रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05
REGD . NO . D. L. (N ) 04/0007/2003--05
60
सत्यमेव जयते भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं. 13]
नई दिल्ली, मार्च 25 मार्च 31 , 2012 , शनिवार/चैत्र 5 चैत्र 11 , 1934
No. 13]
NEW DELHI , MARCH 25- MARCH 31 , 2012 , SATURDAY/CHAITRA 5 CHAITRA 11 , 1934
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 ३ उप -खण्ड ( ii)
PART II-Section 3 Sub-section ( ii )
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय
( कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )
नई दिल्ली, 27 मार्च , 2012
का.आ. 1201.-केन्द्रीय 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, झारखंड राज्य सरकार , गृह विभाग , रांची के दिनांक 26-11-2011 के पत्र सं. 6/सीबीआई -713/2011-4523 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से पुलिस राज्य सतर्कता में पंजीकृत इगरखंड के जिला में कथित भूमि घोटाला के संबंध में भ्रष्टाचार निरोधक अधिनियम, 1988 ( 1988 का अधिनियम सं. 49 ) की धारा 13 ( 1 ) ( डी ) के साथ पठित धारा 13 ( 2 ) तथा भारतीय दंड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 423 , 424 , 467 , 468 , 469 , 471 , 477 - ए, 419 , 420 , 409 , 506 , 201 , 120 - बी तथा 109 के अंतर्गत दिनांक 31-10-2011 का मामला सं. 25 तथा 26/2011 का तथा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराधों के संबंध में या उससे सम्बद्ध प्रयासों, दुष्प्रेरणाओं तथा षडयंत्रों तथा उसी संव्यवहार में किए गए या इन्ही तथ्यों से उद्भूत कोई अन्य अपराध या अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार सभ्पूर्ण झारखण्ड राज्य के संबंध में करती है ।
[फा. सं. 228/25/2012- एदीडी-11 ] राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 27th March , 2012
S.O. 1201. 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 Jharkhand, Home Department , Ranchi vide Letter No. 6/C.B.1. - 713/2011-4523 dated 26-11-2011 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the DelhiSpecial Police Establishment to the whole ofthe State ofJharkhand for investigation of Cases No. 25 and 26/2011 dated 31-10-2011 under sections 423 , 424, 467 , 468 , 469 , 471,477 - A , 419 , 420, 409 , 506 , 201 , 120 - B and 109 of the
(2857)
885 GI/12-1A [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2858
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31, 2012/CHAITRA 11 , 1934
धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए निम्नोक्त अपराधों को विनिर्दिष्ट करती है जिनका दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषण किया जाना है नामतः :-
(क) भारतीय दण्ड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 366- ए, 366- बी, 370 , 371 , 372, 373 , 374 तथा 377 के अन्तर्गत दण्डनीय अपराध ।
Indian Penal Code , 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and under sections 13 ( 2 ) read with 13 ( 1 ) (d ) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 ( Act No. 49 of 1988 ) registered at Police State Vigilance relating to alleged land scam in Deoghar District of Jharkhand and attempts , abetments and conspiracies 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 .
(ख ) किशोर न्याय अधिनियम , 2006 की धारा 23 , 24, 25 तथा 26 के अन्तर्गत दण्डनीय अपराध ।
[F. No. 228/25/2012-AVD - II ] RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy. नई दिल्ली , 27 मार्च , 2012
(ग) बाल श्रम ( निषेध तथा नियमन ) अधिनियम , 1986 की धारा 14( 1 ) तथा 14 ( 3 ) के अन्तर्गत दण्डनीय अपराध तथा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराध के संबंध में या संबद्ध में प्रयास , दुष्प्रेरणा तथा षडयंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार में किया गया या इन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत अन्य अपराध या अपराधों ।
का.आ. 1202.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए निम्नोक्त अपराधों को विनिर्दिष्ट करती है जिनका दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषण किया जाना है नामतः :-
[ फा. सं. 228/26/2012- एवीडी-11 ] राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th March , 2012 (क) भारतीय दण्ड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 424 के अन्तर्गत दण्डनीय अपराध तथा
S.O. 1203.- In exercise of the powers conferred by 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 :----
( ख) उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराध को संबंध में या संबद्ध में प्रयास , दुष्प्रेरणा तथा षडयंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार में किया गया या इन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत कोई अन्य अपराध या अपराधों ।
(a) Offence punishable under sections 366 - A , 366- B, 370 , 371,372, 373 , 374 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860 ) .
[फा. सं. 228/25/2012- एवीडी-11 ] राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th March , 2012
(b) Offences punishable under sections 23 , 24,25 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2006 .
(c) Offences punishable under sections 14 ( 1) and 14(3 ) of Child Labour ( Prohibition and Regulation ) Act , 1986 and
S.O. 1202.-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Government hereby specifies the following offence which is to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police establishment namely:
(a) Offence punishable under section 424 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 ( Act No. 45 of 1860 ) and
(d) Attempt , abetment and conspiracies 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 ofthe same facts.
[ F. No. 228 /26/2012 - AVD - II ] RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy .
(b) 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 .
विन मंत्रालय ( वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 25 मार्च , 2012
[F. No. 228/25 /2012 - AVD - II ] RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 29 मार्च, 2012
का.आ. 1203.--केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष सिशापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनिगम सं. 25 ) की
का.37 , 1204. वीमा विनियामक और विकास प्राधिकरण अधिनियम. 1999 ( 1999 का 41 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मेन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा श्री एस. राय चौधरी को पद का कार करने की तारीख से पाँच वर्ष की अर्वाध के लिए
885 GI/12-1B [ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2859
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 9 मार्च , 2012
अथवा 62 वर्ष की आयु प्राप्त कर लेने तक अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो , बीमा विनियामक तथा विकास प्राधिकरण में बिना आवास एवं कार की सुविधा के 2.50 लाख रुपये प्रति माह के वेतन पर पूर्ण कालिक सदस्य ( जीवन ) के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
[फा. सं. आर-16011/02/ 2011 - बीमा -1 ]
प्रिया कुमार , निदेशक बीमा-1
MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Financial Services )
का. आ. 1206. इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 22-02-2012 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम. 1983 के नियम 7 व 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के चेन्नै सलाहकार पैनल में निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , अतिरिक्त सदस्यों के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
New Delhi , the 26th March , 2012
क्र.सं. नाम
1. श्रीमती मीनाची वेंकटरमन
2. श्रीमती जी. सरस्वती नालादियार
3. श्रीमती सुरेखा रेड्डी
4. श्रीमती शांति जोसफ
S.O. 1204. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act . 1999 ( 41 of 1999 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S. Roy Chowdhury as Whole-time Member ( Life) in the pay of Rs . 2.50 lakh per month , without facility of house and car, in the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority ( IRDA ) for five year from the date of assumption of charge of the post or till he attains the age of 62 years or until further order , whichever is earlier.
5. श्री वेलु तेवर
6. श्री एम. गुरुनाथन
[ F. No. R- 16011 /02/2011 - Ins . I ] PRIYA KUMAR, Director ( Insurance - 1 )
[फा. सं. 809/7/2011 - एफ ( सी ) ] निरुपमा कोतरू, निदेशक ( फिल्म)
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING शहरी विकास मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली. 26 मार्च , 2012
New Delhi , the 9th March , 2012
का.आ. 1205.-केन्द्र सरकार दिल्ली विकास अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 61 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( छ ) के साथ पठित उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए श्री जे. बी. श्रीरसागर , मुख्य नियोजक , नगर एवं ग्राम नियोजन संगठन , भारत सरकार को तत्काल प्रभाव से दिल्ली विकास प्राधिकरण में सदस्य के रूप में नामित करती है ।
[ फा. सं. कं -1: 011/ 21 /2004 - डीडी 1ए ] एन. टी. जोसेफ , अवर सचिव
S.O. 1206.-In continuation of Ministry's Notification of even number , dated 22-02-2012 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 ofthe Cinematograph Act, 1952 ( 37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 ofthe Cinematograph ( Certification ) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Chennai Advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier :
Sl . No. Name
MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT New Delhi , the 26th March , 2012
Smt . Meenatchi Venkatraman 1.
2. Smt .G. Saraswathy Naladiyar
3. Smt . Surekha Reddy
4. Smt . Shanthi Joseph
5. Shri Velu Thevar
S.O. 1205.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) , read with clause ( g ) of sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 3 of the Delhi Development Act . 1957 ( 61 of 1957) , The Central Government hereby nominates Shri J. B. Kshirsagar, Chief Planner , Town and Country Planning Irganisation , Government of India , as Member of the Delhi Development Authority , with immediate effect .
6. Shri M. Gurunathan
[F. No. 809/7/2011 - F( C) ] [ F. No. K - 11011 /21 /2004 - DDIA ] N. T. JOSEPH , Under Secy.
NIRUPAMA KOTRU , Director (Films) [ PART II SC 3 ( 1 ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012/CHAITRA 11 , 1934
2860
MINISTRY OF POWER
New Delhi , the 30th March, 2012 विद्युत मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च , 2012
Ѕ.О. 1207.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 162 of the Electricity Act , 2003 (36 of 2003 ) read with qualification , power and function of Chief Electrical Inspector and Electrical Inspectors Rules . 2006 notified on 17-8-2006 , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S.P. Khade , Director ( Technical ) . Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority ( MMRDA ) . as Chief Electrical Inspector for Metro and Mono Rail projects of MMRDA. till his tenure in MMRDA , subject to the qualification and condition mentioned in the above Rule .
का.आ. 1207.-17-8-2006 को अधिसूचित मुख्य वैद्युत निरीक्षक एवं वैद्युत निरीक्षक की अर्हता , शक्ति तथा कार्य नियमावली, 2006 के साथ पठित , विद्युत अधिनियम , 2003 ( 2003 का 36 ) की धारा 162 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा श्री एस. पी. खडे, निदेशक ( तकनीकी) मुम्बई महानगर क्षेत्रीय विकास प्राधिकरण ( एमएमआरडीए ) को उपर्युक्त नियमावली में उल्लिखित अर्हता एवं शर्त के अधीन एमएमआरडीए में उनके कार्यकाल तक एमएमआरडीए के मेट्रो एवं मोनो रेल प्रोजेक्ट्स के मुख्य वैद्युत निरीक्षक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
The above mentioned officer shall exercise the powers and perform his functions in respect of electrical works , electrical installations and electrical rolling stock in operation within the area occupied by the MMRDA or in respect of works and all electrical installations under the control of MMRDA /belonging to MMRDA as per the procedure provided in Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electricity Supply ) Regulations , 2010.
उपर्युक्त अधिकारी एमएमआरडीए द्वारा प्राधिकार में लिए गए क्षेत्रों का भीतर अथवा एमएमआरडीए के नियंत्रणाधीन कार्यों एवं सभी वैद्युत संस्थापनाओं में केन्द्रीय विद्युत प्राधिकरण ( सुरक्षा एवं विद्युत आपूर्ति से संबंधित उपायों ) विनियम , 2010 में निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के अनुसार प्रचालन में वैद्युत कार्यों; वैद्युत संस्थापनाओं तथा वैद्युत रोलिंग स्टॉक के संबंध में अपनी शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेगा तथा अपने कार्यों का निष्पादन करेगा ।
MMRDA will ensure that Shri S.P. Khade will not be Chief Electrical Inspector in respect of the work assigned to him in MMRDA .
एमएमआरडीए यह सुनिश्चित करेगा कि श्री एस. पी. खडे एमएमआरडीए में उन्हें सौंपे गए कार्य हेतु मुख्य वैद्युत निरीक्षक नहीं होंगे ।
The person appointed as Chief Electrical Inspector shall undergo such training as the Central Government may consider it necessary for the purpose and such training shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Government. मुख्य वैद्युत निरीक्षक के रूप में नियुक्त व्यक्ति को ऐसा प्रशिक्षण लेना होगा , जिसे केन्द्र सरकार इस प्रयोजनार्थ आवश्यक समझती हो तथा ऐसा प्रशिक्षण इस प्रकार पूरा करना होगा कि सरकार इससे संतुष्ट हो ।
The above notification shall take effect after the necessary amendment is brought about by Ministry of Urban Development in the Metro Act .
उपर्युक्त अधिसूचना शहरी विकास मंत्रालय द्वारा मेट्रो अधिनियम में आवश्यक संशोधन करने के बाद प्रभावी होगी ।
[फा. सं. 42/3/2010- आर एंड आर ]
[F. No. 42/3/2010 - R & R] JYOTI ARORA , Jt . Secy.
ज्योति अरोड़ा, संयुक्त सचिव
उपभोक्ता माले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय
( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )
( भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )
नई दिल्ली , 3 फरवरी , 2012
का. आ. 1208.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक व्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है, वे स्थापित हो गये हैं : --
अनुसूची
स्थापित तिथि
नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा
क्रम सं. स्थापित भारतीय मानक(कों ) की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक
अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष
(4)
(3)
(1)
(2)
आई एस 13573 : 1992
3 फरवरी , 2012 1. आई एस 13573 ( भाग 1 ) : 2011 एक्सटूडेड पावर केबल के लिए केबल सहायकांगों- विशिष्टि भाग : 1.1 किवा और 3.3 किवा ( ई) तक की रेटित वोल्टेज परीक्षण अपेक्षाएँ और परीक्षण पद्धतियां (पहला पुनरीक्षण) 2861 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
(1)
(2)
(4)
(3)
2.
आई एस 13573 : 1992
3 फरवरी , 2012 आई एस 13573 ( भाग 2 ) : 2011 एक्सटूडेड पावर केबल के लिए केबल सहायकांगों- विशिष्टि भाग 2 , 3.3 ( यू ई ) किवा और 3.3 किवा ( ई ) तक की रेटित वोल्टेज- परीक्षण पद्धतियां (पहला पुनरीक्षण)
3.
आई एस 13573 : 1992
3 फरवरी , 2012 आई एस 13573 ( भाग 3 ) : 2011 एक्सटूडेड पावर केबल के लिए केबल सहायकांगों- विशिष्टि भाग 3 , 3.3 किवा ( यूई ) और 33 किवा ( ई ) तक की रेटित वोल्टेज- परीक्षण अपेक्षाएँ ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )
इस भारतीय मानक की एक 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 , पूणे तथा तिरुवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[ संदर्भ : ईटी 09/टी -84 , टी -85 , टी -87 ] डॉ. आर. के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख (विद्युत) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs) (BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS) New Delhi , the 3rd February, 2012
S. O. 1208.- 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 to the Indian Standards , particulars of which is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :-
SCHEDULE
Date of Establishment Si . No. No. and year of the Indian Standards
No. and Year of the Indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard
(4)
(1)
(3)
(2)
IS 13573 : 1992
3 February, 2012 1. IS 13573 : (Part 1): 2011 Cable accessories for extruded power cables-Specifications : Part 1 For working voltages from 1.1 kV upto and including 3.3 kV (E) Test methods and test requirements ( First Revision )
IS 13573 : 1992
3 February, 2012 2. IS 13573 : (Part 2) : 2011 Cable accessories for extruded power cables- Specifications: Part 2 For working voltages from 3.3 kV (UE) upto and including 3.3 kV( E)-Test requirements (FirstRevision)
IS 13573 : 1992
3 February, 2012 3. IS 13573 : (Part 3 ): 2011 Cable accessories for extruded power cables Specifications : Part 3 For working voltages from 3.3 kV (UE) upto and including 3.3 kV ( E)-Test methods (FirstRevision)
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .
[Ref : ET 09 /T- 84 , T- 85 , T- 87] Dr. R. K. TEHAN , Scientist F & Head ( Electrical ) 2862
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 / CHAITRA 11 , 1934
[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) | =
पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 23 मार्च , 2012
का. आ. 1209.- 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 . 2740 (अ ) तारीख 28 नवंबर , 2011 के साथ पठित अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ . 891 तारीख 01 अप्रेल, 2011 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में , मैसर्स रिलाएंस इन्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आन्ध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टरमिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा- बासुदेबपुर-हावडा गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
और, उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 16 अक्तूबर , 2011 को अथवा उससे पूर्व उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;
और , पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में , जनता की ओर से कोई आक्षेप प्राप्त नहीं हुआ है;
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 घोपणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट 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 घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से भारत सरकार में निहित होने के वजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
2863
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
अनुसूची
जिला:जाजपुर मंडल/ नेहमिल/ तालुक धर्मशाला
सर्वे सं/सब डिविजन सं .
गाँव का नाम
2
11
10
गज्य ओडिशा
आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल
सि-एयर
एयर
हेक्टेयर
4
5 3
19
01
00
04
00
गज्य:ओडिशा
जिन्ना मद्रक
मंडल/ नेहमिल/ तालुक चंन
00 02 91
हामीनपुर 2443
00 06
2442
00 08 רי
2458
00 00 84
2466
00 00 これ
2499
00 01 74
2494
00 05 00
2498
10 70
2495 00
00 01
2496
00 01
2489
00 11
2549
00 01
2550
00 00 25
2552
00 03
2548
00 12
2561
00 00 19
2560
00 07
2567
00 09 46
2566
00 08 11
2563
00 05 20
2565
00 03 64
2768
00 17 75
2059
00 02 81
2057
00 18 09
2056
00 03 64
2030
00 00 40
2032
00 02 14
2033
00 19 36
2039
00 19 30
1961
00 02 66
1950
00 18 95
1963
00 00 10
1913
00 02 80
1919
गज्य आओडिशा
जिला चालध्वर
मंडल/ तहसिल/ नालक निलगिरी
738
! वालिगाहिरा
739
25
00
02
87
00
09 2864
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 / CHAITRA 11 , 1934
1 2
१ ) बालिगाहिरी (निरंतर) 735
733
728
640
642
659
656
655
652
647
646
मंडन्न/ नेहमिल/ तालुक: बस्ता जिन्ना बालेश्वर
1
गुंडुग्सिाही 6/12
5/11
3/9
4/10
दभाग 304
268
309
316
303
285
288
300
297
418
419
417
420
423
424
421
422
429
836
837
831
830
844
848
847
850
851.
[Part 11-Sec . 3 ( ii) ]
3 4 5 00 01 36 00 05 83 00 01 69 00 01 88 00 05 82 00 00 34 00 14 59 00 07 31 00 00 56 00 01 56 00 07 28 राज्य: ओडिशा 00 03 61 00 15 94 00 08 01 00 08 82 00 19 08 00 03 83 00 01 26 00 01 35 00 12 49 00 01 36 00 05 66 00 10 10 00 02 98 00 02 18 00 04 99 00 00 21 00 07 04 00 01 52 00 00 70 00 03 52 00 07 54 00 00 73 00 00 72 00 02 20 00 02 47 00 00 95 00 05 96 00 03 12 00 00 33 00 06 12 00 13 62
2865
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012 /चैत्र 11 , 1934
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2
1
823
943
94.4
945
954
953
962
960
957
1090
1089
1074
1073
1072
1068
5
3
01
00
77
04
00
41 01
00
00
00
14
00
23 03
00
09 06
00
28
05
00
10 00
01
00
17
08
00
52
07
00
53
02
00
86
00
00
27
19
00
गज्य आओडिशा
जिन्ना वालेश्वर
महल/ तहसिल/ नानुक जालध्वर
10
अक्वन्पुर
9
16
13
14
15
62
60
58
66
54
53
49
92
25
37
! पाखरा
38
47
59
60
88
115
120
149
137
135
134
24
09
00
87
12
00
90
01
00
50
04
00
47
00
00
00
00
52
05
00
31
09
00
13
00
00
10
00
00
88
09
00
30
12
00
43
04
00
43
14
00
01
10
00
57
22
00
33
02
00
63
03
00
51
09
00
73
07
00
37
05
00
84
01
00
12
28
00
84
03
00
94
16
00
38
10
00
54
11
00 2866
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 31 , 2012 CHAITRA 11. 1934
1
2
131
229
230
231
232
233
237
! सरकानिया
282
281
48
40
52
51
280
53
42
55
41
40
39
37
38
10
33
31
35
30
80
72
73
79
78
77
106
104
107
101
118
95
5 ) जगडाभा
229
228
225
[ Part II---Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]
5
13
114
80
SO
09
37
18
01
40
00
32
06
57
23
00
23
05
01
17
ااز
00
10
114
95
10
52
05
26
84
(0 )
77
02
95
04
105
07
67
00
10
27
104
73
00
02
88
06
32
00
20
00
04
98
00
03
64
02
31
00
10
09
00
00
24
00
12
68
06
00
70
00
06
94
(00
10
37
01
39
01, 15 04
00
00
24
00
04
72
00
05
88 2867
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
| भाग ।। - खण्ड 3( ii) ]
2
220
219
218
217
1
5
3
09
16
00
92
00
00
00
16
00
60
आह
गज्य
जिला वालेश्वर
मंडल/ नहमिल/ नाच गगराय
276
आंमधानगाडिचा
277
291
284
283
574
471
487
483
484
485
546
548
625
539
630
653
669
673
82
63
1518
। बान्निम
1517
1515
1516
1502
1501
1535
1500
1539
1540
1545
1566
1565
1546
616
615
557
45
11
00
76
07
00
07
انا
00
60
00
36
00
100
84
01
(00
51
11
00
83
00
17
00
00
(11)
13
14
09
00
50
88
01
00
00
08
12
00
02
96
00
05
19
05
71
00
22
00
06
02
00
38
55
18
05
(01)
67
100
45
00
04
14
00
00
12
07
00
10
00
00
94
26
00
00
20
11
7()
13
00
79
00
05
01
07
00
10
00
00
71
38
00
68
00
(01)
25
22
00
49
04
00 2868
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012/ CHAITRA 11 , 1934
1 2
3 ) बालिम (निरंतर) 552
550
551
1708
1713
1718
1750
1749
1745
1725
1728
1733
2125
2124
2014
2013
2028
2023
2030
मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक : वेटनोती
[Part II--Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
3 4 5 00 08 07 00 09 61 00 12 04 00 32 85 00 09 59 00 02 44 00 04 72 00 12 48 00 04 24 00 10 06 00 78 00 17 81 00 00 57 00 06 03 00 12 58 00 03 57 00 04 15 00 07 02 00 14 81
जिला मयूरभंज
28/36
1 ) शिकारखुंटा
31/39
30
राज्य ओडिशा
00
03
94
00
11
40
00
05
54
[फा सं. एल.- 14014/18/2011 -जी.पी. ] ए. गोस्वामी. अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
NewDelhi , the 23rd March , 2012
S. O. 1209.- Whereas by notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 891 dated 01 April, 2011 , read with their notification number S.O. 2740 (E ) dated 28th November , 2011 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais 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 land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying Kakinada- Basudebpur - Howrah gas pipeline for transportation of natural gas from onshore terminal at East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited 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 October, 2011 ;
And whereas , no objections were received from the public to the laying of the pipeline;
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, have decided to acquire the Right of User therein ;
2869
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ] [
==
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , Government of India hereby declare 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 direct 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 .
