1

187

District: Chittoor Mandal/Tehell/Taluk: Sangavaram

334

1 ) Gangavaram

333

331

330

329/3

329/4

335

319

317

316/1

316/7

318/3

318/4

138/2

137/7

138/1

146

145

143

150

149

159/1

[Part II Sec. 3( i) ] 3

50 00

৪১৪৪:

Pradesh 00

40:

20 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii)J

159/2 1 ) Gangavaran (Comid)

160

316P

318/5A

318/5B

268/1 2 ) Maredipalli

63/3

63/1

45/1

46/1.

46/3

46/2

31/8

31/7

31/6

26/3

26/4

26/1

269

13/1

13/2

11/2

996

3 ) Dandapalli

999/3

999/1

Roadbetween Sy. No 999 &1006

1006/2D

1006/2C

1006/2B

1007/1B

1006/2A

1007/1A

1005/3

1005/20 00

00 03

60 00

70 00 48

70 00

10 00

82288888 20

00 5308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

1005/2B 3) Dandapelli (Coatd)

1008/1

1048

1009/2A

1009/1B

1009/1A

692

693

694

689/1B

981/2A

981/1

682

684

685

686/3

686/ 1A

752/2C

752/2D

752/1

780/6A

780/1

780/4

780/5

780/3

780/2

780/6B

780/7

780/8

778/13

778/14

777

776

771/6

775

770

827

826

828

829/1

846/ 1E

846/1D

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

6 00

10 00

20 00

40 00

50 00

00 00

30 00

60 00

70 00

00 00

60 00

20 00

40 00

70 00.

60 00

90 00

60 00

40 00

: 00

60 00.. 21

00 00

00 08 00

70 00

50 00

70 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

846/2 3) Dandapahi (Contd)

846/1B

846/1A

843

1029

1022

1023

1021

1020

1030

1035/3

1037/4

1037/5

727 4 ) Mamadugu

261/1

261/2

260/1

135/1B

135/1A-

135/4

136/11G

136/1F

136/1E

136/1D

136/1C

136/2

136/3

136/4

137/4

137/3

137/2

137/ 1B

138

49/1A

44/1

29/3

29/1

17/16

17/18 2589G1/11-19

01 35

00 06

70 90 8888888888888 60

02 36

80.

00 5310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

17/13

4 ) Mamadega (Contd)

17/12

17/17

1050

1033

262/1B

1051

48/1A/ 1

9001

48/1A/2

48/1A/3

48/1A/4

28/4

[Part HS 3

00 00

60 00

40 00

80 00

37 00

36 00

70 State:Andhra Pradesh

District: Chittoor

Mandel/Tehsil /Taluk: Garngadhara Nellore

272/2

1 ) Mahadevamangalam

272/3

272/4

272/6

13219

272/1

272/7

272/8

Ats

272/5

272/9

273

274

つぐみん!

249

248

246

245/1

245/2

245/3

244/1

243/3

243/4

243/5

243/6

243/9

241/5

241/6

241/7

241/3

241/2

241/1

235

236

30 00

00 00

90 00

50 00

20 00

60 00

40 00

50 00

20 00

40 00

70 00

00 00

70 00

00 00

60 00 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

227

193/17

193/4

193/3

123:30

193/1

193/2

192/4

192/5

188/3

188/2

188/4

188/5

188/7

0185

188/6

185/13

187/9

187/1

187/5

187/2

187/3

186/9

186/10

186/8

186/1

186/5

186/4

186/2

169/2

٤١٣٢

168/4

170/13

170/16

170/15

170/14

170/6

171/23

171/22

156/8

156/1

154/20

153/5

153/4

154/19

5311 bo

( 1 birgslagnettava 00 (

20 00

30 19

10 01

10 20

30 01

30 00

90 00

40 00 80

00 5312

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

2 evarningalare (Contd)

153/2

152/21

152/20

152/10

152/9

152/8

152/7

152/6

75/1

77/3

78/6

74/1

78/4C

73/5

73/6

73/4

78/1

73/3

79/13

73/11

79/1

73/1

72/4

69/14

72/2

72/3

72/1

71/1

71/2

71/3

70/9

70/10

70/2

45/4

244/2

191/12

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

5 00

70 5313 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रवण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii)]

District: Chittoor

Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk : Peddapanjani

1 ) Bommarajupalle

F.No. L- 14014/51 /2010-GP ) K. K. SHARMA, Under Becy.

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई, 2011

का. आ. 1926.- भारत सरकार ने, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार अर्जन अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का .आ . 2747 तारीख 29 अक्तूबर , 2010 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में, तमिलनाडु में सिखतनी के पास विजयवाडा-नेल्लोर-चेन्नई पाइपलाइन के टर्मिनल प्वाइंट से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा चेन्नई बंगलौर मंगलौर गैस पाइपलाइन विसाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

2011 को अथवा उक्ते और, उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 16 अप्रैल, पूर्व उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और, पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में , जनता की ओर से प्राप्त आयोपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और अननुज्नात कर दिया गया;

और, सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे की है ;

और , भारत सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपल बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है ;

अतः , अब, भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शवितों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन विछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;

और, भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से भारत सरकार में निहित होने के बणार, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 5314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY23 , 2011 / SRAVANA 1 , 1933

अनुसूची 8 पालसमुद्रम

जिला:चित्तूर

सर्वे सं/सब डिविजन से .

τα π

152/3

1 ) कृष्णाम्पापुरम

151/1

152/1

152/201026

154

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii) ] आर

हेक्टेयर एबर सि-एयर 3

5 00 26

0028-00

00 03.

songnas

227

197

196

191

192

135.

45/6

45/4

45/3

45/9

43/9

43/8

42/6

42/5

42/4

17/1

17/2

42/1

42/2

90 གིས་ 30

00.

00 16

-00

00 08

00 34

RCF

00 01

00 04

070

00 43

00 03

50 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

61/6

2 ) पालसमुद

61/5

61/4वी

354130

62/1

२६

VIALS

60/1सी

60/2

METS

63/1

63/17

CES

70/1

36/2

36/3

36/5

53202

36/6

35/4

5324

35/3

512141

35/2

35/1 इ

antas

35/1बी

35/1 ए

Arttas

37/4

33/2

33/1

22/1सी

elves

16/2

22/1 बी

22/1 ए

17/1बी

17/1 ए

11:

Mas

14/1

509:40

14/2

زيد

13/3

13/2

6/7

12/4

6/6

12/3

12/2

6/2

12/1

53615

11/2

80 00

90 00

10 00 06

40 00 26

00.

30 00 07

00.

: 90

00 5316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

2 ) पालसमुद्रम (निरंतर)

274/19 3 ) आमीडाला

274/20

274/21

274/9

274/10

272/4

272/5

271/2

275/4

275/3

275/13

275/11

275/15

275/2

275/1

275/17

267/15

267/16

267/17

267/14

267/13

267/11

267/12

267/9

268/25

267/8

267/5

267/4

267/1

268/10

268/9

268/6

268/5

236/14

236/10

236/12

236/11

236/4

236/3

236/2

236/7

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

5 00 12

00 30

00 05

00 02

17.

00 04

00 05

00 07

00 05

02.

90 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रवण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1.

236/8 3 ) आमीदाला (निरंतर)

237

237/1

238/10

238/11

238/13

238/12

238/6

238/3

238/4

238/5

231/10

231/9

231/7

231/8

231/6

231/3

231/4

231/5

231/2

229

231/1

228/1

230

216

217/1

219/2

219/1

215

214/2

207/2

208

205

184/1

1.84/2

180/20

180/22

180/15

180/19

180/16

180/9

180/14 2589G1/11-20

5317 3

00 33.

00 02

여

00 16

00 58

00 04

00 OL

00 06

00 01

00.00 5318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SRAVANA 1 , 1933

180/13 3 ) आमीदाला (निरंतर)

180/12

180/10

180/11

180/6

180/7

180/5

180/4

180/3

180/2

180/1

179

178/1

178/2

177/12

177/11

177/10

177/6

177/5

177/4

177/3

177/1

175

163

170

171/3

171/2

172/2

172/1

121/3

120/13

122

120/12

120/10

120/9

120/8

120/7

120/3

120/2

120/1

116/14

116/5

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

5 00

00 01

03.

00 11

00 08

00 02

08.

60 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

2 1

116/4

3 ) आमीदाला (निरंतर)

116/6

116/7

116/3

116/8

112/11

112/10

111

112/9

112/8

112/7

112/1

110/4

110/6

110/5

107/13

107/12

107/11

107/10

107/7

107/6

107/3

107/2

107/1

108/11

108/10

108/9

108/8

108/7

104/1

103/9

103/8

103/6

103/5

103/4

103/2

104/2

103/3

10/11

16/5

5319

02/

00 00

00 49

36 5320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

2 3 ) आमीवाला

15/3

15/2

17/2

17/1

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: चित्तूर

जिला:चित्तूर

194

1 ) दिगुवमासपल्ले

192

185/13

185/14

186

185/5

185/6

185/7

185/8

185/9

185/3

183/2

183/4

183/3

183/8

182

183/16

183/15

183/14

135/5

135/3

135/1

135/4

135/2

136/1

136/6

136/3

136/4

136/5

137

139/7

140/1

141

139/6

152

146

153/5

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

5 00 04

80 00 04

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

00 09

00 4.13

00 04

00 .00

80 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii)]

147 ) दिगुवमासपल्ले (निरंतर)

148

154/2

155

156

54/2

54/1

55/3

55/1

55/2

52/3

307

308

310

311

313

314

315

342/1

342/6

342/4

342/7

344/3

342/8

342/5

344/4

344/5

344/2

344/7

346/3

346/1

346/2

348

349

350/2

362

381

5321

5 3

02-

00 00

00 05

00 08

50 00

80 14

10 00

5050

00 60 5322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

375

1 ) दिगुवमासपल्ले (निरंतर)

377

378/1

378/2

378/3

379

153/4

49/1

49/2

352/1

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: बंगारुपालेम

जिला:चित्तूर 1 ) नलगामपल्ले

गट नंबर 465 मे नाला

491

484

486

487

488

418

2 ) वेंकटगिरि

गट नंबर 90 और 69 बीच मे नाला

117

119

135

134

133

93/11

93/8

93/6

91/3

91/2

90/4

90/9

90/5

90/6

90/2

90/7

90/1

99/15

99/10

99/11

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

5 00

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

00 21

00 06

00 56

00 08

00 09

15 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

99/12 2 ) वेंकटगिरि (निरंतर)

99/13

99/14

99/18

99/8

99/16

112/4

112/3

112/1

113/3

113/2

114/2

114/1

63/3

63/4

63/5

62/4

62/5

62/3

132/4

132/3

132/2

132/1

मेगिलि गाँव में सर्वे नंबर 187 के सामने मित्तर आरक्षित वन

3 ) मित्तूर आरक्षित वन

मेगिलि गाँव में सर्वे नंबर 63 के सामने जगमर्ला आरक्षित वन

4 ) जगमर्ला आरक्षित वन

जिला:चित्तूर मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: गंगावरम

5323

10 00

00.

00 06

: 99

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

कीलपटला गाँव में सर्वे नंबर 346 के सामने भूमि

1 ) मेगिलिपल्लि

542

2 ) कीलपटला

540

537/1

537/2

532/3

533

532/2

531/2

532/1

531/4

531/5

531/6

531/7

531/8

531/9

20 00

10- 21

50 49

20 00 00

10 00

40 27

90 05

70 04

80 23

00 5324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

346

2 ) कीलपटला (निरंतर)

504/1

434

233/1

232/2

232/1

231/5

231/7

231/6

230/8

229/2

228/4

228/1

228/2

226

223

224/2

451

452/1

449/4

449/3

449/2

443/4

443/2

443/3

442/2

442/3

442/4

421

422

413/8

414/2

414/1

415/3

416/1

416/2

3 ) मेलुमयि

9/1

10/3

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

5 03

00 11

00 : 23

00 00

00 10

00 11

00 33

30 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011/ श्रावण 1 , .1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2 1

10/2

3 ) मेलुभयि (निरंतर)

45/2

45/3

43/3ए

43/4

43/1

46/5

4 ) पसुपत्तू

121

120

122

119

123

117

109

106

2589GI/11-21

5325

5 3

.00

90 00

00 5326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SRAVANA 1 , 1933

4 ) पसुपत्तूर (निरंतर)

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: गंगाधर नेल्लूर

जिला:चित्तूर

433

1 ) मुक्कलुत्तूरू

438

439

431

230

232

233/2

234

424/1

407

408

410/1

411

404/2

392/4

392/8

392/9

392/7

392/6

391/5

391/16

391/15

391/14

391/13

391/12

391/9

391/11

391/10

391/21

329

331/6

330

338/1

338/2

339

337/4

341/3

340

364/1

364/2

[Part 11-Sec . 3 (ii) ]

5 00

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

00 04

40 5327 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

342/6

1 ) मुक्कलुत्तूर (निरंतर)

343/1

344/2

342/7

[फा सं. एल. - 14014/72/2010-जी.पी. ]

के. के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2011

S. O. 1926.- Whereas by notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2747 dated 29th October , 2010, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelinės (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , Government of India declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying Chennai - Bangalore - Mangalore gas pipeline for transportation of natural gas from terminal point of Vijayawada - Nellore Chennai pipeline near Tiruttani in TamilNadu by M/s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited to the consumers in various parts of the country;

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on or before 16th April, 2011;

And whereas , the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority;

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

And whereas , Government of India , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire the Right of User therein;

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

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in Government of India, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in M/ s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, free from all encumbrances .

5328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

Schedule

Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk : Palasamudram

District: Chittoor Village

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

152/3 1 ) Krishnajammapuram

151/1

152/1

152/2

152/4

148

154

227

197

196

191

192

135

45/6

45/4

45/7

45/3

45/8

45/2

45/9

43/9

43/8

42/7

42/6

42/5

42/3

42/4

17/1

17/2

42/1

42/2

State: Andhra Pradesh

Area tobe acquired for RoU Hec

Are

C-Are 3

5 00

50 भारत का राजपंत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

61/6

2) Palasamudram

61/5

61/4B

62/1

60/1C

60/2

63/1

63/17

70/1

36/2

36/3

36/5

36/6

35/4

35/3

35/2

35/1E

35/1B

35/ 1A

37/4

33/2

33/1

22/ 1C

16/2

22/1B

22/ 1A

17/1B

17/ 1A

14/1

14/2

13/3

13/2

6/7

12/4

6/6

12/3

12/2

6/2

12/1

11/2

5329

00 38

60 26

60 00

30 03

20 03

00 00

00 5330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

2 2) Palasamudram (Contd)

3 ) Amidala

274/19

274/20

274/21

274/9

274/10

272/4

272/5

271/2

275/4

275/3

275/13

275/11

275/15

275/2

275/1

275/17

267/15

267/16

267/17

267/14

267/13

267/11

267/12

267/9

268/25

267/8

267/5

267/4

267/1

268/10

268/9

268/6

268/5

236/14

236/10

236/12

236/11

236/4

236/3

236/2

236/7

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

5 00

90 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933

2 3 ) Amidala (Contd)

236/8

237

237/1

238/10

238/11

238/13

238/12

238/6

238/3

238/4

238/5

231/10

231/9

231/7

231/8

231/6

231/3

231/4

231/5

231/2

229

231/1

228/1

230

216

217/1

219/2

219/1

215

214/2

207/2

208

205

184/1

184/2

180/20

180/22

180/15

180/19

180/16

180/9

180/14

5331 3

5 00

-00

40 5332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

2 1

180/13 3 ) Amidala (Contd)

180/12

180/10

180/11

180/6

180/7

180/5

180/4

180/3

180/2

180/1

179

178/1

178/2

177/12

177/11

177/10

177/6

177/5

177/4

177/3

177/1

175

163

170

171/3

171/2

172/2

172/1

121/3

120/13

122

120/12

120/10

120/9

120/8

120/7

120/3

120/2

120/1

116/14

116/5

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

5 00

80 00

20 00

30 10

60 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii)]

116/4 3 ) Amidala ( Contd)

116/6

116/7

116/3

116/8

112/11

112/10

111

112/9

112/8

112/7

112/1

110/4

110/6

110/5

107/13

107/12

107/11

107/10

107/7

107/6

107/3

107/2

107/1

108/11

108/10

108/9

108/8

108/7

104/1

103/9

103/8

103/6

103/5

103/4

103/2

104/2

103/3

10/11

16/5 2589G1/11-22

5333

00 :

: 20

00 5334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

15/3

3) Amidala (Contd)

15/2

17/2

17/1

District: Chittoor Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk: Chittoor

194

1 ) Diguvamasapalle

192

185/13

185/14

186

185/5

185/6

185/7

185/8

185/9

185/3

183/2

183/4

183/3

183/8

182

183/16

183/15

183/14

135/5

135/3

135/1

135/4

135/2

136/1

136/6

136/3

136/4

136/5

137

139/7

140/1

141

139/6

152

146

1:53/5

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

5 00

State: Andhra Pradesh 00

50.

80 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (in) ]

147 1 ) Diguvamasapalle (Contd)

148

154/2

155

156

54/2

54/1

55/3

55/1

55/2

52/3

307.

308

310

311

313

314

315

342/1

342/6

342/4

342/7

344/3

342/8

342/5

344/4

344/5

344/2

344/7

346/3

346/1

346/2

348

349

350/2

362

381

5335

30 13

40. 00

70 04

60 00

90 16

20 00

70 20

00 05

80 00

30 00

80 00

70 02

40 04

80,

00 5336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SRAVANA 1 , 1933

2 1 ) Diguvamasapalle (Contd)

375

377

378/1

378/2

378/3

379

153/4

49/1

49/2

352/1

Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk: Bangarupalem

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

5 00

00:

15.

District: Chittoor

1 ) Nalagampalle

State:Andhra Pradesh

Nala In Gat No.465

491

484

486

487

488

418

2) Venkatagiri

Nala. In between 90 & 69...

117

119

135

134

133

93/11

93/8

93/6

91/3

91/2

90/4

90/9

90/5

90/6.

90/2

90/7

90/1

99/15

99/10

99/11

: 90

: 60

00 ..

00:

06:

58.

80.

08 : 04

87.

08.

00.

00..

0004

15 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/श्रावण. 1 , 1933

2 1

99/12 2 ) Venkatagiri ( Contd)

99/13

99/14

99/18

99/8

99/16

112/4

112/3

112/1

113/3

113/2

114/2

114/1

63/3

63/4

63/5

62/4

62/5

62/3

132/4

132/3

132/2

132/1

Mitturu Reserve Forest adjacent to sy no. 187 of Mogili village 02

3) Mittur Reserve Forest

5337

5 3

00 : 08

04-

00.

01.

43. 00

51.

01.

4) Jagamarla Reserve Forest Jagamarla Reserve Forest adjacent to sy no. 63 ofMogili village

District: Chittoor Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk: Gangavaram

1) Mogilpalle

Land adjacent to sy. No 346 of Kilapatla Village

542

2 ) Keelapatla

540

537/1

537/2

532/3

533

532/2 .

531/2

532/1

531/4

531/5

531/6-

531/7

531/8

531/9

State: Andhra Pradesh 01

00 .

00. 05

00 5338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

2 2) Keelapatla( Contd)

346

504/1

434

233/1

232/2

232/1

231/5

231/7

231/6

230/8

229/2

228/4

228/1

228/2

226

223

224/2

451

452/1

449/4

449/3

449/2

443/4

443/2

443/3

442/2

442/3

442/4

421

422

413/8

414/2

414/1

415/3

416/1

416/2

3 ) Melumayi

9/1

10/3

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

5 03

30 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

2 3 ) Melumayi ( Contd)

10/2

45/2

45/3

43/3A

43/4

43/1

46/5

4 ) Pasupatturu

121

120

122

119

123

117

109

106

5339 3

5 00

80 .

34.

00 5340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SRAVANA 1 , 1933

4) Pasupatturu( Contd)

District: Chittoor Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk : Gangadhara Nellore

433

1 ) Mukkalutturi

438

439

431

230

232

233/2

234

424/1

407

408

410/1

411

404/2

392/4

392/8

392/9

392/7

392/6

391/5

391/16

391/15

391/14.

391/13

391/12

391/9.

391/11

391/10

391/21

329

331/6

330

338/1

338/2

339

337/4

341/3

340

364/1

364/2

342/6

343/1

344/2

342/7

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

State: Andhra Pradesh

23.

до

01.

00 :

00 ..

F. No. L-14014/72/2010-G.P. ] K. K. SHARMA , Under Secy.

5341 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933 .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 24 जून , 2011

2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter refferred to as Act) has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , in terminating the services of Sh . Narinder Kumar S/o Sh . Ghasita Ram w.e.f. 21-7-98 is just and legal ? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled ? "

का.आ. 1927.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन आयल कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड नई दिल्ली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मेंकेन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 517/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30012/130/2000- आईआर (एम) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi , the 24th June , 2011

The case of the workman is that he had joined the management in November 1994 on the post of Challan Sorter. His services were terminated by the management with effect from 21-07-1998 in violation ofSection 25F and 25N of the Act, though he had completed more than 240 days of service within a calendar year prior to the date of his termination. He has alleged that after the termination ofhis services Jasbir Singh and thereafter Parminder Singh were appointed for the job . He has thus alleged the violation ofSection 25H of the Act also . He has also raised adispute about the non- payment ofwages from April 1998 to 21-07-1998 but that dispute is out ofthe purview ofthe reference . The workman has claimed his reinstatement with backwages.

S.O. 1927. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 517/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, No.2 Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the empolyers in relation to the management of Oil India Corporation Limited, Yusaf Sarai , New Delhi and their workmen , received bythe Central Government on 22-06-2011 .

[No. L-30012/130/2000- IR(M)] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT- II, CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri A.K. Rastogi , PresidingOfficer

Case No. I.D. 517/2k5

Registered on 22-08-2005

The claim was contested by the management and in its written statement throughout , the case of the management is that the workman was never employed by the management but in para 4 of written statement has been alleged that the workman had been engaged by the management on contract basis for doing the work of binding of Challans for a very short period . The management has also alleged that there is no post of Challan Sorter at Ambala Terminal and since the workman had never been appointed, hence there is no question of termination of his services . It was specifically denied the workman joined the management in 1994 and his services were terminatedw.e.f. 21-07-1998 . The appointinent of Jasbir Singh and Parminder Singh was also denied. It was also denied that workman completed 240 days service. According to the management the workman is not entitled toanyrelief.

Sh. Narinder Kumar S/o Sh . Ghasita Ram, Vill & P.O. Jalbehra, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala

From the pleadings of the parties following issues . arise for consideration :--

....Applicant

Versus

1. Whether the workman was in the employment ofthe management?

The General Manager ( HR) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , YusafSarai , New Delhi - 110029

....Respondent

2. Whether the workman is entitled to the protection of Section 25F and 25N of the Act , if so, its effect?

APPEARANCES

Forthe workman

: Sh . R.P. Rana , Advocate

Sh . Paul S. Saini , Advocate

For the Management :

3. Whether the management violated the provisions of Section 25F of the Act in employing Jasbir Singh and Parminder Singh after the termination of the services of the workman.

AWARD

4. To what relief the workman is entitled to?

Passed on May 13, 2011

Insupport ofhis case the workman filed his affidavit and the management filed the affidavit of Stiphen Ekka, Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Parties relied on Central Government vide Notification No. L- 30012/ 130/2000- IR (M) Dated 24-01-2001 , by exercising its powers under Section 10 sub- section ( 1 ) Clause (d) and sub- section

2589GI/11-23 5342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ] certain documents also which will be referred to at proper place.

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

Issue No. 1

The workman in his affidavit has supported his case that he was in the employment of the management since November 1994 and his services were terminated on 21-07-1998 . He has relied on an Identity Card issued by the Manager ( Finance) of the Management and the location chart in which his name is also mentioned . The copies of these documents are Ex . WW- 2 and paper marked' A' .

The management witness in his affidavit has reiterated the management case as given in the written statement .

Chapter 5B containing Section 25N is applicable in the present case . For protection of Section 25F of the Act, the workman is required to prove that he was in continuous service for not less than one year under the employer. As per definition clause contained in Section 25B of the Act the workman shall be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year if during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of his termination he had actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days. Though the workman in his claim statement and affidavit has stated that he had completed more than 240 days service within a calendar year preceding the date of his termination , but empathetically and categorically the fact has been denied by the management in its written statement as well as in the affidavit of its witness . The workman has not led any other evidence to prove the fact. The burden was on him . He has failed to discharge his burden hence , he cannot be held to be entitled to the protection of Section 25F of the Act, it has already been , stated above that the provisions of Section 25N ofthe act are not applicable in the present case . Issue No.2 is decided against the workman .

Issue No. 3

It has been alleged by the workman that first Jasbir Singh and after him Parminder Singh were employedby the management after terminating the services of the workman . The management has denied it. Here also workman failed to lead any other convincing evidence to prove the employment of the said persons by the management after the termination of his services . Obviously, the violation of Section 25H of the Act is not proved. Issue No.3 is accordingly decided against the workman.

Issue No. 4

It was argued by the learned counsel for the management that for the appointment in the management various formalities are complied with and the employees are selected, recruited and appointed by the management through a proper procedure by issuing proper appointment letters. The management had filed certain proformas Ex. MW -2 to MW - Il , which are used regarding a duly appointed employee . It was argued that the workman has stated in cross -examination that he had not applied for the job, he had not been invited for interview and he had not been given any appointment letter, his name was not recommended by the Employment Exchange and he never undergo medical examination. The learned counsel for the management argued that there is nothing to prove that the workman was in the employment of the management while it was for the workman to prove the fact . He further argued that the workman was a contractor's employee and copies of contractors registration certificate and license havebeen filed by the management witness and are marked asM/ A and M/B .

From the Contractor's Registration Certificate and License marked M/ A and M/B it is not proved that the workman was the contractors ' man and he was one of the workmen supplied by the contractor.

From the above going discussion it is clear that the workman has failed in proving his entitlement to the protection of Section 25F ofthe Act and violation ofSection 25H of the Act hence , termination of his services by the. management cannot be assailed . The action of the management in terminating his services is just and legal . The workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against him . Let two copies of award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 24 जून , 2011

When all is said and done , I do not find any escape for the management from the admission made in para 4 of the written statement as well as of the affidavit of the management witness that the workman had been engaged by the management on a contract basis or doing the workman on binding the challans . ' Employment on contract basis' does not mean ' employment through contractor ' . I think that ' no further proof is required after the admission ofthe management about the employment of the workman by it. I , therefore , hold that the workman was in the employment of the management . Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the workman .

Issue No.2

का.आ. 1928.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार गेल इंडियन लिमिटेड एवं दुर्गा भवानी सिक्योरिटी सर्विस सिकन्दराबाद के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था। The workman has claimed the protection of Section 25F and 25N of the Act. It may be mentioned here that. both the provisions cannot be applied at the same time . There is nothing on record to show that provision of

[सं. एल -30012/26/2008- आईआर ( एम) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the24th June , 2011

S.O. 1928. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 25/2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the empolyers in relation to the management of M / s . Gail India Ltd , Jetty Avenue & *M/ s. Durga Bhavani Security Services Secunderabad 87 and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 22-06-2011 .

[No. L-30012/26/2008 - IR(M) ]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : Shri VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Dated the 1st day of March , 2011

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 25/2008

Between:

Sri P. Prakasham, H.No.16-B- 14-171 ,

....Petitioner Sivagopalapuram , Tangellamudi , Eluru, W.GDist .

AND

1. The Dy. General Manager , M/ s . GAIL India Ltd. , Jetty Avenue , Danavaipet, Rajahmundry.

2. M/s . Durga Bhavani Security Services , B -43 , Godavari Garden, Yapra Point, Secunderabad - 87 .

Respondents Appearances :

For the Petitioner: M/ s . K. Ajay Kumar, Sudha & M.

Govind , Advocates

For the Respondent : Sri K. Venkat Rao, Advocate

AWARD

The Govemment of India, Ministry of Labour by its orderNo. L-30012/26/2008 - IR( M) dated 23-10-2008 referred the following dispute between the management of M/s . GAIL India Ltd. , and their workman under section 10 ( 1) ( d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal . The term of reference is ,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . GasAuthority of India Ltd. , Rajahmundry and its contractor M/s Durga Bhavani Security Agency in terminating the services of Shri P. Prakasham without following the provisions of ID Act as alleged by

5343

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

Shri P. Prakasham , is legal and/orjustified ? If not, to whatreliefthe concerned workman is entitled?" The reference is numbered in this tribunal as I.D. 25/2008 and notices were issued to the concerned parties . Counsel for Petitioner moved memo for adjournment of the case for filing of claim statement several times . On 1-3-2011 Counsel for workman appeared and stated that he has no instruction from workman , as such , he is not in a position to proceed with the case . In absence of claim statement the case is closed as such , Nil Award is passed accordingly.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her, corrected by me on this the Ist day of March , 2011 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 24 जून , 2011

का.आ. 1929. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरणं में , केन्द्रीय सरकार औरियन्टल इंन्श्योरेंस कम्पनी लिमिटेड , नई दिल्ली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-6-2011. को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-17012/ 10/2009- आईआर ( एम) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the24th June , 2011

S.O. 1929. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/2010) oftheCentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management ofCMD Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. New Delhi and their workmen , which wasreceivedby the Central Government on 22-6-2011 .

[No. L- 17012/ 10/2009- IR(M)] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

5344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART IISEC. 3( ii) ] ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT YESHWANTPUR, BANGALORE

Dated : 13th April 2011

Present : Shri . S. N. Navlagund , Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 13/2010

IParty

IIParty

witha request to dispose off the reference keeping liberty to the I party to approach other forum available to him; The learned counsel appearing for the II Party submits that he has no objection to dispose off this matter keeping liberty to the I party to approach the appropriate forum available to him. In view of the I Party conceding this tribunal having no jurisdiction to adjudicate this reference in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of the country referred to above, the reference is liable to be rejected keeping liberty to the I Party to approach the appropriate forum available to him. In the result, I pass the following order:

The Chairman-cum -Managing Director, Oriental InsuranceCo.

ORDER

Sh . MC Kuppuswamy, Type III/06, RIE Campus , Manasagongothri , Mysore-570006

Ltd. , A-25/27 , Head Office, Oriental House,AsafAli Road, PB No. 7037, New Delhi- 110002

APPEARANCES

The reference is rejected as not maintainable as conceded by the learned counsel for the I Party, keeping liberty to the I party to approach appropriate forum available to him .

: Shri M. S. Parthasarathi , Advocate

IParty

(Dictated to UDC transcribed by him , corrected and signedby me on 13th May, 2011 )

IIParty

Shri E. S. Indiresh , Advocate

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 24 जून , 2011

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredbyClause (d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 2A of the Sectoin 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L- 17012/ 10/2009- IR(M) dated 6-4-2010 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 1930-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरंण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ऑयल इंडिया लिमिटेड दुलियाजान आसाम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , गौहाटी , आसाम के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 05/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30012/ 19/2005- आईआर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 24th June , 2011.

"Whether the action of the management of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. , Regional Office , Bangalore , Karnataka in removing Shri M. С. Kuppuswamy, Ex.Asst . (C) from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment w.e.f. 17-3-2008 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to ? "

2.After receiving the Claim Statement ofthe I party and Counter Statement of the II Party having regard to the Objections raised by the II party on 7-1-2011 , the following two issues were raised and ordered to hear them on Preliminary Issue:

" 1. Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the II party against the I party is fair and proper?

S.O. 1930. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 05/2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Guwahati (Assam ) now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the empolyers in relation to the management of Oil India Limited Duliajan and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2011 .

[No. L-30012/19/2005 - IR(M) JOHAN TOPNO, Under Sery.

2. Whether II party prove that the jurisdiction of this tribunal has been excluded by the provision of General Insurance Business (Nationalisation Act) 1972?"

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRALGOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Present: Shri D.K. Deb Roy, M ,A, LL.B. , Presiding Officer , CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati .

Ref. Case No. 05 of 2005

3. To substantiate the above issues on behalf of the Il party the affidavit of Manager , OIC, Residency Road Cross, Bangalore was filed and he was examined on oath asMW. - 1 . The learned counsel for I party after taking time for his cross- examination , today filed a Memo conceding the objection of the II party reference being not maintainable in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case " Kishan Prakash Sharma & others vs. Union of India & others" reported in AIR 2001 SC 1493

In the matter of an Ddustrial Dispute between: - TheManagement ofOil India Limited, Duliajan .

5345

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Vrs

Their Workman Sri Pranab Kumar Sarma.

APPEARANCES

For the Management : Mr. S.N. Sarma, Sr. Advocate . Mr. A. Jahid, Advocate

FortheWorkman : Mr. A. Das Gupta, Advocate . Mr. S. Chakrabarty, Advocate

Date ofAward: 30-5-2011

AWARD

1. The present reference is arising out of the Government Notification vide Memo No. L-30012/19/2005- IR(M) Dated: 12-07-2005 . to adjudicate the issue as described in the Schedule below.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management ofOil India Ltd. , Duliajan in dismissing the workman Sri Pranab Kumar Sarma, Account's Clerk from service w.e.f 13-9-2003 is fair, just and legal ? Ifnot, what reliefthe workman is entitled to ? "

2. Having received the Reference Case notice was duly served upon the parties asking them to file written statement, if any. Accordingly, both the parties filed their Written Statements . In order to ensure fairness and transparency, both the parties were allowed to adduce evidence and they were heard. Some documents have also beenexhibited .

3.Here, I feel it convenient to re - capitulate the brief facts leading to this dispute .

enumeration of standing crops andthe trees in the land is carried out jointly by representatives of the Land Department and the Accounts Department for preparation ofsurface compensation . Thereafter , both the Land Clerk and the Accounts Clerk would visit the land for enumeration of standing crops /trees as done in presence ofoccupiers/pattadars and the enumeration of list ofplants/ trees is prepared by Land Clerk and the Accounts Clerk and get it recorded in the Note Book. The occupiers/ pattadars are identified by the Gaon Burah ofthe locality andput his signature on the enumeration list. The list so prepared by the Land Clerk is sent to the Accounts Department with a counter signature of the Land. Officer. The Accounts Clerk thereafter evaluates the standing crops/trees on the basis of Jirat list after verifying with his Note Book. The enumeration list is thereafter signed by the Accounts Clerk and then surface compensation is prepared by Accounts Department . Surface compensation is given to the occupiers and land compensation to the pattadars . The pattadars were also in occupier ofthe land. The surface compensation is prepared by the Accounts clerk and then send it to the Land Department along with the vouchers . The Land Clerk hand over the cheques/ drafts to the occupiers/pattadars on being identified by Gaon Bura . The receipt vouchers are signedby the occupiers/pattadars . After payment of surface and land compensation the Company occupies the land for digging well and in due course formal Sale Deed is executed by the pattadars . In the year 1991 Oil India Ltd. acquired 31 Bighas 3 Kathas and 11 Lechas of land near Margaritha (MTC location) for the purpose ofdigging well . Accordingly20 occupiers (including some pattadars), 8 persons were paid surface compensation and land compensation . The aforesaid land was occupied in the year 1991 thereafter the sale deed was executed in the month of July, 1992. The workman further alleged that after a period of 8 years he was served with a Show Cause Notice dated 7-9-99 alleging that he was involved in preparation of enumeration list and payment of surface compensation for the location of MTC near Margaritha to a tune ofRs . 4,26,973.15 paise to 9 fictitious persons and thereby defrauded the Company and derived undue benefit amounts to misconduct in Clause21.1.2 of the Company's Modified Standing Order. Theworkman submitted his reply in pursuance ofthe Show CauseNotice served upon him wherein he has stated that he was involved in the preparation of enumeration list jointly with the employee of the Land Department for standing crops and trees . The workman denied that the 9 persons were fictitious persons . Thereafter a Depart- mental Proceeding was initiated but no statement of allegation was supplied to him . According to him the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in gross violation of Principle of Natural Justice . It is further alleged that necessary documents were not supplied to the workman so he could not represent his case properly thus causing prejudice to him . The enquiry officer most illegally and Factual Matrix : Sri Pranab Kumar Sarma ( herein called the workman) has submitted his written statement allegi ng inter - alia that he was working as Accounts Clerk in the Accounts Department, Oil India Limited at Duliajan prior to his dismissal from the service . He was illegally dismissed from service with effect from 15-9-2003 pursuant to the domestic enquiry conducting in gross violation of the Principle of Natural Justice . That the Oil India Ltd. (herein called the Management) , for the purpose of exploring oil acquires land for digging oil wells . For this purpose the Company goes to the spot to have direct negotiation with the occupiers /pattadars . If that fails to yield any positive result, the Company approaches the Government for acquiring the land . In this connection the Land Department of the Company plays a vital role . After the site is selected for digging well the Land Clerk of the Land Department would visit the Circle Office of the Revenue Circle Officer and obtain the Chita and Cadastral Map from the Office . Thereafter, the Land Clerk would identify and visit the occupiers pattadars of the land and obtain verbal permission for carrying survey and demarcate the land in presence of occupiers /pattadars or his relative and representatives . Once the job of identifying the occupiers /pattadars by Land Clerk is over then the 5346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

allegations made by the workman . According to the Management the workman has been rightly dismissed from service for embezzlement of Company's money.According to the Management the allegations of the workman is devoid of merit and the same must be rejected.

5. TheManagement examined altogether 8 witnesses whereas the workman examined himself only.

6. Decision and reasons thereof:

arbitrarily held that the charges were proved against him . A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to him and accordingly he submitted his representation which was not considered by the Management and ultimately he was dismissed from service with effect from 13-9-03 communicated vide order date 1-9-03. He preferred an appeal but nothing had happened . Being highly aggrieved he raised an Industrial Dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) . The conciliation proceeding was initiated and attempt was made to settle up the matter amicably but proved futile. Ultimately the conciliation officer submitted his failure report and thereafter the Government of India vide his Notification dated 12-07-2005 referred the dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal . The workman also submitte Addl . W.S. narrating almost the same facts stated in his original W.S.

Heard both sides at the Bar. The learned Counsel Mr. Sharma appearing on behalf of the Management has contended inter - alia that the workman involved himself in the embezzlement of Company's money amounting to Rs.4,26,973.15 paise. That apart, the workman has been, charge sheeted in another 4 cases of similar nature as such, he was dismissed from service . It is further pointed out that the house of the workman was raided by C.B.I in connection with disproportionate assets case and some incriminating documents were recovered from his house. It is urged on behalf of the Management that in the mean time the erring officer of the Land Department has already beendismissed and the workman is also in the same footing, so he is also liable to be dismissed and accordingly that has been done by the Management . This contention has been seriously controverted by Mr. Das Gupta, Learned Counsel appearing for the workman who in his efficacious submission has contended that everything was done by Land Department and the workman was admittedly in the Accounts Department and he has no role to play so far as assessment of surface compensation is concerned . According to him the workman simply put his signature in the enumeration list as such, no criminal liability could be fastened. to him. Mr. Das Gupta has argued that the workman has been illegally dismissed from service and he should be reinstated with full back wages.