Schedule
State: Orissa
District: Jajapur
Mandal /Tehsil / Taiuk: Dharmasala
Area to be acquired for Rou
Survey No./Sub-Division No.
Village
י
1
11
Samparu
10
C-Are
Are
Hec
5
4
3
49
01
00
43
04
00
State: Orissa
District: Bhadrak
Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Bant
2445
Hasimpur
2442
2458
2468
2499
2494
2498
2495
2496
2489
2549
2550
2552
2548
2561
2560
2567
2566
2563
2565
2768
2059
2057
2056
2030
2032
2033
2039
1961
1950
1963
1913
1919
94
02
00
97
06
00
27
08
00
84
00
00
36
00
00
74
01
00
00
05
00
70
10
00
40
01
00
17
01
00
44
11
00
81
00
01
25
00
00
72
03
00
43
12
00
00
19
00
77
00
07
46
09
00
44
00
08
20
05
00
64
03
00
75
17
00
81
02
00
09
18
00
64 00
03
40
00
00
44
02
00
36
19
00
39
19
00
66
02
00
95
18
00
10
00
00
02
80 00 2870
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 / CHAITRA 11 , 1934
District : Baleshwar Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk: Nliagiri
2
1 ) Baligahiri 738
739
735
733
728
640
642
659
656
655
652
647
646
Mandal/ Tehsil / Taluk : Basta District: Baleshwar
1 Gundurisahi 6/12
5:11
3:9
4/10
Debhog 304
268
309
316
303
285
288
300
297
418
419
417
420
423
424
421
429
836
837
831
830
844
848
847
850
851
[ Part II- Sec . 3 (ii ) ]
State:Orissa
3 4 5 00 02 25 00 09 87 00 01 36 00 05 83 00 01 69 00 01 88 00 05 82 00 00 34 00 14 59 00 07 31 00 00 56 00 01 56 00 07 28 State: Orissa 00 03 61 00 15 94 00 08 01 00 08 82 00 19 08 00 03 83 00 01 26 00 01 35 00 12 49 00 01 36 00 05 66 00 10 10 00 02 98 00 02 18 00 04 99 00 00 21 00 07 04 00 01 52 00 00 70 00 03 52 00 07 54 00 00 73 00 00 72 00 02 20 00 02 47 00 00 95 00 05 96 00 03 12 00 00 33 00 06 12 00 13 62
2871
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2 1
823
943
944
945
954
953
962
960
957
1090
1089
1074
1073
1072
1068
5 3
00
01
77
04
01
41
100
00
93
14
08
23
06
09
28
05
(11)
13
10
00
73
01
08
17
52
07
53
02
00
86
27
19
State: Orissa
District : Baleshwar
Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Jaleswar
10 09 24
Akbarpur
9 00 12 87
16 00 01 90
00 04 59
13
00 00 47
14
15 00 00 85
62 00 05 52
2 Kharida
60 00 09 31
58 00 00 13
66 00 00 10
54 (10) 09 88
53 00 12 30
49 00 04 43
92 00 14 43
25 00 10 03
37 00 22 57
3 ) Pakhara
38 00 02 33
47 00 03 63
59 00 09 51
60 00 07 73
00 05 37
88
115 00 01 84
120 00 28 12
149 00 03 84
137 00 16 94
135 00 10 38
134 00 11 54
2872
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 / CHAITRA 11 , 1934
2
Pakhara (Contd 131
229
230
231
232
233
237
4 ) Sarkatia 282
281
48
49
52
51
280
53
42
55
41
40
39
37
38
10
33
31
35
30
80
72
73
79
78
77
106
104
107
101
118
95
5 ) Jagadabha 229
228
225
[ Part II--Sec . 3 (ii) |
3 5
100 03 13
00 04 80
100 05 80
00 09 34
09 37
05 18
01 40
100 03 32
00 06 57
00 01 3
00 00 23
05 33
01- 37
(if) 00 10
00 04 95
10 10 52
00 05 26
010 10 84
010 00 77
00 02 95
00 04 05
00 07 67
00 00 10
00 02 27
00 04 73
00 02 88
00 06 32
00 00 29
00 04 98
00 03 64
00 02 31
00 10 09
00 00 24
00 12 68
00 00 70
00 06 94
00 10 37
00 01 39
00 15 04
00 00 24
00 04 72
00 05 88
2873
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11. 1934
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2
5 ) Jagadabha ( Contd) 220
219
218
217
District: Baleshwar
Mandal/ Tehsil /Taluk: Bhograi
276
1 ) Amidhangadia
277
291
284
283
574
2 ) Kuruntia
471
487
483
484
485
546
548
625
539
630
653
669
673
82
63
1518
3 ) Balim
1517
1515
1516
1502
1501
1535
1500
1539
1540
1545
1566
1565
1546
616
615
557
885 G1 /12-2A
4 5
3
16 小
()( )
00 12 りこ
00 06 10
State: Orissa
00 11 45
00 07
00 01
00 09
00 00
00 01 84
00 06 54
00 00 14
00 07
00 06 47
00 93 38
00 00 13
00 14 32
00 09 50
00 01 88
00 08 12
00 02 96
00 05 19
00 05 71
00 06 22
00 02 38
00 18 55
00 01 05
00 12 67
00 04 45
00 00 14
00 12 07
00 00 10
00 26 94
00 11 20
00 13 70
00 05 79
00 07 GI
00 00 10
00 38 71
00 00 68
00 22 25
00 04 49
2874
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 / CHAITRA 11 , 1934
1
2
3) Balim (Contd)
552
550
551
1708
1713
1718
1750
1749
1745
1725
1728
1733
2125
2124
2014
2013
2028
2029
2030
Mandal/Tehsil/Taluk: Betnoti
[Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]
3
4
5
00
08
07
00
61
09
00
12
04
00
32
85
00
09
59
00
02
44
00
04
72
00
12
48
00
04
24
00
10
06
00
22
78
00
17
81
00
00
57
00
06
03
00
12
58
00
03
57
00
04
15
00
07
02
00
14
81
District: Mayurbhanj
1 ) Shikarkhunta
28/36
31/39
30
State: Orissa
00
03
94
00
11
40
00
05
54
[F. No. L- 14014/ 18/2011 - GP. ]
A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 28 मार्च , 2012
का. आ. 1210.- 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. 890 तारीख 01.04.2011 द्वारा, उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में , तमिलनाडु में तिरूतन्नी के पास विजयवाडा-नैलुर - चैन्नई पाइपलाइन के टर्मिनल प्वाइंट से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा चैन्नई-वंगलौर-मंगलौर पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोपणा की थी ;
और, उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियों जनता को तारीख 04 अक्तूबर,2011 को अथवा उससे पूर्व उपलब्ध करा दा गई थीं ;
और , पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध 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 उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और, भारत सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विन्चार 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 ;
885 GI /12-2B 2875
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
[भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
अतः , अव, भारत सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा कस्ती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;
और , भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देतीं 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 रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
अनुसूची
राज्य: कर्नाटक
जिला: चिकमगलोर
तालुक: मुडिगेरे
गाँव का नाम
सर्वे सं/सब डिविजन सं.
1 2
1 ) हिरेशिगरा 27
28
29
32
34/2
34/1
35
15/2
14
13
12
2
7
4/2
8/1
2 ) होसहल्ली 149
151
150
152/2
152/1
153
146/पी 1
148/पी
663
3 ) गोणिबीडु अग्रहारा
673
672
671
666
667
665
657
656
655
643
644
645
689
आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर एयर सि-एयर 3 4 5 00 00 10 00 76 00 00 08 22 00 30 06 00 17 94 00 16 08 00 18 74 00 17 88 00 12 60 00 11 28 00 20 93 00 11 55 00 49 27 00 46 15 00 36 04 00 24 50 00 23 70 00 00 13 00 24 20 00 19 96 00 63 07 00 55 81 00 08 92 00 23 10 00 09 82 00 23 87 00 19 18 00 04 92 00 17 48 00 19 46 00 34 75 00 19 17 00 04 25 00 07 02 00 03 43 00 02 17 00 99 63
2876
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 / CHAITRA 11 , 1934
1 2
4 ) हेग्गरावल्ली 47
46
45
44/3
44/1
39
40/2
40/1
41
31
27
26/3
25
24
23
13/1
12
14/1
42/1
42/2
42/3
69/1
5 ) उदाशी 253/1
253/3
253/2
261/2
254
265/2
265/4
262
265/3
268
24
25
26
30
6 ) किरागुन्दा 31
30
29
22
23
[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]
3 4 5 00 66 19 01 20 45 00 37 95 00 07 80 00 32 62 00 06 61 00 09 81 00 31 49 00 10 26 00 09 76 00 25 02 00 08 37 00 18 58 00 26 38 00 13 74 00 00 18 00 24 91 00 04 75 00 02 89 00 -12 23 00 28 71 00 03 51 00 08 49 00 02 60 00 14 75 00 07 98 00 19 12 00 10 45 00 41 77 00 00 10 00 03 79 00 40 43 00 02 57 00 46 98 00 02 39 00 58 27 00 22 24 00 54 73 00 65 51 00 60 14 00 28 65 00 00 10
2877
भारत का राजपत्र मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र ।।. 1934
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1 2 3 4 5
6 ) किरागुन्दा (निरंतर) 17 00 19 76
18 00 04 59
16 00 08 91
15 CO 05 88
14 00 00
13 00 10 10
12 00 14
11 00 0 72
5 00 18 26
6 00 11 34
7 00 74
162 25 54
160 00 it 07
7 ) बेट्टदामने 38/2 00 32 70
38/3 00 ос 10
41/1 00 2.3 65
41/2 00 15 41
43 00 34 03
66 00 31 80
67 00 15 82
68 00 04 13
69/3 00 23 92
69/2 00 16 98
69/1 00 00 46
71/3 00 21 28
72/3 00 05 92
72/2 00 08 37
71/1 00 00 42
72/1 00 10 19
71/2 00 27 25
78 00 50 50
79/5 00 09 62
79/4 00 07 08
79/1 00 01 12
83 00 25 23
82 00 28 16
87 00 08 83
39/पी 1 00 23 81
75/1 00 00 10
8 ) उग्गेहल्ली 69 00 48 64
51 00 76 72
49 00 38 51
2878
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 / CHAITRA 11 , 1934
1 2
8 ) उग्गेहल्ली (निरंतर) 48
26
46
27
28
29
206
207
210
167
169
166
165
268
164
159
208/5
9 ) अंगडी 146
145
147
148
47/1
46 !
204
45/2
31
25/2
24
23
20
19
14-4/1
144/3
27/1
10 ) हन्तुरू 18/1
19/3
28/2
28/1
26
25
37
36
[Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
3 4 5
00 02 21
00 86 44
00 19 98
00 11 63
00 13 48
00 42 46
00 71 34
00 03
00 48 67
24 73
00 28 71
00 08 11
00 07 16
00 34 54
00 23 39
00 05 54
00 01 86
00 07 72
00 09 88
00 10 40
00 21
00 41 19
00 21 03
00 19 96
00 28 38
00 00 10
00 04 03.
00 11 80
00 17 90
00 26 47
00 39 02
00 02 98
00 06 18
00 31 90
00 31 11
00 01 13
00 19 25
00 22 52
00 01 35
00 12
00 00 28
00 00 12
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2879
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012 /चैत्र 11 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5
10 ) हन्तुरू (निरंतर) 38/2 00 18 76
39 00 16 44
40/1 00 12 50
40/2 00 02 76
156/1 00 09 70
153 00 02 30
156/2 00 12 29
154 00 14 89
155 00 01 99
149/1 00 50 97
160 00 14 72
148 00 06 31
147/1 00 01 23
145/2 00 19 45
146/2 00 25 51
146/1 00 00 52
146/3 00 05 31
143/2 00 00 2.7
143/1 00 21 99
142 00 45 57
169/3 00 01 34
169/11 00 00 94
29/1 00 18 40
24/2 (00 20 92
141/3 00 02 21
169/10 00 53 50
11 ) कणचुरू 178 00 C7 22
174 00 34 39
175 00 14 86
144 00 11 16
141/6 00 04 05
141/4 00 02 23
134/3 13 00
133/6 00 03 70
133/5 00 00 10
133/1 00 05 31
133/2 00 04 64
132/1 00 09 50
132/2 00 24 25
131 00 03 19
130/2 00 15 98
130/1 00 07 68
2880
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 / CHAITRA 11 , 1934
1 2
11 ) कणचुरू (निरंतर) 128/10
128/8
128/6
127
126/10
126/9
126/1
124/8
124/4
124/9
124/2
120/8
120/3
120/1
118
115/2
115/3
115/1सी
104/1 वी
104/ 2वी
104/ 2ए
104/4
104/3
142/11
142/12
142/13
142/14
142/16
142/17
142/18
142/21
142/24
142/7
12 ) हलेकेरे 233
266
227
236/1
236/2
228
175/1
175/2
171
[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii)]
3 4 5 00 21 80 00 17 3:0 00 19 40 00 09 75 00 09 46 00 00 33 00 24 98 00 01 10 00 30 95 00 00 86 00 05 26 00 06 96 00 24 7.6 00 01 70 00 16 26 00 06 00 00 18 27 00 00 88 00 01 67 00 20 32 00 02 60 00 00 00 18 20 00 00 7.1 00 01 59 00 01 03 00 01 6.1 00 05 91 00 05 68 00 01 18 00 02 82 00 00 47 00 00 10 00 52 11 00 01 68 01 05 14 00 36 62 00 19 41 00 00 59 00 16 &6 00 05 46 00 08 79
2881
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2
170
12 ) हलेकेरे (निरंतर)
167
166
178
164
162
184
158
157
154
148
144
145
146
133
138
99
112
113
121
123
239/1
239/ 2ए
149/1
147/1
3
13 ) वैदुवल्ली एस्टेट
36
14 ) वैदुवल्ली
37
38
39
40
41/2
41/1
32
33/2
33/1
16/5
16/4
16/3
16/2
43/5
5
4
3
39 12
00
41 04
00
04 18
00
02 00
00
49 17
00
02 01
00
27 03
00
71 04
00
10 00
00
32
39
00
89
13
00
44
12
00
29
04
00
08
12
00
27
21
00
46
12
00
10
31
01
23
55
00
38
49
00
78
14
00
52
11
00
05
17
00
81
04
00
25
00
00
26
08
00
61
62
00
34
01
00
03
16
00
85
19
00
88
11
00
19
02
00
45
01
00
36
06
00
98
05
00
72
00
00
11
17
00
14
04
00
88
16
00
36
00
00
70
05
00
31
00
00
77
07
00 2882
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 / CHAITRA 11. 1934
1
2
14 ) बैदुवल्ली (निरंतर) 43/2
43/3
43/1
44
10/1
10/8
10/2
10/7
10/3
10/5
10/4
11
716
7/2
7/3
7/1
6
5
65
67/2
67/1
69/1
69/3
69/2
69/4
69/6
69/5
69/8
69/9
69/7
69/10
153
154/1
154/2
155
156
157
158
141
142
138
34/1
[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii) |
3. 5
00 18 50
00 00 11
00 08 35
00 21, 65
00 01 00
00 04 33
00 08 40
00 00 47
00 03 67
00 00 79
00 03 38
00 09 34
00 05 65
00 07 66
00 00 98
00 05 92
00 11 00
00 04 42
00 02 02
00 00 70
00 00 17
00 11 79
00 00 14
00 05 27
00 01 71
00 05
66
00 04 16
00 02 20
00 10 51
00 00 15
00 01 88
00 36 88
00 29 52
00 19 19
00 12 30
00 23 27
00 25 78
00 24 07
00 27 09
02 16 74
00 00 63
00 00 91
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii)
2883
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5
14 ) वैदुवल्ली ( निरंतर) 34/2 00 05 28
70/1 00 21 97
71/1 00 39 14
34 01 06 88
15 ) मुद्दरहल्ली
25 00 18 18
26 00 02 62
21 00 52 15
18 00 04 68
213 00 21 23
16) गुत्ती
210/2 00 31 59
210/1 00 03 95
209 00 07 87
167 00 55 54
166/1 00 05 84
166/2 00 02 78
166/4 00 00 03
166/5 00 13 80
164/2 00 07 74
164/1 00 04 41
163/2 00 10 50
163/1 00 00 04
162/2 00 12 40
162/1 00 00 60
117 00 27 93
116 00 24 83
115/2 00 11 20
115/3 00 08 21
112 00 10 91
114/1 00 06 54
94 02 01 62
9 03 64 86
214/4 00 05 32
214/5 00 29 31
111/2 00 02 40
17 ) कोगिले 126 01 98 45
122 00 01 79
118/2 00 19 51
राज्य: कर्नाटक
जिला: दक्षिण कन्नड़
तालुक: बन्टवाल
107 01 05 74
1 ) पिलातवेट्टु 00 44
148 52
147 00 21 22
2 ) अज्जीबेट्टु 49 01 23 35
48 00 16 05
2884
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 CHAFFRA 11 , 1934
1 2
2 ) अज्जीवेट्टु (निरंतर) 50
52
82
129
134
60
21
28
51/14पी 1
51/7
51/8
100/ 1 पी 1
100/2
100/3
46/9
144/2
144/4
25/15पी 1
22/1
3 ) चेन्नईतोडि 55/3
29
30
96
4 ) येलियनडुगोडु 34
110
80
123
37/पी 1
135/1
121/101
121 / 1 ए2
121/1 वी
121/1सी
121/2
36/6
38/1
139/1
5 ) कुब्रिकपाडि 93
96/19
97
81
2/1
[Part II-- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]
3 4 5 00 37 46 00 04 96 00 83 96 00 43 85 00 46 21 00 01 71 00 43 11 01 30 97 00 12 42 00 00 10 00 01 17 00 50 33 00 40 19 00 02 28 00 10 92 00 11 02 00 16 64 00 11 74 00 02 83 01 58 98 00 43 61 00 66 82 00 90 75 00 38 69 00 46 44 00 25 06 00 07 60 00 68 23 00 01 25 00 16 06 00 10 53 00 15 02 00 12 35 00 03 02 00 13 05 00 06 86 00 01 52 30 69 51 03 23 07 00 30 32 00 21 44 00 08 52