7. Now I like to discuss the evidence adduced by the Management vis-a-vis the evidence adducedby the workman.

4. The Management ( Oil India Ltd. ) contested the proceeding by filing written statement refuting the claim of the workman. According to the Management the delinquent workman was working in the Accounts Department of the Company and he was entrusted with thejob of preparation of enumeration list and payment of surface compensation and land value whenever the Company acquires land for operational purposes . The further case of the Management is that the delinquent workman was involved in preparation of enumeration list and the payment of surface compensation amounting to Rs.4,26,973.15 paise was paid to 9 persons in fictitious name and thereby defrauding the Company, causing wrongful loss to the Management . When the fraud was detected by the Management the workman was charge sheeted vide notice dated 9-7-99 . Thereafter a domestic enquiry was initiated with an intimation to the delinquent workman . Several sittings took place and the enquirywas completed on 10-7-01 . After completion of the enquiry the enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charges were proved against the workman and ultimately he was dismissed from service vide letter dated 13-9-03 witheffect from 15-9-03 . The Management further asserted that the workman was also charge sheeted in another 4 cases for his involvement in embezzlement in Company's money, unauthorized possession of Company's official document in connection with one of the charge sheets and disproportionate assets . His house was raidedby CBI . Out of4 departmental enquiries , in one case his dismissal has be re-confirmed since charges were proved at the enquiry and in 2 other cases the proceeding has been kept in abeyance since he has already been dismissed from service . The Management further states that even on merit the workman is liable to be dismissed for gross misconduct committed by him . The departmental enquiry was conducted in full compliance of the Principle of Natural Justice and no prejudice was caused to the workman . The Management prays that a preliminary issue be framed in regard to the fairness of the domestic enquiry and if it goes against the Management , the Management may be allowed to contest the proceeding on merit . The Management submitted also Addl . W.S. denying the

MW.1 has said in his evidence that in the year 1992 Oil India Ltd. acquired some land from his village . His land was also acquired measuring 4 Bighas 3 Kathas and odd which was a paddy land and nobody was occupying the land.According to him , Nanda Sonwal, Padmeswar Gohain , Bhalak Gohain , Chitra Gohain , Madan Gohain, Mohendra Sonowal , Gojen Sonowal , Durlab Gohain and Robin Sonowal were not residents of his village . In his village most of the people belonging to Chinpho and Adhivashi Community. Some years back the people ofOil India Ltd. came to his house and enquired whether Robin Sonowal was occupying his land. He said no. Thereafter, the Officer hadwrittensome papers in English and took his signature. Ext. 1 is a statement and Ext . 1 ( 1 ) is his signature thereon . In cross -examination this witness has admitted that he has not submitted any document to show the ownership of his land. He also does not know the names of other persons except Chinpho and Adhivashi . He does not know English. The content ofExt . W1 was not read over to him . He has not submitted any document to show that he is a resident of Khumchai village .

5347

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1, 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

byBabulal Orang. The land appertaining to Dag No. 34 ofthe said village owned by Jabra Budu Orang as pattadar. The land appertaining to Dag No. 43 is a Government land occupiedbyChaman Orang . The land appertainingtoDag No. 44 is a paddy land in the name of Chaman Orang, Rahma Orang, Karma Orang, Dharma Orang. The land appertaining to Dag no. 59 is owned by Pattadar Gamtang Dowania. There was no occupier. The land appertaining to Dag No. 59 is owned by Pattadar Gamtang Dowania. There was no occupier . The land appertaining to Dag No.60 belonging to Lodo Orang and there was no occupier. The land appertaining to Dag No. 214 is a Government land occupied by one Hagra Orang . Ext . 3. is the Entry in respect of Dag No. 24. Ext . 4 is the relevant entry in respect ofDag No. 27. Ext. 5 is the relevant entry in respect of Dag No. 28. Ext. 6 is the relevant entry in respect of DagNo. 34. Ext . 7 & 8 are the relevant entries in respectof DagNo. 43 &44. Ext. 9 is the revant entry in respect of DagNo. 59. Ext. 10 is the relevant entry in respect ofDag No. 60. Ext.11 is the relevant entry in respect of Dag No. 214.

MW. 2, Jabra Budhu Urang has said in his evidence that around 20 years back Oil India Ltd. acquired his land measuring 8 Bigha which was paddy land. There was no big tree on his land. He himself was cultivating the land and there was no other occupant . No surface compensation was paid to him by the Oil India Ltd. According to him, Kiang Larang was their Gaon Burah who was aged around 100 years and unable to move and partially lost his vision. Their village is mainly dominated by Chinpho and Adhivashi Community. In cross- examination the workman suggested this witness that his landwas occupied by Durlabh Gohain , Gojen Sonwal and Mohendra Sonowal though he answered in negative. The persons namelyNanda Sonowal , Padswar Gohain, Bholok Gohain , Chitra Gohain , Modon Gohain, Mohendra Sonowal, Gojenm Sonowal , Durlab Gohain and Robin Sonowal were not the residents of his village at the relevant time. Gahanu Urang , Jogeshwar Urang, Ranha Urang andHagaru Urang were residents of their village but in the mean time they died . Their land was not occupied by anybody. After some years , some officials from Oil India Ltd. came and asked him whether his land was occupied by somebody, he replied no . Then the officer wrote a paper in English and took his thumb impression, Ext.2 is the statement . In cross - examination this witness has said that he has not submitted any document to show that he is the owner of the land. He has not submitted any document to show that he is the resident of that village . Content of Ext.2 was not read over to him . At the time of acquisition ofhis land he was aged around 25 years . He has not submitted the death certificate in respect ofGahanu Urang, Jogeswar Urang, RanhaUrang and Hagaru Urang.

MW.5 is the Circle Officer , Margherita Revenue Circle, has said that Ext. 12 is the land chart issued by their Office. That on 5-4-2000 , Oil India Ltd. vide their letter No.CMV/45/2000/214 requested them to furnish some information regarding occupation and patta of9 persons as mentioned in the letter under reference : Ext. 13 is the said letter. In response to this letter, their office furnished letter dated 22-6-2000 , Ext . 14. They also issued another letterExt. 15 containing chitha book containing all records oflandofaparticular village including transfer of landby virtue of inheritance and by virtue of purchase and possession etc.

MW. 3 has said that long back his paddy land measuring 4 Bigha was acquired by Oil India Ltd. Nobody was occupying his land. In cross- examination he has admitted that he has not submitted any document to show that he is the owner of that land nor he has submitted any document to show that he is the resident of Khumchai village. He has specifically stated that there was no man namely Bholok Gohain in his village . The workman suggested this witness the land acquired by Oil India Ltd. was in fact occupying by Bholok Gohain, but he answered innegative.

MW.6 has said in his evidence that he was working inVigilance Department ofOil India Ltd. from 1-7-1984 to 25-4-2002 . While he was in Vigilance Department hewas involved in an investigation in the matter of payment of compensationby OIL to Pattadars/occupiers of land acquired by OIL for its drilling location, ' MTC ' under Margherita Revenue Circle . That in the year 1991 , Oil India Ltd. acquired 31 Bigha 3 Katha 11 Lechas of land in Kumchai village under Margherita Revenue Circle for company'sdrilling purposes. According to this witness the Manager (land) , OIL vide letter dated 9-2-1991 forwarded the statement of surface compensation in respect of 20 persons along with summery sheets and also 20 numbers of enumeration list to the General Manager ( F & A), Oil India Ltd. requesting him to make payment. Accordingly, Finance and Account Department released the payment of surface compensation amounting to Rs.7,47,734.25 p in favour of20 persons .According to this witness20 numbers of enumeration lists, Ext.22 series were jointly preparedby Company's Land Officer, Land Clerk andtheAccounts Clerk namely workman Pranab Kr. Sarma and they also signed put thumb impression by the respective occupiers alleged to have been identified by Kiyang Larong Singhpho, Government Gaon Bura. That M.W. 4, is the Revenue staff who happens to be lot Mondal in the Office of the Circle Officer, Margherita . In obedience to Summon he has appeared before the Court along with Chita record of Khumchai village . According to him, when a land is occupied by somebody it is recorded in the Chita Book. The land appertaining to Dag No: 24 of village Khumchai is a Government land occupied by Ghanu Orang, Lakhon Latho and Jina Doli Lungri . There was no person namely Madan Gohain in the Chita record as occupier. He has further said that the land appertaining to Dag no. 27 was owned by pattadar Sukdew Orang . There was no occupier in the Chita record. The land appertaining toDag No. 28 is a Government land occupied 5348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii )]

and on the basis of his report, Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the workman . He has admitted that workman P.K. Sarma was working in the Accounts Department of Oil India Ltd. This witness has also admitted that the land involved in this particular case was purchased by Oil India Ltd. The purchase was made by execution of sale deed by the owners. It was the duty of the land department to ascertain the ownership ofthe land. The payment is made to the owner followed by execution ofsale deed. According to this witness for the purpose of assessment of, surface compensation the official of the land department and the accounts department go to the spot and calculate the number oftrees and the quantum of crops, if any, and accordingly jirat is prepared. The land department after ascertaining the standing crops and treesi send it to the accounts department for necessary calculation and payment . Statement of surface compensation is required to be verified by the accounts department on the basis of the summery report . By a letter dated 9-2-91 , Manager ( Land) requested the General Manager ( F & A) to make payment of sum of Rs . 7,43,182 to the occupiers /pattedars being the surface compensation . Thereafter the payment vouchers were prepared and payment was made . The accounts clerk prepared the payment vouchers and thereafter the payment ismade. In cross -examination this witness has admitted that the payment vouchers were prepared by the workman P. K. Sarma. It has been admitted in cross examination that payment vouchers were not available while the departmental proceeding was carried out.

on enquiry with the Accounts Department, the payment vouchers in respect of payment of surface compensation could not be made available . However, General Manager, (F & A) informed the Chief Manager, vigilance that the vouchers payment particulars were prepared by workman Pranab Kumar Sarma. On further enquiry, payment receipt of surface compensation in respect of 11 persons were found available which are marked as Ext . 23 series containing 11 pages . This witness visited the location on 30-8-1997 and met Kiyang Larong Singhpho , Government Gaon Bura to enquire as to whether the payments were made to 20 persons .A list of20 persons were shown to the Gaon Bura, the Gaon Bura stated. 9 persons were not residents of the nearby vicinity. He does not have any knowledge as to the payment made to the following 9 persons namely Robin Sonowal, Durlab Gohain , Gajen Sonowal , Mahendra Sonowal , Madan Gohain , Chitra Gohain, Bhalak Gohain , Padmeswar Gohain and Nanda Sonowal . He recorded the statement of the Gaon Bura, which is marked as Ext . 24 series .He also made an enquiry as to the existence of 9 persons but he could not trace out . That from the 20 numbers of enumeration sheets , Ext. 22 series, it was observed that in case of Nanda Sonowal enumeration list was signed by Gaon Bura , Kiyang Larong Singpho, marked as Ext- " X " and the remaining 19 enumeration sheets were not signed by the Gaon Bura but the LTI of Gaon Bura was obtained . It is further asserted that the seal of Gaon Bura used in the enumeration sheets dated 2-2-91 has been shown as District-Dibrugarh whereas Tinsukia was declared as District in the year 1989 as per Government Notification dated 29-9-1989. That on 4-2-99 . This witness met the Gaon Bura, Kiyang Larong Singpho and enquired from his whether he had put his LTI and rubber stamp on the enumeration sheets to which he replied that he neither put his LTI nor put his rubber stamp .According to this witness he recorded the statements of Gamtong Duwania, who stated no person namely Robin Sonowal had been living inhis land appearing to Dag No. 233 & 59 as occupier whenOIL acquired Land from him ; Sri Gahanu Urang Gamtong Duwania, who stated no person namely Madan Gohain had been living in his land vide Dag No. 24 as occupier whenOIL acquired land ; Jahan Urang, who stated no person namely Mohendra Gohain and Madan Gohain had been living in their land bearing Dag No. 27as occupiers when OIL acquired land; Jabra Budhu Urang, who stated no person namely Durlab Gohain , Gajen Sonowal and Mahendra Sonowal had been living in their land bearing Dag No. 34 as occupier when OIL acquired land from him; Alvis Urang, who stated no person namely BhalakGohain and Nanda Sonowal had been living in his land bearing Dag No. 60 as occupier when OIL acquired land from him. The specimen signature ofGaon Bura Kiyang Larong Singpho was sent to FSL for opinion, on request of workman P. K. Sarma. This witness has proved Annexure-A to Annexure-Qas Ext . 16 to Ext. 32. In cross examination by the workman this witness has admitted thatat the relevant time he was in the vigilance Department

MW. 7 , in his evidence has testified that he was working in the vigilance department of Oil India Ltd. He investigated into the matter of payment of surface compensation by Oil India Ltd. to pattadars/occupiers of land acquired by Oil India for drilling location . By aletter dated 5-4-2000, Ext. 13 , he requested the Circle Officer, Margaritha Revenue Circle to furnish information in respect of9 persons namely Robin Sonowal , Durla Gohain, Gajen Sonowal , Mohendra Sonowal, Modan Gohain, Chitra Gohain, Bhalak Gohain, Padmeswar Gohain and Nanda Sonowal . The Circle Officer , Margaritha Revenue Circle videhis letters dated 22-6-2000 and 8-9-2000 informed that there was no patta land/ land in the name of the persons mentioned above as per official record and there was no proof of possession of the said persons . Ext. 14 & 15 are two letters . During enquiry, the charges brought against workman P.K. Sarma were proved that he was involved in preparation of enumeration list and payment of surface compensation to a tune of Rs . 4,26,973.15 to 9 fictitious persons defrauded the Company. It was also revealed in the enquiry that the representatives of Land and account visit the site and enlist the number of standing crops and assets in presence of concerned occupiers and village head man. After carrying out enumeration/assessment by the representatives of accounts and land department a copy ofthe list was handed over to the concerned assesses duly signed by the representatives of account and land department after obtaining the signature of the concerned 5349

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1, 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

occupiers/pattadars duly signed by village Gaon Bura . Ext.34 is a letter dated 19-8-2000. According to him 20 enumeration lists were jointly prepared by land clerk and 'account clerk, Mr. P.K.Sarma which were purported to have been identified by Kiyang Larong Singpho, Government Gaon Bura. The signature of Gaon Bura, Kiyang Larong Singpho was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory to verify the genuineness but the expert held that signature of Kiyang Larong Singpho was forged. This witness has further stated another 3 domestic enquiries were also held against the workman P.K. Sarma. In cross -examination, this witness has admitted that in Ext. 22 series , Marked-X contain the signature of Gaon Bura, Kiyang Larong Singpho . Subsequently, Title Singpho was added in place ofUrang. The Advocate for the workman suggested this witness that the task of the workman was to make necessary calculation for the purpose of assessing surface compensation as well as land compensation on the basis ofthe information furnished by the land department, which is answered in negative . He has proved Ext . 34 as to the procedure laid down for payment ofsurface compensation. The workman suggested this witness that he had no role to play so far as payment of surface compensation is concerned . However, he has admitted that surface compensation was released in favour of 9 fictitious persons.

Revenue Circle and collects Chita and cadastral map . The enumeration of standing crops/trees in the land is carried out jointly by land department and accounts department for the purpose of surface compensation. Both the land clerk and accounts clerk visit the land for enumeration of standing crops/trees . Thereafter the occupiers /pattadars also put their signatures in the enumeration list duly identified by Gaon Bura. The workman has specifically stated that the role of the land clerk for acquiring land has been laid down in a letter dated 8-8-2001, Ext .A addressed to Chief Manager (Vigilance ) by Chief Manager (Land). Theworkman has further said in the year 1991 , Oil India Ltd. acquired 31 Bingha 3 Katha 11 Lechas of land near Margaritha (called location MTC) for the purpose of digging oil . 20. Occupiers including some pattadars and 8 pattadars were paid surface compensation and land compensation following the aforesaid procedure. The workman has testified that he played no role so far as enumeration list are concerned . At the time of making the payment the pattadars/occupiers were identified by the GaonBura. As accounts clerk is duty was to make list of standing crops/trees on the land and make necessary calculation, As accounts clerk it was not his job to identify pattadars/occupiers . After 8 years of acquiring land by.Oil India Ltd. he was served a show cause notice dated 7-9-1999 alleging payment for surface compensation to 9 fictitious persons . He submitted his reply on 3-8-99 denying all the allegations .

MW. 8, General Manager (F & A) has testified in his evidence that the Oil India Ltd. required to acquire land for its exploration activities by paying due compensation to the pattadars/occupiers of the land. For this purpose a team comprising the representatives of land department and account department is constituted which has to go to the physically to the land site for preparing enumeration list in presence of pattadars / occupiers to be duly identified byGaon Bura. The enumeration lists are to be signed by the pattadars /occupiers duly identified by government Gaon Bura in presence of the representative ofthe land department and accounts department, The land involved in this case was acquired by the Oil India Ltd. and at that time workman , P.K.Sarma was the accounts clerk who was deployed from the accounts department with the representatives of the land department .

In cross -examination this witness has said that the persons belonging to land department and accounts department go tothe spot and verify the land and find out the pattadars and the occupiers in presence of Gaon Bura. The workman suggested this witness that the present workman have no role to play in the episode.

In cross -examination by the Management the workman has admitted that he received charge - sheet, Ext. 35. Exts . 36 & 37 were his replies . Ext. 38 is the letter of dismissal . He also received 4 charge-sheets in Ext. 39 series . The workman in cross -examination has admitted that he also received Exts . 40 and 41. The workman has also admitted that in Ext. 22 series in 20 sheets he has put his signatures which are marked as Ext. 22( 1 ) to Ext. 22(20). Hehas also admitted that he personally visited the site and jirat was prepared in his presence . In Ext. 22 series marked 'X' is a jirat prepared by them wherein the initial occupant name Mr. Urang was struck off and name of Nanda Sonowal was inserted. At the time ofpreparation of jirat he was shown the particular area of land belonging to the particular person . According to him , Ext. A is a documentdated 8-8-2001 issued by Oil India Ltd. , Duliajan indicating the preparation of jirat, mode of payment, enumeration , etc. The management suggested this witness that on the day of preparation of jirat the land clerk, the workman accounts clerk and the occupiers /pattadars put their signatures in the enumeration list . The receipts showing payment of surface compensation to 20 persons, 9 receipts were found missing. The workman has also admitted that in the year 1994 his house was raided by C.B.I and recovered some official documents belong to Oil India Ltd.

8. I have carefully gone through the evidence adduced by the Management vis - a- vis the evidence adduced by the workman. Also perused the plethora of documents exhibited by the parties . Ext.22 series clearly The workman Pranab Kr . Sarma has examined himself as a witness . According to him he was appointed as Accounts Clerk in the Accounts Department way back in, the year 1978. When land is acquired for drilling purpose compensation has to be paid to the owners and occupiers ofthe land. According to him land compensation is paid to the owner of the land and surface compensation is paid to the occupiers of the land who may also be the owner of the land. As per procedure the land clerk visited the local

2589G1 /11-24 5350

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]

parties were allowed to adduce evidence on merit .

shows that the workman put his signatures in the enumeration list ofjirat vide Ext.22 ( 1 ) to Ext.22 (20 ) . These are not disputed by the workman. It is thus , evident that the enumeration list was prepared in his presence and he was quite aware of the happenings . Ext.35 is show cause notice , Ext.36 & 37 are the explanation by the workman . Ext.39 is the series of similar charges . MW.1 , in his evidence has specifically stated that Nanda Sonwal , Padmeswar Gohain, Bholok Gohain, Chitra Gohain, Modon Gohain,Mohendra Sonwal , Gojen Sonwal, Durlab Gohain and Robin Sonowal were not the residents of his village eventhough surface compensation was paid to them in a fictitious manner .

The evidence of MW. 5 , clearly shows that Oil India Ltd. vide Ext. 13 requested the Circle Officer to inform as to whether the 9 fictitious persons mentioned in Ext . 13 had land and possession in their name in Khumchai village . In response to his letter, Circle Officer, M.W.5 vide his letter Ext. 14 informed Oil India Ltd. that no such land is standing in the name aforementioned 9 persons . The evidence of M. W.5 clearly shows that 9 fictitious persons had no land in their name nor they had any possession, even though surface compensation was paid to them.

MW. 8 in para 16 of his evidence - in - affidavit has said the Accounts Clerk i.e. the workman signed the enumeration and calculation sheets and the Superior Officerhas to rely on his comments because he is deployed for such job . He has further said that the workman P.K.Sarma can not be trusted because various charges of defalcation were detected against the workman .

M.W.7 , Soroj Kr. Deka has said the procedural aspects in regard to payment of surface compensation in respect of pattadars, Ext. 34 is a letter dated 19-8-2000 issued by the Chief Manager ( Land) . In Annexure- I (i ) (2) ofExt.34 reads as follows:

"The representative of the Land and the Accounts visit the site and enlist the numbers of standing crops and assets in the presence of concerned occupiers and village headman . In absence of village headman the assistance of nearby village headman or prominent persons of the locality who is well aware of the inhabitants of respective locality and able to identify the occupier is taken. "

9. During the course of the argument the learned counsel for the workman has contended the F.S.L. Expert has not been examined and for this lapse the expert opinion can not be relied upon. In support of his argument he relied on (2009 ) 9 SCC 709. I considered the same. The learned counsel for the Management on the other hand has submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the workman. According to him Section 45 of the Evidence Act says"expert opinion is a mere opinion" . Having heard both sides I do not find any cogent and convincing reason to disbelieve the expert opinion . It has again submitted on behalf of the workman that the Gaon Bura has not been examined, on whose statement the entire case is originated. According to him non examination ofGaon Bura is fatal to the case of the Management and it is a clear violation of Principle ofNatural Justice . In support of his argument he relied on a decision reported in AIR 1969 SC 983. I have perused the observation arrived at by the Hon'ble Supreme Court . The learned counsel for the Management has emphatically submitted it is admitted position that the workman put his signatures in the enumeration lists vide Ext. 22( 1 ) to 22 (20) . From the evidence on record aswell as from the exhibited documents it is thus , abundantly clear that the workman had active participation in preparation of enumeration list wherein he put his signature. The learned counsel for the workman argued that the workman simply put his signature as such , no liability can be fastened to him. I can not see eye to eye with him on this point. Evidence transpires that another 4 charge- sheets of similar offence has filed against the present workman, which has not beendisputed by the workman. From his conduct it is also apparent that the workman is having tainted integrity. The learned counsel for the Management at the fag end of his submission contended inter-alia that when the charge of misconduct has been proved the punishment should be dismissal. In support of that he relied on AIR 1996 (SC) 1249 in Municipal Committee , Bahadurgarh - v- Krishnan Bihari and Ors . , wherein it has been observed " .... In case ofsuch nature indeed, in cases involving corruption- there can not be any other punishment than dismissal . Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest . The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant ... ".

Reliance can also be placed ( 1997) 11 SCC 370 and AIR 2001 ( SC) 930. The Learned Counsel for the Management has also submitted the Land Clerk who committed embezzlement of Company's money along with the present workman has already been dismissed from service and his dismissal was challenged in this Tribunal which was disposed of holding that the dismissal was rightly done by the Management. Since the present workman is in the same footing he has to face the same consequences .

From the plain reading it is thus seen that the Accounts Clerk i.e. workman P.K.Sarma can not absolve his liability because , he had active participation in the process ofmaking enumeration list . The learned counsel for the Management during the course of argument drawn my attention to Ext.36 wherein the workman admitted his participation in preparation of enumeration list jointly with the Land Department . This admission of the workman clearly shows that he played an important role while preparing enumeration list . The active participation ofthe workman in processing enumeration list par -se involves his responsibility. Learned Counsel for the workman submitted that the Tribunal vide his order dated 17-9-2007 held that the domestic enquiry was not fair. Thereafter the

10.Having heard both sides and having considered the evidence on record and having due regard to the [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

exhibited documents , I am constrained to hold the charge ofmisappropriation has been fully established. According to me the workman has been rightly dismissed from service. Asa matter of fact , I do not find any inherent illegality or impropriety having been committed by the Management in dismissing the workman. In the result, the dismissal order passed by the Management stands affirmed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 30th day ofMay,2011 .

5351

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1, 1933

APPEARANCES :

Mr. M.B. Anchan , Advocate. FortheEmployer :

For the Workmen:

Mumbai , dated the 12th April, 2011 Mr. V. Narayartan Advocate. AWARD

D. K. DEB ROY, Presiding Officer

नईदिल्ली, 24 जून , 2011

का.आ. 1931.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मुम्बई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट, मुम्बई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. 2, मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 47/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-31011/9/99- आईआर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 24th June , 2011

S.O. 1931. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 47/2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court-No . 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Mumbai Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22-06-2011 .

[No. L-31011/9/99-IR(M)] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI Present : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT- 2/47 of 2000

Employers in relation to the Management of Mumbai Port Trust

The Chairman

Mumbai Port Trust Shoorji Vallabhadas Marg 、 Mumbai-400 038.

AND Their Workmen.

The General Secretary

Mumbai Port Trust General Workers Union Kavarana Building, 1st floor 26/4, P.D'Melo Road Wadi Bunder

Mumbai-400 009.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour Employment by its Order No. L-31011 /9/99-IR(M) , dated 24-02-2000 in exercise of the powers conferredby clause (d) ofsub-section (1 ) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management ofMumbai Port Trust in reverting the six workmen namely, S/Shri Ramaswamy Raghupathi, Krishna Raj Djeramin, ThattakathAchuthan Azhakesham, Narayan Chandra Dey, SuvaramanBabu, Tapan Haldar, from thepostof MotorEngine Driver Grade-I to the post ofGreaser in the lower pay scale is justified? Ifnot, towhat reliefthe workmen are entitled?"

2.Both the parties were served with notices ofthe reference. In response to the notice , the second party union has filed its statement ofclaim at Ex- 14. According to them, the six workmen namely ( 1 ) Shri Krishnaraj Djeramin, (2) Thattakath Achuthan Azhakesan (3 ) Ramaswamy Raghupathi , (4) Sivaraman Babu, (5) Narayan ChandraDey, (6) ThapanHaldar were directly recruited by the first party management after interview, medical and character verification . Appointment orders were given to than MotorEngine Drivers . They are working as Motor Engine Drivers since the date of their respective appointment.

3. They are doing their respective jobs efficiently. No adverse remark was passed against any of them. Surprisingly on 8-12-98, MbPT had issued notice to these workmen proposing that they would like to demote these workmen from ME Drivers to the post ofGreasers . Since recruitment, these workmen were working as M.E. Drivers . Theyhad never worked as Greasers . The workmen made a representation dated 10-12-1998. The Union took up the matter to Regional Labour Commissioner (C). The Union has filedWrit petition 2980 of 1999. It came to be disposed ofas management submitted that two identical references are pending before this Tribunal . MbPT. has followed different yardstick in respect of these workmen . MbPT earlier has strongly recommended on 10-08-1998 these workmen to be tested, as Engineers Incharge . Now the workmen were threatening to be demoted vide order dt. 8-12-1998 they issued showcause notice for the same . It wasreceivedmuch after the orderdt . 11-1-1999. They have replied the notice. No action is taken till date on the replies oftheworkmen .

4. The workmen had unblemished working record. They are reverted arbitrarily. Therefore the union prays 5352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

Drivers and none ofthem is reverted to lower grade as has been alleged.

that the action of MbPT in reverting the six workmen from the post ofM.E. Driver to the post of Greasers in the lower pay scale be declared as notjustified and MbPT and MMD be directed to take the test of the workmen for the post of Engineer Incharge .

8. In this respect the second party union has not produced any evidence to show that these six workmen or any of them is reverted to the post of Greasers. On the other hand WW- 1 Mr. Ramaswamy Raghupathi who is one of the workmen in the list has admitted in his cross examination at Ex- 21 that not a single workman is reverted. He further says that still he is working as Motor Engine Driver Grade- I . Another witness WW- 2 Mr. T.A. Azhakesan also says in his cross -examination at Ex-24 that there was a proposal for reverting from Grade- I M.E. Driverto Class- IV. He admitted in his cross that he himself and other five co- workmen are not reverted as per the proposal.

5. First party management resisted the statementof claim vide its written statement at Ex- 16. They denied the allegations that six workmen have been reverted from the post of M.E. Driver Grade - I to the post of Greasers in the lower scale. The dispute is raised merely on the basis of apprehensions without there being any actual reversion ofemployees concerned. Upon intervention of ALC (C), Mumbai and conciliation officer no change in the conditions of service of the employees involved in the dispute were made and the six workmen are continued in the employment in the post of M.E. Drivers Grade- I . The reference is misconceived and bad in law as these workers are not reverted. Therefore question of declaration does not arise . They have denied all the contentions parawise in the statement of claim and pray that as there is no reversion , question ofjustifying its action does not arise. Therefore they pray that the reference be rejected. In the light of rival pleadings of the parties , my Ld. Predecessors has framed the following issues at Ex- 17 for my determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Issues

Findings

9. From the facts and circumstances ofthe case it is revealed that as these workmen have no license issued under Inland Vessels Act , 1917 , the management has proposed for their reversion . However due to intervention of court and conciliation officer, the order of reversion was not passedas per the proposal . The workmen have raised this dispute contending that they were reverted and sort for declaration that their reversion was not justified. They also pray for to take test of the workmen for the post ofEngineer Incharge . However this last prayer is not the subject of the reference . Therefore , no finding can be given on the last prayer. So also no direction can be given to the first party management to take test for the post of Engineer Incharge .

1. Whether the reference is misconceived and hence not maintainable as averred inW.S. para.2?

Yes .

10. As there was no actual reversion , question of declaration ofreversion not justified does not arise . In the circumstances , question of declaration or any other relief infavour ofthe workmen does not arise . In this backdrop, I come to the conclusion that the reference is misconceived and hence not maintainable accordingly 1 decide this isuse no.l in the affirmative .

Issue no . 2 & 3

2. Whether the action of the management ofMumbai Port Trust in reverting the six workmen viz S /Shri Ramaswamy Raghupati , Krishna Raj Djeramin , Thattakath Achuthan Azhakeshan , Narayan Chandra Dey, Sivaraman Babu, Tapan Haldar from the post of Motor Engine Driver Grade- I to the post ofGreaser in the lower pay scale isjustified?

3.What relief the workmen are entitled ?

Doesnot arise Reference stands rejected.

REASONS

Issue no . 1

11.As the reference is not maintainable , question of granting any relief to the workmen does not arise . Furthermore, as there was no reversion as has been alleged question of granting declaration in respect of reversion does not arise . In the circumstances it needs no further discussion to arrive at the conclusion that , the reference isdevoid ofmerit and deserves to be rejected . Accordingly I decide this issue no . 2 in the negative and proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER The Reference stands rejected with no order as to cost .

Date: 12-04-2011

7. In the case at hand , the second party union has challenged the alleged order of reversion of six Motor Engine Drivers to the post of Greasers and they have sought for declaration that the said order of reversion be declared as not justified. As against this , the first party management has submitted in its written statement at Ex- 16 that, they have not reverted any workmen as has been alleged. They have specifically contended that all the six workmen under reference are working as M.E.

K.B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5353

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933

APPEARANCES:.

नई दिल्ली , 24 जून , 2011

Shri S. R. Pattnaik,

Manager(Legal)

For the 1st Party- Management

None.

For the 2nd Party- Union

AWARD

का.आ. 1932. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार उड़ीसा माइनिंग कारपोरेशन लि. , उड़ीसा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 9/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-29011 /57/2003- आई आर ( एम) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 24th June, 2011

TheGovernment of India in the Ministry ofLabour has referred an industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to the management ofOrissa Mining Corporation Limited and their workmen in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 vide their letter No. L-29011 /57/2003 - IR( M), dated 11-2-2004.

2. Thedispute referred for adjudication as mentioned under the schedule is quoted below.

S.O. 1932. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 9/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. (Orissa) and their workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government on 22-6-2011 .

[No. L-29011 /57/2003- IR (M) ]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

"Whether the demand of the Keonjhar Mines Mazdoor Union(AITUC) , At./PO Guruda, Dist. Keonjhar for regularization in cadre posts from the date of engagement/performing in the cadre posts as per direction/order of the management of Orissa Mining Corporation Limited and payment of differential wages from the date of engagement/performing in the cadre post of Sri Biranch Naik and seven others of S.GB.K. Mines ofOrissa Mining Corporation Limited (list enclosed) is justified? If not , what relief the workmen are entitledto ? "

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer , C.G.I.T. -cum -Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 9/2004

Date ofPassing Award - 26th April, 2011

Between:

TheManagement of the Dy. General Manager, Orissa Mining Corporation Limited, At./Po . Barbil , Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa.

...1st Party-Management

And

Their workmen represented through the

General Secretary, Keonjhar Mines Workers Union, PO . Guruda,

Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa -758034. 2nd Party-Union.

3. The 2nd Party-Union espousing the cause ofthe workmenhave filed the statement of claim stating that the disputant workmen are members of Keonjhar Mines MazdoorUnion( AITUC) having Registration No. 55/RKI/ 93 and the said Union is espousing their cause at various forum.All the disputant workmen were initially appointed as male mazdoor/piece rated lineman/P.R. Miner from 1990 onwards .Although they are performing the same and similar job of a cadre post employee but they are getting their wages as per-minimum wages declared by the Government of India under the Minimum Wages Act which is much lower than the cadre post employees . They have been engaged against cadre posts by the direction of the Management as per requirement in the mines with an assurance that they will be regularized in the cadre posts within a short period like other non -permanent group of employees . The 1st Party-Management has regularized more than 400 daily rated mazdoors/piece rated miners in the cadre posts through discussion with the Unions/by the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa/Industrial Tribunal , Rourkela/ Bhubaneswar. But the disputant workmen have not been regularized. This discriminatory attitude of the 1st Party-Management towards the disputant-workmen was strongly objected by the 2nd 5354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933 .

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

regularization in the cadre posts by the 1st Party- Management. Since the creation ofposts is the prerogative ofthe State Government it is not possible and feasible to accede to the demand of the disputant-workmen . The Orissa Mining Corporation being a State Government Undertaking follows the rules, regulations and instructions ofthe Government issued from time to time particularly in those areas for which no rules and Tulations have been framed by the Orissa Mining Corpolation Limited. The engagement of the DRMP workmen as stated earlier is purely casual in nature and based on the day to day need of the 1st Party- Management . As such their engagement is not perennial in nature . Therefore the question of regularization of their service does not arise . In I.D. Case No. 422/2001 this Tribunt in its awarddated 13-5-2005 has already rejected the identical plea and relief sought for by a larger group of DRMP workmen and therefore these workmen are not entitled to any relief in thiscase.

Party-Union and it demanded regularization of the disputant-workmen against their cadre posts and to re- designate them as such in Form- B Register and allow them wages according to nature of their job they are performing. But despite assurance , nothing was done . Therefore the 2nd Party -Union raised the dispute before the Asst . Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Rourkela. But after long discussions and deliberations the Asst . Labour Commissioner (Central) , Rourkela sensing no positive result submitted the failure report in respect of the disputant-workmen to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour. Consequently the reference was made . It has been prayed by the 2nd Party- Union that the disputant- workmenmay be granted appropriate designation of cadre posts from the date of performing the duty in the cadre posts and be paid equal wages and other facilities as per nature of their job . It has also been prayed that upon re- designation they may be paid back wages and other facilities from the date of their initial posting against the cadre posts.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed

ISSUES

1.Whether the reference is maintainable?

2.Whether the workmen in question (08 numbers) are entitled to be Regularised against permanent post?

3. Whether the works are entitled to get equal wages at par with the safer employees from the date oftheir engagem

4. Ifnot, to what relief the women are entitled?

6.After filing of the pleadings the parties have taken to hide and seek game . The 2nd Party-Union absented itself on most of the dates ofhearing ofthe case . Inspite of notice sent to it through ordinary as well as registered post itdid not appear and adduce any evidence in support of its claim . The 1st Party-Management though appeared onmost ofthe dates ofhearing but it also failed to produce any evidence in contradiction to the claim of the 2nd Party-Union . As such the reference is being decided on facts of the case without evidence .

FINDINGS

ISSUE No. 1

4. The 1st Party- Management stated in reply that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules , 1976 of the 1st Party- Management as amended in the year 1997 are meant for recruitment and promotion to substantive and regular vacancies,whereas the Daily Rated Monthly Paid (DRMP) workmen are casual and contingent menials . It has been denied that non - permanent employees have been regularized against cadre posts . They, like the disputant-workmen were engaged without following the prescribed procedure as laid down under the Orissa Mining Corporation ( Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 1997 or the Recruitment and Promotion Rules which was prevalent earlier. As it was not possible to regularize all the DRMP workmen , a decision was taken by the Management to bring such of those workmen who had been posted or working against designated posts having a regular of scale for five years or more prior to 31-12-1990 to non -permanent category of workmen subject to approval of the State Government . In the process 457 DRMP workmen were brought over to non -permanent category of employees with the approval of the State Government who satisfied the norms above mentioned. The State Government did not agree to bring some more DRMP workmen to the category of non - permanent employees . The nature of work of DRMP workmen is not similar or identical to that of regular employees , but they are getting higher wages than the minimum prescribed by : the Government of India under the Minimum Wages Act . They are getting their wages as per their entitlement in semi -skilled or non - skilled category. Since they have been engaged as Daily Rated Monthly Paid mazdoors they are not under Orissa Mining Corporation (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules and they are not entitled to the scale of pay applicable to the regular employees . It is wrong to allege that the disputant - workmen were ever assured of

7. The Ist Party - Management has not stated anything about the maintainability of the reference before this Tribunal . As such it appears that this issue was framed without pleadings . Further there is nothing evento presume that the reference is not maintainable in thisTribunal/Court. Prima-facie on the facts alleged by the 2nd Party- Union in its statement of claim it is amply clear that the dispute raised by the 2nd Party- Union is maintainable in this Tribunal/Court. Therefore this issue [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

is decided in favour of the 2nd Party- Union in the affirmative.

ISSUE No. 2

8. The2nd Party-Union has alleged that the disputant workmen were initially engaged by the 1st Party- Management against the cadre posts . They were assured to be regularized in service against their cadre posts and re -designated as such in Form -B Register. But like other 457 DRMP workmen they have not been regularized, though they are performing the same and similar job and are being paid much less wages . The 1st Party- Management has denied the allegations and stated that their engagement is purely casual in nature and based on day to day need of the 1st Party- Management . Therefore the question of regularization of their services does not arise. The 2nd Party- Union or the disputant -workmen have not produced any oral or documentary evidence to show and establish that their engagement was against the cadre post and they were assured of regularization by the Ist Party- Management . It has also been alleged by the 1st Party-Management that the DRMP workmen are casual and contingent menials and the State Government has not acceded to the demand of the 2nd Party- Union to bring some more DRMP workmen to the category of non- permanent employees and it is the prerogative of the State Government to create posts . Hence the contention of the 1stParty-Management carries weight, and does notjustify the demand of the 2nd Party- Union as a matter of right . Therefore this issue is decided against the 2nd Party- Union in the negative.

ISSUE No. 3

9. The 1 st Party-Management has denied the claim of the disputant - workmen for their entitlement to get equal wages at par with the regular employees . It has stated that the disputant-workmen are being paid their monthly wages as per their entitlement. in semi skilled or unskilled category. The nature of work of DRMP workmen is not similar or identical to that of regular employees . The 2nd Party -Union has only stated in his statement of claim that the disputant- workmen have been engaged in the cadre posts and are performing the same and similar job of a cadre post employee, but they have not adduced any evidence to show and establish their engagement as such and also that they are performing the same and similar job as the regular employees are performing . They have also not adduced any evidence to show and establish that what wages they are getting in comparison to the wages ofthe regular employees . There is also a different recruitment process of regular employees from that of casual or daily rated monthly paid employees . The latter cannot be placed on same footings with regular employees in every respect . Therefore without any substantial and positive evidence

5355

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

the disputant-workman cannot be said to be entitled to get equal wages at par with the regular employees from thedate of their engagement or from any date during their engagement. This issue is thus decided against the 2nd Party-Union in the negative.

ISSUE No. 4

10. As per discussions made under the aforesaid issuesthedisputant- workmen cannot be said to be entitled to any of the reliefs claimed.

11.Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated& Correctedby me .

J. SRIVASTAVA, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 24 जून , 2011

का.आ. 1933.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार अशोका स्टोन वर्क्स पाकुर झारखन्ड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 111/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29011/41 /2003- आई आर ( एम) ] जोक्न तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 24th June, 2011

S.O. 1933. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 111/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Ashoka Stone Works , Pakur and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2011 .

[No. L-29011/41/2003 -IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, AT DHANBAD PRESENT : KISHORI RAM, PresidingOfficer

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

Reference No. 111 of2003

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Ashoka Stone Works , Rep . by Jaggu Mal and theirworkmen.

5356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe workman : Mr. D. K. Verma, Advocate. Onbehalfofthe employers : Mr. S. N. Goswami,

Advocate.

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Stone

Dated, Dhanbad, the 1st April , 2011

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1 )( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L- 29011 /41 /2003 - IR ( M) , dated New Delhi , the 21stOctober, 2003 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s. Ashoka Stone Works , Kulparari , Pakur in terminating the services of Sh . Vikash Jaiswal w.e.f. 31-7-2002 legal and justified ? If not, to what relief Sh . Vikash Jaiswal is entitled ? "

2.The case ofthe sponsoring union is that workman Vikash Jaiswal (Vikash Kumar Jaiswal as noted in his W.S. ) was appointed as the workman of the office by the proprietor of M/s . Ashoka Stone Works , Kula Pahari in District Pakur as per printed appointment letter dated 22-2-1991 . After joining his service on 2-3-1991 he began to work according to the needs of the establishment . The Cashier-cum-Manager ofthe opposite party delivered him a letter dated 5-3-1991 denoting his salary Rs . 600 per month andthe undertaking to increase the salary, ifthe job would be properly performed by him. But the proprietor of the aforesaid establishment denied to accept him as his staff which was quite absurd and baseless statement only with a view to save his neck from the liability of the company. Though the petitioner workman had given his statement before the Superintendent of Police Pakur as per the S. P. Pakur's letter No. 578 dated 17-8-2000 as well as in the P.C. R. case No. 20/91 (under enquiry) wherein the Opposite party accepted him as his staff as well as the staff of Jaggu Mal, the father of Opposite Party Ashok Kumar. Besides that the complaint case ( of Jaggu Mal ) bears the name of the workman as a witness too . The petitioner had also got his salary from the Opposite Party as per the vouchers of Ashoka Stone Works dated 1-4-1991 , 2-5-1991 , 3-7-1991 and 4-12-1991 @ Rs . 600 per month but other vouchers being missed were not available . After continuously performing thejob by the petitioner/workman from 2-3-91 to 30-7-2002 in the aforsaid establishment, the Opposite Party verbally retrenched him on 31-7-2002 without any notice or reason for which the petitioner is legally entitled. Though the petitioner forbade the opposite party to do so yet the later did not care for his plea and drove him out

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] threatfully. Further pleaded the case of the workman is that Rs . 1750 per month was his salary during the period ofhis retrenchment . He also represented about it before the Labour Enforcement Officer (C) but despite the notice having been served upon the Oppesite party, the case remained pending for want of appearance of the latter and at last it was sent to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Patna, thento the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, wherefrom the case for adjudication . The relief sought by the workman/petitioner is related to Bonus , Gratuity, notice pay, provident fund and any reasonable claim for the period after 31-7-2002.

3. Further case of the workman as represented in the rejoinder is that the terms of the Reference is quite specific, that though he continued to work till 31-7-2002 since his appointment as per the appointment letter dated 18-2-91 , yet his service was illegally terminated by the management . He completed 240 days attendance in each year continuously. But the management did not pay him retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. On the other hand, specifically disputing the allegations as alleged on behalf ofthe workman the case of the management is that the sponsoring Union has no locus standi to raise the dispute , because it is not bonafide to do so and theworkman is not its member . The alleged reference being vague is invalid also for the reason that no demand was ever made to the Opposite Party. The question not directly or specifically raised cannot be considered impliedly. The person concerned was neither appointed nor engaged as the workman of M/s . Ashoka Stone Works Kulapahari , Pakur , nor it issued any appointment letter to him nor the workman Vikash Kumar Jaiswal worked for it nor he was allotted any job assignment. He was engaged for sometime for the domestic work ofShri Jaggu Mal for hispersonal and domestic purpose only, for which he was paid as per mutual contract on monthly basis on the completion of his work to the satisfaction . There was neither any dispute of any grievance nor such demand ever made; as such there was no relationship of the master and servant relationship between the management and the workman concerned . Any relief based on manufactured document cannot be sustainable , as Vikash Jaiswal was engaged for purely and exclusively for domestic work for which he worked only three months @ Rs . 600 per month on contract basis . But thereafter he left without information. He worked at the house of Jaggu Mal whenever he desired to work for domestic purpose, but he was neither a workman nor staff of the management . As such the case has no merit at all .

5. FINDING WITH THE REASONS

In the instant case , WW- 1 Vikash Kumar Jaiswal and MW- 1 Beddro Dozza Seikh on behalf of the 5357

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

workman and management respectively have been examined.

relationship between the management and the alleged workman. Therefore , no question ofhis termination arises and all the documents submitted by him are fabricated; more over the transporting works of the Company was already closed and the quarry of Ashoka Stone Works was disposed of by sale on 17-5-2003 . So the allegation of terminating the service of Vikash Jiaswal from 31-7-2007 is illegal , unjustified and unwarranted .

Further statement of the management witness (MW- 1) in his cross -examination is that though he had not brought any Identity Card or any document to show his working as aManager ofthe Management for the aforesaid period, yet after the sale of Ashoka Stone Works , he has been working as Mining Mate in another adjoining Company Shri Guru Stone Works . According to the witness, Shri Jaggu Mal is the father ofAshok Kumar , the proprietor ofthe management; the Mines's lease was in the name of Ashoke Kumar ; through Shri Jaggu Mal and Shri Ashok Kumar comprise of a joint family yet Ashok Kumar has been living in Calcutta since long but he (MW- 1 ) never worked in nor looked over the Transport of Jaggu Mal ; and that the proprietor had sent a notice ofthe closure of the aforesaid Ashoka Stone Mines Works to the D.G.M.S and he had also received the notice ofhis termination from hisproprietor Ashoke Kumar accordingly; he had also seen the Sale Deed of Ashoka Stone Works (Mines) through which it was sold to one Dinesh Jalan of Kolkata, and as per the terms of sale the management is undertaking the liability for the payment of all legal dues to his workers , though he can file the copy of the Sale Deed of the management.

Proving his letter of engagement as Ext . W- 1 to have been issued by Vijay Kumar, the Cashier-cum-Manager, four vouchers dated (4th Jan , 2nd May, 3rd July and 4th December, 1991 (respectively) under the signature of the Cashier (Vijay Kumar) as Ext.W- 2, W-2/ 1 , W-2/2 and W-2/3, the Certified Copy of the Complaint (P.C.R. Gase No. 20/1977) lodged by the Company and the Certified Copy of his deposition therein as Exts . W- 3 and W-4 respectively, WW- 1 Vikash Kumar Jaiswal , the workman himself has stated to have continuously worked in Ashoka Stone Works from 2-3-1991 till 2002, by putting his attendance more than 240 days in each calendar year , but the company without serving any notice upon him or payment of notice or retrenchment compensation terminated his job , so his claim is for reinstatement with payment of all back wages . Expressing his ignorance about the institution of the case in the name of Vikash Jaiswal by the Union the workman (WW- 1 ) has admitted that he was working in Godown , as he was kept for the management of it, and he received the payment through voucher for the period of his work done by him in the office of Seth Jaggu Mal and that Ashoka Stone Works is the name of the Company which has not quarries and the persons engaged in quarry work whose. Form B Register is maintained and their attendance was made in the quarry, but again the witness voluntarily stated that he was working in the office , though he denied that he never worked in Ashoka Stone Works nor his name recorded in any documens of it nor the Ashoka Stone Works was sold in 2001 and his claim was wrong .

7. On the scrutiny of the materials available on the case record I find that the workman concerned has admitted to have worked in godown , as he was kept for the management of the godown and he had received the payment through vouchers for the period he worked in the office of Seth Jaggu Mal . He has also admitted that the Ashoka Stone Works , is the name of the company which has got quarries and the persons engaged in the quarry works , their Form B Register is maintained , the witness has produced the vouchers (Ext. W-2) series for the payment of hismonthly wages 600 and the alleged engagement letter Ext. W- 1 all underthe signature ofVijay Kumar as Manager. and the Cashier-cum - Manager respectively but none of these documents proves by which letter of appointment and since which date he was engaged in the office of management . Whereas by his documents the Certified Copy ofthe Complaint related to P.C.R. Case No.20/1997 under Section . 406 I.P.C. and that of his deposition in that case (Exts . W- 3 and W-4 respectively) the workman (WW- 1 ) has proved impliedly as the staff of Jaggu Mal . Just contrary to it I find that Boddro Doza Seikh (MW- 1 ) has clearly asserted that though Shri Jaggu Mal is the 6. But on the other side MW- 1 Boddro Doza Seikh stated in his affidavited statement as the then Manager- cum-Cashier at the quarry of M/s . Ashoka Stone Works , Kulapahari from 1-8-1982 to 17-5-2003 that Ashok Kumar the owner of the aforesaid M /s . Ashoka Stone Works having quarry at Kulapahari Pakur , maintained all prescribed registers as per the provision of relevant Act and bye- laws concerning his quarry employees and their attendances in the prescribed form . But entry of the name ofVikash Jaiswal in any register was not made; rather Shri Jaggu Mal is the transporting Agent and Stone Merchant having his own staff, office and godown at Sindhi Para, Pakur and aforesaid Vikash Jaiswal , the alleged workman was engaged by him to work his office , godown as well as at home for domestic purpose whenever required and he worked for only four months for which aforesaid Jaggu Mal Transport Agency Company had paid. Further this witness of the management has asserted that appointment letter was never issued by the management to the workman for a single day work, as the management had no control over his service if any rendered to Jaggu Mal Transporting Agency at his godown or his residence so there is no

2589G1/11-25 5358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI SATNAM SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURTNO. II KARKARDOOMA DELHI

I.D. No. 174/99

Dated:28-4-2011

In the matter of dispute between:

Smt . Sarita Sahu , C/ o Shri Ajay Kumar , RZF -40C, Mahavir Enclave, Palam,

New Delhi 110044

..Workman

Versus

father of Ashoke Kumar and both of them comprise of a joint family, Ashok Kumar was the proprietor of the management but he ( MW- 1 ) did not work in the Transport of Jaggu Mal . It palpably proves Jaggu Mal had the Transport Agency whereas his son Ashok Kumar was the proprietor of the Management. So each of them had a seperate entity in their own business concerned. The sponsoring Union has failed to establish how the workman was an employee of Ashoka Stone Works , if he admittedly worked for Jaggu Mal , the father of Ashok Kumar. The alleged letter of engagement of workman (Ext . W- 1 ) is not the letter of his appointment issued by Ashok Kumar of the management rather it was issued by one Vijay Kumar only under his signature as Cashier- cum- Manager of the aforesaid management which is vague . Merely by proving the aforesaid letter and the vouchers , it does not stand proved the master servant relationship between the employer and the workman because there is no appointment as per the rules .

Airport Authority of India, TheAirport Director, (International Airport Div.) I.G.I.Airport, NewDelhi - 110037

...Management 8. Under these circumstances I find and hold that since no relationship of master and servant has been proved between the employer M / s . Ashoka Stone Works , Kulpahari Pakur and workman Vikash Jaiswal , no question oftermination ofthe later's service arises and accordingly the award is responded.

AWARD

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 24 जून , 2011

The Central. Government, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L- 11012/5/1999- IR (M) dated 7-7-1999 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

का.आ. 1934. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण दिल्ली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न. 2 दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 174/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/5/99- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

"Whether the action of the management of Airport Authority of India, ( IAD), New Delhi , as Principal Employer in engaging Smt . Sarita Sahu , Contract Labour working as telephone operator w.e.f. 1-3-1996 through contractor in prohibited category of employment is justified and legal and whether Smt . Sarita Sahu can claim to be regular employee of management/principal employer? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled and from what date ? "

New Delhi , the 24th June , 2011

S.O. 1934.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 174/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court No.2 Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Airport Authority of India Delhi and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2011 .

Statement of claim was filed by the workman on 8-2-2010, Written statement to the same was filed by the management . However, after 8-2-2010 the workman has not attended the court. On the last date of hearing final opportunity was granted to the workman to pursue his case but still none is present for the workman . It is , therefore evident that the workman is no longer interested in the outcome ofthis reference .Accordingly, a no dispute award is passed in this case . The reference stands answered accordingly.

Dated: 28-4-2011

[No. L - 11012/5/99 - IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

SATNAM SINGH, Presiding Officer 5359

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933 .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

ThiruvengadaNagar ,

नई दिल्ली , 27 जून , 2011

Ambattur

Chennai- 1

2. The Project Director : 2nd Respondent/2nd Party का. आ. 1935.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार जीरकोनियम प्रोजेक्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Zirconium Project, Zirconium Complex, Department ofAtomic Energy, Palayakayal, Tuticorin-628152

APPEARANCE :

[सं. एल -42012/250/2010 - आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

Forthe 1st Party/Petitioner Set Ex-parte New Delhi , the 27th June , 2011

Sri B. Sekar, Advocate

Forthe 1st & 2nd

Party/Management

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-42012/250/2010- IR (DU) dated 14-3-2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

S.O. 1935. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s Zirconium Project , Palayakayal and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2011.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is:

[No. L-42012/250/2010- IR (DU)] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s .Alagu Security Services (P) Ltd. Chennai and M/s. Zirconium Project, Palayakayal, Tuticorin in terminating the services of45 Security Staffs (as per annexure ) w.e.f. 20-12-2009 is legal and justified ? What relief the workman are entitled to ? " BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 22nd June, 2011

Present: A. N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 25/2011

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute,this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 25/2011 and issued notices to both sides . The petitioner did not appear in spite ofa number of adjournments and eventually he has been called absent and set ex-parte. The 1st and 2nd Respondent entered appearance through Advocate .

[In the matter ofthe dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management ofM/s . Alagu Security Services (P) Ltd. , Chennai and M/ s Zirconium Project , Palayakayal , Tuticorin and their Workmen. ]

3. Needless to say, no Claim Statement is forth coming expressing any statement of claim complete with relevant documents , list of reliance and witnesses from the petitioner. No Memo ofObjection has been filed on behalf of the Respondents .

BETWEEN

: Petitioner/ Ist Party

Union (CITU),

TheGeneral Secretary District General Workers 145-1 /A, Ettayapuram Road, Tuticorin-628002

AND

1st/ Respondent/ 1st Party

1. The Security Officer : Alagu Security Services (P) Ltd. ,

Plot No. C-104,

4. Reportedly and discernibly the reference in question is involved in the same question of reference taken on file as ID 35/2010 between the same parties and in relation to the same dispute which is at the stage of enquiry and adjudication with both parties present before this forum, Therefore , the question to be answered in this ID couldbe got answered by the adjudication ofthe above said ID and presuming the same to be the reason for not pursuing this ID before this forum by the petitioner and taking it for granted that it is not pressed and also for the reason the petitioner is absent and is ex -parte , the same is Crescent Road, 5360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1, 1933

[PART IISEC. 3(ii) ]

ANNEXURE

herebydismissed ex -parte for default without the reference being answered in the absence of evidentiary materials and further leaving the same to be adjudicated in ID35/2010.

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT GUWAHATI, ASSAM.

5. The reference is answered as above .

Present:

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 22nd June, 2011 )

Sri D.K.Deb Roy, M.A. , LL.B. , PresidingOfficer, CGIT-cum -Labour Court, Guwahati .

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :-

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute between:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: None

TheManagement North Eastern Space Application Centre,Barapani , Shillong, Meghalaya.

For the 1st Party/Management : None

Vrs

: None

For the 2nd Party/Management

Their Workman , Smt . Deisy Dora Mukhim, Shillong.

Documents Marked:

Ref. Case No.9 of2008.

From the Petitioner's side

APPEARANCES

Ex. No.

Date Description

Forthe Management :Mrs. R. Borah , CGC Nil

For the Workman

:Miss L. Khiangte, Advocate .

From the Management's side

Date ofAward: 16-6-2011 .

Ex. No.

Date Description

AWARD

Nil

नई दिल्ली , 27 जून , 2011

1. The present Reference Case is arising out of Order No.L-42012/43 /2008 - IR(DU) ; Dated: 1-8-2008, issued by Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment, to adjudicate the issue as described in the Schedule below .

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 1936. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डायरेक्टर नॉर्थ इस्टर्न स्पेस एप्लीकेशन सेन्टर, गुवाहाटी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सी.जी.आई.टी. असम के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 9/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

"Whether the action of the management of the Director, North Eastern Space Application Centre , Shillong in terminating the services oftheir workman Smti Deisy Dora Mukhim , w.e.f. 01-03-2007 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

[सं. एल-42012/43/2008- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचि

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2011

2.On receipt ofthe reference case notice was served with the parties and they appeared before this Court and presented their written statements . Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims and the matter was heard ..

3. Factual scenario: -

S.O. 1936. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 9/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Guwahati as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Director , North Eastern Space Application Centre, Shillong and their workmen , which wasreceivedby the Central Government on 27-6-2011.

[No. L-42012/43/2008- IR(DU)] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

The simple case of the workman as unfolded from herwritten statement may briefly be stated as follows that the workman was verbally appointed as casual employee viz Cleaner-cum- Sweeper in the Office of the North Eastern Space Application Centre , Barapani, Meghalaya (herein called the Management) w.e.f. 31st May, 2001 and she joined on the same day on a daily wage basis @ Rs.50 perday. Having been appointed as Cleaner- cum-Sweeper she had been discharging her duty to the satisfaction of [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

the authority. But unfortunately, on 1-3-2007 the Director of the Management sacked her from service and she was not allowed to continue the work. According to the workman she has been illegally terminated by the Management without any rhyme and reason. She was not even heard and it is a clear violation ofPrinciple of Natural Justice . She has further asserted that there is a clear infraction of the Provision ofArticle 14,16,21,309 and 311 of the Constitution . The workman prayed that illegal order of termination dated 1-3-07 be set aside and direction may be given to the Management to allow her to continue in service as she was before.

4. The North Eastern Space Application Centre (Herein called the Management), has contested the proceeding by filing written statement refuting the claim ofthe workman .

According to the Management the workman Deisy Dora Mukhim was engaged as a Cleaner for carrying out cleaning work in the Guest House of the Management purely on temporary basis at a fixed remuneration . The Management is an Autonomous Body under the Administrative Control of Space and therefore required to follow the various Rules and Orders as framed by the Government . The Management has no right to engage any person without following the procedure as established by law. According to the Management the recruitment, should be made on the basis of names sponsored by the local Employment Exchange but that was not done in this case. It is further asserted that no appointment even if it was casual can be done contrary to the Constitutional Scheme . The demand of the workman for regularization of her service can not be accepted legally. The further case of the Management is that since the workman is a part time casual worker she is not even entitled to get the remuneration as prescribed by the minimum wage Act. According to the Management they do not maintain any attendance Register for the part- time casual workers . For thepurpose ofpayment ofwages their presence is verbally informed by the Care Taker of the Guest House who was engaged through Indian Ex - Service League , Meghalaya. The so called zerox copies of attendance register as submitted by the workman is not genuine nor it was issued by the Management . The Management relied on Umadevi's Case . In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court the workman can not be regularized in her service. The Government of India, Department of Space imposed ban of filling up the post of Gr.D under the Management. Even if, Gr.D posts are filled up that has to be done through local Employment Exchange and open advertisement . That being the legal position , the question of regularistion ofthe workman does not arise at all . The Government of India decided to engage Gr.D Posts from

5361

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933

theOut sourcingAgency and that is why the Management disengaged theworkman from her service. She was verbally instructedbytheManagement to approach the Contractor so that she may be engaged from the Out sourcing Agancy but she refused to do so . The Management prayed that the prayer ofthe workman appears to be devoid ofmerit and the same may be dismissed.

5. During the pendency of the proceeding the workman submitted a petition praying for holding Circuit Court at Shillong on the ground that she is a poor lady and unable to attend the Court at Guwahati . Having heard both sides the prayer was allowed and Local Trial was held on 27-6-2009 at Shillong Circuit House . Accordingly the workman was examined and cross -examined by the Management . When the deposition was being typed out the workman deliberately left the Court without signing thedeposition. That on 31-7-2009 the workman appeared before this Court and she was asked to sign the deposition having readthe same but she refusedto sign the deposition rather she at once left the Court . Thereafter the workman remains absent. Several dates were given for appearance ofthe workman but she never appeared before the Court. That on 8-6-2011 the learned Counsel for the Management appeared but none appeared for the workman. Learned Counsel for the Management urged before the Court that from the conduct of the workman it is seen that she is not interestedto proceed with the proceeding and the matter may be decided on merit . Accordingly the matter has been taken up for adjudication onmerit.

6.TheManagement has examined one witness . The workman examined herself and she was cross -examined by the Management.

7. Decision and reasons thereof:

Heardthe Learned Counsel for the Managementwho has submitted admittedly that the workman is a part -time casual employee of daily wage basis . Her claim for regularization does not arise and if any order for regularization is passed by this Court it would be contrary to the existing provision of law. None appeared for the workman. Let the matter be decided on merit.

8. Here I am tempted to discuss the evidence on record . M.W.1 , is the Administrative Officer of the Management has said that he joined on 3-7-2009 andhe is conversant with the facts of the case . According to him theworkman Deisy Dora Mukhim was engaged as a part time cleaner-cum-sweeper in the Guest House on daily wage basis. No appointment letter was issued to the workman nor her name was sponsored by the local Employment Exchange . She was engaged purely on temporarybasis and no attendance register was maintained for casual employee. OSD is not a DisciplinaryAuthority 5362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii)] and he was engaged on contractual basis and can not issueany Certificate. Only the Director ofthe Management is authorized to issue Certificate . He has further stated that appointment to Gr. D Post has been totally banned by the Government of India and they do not have any sanctioned post againstGr. D Post. The witness for the Management has not been cross-examined by the workman as she remained absent on that day.

Thereafter several dates were given but she did not appear nor she cross - examined the Management witness.

is further argued that due to the ban imposed by the Government of India in respect to the appointment to the Gr.Dpest, the Management does not have any legal right to appoint any person in Gr.D post permanently. In this regard, learned counsel for the Management relied on a decision reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors . -vs- Umadevi and Ors . , wherein it has been emphasised that fortuitous service rendered on a fixed payor on daily wage though may have continued for long, will by itself not vest in an incumbent a right for regularization.

12.In this context let me refer the followingdecisions oftheApex Court: -

Reported in (2009 ) 4 SCC , State of Karnataka and Ors .-vs-G.V. Chandrashekhar, wherein the Apex Court has reiterated that ad hoc appointment even if it continues for a long time can not be ordered to be regularized.

The workman in her evidence has stated that she was verbally engaged as Cleaner -cum- Sweeper on daily wage basis . She has also stated that Annexure - I , is the Attendance Register where her name is appearing in serial No. 2. Annexure- I, zerox copy of the Attendance Register but that has not signed by any authorized officer of the Management . Annexure- II is the payment order. In cross- examination the workman has admitted that no advertisement for the post was made nor her name was forwarded by the local Employment Exchange. The Management suggested that she is not legally entitled for regularization.

Reported in ( 1994) 4 SCC 138 , Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Hariyana, wherein it has been observed " equality Clause as enshrined in Article 16 mandates that every appointment to the public post or office should be made by open advertisement so as to enable all eligible persons to compete for selection on merit" .

Since she has not signed the deposition, it does not have any evidentiary value.

Reliance can also be placed in a recent decision of ApexCourt reported in 2010 LAB IC 2181 , wherein, it has been observed Article 16-regularization of service- appellant engaged as daily wager- not appointed in sanctioned post- merely because they had worked for 10 years, they would not get the benefit of regularization of service.

9. I have considered the evidence adduced by the parties. From the evidence it is seen that the workman was temporary engaged as Cleaner-cum-Sweeper in the Guest House of the Management at daily wage basis . She has also admitted that no recruitment procedure was adopted before her temporary engagement nor her name was sponsored by the local Employment Exchange . The learned counsel for the Management during the course of argument has pointed out that in such engagement question of regularization does not arise . She has also submitted that due to the ban imposed by the Government of India, no person can be engaged in Gr.D Post . She relied on a decision reported in W.P. (C ) 1595/2007 , Amarjit Kaur-vs-The Union of India & Ors . , wherein it has been observedby the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court that in case oftemporary daily wage earner, his regularization of service cannot be recognized legally.

13.Having considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the High Court, I am constrained to hold that no relief can be granted to the workman . The action of the Management disengaging the workman does not warrant any interference by this Court . As a matter of fact I do not find any inherent illegality or impropriety having been committed by the Management in disengaging the workman. In the result, the action of the Management stands confirmed and affirmed . The reference , thus , answered accordingly.

ORDER

The matter stands disposed of. However, no cost. Send the Award to the Ministry as per law.

10. From the evidence it is thus seen that the workman wastemporarily engaged as Cleaner- cum- Sweeper in the Guest House at a daily wage basis of Rs . 50. It is also admitted position that no recruitment procedure was adopted before her temporary engagement, nor her name was sponsored by the local Employment Exchange .

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 16thday ofJune, 2011 at Guwahati .

11. Learned counsel for the Management during the course of argument has rightly pointed out that in such engagement; question of regularization does not arise . It

D. K. DEB ROY, Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

5363.

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933

नईदिल्ली, 27 जून , 2011

"Whether the action of the management of Telecommunications Commission , Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Bharat Upadhayay isjustified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

का. आ. 1937. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार टेलीकम्युनीकेशन कॅमीशन , भोपाल 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 222/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012 / 115/1991- आईआर ( डी यू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2011

2. The case of the workman, in short is that hewas appointed as casual daily rated employee against a clear regular post on 1-1-1984 under SDO (Phones), Puranakila, KamlaPark, Bhopal. He worked till 29-10-90 whenhe was arbitrarily terminated without assigning any reason . He hadcompleted continuous service for a period of one year under the provision of Section 25 B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. ( in short the Act, 1947). It is stated that no notice was given before retrenchment nor compensation was paid under the mandatory provision of the Act, 1947. The workman gave legal notice but the management did not replythe same .The action of the management is amount tovictimization and unfair labour practice . It is submitted that the workman is entitled to be reinstated with back wages and consequential benefits..

S.O. 1937.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 222/91 ) 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 management of Telecommunications Commission, Bhopal and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-6-2011 .

[No. L-40012/ 115/ 1991 - IR(DU) ] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/ R/222/91

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement to contest the reference case . The case ofthe management, interalia , is that the workman was admittedly engaged as casual labour in January 1984 and continued to work till June 1984. Thereafter he stopped coming to work till November 1984. Again he was engaged in December 1984 and worked as casual labour on daily wages till October 1990. Thereafter no work was left and he was retrenchedon payment of one month wages in lieu ofnotice and compensation on account of retrenchment u/s 25 F of the Act, 1947. He was casual labour and therefore no enquirywas required. 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 framed for adjudication- Shri Bharat Upadhyay, S/o Shri Brij Nandan Upadhyay, Ex. Worker , S.D.O. Phones, Kamla Park, Purana Kila, Bhopal

....Workman

L. Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman is justified?

Versus

II. To what relief the workman is entitled?

The General Manager,

5. Issue no. I

Telecommunications Commission , C/o Telecom District Manager,

Bhopal

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of June , 2011

1. TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No.L-40012/ 115 /91 - IR(DU) Dated 19-25/ 11/ 91,has referred the following dispute for adjudication by thistribunal :-

The workman has adduced oral evidence in the case. The Workman Bharat Upadhyay has stated in his evidence that he was appointed as casual or daily rated employee on 1-1-1984 and worked till December 1985. He has stated that he had given in writing that he had not worked from June 1984 to November 1984. He has further stated that on termination he was paid one month pay and compensation fromthe department. This clearly shows that he was fully supported the case of the management that on termination [PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] 5364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

ANNEXURE

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

onemonth pay in lieu of notice was paid and compensation was paid of the retrenchment . This shows that he was terminated after adopting the provision of Section 25- F of the Act and the action of the management appears to be justified.

No. CGIT/LC/R/169/2000

PresidingOfficer : Shri Mohd. ShakirHasan

Shri Omprakash Joshi ,

S/o Late Bhanwarlal Joshi ,

NorthMusakhedi ,

6.On the other hand, the management has examined Shri A.K.Saxena. He was Djyisional Engineer (Admn). He has supported the case ofthe management . It appears that there is noviolation of the provision of the Act, 1947. This issue is decided in favour of the management and against theworkman.

Alkapuri Colony,

....Workman 7. Issue No. И

NearBunglow, Indore

Versus

General Manager,

Telecom,

O/o the GMT,

Onthe basis ofthe discussion made above, it is clear that there is no violation and the action of the management in termination of his services is justified . The workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly answered.

Indore

...Management

AWARD

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

Passed on this 3rd day of June, 2011 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

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L - 40012/295/2000- IR(DU) Dated 25-9-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythistribunal: -

नई दिल्ली , 27 जून , 2011

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager , Telecom in terminating the service of Shri Om Prakash Joshi w.e.f. 20-4-96 is justified? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled to?" का.आ. 1938. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार जनरल मैनेजर , टेलीकॉम 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 169/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. The workman appeared through counsel in the reference case on 12-6-03 but did not file statement ofclaim inspite of sufficient time granted to the workman . Lastly the reference proceeded exparte against the workman on 5-10-09.

[सं. एल-40012/295/2000- आईआर ( डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2011

3. The management filed Written Statement in the case. The case of the management in short is that the workman was engaged as a casual labour for a specific period and for a specific work with a condition that his services would come to an end automatically on completion ofthe work. It is stated that he had never worked more than 240 days in a calendar year and the provision of the industrial Dispute Act , 1947 doesnot applicable in the instant case. It is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the management .

4. The following issues are for adjudication- S.O. 1938. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 169/ 2000) 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 General Manager , Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on27-06-2011 .

[No. L-40012/295/2000- IR(DU) ]

L. Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 20-4-96 is justified?

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

5365 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933

II. To what relief the workman is entitled?

ANNEXURE

5. IssueNo. I

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

STRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 18/2001

PresidingOfficer : Shri Mohd. ShakirHasan

Shri N.K.Bhatli,

Workman

S/O Shri B.R.Bhatli, 810/A, Gali No. 16 , SadarBazar, Nr.Kali MaiMandir, Jabalpur

To prove the case, the management has examined onewitness. Shri Basant Kumar Yadav is working asAsstt.. General Manager ( Admn . ) , BSNL , Indore . He has supported the case of the management . He has stated that the workman was engaged for a specific work for a specific period. There is no evidence in rebuttal of his evidence. It appears that the provision of section 2(00 )(bb) ofthe Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is attracted in the case and he is not said to be retrenched employee . This shows that the action of the management in terminating hisservices is justified . This issue is decided in favour of the management.

Versus.

6. Issue No. Π

The Commandant,

Central Ordnance Depot,

Jabalpur

Management Onthebasisofthe discussion made above , it is clear that the workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered .

AWARD

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

Passed on this 15th day of June, 2011 8. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L - 14012/ 64 /2000 - IR(DU) Dated 27-12-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN, PresidingOfficer

नईदिल्ली , 27 जून , 2011

"Whether the action of the management of Central OrdnanceDepot, Jabalpur in terminating the services oftheir workman Shri N.K. Bhatli , S/o Shri H.R. Bhetli w.e.f. 11-7-90 is legal and justified ? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled to?"

का.आ. 1939. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल आर्डनेन्स डीपोट, जबलपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सीजीआईटी, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 18/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-14012/64/2000-आंईआर ( डी यू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 27th June , 2011

S.O. 1939. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government herebypublishes the award (Ref. No. 18/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Ordnance Depot, Jabalpur and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2011 .

[No. L- 14012/64/2000- IR(DU) ]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

2. The case of the workman in short is that the workman Shri N.K.Bhatli was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 15-4-1968 . Subsequently he was transferred todifferent places and finally he was posted at Central Ordnance Depot ( in short COD) , Jabalpur w.e.f. 1-10-1984. He was charge sheeted on 26-7-88 on false and fabricated allegation . He could not submit his reply for want of requisite documents . The management initiated departmental enquiry vide letter dated 21-9-1988. Capt. Ajay Gahlot was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Subsequently Captain J.N. Singh was appoined Enquiry. Officer.Thedelinquent workman participated in the enquiry and denied the charges of theft of Govt . property. The prosecution did not produce any witness to prove the charges . The Enquiry Officer closed the proceeding and. held him guilty of the charges . The delinquent workman wasdismissed from service by order dated 11-7-1990 . The workman preferred appeal but the same was rejected on25- 7-90.Again the workman preferred revision but the same was rejected. It is stated that the workman had not accepted the charges unconditionally and he was given assurance 2589GI/11-26 5366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

before the Hon'ble High Court, at Jabalpur. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 24-9-2010 confirmed the same and dismissed the writ petition . This issue was, thus, alreadydecided earlier.

6. Issue No. II

bythe Enquiry Officer that in case he admitted the charges , he would be reinstated in service and charges would be dropped. It is stated that Shri Daulat Singh (Risaldar) and Capt. Joginder Singh were also involved in the same charges but theywere exonerated by the Hon'ble High Court. It is stated that the punishment order is harsh, excessive and disproportionate in comparison to the alleged misconduct. It is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of theworkman.

3. The management filed Written Statement and contested the reference. The case of the management, interalia, is that the workman was admittedly appointed as LDC at 7 Rajputana Rifles and was transferred to different places and lastly he was posted at Central Ordnance Depot, Jabalpur. In 1987 he committed serious misconduct by misappropriation of Govt . property. A charge sheet was issuedby Competent Authority under Rules . The workman submitted detail reply. Thereafter Enquiry Officer was appointed. The enquiry was conducted specially in the light of admission of the workman with respect to the alleged charges and the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report dated 28-8-89 holding him guilty of the charges . The Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal from service on 3-7-1990 . The workman preferred appeal but the same was rejected. Again he filed revision which was also rejected. It is stated that the workman had accepted the charges relating to misappropriation ofGovt. property during the course of enquiry and therefore there was no necessity to examine any witness . It is stated that the order of punishment is absolutely in consonance with the charges established. It is submitted that there is no merit in the case of the workman and the same be dismissed.

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

I. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman is fair and proper?

II . Whether the management is able to prove misconduct against the workman in the Tribunal ?

III. Whether the punishment of dismissal awarded against the workman is just and proper?

IV. To what other relief, the workman is entitled?

5. Issue No. I

Now the very important point for decision is as to whether the management is able to prove misconduct against the workman in Court . The management has not adduced any further documentary evidence after the decision of Issue No. I. Only one witness namely Lt. Col. Paramjeet Singh is examined in the case to prove misconduct against the workman. Now let us examine the evidence adduced by the management . Exhibit M/l is the forwarding letter whereby the review order was communicated to the workman . Exhibit M/2 is the order dated 30-7-93 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the Revision Petition. Exhibit M/ 3 is the representation dated 18-9-92 filed by the workman before theAppellate Authority. Exhibit M/4 is the appellate order dated 11-11- 91 rejecting the appeal . Exhibit M/5 is the memo of appeal dated25-7-90 filed by the workman . Exhibit M/6 is the letter of the workman to the authority. Exhibit M/7 is the memorandum whereby the departmental proceeding was initiated. ExhibitM/8 is the article of charge. Exhibit M/9 is the statement of imputation of misconduct in support of the article of charge framed by the management . These documents do not prove misconduct . These documents are filed for issue No. I. However these documents show that the allegation against the workman was that he fraudulently signed and cleared HQ2 Armed Bde Issue voucher No.226/2/05/Q dated 4th October 1987 and replaced abogus receipt voucher No. RE&A -947 dated 6th October, 1987. These voucher and receipt are not produced in Court for evidence nor there is evidence that it was fraudulently signed. Receipt Voucher Control Register and also DRS sheets of the relevant period are not produced which are required to be filled up for clearing the vouchers. These documents appear to be necessary to prove misconduct . It appears from the pleading of the management that the workman had admitted the charges but no such written admission of the workman which is said to have been- recorded, is produced in the reference. The person, who had alleged to have recorded the admission is also not examined. No explanation is given for his non-examination. Thus it is clear that the management had failed to prove documentary evidence to prove charges leveled against theworkman.

This issue is taken up as preliminary issue . The then Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record held that the departmental enquiry conducted by the management against the management is not proper and legal and this issue was decided in favour of the workman and against the management on 15-11-2007 . The management preferred a Writ Petition No. 5149 of 2008 (S)

7.Lt.Col.Paramjeet Singh is the only management witness .He is Commander ASD at Central Ordnance Depot, Jabalpur. He was not in service at the relevant time . He has no personal knowledge ofthe occurrence . He came to know from the documentary evidence but those documentary भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

workman has attained the age of superannuation , he is entitled to get all retirement benefits in accordance with law as if he has retired in due course. Accordingly the reference is 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.

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2011

evidence appears to have not produced in court . He has stated that there is a finding ofthe Hon'ble High Court that the signature of the workman was obtained by coercion and undue influence . However there is no document on the record to show that the workman had admitted the charges . He has further stated that Capt. Joginder Singh was also dismissed alongwith the workman Shri Bhatli but the Hon'ble Court had set aside the dismissal order of Capt. Joginder Singh on technical ground . He has further stated that there is no new document other than the documents of the departmental proceedings. Thus his evidence clearly shows that he is not competent to say about the alleged occurrence . The management has failed to explain any reason as to why the relevant documents and the competent witnesses of the occurrence had not been examined in the case . The burden is on the management to prove misconduct against the workman . Thus it is clear that the management has failed to prove misconduct against the workman .

का.आ. 1940. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार जनरल मैनेजर, टेलीकॉम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 266/99) कोप्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2011 कोप्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012/62/1999- आईआर (डी.यू. ) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the27th June ,2011

S.O. 1940.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government herebypublishes the award (Ref.No.266/99) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of General Manager, Telecom and their workmen, which was received by the Central Goverwhat on27-06-2011 .

[No. L-40012/62/1999-IR( DU)}

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

8.On the other hand , the workman has also adduced oral anddocumentary evidence . The documents which are filed in the preliminary issue , are the only document in the case . Those documents are common as has been filed by themanagement. The workman Shri N.K.Bhatli is examined in the case . He has stated that he was forced to admit the charges .However the alleged written admission is not filed bythemanagement. The management has failed to impeach the credit of the witness . There is no reason todisbelieve the evidence of the workman when the management has failedto prove that he had made admission ofthe charges voluntarily. Considering the evidence adduced in the case, I find that the management has failed to prove misconduct against the workman . This issue is decided in favour ofthe workman and against the management .

ANNEXURE

9. Issue No. III

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/266/99

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan

Workman

Smt.Meena Anand, W/o Shri Anil Anand, R/o ,Awadhpuri , Gwarighat, Jabalpur

Versus

TheGeneral Manager,

It isnot out ofplace to say that Capt . Joginder Singh wasalso charged for the same occurrence . His punishment wasadmittedly set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. This workmanwas admittedly not party tothe said writ petition . However considering the discussion made above, it is clear thatthe management has failed to prove misconduct against the workman . As such the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 11-7-90 is not legal and justified. Accordingly the order of dismissal dated 11-7-90 passed by the management and appellate order dated 11-11-90 are, hereby, set-aside . This issue is, thus , decided in favour of the workman and against the management.

10. Issue No. IV

Manageme

Telecom, O/OGMT, Indore

Considering the entire circumstances of the case, the management is directed to reinstate the workman Shri N.K.Bhatli w.e.f. 11-7-90 with full back wages . Since the THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

AWARD

[PART II Sec. 3 (ii)] Passed on this Ist day of June , 2011

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L - 40012/ 62 /99 - IR( DU ) Dated 30-7-1999 has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythis tribunal:-

management has raised objection in the pleading that the CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction todecide the reference rather it comes under thejurisdiction ofCentral Administrative Tribunal . It is not disputed that the management, Telecom department is not an Industry. Section 2(s ) ofthe Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( in short the Act 1947)defines " workman " which is reproduced below-

"Whether the action ofthe management of General Manager, Telecom, Indore in terminating the services of Smt, Meena Anand W/ o Shri Anil Anand is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitledto?"