2885
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2 3 4 5
1
00 00 97
5 ) कुविकपाडि (निरंतर) 2/2
00 41 26
7/3पी 1
7/4 00 01 25
7/9 00 07 02
00 02 75
7/13
00 28 88
8/1
8/5 00 19 12
170/1 00 01 83
00 02 64
170/2
102/3 00 19 57
74/1 पी 1 00 37 20
00 17 38
74/4पी 1
46/2 00 18 28
46/3 00 04 13
00 46 63
6 ) रायि 102
00 02 12
101
00 21 98
100
00 44 54
132
00 43 91
110
00 00 76
19
00 57 94
75
76 00 27 11
114 00 70 58
00 63 56
56
00 28 42
64
61 00 53 94
112 00 49 86
8/1 ए 00 21 26
8/2 00 08 89
8/6 00 00 08
88/2 00 09 02
88/3 00 01 25
00 15 84
9/2
9/3 00 10 64
9/4 00 11 44
00 22 64
9/5ए
9/5बी 00 07 09
103/1 ए 00 11 57
103/4 00 14 83
103/5 00 26 15
20/4ए 00 04 74
20/4बी 00 01 10
2886
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 /CHAITRA 11 , 1934
1
2
6 ) रायि (निरंतर) 20/501
20/502
20/7एपी1
91/3बी
122/2
28/3
28/4
28/5
28/6
29/3
29/4
29/7
39/2
74/1
74/2बी
74/2सी
159/3
86/1पी1
60/1
60/2
60/3पी 1
60/4
137/5
137/6
137/7
7) कर्पे 106
82
8 ) अरला 86
109
182
55
49
48
47
35
33
10
11
12
15
147/4
[Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]
3 4 5
00 05 19
00 03 87
00 46 18
00 00 31
00 28 01
00 06 11
00 17 18
00 19 77
00 01 66
00 97 16
00 21 56
00 36
03
00 08 94
00 35
03
00 04 52
00 24 12
00 15 27
00 01 79
00 05 86
00 00 98
00 38 11
00 09 12
00 22 87
00 09 51
00 06 55
00 02 45
00 52 01
00 02 51
00 09 41
00 08 18
00 02 24
00 12 97
00 70 38
00 38 06
00 41 63
01 07 45
00 05 43
00 74 12
00 06 48
00 48 98
00 76 37
00 24 43
2887
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1 2 3 4 5
8 ) अरला (निरंतर) 56/1 बी1 00 21 59
50/10 00 21 91
50/11 00 11 09
50/18 00 06 24
50/9पी1 00 01 09
45/3 00 09 13
46/1 बी 00 14 23
16/11 00 17 94
16/13 00 06 56
180/1 00 08 72
86 01 59 04
9 ) बडगवेल्लूर
72 00 60 23
70 00 96 26
162 00 47 29
163 00 00 63
42 02 00 85
44 00 02 54
76/1ए 00 05 12
76/1सी 00 02 46
85/1 00 02 55
85/2 00 08 23
85/3ए 00 20 04
73/1 पी 1 00 16 61
69/4 00 14 60
69/5 00 00 15
50/1 00 00 85
35/10 पी1 00 08 92
216/1ए 00 28 76
126/1 00 24 07
149/2 00 08 90
10) करियंगला 118 00 20 58
27 00 17 79
25 00 65 96
19 00 56 11
16 00 13 76
9 01 17 75
10 00 63 69
5 00 30 62
4 00 53 10
3 00 51 71
2 00 51 38
22/5पी1 00 15 72
2888
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 / CHAITRA 11 , 1934
1 2
10 ) करियंगला (निरंतर) 26/1
26/4पी1
26/ 6ए
26/ 6बी
26/8पी1
21/11
21/5
21/9
17/10
17/12
17/6
17/7
18/3
18/8
6/1
6/2
6/3
तालुक: मंगलौर
[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]
3 4 5 00 19 15 00 05 37 00 16 70 00 00 10 00 10 50 00 02 32 00 10 29 00 06 29 00 03 77 00 02 00 00 06 69 00 06 11 00 21 33 00 01 60 00 32 72 00 10 30 00 40 53 राज्य : कर्नाटक
जिला: दक्षिण कन्नड़
1 ) तेन्कउलिपाडि 12 00 49 37
13 02 00 40
40/1 पी1 00 47 08
40/2 00 06
57
40/3एपी1 00 08
08
40/4पी1 00 00 61
40/6 00 06 03
39/1 एपी1 00 02 37
39/1 वी 00 05 70
39/20 00 03 10
37/15पी 1 00 00 14
37/17पी 1 00 01 05
37/21 00 08 96
37/22 00 13 07
37/20 00 09 39
37/18 00 10 33
37/19 00 37 70
37/ 25 पी 1 00 14 11
37/26 पी 1 00 00 37
37/29 00 00 59
37/ 2पी1 00 00 36
37/3 00 22 40
37/4 00 25 19
37/30 00 05 00
37/320 00 04 19
2889
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2 1
18/12
) तेन्कउलिपाडि (निरंतर)
18/14
18/17
18/20 पी1
18/16
18/5पी1
16/11 पी 1
16/9पी1
14/4
11/3
4
2 ) अडडूरू
86
3/11
3/3
3/4
6/14ए
6/14बी
6/1ए
6/1बी
6/1सी
6/7
88/पी1
13/10
13/11ए
13/12
13/4ए
13/13ए
13/13बी
13/13सी
13/19बी
13/14
13/15बी
13/15ए
13/16
13/18बी
13/24
13/30
13/6
69/10
3 ) मूलुर
69/12
69/4
69/5पी 1
885 GI /12-3A
5
4
3
06 23
00
12 16
00
25 07
00
00 16
00
20
87 00
19 37
00
12 09
00
83 07
00
00
04
48
67 24
00
23
12 01
48 17
00
75 01
00
21 08
00
24 35
00
31 03
00
05 00
00
04 56
00
68 13
00
44 07
00
01 01
00
20 29
00
29
54 00
10 00
00
65 02
00
48 01
00
73 22
00
64 00
13
71 02
00
10 00
00
22 13
00
33
02
00
85 23
00
67
02
00
47
01
00
91
03
00
56
00
00
62
00
00
60
05
00
98
07
00
62
07
00
31
24
00 2890
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 /CHAITRA 11 , 1934
1 2
3 ) भूलुर (निरंतर) 69/7
69/8
68/6
70/1
70/ 2पी 2
70/3
71/3
71/4
71/5
71/8
81/8
76/1
76/2
76/501
76/7
77/10
77/11
77/8
77/9 पी 1
53/1
53/2
53/3
53/4
55/26पी 1
55/26 2
55/27
55/28
55/8
55/9
48010
56/2
4601
4602
57/20
57/2बी
57/5
57/7
453
59/1 पी1
5801
582
5803
[ Part II -Sec . 3 ( ii) ]
3 4 5 00 06 37 00 09 16 00 00 10 00 11 54 00 09 42 00 00 83 00 23 26 00 14 48 00 00 33 00 10 06 00 02 09 00 04 26 00 17 48 00 35 11 00 12 61 00 01 06 00 00 10 00 03 30 00 22 90 00 16 51 00 28 53 00 04 99 00 02 51 00 12 27 00 01 07 00 06 43 00 05 97 00 09 29 00 00 18 00 04 37 00 19 20 00 06 71 00 04 49 00 17 66 00 17 58 00 14 26 00 04 81 00 00 40 00 03 29 00 09 87 00 09 68 00 05 29
885 Gl/12-3B 2891
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2 3 4 5
1
00 00 83
3 ) मूलुर (निरंतर) 5804पी1
00 07 14
4003
00 03 71
4004
00 07 04
405
00 00 44
406
00 06 73
4007
00 10 77
40बी4
00 10 44
40बी5
00 31 78
40बी9
00 12 35
40बी10
00 08 78
40बी 11
00 33 92
28/12
00 03 41
28/13
00 00 75
28/14
00 00 07
28/15पी1
00 01 15
28/16
00 17 03
28/5
00 05 06
28/7
00 03 31
28/8
00 11 91
21/3
00 31 31
64/ 1 पी 2
4) कंदावरा 00 07 11
64/2
00 11 50
70/1
00 06 46
70/2
00 00 49
70/4
00 00 53
70/3
00 00 77
70/9
00 12 49
69/1
00 14 26
69/4
00 10 22
73/ 1 ए
00 07 83
68/5
00 32 61
68/4
00 00 88
74/2
00 15 96
75/1
00 01 74
75/10
00 05 98
75/12
00 02 78
75/7
00 05 09
75/8
00 21 64
76/5
00 04 65
78/2
00 18 66
78/3
00 02 07
78/4
2892
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012/ CHAITRA 11 , 1934
2
4 ) कंदावरा (निरंतर ) 78/8
२ ) अय्दापाडि 62
84/3
78/1 पी1
78/ 2पी 1
63/1
63/ 2ए
60/1 पी 1
59/100
59/13
52/4
52/5
54/1
54/2
54/3
48/3
48/4
48/11
48/12पी1
49/2
49/3
46/2
46/502 पी1
4615
46/6
45/ 6थी
32/3
32/4पी 1
32/6
32/1
33/4
33/5
34/17
34/ 18 ए
34/7
28/3 पी 1
28/4
29/414
29/5 पी 1
21/1
21/10
[Part II -Sec . 3 ( ii) )
3 4 5 00 01 55 00 93 11 00 43 52 00 24 71 00 07 59 00 03 46 00 14 53 00 17 37 00 00 02 00 10 41 00 10 27 00 06 26 00 14 86 00 17 98 00 19 30 00 10 38 00 06 07 00 24 24 00 12 92 00 04 98 00 00 20 00 03 79 00 19 14 00 02 16 00 05 57 00 11 86 00 00 07 00 81 23 00 00 98 00 24 11 00 22 05 00 00 98 00 01 25 00 00 09 00 07 20 00 04 72 00 28 20 00 03 88 00 07 23 00 03 67 00 02 71 00 29 41
2893
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
3 4 5
2
1
00 15 78
5 ) अय्दापाडि (निरंतर) 21/2
00 12 39
21/3पी 1
00 01 25
21/4पी 2
00 16 76
18/6
00 08 52
18/4
00 24 55
18/1
00 15 08
20/1
00 08 34
20/2
00 03 13
20/3
00 55 30
11/7
00 26 20
12/1
00 05 52
12/2
00 11 19
13/10 पी 1
00 01 19
13/3
00 43 46
1.3/ 6 पी 2
00 00 56
15/22
00 16 03
14/1
00 26 27
14/2
00 16 90
84
मलउर 19 30
00
16/1 एपी1
00 01 02
16/2
00 02 08
16/5जी
00 11 52
16/5जी 1
00 15 65
16/5जी 2
00 18 10
16/ 5एच
00 02 04
16/5डी
00 14 34
16/ 6पी 1
00 25 19
14/2एपी 2
00 06 55
14/1 ए
00 07 51
8/12
00 19 16
8/16
00 02 38
8/23पी1
00 03 74
8/2402
00 00 05
8/2401
00 12 70
8/24वी
00 00 02
8/25 पी1
00 00 69
8/67
00 40 00
8/27 पी1
00 01 99
8/28बी
00 03 80
8/28सी
00 20 21
8/28डी
00 15 42
8/31बीपी
2894
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 /CHAITRA 11 , 1934
1 2
6 ) मलउर (निरंतर) 8/33
8/44बी
8/44सी
8/60
8/59 ए
8/70
8/63पी 2
8/64
10/9
9/5
6/11
5/1बी
5/2ए
5/ 2बी
5/ 3ए
5/3बी
5/4
5/5एपी 1
5/6
4/ 1ए
4/1बी
4/3बी
127/ 2 पी 2
7 ) केंजार 82
102
23/10ए
23/10बी
23/11
23/12बी
23/13बी
23/14
23/15 बी
77/2
77/ 3ए
77/8बीपी1
83/12ए
83/3पी1
83/5
83/7ए
8 ) तोकूरू 68/12
तालुक : बेल्तंगडि जिला: दक्षिण कन्नड़
1) नेरिया 145
19
[ Part II -Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
3 4 5 00 21 17 00 06 66 00 04 00 00 10 83 00 00 22 00 03 58 00 05 86 00 00 64 00 00 39 00 02 73 00 00 51 00 14 18 00 02 10 00 02 85 00 00 04 00 00 05 00 17 71 00 37 00 00 02 84 00 02 17 00 05 07 00 00 14 00 77 38 00 25 15 00 82 87 00 04 59 00 00 98 00 03 79 00 00 17 00 01 23 00 01 64 00 18 30 00 11 41 00 14 40 00 02 34 00 23 53 00 14 15 00 00 75 00 16 73 00 45 47 राज्य: कर्नाटक 28 65 01 01 03 18
2895
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
4 5
3
2
62 07
01
4
1 ) नेरिया (निरंतर) 01 69 29
2
02 07 34
20
00 34 60
1
02 40 14
11
00 23 14
158
2 ) तोटत्ताडि 00 16 36
157/1
00 07 09
157/2
00 08 40
157/3
00 19 37
157/5 पी1
01 26 78
7
3 ) चिविद्रे 03 45 00
86
00 03 96
121
4) कल्पंजा 00 43 05
99
00 03 81
101 97
00 82
103
94 70
00
108
00 52 08
109
00 36 98
93/1 37
00 06
83/1
68 57
00
83/ 2ए 07
00 00
72/ 2 ए
00 01 76
72/3बी 28
00 11
78/10 94
00 07
78/1बी
00 00 46
78/2
00 67 57
82/1
00 09 84
82/2
00 40 62
81/1
00 40 58
219/1 पी1
00 01 12
100/1
00 75 60
100/ 2 पी1
00 33 52
105/ 2ए 63
00 19
105/2 बीपी1
00 22 51
105/ 2सी 2 89
00 18
105/ 2डी 71
00 14
105/ 2 डी
00 73 77
57/ 2पी1
5 ) धर्मस्थला 00 00 86
56/10
00 12 24
56/3सी 65
00 18
56/5
00 04 56
56/6ए
2896
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012/CHAITRA 11 , 1934
1
2
5 ) धर्मस्थला (निरंतर) 56/ 6बी
56/6सी
56/8
55/1
6 ) उजिरे 454
548
547
545
544
278
373
362
398
399
259/12 पी 2
259/30
259/4पी 4
258/5
258/6पी1
258/8
258/9
265/301
372/2
372/3
393/3पी1
394/ 2 ए
394/ 2बी
396/1 एपी 2
396/1बी
7 ) कोय्युरू 33
29
20
21
60
34/1
227/1
28/ 2पी1
28/3
28/4
24/103
22/1
9/13बी
[Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]
3 4 5 00 08 91 00 11 44 00 05 90 00 14 13 00 26 37 00 38 42 00 45 83 00 12 36 00 24 18 00 68 18 01 24 52 00 47 60 00 50 96 00 75 23 00 05 33 00 14 20 00 12 51 00 35 30 00 00 45 00 34 72 00 10 74 00 02 53 00 75 48 00 39 75 00 30 70 00 15 27 00 00 05 00 34 45 00 14 44 00 92 04 02 64 25 01 34 33 00 67 18 01 21 78 00 03 53 00 00 36 00 18 03 00 51 34 00 19 19 00 00 64 00 02 30 00 28 31
2897
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र ।। , 1934
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
3 4 5
2
1
00 07 96
9/7
7 ) कोय्युरू (निरंतर) 01 49 29
7/1 पी 1
00 00 07
10/3
00 00 21
10/4
00 05 08
10/5
00 25 59
10/ 6पी1
00 15 06
10/7
00 08 20
10/9
00 08 27
11/पी2
02 11 37
9
8 ) बेल्तंगडि 00 17 80
152
00 32 42
127
00 60 ४४
224
00 34 78
134
00 24 07
120
00 64 21
227
00 04 72
43/8सी
00 05 39
248/2
00 05
248/3
00 14 24
248/4
00 17 03
10/3
00 02 70
10/5
00 01 32
00 00 12
11/20
00 20 48
198/2
00 09 55
230/1
00 09 910
114/2
00 01 31
114/10
00 06 34
221/1
00 09 99
14/10
00 00 46
14/20
00 09 96
14/21
00 00 10
103/11
01 56 25
111
9 ) वोडिलनाल 01 68 83
109
00 63 56
146
00 31 72
110
00 13 12
85/14
00 00 82
85/15
00 04 64
85/17
00 04 85
85/20
00 00 34
85/22
2898
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 CHAITRA 11 , 1934
1 2
9 ) वोडिलनाल (निरंतर) 85/4
85/5
85/7
107/2
107/3
191/1
191/2
135/1
135/20
135/ 2 वी
199/1
199/3
199/4
199/51
121/1
121 / 2 पी 1
58/13
58/14
60/2
60/3
60/6
60/7
60/8
59/2
61/1
61/2
45/1 वी
44/10
44/ 2वीं
137/1
137/ 2ए
137/ 2वी
10 ) कुवेट्टु 103
136
153
200/1
200/2
198/1
198/5
198/7
66/10
66/5
[ Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]
3 4 5 00 03 57 00 12 80 00 00 02 00 02 97 00 07 43 00 36 63 00 04 40 00 11 76 00 02 09 00 44 75 00 03 12 00 14 11 00 21 36 00 06 76 00 02 49 00 40 53 00 00 71 00 03 35 00 26 84 00 43 07 00 00 05 00 02 64 00 02 87 00 01 18 00 16 78 00 02 87 00 03 15 00 01 14 00 07 63 00 56 02 00 05 76 00 14 87 00 26 07 00 28 66 00 66 03 00 02 07 00 03 34 00 09 39 00 00 90 00 05 21 00 00 03 00 00 72
2899
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
2900 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012/ CHAITRA 11 , 1934 [ Part 11---Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
1 2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
1
10 ) कुवेद्ध (निरंतर ) 00 12 57
00 16 20
13 ) गाडि (निरंतर ) 197/ 9बी
66/7 00 08 68
208/22 00 33 27
211 00 04 00 15
11 ) पदन्ाडि 00 29
208/203
194 00 24 43
00 00 06
208/2बी
177 00 26 34
205/1 00 24 33
166 00 48 58
205/2 00 05 08
199/ 6बी 00 09 89
48 02 09 42
4 ) कुक्क्रेडि 207/1 01 00 16 13 28 12
31
207/2 00 09 32
83 00 88 22
207/3 00 29 46
26 00 28 33
207/4 00 24 69
95 00 01 29
207/5 00 08 12
23/2 00 04 97
207/6 00 14 90
24/ 2पी 1 00 10 47
208/2 00 00 10
78/1 00 13 70
206/6 00 00 10
78/2 00 05 87
206/7 00 02 90
77/1 00 09 73
206/8 00 04 41
00 10 63
77,201
195/10 00 95 89
77/202 00 04 81
195/1 वी 00 03 73
130/ 1थी। 00 15 30
196/पी1 00 48 60
130/1412 00 40 99
197/1 00 08 07
130/2 00 29 81
197/ 2 पी 1 00 01 35
130/3 00 00 66
197/3 00 00 41
130/4 00 00 32
161/1 00 11 98
130/5 00 01 25
161/10 00 12 87
83 00 40 71
15) बजरे 161/12 00 27 37
03 41 79
39
165/2 00 11 52
42 00 46 38
160/3 पी 1 00 15 81
94 00 54 12
160/4ए 00 17 17
151 00 32 74
160/4त्रीपी1 00 07 42
152 00 01 38
17 00 94 72
12) मोणन्दूर 48 00 10 55
7 00 10 20
66/2 00 00 10
13/3 पी 1 00 24 67
00 07 28
66/3
13/4 00 22 94
44/3पी 1 00 13 71
13/5 00 19 93
15/ 1 पी1 00 34 34
76/1 00 66 29
63/पी 1 00 66 61
6/1ए 00 00 38
6/1वी 00 02 65
194/ 1 ए 00 61 49
13 ) गर्डाडि
197/9 ए 00 07 35
2901
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
| भाग li - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
5
4
3
2
25
00
25
143/3
15 ) वजरे (निरंतर)
47
95
00
143/2
[फा सं. एल.- 14014/1/2011 - जी.पी. ] ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 28th March , 2012
S. O. 1210. Whereas by notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , number S.O. 890 dated 01-04-2011 , 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 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 04 October, 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.