2. The workman appeared in person on 13-6-2003 . Thereafter she absented and did not file statement ofclaim . However the then Tribunal again issued notice to the workman by registered post but she did not appear in the reference case . Lastly the then Tribunal proceeded the reference exparte against the workman on 21-11-2006 .

"Workman means any person ( including an apprentice ) employed in any industry to do any manual , unskilled , skilled technical , operational , clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute , or whose dismissal , discharge or retrenchment has ledto that dispute but doesnot inlcude any such person-

(1) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950(45 of 1950), or the army Act, 1950(46 of1950), or the NavyAct 1957(62 of1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement . The case ofthe management in short is that the workman was not a casual labour but was holder ofa regular civilpost andwas working as Telephone Operator. As such CentralAdministrative Tribunal is right forum to decided the dispute regarding service matters of the employees . The further case is that Ku . Meena Suryawanshi was appointed as Telephone Operator vide order dated 24-3-1988 by Divisional Engineer (Admn .), Telecom District, Indore. Shewas absented from duty without permission or without any leave unauthoriseldy w.e.f. 21-9-89 . It is stated that memorandum dated 30-9-89 was issued against the delinquent workman but she did not appear. After holding enquiry against her, she was found guilty ofthe charges of misconduct. The competent authority after consideringthe enquiry report awarded the punishment of removal from service vide order dated 31-3-1992. It is submitted that the reference be dismissed .

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisorycapacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either bythe nature ofthe duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature." 4. On the basis ofthe pleadings ofthe management, the following issues are framed for adjudication-

I. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman is legal and valid?

It is awrong conception that only casual labour comesunderthejurisdiction ofthis Tribunal . The workman isadmittedly Telephone Operator and was not employed in a supervisory capacity and therefore she comesunder the definition of workman . Since she was workman and therefore the reference is maintainable.

II. Whether punishment awarded to Ku. Meena Suryawanshi is proper and just?

III . To what relief, in any, Ku . Suryawanshi is entitled?

5. Issue No. I

All the issues are taken up together including this preliminary issue, as the workman is absent and the proceeding is exparte against the workman . The

6. Now the pertinent question is as to whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman is justandproper. The management witness Mangilal Kulmi isDivisional Engineer Phones (Operation) . He has stated that Ku.Meena Suryawanshi was unauthorizedly absent and charge sheet dated 30-9-90 was issued against her. After enquiry she was found guilty of the charges . The competent authority after considering the enquiry report passed the order ofremoval from service vide order dated 31-3-1992. There is no evidence in rebuttal ofthe evidence.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1, 1933

5369

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL(No.2) AT, DHANBAD ofmanagement that she was not given proper opportunity todefend herself. The management has filed photocopies of the documents in support of the case . I find and hold that the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman is legal and valid. This issue is accordingly decided.

Present: SHRI KISHORI RAM, PresidingOfficer.

7. IssueNo. II

Inthematter ofan Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947.

ReferenceNo. 14 of2001

Parties:Employers in relation to themanagment ofE.C.L. and theie workman.

APPEARANCES:

Themanagement witness has supported the fact that she was absent unauthorisedly and after enquiry, the' chargeofmisconduct was found proved against her. I donot find any reason to interfere in the punishment order. As such the punishment awarded on her appears to be just and proportionate . This issue is also decided in favour of the management.

Onbehalfofthe workman

8. IssueNo. III

:Mr. D. Mukherjee, Advocate-cum- Secretary,BiharColliery KamgarUnion

: None

Onbehalfof theemployer

Considering the discussion made above, I find that the action of the management in terminating the services ofthe workman is legal and justified. She is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered.

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal costs. 9. Inthe result, award is passed without any orderto

Dhanbad,Dated, the 20th June, 2011 .

ORDER

10. Let the copies of the award to be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment asperrules.

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2011

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudiction vide their Order No. L-20012/376/2000 (C- I), dated, the 25th Jan, 2001 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management ofKhoedia Colly, ofM/s . E.C.L. in not regularising Sri Sandeep Chandraas Cap Lamp Issue Clerk is fair andjustified? Ifnot, towhat relief is the concerned workman entitled and from what date?"

का.आ. 1941. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 14/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/376/2000-आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

2.Mr. D. Mukherjee, the Ld . Advocte-cum -Secretary oftheUnion representing the workman concerned workman is present but Mr. B.M. Prasad, Ld . Advocate for the management did not appear.

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2011

3. Heard Mr. Mukherjee the Ld. Advocate for the Union over the petition filed under his signature on 7-6-2011 on behalf ofthe concerned workman. It has been submitted by the representative of the Union that the concerned workman is not interested in contesting the reference so it maybe closed and ' No dispute' Avrard may be passed.

S.O. 1941. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cum-Labour Court 2, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure inthe industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M /s . E.C.L. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 27-06-2011 .

[No. L-20012/376/2000- IR(C-1 ) ]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , DeskOfficer

4.Onperusal ofthe case record I find that the present reference as raised by the Union concerned relates to mot regularisation of workman Sandip Chandra as Cap Lamp Issue Clerk by the management . It is also evident from the [PART II Sec. 3(ii)] 5370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

APPEARANCES:

Onbehalfofthe workman : Shri Ram Ratan Ram , Advocate.

:Shri U. N. Lal , Advocate

Onbehalf ofthe employer

Industry: Coal

State: Jharkhand

Dhanbad, Dated the 8th June , 2011 .

ORDER

caserecord thatthe case was running for hearing argument after the closure ofthe management's case on 13-1-2006 due to non-production of any MW, as WW- 1 Sandip Chandra himselfwas examined on 24-08-2004. Now in view of submission of the Ld. Counsel-cum-Secretary of the Union concerned, I find that the workman is not interested in contesting the case for his claim . Under these circumstances for the reason of disinterestedness to contest the case for his claim , no longer any industrial dispute exists now. Hence the case is closed and accordingly order is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 27 जून , 2011

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 / 156/ 2007 - IR( CM - I ), dated the 3-3-2008 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management ofBhowra (N) UG Mines of M/s . BCCL in dismissing Sh . Nanku Hembram, M/Loader w.e.f. 31-5-2006 is justifiedand legal ? Ifnot, towhat relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

का.आ. 1942. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

2. Shri Ram Ratan Ram, Ld . Advocte-cum-Joint Secretary, B.M.U. , Dhanbad for the Union, and Mr. U.N. Lal , Ld. Advocate for the management are present.

[सं. एल -20012/ 156/2007- आई.आर. ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th June , 2011

Moving the petition dated 18-12-2008 filed on behalf ofthe Union, the Ld. Counsel for the Union has submitted inter alia that since the workman has been reinstated as Miner/Loader, so he is not interested to contest the case. The Ld . Advocate Mr. U.N. Lal for the management expressed no objection to it.

S.O. 1942. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/ 2008) 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 workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 27-06-2011.

3. From the perusal ofthe case record it appears that the present schedule relates to the dismissal of Shri Nanku Hembram , Miner/ Loader w.e.f. 31-5-2006 by the management of Bhowra (N) U.G Mines of M/ s. BCCL.

[No. L-20012/156/2007- IR(C- 1 )]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT: SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.

It isalso apparent that on 18-12-2008 , the aforesaid petition was filed on behalf of the Union for passing 'No dispute' Award on the aforesaid ground . On registered notices toboth the parties, both the aforesaid Ld. Counsels forthe respective parties also appeared on 3-5-2011 . Under these circumstances, I find this case useless to proceed in, ifthe aforesaid settlement has taken place between both the parties; hence the case is closed and accordingly the order is passed as no longer industrial dispute exists between both the parties.

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

नई दिल्ली , 27 जून , 2011

Reference No. 18 of2008

का.आ. 1943. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार टी.आई.एस.सी.ओ. PARTIES: Employers in relation to the managment of E.J. Area ofM/ s . BCCL and their workman .

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

5371

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management ofDigwadih Colliery ofM/s. TISCO in dismissing Sh. Nagwat Ram, Miner w.e.f. 30-12-1999 is justified? Ifnot,to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?" के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, धनबाद नं. 2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 66/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/28/2005- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the27th June , 2011

S.O. 1943. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 66/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-2 , Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/s . TISCO and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 27-06-2011 .

[No. L- 20012/28/2005-IR(C- 1 ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVAS RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

2.The case ofthe sponsoring Union is that workman Nagwant Ramwas a permanent employee as Ex.M/Lhaving personnel No. 2/4232 in Digwadih Colliery ofMs. TISCO. He was not a habitual absentee from his duty. He was under medicare of Ex . Asstt. Suptd. Ranchi for suffering frommental disorder from 22-7-1998 to 12-11-1998. Onhis representation to Management for resumption ofduty, after his cure, theManagement never heard his grievance. Inspite of resumption in duty, the Management issued his second show cause chargesheetdt. 14-1-1999 for his alleged unauthorised absence from duty. The workman repliedto the charge-sheetwhich was found satisfactory. But he was dismissed from his service w.e.f. 30-12-99 withoutdomestic and proper enquiry. He approached constantly to the authority concerned for reinstatement in his duty from 1999 to,2004, as the authority had assured him for it , but in vain. Hence,the referene by the Govt. of India for adjudication. The action of the management of Digwadih Colliery of M/s. TISCO in dismissing the workman is notjustified. He is entitled to reinstatement in his service with full back wages forwhich the Union/Workman claimed.

Present: Shri Kishori Ram, PresidingOfficer.

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

ReferenceNo. 66 of2005

Parties : Employers in relation to the managment ofTISCO and their workman .

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe Workman : Mr. Ram Ratan Ram , Advocate.

Onbehalf of the employers : Shri D. K. Verma , Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 7th June , 2011 .

AWARD

2. In its rejoinder, it is pleaded on behalf ofthe workman that as per policy of the company, it has own liberty to change the name of it company. The authority concerned is responsible for delay in reinstatement ofthe workman on his duty, so he has rightly raised the industrial dispute . The sponsoring Union is recognised and functioning all over BCCL. The workman was issued charge sheet dt . 12/ 15-9-98 for absence from his service, but he had informed the authority ofhis sufference ofhis disease. Hisreply to the charge sheet was satisfactory and the charges levelled against him was not established. Not only domestic enquiry was inducted in accordance with the principle of natural justice, as he was not given any letter about it or anyopportunity to appear in enquiry proceeding. The ex -parte enquiry was conducted which is quite illegal . Theworkman was illegally and arbitrarily dismissed from his service w.e.f. 30-12-1999 . He was vexed and harassed by the authority. So his dismissal is illegal arbitrary and unjustified.

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- 20012/28 /2005 - IR(C- 1 ) , dated the 22nd July, 2005 .

3.Whereas specifically disputing the allegations of theUnion concerned, the case of the Management is that the legal name of the company has been changed from the Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. , to Tata Steel Ltd. as per fresh certificate of its incorporation issued by the Deputy Registrar ofthe Companies , Maharashtra, on 12-8-2005.

5372

[PART IH-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23, 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

namely, the show cause/charge sheet dated 15-9-98, notice enquiry dated 15-10-1998 to workman Nagwant Ram , another notice for enquiry dated 26-10-98, the Ordersheet of the enquiry proceeding, enquiry report dated 4-11-98 (six sheets) , the letter dated 3-12-99 to the workman for representation , the dismissal letter dated 24-12-99 and the service record of the workman have been marked as Exts . M- 1 , M-2 , M- 3, M-4 (series), M- 5 , M-6 , M-7 and M-8 respectively, for due consideration. Thereafter the case cameup for hearing argument on behalf ofboth the parties onmerit.

5.On the perusal ofthe aforesaid materials available onthe case record, I find the following facts in view ofthe admissions ofboth the parties are indisputable

(1) Workman Nagwant Ram was a permanent employee as Miner/Loader in Digwadih Colliery ofM/ s . TISCO .

(ii) Despite notices (Ext.M-2 and M- 3 ) , the workman did not appear in the domestic enquiry into the charge of his absenteeism, so it was held ex- parte. Moreover, the workman was admittedly on leave from July, 15 to21 , 1998.

The Joint General Secretary of Bahujan Mazdoor Union raised the industrial dispute by his representation dt. 11-8- 2004on behalfofthe workman without justifying the lapse after five years whereas the workman was dismissed by theManagement as per dismissal letter dt . 30-12-1999 , so the dispute is a stale one . The sponsoring Union which is neither recongised nor functioning in any establishement ofthe management, has no locus standi to raise industrial dispute concerning workman /ex - workman of the management. The workman began to absent from his duty since 22-7-1998 without permission and satisfactory cause. Ashis absence for more than ten days was a misconduct under clause 19( 16) of the Company's certified Standing Orders , he was issued the Charge sheet No. 220 dt . 12/15-09-1998-by a Regd. Post for the misconduct . He did not submit any reply to it, the management as per its decision appointed the Enquiry officer to conduct the domestic enquiry in accordance with the principle of natural justice. Despite several notices issued through registered postby the Enquiry Officer, the workman neither appeared nor intimated ofhis inability to attend the enquiry. Finding no alternative, the Enquiry Officer ex-parte conducted the enquirywhich was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle ofnatural justice and submitted his report holding the workman guilty of the charge as levelled . Thereafter after issuing the workman the second show cause notice with a copy of the enquiry report for his representation if any, the Disciplinary Authority considered the past punishment of the workman , found no extenuating factor for his lesser punishment, hence dismissed him from 30-12- 1999. From his past punishment of suspension for 5 days mostly and 10 days for his such misconducts of habitual absence in the years 1987 , 93 , 95 and 1999 specifically, he was given ample opportunity to mend himself, but no visible reformation, therefore , the management had no other alternative than his dismissal from his service of the company. So his dismissal is legal and justified.

In the rejoinder the Management had pleaded that previouslythe workman was several times awarded minor punishment with resumption of his duty so as to reform himself and not to commit such misconduct . Yet he committed such similar misconduct . The workman never reported the Management nor submitted his reply to the charge sheet.

FINDING WITH REASONING

6. On the perusal of the materials available on the case record, it is palably crystal clear that neither charge sheet (Ext.M - 1 nor the enquiry report Ext.M-5 ) deals with any such previous misconduct of absenteeism except the present proof of unauthorised absenteeism ofthe workman from 22nd July, 1998. In another word, the management has no proof of the habitual absenteeism of the workman previously. So on evaluation of the aforesaid materials produced by the management I find that the order of dismissal for the aforesaid single misconduct under clause 19(16) ofthe TISCO's standing order appears to be highly disproportionate as well as too harsh for it, towards the workman , who was a permanent employee ofthe employer. Therefore, the dismissal order dt. 24-12-99 passedby the management (Ext.M -7) against the workman concerned workmanw.e.f. 30-12-99 is not justified. In the result , it is held that the action ofthe management ofDigwadih Colliery ofM/s . TISCO , in dismissing Shri Nagwant Ram, Miner w.e.f. aforesaiddate is not at all legallyjustified. Hence,the aforesaid order ofdismissal ofthe workman from the service ofthe management is set aside , directing his reinstatement in his service from the date ofhis dismissal with continuity ofhisservice till his reinstatement by the management, but without any backwages.

Themanagement is directed to implement theAward withinthree months from the date of it's publication in the Gazette ofIndia.

KISHORI RAM, PresidingOfficer 4. In the instant case , Mr. Ram Ratan Ram , the Ld. Advocate-cum - Joint General Secretary, B.M.U. by filling a petition on 9-4-2008 on behalf ofthe workman has accepted the enquiry fair and proper. After hearing both the Ld . Counsel for the management Mr. D.K. Verma as well the aforesaid representative ofthe workman over the petition, the enquiry papers filed on behalf of the management 5373 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजमत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933

नई दिल्ली , 27 जून , 2011

का.आ. 1944.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 68/1996 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -20012/368/1992- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June , 2011

S.O. 1944. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 68/ 1996) 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 . CCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-6- 2011.

[No. L-20012/368/ 1992- IR (C- I)] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVT. 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. 68 of 1996

2. The case of workman Gulab Singh as sponsored bythe Union concerned is that he was initially appointed on 12-12-1952 at Bokaro Colliery. After its take over by the National Coal Development Corporation (N.C.D.C. ) , the Colliery under NCDC in the year 1975-76 became the part ofCentral Coal Field Ltd. a subsidiary of Coal India Limited. At the time ofhis initial appointment, his date of birth was recorded as 3-2-1935 in Form ' B ' of aforesaid colliery on the basis of Middle School Certificate/ School Leaving Certificate much prior to his joining on the year 1952, He was under impression all along his service tenure that he would retire on 3-2-1995 . In the year 1985, he knew from the office of the colliery about his birth date wrongly recorded as 12-1-1927 , on that basis the management was contemplating to retire him on 12-1-1927 prematurely. So he represented to the Dy. ChiefMining Engineer concerned on7-5-1985 for reviewing his age and for its correction on the basis of Form ' B ' of the colliery at the time of his appointment . He produced his School Leaving Certificate before the Management for the correction of his D.O.B. But the management was quite silent over it . Again he requested the management on 12-5-1986 for the correction ofhis date ofbirth and for not prematurely retirement. He knew that the management was bent upon to retire him on 12-1-1987 about seven years ahead ofhis due retirement as per his actual date of birth as 12-12-1952. Then he finally raised the industrial dispute as referred for adjudication. Hewas finally retired w.e.f. 12-1-1987 from the service of the company without consideration of his aforesaid two petitions . The management without considering his matter pending since 1985 first regreted on 13-6-1992 to review his age after a delay of five years . So the action of the Management refusing to accept his date of birth as 3-2-1935 as per his School Leaving Certificate is unjustified.

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of CCL'sBokaro Colliery and their workman.

APPEARANCES : On behalf of the workman : Mr. S. C. Gaur, Advocate. Onbehalf ofthe employers : Mr. D. K. Verma, Advocate.

The workman in his rejoinder has pleaded that the existing rule is to superannuate as per the age recorded in the statutory record of the Company at the time of initial appointment but not otherwise arbitrarily. The employers manipulated D.O.B. in their records in 1985, thus cheating theworkman who raised the dispute just after knowing of it .

State : Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal .

Dhanbad, dated, the 13th June, 2011

AWARD

The Government of India Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10 (1) (d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. -20012/ 368/92 -IR (Coal- I) dated, the 11/13-6-96.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand for acceptance of the date of birth of Shri Gulab Singh as 3-2-1935 which is appearing in the School Leaving Certificate is justified ? If so, to what relief is Shri Gulab Singh entitled to ?"

3. Whereas specifically denying the aforesaid allegations of the workman , the case ofthe Management is that the workman was appointed in the year 1952 and his dateofbirthwas 12-1-1927 as recorded in his Service Record. Asper rules ofthe Company, he was superannuatedwith effect from 12-1-1987 . He had also mentioned his aforesaid date of appointment and date of birth in his application before the ControllingAuthority for payment ofhis gratuity, and considering it, the Controlling Authority also passed the order for payment of his gratuity. After lapse ofyears together ofretirement, the workman had no locus standi to raise the industrial dispute for the correction of his birth date, as he got the payment of gratuity, accepting his retirement . Moreover, a retired employee is not a workman 2589G1/11-27 5374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

in terms of Sec. 2 S of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, so the present dispute is not an industrial dispute.

TheManagement in its rejoinder has stated that the workman got superannuation on 12-1-1987 duly after obtaining it and there is no merit in the case .

FINDINGS WITH REASONING

4. In this case WW- 1 Gulab Singh the then workman now retired on behalf of the Union concerned and MW- I Ras Bihari , Senior Personnel Officer on behalf of the Management have been examined .

5. On the perusal of the oral and documentary evidences as adduced on behalf of both the parties, the facts being admitted stand indisputable as under :-

i . Shri Gulab Singh ( the then Mazdoor) the ex- employee ofBokaro Colliery, CCL was appointed in 1952 under the erstwhile management (owner ) , which was taken over by the CCL management .

ii . He got superannuation on 12-1-1987 as per retirement notice (Ext . W- 2) , after which he got his Provident Fund amount as well as his gratuity amount .

iii . He raised the dispute in the year 1996 after his superannuation i.e. after 9 years of his super- annuation.

6. According to the averment of WW- 1 Gulab Singh , he was appointed in 1952 at Bokaro Colliery (under the erstwhile owner ) as Mazdoor and his date of birth as 3-2-1935 as per his School Certificate of Class III dated 4-1-1945 (Ext . W- 1 ) recorded in the Colliery record. His transfer certificate of Class VII dated 15-1-1981 (Ext . W- 1 /1 ) and his Marticulation Certificate as he passed in the year 1985 ( Ext . W- 1 /2 ) also bear his aforesaid claimed date of birth . As per retirement notice (Ext . W-2 ) he retired on 12th January, 1987, though on the receipt of it when it came to his knowledge he had represented as per his representations dated 7-5-1985 and 12-5-1986 ( Ext . W- 3 and W-3/1) twice before the management and thereupon he got a reply as per letter dated 13-4-1992 (Ext. W-4) from the management ; as such he was retired about 8 years prior to his actual retirement falling in the year 1995. Hence, he glaimed for his wages for the period up to 1995. As a member ofthe CMPF, he has identified his signature in Hindi (Ext . M-4) affixed to the C.M.P.F. Form - A. He denied all the records of the management showing 12-1-1927 as his birth date according to which the management retired him . He also denied it to have been prematurely retired by the management but after the completion of his 60 years . To the Court , the concerned ex- workman has responded that after joining as Mazdoor , he served for about 1 year after which his age was asssessed by the doctor but he was never asked for any document in support of his date of birth.

7. On the other hand, MW- 1 Rash Bihari , the Senior Personnel Officer has stated that as per Service Register

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ] (Ext.M- 1) of the concerned workman maintained by the management, his date ofbirth as 12-1-1927 was registered, so he was superannuated from his service on 12-1-1987 , and thereafter he submitted the application before the competent authority for Gratuity and as per copy of Form Nduly filled upby the workman (Ext.M-2) under which he declared his date of superannuation as 12-1-1987 under his signature . In pursuance of the copy of the decision ofthe Controlling Authority related to the Payment of Gratuity (Ext.M- 3 ) , the workman was paid his gratuity but the workman during his service life never raised an industrial dispute over his date of birth as recorded in the records of the management nor he submitted his Matriculation Certificate in original before the management but he raised the industrial dispute after 10 years of his superannuation though , his superannuation was fully justified, because it is noted in his Service Book about his superannuation .

8. The contention ofMr. S.C. Gaur, the Ld. Advocate for the Union concerned is that the workman who was appointed on 12-12-1952 and his birth date 3-2-1935 as recorded in Form B register, statutory one maintained by the Management but the management prematurely retired him on 12-1-1987 about 7 years before his due retirement falling on 3-2-1995, after rejecting his petition in 1992 holding it as after a lapse of 5 years, whereas the management neither produced the Form B Register nor gave any explanation to it, so the demand of the workman is justified. Just contrary to it Mr. D. K. Verma, the Ld . Advocate for the management has contended that the Service Sheet of the workman which was appointed at the time of his appointment by the NCDC (National Coal Development Corporation, a Government Company) bears his date of birth as 12-1-1927 , according to which he retired on 12-1-1987, after which he received his Gratuity and C.M.P.F. as apparent from the Ext.M-2 , M-3 & M -4; besides that the workman has admitted to have got SLC, and passed in Marticulation from Deoghar Vidyapith in the year 1981 and 1985 respectively which are after his appointment, so the claim of the workman being highly belated is not only untenable but also unjustified in the eye of law.

9. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts and discussed facts and circumstances as above I find that the claimed birth date of the workman as 3-2-1935 as recorded in his SLC (Ext . W- 1 series ), iftaken into account then on its substraction against his admitted date of appointment on 12-12-1952, his age comes to 17 years at the time of his appointment . But the Mines Act provides minimum age 18 years old for the appointment of any person in the Coal Mines. Secondly all the Certificates of School (Ext .W- 1 series) obtained by the workman after many years of his appointment are not acceptable as a conclusive proof of his claimed birth date as held in the case of Hemlal Turi -versus- BCCL and Anothers 2007 (3 )JLJR 470 by Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand, as also contended by the Ld. Counsel for the management . Thirdly it is apparent that the workman having got his all Gratuity and C.M.P.F. on 5375 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933

APPEARANCES :

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii)]

Industry: Coal.

Onbehalfoftheworkman: Mr. P. N. Singh , Advocate Onbehalf ofthe employers : Mr. U. N. Lal, Advocate State: Jharkhand.

Dated, Dhanbad , the 9th June, 2011

AWARD

the basis ofhis retirement as per his date ofbirth as recorded in his Service Register (Ext.M - 1 ) has raised this industrial dispute in the year 1996 after about 9 years ofhis retirement which is highlybelated. On this score, it is the settled principle oflawthat failure of employee to make efforts for change of dateofbirth at the fag end of service will not be sustainable as held in the case of State of Orissa-versus -Ramanath Pattanaik (1997) 5 SCC 181 and that a belated request for change in the date of birth cannot be considered , hence, liabletobe rejected(Gurucharan Singh Sethi -versus -Union ofIndia) (2002) IV LLJ Supp. 213) .

The Government of India Ministry of Labour , in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section10 (1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 106/2002-IR(Coal-I) dated the 28thAugust, 2002.

SCHEDULE

" Whether BCCL Management is justified in not accepting the date of birth of Anarwa Devi as 7-6-51 ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

Under these circumstances , I find the present industrial dispute of the workman has no merit at all worth considering; therefore, it is held that the demand of shri Gulab Singh (Ex- Workman) for acceptance of his date of. birth as 3-2-1935 as per his School Leaving Certificate is totally unjustified in facts and law as well. So he is not entitled to any relief, as sought for.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2011

का.आ. 1945.-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. 2 , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 71/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -20012/ 106/2002- आईआर (सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 27th June , 2011

S.O. 1945. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 71/2002) 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 27-6-2011 .

[No.L-20012/106/2002-IR(C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : SHRI KISHORI RAM, PresidingOfficer

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) ) ofthe4. D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 71 of 2002

2. The case of the workman Smt. Anarwa Devi as sponsored by the Union concerned is that she was originally employed as a Wagon Loader on 1-7-1973 at Patherdih Colliery of M/ s . B.C.C.L. The Management of CoalMines as the employer has the mandatoryresponsibility tomaintain the Form ' B ' register, a statutory one , under the MinesAct, 1952, for the bio-data including date of birth of employees on the day of appointment with endorsement oftheconcerned employee . 7-6-1951 as the date of birth of Anarwa Devi was recorded in the Form B Register dały endorsed by her at the time of her appointment . Shewas transferred from Patherdih Colliery to South Tisra Colliery ofBCCL in 1982 and then back from there to the former colliery on 31-3-87. She being female illiterate ofScheduled Caste Community could not verify that the entry of her birth-date into the Form 'B ' Register was tamperedwith The Service Excerpt issued to the workman in 1987 as per clause (c)-(i ) ofI.I.No. 76 ofJBCCI giving allthe particulars (extract) ofher service record includingdate ofherbirth for verification/ comments in order to bring about due necessary change in it before its finalisation and computerisation at BCCL Headquarters , mentioned as 7-6-43 wrongly which was apparently wrong as contrasted with her actual date of birth as 7-6-51 as mentioned in the original Fonn B Register of Patherdih Colliery which was prepared on 1-7-73 .Therefore , on her objection, as a complain/ proposal for its amendment , her aforesaid actual date of birth was noted down in the Service Excerpt by shri Munshi Mian, the Clerk of the management . But the silence and no comments from the management in this regard indicated the acceptance of her proposal by the management for its amendment. Besides that she had additionally filed awritten memorandum dated 20-5-88 before the superintendent of Minesofthe Colliery in that respect. In order to settle the disparity of age she had also proposed for it through PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Sudamdih Shaft Mine of M/s . B.C.C.L. and theirworkman.

5376 !

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)] physical verification/assessment of age through the Area AgeDetermination Committee /Medical Board.

unentertaining of her complain or about non-reference of her case to the Medical Board at the relevant time . So she sought for the relief as stated therein as well as for interim one concerning the retention of her service till the pendency ofthe adjudication proceeding so as not to force her early superannuation/premature retirement of the workman on 7-6-2003 , i.e. 8years prior to her due time.

4. In rejoinder, it has been pleaded on behalfofthe workman the comparison of her date of birth with that of her husband Ram Balak Paswan , a workman of the same collierywhosedate of birth as 23-6-1949 recorded in the Form B Register of the said colliery could be a good factor forthe management to find out that her date ofbirth deleted to have been re- written as 7-6-1943 as most unnatural . Moreover, inthe situation of such glaring discrepancy in the record, calling for her reference to the Medical Board for verification of her physical appearance was quite inevitable to solve the issue . The wrong date of birth ofthe workman as protested against the service excerpt was taken inEDP record without investigation and reply to her with validjustification as such the action of the management in notaccepting her date of birth ofAnwara Devi as 7-6-51 (7- 6-51 ) is unjustified making the management liable to compensatetheworkman as per her reliefs with back wages for the period of idleness caused by her premature superannuation with effect from 30-6-2003.

5. On the other hand the pleaded plea of the management with the specific denials to the allegations as made bytheworkman is that the date ofbirth of Smt . Anwara Devi wife ofShri Ram Balak Paswan designated as General Mazdoor P.No. 02715522 and C.M.P.F. A/C. No. C/29/ 1588 is7-6-1943 anddate ofher appointment as 1-7-73 on casual basis as stated in her Service Excerpt just as in the service record ofthe Patherdih Colliery and the same entry is also in the service record of Shaft Mines Sudamdih and L.P.C. ofPatherdih Colliery. The D.O.B. in the statutory record is 7-6-43 which has also been taken in E.D.P. as well as other record as final as per policy ofthe Company. But the female employee had raised objection claiming per D.O.B. as 7-6-51 without any supportive document . The dispute has not been taken as dispute by the management and her D.O.B. as available in all the records including Service Excerpt has been taken as final which is just fair and reasonable . So the action of the management in not accepting her alleged unreasonable claim ofher D.O.B. is alleged to be justified.

3. Further pleaded case of the workman is that no response whatsoever on the part ofthe management to her representation/memorandum became taciturn acceptance of her proposed amendment by the management . The comparative study of her alleged date of birth 7-6-1943 with the date ofbirth 23-6-1949 ofher husband Rambalak Paswan clearly indicated wrong entry of her age in service record, as she has been made six years senior to her husband . So such a glaring wrong entry ofage in her service recordwarranted review ofher case through the aforesaid age determination committee/Medical Board, under clause (B) (ii) ofthe I.I.No , 76 ofthe JBCCI . But the emmployer in dis-regardto the aforesaid rules arbitrarily ommitted torefer her case to the Medical Board. In addition to it, the Form A the essential document prepared and submitted as per rules tothe C.M.P.F. Office just after three months of initial date ofworkman's appointment in the year 1973 may also be corroborative evidence to solve the issue of her date of birth . The aforesaid vital document being in the possesion ofthe C.M.P.F. Office and its one copy in the office ofthe Patherdih Colliery, the management is bound to present it. before the Tribunal . On her transfer from Patherdih Colliery to Sudamdih Colliery both under Administrative Control of the same General Manager on 7-1-93 , the present employer prepared a fresh Form B 'NUMBER 4781 ' at Sudamdih Shaft Mine on the basis of Bio- data made available by the aforesaid Patherdih Colliery showing her job designation as General Mazdoor with Personnel No. 02715522. Thus 'the Patherdih Colliery has prepared another Form B Register afresh in place ofthe original Form B Register of 1993which creates confusion in this matter. So the employer is liable forthe acceptance of her birth date as 7-6-5.1 for the reason ofwilful created irregularties such as tampering with her date of birth as initially noted in the Form B register on 1-7-73 at Patherdih Colliery, for making non- availability and disappearance ofthe Form B maintained under C.M.P.F. Scheme which is supposed to have been prepared in 1973 bearing her date of birth under its relevant columns and also for insensitiveness of the management of Patherdih Colliery to her complain for the correction of her date of birth, also for adepting negative attitudues towards the and ofjustice . She had been clamouring since 1987-88 for therectification of her age/date of birth. In addition to it, her representation through the Trade Union lastly by Memorandum dated 1-12-2000 for the consideration of it was finally rejected on 16-12-2000 , and thereafter on the failure of conciliation proceeding before the ALC(C) , Dhanbad , hence, the industrial dispute referred for adjudication . It is pertinent to mention that in course of conciliation proceeding , the original Form B Register produced by the Patherdih Colliery Management which was prepared in 1973 with the bio -data of the workman including her date of birth clearly appeared to have been erased with the insertion of over- written figure as 7-6-43 (7-6-43 ) but the employer failed to justify about.

6. The management in its rejoinder has stated that the D.O.B. in year has been shown in Form B as 30 years which is taken on the date of appointment on 1-7-73 . The management maintains the record for all the employees , literate, illiterate or highly qualified in the same manner and there is no tampering in the statutory records or initial records of the company .The case is fully covered under the provision of Para ' B ' ( ii ) of Annexure I of the Implementation Instruction No. 76 ofNCWA- III circulated by CIL No. CIL/NCWA - III/II 76/88/185 dated 25-4-88. According to the said stipulation there is no variation in 5377

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

where she gother superannuation in July,2003. On receipt ofher ServiceExcerpt from the management she knew ber date of birth wrongly recorded, so she made written objection to it and submitted it to the management. Het service excerpt (Ext. W- 1 ) was handed over to her by the management . She had mentioned in her written objection to it that her date ofbirth was 7-6-51 instead of7-6-43. She had also stated that her husband (Ram Balak Paswan), whowas appointed in the same colliery on the same date she had got her apointment and is still then working at Sudamdih Washery , was older than her wife. Though she claims to have submitted papers to the management as to heraforesaid claimed date ofbirth yet admitted to possess not any paper to show it denying her date of birth as 7-6-43 recorded inthe I.D. Register and FormBRegister. After superannuation she did not submit any written objection to the management , as to it. She also denied that her claim was not justified and not entitled to any relief.

records , so the case does not warrant for its re-opening . Therehas not ben any irregularity in taking her D.O.B. The age/DOB as per said norms are taken on the date of appointment as counted in the instant case also had been correctlytakenas 7-6-43 . So her demand for the assessment ofher age by the Medical Board is not covered as per JBCCI'sInstruction contained in 1.1.76 . Moreover, the management had never created the case as glaring disparity as para'f' ofaforesaid 1.1.76 as the management could not ever be satisfied for it nor any such was raised by the female workman or her representative in the past. There is no such policy for comparing her age /date of birth with that ofher husband even in case of only difference of six years which appears to be much rational , reasonable as wellas proper inthis case. Form -A had the D.O.B. but this cannot be taken as plea for getting that the DOB changed which is the mother record available in the Form B. The DOB in Form'B' Service Record, read with the L.P.C. are the same. It is not prevalent to prepare fresh Form B as way of ulterior motive as alleged, as the management is maintaining Form B for all the employees in the Units , Mine , establishment which is known as statutory Records . As such the claim of female worker is quite baseless .

FINDINGWITH REASONING

7. In this case two witnesses i.e. WW- 1 Smt. Anarwa Devi , the workman and WW-2 Ram Balak Paswan, her husband on behalf of the Union and one witness MW-1 Shiv Das Mukherjee , the P.O.'s Clerk attachedtoPatherdih Colliery on behalfofthe management have been examined .

8. On the perusal of the materials as produced on behalf ofboth the parties which are available on the case record I find the following facts being admitted stand indisputable :-

(i) Workman Anarwa Devi was initially appointed asWagon Loader on 1-7-1973 .

(ii) She was quite illiterate lady.

d 10. Similar is the evidence of her husbandWW-2 RamBalak Paswan, working as Fitter -cum-Operatorat the relevant time.He has corroberated the evidence ofhis wife AnarwaDevi (WW- 1 ) .Acording to him, he had alsojoined asWagon Loader just as his wife at Patherdih Collieryin the year 1973, and his date of birth as 3-2-48 (contrary to pleadingas 23-6-49) recorded in his Service Excerpt to him was correct, and that his wife is younger to him by 3/4years . When he learnt from his wife about her wrong entered date of birth in her Service Excerpt , he Mr.Srivastavaconcerned and informed hima ofit, regno him to correct it but he (Mr. Srivastava ) did not tak step, then his wife after noting her exact date ofbirth ServiceExcerpt returned it back to the management necessarycorrection, and that she had also orally red theManagement for her medical test by the Apex Medical Board for the assessment of her age , but even then the management did not take any step at all . He also claims to havepersonallysubmitted in writing to the mariage that effect that his wife was junior to him , with a reque themedical test for assessment of her age, but he would notbe able to submit any copy of representation dien. He has also accepted not to posses any paper to show dateofbirth ofhis wife as 7-6-51.

(iii) On the receipt of her Service Excerpt from the management, she had made written objection as noted inService Excerpt which is quite apparent from her received Service Excerpt in her name (Ext. W- 1 as well as its similar copy marked as Ext . M-2) which bears her DOB 7-6-1951 noted after brackettedDOB 7-6-43asdisputed.

(iv) The concerned workman raised the industrial dispute through the Union in the year 2002 one year. before her alleged superannuation by the management in the month ofJuly, 2003 .

11. Whereas MW- 1 Shibdas Mukherjee, the PO the Form B Register , the copy of So Clerkproving the Excerpt, Last Pay st Pay Certificate (L.P.C. ) andthe Service Record (copy) ofconcerned femaleworker maintained by P Colliery as Ext.M- 1 , M-2, M-3 & M -4 respectively, b stated that as per the aforesaid documents, her date e irth as 7-6-43 was all along recorded therein by the management, so her claim is notjustified. This Ma witness has expressly admitted that the Form B (Ext.M-1) opened in the year, 1973-74 bears her 30 years, along with her birth date as 7-6-43 an competent authority signed it noting the year 197 there is no page-wise signature ofthe many Colliery in the Register and that Form B Ra erstwhite owner at this stage due to lapse 9. Inthiscase , the testimony of WW- 1 Smt . Anarwa Devi is that at the time ofher appointment, the management had recorded her particulars including her age in the statutory register to which she had put her LTI, she could not recollect how old she was at the relevant time . She was transferredto Joyrampur Colliery, South Tisra Collierythen againto Patherdih Colliery and then to Sudamdih Colliery, 5378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] cannot be available , though Form -A which was sent to C.M.P.F. duly filled in may be available in the Area Office . ButI find no Form -A of this illiterate female worker in order todisprove her claim for her birth date has been produced or proved on behalf of the management .

Board finds her below the age of her superannuation at the relevant time, she would be entitled to her retiral benefits along with the back wages for the dispute period.

The management is directed to implement the award within three months from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India.

KISHORI RAM, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2011

12. Ext.M- 1 bears the name of female worker Anarwa Devi under Sl . No. 2332/C as wife of Shri Ram Balak Paswan 30 years old female , 7-6-43 in Col.4 with its heading age and sex and her address village Singhal , P.O. , P.S. Sarmera, Distt ; Nalanda , Railway Station Sheikhpura under her LTI followed by her Black and white Passpost size photo attested under its relevant column but it does not mention the date of first appointment with the present owner andthe date oftermination or leaving of employment under its Column 9 and 10 though it mentions 1-7-73 as the date of commencement of her employment under its Column8.

का.आ. 1946. 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 नं. 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 63/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/124/2002- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th June, 2011

S.O. 1946.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 63/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.- 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 workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2011 .