2902
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 / CHAITRA 11 , 1934
Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) |
Schedule
Taluk: Mudigere
State : Karnataka
District: Chikmagalore
Village Survey No./Sub-Division No. Area to be acquired for RoU
Hec Are C-Are
1 2 3 4 5
1 ) Hireshigara 27 00 00 10
28 00 76 00
29 00 08 22
32 00 30 06
34/2 00 17 94
34/1 00 16 08
35 00 18 74
15/2 00 17 88
14 00 12 60
13 00 11 28
12 00 20 93
2 00 11 55
7 00 49 27
4/2 00 46 15
8/1 00 36 04
2 ) Hosahalli 149 00 24 50
151 00 23 70
150 00 00 13
152/2 00 24 20
152/1 00 19 96
153 00 63 07
146/P1 00 55 81
148/P 00 08 92
3 ) Gonibeedu Agrahara 663 00 23 10
673 00 09 82
672 00 23 87
671 00 19 18
666 00 04 92
667 00 17 48
665 00 19 46
657 00 34 75
656 00 19 17
655 00 04 25
643 00 07 02
644 00 03 43
645 00 02 17
689 00 99 63
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2903
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5
4) Heggaravalli 47 00 66 19
46 01 20 45
45 00 37 95
44/3 00 07 80
44/1 00 32 62
39 00 06 61
40/2 00 09 81
40/1 00 31 49
41 00 10 26
31 00 09 76
27 00 25 02
26/3 00 08 37
25 00 18
58
24 00 26 38
23 00 13 74
13/1 00 00 18
12 00 24 91
14/1 00 04 75
42/1 00 02 89
42/2 00 12 23
42/3 00 28 71
69/1 00 03 51
5 ) Udashi 2531 00 08 49
253/3 00 02 60
253/2 00 14 75
261/2 00 07 98
254 00 19
12
265/2 00 10 45
265/4 00 41 77
262 00 00
10
265/3 00 03 79
268 00 40 43
24 00 02 57
25 00 46 98
00 02 39
26 00 58
27
30 00 22 24
6 ) Kiragunda 31 00 54 73
30 00 65 51
29 00 60 14
22 00 28
65
23 00 00 10
[Part II--Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012/ CHAITRA 11 , 1934
2904
3 4 5
2
1
00 19 76
17
6) Kiragunda (Contd)
00 04 59
18
00 08 91
16
00 05 88
15
00 15 00
14
00 10 10
13
00 09 14
12
00 07 72
11
00 18 26
5
00 11 34
6
00 23 74
7
00 25 54
162
00 16 07
160
00 32 70
38/2
7 ) Bettadamane 10
38/3 00 00
00 23 65
41/1
00 16 41
41/2
00 34 03
43
00 31 80
66
00 15 82
67
CO 04 13
68
00 23 92
69/3
00 16 98
69/2
00 00 46
69/1
00 21 28
71/3
00 05 92
72/3
00 08 37
72/2
00 00 42
71/1
00 10 19
72/1
00 27 25
71/2
00 50 50
78
00 09 62
79/5
00 07 08
79/4
00 01 12
79/1
00 25 23
83
00 28 16
82
00 08 83
87
00 23 81
39/P1
00 00 10
75/1
00 48 64
69
8 ) Uggehalli 72
00 76
51
00 38 51
49
[ भांग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2905
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012 /चैत्र 11 , 1934
2
8) Uggehalli (Contd) 48
26
46
27
28
29
206
207
210
167
169
166
165
268
164
159
208/5
9 ) Angadi 146
145
147
148
47/1
46
204
45/2
31
25/2
24
23
20
19
144/1
144/3
27/1
10 ) Hanthuru 18/1
19/3
28/2
28/1
26
25
37
36
885 GI/12-4A
3 4 5 00 02 21 00 86 44 00 19 98 00 11 63 00 13 48 00 42 46 00 71 34 00 03 76 00 48 67 00 24 73 00 28 71 00 08 11 00 07 16 00 34 54 00 23 39 00 05 54 00 01 86 00 07 72 00 09 88 00 10 40 00 21 91 00 41 19 00 21 03 00 19 95 00 28 38 00 00 10 00 04 03 00 11 80 00 17 90 00 26 47 00 39 02 00 02 98 00 06 18 00 31 90 00 31 11 00 01 13 00 19 25 00 22 52 00 01 35 00 12 00 00 00 28 00 00 12
2906
[ Part II-Sec . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 / CHAITRA 11 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5
10) Hanthuru (Contd) 38/2 00 18 76
39 00 16 44
40/1 00 12 50
40/2 00 02 76
156/1 00 09 70
153 00 02 30
156/2 00 12 29
154 00 14 89
155 00 01 99
149/1 00 50 97
160 00 14 72
148 00 06 31
147/1 00 01 23
145/2 00 19 45
146/2 00 25 51
146/1 00 00 52
146/3 00 05 31
143/2 00 00 27
143/1 00 21 99
142 00 45 57
169/3 00 01 34
169/11 00 00 94
29/1 00 18 40
24/2 00 20 92
141/3 00 02 21
169/1A 00 53 50
11 ) Kanachuru 178 00 07 22
174 00 34 39
175 00 14 86
144 00 11 16
141/6 00 04 05
141/4 00 02 23
134/3 00 13 00
133/6 00 03 70
133/5 00 00 10
133/1 00 05 31
133/2 00 04 64
132/1 00 09 50
132/2 00 24 25
131 00 03 19
130/2 00 15 98
130/1 00 07 68
885 GI/12-4B 2907
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012 /चैत्र 11 , 1934
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
2 3 4 5
1
128/10 00 21 80
11) Kanachuru (Contd)
128/8 00 17 30
128/6 00 19 40
127 00 09 75
00 09 46
126/10
126/9 00 00 33
126/1 00 24 98
124/8 00 01 10
00 30 95
124/4
124/9 00 00 86
124/2 00 05 26
120/8 00 06 96
00 24 76
120/3
120/1 00 01 70
118 00 16 26
115/2 00 06 00
115/3 00 18 27
115/ 1C 00 00 88
104/1B 00 01 67
00 20 32
104/2B
104/2A 00 02 60
104/4 00 00 11
00 18 20
104/3
142/11 00 00 71
142/12 00 01 59
142/13 00 01 03
142/14 00 01 61
142/16 00 05 91
00 05 68
142/17
00 01 18
142/18
00 02 82
142/21
00 00 47
142/24
142/7 00 00 10
233 00 52 11
12) Halekere
266 00 01 68
227 01 05 14
00 36 62
236/1
236/2 00 19 41
00 00 59
228
00 16 86
175/1
00 05 46
175/2
00 08 79
171
2908
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 /CHAITRA 11 , 1934
2
12) Halekere (Contd)
170
167
166
178
164
162
184
158
157
154
148
144
145
146
133
138
99
112
113
121
123
239/1
239/2A
149/1
147/1
13 ) Byduvalli Estate
3
14 ) Byduvalli
36
37
38
39
40
41/2
41/1
32
33/2
33/1
16/5
16/4
16/3
16/2
43/5
[Part 11-Sec . 3 ( ii) ]
3
4
5
00
12
39
00
04
41
00
18
04
00
00
02
00
17
49
00
01
02
00
03
27
00
04
71
00
00
10
00
39
32
00
13
89
00
12
44
00
04
29
00
12
08
00
21
27
00
12
46
01
31
10
00
55
23
00
49
38
00
14
78
00
11
52
00
17
05
00
04
81
00
00
25
00
08
26
00
62
61
00
01
34
00
16
03
00
19
85
00
11
88
00
02
19
00
01
45
00
06
36
00
05
98
00
00
72
00
17
11
00
04
14
00
16
88
00
00
36
00
05
70
00
00
31
00
07
77 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
2909
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012 /चैत्र 11 , 1934
2910 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 / CHAITRA 11 , 1934 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]
1 2 3 4 5
14) Byduvalli (Contd) 34/2 00 05 28
1 2 3 4 5
70/1 00 21 97
14) Byduvalli (Contd) 43/2 00 18 50
71/1 00 39 14
43/3 00 00 11
43/1 34 01 06 88
15 ) Muddarahalli 00 08 35
44 25 00 18 18
00 21 65
10/1 26 00 02 62
00 01 00
10/8 21 00 00 52 15
04 33
10/2 18 00 04 68
00 08 40
10/7 213 00 00 00 21 47 23
16 ) Gutti
10/3 210/2 00 00 03 31 67 59
10/5 210/1 00 00 00 03 79 95
10/4 209 00 00 03 07 38 87
11 167 00 00 09 55 34 54
7/6 166/1 00 00 05 05 65 84
7/2 166/2 00 00 07 02 66 78
7/3 166/4 00 00 00 00 98 03
7/1 166/5 00 00 05 13 92 80
6 164/2 00 00 11 07 00 74
5 164/1 00 00 04 04 42 41
65 163/2 00 00 02 10 02 50
67/2 163/1 00 00 00 00 70 04
67/1 162/2 00 00 00 12 17 40
69/1 162/1 00 00 11 00 79 60
69/3 117 00 00 00 27 14 93
69/2 116 00 00 05 24 27 83
69/4 115/2 00 00 01 11 71 20
69/6 115/3 00 00 05 08 66 21
69/5 112 00 00 04 10 16 91
69/8 114/1 00 00 02 06 20 54
69/9 94 00 02 10 01 51 62
69/7 00 03 00 64 15 86
9
69/10 214/4 00 00 01 05 88 32
153 214/5 00 00 36 29 88 31
154/1 00 00 29 02 52 40
111/2
154/2 00 19 19
17 ) Kogile 126 01 98 45
155 00 00 12 01 30 79
122
156 00 00 23 19 27
118/2 51
157 00 25 78
Taluk: Bantwala 158 District : Dakshin Kannada State: Karnataka
00 24 07
1 ) Pilathabettu 141 107 01 05 74
00 27 09
142 148 00 44 52
02 16 74
138 147 00 21 22
00 00 63
34/1 49 00 01 00 23 91 35
2 ) Ajjibettu
48 00 16 05
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
2911
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5
2) Ajjibettu ( Contd) 50 00 37 46
52 00 04 96
82 00 83 96
129 00 43 85
134 00 46 21
60 00 01 71
21 00 43 11
28 01 30 97
51/14P1 00 12 42
51/7 00 00 10
51/8 00 01 17
100/1P1 00 50 33
100/2 00 40 19
100/3 00 02 28
46/9 00 10 92
144/2 00 11 02
144/4 00 16 64
25/ 15P1 00 11 14
22/1 00 02 83
3 ) Chennaithodi 55/3 01 58 98
29 00 43 61
30 00 66 82
96 00 90 75
4 ) Yeliyanadugodu 34 00 38 69
110 00 46 44
80 00 25 06
123 00 07 60
37/P1 00 68 23
135/1 00 01 25
121/ ΙΑΙ 00 16 06
121/ 1A2 00 10 53
121/ 1B 00 15 02
121/ 1C 00 12 35
121/2 00 03 02
36/6 00 13 05
38/1 00 06 86
139/1 00 01 52
5 ) Kukkipadi 93 00 69 51
96/19 03 23 07
97 00 30 32
81 00 21 44
2/1 00 08 52
2912
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 / CHAITRA 11 , 1934
1
2
5 ) Kukkipadi (Contd)
2/2
7/3P1
7/4
7/9
7/13
8/1
8/5
170/1
170/2
102/3
74/ 1P1
74/4P1
46/2
46/3
102
6 ) Rayee
101
100
132
110
19
75
76
114
56
64
61
112
8/ 1A
8/2
8/6
88/2
88/3
9/2
9/3
9/4
9/5A
9/5B
103/1A
103/4
103/5
20/4A
20/4B
1
[ Part II- Sec. 3 ( ii ) |
3
4
5
00
97
00
00
41
26
00
01
25
00
07
02
00
02
75
00
28
88
00
19
12
00
01
83
00
02
64
00
19
57
00
37
20
17
00
38
00
18
28
00
04
13
00
46
63
00
02
12
00
21
98
00
44
54
00
43
91
00
00
76
00
57
94
00
27
11
00
70
58
00
63
56
00
28
42
00
53
94
00
49
86
00
21
26
00
08
89
00
00
08
00
09
02
01
00
25
00
15
84
00
10
64
00
11
44
00
22
64
00
07
09
00
11
57
00
14
83
00
26
15
00
04
74
00
01
10 2913
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2
1
20/5A1
6) Rayee (Contd)
20/5A2
20/ 7API
91/3B
122/2
28/3
28/4
28/5
28/6
29/3
29/4
29/7
39/2
74/1
74/2B
74/2C
159/3
86/ 1P1
60/1
60/2
60/3P1
60/4
137/5
137/6
137/7
106
7 ) Karpe
82
86
8 ) Arala
109
182
55
49
48
47
35
33
10
11
12
15
147/4
5
4
3
19 00
05
87 00
03
46
00
18
00
31 00
28
01 00
06
11 00
18
17
00
77 00
19
66 00
01
16 97
00
56 21
00
36
03 00
94
08
00
03
35
00
52 04
00
24
12 00
27
15
00
79 00
01
05
86 00
00
98 00
38
11 00
12
09
00
22
87 00
51
09
00
55
06
00
02
45 00
01
52
00
02
51 00
41 00
09
18
08
00
24
02
00
00
12
97
38
70
00
06
38
00
63 00
41
45
07
01
43
05
00
00
74
12
06
48 00
98
48
00
37 00
76
43
24
00 2914
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012/CHAITRA 11 , 1934
2
8) Arala (Contd)
56/ 1B1
50/10
50/11
50/18
50/9P1
45/3
46/ 1B
16/1A1
16/ 1A3
180/1
86
9 ) Badaga Bellur
72
70
162
163
42
44
76/1A
76/ 1C
85/1
85/2
85/ 3A
73/ 1P1
69/4
69/5
50/1
35/10P1
216/ 1A
126/1
149/2
10 ) Kariyangala
118
27
25
19
16
9
10
5
4
3
2
22/ 5P1
[ Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]
3
4
5
00
21
59
00
21
91
00
11
09
00
06
24
00
01
09
00
09
13
00
14
23
00
17
94
00
06
56
00
08
72
01
59
04
00
60
23
00
96
26
00
47
29
00
00
63
02
00
85
00
02
54
00
05
12
00
02
46
00
02
55
00
08
23
00
20
04
00
16
61
00
14
60
00
00
15
00
00
85
00
08
92
00
28
76
00
24
07
00
08
90
00
20
58
00
17
79
00
65
96
00
56
11
00
76
13
01
17
75
00
63
69
30
00
62
00
53
10
00
51
71
00
51
38
00
15
72 2915
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012 /चैत्र 11 , 1934
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
3 4 5
1 2
26/1 00 19 15
10 ) Kariyangala ( Contd)
00 05 37
26/4P1
26/6A 00 16 70
00 00 10
26/6B
26/8P1 00 10 50
00 02 32
21/11
21/5 00 10 29
00 06 29
21/9
00 03 77
17/10
00 02 00
17/12
17/6 00 06 69
17/7 00 06 11
18/3 00 21 33
18/8 00 01 60
00 32 72
6/1
6/2 00 10 30
6/3 00 40 53
District: Dakshin Kannada State: Karnataka
Taluk: Mangalore
12 00 49 37
1 ) Tankaulipady
13 02 00 40
40/1PJ 00 47 08
40/2 00 06 57
40/3AP1 00 08
00 00 61
40/4P1
40/6 00 06 03
39/ 1AP1 00 02 37
39/1B 00 05 70
39/2A 00 03 10
37/ 15P1 00 00 14
37/ 17P1 00 01 05
37/21 00 08 96
37/22 00 13 07
37/20 00 09 39
37/18 00 10 33
37/19 00 37 70
37/ 25P1 00 14 11
37/26P1 00 00 37
37/29 00 00 59
37 / 2P1 00 00 36
37/3 00 22 40
37/4 00 25 19
00 05 00
37/30
37/32A 00 04 19
2916
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012/CHAITRA 11 , 1934
1
2
1) Tankaalipady (Contd)
18/12
18/14
18/17
18/20P1
18/16
18/5P1
16/11P1
16/9P1
14/4
11/3
2 ) Addur
4
86
3/11
3/3
3/4
6/14A
6/14B
6/1A
6/1B
6/1C
6/7
88/1
13/10
13/ 11A
13/12
13/4A
13/ 13A
13/13B
13/ 13C
13/19B
13/14
13/15B
13/15A
13/16
13/18B
13/24
13/30
13/6
3 ) Mulur
69/10
69/12
69/4
69/5P1
[Part II---Sec. 3 (ii ) ]
3
4
5
00
23
06
00
16
12
00
07
25
00
16
00
00
20
87
00
37
19
00
09
12
00
07
83
00
04
48
00
24
67
01
23
12
00
17
48
00
01
75
00
08
21
00
35
24
00
03
31
00
00
05
00
56
04
00
13
68
00
07
44
00
01
01
00
29
20
00
29
54
00
00
10
00
02
65
00
01
48
00
22
73
13
00
64
00
02
71
00
00
10
00
13
22
00
02
33
00
23
85
00
02
67
00
01
47
00
03
91
00
00
56
00
00
62
00
05
60
00
07
98
00
07
62
00
24
31 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
1 2
3) Mulur (Contd) 69/7
69/8
68/6
70/1
70/2P2
70/3
71/3
71/4
71/5
71/8
81/8
76/1
76/2
76/5AI
76/7
77/10
77/11
77/8
77/9P1
53/1
53/2
53/3
53/4
55/26P1
55/26P2
55/27
55/28
55/8
55/9
48A1A
56/2
46A1
46A2
57/2A
57/2B
57/5
57/7
45A3
59/1P1
58A1
58A2
58A3
2917
3 4 5 00 06 37 00 09 16 00 00 10 00 11 54 00 09 42 00 00 83 00 23 26 00 14 48 00 00 33 00 10 06 00 02 09 00 04 26 00 17 48 00 35 11 00 12 61 00 01 06 00 00 10 00 03 30 00 22 90 00 16 51 00 28 53 00 04 99 00 02 51 00 12 27 00 01 07 00 06 43 00 05 97 00 09 29 00 00 18 00 04 37 00 19 20 00 06 71 00 04 49 00 17 66 00 17 58 00 14 26 00 04 81 00 00 40 00 03 29 00 09 87 00 09 68 00 05 29
2918
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012/CHAITRA 11 , 1934
2
3) Mulur ( Contd) 58A4P1
40A3
40A4
40A5
40A6
40A7
40B4
40B5
40B9
40B10
40B11
28/12
28/13
28/14
28/15P1
28/16
28/5
28/7
28/8
21/3
4 ) Kandavara 64/ 1P2
64/2
70/1
70/2
70/4
70/3
70/9
69/1
69/4
73 /1A
68/5
68/4
74/2
75/1
75/10
75/12
75/7
75/8
76/5
78/2
78/3
78/4
[ Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii) ]
3 4 5 00 00 83 00 07 14 00 03 71 00 07 04 00 00 44 00 06 73 00 10 77 00 10 44 00 31 78 00 12 35 00 08 78 00 33 92 00 03 41 00 00 75 00 00 07 00 01 15 00 17 03 00 05 06 00 03 31 00 11 91 00 31 31 00 07 11 00 11 50 00 06 46 00 00 49 00 00 53 00 00 77 00 12 49 00 14 26 00 10 22 00 07 83 00 32 61 00 00 88 00 15 96 00 01 74 00 05 98 00 02 78 00 05 09 00 21 64 00 04 65 00 18 66 00 02 07
2919
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1 2 3 4 5
4) Kandavara(Contd) 78/8 00 01 55
62 00 93 11
5 ) Adyapady
84/3 00 43 52
78/ 1P1 00 24 71
78/2P1 00 07 59
63/1 00 03 46
63/2A 00 14 53
60/ 1P1 00 17 37
59/10A 00 00 02
59/13 00 10 41
52/4 00 10 27
52/5 00 06 26
54/1 00 14 86
54/2 00 17 98
54/3 00 19 30
48/3 00 10 88
48/4 00 06 07
48/11 00 24 24
48/ 12P1 00 12 92
49/2 00 04 98
49/3 00 00 20
46/2 00 08 79
46/5A2P1 00 19 14
46/5B 00 02 16
46/6 00 05 57
45/6B 00 11 86
32/3 00 00 07
32/4P1 00 81 23
32/6 00 00 98
32/1 00 24 11
00 22 05
33/4 00 00 98
33/5 00 01 25
34/17 00 00 09
34/18A 00 07 20
34/7 00 04 72
28/3P1 00 28 20
28/4 00 03 88
29/4P4 00 07 23
29/5P1 00 03 67
21/1 00 02 71
21/10 00 29 41
2920
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 /CHAITRA 11 , 1934
1 2
5) Adyapady( Contd) 21/2
21/3P1
21/4P2
18/6
18/4
18/1
20/1
20/2
20/3
11/7
12/1
12/2
13/10P1
13/3
13/6P2
15/2A2
14/1
14/2
6 ) Malavooг 84
16/ 1API
16/2
16/5G
16/5G1
16/5G2
16/ 5H
16/5D
16/6P1
14/2AP2
14/ 1A
8/12
8/16
8/23P1
8/24A2
8/24A1
8/24B
8/25P1
8/67
8/27/P1
8/28B
8/28C
8/28D
8/31BP
[ Part II-Sec . 3 (ii ) ]
3 4 5 00 15 78 00 12 39 00 01 25 00 16 76 00 08 52 00 24 55 00 15 08 00 08 34 00 03 13 00 55 30 00 26 20 00 05 52 00 11 19 00 01 19 00 43 46 00 00 56 00 16 03 00 26 27 00 16 90 00 19 30 00 01 02 00 02 08 00 11 52 00 15 65 00 18 10 00 02 04 00 14 34 00 25 19 00 06 55 00 07 51 00 19 16 00 02 38 00 03 74 00 00 05 00 12 70 00 00 02 00 00 69 00 40 00 00 01 99 00 03 80 00 20 21 00 15 42
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2921
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012 /चैत्र 11 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5
6) Malavoor (Contd) 8/33 00 21 17
8/44B 00 06 66
8/44C 00 04 00
8/60A 00 10 83
8/59A 00 00 22
8/70 00 03 58
8/63P2 00 05 86
8/64 00 00 64
10/9 00 00 39
9/5 00 02 73
6/1A1 00 00 51
5/ 1B 00 14 18
5/2A 00 02 10
5/2B 00 02 85
5/3A 00 00 04
5/3B 00 00 05
5/4 00 17 71
5/ 5AP1 00 37 00
5/6 00 02 84
4/ 1A 00 02 17
4/1B 00 05 07
4/3B 00 00 14
127/ 2P2 00 77 38
7 ) Kenjar 82 00 25 15
102 00 82 87
23 /10A 00 04 59
23/10B 00 00 98
23/11 00 03 79
23/12B 00 00 17
23/13B 00 01 23
23/14 00 01 64
23/15B 00 18 30
77/2 00 11 41
77/3A 00 14 40
77/8BP1 00 02 34
83/12A 00 23 53
83/3P1 00 14 15
83/5 00 00 75
83/7A 00 16 73
8 ) Tokuru 68/12 00 45 47
Taluk: Beltangadi District: Dakshin Kannada
1 ) Neriya 145
19
885 GI/12-5
State: Karnataka 28 65 01 01 03 18
2922
[Part II -Sec . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012/ CHAITRA 11 , 1934
2 3 4 5
1 ) Neriya (Contd) 4 01 62 07
2 01 69 29
20 02 07 34
1 00 34 60
11 02 40 14
2) Thotatthadi 158 00 23 14
157/1 00 16 36
157/2 00 07 09
157/3 00 08 40
157/5P1 00 19 37
3 ) Chibidre 7 01 26 78
86 03 45 00
4 ) Kalmanja 121 00 03 96
99 00 43 05
101 00 03 81
103 00 82 97
108 00 94 70
109 00 52 08
93/1 00 36 98
83/1 00 06 37
83/2A 00 68 57
72/2A 00 00 07
72/3B 00 01 76
78 / 1A 00 11 28
78/1B 00 07 94
78/2 00 00 46
82/1 00 67 57
82/2 00 09 84
81/1 00 40 62
219/ 1P1 00 40 58
100/1 00 01 12
100/2P1 00 75 60
105/2A 00 33 52
105/2BP1 00 19 63
105/2C2 00 22 51
105/2D 00 18 89
105/2E 00 14 71
5 ) Dharmasthala 57/ 2P1 00 73 77
56/10 00 00 86
56/3C 00 12 24
56/5 00 18 66
56/ 6A 00 04 56
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2923
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
2
5) Dharmasthala (Contd) 56/6B
56/6C
56/8
55/1
6 ) Ujire 454
548
547
545
544
278
373
362
398
399
259 / 12P2
259/30
259/4P4
258/5
258/ 6P1
258/8
258/9
265/3A1
372/2
372/3
393/3P1
394/2A
394/2B
396/1AP2
396/1B
7 ) Koyyuru 33
29
20
21
60
34/1
227/1
28 / 2P1
28/3
28/4
24/1A3
22/1
9/13B
88596712-6
3 4 5 00 08 91 00 11 44 00 05 90 00 14 13 00 26 37 00 38 42 00 45 83 00 12 36 00 24 18 00 68 18 01 24 52 00 47 60 00 50 96 00 75 23- 00 05 33 00 14 20 00 12 51 00 35 30 00 00 45 00 34 72 00 10 74 00 02 53 00. 75 48 00 39 75 00 30 70 00 15 27 00 00 05 00 34 45 00 14 44 00 92 04 02 64 25 01 34 33 00 67 18 01 21 78 00 03 53 00 00 36 00 18 03 00 51 34 00 19 19 00 00 64 00 02 30 00 28 31
2924
[Part II- Scc . 3 ( ii ) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 /CHAITRA 11 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5
7) Koyyuru (Contd) 9/7 00 07 96
7/ 1P1 01 49 29
10/3 00 00 07
10/4 00 00 21
10/5 00 05 08
10/6P1 00 25 59
10/7 00 15 06
10/9 00 08 20
11/P2 00 08 27
8 ) Beltangadi 9 02 11 37
152 00 17 80
! 127 00 32 42
224 00 60 88
134 00 34 78
120 00 24 07
227 00 64 21
43/8C 00 04 72
248/2 00 05 39
248/3 00 05 70
248/4A 00 14 24
10/3 00 17 03
10/5 00 02 70
00 01 32
11 /2A 00 00 12
198/2 00 20 48
230/1 00 09 55
114/2 00 09 90
114/1A 00 01 31
221/1 00 06 34
14/10 00 09 99
14/20 00 00 46
14/21 00 09 96
103/11 00 00 10
9 ) Odilnal 111 01 56 25
109 01 68 83
146 00 63 56
110 00 31 72
85/14 00 13 12
85/15 00 00 82
85/17 00 04 64
85/20 00 04 85
85/22 00 00 34
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2925
भारत का राजपत्रः: मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012/CHAITRA 11 , 1934 [Part II -Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]
2926
1 2 3 4 5
3 4 5
9) Odilnal (Contd) 85/4 2 00 03
1 57
00 12 57
10) Kuvettu (Contd) 85/5 00 12 80
00 08 68
66/7 85/7 00 00
02
00 00 15
211 107/2 00 02 97
11 ) Padangady 00 24 43
194 107/3 00 07 43
00 26 34
177 191/1 00 36 63
191/2 00 48 58
166 00 04 40
00 09 89
199/6B 135/1 00 . 11 76
00 13 12
207/1 135 /2A 00 02 09
00 09 32
207/2 135/2B 00 44 75
00 29 46
207/3 199/1 00 03 12
00 24 69
207/4 199/3 00 14 11
00 08 12
207/5 199/4 00 21 36
00 14 90
207/6 199/5P1 00 06 76
121/1 00 00 10
208/2 00 02 49
00 00 10
206/6 121 /2P1 00 40 53
00 02 90
206/7 58/13 00 00 71
00 04 41
206/8 58/14 00 03 35
00 95 89
195/ 1A 60/2 00 26 84
00 03 73
195/ 1B 60/3 00 43 07
00 48 60
196/P1 60/6 00 00 05
00 08 07
197/1 60/7 00 02 64
00 01 35
197 /2P1 60/8 00 02 87
00 00 41
197/3 59/2 00 01 18
00 11 98
161/1 61/1 00 16 78
61/2 00 12 87
161/10 00 02 87
00 27 37
161/12 45/1B 00 03 15
00 11 52
165/2 44/10 00 01 14
00 15 81
160/3P1 44/2B 00 07 63
00 17 17
160/4A 137/1 00 56 02
00 07 42
160/4BP1 137/ 2A 00 05 76
137/2B 00 00 94 14 72 87
17
12 ) Sonandur 00 10 20
10 ) Kuvettu 7 103 00 26 07
00 24 67
13/3P1 136 00 28 66
153 00 22 94
13/4 00 66 03
200/1 00 00 19 93
13/5 02 07
200/2 00 34 34
15/1P1 00 03 34
00 66 29
76/1 198/1 00 09 39
00 66 61
63/P1 198/5 00 00 90
00 00 38
6/1A 198/7 00 05 21
00 02 65
6/1B 66/10 00 00 03
66/5 00 00 61 00 49 72
194/ 1A
13 ) Gardadi 35
00 07
197/9A
2927
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31, 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
[भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1 2
13) Gardadi (Contd) 197/9B
208/2A2
208/2A3
208/2B
205/1
205/2
48
14 ) Kukkedi
31
88
26
95
23/2
24/2P1
78/1
78/2
77/1
77/2A1
77/2B2
130/ 1B1
130/ 1B2
130/2
130/3
130/4
130/5
15 ) Bajare 83
39
42
94
151
152
48
66/2
66/3
44/3P1
143/3
143/2
885 GI /12-7A
3 4 5
00 16 20
00 33 27
04 29
00 00 06
00 24 33
00 05 08
02 09 42
01 16 28
00 88 22
00 28- 33
00 01 29
00 04 97
00 10 47
00 13 70
00 05 87
00 09 73
00 10 63
00 04 81
00 15 30
00 40 99
00 29 81
00 00 66
00 00 32
00 01 25
00 40 71
03 41 79
00 46 38
00 54 12
00 32 74
00 01 38
00 10 55
00 00 10
00 07 28
00 13 71
00 25 20
00 47 95
[F. No. L- 14014/ 1/2011 -GP. ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.
2928
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012/ CHAITRA 11 , 1934
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]
श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 1 मार्च , 2012
का.आ. 1211.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआई/एलसी/आर/98/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-2-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/76/2002- आईआर ( बी- II ) ]
शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi , the 1st March, 2012
S.O. 1211.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/ R/ 98 /2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Punjab National Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 14-2-2012 .
Branch of the Punjab National Bank. He died on 1-2-1991 while he was in service . His widow submitted an application in the prescribed proforma on 13-6-91 for appointment on compassionate ground of her eldest son Ashish Nair with a request that her son be appointed on attaining majority who was 13 years old. She was verbally informed that her son would be interviewed after attaining majority. The applicant Ashish Nair submitted his application to the Zonal Office , Bhopal on attaining the age of 18 years . He was interviewed after attaining majority. The applicant Ashish Nair submitted his application to the Zonal Office , Bhopal on attaining the age of 18 years . He was interviewed on 4-11-1996 . He was orally informed that the order would be communicated on his residential address . When no order was communicated , then a legal notice was given by the applicant . Thereafter the dispute was raised before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner ( C) , Bhopal . The settlement was not arrived between the parties and the Central Government referred the dispute for adjudication . It is stated that the circular No. 6 of 1997 is not applicable in his case as it is prospective in effect which was considered by the management for not considering his appointment on compassionate ground . It is submitted that the management be directed to appointment him on compassionate ground.
[No. L - 12012/76/2002 - IR (B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/98/2003
PRESIDING OFFICER: Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan
.Workman
Shri Ashish Nair , S/ o Late Mohan Nair , R/o Eetkhedi , Tehsil Goharganj , Raisen(MP)
Versus
TheRegional Manager,
Punjab National -Bank , Regional Office , Roshanpura, Bhopal (MP)
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 8th day of February , 2012
1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L - 12012/76/2002 - IR( B - II ) dated 20-5-03 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-
Whether the action of the management of Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank in not granting compassionate appointment to Shri Ashish Nair S/ o Mohan Nair is justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled for ? "
3. The management appeared and filed Written statement to contest the reference . The case of the management , interalia, is that the dispute raised by Shri Ashish Nair for appointment in the Bank on compassionate grounds . It cannot be termed as an industrial dispute under the provision of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( I.D. Act, 1947). Admittedly Late Mohan Nair was working as Armed Guard , in the Sub-ordinate cadre of the Bank at Branch Office , Govindpura Bhopal where he expired on 1-2-91. His widow initially submitted an application on 13-6-91 with a request to reserve a post for appointment of her son Ashish Nair on compassionate ground who was minor at the relevant time .. The widow Smt .. Padma Devi Nair was working in the Forest Department . The applicant lastly submitted an application on 9-10-96 for appointment on compassionate ground . He was admittedly issued an interview call letter dated 26-10- 96 to appear on 4-11-96 . After interview the Regional Manager, Bhopal forwarded his case to the Personnel Division, Headquarter, New Delhi . The Personnel Division informed the Regional office as per the scheme circulated vide circular letter No. 6/97 that the waiting period for compassionate appointment as per scheme is only for four years and the case is not covered under the said scheme. Smt. Padma Devi Nair was accordingly informed vide letter dated 21-2-2000 . The circular Nos . 32/90 dated 16-7-90 , 28 / 94 dated 16-7-94 and 6/97 dated 20-3-97 are schemes covered for appointment on compassionate ground. Under the circumstances , the applicant is not entitled to any
relief.
2. The case of the applicant in short is that one Late Mohan Nair was Security Guard in Hoshangabad Road
885 G1 /12-76 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2929
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
4.On the pleadings of both the parties , the following issues are framed for adjudication:
the light of the circular on the death of Late Mohan Nair for reserving the vacancy for appointment of the applicant Ashish Nair , son on compassionate ground .
1. Whether the action of the management in not granting compassionate appointment to Shri Ashish Nair is justified ?
II . To what relief, Shri Ashish Nair is entitled ?
5. Issue No. I
On the pleadings of both the parties , the following facts are admitted :-
1. Late Mohan Nair was Security Guard in the branch of the management Bank and he died on 1-2-91 while in service .
2. Hiswidow Smt . Padma Devi Nair submitted an application dated 13-6-91 on the prescribed Performa with a request to reserve a post of appointment for her eldest son Shri Ashish Nair on compassionate ground within one year from the death of late Mohan Nair who was minor at the relevant time .
3. Her son Shri Ashish Nair submitted an application dated 26-10-96 on attaining majority for appointment on compassionate ground.
8. ExhibitW/3 is the application filed before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( in short ALC) , Bhopal whereby the dispute was raised in the year 2001. Exhibit W/ 4 is the reply dated 2-6-2001 of the Regional Manager before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner ( C) , Bhopal denying the claim of the applicant mainly on the ground that in case the dependent is a minor, in that eventuality the case be considered at the discretion of the Bank within 4 years from the death of the employee . Exhibit W 15 is the notice by the ALC to the Zonal Manager for attending conciliation proceeding. Exhibit W/6 is the letter ofALC to the Ministry of Labour of rejection to refer to the Arbitrator . Exhibit W/7 isletter of the ALC to the Ministry of failure report on the basis of the stand of the management on circular No. 6/97 dated 20-3-97 . Thus it is clear from the evidence of the applicant that Shri Mohan Nair died on 1-2-1991 and the widow of Late Nair submitted an application for appointment of her son , Ashish Nair on compassionate ground on attaining majority within one year of the death of Late Nair. The candidature of Ashish Nair was rejected onthe ground of circular No. 6/97 dated 20-3-9. As such the conciliation proceeding failed.
4. He was interviewed on 4-11-96 by the management and his case was recommended to Headquarter.
5. He attained majority after about five years from the date of death of his father .
6. His case of appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground of circular No. 6/97 dated 20-3-97 .
7. The widow Smt . Padma Devi Nair was already inemployment in forest Department at the time ofdeath of Late Nair .
6. To prove the case , the applicant has adduced oral and documentary evidence . The applicant Ashish Nair has supported the facts of the case which are mostly admitted by the management. Admittedly he was 13 years at the time of death of his father and again applied for appointment on compassionate ground on attaining the age of 18 years . He has stated that he is still un -employed . He has stated further that his candidature was rejected on the basis of circular dated 20-3-97 which is filed by the management but his application for appointment was of the year 1996 and the same was to be considered in the light of the circular dated 16-7-1994 which is Exhibit M/3 (a) . There is nothing in his evidence to disbelieve this witness.
9. On the other hand , the management has also adduced oral and documentary evidence . The management witness Shri Deepak Sood is Deputy Manager, circle office , Punjab National Bank . He has stated that the Regional Manager Bhopal Region forwarded the case of Shri Ashish Nair to the Personnel Division of the Bank Head Quarter New Delhi . The Personnel Division , Headquarter New Delhi had informed the Regional Office as per the scheme circulated vide circular No. 6/97 that the waiting period in case of minor dependent nominated for employment in the Bank for compassionate ground should be less than 4 years and in the instance case , the deceased employee died on 1-2-1991 . Therefore , the waiting period in this case is more than 4 years and hence the case is not covered under the scheme . The said letters filed which are marked as Exhibit M /2 ( a) and Exhibit M/ 6 and admitted by the workman . The said letters clearly show that his candidature for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground of circular No. 6/97 as the waiting period in thiscase was more than 4 years and the case is not covered under the said scheme. The said scheme appears to be admitted by either of the parties that the circular No. 6/97 dated 20-3-97was basis for rejection of his claim for appointment on compassionate ground . The said circular isExhibit M/7 .
7. The applicant has filed documentary evidence and all are admitted by the management . Exhibit W/ 1 is the photocopy of death certificate of Late Mohan Nair. This shows that admittedly he died on 1-2-91 . Exhibit W/2 is the application dated 13-6-91 on the prescribed performa which was received by the management on 4-7-91 . This application appears to have been filed within one year in
10. Admittedly the application was filed within one year on 13-6-91 with a request to reserve a post of appointment of Ashish Nair on compassionate ground who was minor at relevant time. The said application is marked as Exhibit W/ 2 . It is also an admitted fact that after attaining majority Shri Ashish Nair file again an application [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2930
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012/CHAITRA 11 , 1934
213 , Bank of Maharashtra and another Vrs . Manoj Kumar Deharia and another wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
on 16-10-96 for appointment on compassionate ground and he was called for interview. The said call letter is marked asExhibit M/2 and is admitted by the workman.
11.It is argued on behalf of the workman that at the time offiling application for compassionate appointment, the circular letter Nos . 32/90 dated 16-7-90 and 28/94 dated 16-7- 94 were prevailing for compassionate appointment . These circular letters are filed and admitted by the workman which aremarked as Exr: ibit M/3 and M/3 (a) . It is urged that circular letter 28/94 dated 16-7-94 clause 5(b)( i) runs as follows:
"5. Method of appointment :-
(b) ( i ) In cases the member of the family to be offered appointment is a minor , the competent authority can keep the offer of appointment open till the minor attains the age of majority, if otherwise eligible , provided a request to that effect is made to the Bank within one year from the date of death of the employee ."
It is stated that the request was made within a year from the death of the deceased employee and the authority cankeep the offer of appointment open till the minor attains the age of majority. It is further stated that Circular letter No. 32/90 dated 16-7-90 provides that the waiting period was seven years . It is submitted that the management should have considered the circulars when the application was made and he was eligible for appointment on compassionate ground.
" It is , therefore , clear that compassionate appointment is not a vested right nor is it a hereditary right . Its grant is based on the policies and scheme which are framed by carving out an exception to the general rule governing public appointment . Once it isheldthat it is an exception to the General Rule and isgranted in accordance with the scheme or rules formulated, then considerations to be made for grant of the appointment would be governed by the provision of the rules or the scheme and in that view ofthe matter when the rules and the guidelines play a dominant role , considerations have to be made in accordance with the rules and scheme which are applicable at the time of grant . As the entitlement , for compassionate appointment is to be evaluated in accordance with the schemes and rules formulated inthat regard , there cannot be any shadow of doubt that consideration and evaluation are requited to be made in accordance to the existing policies and not onthe basis of a policy or scheme , which has become extinct. In that view of the matter, consideration has to be in accordance to the policy applicable when the matter is taken up for consideration and not on the basis of any other scheme or policy, which has lapse or superseded. The aforesaid being the position of law, the view expressed in T. Swamy Dass ( supra) and Heeralal Baria ( supra ) is not correct . " 12. The learned counsel for the management has argued that the compassionate appointment is not a right . It is based on policy and scheme exception to the general rule of appointment . The compassionate appointment is to be made in accordance with the existing policies and scheme at the time of considering for compassionate appointment . It is stated that in the instance case , the circular letter No. 6/97 dated 20-3-97 was in existence .
Clause 6 (b) ofthe circular letter No. 6/97 runs as follows:
"6.Method of appointment :
It is clear that at the time of considering the appointment on compassionate ground , the policy or scheme is in existence , is to be considered for appointment . In the instance case the circular letter No. 6/97 dated 20-3-97 came into existence where the rider was four years and the case of Shri Ashish Nair is not covered under the circular letter No. 6/97 which was applicable in the case as he had crossed four years . Hence the management has rightly rejected to consider his appointment on compassionate ground . This issue is decided in favour of the management and against the workman .
13. Issue No. II
(b) In case the dependant is a minor or does not possess suitable minimum qualification , his/her case can be considered at the discretion of the bank within four years of the death of the employee to enable him/her to so qualify in terms of age and/ or qualification provided that the dependent has made a request to the Bank within
one year of the death of the employee . "
Onthe basis ofthe discussion made above and in the light ofjudgement ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court , I find that there is no merit in the case and the applicant Shri Ashish Nair is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered .
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 & Employment as per rules .
It is submitted that the rider for considering appointment on compassionate ground is within 4 years of the death of deceased employee and admittedly in the instance case , at the time of considering his appointment, Shri Ashish Nair attained the age of majority after four years from the death of his father and therefore the management has rightly rejected his candidature for appointment on compassionate ground . The management has placed reliance on a decision reported in 2010 (3 ) MPLJ
MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2931
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
नई दिल्ली , 1' मार्च , 2012
the industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
का.आ. 1212, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-2-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank , West Bengal , Zonal Office , Apeejy House (4th Floor) , 15 Park Street . Kolkata - 700016 in not absorbing Shri Biswanath Paik , Part - Time Sweeper of Dhukri Jhora Branch of Dist . 24 Parganas (South), West Bengal In the post of Peon-cum- Daftary isjustified ? If not what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "
[सं. एल-12011/56/2007-आईआर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 1st March, 2012
2. None is found from either of the parties on call today . The matter is pending for cross examination of WW-01, Shri Biswanath Paik , the concerned workman , who isalso found absent on call .
S.O. 1212.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.31 /2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen , whichwas received by the Central Government on 16-2-2012.
3. It is found from the previous orders that the workmen side is not appearing for a pretty long time for about a year. Fresh notice was directed to be issued to the workmen union on 28-7-2011 and on the next date It is recorded in the order sheet that the acknowledgment card showing receipt of such notice was received back by the Tribunal after service . Even then the nobody is appearing on behalf of the workmen union nor any step has been taken on its behalf.
[No. L- 12011 /56/2007- IR (B - II) ] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA Reference No. 31 of2007
4. It is presumed that the workmen union is not interested to proceed with the present dispute any more and for that reason it is neither appearing nor is taking any step in its behalf in the present reference . So , on presumption of existence of no industrial dispute , the present reference is disposed with a " No Dispute Award "
A" No Dispute Award " is accordingly passed. Dated, Kolkata,
The 31st January, 2012.