[No. L-20012/124/2002- IR(C- I)] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

13. Shri P. N. Singh, the Ld. Advocate for the Union has submitted that admittedly she was appointed on 1-7-73 and accordingly her date of appointment got entered into the Form B Register of Patherdih Colliery on the basis ofwhich her C.M.P. Form -Aprepared concerning the worker and its one copy was retained under the custody of the management. But the same has not been proved on behalf ofthe management in order to know the real age of the concernedworker. Further it is submitted on behalf ofthe union that despite vehement objection by her to her wrong entry of her date of birth in her service excerpt , the management as per I.1.76 did not take any step for her assessment ofage by the Apex Medical Board ; as such the management failed to justify the reason of not accepting / her date of birth as claimed . Just adversely Shri U.N.Lal , theLd. Advocate for the management has contended that she has raised the I.D. at the fag end of her retirement so there is no merit in her case, because as per the aforesaid proved document of the management there is no glaring discrepancy in her date ofbirth .

BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVT. INDUSTRIAL . TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT: SHRI KISHORI RAM, PresidingOfficer

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1 ) (d)) ofthe I. D. Act, 1947 Reference No. 63 of 2002

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Kustore Kshetra of M/s , B.C.C.L. and their workmen . APPEARANCES:

Onbehalf oftheworkman : Mr. K. N. Singh , Vice-President, Janta Mazdoor Sangh . :

Onbehalfofthe employers : Mr. U. N. Lal , Advocate Industry: Coal . State :Jharkhand.

dated, Dhanbad, the 1st June, 2011 ORDER

The Government of India Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 5379 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रवण 1, 1933

NewDelhi, the 5th May, 2011 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/ 124/2002-IR(C-1 ) dated the 26th July, 2002.

SCHEDULE

S.O. 1947. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 30/2005) ofthe CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture (CIFA) , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 5-5- 2011.

"Whether the denial to regularise Sti Manoj Kumar Singh, Armature Winder Helper in the post of Attendance Clerk by the management of Central Workshop , under Kustore Area of M/s . BCCL is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from what date ? "

[No. L-42012/3/2005- IR(CM-II))

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, DeskOfficer ANNEXURE

2. Mr. K. N. Singh , the representative of the workman is not present, But Mr. U. N. Lall , the Ld. Advocate for the management is present .

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT: SHRI J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. -cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar,

INDUSTRIALDISPUTE CASE No. 30/2005

Date ofPassing Award- 19thApril , 2011

: 3. Today it was fixed for hearing over the petition dated 27-1-2009 filed on behalf of the sponsoring Union for withdrawal, but the Ld. Advocate Mr. K. N. Singh, who is the Vice President of the Union Janta Mazdoor Sangh, has not appeared, but Mr. U. N. Lal , the Ld . Advocate for the management has expressed no objection to the aforesaid petition.

Between:

The Management oftheDirector, Central Institute of Freshwater Acquaculture (CIFA ), Kausalyaganga, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) -751002.

.... 1st Party-Management.

And

Their workmen represented through the General Secretary, CIFA Shramik Sangha, P.O. Kausalyaganga, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) -751002 .

.... 2nd Party-Union.

APPEARANCES:

Shri K.C. Das, A.O.... For the 1st Party-Management.

ShriD. Behera ... For the 2nd Party-Union.

AWARD

4. Perused the case record, I find that the case has been pending for the evidence of the workman since 27-1-2006 , but meanwhile the aforesaid petition under the signature ofthe aforesaid K. N. Singh as the representative of the workman as well as under the signature of Manoj Kumar Singh was already filed on the 27th January, 2009 and its copy was also served upon the aforesaid Ld. Counsel for the management on 12-4-2011 . The present reference case relates to denial to the regularisation of Shri Manoj Kumar Singh , Armature Winder Helper in the post ofAttendance Clerk by the management of the Central Workshop under Kustore Area of BCCL . The sponsoring Union has stated in the petition that there is no grievance ofthe workman , so he does not want to proceed with the present reference in future . Under these circumstances , I find it unnecessary to proceed with the case for adjudication, because there is no grievance of the workman , so no longer any industrial dispute exists for an adjudication. Hence, it isclosed and accordingly order is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 मई , 2011 :

Thisreference made by the Government of India 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 vide their letter No. 42012/3/ 2005 - IR (CM - II ) , dated 8-11-2005 in relation to the management of Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture (CIFA) and their workmen has been remanded to this Tribunal by the Hon'ble High Court ofOrissa by its order dated9-10-2009 passed in W.P. (C) No. 9593 and 11980 of 2007 quashing the impugned award passed by my learned predecessor and directing this Tribunal to pass an award afresh upon consideration of the issue of maintainability after affording the parties opportunity of being heard on the basis ofmaterials available on record.

का.आ. 1947.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल इन्स्टीट्यूट ऑफ फ्रेश वाटर एक्वाकलचर एवं के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 30/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-5-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. In compliance ofthe orders ofthe Hon'ble High Court noticeto theabsentee party i.e. the 2nd Party-Union [सं. एल-42012/3/2005- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

was issued for appearance and fresh hearing of the case, though the parties were directed to appear before this Tribunal on4-11-2009. The 1st Party-Management remained present on4-11-2009 and thereafter throughout the hearing afterappearanceofthe General Secretary ofthe 2nd Party- Union. Both the parties have filed their written note of arguments on the issue of maintainability. They were also heard on the case as a whole .

3. First of all the issue of maintainability of the reference is taken up. From the side of the 2nd Party -Union witnesses namely Gopal Chandra Jena and Shri Debendranath Mallick were examined as W.W.- 1 and W.W. -2 respectively and proved documents marked as Ext. - 1 to Ext. -5. From the side ofthe 1st Party-Management Shri Chakradhar Sahoo as M.W. - 1 was examined and one document marked as Ext. -A was produced.

4. The 1st Party-Management has challenged the maintainability of the reference mainly on two grounds : firstly, a tripartite settlement was arrived at between the parties in the course ofthe conciliation proceedings which isbinding upon the 2nd Party -Union and on the disputant- workmen and secondly, the Government of India has referred the self same dispute which was not earlier found fit for adjudication in view ofthe tripartite settlement dated 26-9-2001 . In this settlement the disputant- workmen were party through Kalinga Shramik Sangh .

5. It is an undisputed fact that about 99 workmen including the disputant - workmen were engaged by the Central Institute of Freshwater Acquaculture (CIFA ) for certainmiscellaneousjobs sometime in the year 1998 , 1999 and 2000. They were disengaged in July, 2001 without any notice or retrenchment benefit . As per version of the Ist Party-Management all the workmen were disengaged on completion of the job . They demanded their re- engagement and raised an industrial dispute through Kalinga Shramik Sangh before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ), Bhubaneswar in 2001. The 1st Party-Management attended the conciliation proceedings and submitted its views after several rounds ofdiscussion . The conciliation officer induced for an amicable settlement . Accordingly a tripartite settlement was drawn by the conciliation officer and signed by both the parties . On the date of settlement the representatives of the 1st Party- Management and all the 99 workmen including the present 10disputant-workmen were very much present in the Office oftheAssistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) along with workersUnionPresident. During conciliation it was agreed upon by the parties that at least 60% out of the 99 disengaged workers would be provided employment in CIFA through Labour Supply Contractors . Accordingly about 60 persons out of the total 99 have been engaged through the Labour Supply Contractor. But the disputant- workmen were not re-engaged. Therefore they raised the dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) in October, 2001 through CIFA Shramik Sangh .

[PART II-SEC. 3(i)) The 1stParty -Management on being noticed submitted its views before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central) and conciliation finally ended in failure . The conciliation officer submitted his failure report to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour. On the failure report being ; submitted the Government of India, Ministry of Labour refusedto refer the dispute finding it not fit for adjudication as the workmen who raised the dispute through CIFA Shramik Sangh were party to the agreement signed by Kalinga Shramik Sangh and the Management ofCIFAbefore the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Bhubaneswar on 26-9-2001 in respect of the self same dispute.

6. Again the same 10 disputant -workmen raised the presentdispute on the self same matter before theAssistant Labour Commissioner ( Central) through the same rival Union in June, 2004. Like previous occasions the Management of CIFA offered its views as usual and took the same stand. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) closed the conciliation proceedings and submitted his failure report to the Ministry ofLabour, Government of India who unfortunately referred the present dispute on the self same issue which was earlier not found fit for adjudication.

7. The witnesses of the 2nd Party-Union namely Shri GC, Jena, W.W. - 1 and Shri Debendranath Mallik, W.W. -2 have admitted that a tripartite agreement was entered into between the 1st Party-Management and the Kalinga Shramik Sangh whereby more than 60% of the retrenched workers were taken into employment. Shri GC. Jena, W.W. - I has stated that since the 10 disputant -workmen belong to CIFA Shramik Sangh they were not taken back by the 1st Party- Management. He did not deny the fact that the 10 disputant-workmen were party to the tripartite settlement but his contention is that since the Kalinga Shramik Sangh was not a registered Trade Union, theyare not guided by the said agreement . Shri D.N. Mallik, W.W.-2has categorically stated that the tripartite agreement dated 26-9-2001 between the Management and Kalinga Shramik Sangh also covers the name ofthese 10disputant- workmen. But vindictively the 1st Party- Management did not take these disputant workmen back to service. In his cross-examination he clearly admits that these 10 disputant- workmen were also the subject matter ofthe dispute at the time of tripartite settlement of 26-9-2001 . After the above settlement an industrial dispute was raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) by the Union in respect ofthese 10 disputant-workmen and in the saidmatter though ended in a failure report the Government did not like to act upon. Therefore there seems no dispute about the tripartite settlement dated 26-9-2001 entered into between theManagement and the disengaged 99 workers through their Union before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Bhubaneswar in which the 10 disputant-workmen were also party. A settlement arrivedat 5381

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

services of 10 workmen as per list was legal and justified?

2. Ifnot, what relief the workmen are entitled to?

between the parties is binding upon them under the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act as is also observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in its remand order. Therefore the said tripartite settlement is effective and binding upon the 10 disputant - workmen also and they cannot get out of it . As per the settlement more than 60% of the 99 retrenched workmen were taken into employment bythe 1st Party-Management . Therefore the terms of the settlement were fulfilled and the disputant- workmen cannot complain against it and accordingly they are not entitled to re-engagement.

8. As to the maintainability ofthe present reference in view ofthe order ofthe Ministry of Labour, Government ofIndiacommunicated through the letter No. L-42012/ 77/ 2002 - IR(CM- II ), dated 4-6-2004 the contention ofthe 2nd Party-Union is that a second reference of the self same dispute which was earlier not found fit for adjudication can be referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court . In support of its contention the 2nd Party- Union has reliedupon a decision reported in 2002 (94) FLR 624 (Virendra Bhandari -Versus- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others ). In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that " when there is no adjudication ofthe matter on merits , it cannot be said that the industrial dispute does not exist . If the industrial dispute still exists , as is opined by the government, such a matter can be referred under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. What is to be borne in mind in proceedings of this nature is that the industrial disputes are referred to the Labour Court orthe Industrial Tribunal for maintenance of industrial peace and not merely for adjudication of the dispute betweem two private parties " . Therefore after refusing to refer the dispute for adjudication to an Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court the self same dispute can be referred subsequently bythe competent Government. I hold accordingly.

are now taken up in the light of the discussions made above. The matter with regard to re-engagement of the disputant-workmen ended up in tripartite settlement dated 26-9-2011 and the disputant- workmen in view ofthe said tripartite settlement cannot claim re -engagement underthe 1st Party-Management . But since the disputant -workmen had undisputedly rendered more than 240 days i.e. one year'scontinuous service under the 1st Party- Management duringthe preceding 12 months from their disengagement, the action ofthe 1st Party-Management in terminating the services of the disputant- workmen cannot be held legal andjustified as it amounts to retrenchment and provisions of Section 25-F ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been followed in this regard prior to their disengagement. The 1st Party- Management was obliged to give one month's prior notice in writing to the disputant workmen indicating the reasons for retrenchment or they wouldhave beenpaid wages for the period ofthe notice in lieu of such notice. Besides that, the disputant- workmen hadto be paid compensation equivalent to 15days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months . Since the disputant- workmen have forsaken their right of re-engagement by virtue oftripartite settlement dated 26-9-2011 they are only entitledto one month's wages in lieu ofnotice and 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service oranypart thereof in excess of six months as per provisions of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as retrenchment benefit. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in a case between " M/s . Allahabad Patrika Pvt. Limited - and- P.O. Labour Court, Allahabad and Others reported in 2002 (94) FLR 669 in a similar situation has held that retrenchment compensation cannot be denied even ifthere isan agreement between employer and workmen . Payment ofretrenchment compensation was directly linked with the stipulated termination of workmen . It has been further held that the agreement did not curtail rights of the retrenched workmen to be paid retrenchment compensation . Even if the retrenchment was valid the denial of retrenchment compensation did not flow from the agreement and as such the payment of retrenchment compensation was a consequential relief to be awarded by the Labour Court.

9. Now the question arises when the tripartite settlement dated 26-9-2001 is binding upon the disputant- workmen how the dispute with regard to the action ofthe Management in terminating the services of the disputant- workmen and consequential relief can be maintainable here? It isto be mentioned here that the tripartite settlement only speaks of taking back 60% of 99 retrenched workmen in service and nothing about fulfilment of statutory obligation towards the workmen on the part of the 1st Party- Management . Then where the remedy lies as to fulfilment ofthese statutory obligations as enshrined in Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act . So far as the dispute with regard to re - employment of the disputant- workmen is concernedtheir grievance is set at rest through the tripartite settlement dated 26-9-2011 but what other reliefs are available to the disputant- workmen is to be decided by this Tribunal under the statutory obligations .

11. In view of the above the disputant-workmen are entitled to one month's wages in lieu of notice and 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service and any part thereof in excess of six months as retrenchment compensation. The 1st Party-Management isaccordingly directed to comply and fulfil the above part of its statutory obligation. The two issues are decided accordingly.

10. The two issues framed earlier as below :-

12. The reference is thus answered.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer 1. Whether the action of the Management of Central Institute of Fresh Acquaculture in terminating the

2589G1/11-28 5382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली , 27 जूनं , 2011

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bagdigi Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in denial to promote S/Sh.Brahmdeo Paswan, Md . Anul , Ramashiah Singh , Brahmdeo Sharma , Narayan Chander Sengupta , Asharfi Verma and Jahur Mian as Winding Engine Operator in T & S Grade B and denial to pay charge allowance is justified ? If not, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ? "

का.आ. 1948. 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 , न. 2 धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 139/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/337/1996- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th June, 2011

S.O. 1948. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 139/ 1997) 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 tothemanagement of M/ s BCCL and their workmen , which wasreceivedby the Central Government on 27-6-2011 .

[No. L-20012/337/ 1996- IR (C-I )] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 139 of 1997

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Bagdigi Colliery of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and their workmen

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe workman : Mr. D. Mukherjee, Advocate.

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D. K. Verma, Advocate.

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

2. The case of the workman as sponsored by the Union concerned is that workmen Brahmdeo Paswan , Md . Anul, Ramashish Singh , Brahmdeo Sharma , Narayan Chander Sengupta , Asharfi Verma and Jahur Mian have been working as Winding Engine Driver on permanent post inBCCL'sBagdigi Colliery, Lodna Area. During their employment all of them have passed Winding Engine Driver'sIInd and then Ist Class Certificate under Coal Mines Regulation , 1957 as specified in their written statement. Accordingly they efficiently worked for 25 to 30 years with unblemished record of services , as they were found qualified for the job-performance of the Winding Engine Drivers , so they were converted into Technical and SupervisoryGrade- C of the National Coal Wage Agreement (N.C.W.A. ) in the year 1989. Though they deserved for upgrading to Technical and Supervisory Grade ' A' yet they were not upgraded even to its Grade B, and were kept stagnant in itsGrade C. On their representation to that effect before the General Manager concerned on 20-2-95 , their upgradations to aforesaid Grade ' B ' and ' A' have been dropped . Even their demand for payment of charge allowances as being to Overseers , Mining Sirdars and other went unrespended by the management . They also raised the industrial dispute through Shri B. N. Sharma, Vice President , Koyala Ispat Mazdoor Panchayat ( KIMP) as per his letter No.1 /KSMP/J.D/35/95 dtd.5-5-95 for their aforesaid demands before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) , Dhanbad- III . As per the A.L.C. (C) ' s letter No.1/ 152/95-2-5 dated 25-7-95, the matter was taken up for discussion and conciliation on 8-8-95 and several dates were fixed for it . The BCCL Management as per letter dtd. 16-1-96 filed its rejoinder to the Written Statement of the workman on 7-2-96, but due to adamant unreasonable and unjustified attitude of the Management, the conciliation proceeding failed hence on the failure report of it as perthe ALC's letter No. 1/152/95 dt.9-9-95, it resulted in reference for adjudication.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 15th June, 2011

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 )(d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L-20012/337/96- IR (Coal )-I , dated New Delhi , the 25th November, 1997 .

3. Further case of the workman is that the Management is discriminately dealing with them, as other neighbouring collieries ofDigwadih, Jamadeba, 6 & 7 Pits , Sijua, Malkera ofTISCO Ltd. , Noonodih and Chasnalla have upgradedthe Winding Engine Operators from C to A grade with all consequential benefits thereof. The BCCL Management of Putkee Balihari Project as per Oder dtd . 17 /20-8-85 of the Dy.Personnel Manager have also upgraded the Winding भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

nemenclature that brings a turning in promotion job nomenclature in Putki Balihari Project ofthe P.B. Area, as the WEO is different and more hazardous than that of Bagdigi Colliery.

FINDING WITH THE REASONS

6. In this case MW- 1 Ramashish Singh, one of the 7thconcernedworkmen on behalf of the concerned Union, MW- 1 Ram Nawal Prasad , the P.O.'s Clerk and MW-2 Himanshu Konar, the Superintending Engineer Bagdigi Collieryonbehalfofthe management have been examined.

Engine Operators 1. Ganpat Gararia , Alakh Deep Singh , Ibrahim Mian and Bhagwan Bania from Cat .VI to Tech . & Sup.GradeBjust as the Dy. Personnel Manager (Est) , P.B. Area by the Office Order dtd. 18-4-90 did in respect of workers Dukhan Ram , Lal Bahadur Singh and Narbanshi Ram. Besides that these workmen as per writen or verbal orders ofthe Management are forced to work for more then their scheduled duty hours in exigency handing over the charge to the next shiftman as a daily affairs , so they are legally entitled to the payment of charge allowance too .As such the action of the BCCL Management in keeping the workmen stagnant in Grade -C and not upgrading them to aforesaid Grade B and A is highly arbitrary and unjustified.

7. On the perusal of the materials as produced by both the parties, I find the following facts being admitted stand indisputable as under:-

(i)The management had given the workmen the scale ofCategory -VI just after they had get their Ist Class Certificate ofWinding Engine Driver.

(ii)As theyworked on the same post more than 10 years, the management provided them T & SC Scale under Service Linked Upgradation, with effect from their specifieddates between 1987-90 (Ext .W- 1 ).

(iii)At their colliery concerned the Winding Engine are oflower capacity ( i.e. 200 H.P. & 75 H.P.) 4. In the rejoinder the workmen have pleaded that they have passed Winding Engine Driver's Ist Class Certificate under Coal Mines Regulation 1957 and have the experience and technical capability to drive the Winding Engines of all capabilities throughout the entire area ofthe CoalMines of India. Shri Narayan Chandra Sengupta retired on 1-7-95 during the pendency of the dispute is entitled to prospective monetary benefits . Sri Ashrafi Verma being denied his promotion by the management is also entitled to be replaced in Tech.Grade as has been in the case of Sri Brahmdeo Paswan and others .

and

(iv) Promotion ofWinding Engine Driver is provided asper Cadre Scheme .

5. Whereas with categorical denial , the case of the management is that the aforesaid workmen are the permanent workmen of the Bagdigi Colliery, and have been working as Winding Engine Drivers . Since they are the holders of 1st Class Winding Engine Driving Certificates , they have been placed in Category prescribed for that as per nomenclature job description and categorisation of Coal Workers . All ofthem have been upgraded under SLU, and placed in T & S Grade -C as per prvisions ofthe NCWA after completion of their ten year's services in a particular Grade.As per the job Nomenclature and categorisation of the Coal Employees , only these winding Engine Drivers are placed in T & S Grade B who operate Winding Engine upto 5000 BCB e.g. 550 Hp and above , whereas these workmen in Bagdigi Colliery are not operating the same . So they have been rightly and justifiably placed in T & S Grade -C under SLU , but they do not deserve to be promoted to T & S Grade B as per their job nomenclature and categorisation. Concerned workman, Narayan Chander Sengupta in T & S Grade-C under the SLU has already retired as back as on 1-7-1995 and Asharfi Verma has the designation of Winding Engine in Category - VI . Similarly the claim of the Union for charge allowance to them is impractical and contrary to the ploicy ofthe Company, it is also not justified just as their aforesaid claim for Grade ' B' isuntenable .

8. According to WW- 1 Ramashies Singh , one ofthe concerned workmen, who deposed for self and on behalf of his colleagues únder their instructions all of them possess 2nd and 1st Class Certificate of Winding Engine Driver from the Directorate General of Mines Safety. Since all the collieries under the management of Tisco , BCCL, ECL including Putki Balihari Colliery had provided Winding Engine Operators Technical & Supervisory Grade-B Scale and after completion of four years to Grade-A. Besides that the management pays Charge allowances to other Winding Engine Drivers at different Collieries so the workmen are also entitled to it for their one hour extraduty inhanding over the charge ofthe Engine to their successor after due check up of the machine . Admittedly every Winding Engine has its independent engine capacity i.e. Horse Power andthe Colliery of the workmen has Winding Engine with low capacity but the witness (WW- 1 ) has denied that as per job nomenclature , the Driver ofWinding Engine gets the pay scale as per their category as well as per H.P. of the Winding Engine . He has also denied the management of different collieries have provided T & S Grade-B Scale to the Winding Engine Operators Operating the engines of 5000 BOB corresponding to 550H.P.

9.Whereas the statement of MW- 1 Ram Nawal Prasad, P.O.'s Clerk of Bagdigi Colliery is that as per their The Management in its rejoinder has pleaded that the TISCO and IISCO are the different Company job nomenclature different from that of the BCCL. It is the job 5384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

the management has submited that the workmen have admittedly got SLU upgradation in stagnation for want of vacancies as per NCWA, so they were getting the scale of Tech .& Supervisory Grade -C but there is no provision for promotion to an employee who after getting qualification might be eligible but getting a qualification cannot guarantee his promotion contrary to the provision of NCWA . Besides that the Ld . Counsel for the management has contended that the NCWA no where allows any charge allowance to Winding Engine Driver though he gets over- time for its extra work, rather the charge allowance is admissible to the Mining Sirdar only but the fact of Overtime working is neither pleaded nor proved, on behalf oftheworkmen.

Service Chart ( Ext.M - 1 ) , the concerned workman were in Category- VI , as the Winding Engine Drivers having 2nd Class Certificate are placed in Category-V whereas those having 1st Class Certificate are placed in Category -VI and if the management fails to give any promotion for want of vacancy and if the concerned workman remains on the same post for 10 years , now 8 years and 7 years for the workmen working on surface and underground respectively as per NCWA - VI coming into effect from 1-7-76, he is entitled to get SLU . So as per their aforesaid Service Chart the concerned workman were given SLU in T& S Grade- C as per NCWA - V. The witness has admitted that the aforesaid Service Chart was prepared by the management and accordingly sent to the Head - Quarters for comment in view of quarries made therein . The aforesaid Service Chart of the workmen (Ext.M - 1 ) in view of the admission of the workmen about the receipt of their SLU in 1989 stands beyond dispute . He has also denied the existence of any provision for charge allowance to Winding Engine Driver working for more than 8. years .

13. On the overall consideration of the aforesaid discussed facts as well as in view of the submissions of the Ld. Counsels for the respective parties I find and hold that the action of the management of Bagdigi Colliery of M / s BCCL, in denial to promote all Shri Brahamdeo Paswan , Md . Anual , Ramshish Singh , Brahamdeo Sharma , Narayan Chandra Sengupta , Ashrafi Verma and Jahur Mian as Winding Engine Operator in T & SGrade-B and denial to pay charge-allowance is quite justified. Therefore , they are not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

नईदिल्ली, 28 जून , 2011

10. Likewise the evidence of MW- 2 Himanshu Konar, the Superintending Engineer is corroborative to the evidence of aforesaid Management witness Ram Nawal Prasad (MW- 1 ) . Accordingto him , the concerned workman are not entitled to get Tech . and Super Grade-B for operating Winding Machine of 200 H.P. & 75 H.P. and the workmen woring on the surface are not required to make over and take over charge after their duty hours , as there is no such provision . Though the witness as the Incharge of the Winding Engine has stated that the Winding Engine Driver cannot be off his duty until the charge is handed over to his another counterpart and he has the duty to report the Engineer of any defect, if detected in course of its operation .

का.आ. 1949, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की, धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ सौराष्ट्र 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 196/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/172/95- आईआर ( बी -1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th June , 2011

S.O. 1949. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 196/96) 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 State Bank of Sourashtra and their workman , received by the Central Government on 27-6-2011 .

11. Mir. D Mukherjee , Ld . Advocate for the Union concerned has argued that since MW- 1 Ram Nawal Prasad has admitted that the concerned workmen have already been given T & S Grade - B . But I find the aforesaid witness appears to have submitted it to that effect which is just as submission not as his statement related to the main issue under adjudication . Further contention for the Ld.Counsel for the workmen is that in view of the unrebutted evidence of MW- 1 , the vworkmen are entitled to T & S Grade-B since their İst Class Certificate 1975 and also for T & S Grade -A from the year 1980 with all the arrears of wages and its benefits as well as for Charge allowance at the rate of Overtime from 1975. In support ofhis argument , the Ld . Counsel for the workmen has though relied upon the authorities , AIR 1940 (Patna High Court) and 1977 Cri.L.J. 410 ( Delhi High Court ) yet not filed for perusal .

[No. L- 12012/ 172/95 - IR (B - I) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer 12. Whereas Mr. D. K. Verma , the Ld . Advocate for :

5385

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

NO . CGIT/LC /R/ 196/96

PRESIDING OFFICER.: SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN

Shri Amit Choudhary,

33 , Manishbagh Colony,

Near Agrawal Colony,

...Workman

Indore (MP)

Versus

The Regional Manager,

B-2, State Bank of Sourashtra ,

Zonal Office,

probation for a period of six months as cashier- cum-clerk andwas posted at Vadia Branch ofthe Bank. The services ofthe workman were liable to be terminated during the period of probation without assigning any reason. In that case, the workman was entitled to a month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice . The probation period ofthe workmanwas recommended to be extended for a period of three months till 14-1-94 on account of his poor performance ofservice. Accordingly the probation period was extended and the same was communicated to him. The workman instead of improving his efficiency and conduct , slowed down in work and misbehaved during the extended probation period. He was issued memo of his misbehavior but no reply was submitted by him. Under these circumstances , the workman was discharged from service w.e.f. 13-1-94 and a Banker's cheque of one month's pay was given in lieu of notice. It is submitted thatthe reference be answered in favour of the Bank.

Region B - II , Darbargarh,

Bhavnagar,

Management

Gujrat

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

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of June 2011

1. Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 13-1-94 is justified?

II . To what relief, the workman is entitled?

5. Issue No. I

1. The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour vide its Notification No.L- 12012/ 172/95 - IR (B - I ) dated 9-10-96 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal: -

Before discussing the evidence , it appears that most of the facts are admitted facts which are as follows- "Whether the action of the management of Regional Manager, B- II , State Bank of Saurashtra, Darbargarh , Bhavnagar in terminating the services of shri Amit B.Choudhary w.e.f. 13-1-94 is justified or not ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

1. The workman was appointed as a clerk- cum- cashier by the management Bank vide letter dated 31-3-93 and was posted at Vadia Branch ofthe Bank where he joined on 15-4-93.

2. He was initially appointed on probation for a period of six months and his period of probation wasextended vide letter dated 4-10-93 till 14-1-94.

3. During the period of probation, he was served with letters stating therein that the performance of the workman was poor and unsatisfactory.

4. The workman was discharged from the services on13-1-94 vide letter dated 7-1-94 without assigning any reason .

6. Now the important point is as to whether the termination of the workman was within the ambit of the conditions of the appointment . Both the parties have filed the said appointment letter of the workman which is marked as Exhibit W/ 1 and Exhibit M/ 1 Para 1 (ii ) and (3 ) of the appointment letter is reproduced below- 2. The case of the workman , in short , is that the workman Shri Amit Choudhary was appointed as a clerk in the State Bank of Saurashtra , Bhavnagar vide appointment letter dated 31-3-93 and was posted at Vadia Branch of the bank where he joined on 15-4-93 . He was initially appointed on probation for a period of six months. His probation period was extended vide letter dated 4-10-93 till 14-1-94. During the probation period , he was served with two letters on different dates stating therein that the performance of the workman was poor and unsatisfactory though he had reached the stage of satisfaction by his hard work and had actually put in satisfactory services . It is stated that he was discharged from services on 13-1-94 in afternoon vide letter dated 7-1-94 without giving any reason oftermination . The action of the management is illegal , unconstitutional and in violation of the principle of natural Justice . It is submitted thatthe order of dismissal dated 7-1-94 be set aside and the workman be reinstated with back wages .

" Para l (ii )-The period of your probation, will be six months from the date ofyour joining duty in the Bank, your confirmation in the Bank's service will be from the date of completion of probation subject to your satisfactory work and conduct and it will be 3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement in the case . The case of the management , interalia is that admittedly the workman was appointed on .

5386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

entirely at theBank's discretion to confirm you as a Typist or Cashier. "

"Para-3 : Notwithstanding anything contained in this letter, your services are liable to be terminated at the sole discretion of the bank at any time even during the said six month's period of probation without assigning any reason whatsoever. However, in such a case you will be entitled to a month's notice or payment of a month's pay and allowance in lieu thereof."

Thus it is clear that the confirmation of the service of the workman was subject to satisfactory of work and conduct of the workman . It is also clear that during the period of probation , the services were liable to be terminated without assigning any reason at the sole discretion ofthe management . However he was entitled to a month's notice or payment of a month's pay in lieu ofthe notice . This shows that his contract of appointment was under a stipulation that during the probation period he might be terminated without assigning any reason . It comes under Section 2( oo ) (bb ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( in short the Act , 1947) .

7. The question is that one months notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice was given or not . The management case is that one month's pay in lieu of notice in the shape of Banker's cheque was paid to the workman . Both the parties have filed termination letter dated 7-1-94 which is Exhibit M/ 7 . The said termination letter clearly shows that Banker's cheque for one month salary being notice pay was enclosed alongwith the termination letter which is served on the workman . Thus it is clear that in terms of appointment letter, he was paid one month's pay in lieu of one month notice .

8. The workman Shri Amit Choudhary has admitted in his evidence that his probation period was extended. He has denied that he was show caused for his misbehaviour but lastly he admitted that he had replied on 13-9-93 of the last reminder. This shows that the workman is not fair and is concealing the facts though in the pleading, he has admitted that he was served with letters stating therein that performance of the workman was poor and unsatisfactory. The workman has also filed the copy of the letter of extention whereby Probation period was extended which is also filed by the management and is marked as Exhibit M/ 6 . This also shows that his performance was poor and unsatisfactory. He was advised to improve his performance . This clearly shows that his performance was poor and as such he was terminated from services during probation period .

9. On the other hand , the management has also adduced oral and documentary evidence . Shri Gopal Shankerlal Gangrade is Branch Manager of Vadía Branch ofthe bank . He has supported the case of the management . He has stated that the workman was given appointment

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] on probation. He has proved the documents in his evidence. He has stated that the workman's performance was poor and his period of probation was extended but instead of improving his efficiency and conduct , he intentionally slowed the work and misbehaved . He was issued memo but did not give any reply but lastly submitted reply on 13-9-1993 . He has stated that taking into consideration all these facts his services were terminated after payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice by way of Banker's cheque . He was discharged from service in terms of appointment. Thus it is clear from his evidence that on the basis of the contract of appointment, he was discharged and it comes under the purview of Section 2 ( oo) (bb) ofthe Act, 1947.

10. In support of the oral evidence the management has adduceddocumentary evidence . All documents filed bythe management are admitted by the workman. Exhibit M/ l is the photocopy of the Banker's cheque whereby one months pay was paid to the workman . Exhibit M/2 photocopy of the person whereby the termination letter and Banker's cheque were received by the workman on 13-1-94. Exhibit M/ 3 is the appointment letter. The relevancy of the document is already earlier discussed . Exhibit M/ 4 and M/4B are the letters whereby the workman was informed time to time during the period of probation abouthis poor performance and misbehaviour. Exhibit M/ 5 is the reply dated 13-9-93 whereby he had regretted his action and had given assurance to improve in future of shortcoming of his lapses . Exhibit M/ 6 is the letter whereby his period of probation was extended till 14-1-94. Exhibit M/ 7 is the discharge letter whereby he was discharged from service after payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice . Thus the documentary evidence clearly shows that the management was empowered to discharge the workman within the ambit of the contract of appointment during probation period without assigning any reason .

11. The learned counsel for the workman submits that the provision of Section 2 (oo)(bb ) ofthe Act, 1947 is not applicable rather he was retrenched employee within the definition of Section 2 ( oo) of the Act, 1947 and he had admittedly worked for more than 240 days and therefore the provision of Section 25 - F of the Act, 1947 is attracted. He has relied the decisions reported in 2003 ( 2) M.P.L.J 529 , S. M. Nilajkar and others vrs . Telecom District Manager, Karnataka and 2009 MPLSR 106 ( DB ) М. Р. Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vrs.Santosh Kumar Dubey wherein the burden is of the management to prove that the employees terminated were engaged in a scheme or project which came to an end whereas the facts of this case is quite different . Those discussions are not applicable in the case . The learned counsel further submits that termination of the probationer also comes under the definition of retrenchment as defined in Section 2( oo) of the Act, 1947 and has relied a decision of the Hon'ble [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5387

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

ApexCourt reported in AIR 1983 SC 1320 Management of State Road Transport Corporation , Bangalore Vrs . M. Boraiah and another. The learned counsel for the management submits that the decision is not applicable in the case because Section 2( oo )(bb ) was inserted on 18-8- 1984 in theAct, 1947 by amendment whereby a workman of such contract being terminated under a stipulation on that behalf contained therein doesnot include in the definition of retrenchment . It is evident that Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Act, 1947 was inserted subsequently and therefore the said ruling appears to be not applicable in the case.

found satisfactory the employee shall be confirmed. and there is no maximum probationary period provided. The necessary corollary, therefore , is that in absence of formal order of confirmation, if the employee is allowed to continue in service after the original period of probation , he shall be deemed to continue as probationer till the formal order of confirmation . In other words, the necessary implication is that after the completion of the specified of probation, if the employee is allowedto continue in the post without a formal order of confirmation , his original specified period of probation is deemed to have been extended . Thus the forequoted condition permitted extension ofthe probationary period for an indefinite time.

12. The learned counsel for the management has submitted that the workman was in probation period and the management has right to terminate him without notice in term of appointment letter. He has relied the decision reported in(2005) 2 S.C.C.382, Municipal Committee , Sirsa vrs Munshi Ram wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that-

The principle deducible from the leading decision on the point of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vrs . Dharam Singh is that unless there is a Service Rule providing for an automatic confirmation on the expiry of the specified period of probation or an outer limit for the extension of the period of probation , the employee shall be deemed to continue on probation if he is allowed to continue without confirmation after the expiry ofspecified period. "

Thus it is clear that the discharge ofthe workman by the management is legal and justified . This issue is decided in favour of the management and against the workman.

13. 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.

"As noticed above in the instant case , the respondent having been appointed as a probationer and his working having been found not to the satisfaction of the employer, it was open to the management to terminate his services . Assuming that there was an incident of misconduct or incompetency prior to his discharge from service , the same cannot ipso facto be termed as misconduct requiring an inquiry . It may be a ground for the employer's assessment of the workman's efficiency and efficacy to retain him in service , unless , of course, the workman is able to satisfy that the management for reasons other than efficiency wanted to remove him from services by exercising its power ofdischarge."

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

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

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , PresidingOfficer नईदिल्ली, 29 जून , 2011 The learned counsel for the management has also submitted that the extention of probation period was also to be treated as probation though there is no clear condition that the management may extend the period of probation as he was discharged in the extended period of probation . The learned counsel for the management has relied a decision reported in 1979 MPLJ 498 Ramanand Ramnarayan Raidas Vrs . State of MP and others where the Hon'ble Court has held that-

" We now turn to the provision made regarding period of probation and confirmation in Annexure C. The relevant portion is set out below-

" परीक्षाकाल की अवधि दो वर्ष की होगी , तत्पश्चात् यदि उनका कार्य संतोषजनक पाया गया तो उनको स्थायी किया जाएगा । "

का.आ. 1950.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बुन्देलखण्ड क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक 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 188/98 , 326/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12011/73/97-आई आर( बी-1 ) ,

सं. एल -12012/275/99- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] From what is extracted above , especially the underlined portion it has been expressly indicated thatafter the period of probation on his work being

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

5388

:संदर्भ विन्द-1 :

New Delhi , the 29th June , 2011

S.O. 1950.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 188/98 , 326/99 ) 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 Bundelkhand Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 27-6-2011 .

1. " क्या बुन्देलखण्ड क्षेत्रीय ग्रमीण बैंक , टीकमगढ़ के प्रबंधन द्वारा अपने दैनिक वेतन भोगी संदेश वाहकों में से प्रत्येक को एकवार में 58 या 59 दिन की नियुक्ति के पश्चात् सेवा से निष्कासित कर उनके स्थान पर पुनः 58 या 59 दिन के लिये दूसरे को नियुक्ति करना और इस प्रकार क्रमशः कर्मचारियों को बारी - बारी से बदलते रहने की कार्यवाही औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 की धारा ( ए ) सहपठित शेड्यूल पांच के भाग एक के अनुच्छेद 10 में परिभाषित है कि अनुचित श्रम निति (अनफेयर लेबर प्रेक्टिस ) है । "

[No. L- 12011/73/97 - IR (B- I) , No. L- 12012/275/99- IR (B- I)]

: संदर्भ विन्द-2 :

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI MOHD.SHAKIR HASAN

2. " क्या बुन्देलखण्ड क्षेत्रीय ग्ग्रमीण बैंक , टीकमगढ़ के प्रबंधन द्वारा अपने दैनिक वेतन भोगी संदेश वाहकों को स्थाई संदेश वाहकों से कम दर पर वेतन देने की कार्यवाही वैध और न्यायोचित के सिद्वान्त के अनुरूप है और यदि नहीं तो अनुलग्नक ' क ' में सूचिबद्व दैनिक भोगी संदेश वाहक किस अनुतोष के पात्र हैं ।"

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/ 188/98

: संदर्भ विन्द-3:

Shri Munnalal Sen, Mahamantri ,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmchari Sangh, Bundelkhand Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Near Jain Mandir,

R& PO Mumbai , Teh & Distt. Tikamgarh ,

3. " क्या बुन्देलखण्ड क्षेत्रीय ग्रमीण बैंक , प्रबंधन द्वारा 'अनुलग्नक ' क' में सूचिबद्ध दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारियों को बैंक में स्थित 24 स्थाई संदेश वाहको के रिक्त पदों, पर स्थाई नियुक्ति न देने की कार्यवाही उचित और वैध है ? यदि नहीं तो संबंधित कर्मकार किस अनुतोष के हकदार हैं । "

Workman

Distt. Tikamgarh (MP)

Versus

The President,

Bundelkhand Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

(b) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L - 12012/275 /99 - IR (B -I ) dated 15-11-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythistribunal :

HeadOffice,

...Management

Tikamgarh (MP)

Case No. CGIT/LC /R/326/99

Shri Munnalal Sen , Mahamantri ,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmchari Sangh , Bundelkhand Kshetriya Gramin Bank, }

Near Jain Mandir,

R& POMumbai ,

Teh& Distt. Tikamgarh ,

Workman

"Whether the action of the management of Bundelkhand Kshetriya Gramin Barnk to terminate the services of the daily wage messengers (list attached) after every 58-59 days and reappoint fresh recruits in their places and (ii ) whether paying them less wages than the regular messengers in view of equal pay for equal work and ( iii ) whether the action of not filling up the regular vacancies by regular incumbants is justified and legal ? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled to and from what date?"