Parties: Employers it relation to the management of Punjab National Bank AND Their workmen .
JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer
Present: Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar ,
नई दिल्ली , 1 मार्च , 2012
.....Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf ofthe: Mr. R.K. Das , Senior Manager ofthe Management Bank.
का.आ. 1213.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एल सी/ आर/52/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-2-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
Onbehalf of the : Mr. R. Chattopadhyay, Treasurer of Workmen Bank Employees' Federation ( W.B. ) with Mr. A. Mitra, Secretary ofthe workmen union .
State: West Bengal.
Industry: Banking .
[सं. एल -12011/ 19/2005- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी Dated 31st January 2012
New Delhi , the 1st March , 2012 AWARD By Order No.L - 12011 / 56 / 2007 - IR ( B - II )dated 30-10-2007 the Government of India, Ministry of labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10( 1 )( d) and (2A) of
S.O. 1213.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.CGIT/ LC/ R/ 52 / 2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 31 , 2012/CHAITRA 11 , 1934
2932
submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the workman.
Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Jabalupur now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 14-2-2012 .
[No. L - 12011 / 19 /2005 - IR (B - II) ]
SHEESH RAM , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO . CGIT/LC/ R/ 52/2005
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN
The General Secretary,
...Workman
Daily Wages Bank Employees Association, Hardev Niwas , 9 , Sanwer Road, Ujjain
Versus
The Regional Manager , Bank of Maharashtra,
3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement to contest the reference . The case of the management, interalia , is that Shri Pardeep Devda was engaged on casual basis for cleaning work on daily wages intermittently at Ratlam Branch of the bank. He was free not to come on the next day . He was not engaged after 17-6-2003 as his work was no more required to the Bank. He waspaid the wages for the days he worked in the Branch. The management has given the chart of his work at Para - 4 ofthe pleading which is from 1986 to 2003. It is stated that he had not worked 240 days in one calendar year particularly during the year preceding the date of his alleged termination . His engagement was on contact basis and on daily basis . The provision of Section 2( 00 )(bb ) of the Act , 1947 is attracted and there is no violation of the provision of Section 25 - F of the Act, 1947 as period of 240 days during the preceding year of his non - engagement as required under Section 25 B of the Act , 1947 is not completed. The Bipartite Settlement is not applicable in his case. It is submitted that the action of the management is legal and justified and the reference be answered accordingly.
Regional Office, 688 ,
M.G. Marg ,
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties , the following issues are settled for adjudication- Sancit Bhawan ,
Indore
...Management
AWARD
I. Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of Shri Pradeep Devda is justified?
Passed on this 7th day of February 2012
II . To what relief the workman is entitled ?
5. Issue No. I
1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No.L- 12011 / 19/2005 - IR( B - II ) dated 2-6-2005 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal: -
Whether the management of Regional Manager , Bank of Maharashtra , Indore in terminating the services of Shri Pardeep Devda is justified ? If not to whatrelief the workman is entitled to ? "
The workman has adduced oral and documentary evidence in order to prove his case . The workman Shri Pradeep Devda has stated in his evidence that he worked from 1986 to 2003 at Ratlam Branch ofthe bank. He was not given any appointment order of the post of peon . He has further stated that he used to do work two hours daily and whenit was needed he worked for whole day . This shows that he was engaged for a fixed period for fix work of cleaning. This fact corroborates that he was engaged on contract basis and the provision of Section 2( 00 )(bb ) of theAct, 1947 is attracted .
6. The workman has filed photocopies of the documents which are admitted by the management. Exhibit W/4 is the monthwise statements of the work done by Shri Pradeep Devda . The statement is admittedby the management . The said statement shows that the workman Shri Pradeep Devda was engaged on daily wages at Ratlam Branch of the Bank from December 1986 to June 2003 intermittently. He had worked 119 days for a period of one year during twelve months preceding the date with reference . This shows that his service shall not be deemed 2. The case of the Union/workman in short is that Shri Pardeep Devda was engaged by the Branch Manager on daily wages against permanent peon on 1-12-1986 for cleaning and sweeping and for other works till the closing of the bank. He worked continuously for 17 years in the Bank. It is stated that when the workman started demanding to regularize him , then suddenly he was terminated from services on 16-8-2003 without giving him any notice and without retrenchment compensation . It is stated that he worked more than 300 days in each and every year but he was paid from different heads so that 240 days should not be completed on the record of the bank. He was paid bonus of the days he worked . It is stated that he was terminated in violation of the provision of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 (in short the Act , 1947 ) . The management has also violated the principle of " Last come first go " . It is [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
2933
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
New Delhi , the 1st March , 2012 to be continuous for one year as required under section 25 B ofthe Act, 1947 and the provision of Section 25 -F ofthe Act, 1947 is not applicable . This shows that there is no violation of the Act and the management was justified in hisaction.
S.O. 1214. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.CGIT/ NGP/50/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government on27-2-2012 .
[No. L- 12012/ 72/2001 - IR (B - II) ] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/ 50/2001
Date: 23-1-2012 .
7. The learned Representative of the workman has urged that the workman had worked from 1986 to 2003 but he was not given permanent Temporary status ( in short PTS) . He has relied the letter dated 6-5-2005 of the management which is marked as Exhibit W/ 14 . The said letter is admitted by the management . The learned counsel for the management has argued that firstly this is beyond the scope of the reference to consider PTS . Secondly the letter was issued when he was not in employment of the management and the letter is not applicable to the workman and thirdly there are three conditions laid down in the letter and he had fulfilled only one condition that he worked for minimum 500 days since 1995 and did not fulfilled two other conditions and therefore the said letter is not applicable in his case. Thus the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the workman proves that the action of the management isjustified and legal .
Party No.1: The Regional Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Khandesh Mill Complex , Nehru Chowk, Jalgaon . Versus
Party No.2 Shri Ajit Bhaskar Joshi , No. 216, Balirampeth , Jalgaon(MS).
AWARD (Dated: 23rd January, 2012)
8. On the other hand , the management has examined Shri Sahaj Pathak who is working as Regional Manager in Regional Office , Indore . He has supported the case of the management . His evidence also shows that he had not worked 240 days during a period oftwelve calendar months preceding the date with reference . This shows that the provision of Section 25 - F of the Act , 1947 is not violated . Thisissue is decided against the workman and in favour of the management .
9. Issue No. II
On the basis of the discussion made above , the workman is not entitled to any relief and the management isjustified as there is no substance in the dispute raised by the workman . The reference is accordingly answered.
Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short ) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and Shri Ajit Bhaskar Joshi , for adjudication, as per letter No.L- 12012/ 72/2001 - IR (B- II ) dated 20-7-2001 , with the following schedule : -
10. In the result, the award is passed without any order to costs .
11. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules .
MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 1 मार्च , 2012
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra through its Regional Manager , Khandesh Mill Complex , Nehru Chauk , Jalgaon in dismissing Shri Ajit Askar Joshi from his services vide order dated 3-4-1998 for the charge . of unauthorized absence is justified is legal and proper ? If not , what reliefthe said workman is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workmar. , Shri Ajit Bhaskar Joshi , (" the workman " in short ) filed his statement ofclaim and the management of the Bank of Maharashtra , ( " Party No.1" in short) filed its written statement .
का.आ. 1214,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एन जी पी/50/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-2-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
3. The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim is that he was appointed as a peon on 23-12-1982 by party no . 1 and he was confirmed in the said post w.e.f. 23-6-1983 and he served as such to the [सं. एल -12012/ 72/2001- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 2934
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012/CHAITRA 11 , 1934
dismissal from services was again imposed for the misconduct ofabsenteeism against him and the punishment isquite disproportionate to the charges . The workman has prayed to set aside the order of dismissal from services and to reinstate him in service with continuity and full back wages .
satisfaction of the authorities and his service record was clean and unblemished and the party No. 1 issued the letter dated 4-11-1995 , asking him to produce medical certificate from the civil surgeon in connection with his absenteeism and in compliance to such direction , he submitted the required medical certificate and joined duty and thereafter , on 29-11-1995 , the party no . 1 issued a letter for personal hearing.
3. The party no . in its written statement has admitted about the appointment of the workman as a sub- staff on 23-12-1982 and his confirmation in service w.e.f. 23-6-1983 . However, it is pleaded inter- alia that the workman did not serve to its satisfaction and his service record was not clean and he was in habit of remaining unauthorisedly absent from his duties frequently and it is the regular practice to ask the employee to produce medical certificate from civil surgeon , when he bears the habit of remaining unauthorisedly absent under medical ground and the letter dated 29-11-1995 was issued by the disciplinary authority with a viewto hear the say of the workman and his defence representative regarding quantum of punishment to be awarded in connection with the notice issued to him under clause 19.12 (e) of Bi - partite Settlement and letter dated 25-1-1997 was issued by the Chief Manager, Staff Administration , C.O. Pune to the workman for his unauthorized absent from duties w.e.f. 14-8-1996 andby that letter, the workman was intimated that in case of his failure tojoin duties within 30 days , he would be deemed to be voluntarily retired under clause 17 of Vth Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-1989 and on the application of the workman dated 15-3-1997 , he was allowed to join his duties w.e.f.15-3-1997 , by the Branch Manager, Jalgaon branch , vide letter dated 15-3-1997 and letter dated 23-6-1997 is regarding acknowledgement of copy sent by B.M. to R.M. , Jalgaon in respect of three staff members including of the workman.
The further case of the workman is that party no . 1 issued letter dated 25-1-1997 as per clause 17 (wrongly mentioned as clause 7) of the 5th Bi - partite Settlement, regarding voluntary retirement and due to his illness , he was remaining absent from duties at times , by submitting leave application and with the permission of the party no . 1 for the same and the documents regarding the same are with party no . 1 and he joined his duties on 15-3-1997 , after submission of his joining report and the party no . 1 issued a charge sheet against him for the misconduct of absenteeism and a departmental enquiry was held against him and he appointed one Shri R.P. Kulkarni as his representative in the enquiry and during the enquiry proceeding , there was a settlement between his representative and the management's representative and it was agreed that in case of his admission of the charges , a lenient view regarding punishment would be taken and in view of such undertaking , he admitted the charges before the enquiry officer and party no. 1 issued letter dated 19-1-1998 , for final hearing of the departmental enquiry on 10-2-1998 and he submitted his say before the disciplinary authority on 10-2-1998 and thereafter , party no . 1 issued the letter dated 28-2-1998 for submission of medical certificate and to remain present on -2-3-1998 in the office of District Civil Surgeon , Jalgaon , for his medical examination, in presence of the representative of the management and though he remained present from 9.AM to 1 PM on 2. -3-1998 in the office of the Civil Surgeon , the management representative did not appear, so he submitted an application to party no . 1 and the party no . 1 by order dated 3-4-1998 , terminated his services and whenever he had remained absent , he had submitted application and medical certificate at the time ofjoining and on 27-4-2000 , he submitted a representation for setting aside the dismissal order, but without any effect and therefore, he raised the dispute before the ALC ( C ) , Bhusawal and as the conciliation failed , failure report was submitted to the Central Government and the Central Government referred the dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication .
Itisfurther pleaded by the party no. I that charge sheet dated 16-6-1997 was issued against the workman for his unauthorized absence and other misconducts and a departmental enquiry was held against the workman and it was not aware about any settlement between its representative and representative of the workman during the enquiry and about imposition of lenient punishment in caseof admission of the charge and the workman admitted all the charges vide his letter dated 8-10-1997 before the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer in its report dated 17-10-1997 held all the charges to have been proved against the workman and accordingly, the disciplinary authority issued final order dated 24-3-1998 awarding the punishment ofdismissal from services and the workman had submitted two medical certificates dated 12-10-1997 and 5-2-1998 and on enquiry, it was informed by the civil surgeon , Jalgaon vide letter dated 3-3-1998 that both the certificates were not signed by the District Civil Surgeon and at the time of scrutiny ofthe certificates by the civil surgeon , the workman was asked to produce the medical records pertaining to the period mentioned in the certificates , but the workman was not able to produce the same and the workman was It is also pleaded by the workman that he worked continuously for 18 years with party no . 1 , before issuance of the charge sheet and no show cause notice or memo was issued during the tenure of his service , but subsequently he could not remain present on duty, due to ill health , and his such absence did not amount to absenteeism and punishment of bringing down his scale by two stages was passed against him , which was sufficient for the misconduct of absenteeism , but punishment of [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
2935
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
in 1991 II CLR- 722 ( Cock Brand Sinnar Bidis Ltd. Nasik Vs. Shankuntalabai Dasaratha Khandre ) and 2002 II CLR - 868 (Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Shankarbhai Panabhai Bhol) .
examined by the civil surgeon on 2-3-1998 and was found to be. fit and the workman was in habit of remaining absent from duties without intimation/ permission/prior sanction from his higher authorities and on 15-11-1990, 05-10-1993 and 16-5-1994 , the workman had been issued with notices under clause 19.12 ( e) of the Bi -partite Settlement for misconducts i.e. for Bills purchase facilities without having sufficient balance In his accounts and unauthorized absence from duty respectively and on all the three occasions , punishment of stoppage of one increment for six months was awarded against him and inspite of imposition of such punishment, there was no improvement in the conduct of the workman , so charge sheet dated 16-6-1997 was issued against him and lastly he was dismissed from services .
4. Asthis is a case of dismissal of the workman from services , after holding of a departmental enquiry, the validity of the departmental enquiry was taken for consideration as a preliminary issue and by order dated 1-9-1996, the departmental enquiry against the workman was held to be proper .
6. Per contra, it was argued by the learned advocate for the party no . 1 that it is already held by the Tribunal as per order dated 01-9-1996 that the departmental enquiry held against the workman to be proper and now, it is only to.be considered about the perversity of the findings of the enquiry officer and the quantum of punishment and the workman fully participated in the enquiry with his defence representative and documentary evidence were produced in the enquiry by party no . 1 in support of the charges levelled against the workman , besides the admission of the charges by the workman besides the admission of the charges by the workman and the enquiry officer, taking into consideration the evidence produced before him during the course of the enquiry and the admission of the workman gave his findings and the enquiry officer strictly followed the procedure laid down in the matter and as such , the findings cannot be said to be perverse and the disciplinary authority considered the submissions ofdefence , before accepting the enquiry report and arriving at the conclusion of imposing punishment and serious misconducts were proved against the workman in a properly held departmental enquiry and the workman isnot entitled for any relief.
7. Before delving in to the merit of the matter , I think it necessary to mention the settled principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters for punishment.
In a number of decisions , the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that : " We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction ofthe Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters for punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction . The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse . It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an act of legislature or rules made under the provision of Article 309 of the Constitution. Ifthere has been an enquiry consisted with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice , what punishment would meet the ends ofjustice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority . If the penalty can be lawfully imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority. "
5. At the Jime of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the charges levelled against the workman were vague and no evidence was producedby the party no. 1 during the departmental enquiry to substantiate the charges and the enquiry was closed on the ground of admission of the charges by the workman , but there is nothing on record of the departmental enquiry to show that the workman infact admitted the charges and from the materials on record, it can be held that enquiry was not conducted at all and it is well settled that on the basis of the confessional statement , if dismissal order is issued, then such dismissal order is not proper and as the charges levelled against the workman were vague and no evidence was adduced to prove the charges , by the party no . 1 , the enquiry officer merely on the alleged confession of the workman ought to have reached to the conclusion thatall the charges were proved against the workman and the punishment imposed was not proper as because , it is clear from the document no . 10 filed by the party no. 1 that the disciplinary authority was not in favour of imposing punishment ofdismissal , but desirous of imposing stoppage ofincrement , but suddenly for extraneous reason imposed punishment of dismissal and while imposing punishment of dismissal , punishment of bringing down basic salary by two stages and one stage was also imposed for charge nos 1 and 2 respectively by the disciplinary authority and thus , it is a case of double jeopardy, as two punishment were imposed for the same misconduct and the punishment imposed in respect of absenteeism is quite disproportionate and the same is therefore required to be quashed and set aside and the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages .
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter in question, now, the present case in hand is to be considered.
Insupport of such contentions , the learned advocate for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported 2936
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 31 , 2012/CHAITRA 11 , 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
8. On perusal of the materials on record it is found that the workman was served with a charge sheet containing details ofthe allegations on which such charges were based and therefore, the charges levelled against the workman cannot be said to be vague .
charges nos 3 and 4 and for that , it cannot be said that there was double jeopardy . It is also found that grave misconduct of absenteeism has been proved against the workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry. It is also found that the workman had been punished twice for the misconduct of absenteeism before head . Hence the punishment of dismissal from services passed against him cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate , requiring interference in the matter . As the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are different from the fact and circumstances of the case mentioned in the decision reported in 2002 II CLR - 868 (Supra) and the settled principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above , with respect , I am of the view that the said decision has no application to the present case . Hence, itisordered :-
ORDER
The action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra through its Regional Manager, Khandesh Mill Complex, Nehru Chauk, Jalgaon in dismissing Shri Ajit Bhaskar Joshi from his services vide order dated 3-4-1998 for the charge of unauthorized absence is justified is legal and proper. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 2 मार्च , 2012
का.आ. 1215.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, धनबाद नं. 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 291/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02-03-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
9. So far the contentions raised by the workman that he had never admitted the charged levelled against him and there is no document in support of such claim of the party no.1 is concerned, it is found that there is no force in such contention as because, the workman in the statement ofclaim has admitted that he admitted the charges levelled against him before the enquiry officer. It is the case of the workman that as there was a settlement between his defence representative and the representative of the management that in case of admission of the charges by him , a lenient punishment would be imposed , he admitted the charges . However, there is nothing on record to show that there was any such settlement and the workman admitted the charges due to such settlement . Rather, it is found from record that the workman voluntarily admitted the charges . It is found from the record that on 8-10-1997 , the workman appeared before the enquiry officer alongwith his defence representative and admitted the charges levelled against him unconditionally. The 'workman also did not dispute the documents produced by the party no.1 in the enquiry and as such , the documents were marked as exhibits on behalf of the management . It is also found that at the time ofthe personal hearing of the workman by the disciplinary authority before the imposition of the penalty, it was submitted on behalf of the workman that charges were proved against the workman as he admitted the same and a lenient punishment be imposed against him. The enquiry officer basing on the documents produced in the enquiry and the admission of the workman held the charges to have been proved against the workman . So , the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse.
[सं. एल-20012/ 137/2000- आईआर ( सी -1 ) ] डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 2nd March , 2012
In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, with respect, I am of the view that the decision reported in 1991 ( II ) CLR- 722 (Supra) has no applicationto the present case in hand.
S.O. 1215. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 291/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court - I , Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . CCL , and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 2-3-2012 .
[No. L-20012/137/2000- IR (C - I ) ] D. D. S. SRINIVASA , Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 , DHANBAD
In the matter of a reference u/ s . 10( 1 ) ( d )(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Reference No. 291 of 2000
10. So far the question of quantum of punishment is concerned, it is found that there is nothing on record to show that the disciplinary authority was not in favour of imposing the punishment of dismissal and desirous of imposing of stoppage of increment, but for extraneous reason, imposed the punishment of dismissal as claimed bythe workman . Rather, from the record it is found that the defence representative of the workman pleaded to impose lenient punish ment before the disciplinary authority at the time ofpersonal hearing and the disciplinary authority after taking into consideration the say the enquiry including the report ofthe enquiry officer, passed the order ofpunishment ofdismissal from services. Punishment of lowering the scale of the workman for charge no . 1 and 2 was passed and punishment of dismissal from services was passed for 2937
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the management ofKaro
OpenCast Project ofM/s . C.C. Ltd.
AND
Their Workmen
PRESENT :
SHRI H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer.
APPEARANCES :
Forthe Employers : Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate.
For the Workmen : Shri D. Mukherjee, Advocate.
State : Jharkhand
Industry:Coal
Dated, the 22nd February, 2012
AWARD
By Order No. L- 20012/ 137 /2000 - IR(C- I) dated 27-9- 2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
"Whether the action of the management of Karo OpenCast Project of M/ s . C. C. Ltd. in not promoting Shri Shivraj Saw along with his juniors isjustified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from what date ?"
2. The case ofthe concerned workman is that he was originally appointed as Cat. I Mazdoor on 25-9-1985 and later on he was promoted to the post of Cat . II w.e.f. 1-12- 1993 but surprisingly enough he was actually working as Shovel Operator since 25-3-1992 as per direction and authorisation by the management . He has put in more than 240 days attendance in each calendar year. Their Lordship ofHon'ble Supreme Court held that to confirm an employee in the acting position means regularisation and accordingly hewas legally entitled for regularisation as Shovel Operator in Grade- II . The management has implemented Wage Board Recommendation which has statutory force and also NCWAS which is a settlement . As per statute and settlement also he was legally entitled for his regularisation asShovel Operator Grade - II/B w.e.f. 1992. The concerned workman represented before management several times for his regularisation and proper grade and wages but without any effect . The management instead ofregularising started paying difference of wages of Grade-B and Category- II from 1994. But the management was very much interested for promotion of a junior workman , Sri S. Kabi and accordingly the management discriminated and victimised the concerned workman in different wages including in the matter of regularisation and promotion .
Though the concerned workman was authorised to work as Shovel Operator w.e.f. 25-3-1992 whereas Sri Kabi was authorised to work as Shovel Operator w.e.f. 24-4-1992 but the management started paying difference of wages of Grade-B and Category- II to Sri Kabi earlier than the concerned workman . Sri Kabi was regularised as Shovel Operator Grade- II/B w.e.f. 18-4-1995 superseding the concerned workman who was regularised as Shovel Operator Grade- II/B w.e.f. 17-11-1996 . The concerned workman and the union on behalf ofthe concerned workman represented before the management several times for his regularisation as Shovel Operator Grade- II/B in the year 1992 or at least w.e.f. the date of promotion of S. Kabi by maintaining seniority and to promote in Grade - I at least w.e.f. the date of promotion of S. Kabi but without any effect . Seeing no other alternative the union raised an industrial dispute before the A.L.C. (C) , Hazaribagh , which ended in failure due to adamant attitude of the management. Thereafter this dispute has been referred to this Tribunal foradjudication .
Under the facts and circumstances stated above , it has been prayed before this Tribunal to answer the reference in favour of the workman by directing the management to regularise the concerned workman as Shoval Operator Grade- II /B and in the post of Shovel Grade- I in the year 1995-96 or alternatively the concerned workman be regularised as Shovel Operator Grade- II/B w.e.f. 18-4-1995 and Shovel Operator Grade - I w.e.f. 12-3-1998 i.e. from the date of promotion of junior, S. Kabi with all arrears of wages and consequential benefits .
3. The case of the management is that the Union raised the present industrial dispute and claimed promotion ofthe workman only on the ground that another workman , namely, Sri S. Kabi was promoted/regularised in Operator Grade- II B w.e.f. 18-4-1995 superseding the concerned workman. The concerned workman was originally appointed as trainee in Category - I Mazdoor on 25-9-1989 and subsequently he was promoted in Category- II Mazdoor from 1-12-1993 and was regularised as Shovel Operator Grade - II from 1-12-1996 . Sri S. Kabi was appointed as Category- 1 Mazdoor on 6-2-1991 and he was promoted in Category- II in Shovel Section and after that he was authorised to work as Shovel Operator. He was being paid the difference ofwages ofShovel Operator, Grade- II , Group- B and that being the position , he was regularised as a Shovel Operator Group- B from 18-4-1995 . Sri S. Kabi came inShovel Operator Grade- II Group-B before the concerned workman. The concerned workman was regularised as a Shovel Operator Group -B as on 17-11-1996 and that being the position , Sri S. Kabi is the senior to the concerned workman in Shovel Section . The operation of Shovel Operator is required special skill and the workman concerned came in the Shovel Section after Sri S. Kabi so, he is not entitled for any relief.
It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold that the action of the management is legal 2938
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012/CHAITRA 11 , 1934
and justified and further be pleased to hold that the concerned workman is not entitled to any any relief.
4. Both the parties has filed their respective rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of some of the paragraphs of each other's written statements .
5. The management has produced MW- 1 , Pratual Kumar the concerned workman has produced himself as MW- 1 and proved documents as Exts . W- 1 to W-6.
6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concernedworkman is that his junior, S. Kabi was promoted by the management and the management discriminated the concerned workman regarding difference of wages , regularisation and promotion . He made several representations to the management but no heed has been paid through he is entitled as per settlement Shovel Operator Grade- II/B from 1992. The management started paying difference ofwages from 1994. It has also been argued that Sri Kabi was appointed as Cat . I Mazdoor on 6-2-1991 but the management promoted him along with the concerned workman in Cat . II w.e.f. 1-12-1993 . The concerned workman wasauthorised to work as Shovel Operator w.e.f. 25-3-1992 whereas S. Kabi was authorised to work as Shovel Operator w.e.f. 24-4-1992 but the management started paying difference ofwages of Category - II to S. Kabi earlier than the concerned workman . He was regularised as Shovel Operator Grade- II/B w.e.f. 18-4-1995 superseding the claim of the concerned workman and the concerned workman was regularised as Shovel Operator Grade - II/B w.e.f. 17-11- 1996 which anti - labour practice of the management . The management further discriminated the concerned workman by not calling him to appear in the D.P.C. in the year 1988 for promotion to the post of Shovel Operator Grade- I . The matter was referred to A.L.C. (C) for adjudication .
7. The management has argued that the demand of the union for promotion of individual workman cannot be an industrial dispute , so the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. He was originally appointed as trainee in Category- I Mazdoor on 25-9-1989, subsequently he was promoted in Category - II Mazdoor from 1-12-1993 and was regularised as Shovel Operator Grade - II from 1-12-1996. S. Kabi was appointed as Category - I Mazdoor on 6-2-1991 and he was promoted in Category - II in Shovel Section and after that he was authorised to work as Shovel Operator and he was regularised as Shovel Operator Group- B from 18-4-1995 . The concerned workman was regularised as Shovel Operator Group- B on 17-11-1996 . So his demand is notjustified.
In this respect Ext . W- I shows that the concerned workman appointed as Shovel Operator on 25-3-1992 and from 17-9-1994 S. Kabi regularised as Shovel Operator Grade- B, as per Ext. W.2 it shows that the concerned workman was appointed as Cat . I on 25-9-1989 and S. Kavi was appointed as Cat . I on 6-2-1991 . He was junior to the concerned workman , though both were promoted to Cat . II
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]
w.e.f. 1-12-1993 and difference of wages for the post of ShovelOperator Cat . II and Gr. II/B have been discriminated bythe management because S. Kabi was given effect from 17-9-1994 and the concerned workman was given effect from 19-12-1994 . This shows discrimination and anti - labour practice of the management against the concerned workman . For this purpose the management should enquire into the matter and fix responsibility of the official who has discriminated in this way. In this respect the concerned workman had given application to the management but no heed was paid by the management .
8. In this respect the management's witness , MW- 1 , Pratul Kumar, stated in cross - examination that the concerned workman was appointed as Shovel Operator w.e.f. 25-3-1992 as per Ext . W- 1 and S. Kabi was junior to the concerned workman in Cat . I at the time of appointment. Bothwere promoted in Cat . II w.e.f. 11-12-1993 . I have not filed any paper to show since when Kabi was authorised to work as Shovel Operator. A workman is regularised on the basis of work performance and authorisation . I can file paper to show that the performance of Kabi was better thanthe concerned workman . But no such paper has been filed by the management . Sri Kabi was regularised as Grade- B Shovel Operator w.e.f. 18-4-1995 and the concerned workman was regularised w.e.f. 17-11-1996 Kabi was promoted to Grade - I Shovel Operator and the case of the concerned workman was not considered though he represented before the management many times . The notes sheet dated 16/ 17-12-1995 marked as Ext . W- 2 . This statement shows that S. Kabi was regularised as Shovel Operator Grade- II /B w.e.f. 18-4-1995 superseding the concerned workman . The management has not filed any paper to show that the work performance of Sri Kabi was better than the concerned workman .
9. Considering the above facts and circumstances it shows that the attitude of the management is discriminatory against the concerned workman in not promoting him along withhis junior is not justified . So, the concerned workman is entitled to promotion and difference of wages from the date ofpromotion of S. Kabi because he is senior to S. Kabi and there is nothing against him working in comparison withS. Kabi .
10. In the result , I hold that the action of the management of Karo Open Cast Project of M/s . C. C. Ltd. in not promoting Shri Shivraj Saw along with his juniors is notjustified . Hence , the concerned workman is entitled to promotion and difference of wages from the date of promotion of S. Kabi .
This is my Award.
H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 2 मार्च , 2012
का.आ. 1216.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार जनरल मैनेजर [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
2939
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
टेलीकॉम डिपार्टमेन्ट लखनऊ और टेलीकॉम डिस्ट्रेट्रिकट इन्जीनियर , रायबरेली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 159/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-3-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -40012/86/2001-आईआर ( डी.यू. ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 2nd March, 2012
S.O. 1216.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 159/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General Manager Telecom Department , Lucknow and The Telecom Distt. Engineer, Raebareli and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 2-3-2012.
[No. L-40012/86/2001 - IR (DU)] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT :
Dr. MANJU NIGAM , Presiding Officer. I.D. No. 159/2001
Ref. No. L-40012 /86/2001 - IR (DU) dated 11-09-2001 BETWEEN
Shri Achal Pal S/ o Shri Ram Lotan R/ o Vill . Raghunathpur Kataili , PO Bhadokhar, Raebareli
AND
1. The General Manager, TelecomDeptt . O/o. General Manager, Gandhi Bhawan , Lucknow (U.P. )- 226001 .
2. The Telecom District Engineer, O/o . the Telecom District Manager, Raebareli (Distt . )-229001 .
AWARD
1. By order No. L-40012/86/2001 - IR(DU) dated: 11- 09-2001 and subsequent corrigendum dated 27-12-2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) ofsub - section ( 1 ) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Shri Achal Pal S / o Shri Ram Lotan , R/ o Vill. Raghunathpur Kataili , PO Bhadokhar, Raebareli and theGeneral Manager , Telecom Deptt. , O/ o General Manager, Gandhi Bhawan, Lucknow ( U.P. ) and the Telecom District Engineer, O/o . the Telecom District Manager , Raebareli (Distt.) for adjudication .
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF TELECOM , LUCKNOW IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES TO ACHAL PAL VIDE ORDER DATED 14-9-99 WAS LEGALAND JUSTIFIED ? IF NOT , WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO ? "
3. The case of the workman , Achal Pal , in brief, is that he was employed under Divisional Engineer, Telecom , Raibareli on the post of security guard on 7-02-99 without any appointment letter and worked as such till 14-09-1999 when his services has been terminated without any notice or retrenchment compensation in violation to the provisions contained in Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in spite of the fact he worked for about 200 days and on including weekly and national holidays , he worked for more than 240 days in the calendar year preceding his termination . It is submitted by the workman that during his service period he put his attendance on the attendance register and was paid on Muster Roll Sheet and also that hewas never given any proof regarding salary. It has been alleged by the workman that the management retained workmenjunior to him and also employed some other new persons in violation to the provisions contained in Section 25 G & H oftheAct . Accordingly, the workman has prayed that his termination order be set aside and he be reinstated with consequential benefits including back wages .
4. The opposite party has filed its written statement, denying the claim ofthe workman; wherein it has submitted that the workman was never engaged by it , as such, there arises no question of termination or violation of any of the provisions of I.D. Act . Moreover, it has submitted that the workman was the employee of M/ s. Security and Protection Services , Varanasi . It has been submitted by the management that the workman never received any payment towards salary from the department directly; rather the management , as per terms of the contract, had always paid for the watch and ward services rendered by M/s . Security and Protection Services , Varanasi and in no point of time any payment was made to the workman by the management in lieu of his any services . The management has specifically submitted that the workman was admittedly deployed by theM/ s . Security and Protection Services , Varanasi as one of its several watchman , which did not create any lien in favour of the workman against the management , furthermore, the contract in between the management and M/s. Security and Protection Services , Varanasi came to an end
on 05-03-99. Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected without any relief to him.
2940
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 / CHAITRA 11 , 1934
5. The workman has filed its rejoinder; wherein he has not brought any new fact apart from reiterating the averments already made by him in his statement of claim .
6. The workman has not filed any document in support of its case ; whereas the management has filed photocopies of certain documents vide application dated 29-12-2005 in support of their claim , which mainly included:
(i) Tender along with nile and regulation .
(ii) Application submittedby M/s . Security & Protection Services through Director & agreement .
(iii) Photocopy of the payment receipt to the contractor regarding their services .
7. The workman Achal Pal has examined himself as witness in support of this claim that he was appointed on the post of Security Guard on 07-02-99 and no appointment letter was given at the time of recruitment . He further stated that he was not given any letter regarding termed appointment nor in project work nor ad - hoc appointment nor he was kept through any contractor . He also stated that he put his attendance on the Attendance Register and was made payment on monthly basis @ Rs . 50 per day. In cross-examination, he stated that the payments were made by the department and he was not given any pay document. Further, he stated that he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange nor saw any advertisement.
8. In rebuttal the management has examined Shri K. P. Bajpai , SDE ( Planning ) , who stated that M /s . Security and Protection , S - II , 42 - A , Gyatri Nagar Colony, Tanakpur, Varanasi was given contract to supply security guard . He further stated that the workman was never appointed by the Telecom department nor their attenndance was taken by the department . He also stated that the worked under the supervision of the Security Agency and the contractor was paid as per contract , thus , there was no relationship of employer and employee between the department and the workman , Achal Pal . The workman did not avail opportunity to cross -examine the management witness in spite of several opportunities were afforded to him .
9. The case is fixed for arguments since 13-10-2009; but the parties did not turn up for argument and were getting the case adjourned on one or the other pretext. Since the reference is very old , pending for arguments since 2009, as no party is turning , I think it proper to dispose of the present reference in the interest of justice ; and accordingly the case was reserved for award .
10. In the light of the aforesaid rival statements of both the sides I have scanned the documents produced by the management . The workman has not field any document in support of its version nor has moved any formal application to summon any from the management .
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
11. Per contra , the management has filed photo copy of tender along with rule and regulation and application submitted by M/s . Security & Protection Services in response thereof. It has also filed photocopy of payment receipt to the contractor regarding their services . A bare perusal of contract dated 29-4-99 signed by AGM (Admin) , Telecom , Varanasi and Director , M/s . Security & Protection Services, Varanasi , paper No. 27/32 to 27/35 shows that the security guards were required to be paid through the contractor .
12. Moreover , there is no document , from the workman, to prove this fact that the workman had actually worked as casual labour for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the date of his disengagement . Admittedly no appointment letter was issued and no post was ever advertised for the appointment . There is no evidence ofthe workman that the Divisional Engineer was competent to engage daily wager. He has not produced any voucher or any other documentary evidence to prove this fact that he was paid @ Rs . 50 per day for the period mentioned in his statement .
13. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of order the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail . In the present case burden was on the workman to set out the groundsto challenge the validity of the termination order and to prove the termination order was illegal. It was the case of the workman that he had worked for 240 days in the year concerned. This claim has been denied by the management ; therefore , it was for the workman to lead evidence to show that she had in fact worked up to 240 days in the year preceding his alleged termination . In (2002) 3 SCC 25 Range Forest Officer vs ST. Hadimani Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :
" Itwas the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant . It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination . Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that can not be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for that period was produced by the workman . On this ground alone , the award is liable to be set aside . "
14. Analyzing its earlier decisions on the aforesaid point Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in 2006 ( 108 ) FLR R.M. Yellatti & Asstt . Executive Engineer as follow:
" Itis clear that the provisions of the evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2941
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
Telecom department and his services have been terminated in violation to the provisions contained in Section 25 F of the I. D. Act , 1947 .
16. On the other hand the management has well proved its case by filing copy of the contract with the M/s . Security and Protection Services which reveals that the security guards were sequired to be paid through the contractor and they were not deemed to be employee of any of the either State or Central Government . Also, the payment requisition placed by the contractor before the management for payment finds reference of the workman .
17. Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. Initial burden of establishing the fact of continuous work for 240 days in a year preceding the date of alleged termination was on the workman but he has failed to discharge the above burden . There is no reliable material for recording findings that the workman had worked for 240 days in the preceding year from the date ofhis alleged termination and the alleged unjust or illegal order of termination was passed bythe management .
18.Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against the workmanAchal Pal and he is not entitled to any relief.
19. Award as above .
judgments we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence , both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily wages earner, there willbe no letter of appointment or termination . There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus , in most cases , the workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the Court the nominal muster roll for the given period , the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case . The above decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self serving statements made by the claimant workman will no suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments further lay down that mere non production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management ."
LUCKNOW 30-01-2012 . Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 5 मार्च, 2012
का.आ. 1217. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार चीफ जनरल मैनेजर, भारत संचार निगम लि. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , पोर्टब्लेियर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 3/09 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-3-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल -40012/37/2009- आईआर (डी यू) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी 15. In the present case the workman has stated that he has worked continuously for 240 days , but has not produced any document neither original nor photocopy in support ofhis oral evidence nor summoned the documents from the management . The burden was on the workman to show by the way of cogent evidence that he actually worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination i.e. 14-09-99; but he failed to do so as he has he could not bring this fact on record. In view of denial ofthe management regarding his claim , the workman has nothing to support his version , except his own statement before this Tribunal , which does not suffice the matter. Further, the workman in his claim statement has submitted that workmen junior to him were retained by the management; but he failed to provide their detail neither in the statement of claim nor in his statement on oath.
New Delhi , the 5th March , 2012
S.O. 1217. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.3/09 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Port Blair as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Chief General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on5-3-2012 .
[No. L-40012/37/2009 - IR (DU)] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer The workman in his cross -examination has stated that " mere saath gate par suraksha karmi Sada Shiv, Ram Rarayan, Achal Pal lagaae jaate the" , this transpires that the person who was adduced as workman witness was not Achal Pal , the workman concerned . The workman further stated that "mere paas security gurad hone ka koi parichai patra nahi tha" , this is again in contravention to the terms givenin the contract dated 29-4-99, which provided that the Security Gurar/Drivers shall be present at duty period in clean uniform and Identity Caard/Licence . Thus , the workman failed to prove through cogent evidence that he is the person who actually worked with the management of [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012/CHAITRA 11, 1934
2942
DECISION WITH REASONS
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS , PORTBLAIR
I.T. Case No. 3/09
PRESENT :
Shri Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, Judge, Labour Court , Andaman and Nicobar Islands , Port Blair.
Shri Shri : Binoy Bhushan Chakraborty First Party
Versus
In order to establish his claim , the 1st party adduce affidavit in chief by filing affidavit . He has also tendered some documents which includes his letters to Labour Enforcement Officer, Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour , his disablement certificate which are marked exhibits 1-3 . After that he adduced further evidence in chief on 19-12-11 and submitted that some documents are lying in the BSNL office . However he was cross- examined at length on 03-0-12 and admitted that BSNL did not terminate him from his services . He also admitted that M/s . Asman Ex - Servicemen Security Service Company got tender and began to work under BSNL . He made it clear that he has no contract between him and BSNL , rather he had contract with M/s . Asman Ex - Servicemen Security Service.
The ChiefGeneral Manager, Barath Sanchar Nigam Limited A & N Teiecom Circle, Telephone Bhawan PortBlair
Second Party
DATE: 16-01-2012
JUDGEMENT
The present schedule reference was made by Central Government , in exercise of power conferred under clause (d) of sub section 1 and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act to adjudicate;
Opposite party did not adduce any evidence . On perusal of the pleadings , and documents it is crystal clear that 2nd party did not engage him at any point of time. Naturally question of retrenchment also does not arise. On the contrary he was engaged by M /s . Asman Ex - Servicemen Security Service , who had got the contract from BSNL . In such circumstances I am , of the view that Section 25 of Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable and accordingly I am, unable to grant the relief as prayed for by the 1st party.
Hence it is ,
AWARDED
( 1) Whether the action of the Management of MIs Asman Ex- Servicemen Security Service , Port Blair , in terminating the services of Shri Binoy Bhushan Chakraborty, with effect from 1-8-08 is legal and justified ?
That the case merits rejection .
(2) Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to ?
Let a copy of this award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, for necessary action and publication in official gazette .
SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, Presiding Officer .
नई दिल्ली , 5 मार्च , 2012
का.आ. 1218.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार चीफ इन्जीनीयर सर्विसिस , एम. इ. एस. बिरिचगंज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , पोर्ट बिलेयर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-3-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
In response to the notice served from this end, both parties appeared with their Written statement . The 1 st party workman filed statement of demands . According to him while he was working under 2nd party he met with an accident which made him handicapped with 70% disablement . Actually he had been working under M/s . Kamraj Multi Purpose Labour Contract Co - operative Society Ltd, Humprygunj , up to 31.01.08 , and thereafter he began to work under Asman Ex - Servicemen Security Service.The 2nd party being employer assured him that he would be provided with a job even after his accident , but ultimately they did not keep the said words . He was illegally retrenched on and from 01-08-08 . According to him he is entitled to be reabsorbed in BSNL and he was not given any notice under Section 25 (F) of Industrial Disputes Act .
[सं. एल -13011 / 01 /2009- आईआर ( डी.यू. ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 5th March , 2012
S.O. 1218.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/2009 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Port Blair as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Accordingly he prayed for compensation due to non compliance ofmandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. As against this the 2nd party filed written objection . The sum and substance of their written objection is such that they never appointed this 1st party in their establishment and there was no contract between them . They made it clear that he had been working under the contractor, so they are not at all liable to absorb him in their establishment . In fine , they have prayed for dismissal of the case.
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2943
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012 /चैत्र 11 , 1934
DECISION WITH REASONS dispute between the employers in relation to The Chief Engineer Services . M.E.S. Brichgunj and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 5-3-2012.
1stpartyworkmen filed affidavit in chief individually. Their affidavits are in harmony with each other . But they did not adduce any documents in support of their case .