Distt. Tikamgarh (MP)

Versus

The President,

2. Both the references are taken up together as both are on common subject matter and on similar issues.

Bundelkhand Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

HeadOffice,

Management

Tikamgarh (MP)

AWARD

Passed on this 20th day of June 2011

3. The case of the Union/workmen in short is that the workmen were employed as messenger boys in different branches of the Bank on different dates . They hadworked for different periods ranging from 2-3 years to 8-9 years or even more . It is stated that the management Bank had formulated a policy to appoint any casual employee onlyfor a period of59 days . Thereafter he would not be employed for 15 months to deny the benefits of regularization and other benefits such as leave , provident 1. (a) TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L- 12011 /73/97 - IR (B - I ) dated 10-8-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

5389 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6. Before discussing the issues, it is clear that the following facts are admitted by the parties-

1. The workmen were engaged as messengers in different branches of the Bank on daily wages .

2. No notice or compensation was paid to these workmen before termination from the services ofthe bank.

3. The circular dated 8-2-95 was issued prohibiting the Branch Managers from engaging daily wage messengers in any other's name .

7. Issue No. I

fund and gratuity etc. and to avoid the application of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( in short the Act, 1947). It is stated that sometimes the management Bank had employed the workmen in different names and paid wages accordingly. Thus the workmen continued to work for several months or years without any break. It is stated that this system was also known to the higher authorities for long . As such the Chairman issued a circular dated 8-2- 95 directed the branches for not appointing anyone on other's name . It is stated that the workmen had worked more than 240 days in a calendar year but they have been terminated in violation of section 25 - F of the Act, 1947. On these grounds , it is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the Union/workmen .

Now the important question is as to whether the workmenwere appointed on daily wage messenger for 58- 59days with break and thereafter re- appointed to commit unfair labour practice. In Reference Case No. R/ 188/98 the Union has examined six witnesses . The Union witness Shri Munnalal Napit was workman as well as General Secretary of the Union. He has supported his case that he worked as part time daily wage messenger in the Bank and worked continuously from 18-8-87 to 29-9-96. He has not been given any appointment letter. He has stated that he had also worked in the name of Chaddam but did not complain . There is no chit ofpaper to show that he worked in the name of Chaddam. It looks unprobable that he would not raise any complaint before the authority specially when he was himself General Secretary of the union and there was admittedly a circular dated 8-2 . -95 for .not engaging on any other's name. His evidence is not reliable.

4. The management appeared and contested the reference by filing separate written statements in both the references . The case of the management, interalia is that the Union has no right to raise dispute of these wõrkmen as Union is not recognised by the Bank . It is stated that the workmen were appointed on daily wages on contractual basis which commenced with the opening of the Bank and ended with the closing hours of the Bank The provision of Section 2 (oo ) (bb ) of the Act , 1947 is applicable and they di ' not come within the meaning of retrenchment of the Act , 1947. They had not worked 240 days of statutory period of Section 25B of the Act, 1947. It is admitted that they were appointed as messenger in different branches on daily wages . It is denied that the workmen had worked in the name of any other persons . The circular dated 8-2-95 was issued but it did not mean that it is for preventing the branch Manager for employing workers in somebody else's name . It is stated that there is no violation of the provision of Section 25 -F of the Act , 1947. The person appointed on daily wages cannot be equated with the persons appointed on regular basis in accordance with recruitment rules and therefore they are not entitled to any regular scale of pay. There is no vacant post of messenger in the Bank. It is submitted that the reference be rejected.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties , the following issues are framed-

8. Another witness shri Gauri Shanker was engaged atNiwadi branch from 19-1-85 to 19-10-88 and at Soninia branch from 27-10-88 to 20-7-91 as daily wager. He has also come to say that he was also engaged in different names for some periods . In cross - examination , he has stated that he did not get any written appointment letter and had not complained before any authority regarding working in any other's name . It appears to be not believable to accept that he worked in other's name without any protest when there was specific circular. Moreover there is no paper to show the days of work he did . His evidence is also not acceptable.

I.Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of these daily wages messengers after every 58-59 days and re - appoint fresh recruits in their places is legal and justified?

II . Whether paying them less wages than the regular messengers in view of equal pay for equal work is legal?

III . Whether the action of the management for not filling up the regular vacancies by regular imcumbants is legal and justified?

9. Another Union witness Shri Dwarika Prasad Napali was aslo engaged as daily wage messenger at Neguwa branch of the Bank. He has also come to support in examination - in-chief in the same way as other witnesses have stated . He has stated that he worked from 21-10-88 to 29-10-95 and also worked in different names but he has contradicted his evidence in cross - examination . He has stated that he worked in his name from beginning to end . This shows that the story of the union that the Bank management had taken work from these workmen in different names , has been falsify by this witness .

IV. To what relief, if any, these workmen are entitled?

2589G1/11-29 5390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

He has stated that they never worked for the statutory period of 240 days during the preceding year of their alleged termination. He has stated that they were employed for 59 days thereafter another person was taken into employment. He has admitted that no notice was given under the provision of Section 25 - F of the Act, 1947.

14. The management has filed documents in both the case which are admitted by the counsel of the Union. In reference case No. 326/99 the statement showing detail period ofwork done by each ofthe worker which is marked asExhibit M/ 1 . It is admitted on behalf of the Union. The statement shows that they were not always appointed for 58 or 59 days . Rather it shows that they were engaged for different days in case of exigencies . This also shows that none ofthe workmen has worked 240 days in twelve months preceding the date with reference as provided in Section 25 B of the Act , 1947. This shows that there is no violation of the provision of 25 - F of the Act, 1947. This document also shows that there is no unfair labour practice because they were never engaged for a very long period continuously. Moreover there is no evidence on the record to show that there was existence of vacancies of messengers .

10.Another Union witness Kamod Prasad has stated that he was working in head office of the Bank from 23-7-90 till date i.e. till 3-8-2006 . This shows that he was continuing in service till the date of reference. He has also stated that he had also worked in different names but he had.contradicted in cross - examination and has stated that he had worked in the bank in his own name . Thus the story of the Union appears to be not believable . Another Union witness Shri Hardeyal Tiwari was at Kudila Branch ofthe Bank where he worked from 1-3-90 to 6-10-2000 . But in cross -examination, he has stated that he worked tIll 2003. He had not been given any appointment letter. He worked in different names also but he did not make any complaint before authority . This story appears to not believable in view of the evidence of other witnesses . The last witness Shri Sowami Prasad Napati had worked in the branches of Darguda and Baramalara of the Bank from 1-3-91 to 19-7-96 . He did not also make any complaint while he was working in another's name . There is no chit of paper filed by the union to show that how many days he worked in a calendar year. The story of the Union that these workmen were also working in different names , is not believable as the Union witnesses have contradicted the story.

11. In R/ 326/99 , only one witness namely Shri Lala Ram Sen is examined on behalf ofthe Union . He has stated that he worked in the Sunonia branch of the Bank from 7-2-89 to 6-4-89 again from 23-4-90 to 9-6-90 and again from 19-1-98 to 7-4-98 as daily wager employee . He had also worked in the name of Chaddam but in cross- examination , he has denied and has stated that he had worked in his own name only. He has also contradicted the case of the Union .

15. Exhibit M/2 is also an admitted document . It is a circular regarding regularization of daily wages part time messenger. The reference is not for regularization as such thisdocument is not help to any of the party. Exhibit M/3 to M/5 are the circular ofthe Bank with respect to working procedure of the Bank . Exhibit M/6 is the circular with respect of engagement of daily wager for 59 days only and thereafter there is a direction for not engaging them till 15 months . The circular is not helpful to these workmen because Exhibit M/ l clearly shows that this circular is not followed in their cases and they were engaged on need basis . Thus the documents proves that there is no violation ofSection 25 - F oftheAct, 1947 and they were not engaged for 58-59 days at a time . r

12. The Union has filed copy of the failure report of the Asstt. Labour Commissioner ( Central), Jabalpur which is marked as Exhibit W/ 1 in Case No. R/ 188 /98 . This document does not prove the case of the union rather it shows that the dispute was raised by the union before the proper authority but conciliation proceeding failed between them . In case No. R/326/ 99 , the Union has not filed any document . Thus the oral and documentary evidence donot prove that the workmen were employed only for 58-59 days at a time and after break of about 15 months they were re - engaged in the services . It is also not established that they were also employed in different name to frustrate the provision of the Act , 1947 because some of the witnesses of the union have himself contradicted the story.

13. On the other hand , the management has also adduced oral and documentary evidence in the case . Shri N.K. Jain , Personnel Manager is examined in both the reference cases . He has cometo support the case of the management . He has stated that the workmen were appointed on daily wages on contract on need base basis .

16. In reference Case No. R/ 188/98 the management hasfiled statement showing detail period of work done by the workmen in this reference case which is marked as ExhibitM/ 1 . This statement also shows that they never worked 240 days in twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference . As such there appears to be no violation of the provision of Section 25 - F of the Act, 1947. Sometimes they were engaged more than 59 days continuously. Exhibit M/ 2 and M/ 3 are the circular regarding the working of the Bank . Thus the oral and documentary evidence adduced in both reference cases clearly show that these workmen had not worked 240days or more in twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference . This shows that there is no violation ofthe Act , 1947. It also shows that there is no violation of unfair labour practice . Their termination appears to be justified. Accordingly this issue is decided against the Union/ workmen and in favour of the management .

5391 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

17. Issue No. II

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

Wednesday, the 22nd June , 2011

PRESENT : A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 23/2008

Considering the discussion made above , it is clear that they were admittedly engaged on daily wages basis and as such they cannot be equated with employee appointed under recruitment rules . They cannot be said to be entitled to get wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work . This issue is also decided in favour ofthe management and against the Union.

18. Issue No. III

[In the matter ofthe dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub -section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) ofSection 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947 ) , between the Management of State Bank of India and their Workmen ]

BETWEEN

It is evident that the Union has not adduce any evidence that any post is vacant and they were working on casual bası as messenger . This is accordingly decided.

: Petitioner/Ist Party

Sri H. M. Sivaraman

AND

19. Issue No. IV

TheAsstt . General Manager (Region- 1 ) : Respondent/

State Bank of India

57, 57/1 Kamarajar Salai

Maduraj - 625009

On the basis of the discussion made above , it is clear that the action of the management appears to be justified and therefore the workmen are not entitled to any relief. These two references are accordingly answered .

APPEARANCES :

2nd Party For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s Balan Haridas , 20. In the result, a common award is passed in both the reference cases without any order to costs .

Advocates. For the 2nd Party/Management : Sri V. R. Gopalarathnam Advocate.

AWARD

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

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 29 जून , 2011

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its OrderNo. L- 12012/240/2005 - IR(B- I) dated 14-5-2008 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the punishment of " Dismissal from Service" imposed on Sri M. Sivaraman by the management of State Bank of India, Madurai is legal andjustified? To what relief is he entitled ?" का.आ. 1951.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 वा 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/240/2005- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 29th June , 2011

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal , hasnumbered it as ID 23/2008 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their Advocates and filed their Claim , Counter and Reply Statement as the case may be .

3. The contentions raised in the Claim Statement bereft of unnecessary details are as follows:

S. O. 1951. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23 / 2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 24-6-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/240/2005 - IR (B - I) ]

The petitioner under the services of the Respondent Management w.e.f. 4-8-1966 and promoted as Head Clerk in 1985while was working in the Madurai City Branch began to be meted out with harassing treatment . He was punished by reducing pay by 1 stage for 2 years on 21-7-1985.His SpecialAllowance was withdrawn for 3 years on 14-12-1987. He was issued Charge Memo on 17-11-1989 . A farce enquiry was conducted. Second Show RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer 5392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] Cause Notice was issued on 8-2-1991 proposing ofthe 3 incidents quoted are not for minor misconduct and the same will not lie . While a part of the 5th Charge was proved and the second charge not proved still Disciplinary Authority proceeded as if petitioner is guilty of all the charges for imposing dismissal . Disciplinary Authority did not apply his mind. When Disciplinary Authority differs from Enquiry Officer's finding petitioner should have been put on notice which was not done violating principles of natural justice . Appellate Authority also mechanically confirmed the punishment . None of the allegations would amount to misconduct . There is no delay. The punishment is harsh and unjust and the same is to be interfered with under Section - 11A of the ID Act as being grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct . There is legal victimization . Setting petitioner ex -parte the enquiry washeld holding the charges proved. Enquiry is unfair. He has not been gainfully engaged after termination . He is to be given his full back wages and all other benefits .

4. The contentions raised in the Counter Statement areas follows:

Punishments of reduction in pay on 21-07-1985 and withdrawal of Special Allowance on 14-12-1987 were properly imposed only after conducting enquiries in a fair and imposed only after conducting enquiries in a fair and proper manner. The withdrawal of Special Allowance was upheld by the High Court magnanimously in a writ filed by petitioner. It is denied that the enquiry was farce . It is denied that dismissal was arbitrary or that the allegations were flimsy. Dismissal is commensurate with the proved misconduct considering his proved earlier misconducts . Petitioner willfully avoided the enquiry in spite of sending letters/telegram to the petitioner. There was no alternative other than to conduct the enquiry in his absence . Except manhandling Accounts Manager and wilful damage to letter other charges were held proved. Principles of natural justice were complied with . Before the Civil Court the petitioner did not appear refusing to accept notice . The ex- parte enquiry is not open to challenge . It is denied that Disciplinary Authority has not applied his mind . The petitioner's failure to participate in the enquiry was deliberate . If the enquiry is found defective Respondent would further prove. Reference may be answered in favour ofthe Respondent .

5. Reply Statement contentions in a nutshell are as follows:

Observations other than premature nature ofthe Civil Suit by the Munsiff is perinquirium and the reliance on past record does not arise when present misconduct is not proved. Petitioner is now aged 63 years .

punishment ofdismissal . On 28-1-1993 he was dismissed from service . Appeal preferred was rejected with no communication thereof to the petitioner. Civil Suit filed by petitioner as O.S. 457/91 was dismissed as premature by the Principal District Munsiff, Madurai on 9-7-2003 . Petitioner has had 27 years of service . The charges are , firstly on 8-8-1989 he applied for Consumer Loan for purchase of Washing Machine during the pendency of similar loan without disclosing the factum of attachment ofRs. 1,066 from his salary, which fact he admitted resulting in the refusal of the loan. The petitioner had already closed the existing loan on 8-8-1989 . The petitioner was informed regarding the attachment of Rs . 1,066 . No question of disclosure of attachment of salary arises . It would not amount to an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. It is also not a misconduct. The Second Charge is that the petitioner submitted letter dated 9-9-1989 to theAccounts Manager in relation to which on a discrepancy he manhandled the Manager and snatched the letter . The letter found to contain some mistakes was only sought to be returned . He submitted a corrected letter on 9-9-1989 . The said charges held not proved . Third Charge that petitioner prevailed upon Issac Paulraj , Dafadar to withdraw Rs . 7,000 from his account without any fund in his account is a charge turned against the petitioner instead of being against Issac Paulraj . It is not known how Bank permitted Issac Paulraj to withdraw Rs . 7,000 without fund . The Cashier has not been questioned . Issac Paulraj or Cashier have not been proceeded against . The holding of the charge is perverse. Third Charge is that petitioner abetted or instigated for commission ofmisconducts . The charge is vague . Leaving them scot free petitioner is discriminated and punished. Fourth Charge is that petitioner did not work from 11-09-1989 to 16-09-1989 after signing attendance . During the period Respondent had not allotted any work to him. The petitioner was suspended on 17-09-1989 . The charge was held proved perversely. Fifth Charge that petitioner was warned on 14-03-1985 , his pay was reduced to next stage for 2 years on 21-07-1985 and that his Special Allowance was withdrawn for 3 years on 14-12-1987 for habitual misconduct were held not proved except that he refused to perform allotted work on 6 consecutive days which again is not correct, and is perverse. That petitioner did not work on every single day for 6 days and that would amount to habitual misconduct and therefore the charge is proved to that extent is not correct . Holding the charge in respect of not doing work for 6 days as proved cannot take the same charge to hold yet another charge also to be proved . The said finding is perverse . The said charge itself cannot be a misconduct as each of the punishment referred to in respect of this charge relates to different incidents and allegations . Habitual doing of any act under Section- 521 (4 )(f) of Sastry Award/ 18.28 of Desai Award amount to

6.At the time of enquiry, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in the Departmental Enquiry no opportunity was given to the petitioner to take part in the onlyminor misconduct. Two incidents of punishments out [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

enquiry and to cross examine the witnesses examined by the Respondent authorities and it was decided ex-parte which is against the principles of natural justice and , therefore, the enquiry held against, the petitioner is not fair and proper and he is ready to argue the matter with regard to fairness of the enquiry as a preliminary issue . The Respondent's counsel is also ready to argue on the preliminary issue . Hence , the matter was taken with regard tothe preliminary issue viz . whether the domestic enquiry held against the petitioner is fair and proper and as per order dated 28-02-2011 it was held that the enquiry held is fairandproper.

7. Evidence consists of Ex . W1 to Ex . W3 on the petitioner's side and Ex.M1 to Ex. M19 on the Respondent's side, both marked on consent . No oral evidence was adduced on either side .

8. Points for consideration are:

(i) Whether dismissal from service of the petitioner by the State Bank of India, Madurai is legal and justified?

(ii ) To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?

Points (i) & ( ii)

9.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the records and documents . According to the learned counsel for the petitioner invoking Section - 11A of the ID Act evidence can be re-appreciated and the Tribunal may come toa different conclusion. The finding is perverse . There is no intention on the part of the petitioner to suppress the existence of a consumer loan to be paid up. There is no column in the application form to mention about a pre- existing loan. Ifhe is not eligible for the loan it is only to be rejected and the matter ends therewith. In the case of a mistake pointed out by the Accounts Manager in a letter it was rectified and supplied by the petitioner and there is no misconduct and the same is not proved. Charge of manhandling does not stand proved. Enquiry Officer travelled beyond his jurisdiction . In the case ofwithdrawal ofmoneyby Paulraj , Security from his account the petitioner has no role in relation to Charge -3 . The said Paulraj and the concerned Officer who authorized the withdrawal of the money have not been charge sheeted and regarding which there is no contra case in the reply statement . Charge is simply foisted against the petitioner. Charge should have been against some others and the action ofthe Management isdiscriminatory. The 4th charge also is not a serious misconduct, in that the petitioner was insisting for work of Head Clerk while what was assigned is only that ofClerk. There has not been any complaint from any customer. As regards 5th charge there is no dislocation of work and there cannot be any misconduct amounting to

5393

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

insubordination. All the charges should be held not proved . There is no application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority. Petitioner was not put on record regarding his past record of service which invalidates the order. Petitioner suffered the forfeiture of 27 years of service for the flimsiest charges . He has been imposed with harshest punishment of dismissal from service . The Civil Suit has only been against the Show CauseNotice and not against the punishment which is not relevant or applicable to the present case . Though petitioner has superannuated that is not to be to his prejudice who is apension optee.

10. The contra arguments are that in an Industrial Adjudication there need be some evidence leading to conclusion and not adequate evidence. Deliberate conduct of petitioner in suppressing material particulars is to be looked into seriously. He pressurized another account holder staff to withdraw money and pay him whereas there was no sufficient money in the account . The disorderly behaviour and arrogant conduct of the petitioner towards his superiors in total disregard of discipline invited the punishment for him . Petitioner snatched and tore the paper from his superior though the same is not reckoned proved as an act ofmanhandling the superior . Petitioner slept over for 16 years for raising the ID and this delay could be led to assume acquiescence by him.

11. On a consideration of the rival contentions I do not find any force in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner as regards the finding . The enquiry has already been found to be fair and proper. There is no perversity attributable to the finding as argued. Then what remains is regarding the punishment, as to whether it is proportionate or disproportionate affording scope for interference by the Tribunal as held in MAHINDRA AND MAHIN DRALTD . VS. N. B. NARAVADE ETC. (CDJ-2005- SC-250) as follows " the discretion which can be exercised under Section - 11A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience ofthe court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which requires the reduction of the sentence , or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment " . The punishment is discernibly harshest and disproportionate to the gravity ofthe offence.While it may not be harmonious to have him continue in service and he deserved termination from service, the proper course would have been to inflict on him the punishment of Compulsory Retirement so that he may get his superannuation benefits by reason of having put in already 27 years of service. The fact that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority failed to take note of this fact renders the punishment so harsh as to be interfered with . In the matter of determination of 5394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

the punishment by the Disciplinary Authority and approval by the Appellate Authority both appear to have been influenced by the cumulative impact of all the charges levelled against the petitioner whereas all the same do not stand proved against him but only some ofthem are proved. For the misconduct proved discernibly the punishment imposed is more than proportionate to its gravity. In other words it has assumed itself too harsh warranting interference . It is awful to imagine that while he should quit the institution to his embarrassment, though for proved misconduct , he has to forfeit the fruit of the past service of 27 years rendered by him . It is too unjust a punishment. The scope for interference lies also in cases where for any reason other than the above reason there is scope for interference i.e. to say for any other good reasons also the Tribunal can interfere in proper cases as has been held by the Apex Court. The above mentioned one is a very good reason to interfere with the punishment and to award the petitioner a reduced punishment of Compulsory Retirement instead of Dismissal from Service which amounts to economic death of the individual . Therefore, while still upholding the finding as vaild and binding, the punishment is to be modified and reduced as above and it is ordered accordingly.

12. Petitioner is entitled to the relief to that extent .

(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this daythe 22nd June, 2011).

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

None

Forthe 1st Party/Petitioner :

For the 2nd Party/Management : None

Documents Marked :

From the Petitioner's side

Ex. No. Date

Description

Ex. WI 17-11-1989 Charge Sheet

Ex.W2 31-12-1990 Enquiry Report

Ex. W3 22-12-1994 Order in OS 77/88

Ex. M17

From the Management's side

Ex.-No. Date

Description

Ex. M1 8-2-1991

Ex. M18

Letter of Disciplinary Authority forwarding enquiry report to Sivaraman

Ex. M2 15-2-1991

Ex.M19

Letter of Sivaraman to Disciplinary Authority acknowledging enquiry report

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

Ex.M3 28-1-1993 Order of Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment

Ex.M4 18-1-1993 Letter of Sivaraman to Disciplinary Authority

Ex.M5

Minutesof enquiry proceedings

Ex.M6 17-11-1989 Letter of Regional Managerto Madurai City Branch

Ex. M7 29-11-1989 Letter of Branch Manager to the Petitioner

Ex.M8 17-11-1989 Charge Sheet

Ex.M9 5-12-1989 Letter of Petitioner to Branch Manager returning the Charge Sheet

Ex.M10 20-2-1990 Letter ofEnquiry Officer advising the petitioner to attend enquiry on 3-3-1990

Ex. MI! 6-3-1990 Letter of Enquiry Officer to the petitioner

Ex. M12 30-11-1990 Letter ofEnquiry Officer to the petitioner advising the petitioner to participate in the enquiry to be held on 13-12-1990

Ex. M13

Report and findings of Enquiry Officer with exhibits of Management filed in the enquiry proceedings

Ex.M14 13-1-1994 OrderofAppellate Authority

Ex. M15 9-7-2003 Judgment in OS No. 457/1991 filed by petitioner against the bank given by Principal DistrictMunsiff

Ex.M16 17-6-2005 Judgment in Appeal No. 239/2003 by 3rd Additional Sub -Judge

3-3-1997 Judgment of Hon'ble High Court , Madras in WP No.5933 of 198 filed by Sivaraman

15-7-2005 Counter filedby Sivaram in WAMP No. 346/2005 in WA No. 277 of2005 before Madurai Bench of High Court of Madras

7-8-2006 Awardby CGIT- cum-Labour Court in ID No , 7/2006 5395

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2011

का.आ. 1952.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पश्चिम रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रभ न्यायालय अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41011 / 77/ 2010- आईआर ( बी -1 ) ]

Adispute arose between the employer in relation to the management of Western Railway and their workman through the Union PRKP and on failure of conciliation report by the conciliation officer , the appropriate Govt. , Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralay in exercise of power conferred by clause (d) of under sub section ( 1 ) and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947, by its order No. L-41011 /77/2010 IR (B - 1 ) dated New Delhi 17-08-2010 , referred the dispute for adjudication under the terms of dispute specified in the schedule at Ext. 1 whichis as follows: -

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

SCHEDULE

New Delhi , the 29th June , 2011

"Whether the demand of Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Ahmedabad for cancellation of the transfer of Shri V.P. Sumeshra , Kamlesh Wagela, M.H. Jadhav, R.L. Chavda being protected. workman by the Mangement of DRM, Western Railway Ahmedabad , is proper and justified? Ifyes , what relief the union /workman concern are entitled to?"

S.O. 1952. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/2010 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Ahemdabad as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in reation to the management of Western Railway and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 21-06-2011 .

[No. L-41011 /77/2010- IR(B- I ) ]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT,

AHEMDABAD

Present

Binay Kumar Sinha,

PresidingOfficer, CGIT cum Labour Court , Ahmedabad, Dated 17th June , 2011

Reference: CGITA of 19/2010

1. The Divisional Railway Manager , Western Railway, Nr . Chamunda Bridge , Asarva Road , Ahmedabad .

2. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Western Railway, Nr. Chamunda Bridge,

....First Party

Asarva Road , Ahmedabad

And their workman

Shri V.P. Sumeshra , through

(2) Statement of claim filed by the President of the PRKP which is at Ext . 8 in short compass is as follows , - The workman Shri V.P Sumeshra is the Assistant General Secretary ofthe Union and a list ofthe protected workman ofthisunion duly elected by the General body were sent to General Manager, Western Railway, Church Gate, Mumbai and in the list the name of Shri Sumeshra was also mention being protected workman and this list was also received by the first party on 31-03-2009. The chartered of demand dated 21-05-2009 was issued by the union to the first Party raising the issue that the Railway Administration has adopted pick and choose policy and maintaining hostile attitude with the office bearers ofthe union . Further case is that in spite of receiving the list of protected workman which also includes V.P. Sumeshra but said workman Sumeshra was transferred from Ahmedabad to Bhuj as per order dated 16-04-2009 . Against this transfer union tried to justify its demand before the first party and thereafter the first party modified the order dated 16-04-2009 and retransfer Mr. Sumeshra vide letter dated 19-05-2009 from Ahmedabad to Himmatnagar. Further case is that as per schedule of Reference it pertains to 4 protected workmen V.P Sumeshra, Kamlesh Wagela, M.H. Jadhav and R.L. Chavda. However except V.P. Sumeshra, remaining three protected workman of the union were satisfied with their transfer as it was according to their wish and so, the statement of claim is filed making grievances with respect to the transfer order The President Paschim Railway- Karmachari Parishad , 28/B, Narayan Park, B/h . Chandkheda Railway Station , Ahmedabad.

...Second Party

For the first party : Shri H.B. Shah , Advocate

For the second party: Shri R.S. Sisodia, President PRKP,

ofthe protected workman Shri Sumeshra . Further case is that Mr. V.P. Sumeshra is Assistant General Secretary of the union and due to keeping hostile attitude and for victimizing him , he was transferred to distant place Himmatnagar, even after modifying earlier transfer toBhuj .

Shri U.T. Mishra, Advocate 5396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

the first party to post him as per the choice of name noting at Sardargram with other relief if any, to which the second party workman through union PRKP is found entitled?

(3) The first party making contest in this Reference filed its written statement at Ext. 15pleading inter-allis that the dispute raised by the union PRKP is not maintainable, because' the transfer is incidence of service and transfer fallwithin the perview of individuals dispute and not within the perview of collective dispute and so , the concerned affected employees has only right to raise this dispute and notby the union PRKP. Further case is that by O.O.No. 67/ 09aperiodical transfer of 59 employees ofbooking luggage staff have been made was a mass periodical transfer. It was not individual transfer. There is no pick and choose policy adopted by the first party. There is no question of malafide asalleged by the union PRKP. Further stand is that the union PRKP is not a recognized union and so , PRKP has no legal right to raise the dispute challenging the transfer of its protected workman . Further stand is that transfer of Shri Sumeshra does not affect his service condition . Pay and other benefit attached to the post. Even an employee who is active member of trade union, office bearer has no right to claim immunity from transfer because the Railway service is transferable service . It has been denied that Shri V.P. Sumeshra is protected workman as alleged by the union PRKP. Though , it has been admitted that the PRKP is registered trade union but it is not recognized union by the first party Western Railway. Such a stand has been taken that office bearers of the recognized trade union are having only status of protected workman but the office bearers of unrecognized trade union do not have any right to claim status ofprotected workman , for their office bearer. It has been denied that as per charter of demand dated 21-05-2009 several rounds of discussion have been made inbetween union PRKP and the first party western railway Officials , DRM Ahmedabad. The first party have denied to the allegation made in the statement of claim against the Railway Administration . It has not been denied that Shri V.P. Sumeshra concern workman of the present Reference was working in the office of Divisional Commercial Manager , Ahmedabad as Assistant Reservation Supervisor. Periodical transfer are covered by two broad categories of staff - ( 1 ) Staff working in the Commercial Department (2 ) Staff working in the office . And that the staff working in the office of Reservation booking department are fall within the perview of commercial department having public dealings so , required to be transferred every four years . Such stand has also been taken that Shri V.P. Sumeshra was working as Assistant Reservation Supervisor and Supervisor does not come in the category of a workman as defined under the Industrial DisputeAct , 1947. Further stand is that WRMS and WREU are the only recognized trade unions through secret ballot Further case is that the transfer orders were issued on account of the request by the employees and request was conceded to in respect of all the employees except the workman Shri Sumeshra. Further case is that the transfer policy of the Railway employees are regulated by various circulars issued by the Head Quarters and there is a system prevailing where the employee give place of choice popular by known as " name noting " , the second party workman Shri Sumeshra had also given place of choice but it was not considered. There was a vacant post at Sardargram and one Shri Harinarayan Trivedi was transferred from Ahmedabad to Sardargram though there was disciplinary case pending against him and their workman Shri Sumeshra has given his place of choice through name noting for posting at Sardargram prior to Shri Harinarayan Trivedi . Eventhen his case was discriminated and instead of posting him according to the name noting at Sardargram he was retransferred to Himmatnager at distant place . Further case isthat the first party has not followed their own circulars in carrying out the periodical transfer of the Railway Staff. Further case is that the workman Shri Sumeshra belongs to SC/ST category and according to the circular of Railway- Board establishnient . Railway staff belonging SC/ ST category should not be transferred to distant place rather should be transferred near by home district . Further case is that the first party has discriminated with this union PRKP on the ground that this union is not recognized union and thatonly office bearers of recognized union representative and office bearers of recognized union has sayings in the matter of transfer. Further case is that earlier an Industrial Dispute was raised when the Railway Administration discriminated with union PRKP in not granting leave and other benefits at par with the representative and office bearers of recognized union for attending the conciliation proceedings or attending the Tribunal/ Labour Court and vide Reference ITC 74/91 , the Industrial Tribunal allowed the Reference and passed the award in favour ofthe union PRKP directing the Railway Administration to grant them leave and other benefits at par with the representative of recognized union and this award was challenged by the Railway Administration in the Hon'ble High Court ofGujarat which was dismissed and the Railway Administration has also went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court where it was also dismissed and the award of Industrial Tribunal passed in Reference ITC 74/1994 was confirm up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court . Further case is that when earlier the Railway Administration discriminated with the union on basis of unrecognized union denying leave and other benefits to the union which was allowed through award and confirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then the first party. Railway Administration should not have discriminated with the union PRKP in the matter of transfer of their office bearers enlisted as protected workman . On these grounds the prayer has been made to declare and hold the action ofthe first party transferring Shri V.P, Sumeshra being protected workman is unjustified and for directing whereas the trade union PRKP is not recognized union [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

declared by the authority Central Government of India for the year 2009-2010, 2010-2011 . Further contention is that earlier in the Reference No. 74/91 award was passed in favour of PRKP and against the Railway Administration with respect to matters of limited purpose for granted of special leave to attend conciliation proceedings, Tribunals, Court but on the basis of that award though confirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the office bearers of the PRKP have no right to claim immunity fromtransfer. There was nomalafide intention ofthe first party or for victimizing to Shri V.P. Sumeshra, office bearer of unrecognized trade union PRKP. Such stand has been taken, that transfer order ofShri V.P. Sumeshra from Ahmedabad to Bhuj was modified on his request and instead of Bhuj he was transferredto Himmatnagar which cannot be said to be his victimizing him or his transfer with malafide intention. On these grounds prayer has been made that the Reference is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed with cost .

(4) In view of the rival pleadings of the parties the following issues are taken up for discussions and determination.

ISSUES

(1) Whether the Reference is maintainable ?

(II) Whether the workman through his union PRKP has valid cause of action to raise this Industrial Dispute?

(III) Whether first party has legal right to discriminate with the union PRKP on the ground of unrecognized union with respect to the protectedworkman ? -

(IV) Whether the transfer of Shri V.P. Sumeshra to Himmatnagar vide order dated 19-05-2009 has caused hardship to him in view of the situation that he is Assistant General Secretary of the union PRKP and he also belonging to Railway Staff of ST /SC category?

(V) Whether the demand of PRKP Ahmedabad is properandjustified for cancellation ofthe transfer ofoffice bearers particularly Shri V.P. Sumeshra Assistant General Secretary?

(VI) What reliefs the union/workman concerns are entitled to?

(5) ISSUE No. IV & V:

At the very out set it has to be mentioned that earlier Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Western Railway and their four workman V.P. Sumeshra, Kamlesh Vaghela, M.H. Jadav and R.L. Chavda was raised by the Trade union Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, doing its trade union activities on Western Railway and on failure report ofConciliation Officer A.L.C (Central ) , Ahmedabad this dispute was referred for 2589GI/11-30

5397

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1, 1933

1 adjudication by this Tribunal in term of the Reference as perthe schedule . Out ofthe four workman - three workman- Kamlesh Vaghela, M.H. Jadav and R.L. Chavda appear to have been satisfied with their transfer order dated 16-04-2009 fromtheir present posting ADI to Gandhinagar andMehsana figured at Sl . No. 25 , 26 , 27 at Ext . 7/3 (the transfer order) . So, these three workman did not wish to contest this Reference by submitting statement of claim either individually or through the union PRKP. Those three workmen were in the category of ARS . But Shri V.P. Sumeshra who was also in the category ARS and working at ADI was transferred to very distant station Bhuj and so he requested for consideration ofhis cancellation of transfer order dated 16-04-2009 and transferring him to Sardarnagar station where the post of ARS was vacant, but as per modified order dated 19-05-2009 at Ext . 7/3 was posted at Himmatnagar instead of his transfer order dated 16-04-2009 toBhuj . From perusal order ofExt . 7/3 (the modified order) at Sl . No.1 the workman Smt. Arti Banvir who was transferred from Gandhinager to ADI on her own request, at Sl . No.2 the workman J.R. Rawak who was , earlier transferred at Mehsana as per Ext. order dated 16-04-2009 was posted on his request to Gandhinagar. But at Sl . No.5 Shri V.P. Sumeshra ARS ADI even on presenting name noting dated 01-12-2008 for considering change ofhis transfer from Bhuj to nearer place mention . SDGM , SBI , MAN as and when vacancy occur but his request was turned down for posting atnearer place to ADI and was posted at Himmatnagar which is equally far distant station as that ofBhuj . Whereas at Sl . No.6 Shri Bharat Parmar who was earlier posted at Mehsanavide order dated 16-04-2009 (Ext. 7/3) was posted atSardargram as per his own request . So , now only Shri V.P. Sumeshra is contesting this Reference through his union PRKP making demand for cancellation ofhis transfer order dated 16-04-2009 and 20-05-2000.

(6) On behalf of the second party wnion the aggrieved workman Shri V.P. Sumeshra filed affidavited evidence at Ext. 14, who has supported his claim and grievances raised against the first party Management, also stating that his transfer has not been affected in the interest of exigency of administrative work nor in the interest of first party employer. His further statement in affidavit is that he belongs to SC/ST category and more so he is Assistant General Secretary of the trade union PRKP and he is also a protected workman and in this regard the list of protected workman has been duly sent to the first party Railway Administration by the trade union PRKP, he has further stated that due to his transfer at Himmatnagar he is facing lot ofdifficulty in carrying out the unions activities and also facing personal difficulties in taking due care of hisfamily members . In his affidavited statement he has further stated that in the name of periodical transfer by order dated 16-04-2009 there was only eye wash and several Railway employees were transferred on the same place and only their table was transferred and also request were 5398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC .3 ( ii ) ]

recognized union . Ext . 7/8 is the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in CA No. 504/98 preferred byUnion ofIndia through General Manager, Western Railway which was also dismissed and the award was confirmed . Ext . 7/9 and 7/10 are the circulars of the General Manager, Western Railway on the subject of transfer of trade unions officials giving only limitation to consider the case ofofficer bearers ofrecognized trade Union who are protected workman but earlier trade union PRKP which was not recognized on Western Railway has raised the dispute and in Reference ITC 74/91 , their grievances was allowed passing award in favour that though PRKP a registered union of Western Railway but not recognized by Western Railway administration are entitled to have grant of leave'and other benefits at par with the office bearers of the recognized union which was confirmed up to the Ho'ble Supreme Court . So , in that view of the matter circular of the General Manager, Western Railway debarring the constitutional right of a registered trade union in carrying out union activities only on basis that the union is unrecognized union does not appear to be very much plausible . Ext . 7/11 is the name noting dated 01-08-2008 submitted by the workmanV.P. Sumeshra to DRM (E) ADI on the subject for his transfer either to SDGM, or SBI or MAN as and when vacancy occurred at any of that place .

considered ofseveral employees and under modified order oftransfer dated 19-05-2009 they were transferred to there choice ofplace but his request was not considered and he was transferredto Himmatnagar, a very far distant place for victimizing him and preventing him participating in the union activities and also making discrimination in the case ofhis transfer . He was cross-examined by the lawyer ofthe first party, but nothing could have been gained by the first partyby cross -examining him at length in order to discredit his testimony. It was suggested to him (concern workman Shri Sumeshra) that he is not protected workman to which he denied emphatically stated that he is a protected workman as per list submitted by the union PRKP to the General Manager, western Railway DRM . He also stated that it is notjustified that only office bearers of recognized union has sayings in the periodical transfer of their protected workman . He also stated that the two circulars of the Railway Board regarding the guidelines for the transfer of Railway staff will not only applied to the recognized union rather these circulars are also applicable to the office bearers of registered trade union though not recognized by the Western Railway He also stated , it is not true that on his request his transfer to Bhuj from Ahmedabad was modified to Himmatnagar. He also stated that it is not true that he had not submitted name noting on the taking up of periodical transfer . Ext . 7/1 is the charter of demand submitted to the first party DRM Ahmedabad and Senior Commercial Manager , Ahmedabad putting grievances regarding not considering the name noting and transferring the unions Protected workman , Ext. 7/2 is the forwarding letter of the trade union PRKP attached with the list of protected workman for the year 2009-2010 and in the list the name of V.P. Sumeshra find place at Sl . No.9 . Ext . 7/3 is the transfer order dated 16-04-2009 and the name of workman Shri V.P. Sumeshra is at Sl . No. 28 who was transferred from Ahmedabad to Bhuj . Ext . 7/3 a is the modified transfer order dated 19-05-1990 which go to show thatmodified transfer order was issued considering request of other Railway staff in the list of 6 but the request of workman V.P. Sumeshra at SL No.5 was not considered and hewas posted at Himmatnagar . Ext . 7/4 is the failure report of conciliation officer submitted to the Appropriate Government . Ext . 7/5 is the order dated 18-06-2008 ofthe Hon'ble High Court ofGujarat in SCA No. 3358 of2003 by which the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 18-08-1994 passed in Reference case No. 14/91 was confirmed. Ext . 7/6 is the award passed by Industrial Tribunal , Ahmedabad in Reference ITC 74/91. Ext . 7/7 is the order passed in SCA No. 8069 of 97 by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court preferred by the Union of India through General Manager, Western Railway, Mumbai by which the award challenged by the union of India , General Manager, Western Railway was dismissed and the award was confirmed. It has been held by their lordship that the members ofunrecognized union are entitled to privilege by grant of special leave etc. at par with the members of

(7) On behalf ofthe first party the affidavit ofwitness AnilKumar R. Mehta serving in the office of DRM, Western Railway Ahmedabad is filed who has stated to support the first party stand that the transfer order dated 16-04-2009 was periodical transfer by Competent authority and that it was mass transfer of 59 staff and was not an individual transfer . Further stated that PRKP is a trade union but is not recognized trade union and that though V.P. Sumeshra isAssistant General Secretary of PRKP but he is not a protectedworkman and that General Manager of Western Railway, Mumbai has no authority to accept, approve and declare the list of protected workman , rather protected workman is declared by ALC, New Delhi . Further stated thatstatus of protected workman is given to office bearers of recognized trade union and except recognized trade union officer bearers of unrecognized union have no right to claim status of protected workman . Even if a circular regarding transfer has been violated , it is not a ground to challenge the transfer . Further stated that circulars regarding guidelines has no statutory force and that Railway circular dated 02-05-1987 and 21-10-1993 which are a guidelines having no statutory legal force . He further deposed that workman Sumeshra is SC candidate and on his request he was retransferred from Ahmedabad to Himmatnagar injoining district so , there was no violation . He was cross -examine at length on behalf of the second party union, at para 32 he admitted that Shri V.P. Sumeshra belongs to schedule cast and there is circular regarding transfer of SC/ST Railway staff vide RBE 336 of 1985 he admitted that according to this circular ST or SC Railway 5399 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2011/श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

178, 2009 Vol . 11 SCC 678 have been filed to show that Government Employee has not right to be posted at any particular place and that transfer is an incident of service.

staffhas to be transferred within a city. He also admitted at para 29 that he is working for the last eight year at present posting and periodical transfer is also applicable is his case.

(9) Considering the evidence oral and documentary on behalf of the both parties and also considered that the workman Shri V.P. Sumeshra is Assistant General Secretary of a registered trade union PRKP carrying activity on Western Railway, even after submitting his name noting for considering his transfer nearer to Ahmedabad either its Sardarnagar, SBI or MAN and also considering that the workman belongs to schedule caste/SC community and as perguideline/direction of the circulars SC/ST candidate has to be transferred within one district and also considering that the trade union PRKP had submitted list oftheir protected workman being office bearers of the union and name of V.P. Sumeshra was also mentioned but even then Shri V.P. Sumeshra was transferred to distant place at Himmatnager even on modified order dated 19-05-2009, whereas the case of other Railway Staff were considered on their request for transfer to nearer places . So , I find and hold that the transfer ofthe workman Shri V.P. Sumeshrato Himmatnagar where he is presently working , has caused hardship to him being an active office bearers of the trade union PRKP and also having constitutional right to carry ontradeunion activities as a protected workman . It is further held that the demand of the trade union PRKP appears to beproper andjust for considering retransfer ofoffice bearer Shri V.P., Sumeshra , Assistant General Secretary from Himmatnagar to nearer place within Ahmedabad. These two issues are answered in affirmative .

(10) IssueNo. III

Inview ofthe findings given to issue no. 4 and 5 and also considering that on earlier occasion the first party had made discrimination in grant ofthe leave and other benefits tothe office bearers representative ofthe trade union PRKP at par with the office bearers representative of the recognized union, the dispute was raised by PRKP, resulting in award in favour of the Union PRKP directing the management of Western Railway for granting leave and other benefits to the members of Office bearers / representative of PRKP and union of India through General Manager Western Railway had challenged this award in theHigh Court which was dismissed, again that order went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court where it was also dismissed and the award was confirmed in granting leave and other benefits to the member of the unrecognized trade union PRKP at par with the member of recognized union . In this case also the first party has discriminated in affecting periodical transfer by not in considering the name noting ofthe concern workman Shri V.P. Sumeshra on the ground that he belongs to unrecognized union and has no status ofprotected workman . Rules 61 of the ID (Central Rules) (8) On behalfofthe second party it has been argued that as per Rule 61 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules , there is provision of protected workman of registered trade union and it has not been mention regarding recognized or unrecognized trade union and so , the PRKP who is registered trade union on the western railway for carrying out activity had sent a list of protected workman including the name of Mr. V.P. Sumeshra to the General Manager, Western Railway which was not considered and discriminated on the ground that protected workman can be from the office bearers of recognized union . The second party has relied upon a case law of HLL Leave Care Ltd. V/sHindustan Latex Labour Union (AITUC) and another report in 2010 Vol ( 1 ) CLR 969 wherein it has been held that the choice is left to the recognized union to choose its office bearers who are to be protected workman and it is a mandatory obligation cast of employer under section 33 (4) ofthe Act. It has also been held that only option available to employer is to have recognized the workman nominated bythe union as protected workman . Another case law relied upon by the second party is of Ramcharan Sharma and Others V/s State ofRajasthan case report in 2000-2001 DNJ (RAJ. ) (Supplementary) 83 wherein the case was that the petitioner was a trade union worker and in order to crush the union activities he was transferred from there to outside place . It has been held that the trade union worker and his activities are legalized by the constitution of India . On the other hand on behalf of the first party several case laws have been cited to justified the transfer ofthe workman V.P. Sumeshra that the transfer is incident of service and that Railway service is transferable job and so, the workman cannot challenged his transfer from ADI to Himmatnagar Reliance has been placed upon the case law reported in which the Hon'ble Apex Court passed the Judgment in CA No.5418/90 that a Government servant holding transferable job cannot claim to remain at one placed rather he is liable . to transfer. Further case law is report in 1993 (0) GLHEH - SC 33239 wherein it has been held that guidelines regarding transfer confer upon government any legal enforceable right unless order of transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of any statutory provision . A case law reported in 1998 LLR 429 has also been relied in which it has been held that plea of the petitioner that he being President of Union he cannot be transferred within 2 years from the date of election relying on the transfer policy datedApril 15, 1997, it has been held that the policy being guideline only has no binding force . Another-case law is FLR 1997 Vol . 77 807 regarding not binding force on transfer policy. On this point case law reported in 2009 Vol . 15 SCC 5400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2011

S.O. 1953. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 636/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Ahemdabad now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in reation to the management of State Bank of Saurashtra and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 21-6-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/60/94- IR(B- I) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

deals with protected workman . There is no mention that the protected workman be from recognized union and not from unrecognized union . It is admitted position that the PRKP is registered trade union on Western Railway and the union had given the list of protected workman to the General Manager, Western Railway and other Officials of Western Railway. So, in such view of the matter I further find and hold that the first party has no legal right to discriminate with the union PRKP who is carrying out trade union activity on Western Railway, on the ground of it being unrecognized union having no status of office bearers as protected workman . This issue is answered in negative that the first party has no legal right to discriminate with the PRKP and its protected workman on the ground of unrecognized union.

(11) Issue No. I, II, VI

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

Present:

Binay Kumar Sinha, PresidingOfficer , CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 10th June , 2011 Reference: CGITA of636 of 2004 New Reference : ITC 50/1995 (Old)

In view of the findings given to the issue in fore goings it is further held that the Reference is maintainable and the workman Shri V.P. Sumeshra through his union PRKP has valid cause of action to raise this Industrial Dispute regarding his transfer to distant place from Ahmedabad to Bhuj and even modifying it to Himmatnagar, by not considering guidelines regarding transfer of the Railway Staff belonging SC/ST category and also not considering that he is a protected workman of the union as per list. The second party workman Shri V.P. Sumeshra through his union PRKP is found entitled for sympathetic consideration ofhis transfer to nearer place to Ahmedabad on the grounds of hardship caused to him.

1. State Bank of Saurashtra (After amendment State Bank of India ), Through its Managing Director, HeadOffice,Nilambaug Chowk, Bhavnagar.

2. Zonal Manager State Bank of Saurashtra (India), Bhavnagar Zone, Darbargadh, Bhavnagar.

(12) This Reference is allowed. The first Party is directedto consider symphathetically to transfer Shri . V.P. Sumeshra from Himmatnagar to nearer place at Ahmedabad according to name noting submitted by him dated 1-12-2008 which is at Ext. 7/11 .

3. Regional Manager State Bank of Saurashtra (India), Region -B - II, Darbargadh,

No order as to cost.

Bhavnagar. First Party Date : 17-06-2011

Place: Ahmedabad

And their workman Shri Rashmikant Girdharlal Dave, (At present) Flat No. C-310 , Swati Residency No.3 , B/h. Sheh Plaza,

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 जून, 2011

1.O.C Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad-382424. ...Second Party

For the first party Shri M.J. Sheth, Advocate.

For the second party workman Shri Yogen Pandya , Advocate.

AWARD

का.आ. 1953.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 'का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ सौराष्ट्र के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 636/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/60/94- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

As per Ext . 1 the appropriate Government, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment/ Shram Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi , by its Order No. L- 12012/ 60/94- IR (B - I ) dated 19-7-1995 in exercise of the power conferredby clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, referred the dispute for adjudication as per schedule .

5401 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

SCHEDULE

workman. On these grounds prayer has been made that the punishment order dated 16-08-1991 discharging the applicant from the services of the Management Bankwhich was confirmed in the Departmental Appeal be set aside andthe second party workman be reinstated on his original post or any other equivalent post with continuity of service and with full back wages and also to grant any other relief which the second party workman is entitled.

"Whether termination/dismissal of Shri R.G. Dave cashier at the State Bank of Saurashtra, Amreli, Main Branch w.e.f. 6-9-1991 by Management of State Bank ofSaurashtra, Zonal Office and through its officers valid, justify and legal ? If not to what benefits the workman is entitled for ? And what direction are necessary in the matter" .

(2) The second party workman for contesting this Reference submitted his statement of claim at Ext . 4 with such pleadings that he was serving in the Amreli ADB branch of State Bank of Saurashtra , where he was suspended vide order dated 11-11-1986, subsequently his suspension was revoked and applicant was posted at Amreli , main branch . He was chargesheeted vide order dated 08-06-1988 for his alleged misconduct detected on 04-11-1986 that Departmental Inquiry was conducted against him and as per inquiry report he was held guilty and the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of discharge from the services vide order dated 16-08-1991 , Regional Manager, State Bank of India. The workman filed an appeal against the said punishment order , but the Appellant Authority, the Zonal Manager State Bank of Saurashtra , Bhavnagar zone rejected his appeal to the punishment of his discharge vide order dated 31-08-1991 . It has been pleaded that the act of- imposing the penalty of discharge by the first party Management Bank is illegal and also is in violation of principles ofnatural justice , since no opportunity of hearing in the legal manner was given to the second party. The inquiry was only to fulfill the requirement and the punishment was pre - decided and the Management was bent upon to see that the second party workman should be out from the job , several documents on which the Management was relying were not supplied along with the chargesheet to the second party chargesheeted workman even after request made to the Inquiry Officer and that no opportunity for cross- examinationofthe Management Witness was given. Further it has been pleaded that without admit any guilt assuming that the charges framed against the applicant are proved even though the Disciplinary Authority has to apply his mind and had came to conclusion why the maximum punishment which is an economical death of the delinquent is selected and imposed upon him and why not other lesser punishment which are listed in the bipartite settlement as topunishment could be imposed ifthe charges are proved. Further plea is that the punishment can not be the motto of the Disciplinary Proceedings rather the opportunity could have been given to the delinquent for improvement even assuming that the charges are proved . Further plea is that there is no documentary evidence with the Management to prove the guilt of the delinquent workman rather on the basis ofpresumption and fabricated presumed story of the interested officer , the managementment has imposed the punishment of economical death of the second party

(3) The Ist party Management Bank appeared , executed power in favour of its lawyer to conduct this Reference case and also written statement was filed at Ext. 6with signature of Deputy General Manager, Regional Manager- II , Bhavnager , pleading inter- allia that this Reference is fit to be rejected since there is no merit. Further objection taken is that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertainthis Reference, and , the Bank is not covered under the definition of section 2 (j ) of the ID Act and so, the Reference is not maintainable . Apart from raising ornamental objections , the case of the first party Management is that the delinquent workman was working in Amreli, ADB branch and during his tenure had committed irregularity amounting to gross misconduct, in this way that the delinquent workman was serving as Head cashier atAmreli ADB branch and his gross misconduct was detected while verifying the cash of the Bank on 04-11-1986 by the verifying officer Mr. K.V. Mehta who found that there was a cash shortage to Rs . 35,000 entire cash was held by the applicant in his single handed custody under a cash box and no cash was held jointly with the joint custodian . As soon as cash shortage was detected on 04-11-1986 as per closing cash balance sheet the second party workman R.G. Dave , managed to make good shortage ofRs . 35,000 by encashing cheque No. 4767398 for Rs. 35,000 drawn on Amreli main Bank by M/ s Investwell ofwhich his wife is sole proprietress . The said cheque was encashed with signature of Shri Dave and messenger on the back side of the cheque . This go to indicate that Shri Dave mis - appropriated Bank's fund of Rs . 35,000 in the period of Diwali holidays i.e. between 30-10-1986 to 04-11-1986 . The matter was reported to Higher Bank Officials and since it was serious misconduct on part of the second party workman Mr. Dave and so, he was served with chargesheet and was also suspended pending Departmental Proceedings . Further case of the first party Management is that full opportunity was given to the delinquent workman in the Domestic Inquiry and he was allowed to engage his representation and he was all along present during the inquiryperiod and the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report based on the whole record as well as the evidence coming during the inquiry, where guilt of the accused was proved in connection with the chargesheet . The second show cause was also issued to the second party workman and after taking into consideration the second show.cause with personal hearing of the delinquent and punishment of discharge was imposed upon him by the Disciplinary 5402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SRAVANA 1 , 1933

Authority. Since the Management Bank has lost confidence in the second party workman so , there is no question of his reinstatement. The order of punishment of discharge is not an economical death of the delinquent rather he had opportunity for reemployment . The second party workman isgainfully employed . The first party Management Bank denied all the allegation made parawise by the second party workman in his statement of claim .

(4) Since the second party workman had challenged propriety and validity of the Domestic Inquiry held against him, so the points as to whether the Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent employee was conductedby the first party Management , is legal and proper following the principles ofnatural justice and whether the findings given by the Inquiry Officer are defective/perverse or not was taken as preliminary issues and the Departmental Inquiry was vitiated as per detail order passed on 11-03-2010 by Mr. D.N. Barot, member of Industrial Tribunal Ahemdabad, when he was dessing of this case , the order that the Domestic Inquiry vitiated at Ext . 101 attached with the record. The first party Management was directed to justify its action so , taken against second party (delinquent workman) by adducing the evidence oral and document before this Tribunal . The first party forjustifying its action as to imposing punishment

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Regional Manager on personal hearing , Ext. 74 memo of appeals submitted by R.G Dave dated 21-08-1991 , Ext . 75 is representation during the personal hearing by R. G. Dave dated 28-08-1991 after filing of the written statement the first party Management also filed some documents with list at Ext. 76 which was subsequently given list of exhibits . Ext. 21 is office note , Ext . 22 the second show cause notice sent to the delinquent workman dated 12-04-1991 , Ext . 23 its acknowledgement , Ext . 24 is the acceptance of letter of second show cause notice by the delinquent workman making prayer for furnishing Inquiry Officer's report and also making prayer for giving 60 days time instead of 15 daystime for second show cause notice , Ext . 25 the letter ofthe Disciplinary Authority sent to the delinquent that he has to submit second show cause within 15 days , Ext . 26 is the copy of the Inquiry report , Ext . 27 is its acknowledgement through which the inquiry report was furnished to the delinquent workman , Ext. 28 is the punishment order of discharge dated 16-08-1991 imposed upon the delinquent workman . Ext . 29 is the order of the Appellate Authority dated 30-08-1991 communicated to the delinquent workman rejecting his appeal also directing that the order of his punishment as to discharge from services ofBank will come into force from 01-09-1991 , Ext . 30 is details of office order of the appellant authority with its findings with the points raised by the delinquent workman .

(6) In view of the rival contentions as per statement ofclaim andwritten statement and also as per fresh evidence and materials adduced by the first party corporation to justify its action so , taken against delinquent workman and also oral evidence of the second party workman in denial tojustification of the first party imposing punishment against him, the following issues are taken up for discussion and consideration.

ISSUES

(1) Whether the Reference is maintainable ?

(II) Whether the Management of first party by adducing further evidence and materials before this Tribunal could have been able to justify its action so taken against delinquent workman (second party)?

(III) Whether the order of punishment of discharge isshockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charge dated 08-06-1988 levelled against the second party workman?

(IV) Whether the second party workman is entitle to relief as claimed?

(7) IssueNo. II

(5) The first party for justifying its action as to imposing punishment of discharge of the second party (delinquent workman ) , examined Shri Kishor Basu Mehta (TheVerifying Officer) who had verified the cash in the Amreli ADB Branch on 04-11-1986 and Shri Jasmat Mohan Lakhani Joint custodian of the Amreli ADB Branch Bank) were examined through their affidavited version of examine- in- chief and they were cross - examined by the lawyer on behalf of the second party (delinquent workman) several documents from the inquiry file including chargesheet and other relevant documents were marked exhibits on behalf ofthe first party Management . The second party workman Mr. R.G. Dave also examined himself through affidavit in lieu ofdeposition and was cross - examined at length by the lawyer of the first party Management Bank Documents were exhibited on behalf of the first party Management for considering in this case . The copy of charge sheet issued to the delinquent workman along with list of allegation etc. as Ext . 63 and Ext . 64 is written explanation to the chargesheet of the delinquent workman. Ext . 65 copy of appointment letter of Inquiry Officer. Ext . 66 is the copy of appointment of Presenting Officer , Ext. 67 is list ofdocument submitted by Presenting Officer during the inquiry, Ext . 68 is list of exhibits submitted by defence representative, Ext . 69 written argument submitted by defence representative, Ext . 71 letter from Inquiry Officer to Regional Manager, Bhavnagar enclosing therewith the documents and evidences and Inquiry report, Ext . 72 is the letter of R.G. Dave to Regional Manager requesting for personal hearing, Ext. 73 submission made by R.G. Dave before Itisadmitted fact that the chargesheet was issuedto thedelinquent workman on 08-06-1988 vide Ext . 63 by the Regional Manager (B - 2) allegation made against the delinquent workman in the chargesheet is as follows that 5403

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

its number and also the changes of coins kept therein with the 3 late payment vouchers and total counting to the cash of Rs . 95,653.22 in the cash box . According to the Management witness the delinquent workman who was head cashier was asked to sign on this plain paper prepared by him during the cash verification , but the delinquent Workman refused to sign , then on physical verification of the cash on 04-11-1986- statement was prepared and the same was signed by him and the custodian J. M. Lakhani with the remarks ofthe Verifying Officer that in the closing and opening cash balance on 30-10-1986 and 04-11-1986 wasshown Rs . 130653.22 , but on physical counting ofthe cash in the box there was short fall of Rs . 35,000 . As per statement of the delinquent workman in affidavit vide para 12, it has been stated that Mr. Mehta had impounded that piece ofpaper on 04-11-1986 when the cash box was opened by him, but still the question arises what was the reason for preparing a statement regarding denomination of cash with its number on a plain paper in two parts , firstly showing Rs . 95,653.22 and then further showing Rs . 35,000 .

(8) Form the evidence of Management of witness and also as per admission made by the delinquent workman in his cross - examination, admitted facts are as follows: ( 1) there is a strong room in the ADB Amreli branch and joint custodian was Mr. J. M. Lakhani one key ofstrong room was kept by Mr. J. M. Lakhani and another key was kept by head cashier Mr. R. G. Dave (delinquent workman) (2) there wasalso grilled door and workman being head cashier and Mr. J.M. Lakhani being joint custodian were keeping one key with them (3 ) one of key of the safe was kept by delinquent workman and another by joint custodian Mr. Lakhani (4) It is undisputed that by applying both keys simultaneously the strong room , grilled door and safewas. being opened. (5) It is also admitted position that a cash box was kept in the safe and the key of the cash box was only with the head cashier R.G. Dave . That means he was single handed custodian of the cash box. It has been admitted by the delinquent workman that Mr. Mehta had come to the Amreli ADB branch on 04-11-1986 at about 10.45 a.m. for conducting audit of this branch . He (Mr. Dave) admitted that he had opened the cash box with thekey ofthe cash box which was with him. During cross- examination Annexure (D) at page No.105 was shown to thedelinquent workman who admitted that the endorsement onthis page is in his hand writing, but further not admitting thatendorsement at page No.105 was written by him on 04- 11-1986 in presence of Mr. K. B. Mehta and Mr. Lakhani joint custodian, rather stated that he had prepared this statement (Annexure- D) on 30-10-1986 . During the cross -examination P.O.3 at page 104 was also shown to the delinquent workman that at the close ofBank business of 30-10-1986 the cash balance was to the tune of Rs . 130653.22 and this statement is signed by him as head cashier and Mr. Lakhani as joint custodian P.O. No.4 at page 105 was also shown to him and he admitted that the you during your tenure as head clerk at Amreli ADB branch , you have mis - appropriated Bank's cash worth Rs . 35,000 for the period from 30-10-1986 to-04-11-1986 up to 12.30 hours and thus you have willfully defrauded the Bank with the said amount and used the amount for your personal use and thereby contravened by the bipartite settlement clause No. 19.5 (j ) . Two Management Witness K.B. Mehta, Verifying Officer and J. M. Lakhani who was Joint Custodian of the Amreli ADB branch in the month of October/ November, 1986 in their affidavited examination- in -chief have supported the allegation of short term mis-appropriation of an amount of Rs . 35,000 by the head cashier R.G. Dave (present delinquent workman ) Shri K. B. Mehta has stated that on 04-11-1986 he came to the Amreli ADB branch for cash verification and on actual cash verification, which was kept in a cash box and its key remaining with the head cashier R. G. Dave and who opened cash box with the key with him and on physical counting ofthe cash kept in the box it was found short fall of Rs . 35,000 as against cash balance shown, in the closing business of the Bank on 30-10-1986 and in the opening balance on 04-11-1986. Both the Management witness as well as the delinquent workman in his evidence has admitted that after Bank business of30-10-1986, the Bank was closed on 31-10-1986,01-11-1986,02-11-1986 and 03-11-1986 due to Diwali Festival and the Bank reopened on 04-11-1986. Though the delinquent workman through affidavited examination- in - chieftried to defend himself, that there was no cash shortage of 35,000 on 04-11-1986 at the time of cash verification by Mr. K. B. Mehta , the Verifying Officer but could not convince as per his statement at para 12 of affidavit what was occasion that he prepared and written down the denomination wise currency note on simple plain piece ofpaper on previous working day i.e. on 30-10-1986 at about 3 to 4 pm, which was kept by him with the cash box whereas when he prepared the closing balance of cash on page No. 104 P.O No. 3 on 30-10-1986 showig the closing cash balance ofRs . 13,065.22 signed by him and also the joint custodian Mr. Lakhani . According to the Management the counting of cash in the cash box was made when the delinquent workman opened the cash box with the single key kept by him. On perusal of P.O. 4 at page No. 105 , it appears that in the left side it has been noted down the denomination of currency notes with its number including late payment of 1200 through 3 vouchers to the tune of Rs . 95,653.22 and thereafter below this figure 35,000 was added, making it amount of Rs . 13,065.22 whereas in the right side it has been written about the actual cash position of Rs . 95,653.22 . The Management witness say that it is admitted by the delinquent workman during cross- examination that this statement in plain paper was prepared by M. R. Dave . According to the evidence of the two Management witnesses , statement regarding physical verification of cash kept in the cash box was made on 04-11-1986 and at the time of verification and the delinquent workman was noting down the denomination of note with 5404

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ] endorsement of it as to late payment on Rs . 1200. The delinquent workman during cross - examination admitted as to the 3 vouchers P.O. 567 at Page No. 106, 107, 108 about the 3 vouchers of Rs . 200, 300, 700 total of Rs . 1200. He admitted that those 3 vouchers are dated 30-10-1986 signed by the Manger G.M. Pathak and all these 3 vouchers were debited on 04-11-1986 on P.O. No.8 page 109, during the cross- examination the P.O. No.6 at page No. 107 was also shown to the delinquent workman . He admitted that his wife'sname is Ila Dave who had drawn cheque ofRs . 35,000 dated04-11-1986 as per P.O. No. 15 at page No. 120, during cross- examination vide para 5, the delinquent workman admitted that his wife lla Dave was the sole proprietor of Invest well dealing in share and stock also admitting that B. M. Vyas was working with Invest well and Mr. Vyas had received a cash of Rs . 35,000 from Amreli main branch , the said cheque was also shown to the delinquent workman during cross -examination available at Page 21 and the delinquent workman has admitted that on the back side of cheque there is his signature and there is also signature of Mr. B. M. Vyas again P.O. No. 17 at page 124 which was shown to the delinquent workman which is account statement of " Invest well " on 04-11-1986 and he admitted that amount standing in the account of Invest well was Rs. 1549.40 for connecting this fact that a cheque of Rs . 35,000 drawn by the delinquent workman's wife Ila Dave was not to be encashed in that account because of balance ofonly of Rs . 1549.40 . By showing P.O. No. 16 at page 122 which is pay- in slip dated 04-11-1986 for Rs . 35,000 which was deposited in the account of Investwell on 04-11-1986. So , it has came such fact that on 04-11-1986 in the account of Investwell , the proprietor was wife of the delinquent workman and amount of Rs . 35,000 was credited and again onthe same date 04-11-1986 of cheque of Rs . 35,000 was drawn on the Amreli main branch and in the back of the cheuqe, there is signature of the delinquent workman R. G. Dave and also B. M. Vyas working in Investwell in token of in cashment of amount of Rs . 35,000 which was handed over to the delinquent workman on 04-11-1986 , who made good shortage of Rs . Rs . 35,000 in the opening balance of 04-11-1986. Both the Management witness Verifying Officer Mr. Mehta and Joint custodian Mr. Lakhani have supported that there was short fall of 35,000 out of the closing balance of 30-10-1986 opening balance of 04-11-1986 of Rs . 130653.22 the Management witness Mr. K. B. Mehta had categorically stated that he noted down endorsement regarding short fall in cash of Rs . 35,000 in the closing balance sheet dated 30-10-1986 which was signed by the joint custodian Mr. Lakhani and also by Mr. R. G. Dave being head cashier. The joint custodian Mr. Lakhani has admitted regarding short fall in his evidence . Both the Management witness were cross- examined at length on behalf of the second party workman , but nothing could have been gained to discredit their testimony.

(9) The second party workman could not have been able to defend himself that he was falsely implicated by K. B. Mehta and that there was actually no shortage of Rs . 35,000 on cash verification by him on 04-11-1986 at 10.45 am and onward . His such plea is also not worthy of credence that since he was actively participating in the Union's activities so , the Management officials were- annoyed with him . During cross -examination vide para 2 onhis affidavit dated 30-11-2010 , he admitted that , he was local Secretary for 2-3 years during 1982 to 1984 or 1981 to 1983 and that on 04-11-1986 he was not local secretary at Amreli ADB branch . He also admitted that he for the first timemet K. B. Mehta on 04-11-1986, at the time ofmaking cash verification by him. On scrutinizing the evidence on the basis of preponderance of probabilities regarding mis-appropriation ofthe amount ofRs . 35,000 by the second party workman, I found that the first party Management has been able to prove misconduct on part of the second party workman that he retained Rs . 35,000 in the intervening closing days ofthe Bank from 30-10-1986 to 04.11.1986 up to 12.30 hrs . as per charge levelled against him , though the closing balance sheet of the cash with its denomination signed by both the delinquent workman being head cahier and Mr. Lakhani being joint custodian go to show that there was cash balance of Rs . 1,30653.22 on closing business ofthe Bank on 30-10-1986 but key ofthe cash box was single handed operated by the head cashier (second party) and there was no check with delinquent workman after signing of the closing balance sheet that whether he putthe entire cash , as per closing balance or not or whether hetook out the amount of Rs . 35,000 and thereafter locked the cash box kept with him and put the cash box inside the safe thereafter , with the joint keys ofthe safe , strong room and grilled door it was closed on 30-10-1986 and again it was opened by applying both keys . There was no any jointparticipation of the joint custodian Mr. Lakhani in opening the cash box because the keys of the cash box was only with the head cahier admittedly the second party workman R. G. Dave . So , the head cashier Mr.. Dave admittedly with the keys with him opened the cash box before the Verifying Officer K. B. Mehta and joint custodian Mr. Lakhani and thereafter the cash verification was made resulting in note of endorsement regarding shortage of cash of Rs . 35,000 incorporated by him in the closing statement of cash balance of 30-10-1986 containing his signature and dated 04-11-1986. It has been proved that the shortage of Rs. 35,000 was made good by the second party workman on 04-11-1986 when the cheque drawn by his wife in Amreli main branch was received in cash by the second party workman who on the back on the cheque also signed in token of receiving the cash by on withdrawal of the amount . That was made good in the Amreli ADB branch to show having no any short fall of cash .

5405

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(10) On behalf of the second party workman it has been argued that the Verifying Officer had not made punchnama on verification of the cash on 4-11-1986 and had not filed the Police Case against the delinquent workman and had also reported to the Zonal Manager regarding such shortage after long period. And more so, after long period charge -sheet was served upon delinquent workman on 8-06-1988 whereas the misconduct of the workman is said to be as to misappropriation of the Banks cash worth Rs . 35,000 for the period of 30-06-1986 and 4-11-1986 up to 12.30 pm. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of the first party that though the matter was reported to the Higher Bank Officials and to the Vigilance Cell of the Bank and since there was only temporary misappropriation which was made good so , no Criminal Case was lodged against the delinquent workman and.More so , reputation of the Bank could have been in peril among the customers and also questionable if a Criminal Case would have been lodged against the delinquent workman, so , it was decided not to lodge a Criminal Case rather to take disciplinary action by conducting Departmental Proceedings on the basis ofthe charge-sheet dated 8-06-1988 .

( 11 ) Since there was retention of the money of Rs . 35,000 by the delinquent workman from 30-10-1986 to 4-11-1986 till the 12.30 hours , it amount's to misconduct on part of the workman. It is also quite known that the prove of the misconduct under the charge-sheet in Domestic Inquiry is based on the preponderance ofprobabilities and there is no requirement of strict prove of the charge under the Evidence Act which is required in a Criminal Case regarding charge of misappropriation/embezzlement .

(12) On consideration of the evidence and materials on the record, I find that the first party Management Bank has been able to justify its action in imposing punishment against the delinquent workman on prove of the charge- sheet levelled against him. This issue is decided in . affirmative and in favour of the first party.

(13) Issue No. III

11-03-2010 so, taking into account such view ofthe matter, the punishment of discharge imposed upon the second partyworkman is fit to be set aside since the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to his misconduct . It has not been argued that ifthe punishment is excessive and harsh then what alternative punishment can be imposed upon the delinquent workman. Instead it has been argued that the misconduct has not been proved and so , the second party workman is entitled to get relief of his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in service on behalfof the second party workman four case laws has been cited in support ofarguments , first case law of Shantilal Chandulal Shah V/s Industrial Court is reported in 1970 volume 1 LLJ 251 Gujarat High Court. It has been held that the Domestic Enquiry against the delinquent workman was conducted in contravention and opposed principle of natural justice and so inquiry vitiated the evidence collected in such inquiry could not be used for a finding adverse to the petitioner delinquent from converting order of dismissal into one of discharge as so the charge was remembered beak. This case law does not appear to be applicable because the first party Management has been able to justify its action by conducting fresh inquiry before this Tribunal and by adducing fresh evidence and materials . Likewise another case law in Factory Journal reporter volume 52 page 273 Karnataka High Court is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3rd case law is reported in 2008 Low Suits (S.C. ) 1893 SC is based on the different facts that against the delinquent workman Criminal Case oftheft was filed together with Departmental Proceedings andthat in the given case law Inquiry Officer had relied upon purported confession made by the delinquent before the Police but same was not proved though the delinquent was Bank Employee and he had alleged that he was made to signed on such statement on the score of tourchar at Police Station . Whereas the facts of instant case is otherwise there was no Police Case lodged for the short period misappropriation of Rs . 35,000 by the delinquent workman which was made good by him on the date of detection on 4-11-1986 and though the Domestic Inquiry is vitiated but on the basis of fresh evidence and materials produced by the first party Management together with admission made by the delinquent workman, during the cross -examination on fresh inquiry on the record on the basis under the which the charge of misconduct as to misappropriation of Bank money has been proved though for temporary period. 4th case law relied upon on behalfof thesecond party is Judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court inWP No. 13571 W of2009 Bank of India V/s Central Government , Industrial Tribunal and Others , the allegation made against clerical staff ofthe Bank in the given case law was that under scheme of credit card having limitation of Rs . 20,000 he used credit card lavishly exceeding the limit and so the Bank directed him to pay entire amount of TOD with interest immediately otherwise he may be liable for disciplinary action the amount was not paid to the Bank On quantum of punishment it has been argued by Mr. M.J. Sheth Learned Counsel appearing for the first party that imposing punishment of discharge was just and proper in view ofthe proved misconduct of the delinquent workman regarding short period misappropriation of the amount ofRs . 35,000 further making good by him at 12.30 hours on 4-11-1986 when such short fall ofthe amount was detected in verifying from the cash box put up by the delinquent workman and opened the key of the cash box lying him only being single handed custodian of the cash box. On the other hand it has been argued by Mr. Yogen Pandya Learned Advocate appearing for the second party workman that misconduct under charge-sheet could not have been proved by cogent evidence before this Tribunal on fresh inquiry and more so , the Domestic Inquiry has beenvitiated on preliminary findings as per Ext . 101 dated

2589G1/11-31 5406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] resulting in holding Departmental Inquiry on the charge of misconduct the charge was as any "doing to act prejudicial tothe interest ofthe Bank or gross negligence involving or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss" . On the basis credit card which was misuse by the said Bank employee exceeding its limit and not refunding the amount of TOD with interest ; whereas the facts of the instant case and the misconduct ofthe delinquent workman is as to directly for short period misappropriation the amount of Rs . 35,000 falsely showing that the closing balance is according to the amount kept in the cash box, but on physical verification there was short fall of Rs . 35,000 so this case law is not applicable in the instant case and also not helpful to the claim made by the second party that he is entitle for reinstatement with full back- wages and continuity in services after setting aside the punishment of discharge .

held that " In any case misappropriation cannot be rewarded or legalised by reinstatement in service with full or part of the backwages on proof of charge of misappropriation " , 3rd case is Central Bank of India V/ s Malvji C. Lakum reported in 2002 (3 ) GLR 2116 wherein their lordship held that under section 11A of ID Act, powers are not to be exercised liberally or for the reason that Court or the Tribunal feels or merely opines that such harsh punishments ought not to have been imposed. It has been held- "There are institutions and a particular type of misconduct may affect one institution to a great extent whereas the same act of misconduct may adversely affect a different institution at much lesser extent. It has also been held that " for exercising the power the Labour Court or Tribunal has to assign cogent and reliable reasons ... ", 4th case law is ofChairman andManagement Director United Commercial Banks and Others V/s P.C. Thakkar, reported in 2063 ( 1 ) CLR 796 and 5th case law relied upon is of Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. V/sM. Chandreshekhar Reddy and Others reported in 2005 LLR 258 SC and 6th case law is of Damokpanna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Another V/s Munnalal Jain, reported.in 2005 SCC (L & S ) 567 are all good laws . But in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it does not appear to have much application. In the Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited V/sM. Chandreshekhar Reddy 2005 LLR 2558 (SC), ithas been held by their lordship that "When Labour Court itself come to the conclusion that the Management has lost confidence in the workman who has stealthly taken away the document as deposited for equitable mortgage for taking loan, the exercising its jurisdiction under section 11 A ofthe ID Act, to alter or reduce the punishment, act of dismissal from services that too after holding a valid and proper inquiry did not arise. " But in the instant case domestic inquiry was vitiated and findings held perverse .

(14) On the other hand on behalf of the first party 6 case laws have been cited . First case law relied upon is of Bank of India V/s Paddmanabhadu and Another reported in 1999 volume 2 LLJ 233 Karnataka High Court . In this given case law Bank employee was cashier was dismissed from services on charge of misappropriation though he made repayment to the customers but it was held that temporary retention amounts to misappropriation and repayment could not absolve liability. It has been held by their lordship that serious misconduct is proved either in inquiry conducted by the employer or by the evidence placed before the Tribunal , the punishment imposed can not be interfered by the tribunal accept in case where the punishment is harsh and oppressive. In the instant case there is a allegation that during closing period ofthe Bank business from 30-10-1986 and 4-11-1986 during intervening period the Bank was closed for Diwali Festival, the delinquent workman retained Rs . 35,000 by not putting that amount in the cash box while showing the cash balance in the cash balance sheet, but on detection and verification on4-11-1986 on the reopening day ofthe Bank, such short fall was detected : So, allegation against the petitioner was not that he defrauded any customer and thereafter made good of amount to the customer, rather allegation was that in between the closing of the Bank on 30-10-1986 for Diwali Festival and reopened on 4-11-1986 after Diwali Festival he with held the amount by keeping out Rs . 35,000 from the cash box which was made good on the reopening after 12.30 hours on 4-11-1986 and business of the Bank go after making good ofthe short fall on 4-11-1986 and onward. So , to my considered view this case law cannot be a measuring rod that this Tribunal's hands are fettered to invoke the provision of section 11 (A) of ID Act if the punishment imposed upon the delinquent workman is harsh and operessive. Another case law relied upon by the first party is Janta Bazar V/ s Secretary, Sahkari Noukrana Sangh reported in 2004(4) LLN 571 (SC) wherein their lordship

(15) Considering the case laws relied upon by both sides, I am of the view that since the misconduct of the second party workman has been proved by conducting fresh inquiry before this Tribunal and the first party Management has justify its action in imposing the punishment when the Domestic Inquiry has vitiated as per Ext. 101 powers u/s . IIA can be invoked for setting aside punishment ofdischarge imposed upon the second party workman bymaking modification in the punishment in view of the gravity of the misconduct. On the other hand the first party could not have been able to show that the hands oftheTribunal or Labour Court are fettered in invoking the provisions of section 11A on satisfying itself that the order of discharge or dismissal was unjustified . Taking into circumstances, even though the misconduct under the charge dated 8-06-1988 has been proved before this Tribunal against the second party workman, but it has also to be taken into consideration that after long lapse ofperiod the charge - sheet served as to so called misconduct of 5407 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

backwages with modification in awarding punishment from discharge to stoppage of two increments . This Reference isaccordingly allowed in part . Parties will bear the cost.

Dictated

Date: 10-06-2011 Place: Ahemdabad

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 30 जून , 2011

का.आ. 1954.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार टेलीकाम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 274/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -14025/2/2011- आईआर ( डीयू) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 30th June , 2011

S.O. 1954. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 274/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 28-6-2011.

[No. L- 14025/2/2011 - IR(DU) ]

JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Present: - Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer

Dated the 7th day ofApril , 2011

Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 274/2001

Between:

Sri G. Anjaiah,

S/o G. Gandraiah , Gandhinagar , Bhongiri ,

..... Petitioner

Nalgonda District.

AND

temporary misappropriation of the Bank cash when detected on 4-11-1986 , which was also made good on that date and that misappropriation was also made during the intervening close period of Bank for the Diwali Festival and also considering that Departmental Inquiry vitiated vide Ext . 101 and more so , the second party workman was not suspended on the date of detection ofmisappropriation on 4-11-1986 rather he was suspended letter on and his suspension was also revoked prior to imposing the punishment of discharge and the delinquent workman was posted at other branch of the Bank. More so , considering also the circumstances that the Bank did not choose to lodge Criminal Case against second party workman considering the reputation of the Bank to be periled . More so , considering also the circumstances that this was first misconduct on part of the delinquent workman and there was no any history of repeatedly committing misconduct bythe second party workman . So , on consideration of all these circumstances and also considering that the second show cause notice was sent to the second party workman by the Disciplinary Authority and personal hearing was also made by the Disciplinary Authority and even in the Departmental Appeal by the Appellant Authority but mode of punishment was only selected by the Disciplinary Authority as to under clause 19.6 (e ) for discharging the second party workman and not looking into for awarding other punishment of warning or censure or for adverse remark entered against him under 19.6 (b) or to impose fine under 19.6 (c) or to have his increment stopped under 19.6 (d). On considering all these aspects, I find that the order ofpunishment of discharge of the second party workman is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charge dated 08-06-1988 . So, punishment of discharge imposed is set aside and instead of this modified punishment is awarded by imposing punishment of stopping of two increments of the second party workman as per clause 19.6 (d) of the bipartite settlement . Further the workman had not worked in the Bank after his discharge , so he is not entitle for full backwages . This Tribunal therefore, direct after making modification in the order of punishment that his two increment is stopped and he is directed to be reinstated in service with continuity but with 50% backwages. The reinstatement of the second party workman is ordered in view of the affidavited statement at para 16 of the second party workman dated 30-11-2010 that only for few years of services left to him in attaining age of retirement. So , in such view of the matter order for his reinstatement is made with 50 % backwages after substituting the order of punishment of discharge by awarding punishment of stopping of his two increments . This issue is answered accordingly and partly decided in favour ofworkman .

1. The Director General ,. Telecommunications , NewDelhi- 110001 .

(16) Issue No. I & IV

....Respondents

2. The Sub - Divisional Officer, Telecommunications ,, Bhongiri , Nalgonda district

The Reference is held maintainable and second party workman is granted relief for his reinstatement with 50% 5408

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 / SRAVANA 1 , 1933

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

For the Petitioner : M/s . R. Yogender Singh , V. Kiran Kumar, K. Sunil Kishore Goud & B.K.M. Chakravarthy, Advocates

For the Respondents : Sri R.S. Murthy, Advocate

AWARD

The sanctioned strength on regular basis and continuous work load was not adequate to meet several exigencies and emergent situations arising out of natural calamities and other unforeseen circumstances . In that event , Respondent management engaged persons purely on temporary basis ondailywage to cope up with the urgent execution of the work which was not capable of being completed with the regular sanctioned strength.

Sri G. Anjaiah an ex- casual mazdoor has filed this petition under Sec . 2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for his reinstatement and grant of benefit ofwages .

2. The Petitioner has alleged that he was initially appointed as casual mazdoor under Telecom Sub -Division , Bhongiri ofNalgonda District from 1-2-1987 and continued to work till he was disengaged on 1-2-1989 . Thereafter he 'was not taken back for duty inspite of several representations .

6. Ithas been alleged that petition is not maintainable because the Petitioner himself has alleged that he has worked that Respondent from 1-2-1987 to 28-3-1987, from 1-5-1987 to 1-8-1987, from 18-8-1987 to 29-2-1988 , from 8-8-1988 to31-1-1989. However , the record of the said period is not available with the Respondent as the record has been weeded out. Petitioner already raised this dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C), Hyderabad which ended in failure thereafter he filed ID 86/1996 which was rejected by the Industria! Tribunal , Hyderabad. In the light ofthe case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sub -Divisional Inspector of Posts , Vaikam and others Vs. Theyyam Joseph reported in AIR 1996 SC 1271 . Petitioner again filed IA to reopen ID 86/1996 claiming that theDepartment ofTelecom is an Industry. The said IA was dismissed by Industrial Tribunal , Guntur and the matter became final . The present LCID before this Tribunal on the basis ofcase law reported in AIR 98 SC 656 in the matter of GMT, Guntur Vs.A. Srinivasa Rao and others to reopen the closed cases . The Petitioner filed a W.P. No.23258 /2001 before. Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , and said petition is still pending before Hon'ble High Court . This petition is misconceived. The Petitioner has worked intermittently, that too he has to prove which is not admitted by the Respondent . The Petitioner has filed this petition after much delay and latches , the petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The Petitioner was a casual mazdoor

hese services were liable to be terminated on expiry of the period for which he was engaguu . employee, as such, he can notbe reinstated in the service. regular 3. The Petitioner has submitted that he completed morethan 240 days service from 1-2-1987 to 28-3-1987 for 56days , from 1-5-1987 to 20-8-1987 for 110 days , from 18- 10-1987 to 29-2-1988 for 104 days , from 18-10-1988 to 31-1-1989 for 80 days . As per the particulars ofthe service he was eligible for confirmation of the temporary status having completed 240 days in the service . Though he was terminated orally he was assured that he will be taken back in the service depending on the availability of the work. But no action was taken in the matter of Petitioner though juniors to him are still continuing in the service . As per departmental instructions contained in Department of Personnel , Government of India, D.M. No.49014/4/90 dated 8-4-1991 , the Petitioner is entitled for continuance in the service. Petitioner raised industrial dispute before Regional Labour Commissioner(C ) , Hyderabad , but, no result came forward. Thereafter Petitioner approached Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. , hence , this industrial dispute . The Petitioner was discriminated in the matter of employment, juniors to him are continuing in the service . Services of Petitioner were orally terminated violating the principles of natural justice and hence , the dismissal order be quashed and he be taken back in the service .

7.Both the parties were directed to file their respective evidence . Petitioner workman has filed his affidavit in form of his examination in chief and appeared for cross- examination . Respondents have also filed counter affidavit ofSri P. Satyanarayana MW1 . Petitioner has filed personal diary of his attendance.

4. Respondents have filed counter statement stating therein that the Respondents are entrusted with responsibility of setting up and maintenance of telephone under the administrative control of Ministry of Communications , Government of India Allocation of Business Rules , 1961 .

8. I have heard both the parties. Both of them have filed their written arguments as well . I have considered the written arguments ofboth the parties and the entire material available on the record.

9. It has been argued by counsel for the workman that the Petitioner has wothed for a total of 350 days for 5409 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011/ श्रावण 1 ; 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(II) Whether the services of the Petitioner were terminated illegally and arbitrarily without following the principles of natural justice ?

(III) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for any relief or not ?

which the Petitioner has filed evidence before the Regiorral Labour Commissioner(C), Hyderabad and the copy he has obtained from the union leader Sri TV VS Murthy: The entire submission of the workman's counsel is that the Petitioner workman has worked for 350 days as such, he has become entitled for regularization in the service, but he was not regularized and was disengaged from the service.

13. Point Nos . ( I) & ( II) : Both these points are interlinked and they can be adjudicated altogether on the basis ofthe evidence available in this regard . The Petitioner workman Sri G Anjaiah has filed his affidavit wherein he has stated that he was engaged on 1-2-1987 and Arked upto 31-1-1989 . This statement of the Petitioner is not correct because the Petitioner himself in his claim statement has. alleged that he has worked from 1-2-1987 10 28-3-1987, second time he was engaged on 1-5-1987 to 20-8-1987, third time he was engaged on 18-10-1987 to he worked upto 29- 2-1988 , then from 18-10-1988 to 30-1-1989 he has worked for 80 days . Thereby the own statement of Petitioner shows that Petitioner has not worked from 1-5-1987 to 31-1-1989 without any break. The own statement of the Petitioner shows that he was engaged with the management four times and he himself has stated when the work was available he was engaged . This shows that Petitioner's appointment was not on regular basis . He was engaged as casual mazdoor when the work was available with the management . Thus , the statement of the Petitioner that he worked continuously from 1-2-1987 upto 31-1-1989 is not correct and no reliance can be placed on such statement .

10. Against this argument of Learned Counsel for the workman Learned Counsel for the Respondent management has argued that even if it is assumed that the Petitioner workman has worked for 350 days as alleged by him in the claim statement , Petitioner does not become entitled for regularization after grant of temporary tatus in the service , because the Petitioner was a casual mazdoor . He has rendered his services on the days when there was requirement by the Respondent management . The Petitioner was not a regular employee nor he was appointed onregular basis . There is no appointment order in the matter of the Petitioner nor the Petitioner was appointed in compliance with the rules of employment in the public services as such , even if the Petitioner has worked for 350 days in three different years, he is neither entitled for the protection under Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 nor he is entitled for regularization or absorption in the services as held in the case of 2006 SCC ( L& S) 11 in the matter of Batal Coop Sugar Mills Ltd. , Vs. Sowaan Singh 2006 SCC ( L& S) 11 , and NFC Vs. K. Penta Reddy reported in 2002(2) ALD 384 not only that the Petitioner was not appointed following the procedure of the public employment as such , he is not entitled for any relief by this Tribunal.

11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also argued that the Respondent has regularized the services ofcasual mazdoors namely, Sri C. Subbaiah and Sri Pratap Reddy, in the year 2004 whose services were terminated during the year 1984-86 and 18 mazdoors were regularized at Terephone Bhawan . Hyderabad as such , the Petitioner isalso entitled for the regularization in the service . I have considered this argument . It has to be seen whether the alleged general mazdoors were juniors to the Petitioner or not? This is a matter of fact and the fact alleged by the Petitioner has to be proved by him .

12. I have considered above submission of Learned Counsels for the parties and I have gone through the material available on the record. In the light of the above argument this Tribunal has to consider the following points:-

14.Workman'scontention that of the Department of Telecommunications has been declared as 'Industry' as such, the previous order passed by another Industrial Tribunal concluding that the Telecommunications Department is not an 'Industry' and Petition filed under Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 is not maintainable should be recalled. Even ifit is presumed or supposed that the Telecommunication Department is an ' Industry' and Petitioner has got a right to raise industrial dispute it is the duty and responsibility of the Petitioner to prove that he fulfils the requirement of Sec.23F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as he has completed 240 days in a year preceding date ofhis disengagement which the Petitioner of this case has not been able to prove because as per the own allegation of the Petitioner has worked from 1-2-1987 to 28-3-1987 for 56 days , from 1-5-1987 to 20-8-1987 for 110 days, from 18-10-1987 to 29-2-1988 for 104 days , from 18-10-1988 to 31-1-1989 for 80 days . Thus , the own statement ofthe Petitioner contained in para 2 ofthe claim statement proved that Petitioner has not completed or has not worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his disengagement . Thus , the Petitioner is not (1 ) Whether thejuniors to Petitioner were regularized bythe management as alleged by him ?

5410

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2011 / SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] entitled for the benefits under Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

in the light of the principle settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Secretary of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others (2006 ) (4) SCC page 1. The Hon'ble Court has emphasized that the law laid down in Umadevi & Others case must be followed by each and every court this country. This judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court coupled with the judgement in CA No.292/2009, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the Petitioner has not been able to make out a case for reinstatement in the service because he was not appointed on regular basis following the principles of appointment in the public service. Point Nos . (I ) and ( II ) are decided accordingly.

16. Point No. ( III) : Petitioner has not been able to prove that his services were terminated illegally or arbitrarily or anybody junior to him has been retained by the management as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Point No. ( III) is decided accordingly.

17. From the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the opinion that Petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. Hence, this award.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 7th day of April, 2011.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix ofevidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

WW I : Sri G. Anjaiah

MWI : Sri P. Satyanarayana

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.WI : Muster roll of Petitioner

Ex.W2 : Copy ofaward in ID 86/1996 of Industrial Tribunal No.1 .

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.MI : Copy ofDGP &T Ir. No.270/6/ 84- STNdt.30-3-1985

Ex.M2: Copy ofDOT, New Delhi Ir. No. 270-6/84 - STN dt. 22-6-88

Ex.M3 Copy ofoffice memorandum No.269-4/ 93 - STN- II(Pt.)dt. 12-2-99

Ex.M4 : Copy of office memorandum No.269-4/93 - STN- II(Pt.) dt. 15-6-99

15. The second contention of the Petitioner is that juniors to him are continuing in service whereas Petitioner has been disengaged , but the Petitioner has not named a single person who was junior to him, who has been retained by the Respondent management. The Petitioner has admitted in his cross - examination that he was engaged for laying of cables . The management ha . stated that laying of cables is not a permanent job in that event , it was the duty of the Petitioner workman to prove that he was engaged for regular job but the own contention of the Petitioner that when the work was available he was engaged proves that the work or job for which Petitioner was engaged was of intermittent nature. The Petitioner workman has not named a single person in his statement to prove that any junior to him has been retained by the management as such , this contention of the Petitioner is also not helpful to the Petitioner. The Respondent management has produced witness from his side . He has not stated that Petitioner has worked in their Department or that the booklet of attendance produced by the Petitioner workman has been filled by a Departmental person as such , the alleged booklet produced by the Petitioner workman is of no help to him . Petitioner was disengaged in the year 1989 and filed this petition in 2001 as such, petition is time barred, however, Petitioner has not been able to prove that he is entitled for regularization or absorption in the service as such , this Tribunal is of the opinion that no person junior to Petitioner has been retained by the management and Petitioner is not entitled for the regularization as he has worked in a temporary and purely daily wage basis job whose term of employment expires with the end of the day. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has filed the case law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No.292/2009 between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , and Teja Singh wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "even it is proved that a temporary employee or casual worker continued for a time beyond term of his appointment he is not entitled for absorption in the regular service if the original appointment was not made by following due process of selection as envisaged by relevant rules . " Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that " it is not open to the Court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of the temporary employees whose period of employment as come to an end for adhoc employee who by the very nature of their appointment do not acquire a right . " Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the " question of regularization of service of such casual or adhoc employees may have to be considered on merit "

Ex.M5 : Copy of extract of rules/guidelines relating to preservation of records 5411

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रवण 1 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

AWARD

नई दिल्ली , 30 जून, 2011

Sri N. Anjaiah, an ex- casual mazdoor has filed this petition under Sec . 2A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for his reinstatement and grant of benefit ofwages.

का.आ. 1955. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार टेलीकॉम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 277/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

2. The Petitioner has alleged that he was initially appointed as casual mazdoor under Telecom Sub-Division, Bhongiri ofNalgonda District from 1-5-1987 and continued towork till he was disengaged on 1-2-1989 . Thereafter he was not taken back for duty inspite of several representations .

[सं. एल -14025/2/2011- आईआर ( डीयू) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 30th June , 2011

S.O. 1955.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 277 / 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-6-2011 .

[No. L- 14025/2/2011 - IR (DU) ]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer

3. The Petitioner has submitted that he completed 240 days service from 1-5-1987 to 30-11-1987 for 214 days , from 18-10-1988 to 30-11-1988 for 44 days, from 1-1-1989 to 31-1-1989 for 6 days . As per the particulars ofthe services he was eligible for confirmation of the temporary status having completed 240 days in the service. Though he was terminated orally he was assured that he will be taken back in the service depending on the availability of the work . But no action was taken in the matter of Petitioner though juniors to him are still continuing in the service . As per departmental instructions contained in Department of Personnel , Government of India, D.M. No. 49014/4/90 dated 8-4-1991 , the Petitioner is entitled for continuance in the service. Petitioner raised industrial dispute before Regional Labour Commissioner (C) , Hyderabad, but, no result came forward . Thereafter Petitioner approached Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. , hence , this industrial dispute . The Petitioner wasdiscriminated in the matter of employment , juniors to him are continuing in the service. Services of Petitioner were orally terminated violating the principles of natural justice and hence , the dismissal order be quashed and he be taken back in the service .

Dated the 7th day ofApril , 2011

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 277/2001

BETWEEN :

Sri N. Anjaiah ,

.... Petitioner

S/o N. Venkaiah , H.No.2-10/39 ,Gandhinagar, Bhongiri , Nalgonda District .

AND

1. The Director General , Telecommunications , New Delhi - 110001 .

2. The Sub- Divisional Officer ,

Telecommunications ,

Respondents

Bhongiri , Nalgonda district .

APPEARANCES :

5. It has further been stated that the work of laying down cables , digging, carrying loads , huge manual work force was required . However, the work was of intermittent nature and not continuous . The work was also seasonal . The sanctioned strength on regular basis and continuous work load was not adequate to meet several exigencies and emergent situations arising out of natural calamities and other unforeseen circumstances . In that event, Respondent management engaged persons purely on temporary basis ondailywages to cope up with the urgent execution ofthe work which was not capable of being completed with the regular sanctioned strength .

Forthe Petitioner : M/s. R. Yogender Singh , V. Kiran Kumar, K. Sunil Kishore Goud &B.K.M.Chakravarthy, Advocates .

6. Ithas been alleged that petition is not maintainable because the Petitioner himself has alleged that he has worked that Respondent from 1-5-1987 to 30-11-1987, again For the Respondent : Sri R.S. Murthy, Advocate 5412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

days when there was requirement by the Respondent management . The Petitioner was not a regular employee nor he was appointed on regular basis . There is no appointment order in the matter of the Petitioner nor the Petitioner was appointed in compliance with the rules of employment in the public services as such , even if the Petitioner has worked for 364 days in three different years, he is neither entitled for the protection under Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 nor he is entitled for regularization or absorption in the services as held in the case of 2006 SCC ( L& S) 11 in the matter of Batal Coop Sugar Mills Ltd. , Vs. Sowaran Singh 2006 SCC ( L & S) 11 , and NFC Vs. K Penta Reddy reported in 2002(2) ALD 384 not only that the Petitioner was not appointed following theprocedure ofthe public employment as such, he is not entitled for any relief by this Tribunal .

from 18-10-1988 to 30-11-1988 and six days in January, 1989. However, the record of the said period is not available with the Respondent as he record has been weeded out. Petitioner already raised this dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) , Hyderabad which ended in failure thereafter he filed ID 87/1996 which was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal Hyderabad In'the light of the case law. ofHon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sub - Divisiona Inspector of Posts , Vaikam and others V. 11 : yyam Joseph reported in AIR996 SC-1271 . Petioner again filed IAto reopen ID 87/1996 claiming that the Depart ent of Telecom is an Industry said IA was dismissed Industrial Tribunal , Guntur and the matter Lecame al . The present LCID befonsribe on the basis of case law reported in Alk 98 SC 656 in the matter of GMT. Guntur Vs A. Srinivasa Rao and others to reopen the closed cases . The Petitioner filed a W.P. No. 23258/2001 before Hon'bleHigh Court of A.P.. and said petition is still pending before Hon'ble High Court . This petition is misconceived. The Petitioner has worked intermittently, that too he has prove which is not admitted by the Respondent . The Petitioner has filed this petition after much delay and latches , the petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone . The Petitioner was a casual mazdoor whose services were liable to be terminated on expiry of the period for which he was engaged . He was not a regular employee , as such, he can not be reinstated in the service .

11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also argued that the Respondent has regularized the services ofcasual mazdoor namely, Sri C. Subbaiah and Sri Pratap Reddy, in the year 2004 whose services were terminated during the year 1984-86 and 18 mazdoors were regularized at Telephone Bhawan , Hyderabad as such, the Petitioner isalso entitled for the regularization in the service . I have considered this argument . It has to be seen whether the alleged general mazdoors were juniors to the Petitioner or not? This is a matter of fact and the fact alleged by the Petitioner has to be proved by him.

7. Both the parties were directed to file their respective evidence . Petitioner workman has filed his affidavit in form of his examination in chief and appeared for cross examination . Respondents have also filed counter affidavit ofSri P. Satyanarayana MW1 Petitioner has filed personal diary of his attendance .

12. I have considered above submission of Learned Counsels for the parties and I have gone through the material available on the record. In the light of the above. argument this Tribunal has to consider the following points: ---

(1) Whether the juniors to Petitioner were regularized by the management as alleged by him?

8. I have heard both the parties . Both of them have filed their written arguments as well. I have considered the written argument of both the parties and the entire material available on the record.

(II) Whether the services of the Petitioner were terminted illegally and arbitrarily without following the principles of natural justice?

(III) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for any relief or not?

9. It has been argued by counsel for the workman that the Petitioner has worked for a total of 277 lays for which the Petitioner has filed evidence before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) , Hyderabad and the copy he has obtained from the union leader Sri TV V S Murthy. The entire submission of the workman's counsel is that the Petitioner workman has worked for 277 days as such , he has become entitled for regularization in the service , but he was not regularized and was disengaged from the service .

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

he was engaged with the management thrice and he himself has stated when the work was available he was engaged.

This shows that Petitioner's appointment was not on regular basis . He was engaged as casual mazdoor when the work was available with the management. Thus , the statement of the Petitioner that he worked continuously from 1-5- 1987 upto 31-1-1989 is not correct and no reliance can be placed on such statement .

14. Workman's main contention is that the Department of Telecommunications has been declared as ' Industry ' as such , the previous order passed by another Industrial Tribunal concluding that the Telecommunications Department is not an ' Industry ' and Petition filed under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not maintainable should be recalled. Even if it is presumed or supposed that the Telecommunication Department is an ' Industry ' and Petitioner has got a right to raise industrial dispute it is the duty and responsibility of the Petitioner to prove that the fulfils the requirement of Sec . 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as he has completed 240 days in a year preceding date ofhis disengagement which the Petitioner of this case has not been able to prove because as per own allegation ofthe Petitioner has worked for 214 days in the year 1987, i.e. , from 1-5-1987 to 30-11-1987, 44 days in the year 1988 from 18-10-1988 to 30-11-1988 and 6 days in January, 1989 . Thus , the own statement of the Petitioner contained in para2 ofthe claim statement proved that Petitioner has not completed or has not worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his disengagement . Thus , the Petitioner is not entitled for the benefits under Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

Petitioner has not been able to prove that he is entitled for regularization or absorption in the service as such , this Tribunal is of the opinion that no person junior to Petitioner has been retained by the management and Petitioner is not entitled for the regularization as he has worked in a temporary and purely daily wage basis job whose term of employment expires with the end of the day. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has filed the case law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No. 292/2009 between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , and Teja Singh wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that " even it is proved that a temporary employee or casual worker continued for a time beyond term of his appointment he is not entitled for absorption in the regular service if the original appointment was not made by following due process of section as envisagedby relevant rules . " Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that " it is not open to the Court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of the temporary employees whose period of employment as come to an end for adhoc employee who by the very nature of their appointment do not acquire a right . " Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the " question of regularization of service of such casual or adhoc employees may have to be considered on merit " in the light of the principle settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Secretary of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others (2006)(4) SCC page 1. The Hon'ble Court has emphasized that the law laid down in Umadevi & Others case must be followed by each and every court this country. This judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court coupled with the judgement in CA No. 292/2009, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the Petitioner has not been able to make out a case for reinstatement in the service because he was not appointed on regular basis following the principles of appointment in the public service . Point Nos. ( I) and ( II ) are decided accordingly.

16. Point No. (III) : Petitioner has not been able to prove that this services were terminated illegally or arbitrarily or anybody junior to him has been retained by the management as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Point No.( III) is decided accordingly.

17. From the above discussion , this Tribunal is of the opinion that Petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed, Hence, this award.

Award passed accordingly, Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 7th day of April, 2011.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix ofevidence

Witnesses examined for the

theRespondent

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

MW1: Sri P. Satyanarayana

WW1 : Sri N. Anjaiah

2589GI/11-32 5414

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] Documents marked for the Petitioner

Versus

Ex. WI:

Muster roll of Petitioner

The Chairman ,

Ex. W2:

Copy ofaward in ID 87/1996 of Industrial Tribunal No. 1 .

Chhindwara-Seoni Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Chhindwara (MP )

Management Documents marked for the Respondent

AWARD

} Ex. M1:

Passed on this 14th day of June 2011 Copy of DGP & T Ir . No. 270/6/84 -STN dt . 30-3-1985

Ex,M2: Copy of DOT, New Delhi Ir. No. 270-6/84- STN dt . 22-6-88

Ex.M3:

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour videits Notification No. L- 12012/318 /97- IR(B - 1 ) dated 22-7- 98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

Copy of office memorandum No. 269-4/93- STN- II(Pt .)dt. 12-2-99

Fx. M4

Copyof office memorandum No. 269-4/93- STN- II (Pt. )dt . 15-6-99

Ex. M5: Copy ofextract of rules/guidelines relating to preservation of records

"Whether the action of the management i.e. Chairman , Chhindwara - Seoni Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chhindwara (MP) in stopping from duty to Shri Preetam Singh Choudhary, Sub- Staff ofDharna Branch ofthe Bank w.e.f. 4-11-96 isjustified and legal? Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled to ?" नई दिल्ली, 30 जून , 2011

का.आ. 1956.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार छिंदवारा सिओनी क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक 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 161/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-6-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. The case of the Union/ workman , in short is that the workman was employed by the management on the post ofclear vacancy ofDaftri . He worked from 11-9-95 to 14-9-96 continuously and was terminated illegally without complying the provision of Section 25 -F of the Industrial dispute Act , 1947 ( in short the Act, 1947 ) . It is stated that after his termination, the management appointed other persons in violation of the provision of the Act, 1947. It is submitted that the workman be reinstated with all consequential benefits .

[सं. एल-12012/318/97- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 30th June , 2011

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement . The case of the management interalia, is that the alleged workman was never employed by the management against the clear vacancy on the post of Daftri and he never worked from 11-9-95 to 14-9-96 continuously. Therefore the question of termination doesnot arise. The provision ofSection 25 -F of the Act , 1947 is never attracted. It issubmitted that reference is fit to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed for adjudication- S.O. 1956. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 161/98 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 Chhindwara - Seoni Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-6-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/318/97- IR ( B-I ) ]

I. Whether the action of the management in stopping the workman from duty w.e.f. 4-11-96 islegal andjustified?

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

II . To what relief, the workman is entitled?

ANNEXURE

5. Issue No. I

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 161 /98

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN

TheGeneral Secretary,

Gramin Bank Karmchari Sangh , Nagdwar Chowk , Gulabra,

Chhindwara.

Workman

According to the workman , he was engaged from 11-9-95 to 14-9-96 and removed without notice and compensation in violation ofthe provision ofthe Act, 1947 whereas the management denied relationship between the workman and management .Now let us examine which of the story is, correct and true . To the case, the workman has adduced oral and documentary evidence . The workman Shri Pritam Singh Choudhary has supported his case in his evidence . He has stated that he worked with management Bank from 16-8-95 to 14-9-96 and he was not paid any 5415 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

of the Act, 1947 is not legal and justified. This issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the management .

8. Issue no. II

compensation while he was retrenched from the services. In cross -examination, he has corroborated his case and has stated that he was only daily wager. His evidence shows that he worked more than 240 days in the management Bank and there was relationship ofemployee and employer . There is nothing in his evidence to disbelieve this witness.

On the basis of the discussion made above , it is clear that the workman is entitled to be re- instated. Accordingly the management is directed to reinstate the workman w.e.f. 4-11-96 with full back wages . Accordingly the reference is answered.

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

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1957.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 कीउप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा । अगस्त, 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 राजस्थान राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्ः

जिला

तहसील का नाम

क्रम राजस्व गाँव का नाम

संख्या

जयपुर

सांगानेर

1. जगतपुरा

जयपुर

सांगानेर

2. गैटोर

जयपुर

सांगानेर

3. चक गैटोर

जयपुर

सांगानेर

महल 4.

जयपुर

सांगानेर

5. रामनगरिया

[सं-एस-38013/52/2011 - एस.एस.1 ]

एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव 6. Exhibit W/ 1 is the recommendation letter of theBranch Manager for his regular appointment . The said commendation letter shows that he had worked in the Bank of the management and there was relationship of employer and employee . This falsify the story of the management that he had never employed in the Bank. Thus it is clear that the other story of the workman is to be believed. The workman has also filed the statement of work done by him which was sent to Chairman of the Bank by the Branch Manager. This shows that he was employed from 11-9-95 to 14-9-96 and had worked 317 days for a period of twelve calendar months . This document is not denied by the management . This clearly shows that the workman employed with the bank and had worked continuously for a period of one year under the provision ofSection 25 B of the Act, 1947. Since his services appear to be continuous for a period of one year and no notice and compensation prior to removal from the service was given, it shows that there was violation of Section 25 F of the Act , 1947. The workman has also filed photocopy of the petition dated 7-8-97 filed by the management before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Chhindwara. This document is also not denied by the management . This petition shows that the management has admitted before the ALC( C) , Chhindwara that the workman had worked from 11-9-95 to 14-9-96 for 317 days . There is no document on behalf of the management in rebuttal of the documents ofthe workman . These documents clearly show that there was a relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman . It also proves that he had worked more than 240 days in twelve calendar moths precding the date with reference . Admittedly no notice was given and no compensation was paid as required under Section 25 - F ofthe Act , 1947. It is evident that action of the management is not justified .

New Delhi , the 5th July, 2011

S.O. 1957. 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 August, 2011 as the date on which theprovisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter- Vand VI (except Sub-Section ( 1 ) ofSection 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been borught into force) ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Rajasthan namely :-- 7. On the other hand, the management has examined only one witness . Shri Ranjanlal is HRD Manager under Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank . He has come to say thatthe workman was never employed in the Bank . He has not denied any of the documents filed by the workman . He has no knowledge that conciliation proceeding was done in this case . This reference order itself shows that the dispute was referred by the Asstt . Labour Commissioner, Chhindwara . His evidence appears to be not reliable . Considering the evidence discussed above , it is clear that the action of the management in stopping from duty to the workman without complying the provision of Section 25 - F 5416

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1, 1933

Tehsil District SL. No.

Name of the areas within the limits of Revenue villages

1. Jagatpura

Sanganer Jaipur 2. Gatore

Sanganer Jaipur 3. ChakGatore

Sanganer Jaipur 4. Mahal

Sanganer Jaipur 5. Ramnagariya

Sanganer Jaipur

[No. S- 38013/52/2011 - S.S.I] S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 5 जुलाई , 2011

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

t का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा 1 अगस्त , 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 राजस्थान राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्ः

क्रम राजस्व गाँव का नाम तहसील का नाम जिला

संख्या

1. गोवर्धन विलास गिरवा

उदयपुर

2. देवली

गिरवा

उदयपुर

3. वलीचा

गिरत्रा

उदयपुर

4. उमरड़ा

गिरवा

उदयपुर

5. लकड़वास

का.आ. 1958.-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 अगस्त, 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 राजस्थान राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्ः

तहसील का नाम जिला क्रम राजस्व गाँव का नाम संख्या

1. राबचा

नाथद्वारा

राजसमन्द

[सं. एस-38013/56/2011 - एस.एस.1 ]

एस. डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 5th July, 2011

गिरवा

उदयपुर

[सं-एस-38013/55/ 2011 -एस.एस.1 ]

एस.डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2011

S.O. 1959. 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 August, 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 ) ofSection 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been borught into force) ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Rajasthan namely: -

Tehsil District

Sl. No. the limits of Revenue villages Name of the areas within

1. Goverdhan Vilas

Girwa

Udaipur

2. Devali

Girwa Udaipur

3. Valeecha

S.O. 1958. 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 August, 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- Vand VI ( except Sub- Section ( 1 ) ofSection 76 and Sections

Girwa

Udaipur

4. Umarda

Girwa

Udaipur.

5. Lakarwas

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been borught into force) ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Rajasthan namely: -

Sl .

Tehsil District Name of the areas within No. the limits of Revenue villages

1. Rabcha

Nathdwara Rajsamand

[No. S- 38013/56/2011 -S.S . I ]

S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1959. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 कीउप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों

Girwa Udaipur

[No. S -38013 /55/2011 -S.S . I ]

S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1960.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा -1 कीउप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 अगस्त, 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, [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध राजस्थान राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्ः-

जिला

तहसील का नाम

क्रम राजस्व गाँव का नाम

संख्या

अलवर

तिजारा

1 . शेदपुर

अलवर

तिजारा

2. खानपुर

[सं. एस-38013/54/2011 - एस.एस. 1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 5th July, 2011

5417

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 /श्रावण 1 , 1933

New Delhi , the 5th July, 2011

S.O. 1961. 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 August, 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- Vand 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 Rajasthan , namely:-

District

Tehsil

Sl . Name of the areas within No. the limits of Revenue villages

Jaipur

Sanganer

1. Bhankrota

Jaipur

Sanganer

2. Keshupura

Jaipur

3. Heerapura

S.O. 1960. 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 August, 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 Vand VI [ except Sub -section ( 1 ) ofSection 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 Rajasthan, namely :--

District

Tehsil

Sl . Name of the areas within No. the limits of Revenue villages

Alwar

Tijara

1. Shaidpur

Alwar

Tijara

2. Khanpur

[No. S-38013/54/2011 - S.S . I]

S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 5 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1961.-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 अगस्त, 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 राजस्थान राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्ः-

जिला

तहसील का नाम

क्रम राजस्व गाँव का नाम संख्या

सांगानेर

जयपुर भांकरोटा

सांगानेर

जयपुर 2. केशूपुरा

जयपुर

3. हीरापुरा

जयपुर 4. मीनावाला (सिरसी रोड ) जयपुर

[सं. एस-38013/53/2011 - एस.एस. 1 ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

Jaipur

4. Meenawala (Sirsi Road)

[No. S- 38013/53/2011 - S.S.I ] S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 6 जुलाई, 2011

का.आ. 1962.- केन्द्र सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 ( यथासंशोधित 1987 ) के नियम 10 के उप- नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में , श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय के प्रशासकीय नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को , जिनकेन्यूनतम 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है:

उप-क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा निगम , हुबली

[सं. ई-11017/ 1 /2006- रा . भा.नी. ]

के. एम . गुप्ता , आर्थिक सलाहकार NewDelhi , the 6th July, 2011

S.O. 1962.-In pursuance of Sub -rule (4) ofRule 10 ofthe Official Language (Use for official purposes ofthe Union) Rules , 1976 (as amended 1987 ) the Central Government hereby notifies following office under the administrative control of the Ministry of Labour and Employment, at least 80% Staff whereof have acquired workingknowledge ofHindi :-

Sub-RegionalOffice, Employees ' State Insurance Corporation , Hubli

[No. E- 11017/1 /2006-RBN]

K.M. GUPTA , Econonic Advisor नई दिल्ली , 6 जुलाई , 2011

का.आ. 1963. जबकि मैसर्स नार्थ ईस्टर्न इलैक्ट्रिक पावर कारपोरेशन लि. ( शिलांग क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या एएस /941 के अंतर्गत ) 5418

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2011 /SRAVANA 1 , 1933

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

नई दिल्ली , 11 जुलाई , 2011

(एतदुपरांत प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरांत अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन किया है ।

का.आ. 1964.-जबकि मैसर्स परान लिमिटेड , आमनगर [कोड़ संख्या एम एच./ 12475 मुम्बई क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत ] ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरान्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत प्रदान की गयी छूट को रद्द करने के लिए आबेदन किया है 1

2. और जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार के मत में , अंशदान की दरों क संबंध में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि-नियम उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 में विनिर्दिए नियमों की तुलना में कर्मचारियों के लिए कम उपयुन्नान नहीं है और कर्मचारी उक्त अधिनियम अथवा कर्मचारो भविष्य निधि योजना , 1952 ( एतदुपरांत योजना के रूप में संदर्भित ) के अंतर्गत सदृश स्वरूप के किसी अन्य प्रतिष्ठान में कर्मचारियों के संबंध में दी जाने वाली अन्य भविष्य निधि प्रसुविधाओं का भी लाभ उठा रहे हैं ।

2. जबकि उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि तथा प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम की धारा 17 ( 1 ) ( क ) के अंतर्गत छट हेतु भारत के राजपत्र में दिनांक 1-11-1975 को अधिसूचना संख्या एस-3504/24/75 पीएफ -11 प्रमाणित की गई थी ।

3. और जबकि उक्त प्रतिष्ठान ने अब दिनांक 30-04-2007 से अपनी छूट को अभ्यर्पित कर दिया है तथा यह काफी समय से कोई क्रियाकलाप नहीं कर रहा है ।

3. अतः , अब , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए इस संबंध में समय-समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट शतों के अध्यधीन , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को अगली अधिसूचना तक 1-04-1993 से उक्त योजना के सभी उपबंधों के प्रभाव से छूट प्रदान करती है ।

4. अतः, अब , केन्द्र सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्वारा उक्तप्रतिष्ठान को प्रदान की गई छूट को दिनांक 30-04-2007 से रद्द करती है ।

[सं. एस-35015/7/2011 - एसएस- II ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

[सं. एस-35017/05/2010 - एसएस -11 ]

एस. डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 6th July, 2011

NewDelhi , the 11th July, 2011

S.O. 1963. Whereas M/s . North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited [ under Code No. AS/ 941 in Shillong Region ] ( hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) ofsub-section ( 1 ) of Section 17 ofthe Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) .

S.O.1964. Whereas M/s . Paraan Limited, Vadodara [under Code No. MH/ 12475 Mumbai region ] ( hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) has applied for concellation ofexemption granted by Government of India under clause (a) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 ( 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as theAct).

2. Whereas a notification No. S- 35014/24/75 - PF . 11 dated 1-11-1975 granting exemption under section 17( 1 ) (a) of the EPF & MP Act to the said establishment was published in the Gazette of India.

3. And whereas now the establishment has surrendered its exemption with effect from the 30-04-2007 as it is no longer carrying on any activity.

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees ' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other establishment of similar character.

4.Now, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub- section (4) of Section 17 ofthe said Act the Central Government hereby cancels the exemption granted to the said establishment with effect from the 30-04-2007.

[No. S- 35017/5 /2010 - SS- II ]

S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 14 जुलाई , 2011

3.Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard from time to time, the Central Government , hereby, exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 1-04-1993 until further notification .

[No. S-35015/7/2011 -SS- II ] S.D. XAVIER , Under Secy.

का.आ. 1965. केन्दीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि लोकहित में ऐसा करना अपेक्षित था , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप-खण्ड ( vi ) के उपबंधों के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम और रोजगार [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. दिनांक 11-01-2011 द्वारा खभिच तेल ( कच्चा तेल ) मोटर और विमानन स्पिरिट , डीजल तेल , मिट्टी का तेल , ईंधन तेल , विविधा हाईड्रोकार्बन तेल और उनके मिश्रण जिनमें सिंथेटिक तेल , ल्यूब्रिकेटिंग तेल और इसी प्रकार के तेल शामिल हैं, के निर्माण या उत्पादन में लगे उद्योग में सेवाओं में हैं, जा कि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 26 में शामिल है , को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 16-1-2011 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था ;

औरकेन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छः मास की ओर कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है ;

अतः , अब , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 16-07-2011 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है । [फा. सं. एस-11017/6/97- आईआर ( पी.एल. ) ]

रवि माथुर , अपर सचिव New Delhi , the 14th July, 2011

S.O. 1965. Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so requires

5419

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2011 / श्रावण 1 , 1933

that in pursuance of the provisions of sub -clause (vi ) of the clause (n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , declared by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment , dated 11-1-2011 the services in Industry engaged in manufacture or production of mineral oil ( crude oil) motor and aviation spirit, diesel oil , kerosene oil , fuel oil , diverse hydrocarbon oils and their blends including synthetic fuels , lubricating oils and the like which is covered by item 26 of the First Schedule to the Industrial pres Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) to be a Public Utility Service Borde purpose of the said Act, for a period of six months with effect from 16th January , 2011 .

And whereas, the Central Government is of opinion that public interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months .

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub- clause ( vi ) of clause (n) of section 2. ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be a Public Utility Servicefor the purposes of the said Act , for a period of six monthswith effect from 16th July, 2011 .

[F. No. S- 11017/6/97- IR(PL) ] RAVI MATHUR, Addl . Secy.

Printed by the Manager . Government of India Press . Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054 .