[No. L- 13011 /01 /2009 - IR (DU) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ANDAMANAND NICOBAR ISLANDS, PORT BLAIR
I.T. No : 1/2009
PRESENT :
Heard both sides . There is nothing on record that, the 2nd party has regularized the services of anyone who were appointed as DRMs . There is no circular issued by the competent authority that they are entitled to be absorbed in regular, cadre . On the contrary, 2nd party categorically stated that these workmen were employed for 17 days in a month and naturally question of regularization does not arise.
Shri Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, Judge , Industrial Tribunal Andaman and Nicobar Islands , Port Blair
It isperhaps needless to say that the daily rated mazdoor or casual labour does not have any right to be regularized as a matter of course.
Hence, it is ,
The President A & N Forest, Sramik Karamchari Union , Bambooflat , South Andaman , PortBlair
AWARDED
Vs.
TheChiefEngineer Services , A& N Zone, Military Engineering Services , Brichgunj
That the demand of Andaman and Nicobar Forest Shramik Karamchari Union for regularization of services of Shri Amal Ekka, Shri Amar Bahadur, Shri M. Vellaiah and Shri T, Narayana by the management of chief Engineer A& N Zone , MES is not legal and justified .
Delivery date ofjudgement: 2-9-2011
JUDGEMENT
Let a copy of this judgment be sent to Government of India, Ministry of Labour for publication in official gazette and necessary action .
SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, Presiding Officer The present schedule reference was made to this Tribunal by Central Government in exercise of the power conferred U/ S ( 1 ) clause (d) read with sub- Section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to adjudicate:
नई दिल्ली , 7 मार्च , 2012
( 1) Whether the demand of A & N Forest Shramik Karamchari Union for regularization of services of Shri Amal Ekka, Shri Amar Bahadur , Shri M. Vellaiah and Shri T. Narayana by the Management ofChief Engineer A & N Zone, MES is legal and justified?
(2) If yes , What relief the workmen are entitled to?
का.आ. 1219. औ विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर रेलवे प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण/ श्रम न्यायालय दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 289/2011 ) को. प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-3-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
Prior to entering into the merit of the reference, it is necessary to recapitulate facts of the case .
[सं. एल-41014/01/2012- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ]
रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 7th March , 2012 After getting the notice , both parties appeared with their written statement. Ist party workmen ventilated their grievances stating inter alia that they have been working as departmental recruited labour under the Chief Engineer, MES Military Engineering Service for a considerable years. Inspite ofthat, their services have not been regularized by the 2nd party. They have requested 2nd party times without number but to no good . Thereafter A & N Forest Sramik Karamchari Union took up their cause ' with conciliation officer. But the said I conciliation proceeding having been failed, this dispute has been referred to this end.
S.O. 1219.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.289/2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute Between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway India and their workman , received by the Central Government on 6-3-2012.
[ No : L-41014/01 /2012-IR (B-1 ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer 2nd party filed written objection . According to them, the ruling cited by the petitioners has no application in this case . Adaily rated mazdoor cannot claim regularization of service as of right .
885 G1/12-8A [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 31 , 2012 /CHAITRA 11 , 1934
2944
ANNEXURE
the Act) . He claims that he may be reinstated with services of management with continuity and full back wages .
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRALGOVT. INDUSTRIALTRIBUNALNO.11 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX DELHI
I.D. No : 289/2011
Shri Nishar Ahmed
Through Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh , B-40, Bulwerd Road, TisHazari , Delhi .
Workman
Vs.
3. The claim statement was filed under the provisions ofsub - Section (2) of Section 2 of the Act . The claimant projected that a period of 45 days stood expired from the date of his filing a claim statement/application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub section (2) of Section 2A of the Act, empowers a claimant to raise his dispute before this Tribunal in case of discharge , dismissal , retrenchment or otherwise termination of his services , without a dispute being referred by the appropriate Govt . under sub-section (1 ) of section 10 of the Act . In view of these facts , this deemed reference was entertained by this Tribunal .
1. TheManager, Northern Railway, Sarai Rohila, NewDelhi .
4. Notice of this deemed reference and claim statement was sent to the management as well the Contractor. Notice , sent to the management , was received back with the report that no officer with the designation of manager is there with the management . Claimant was called upon to give proper designation and address of the employer within the meaning of clause (g ) of Section 2 of the Act . Instead of giving designation and address of his employer, the claim- ant abandoned the proceedings with effect from 14.9.2011 .
2. M/ sPeyush Traders , Shop No. 6 , Devgiri Apprt. , A-Wing , Atmaram Nagar, Behind Janta Sahkari Bank , Lok Gram , Kalyan (East) Mumbai -421306.
.....Management
AWARD
5. Claimant opted to abstain from the proceedings since 14.9.2011 . He abandoned the proceedings for good . It is evident that the claimant had opted not to prosecute his grievances against the management and the Contractor. Thus it seems that now there remain no dispute between the claimant and the management as well as the Contractor. Ano dispute awarded is, accordingly, passed . It be sent to the appropriate Govt. for publication.
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 7 मार्च , 2012
का.आ. 1220, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 48/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-3-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12011/ 18/2006- आईआर ( बी -1 ) ]
रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th March , 2012
Claim statement was filed on behalf of Shri Nishar Ahmed son of Sh. Ekbal Ahmed, alleging therein that he joined services with Northern Railway, Sarai Rohila, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the management) as coach attendant , through M / s Peyush Traders (hereinafter re- ferred to as the Contractor) on 17.2.2009 . He worked dili- gently and honestly with the management . His last drawn wages were Rs . 70001 per month . He never gave any chance ofcomplaint to the management . Benefits such as appoint- ment letter, attendance card , wages in a scale pay, leaves , ESI benefits , Provident fund , bonus and overtime allow- ance were not accorded to him . He was made to work twelve hours per day without payment of overtime wages . His wages from January 2010 to June 2010 , were not paid . He felt financial difficulties and as such raised demand for payment of his wages and other allowances . Neither his wages for the aforesaid period nor overtime allowance was paid to him . Since he raised demand for payment of his wages and overtime allowances it irked the management. His services were dispensed with in an illegal manner on 23.6.2010 . Neither notice nor pay in lieu thereof and re- trenchment compensation was paid to him.
S.O. 1220.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 48 / 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank ofMysore and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 7-3-2012 .
[No. L - 12011 / 18 /2006 - IR ( B - I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer 2. It was alleged on behalf of the claimant that on 3.9.2011 , he filed a claim statement before the Conciliation Officer. Notices were issued to the management , as well as the Contractor. They opted not to appear before the Con- ciliation Officer. Action of the management in terminating his services , is violative of the provisions of Section 25F, 25G, and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (in short
885 GI /12-8B 2945
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE
Dated : 9th February, 2012
PRESENT :
Shri S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
C. R. No. 48/2007
I PARTY
Shri H. P. Madaraje Urs,
Sargur Branch , Sargur ,
Mysore District,
State Bank of Mysore , Daftry, Mysore ,
Karnataka State
11 PARTY
The General Manager (P)
State Bank ofMysore,
Head Office , K. G. Road,
Bangalore,
Karnataka State
which are narrated in the annexure . Interalia the first party filed his affidavit swearing to all the facts narrated in the claim statement and did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his contention . In the cross examination of first party counsel for second party got exhibited Ex. M16 to M21 . After close of the evidence of both the sides when the learned advocates appearing for both sides were called upon to address their arguments the burned advocate appearing for the first party filed his written arguments wherein he has reiterated the claim statement as it is and the learned advocate appearing for the second party while taking me through the evidence of the enquiry officer, admissions given by the first party in the cross examination and the proceedings of the enquiry drawn by the enquiry officer urged that all fair opportunity being given to the CSE/ first party. to defend him in the enquiry there is no reason to say that it was not fair and proper and as the punishment imposed for the proved charge being bringing to lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages there is no scope for the interference of this tribunal under Section 11 A of the ID Act, as such the preliminary issue deserves to be answered in the 'affirmative ' and the reference is liable to be rejected . In support of this argument he relied upon the decisions reported in 1963 I LLJ- 698 and ILR 2011 Kar 2037. The learned advocate appearing for the first party also filed his written reply.
ORDER
3. On appreciation of the pleadings , oral and documentary evidence brought on record by both the sides touching the preliminary issue with the arguments put forward by them my finding on the preliminary issue is in the ' affirmative ' and the reference is liable to be rejected as there is no scope to interfere in the punishment imposed which is neither dismissal nor any sort of termination denying the service to the first party for the following reasons :
Reasons:
1. In this reference [No. L- 12011 / 18/ 2006 - IR (B - I ) dated 28-2-2007 ) ] by the Central Government for adjudication as to " whether the action of the management of State Bank of Mysore in imposing the punishment of bringing to lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages on Shri H. P. Madaraje Urs , Daftry, State Bank of Mysore , K. R. Nagar Branch , Mysore District is legal and justified ? If not what relief the workman is entitled to ? " having regard to the allegations made in the claim statement that when the enquiry commenced the Presenting Officer presented hisprovisional list reserving his right to present additional list at later stage if needed, the Enquiry Officer asked his Defence Representative to submit all his defence documents and list of witnesses immediately and after the Presenting Officer concluded his case the enquiry officer declared the enquiry as concluded without hearing the pleas of defence, the following Preliminary Issue is raised touching the fairness or otherwise of the Domestic Enquiry.-
"Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first party by the second party is fair and proper?"
2. In order to substantiate this aspect of the case the learned advocate appearing for the second party while examining the officer as MWI who deposed to the details ofthe enquiry conducted by him got marked as many as 15 documents as Ex . MI to M15 the detailed description of
4. It has come in the evidence of MW1 /Enquiry Officer that he scheduled the first date of enquiry on 21-11-2003 and issued notice to the CSE / first party to appear on that day and though it was served he did not appear and inspite of it enquiry officer while postponing the enquiry to 2-12-2003 issued him another notice to appear on that day and on that day when he appeared he asked him whether he has received the charge sheet and understood the contents and when he answered in the affirmative he read over the charges to him and when he denied the same and submitted that he would appoint one Shri Prabhakara Shetty as his Defence Representative permitting him to avail his services adjourned the enquiry and on that day when Presenting Officer furnished list of witnesses and documents to be relied upon by the management he also recorded the evidence of one witness examined by the Presenting Officer and marked 30 documents in his evidence and on the same day he was 2946
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 /CHAITRA 11 , 1934
cross examined by the Defence Representative and thereafter Defence Representative examined the CSE/ first party and submitted that he has no witness to examine and thereafter Management Representative and Defence Representative submitting their written submissions , he submitted his enquiry findings to the Disciplinary Authority. In his cross examination except a suggestion that he did not conduct the enquiry following the principles of natural justice and that after examination of witnesses he abruptly closed the enquiry without providing opportunity to the first party/CSE to examine him and his witness , nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony . The evidence ofthe enquiry officer referred to above being corroborated bythe proceedings recorded by him at Ex. M6 which also disclose that the management concluded its side by examining only one witness and he was cross examined by the Defence Representative on the same day and the Deferice Representative did examine the CSE and submitted that he has no witness to examine , thereby, the suggestions made in the cross examination that enquiry officer aid not follow the principles of natural justice and that he abruptly closed the enquiry without providing the opportunity to the CSE to examine him and his witness is bereft of any merit . In the cross examination by the learned advocate appearing for the second party it is elicited that he received the charge sheet as per Ex. M16 as well as the notice issued bythe enquiry officer on 11-11-1993 as per Ex.M17 and as he did not appear on that day he was again served with notics dated 21-11-2003 to appear on 2-12-2003 as per Ex . M18 and that he submitted a letter to the enquiry officer expressing his intention to engage Shri Prabhakara Shetty to defend him as per Ex. M19 and he was allowed and that hisDefence Representative submitted a letter to the enquiry officer dated 20-07-2004 as per Ex.20 seeking time and another letter by him as per Ex.M21 dated 21-01-2004 and that time was granted, thereby absolutely I find there being any denial of fair and proper opportunity to the first party to defend in the enquiry.
5. Since it is a reference made on the individual dispute raised by the workman against the punishment of bringing to lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages there is no scope for this tribunal under Section 11 A ofthe ID. Act to consider the legality or otherwise of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority regarding punishment. In this regard it is relevant to refer to the decision cited by the learned advocate appearing for the second party reported in ILR 2011 KAR 2037 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held ' Section 11 A of the Act gives power to the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal to reappraise the evidence adduced in the enquiry and reconsider the decision of the employer in the matter of imposing punishment . The provision under Section 11 A of the Act is applicable only in the case of punishment of dismissal or discharge of a workman' . Therefore , as rightly urged on behalf of the second party when the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first party is held as fair and proper
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) )
there being no scope for this tribunal to interfere in the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, the reference is liable to be rejected at this juncture only without proceeding to hear the parties on merits of the enquiry findings or the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
6.In the result 1 pass the following Order: ORDER
The Preliminary Issue is answered in the affirmative holding that the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first party by the second party is fair proper and the reference is rejected on the ground that there is no scope for this tribunal under Section 11 A of the ID Act to reappraise the evidence adduced in the enquiry and reconsider the decision of the employer in the matter imposing punishment on a individual dispute raised by workman . This order shall be forwarded to the Ministry for publication.
(Dictated PA transcribed by her corrected and signed byme on 9-2-2012) .
S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
Annexure CR NO . 48/2007 .
List ofwitnesses for the Management/Second Party
1. Shri N. Balasubramanyam , Enquiry Officer MWI
List of documents marked for the Second Party 1 Management
1. Copy of the charge sheet dated 27-09-2003 Ex. Ml
Ex. M2 2. Letter of first party dated 13-10-2003 addressed to AGM
Ex . M3 3. Copy of the order appointing the enquiry officer
Ex .M4 4. Copy of the Order appointing the PresentingOfficer
Ex.M5 5. Copy of enquiry notice dated 10-11-2003 fixing the date of 1 st day of enquiry on 21-11-2003 .
Ex .M6 6. Original enquiry proceedings
Ex. M7 7. Original written submission of the Presenting Officer dated 18-03-2004.
Ex.M8 8. Original written submission dated 05-04-2004 of the Defence Representative .
Ex . M9 9. Original enquiry findings dated 22-05-2004 ofthe enquiry officer with covering letter dated 22-05-2004.
Ex. M10 10. Original list of documents .
Ex. Mli 11. Documents produced in the enquiry-30 documents exhibited for the management as BEX- I to BEX- 30 .
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
2947
Ex.M12
New Delhi , the 7th March , 2012 12. Copy of the show cause notice dated 22-09-2004
Ex. M13
13. Copy of the order dated 2-11-2004 ofthe Disciplinary Authority with covering letter dated 2-11-2004.
Ex. M14
14. Original Appeal of the first party dated 23-11-2004.
Ex. MIS
S.O. 1221.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.290/ 2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court - 1 , Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 6-3-2012.
15. Copy of Order ofAppellate Authority date 11-01-2005 .
[No. L-41014/01 /2012 - IR ( B - 1 ) ]
Ex. M16
RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer ANNEXURE
16. Letter of the first party addressed to the Assistant General Manager , SBM dated 21-08-2003 w..r.f to AGM letter dated 11-08-2003 .
Ex . MI7
BEFORE Dr. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX : DELHI
I.D.No.290/2011
17. Letter dated 10-11-2003 issued by Shri N. Balasubramanyam , Enquiry Officer to the first party regarding date of preliminary hearing on 21 November 2003 .
Ex.M18
Shri Dinesh Kumar Through Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh , B-40, Bulwerd Road, TisHazari , Delhi .
Workman 18. Letter dated 21-11-2003 issued by Shri N. Balasubramanyam, Enquiry Officer to the first party regarding adjournment ofenquiry on 2 December 2003 .
Versus
Ex.M19
1. The Manager, Northern Railway, Sarai Rohila , NewDelhi .
19. Letter addressed to the enquiry officer dated 2-12-2003 by the first party regarding appointment of Defence Representative Shri S.K. Prabhakar Shetty.
Ex. M20
20. Letter addressed to the enquiry officer by the Defence Representative , Shri S.K. Prabhakar Shetty regarding his inability to attend the enquiry proceedings on 22nd January, 2004.
2. M/ s . Peyush Traders . Shop No. 6, Devgiri Apprt .. A-Wing, Atmaram nagar , Behind Janta Sahkari Bank . LokGram , Kalyan (East) . Mumbai -421306
Management
Ex.M21
AWARD
21. Letter dated 21-01-2004 addressed to Enquiry Officer by the first party regarding inability to attend the enquiry on 22-01-2004.
List ofwitnesses for the First Party
WW1
1. Shri Madavraj Urs , First Party
List ofdocuments marked for the First Party Nil नई दिल्ली , 7 मार्च, 2012
का.आ. 1221.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 290/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को6-3-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-41014/01/2012- आई आर ( बी- I ) ]
रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
Claim statement was filed on behalf of Shri Dinesh Kumar son of Sh . Nageshwar Chaudhary, alleging therein that he joined services with Northern Railway. Sarai Rohila. New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the manageinent ) as coach attendant , through M / s Peyush Traders ( hereinafter referred to as the Contractor ) on 17-2-2009 . He worked diligently and honestly with the management . His last drawn wages were Rs . 70001- per month . He never gave any chance of complaint to the management . Benefits such as appointment letter, attendance card , wages in a scale pay, leaves , ESI benefits . Provident fund , bonus and overtime allowance were not accorded to him. He was made towork twelve hours per day without payment of overtime wages.Hiswages from January 2010 to June 2010 were not paid. He felt financial difficulties and as suchraised demand for payment of his wages and other allowances . Neither hiswages for the aforesaid period nor overtime allowance was paid to him. Since he raised demand for payment ofhis wages and overtime allowances it irked the ragement . Hisservices were dispensed with in an illegeinarer on [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 2948
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012/CHAITRA 11 , 1934
New Delhi , the 9th March , 2012 23-6-2010 . Neither notice nor pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was paid to him .
S.O. 1222.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.CGITA of 1131/20047 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers inrelation tothe management of Sr. Superintendent ofPost , Rajkot Division , Rajkot and their workmen, which wasreceived by the Central Government on 09-03-2012 .
[No. L-40012/ 151 / 1997 - IR (DU) ] 2. It was alleged on behalf of the claimant that on 3-9-2011 , he filed a claim statement before the Conciliation Officer . Notices were issued to the management , as well as the Contractor . They opted not to appear before the Conciliation Officer.. Action of the management in terminating his services , is violative of the Provisions of Section 25F, 25G, and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (in short the Act ) . He claims that he may be reinstated with services of management with continuity and full back wages .
RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR, AHMEDABAD
3. The claim statement was filed under the provisions of sub - section (2 of section 2 of the Act . The claimant projected that a period of 45 days stood expired from the date of his illing a claim statement/ application before the Conciliation Officer , Sub - section (2 ) of section 2A of the Act , empowers a claimant to raise his dispute before this Tribunal in case of discharge , dismissal , retrenchment or otherwise termination of his services , without a dispute being referred by the appropriate Govt . under sub- section (1) of the section 10 of the Act . In view of these facts , this deemed reference was entertained by this Tribunal.
Present Binay Kumar Sinha , Presiding Officer , CGIT cum Labour Court , Ahmedabad, Dated 17th Feb.2012
Reference: CGITA of 1131/2004
Reference: ITC, 38/2007 ( old)
The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices , Rajkotdivision, Rajkot-360001. ... First Party 4.Notice ofthis deemed reference and claim statement was sent to the management as well the Contractor . Notice . sent to the management was received back with the report that no officer with the designation of manager is there with the management . Claimant was called upon to give properdesignation and address of the employer within the meaning of clause ( g ) of section 2 of the Act . Instead of giving designation and address of his employer , the claimant abandoned the proceedings with effect from 14-9-2011.
...Second Party
And their workman Shri RasulMohammed Sipai , Village: Dhuva, Tal : Wankaner, Distt-Rajkot , Dhuva - 363622 .
For the first party Shri P.M. Rami , Assistant Government Pleader
5. Claimant opted to abstain from the proceedings since 14-9-2011 . He abandoned the proceedings for good. It is evident that the claimant had opted not to prosecute his grievances against the management and the Contractor. Thus it seems that now there remain no dispute between the claimant and the management as well as the Contractor . Ano dispute awarded is , accordingly , passed . It be sent to the appropriate Govt . for publication .
For the second party: None
Dr. R.K. YADAV , Presiding Officer
AWARD
नई दिल्ली , 9 मार्च , 2012
का.आ. 1222.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सीनियर सुपारेन्डेट आफ पोस्ट , राजकोट डिवीजन , राजकोट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय कारऔद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी.ए. आफ 1131/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 09-03-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-40012/151/ 1997- मईआर ( डी.यू.) ]
Onbeing terminated from the service by the first party Senior Superintendent of Post Offices , Rajkot regarding provisional appointment , the workman Shri Rasul Mohammed Sipai raised dispute before the conciliation officer, where upon the conciliation officer sent failure report to the Government and consequently the appropriate government considering Industrial Dispute exhisting between the employer in relation to the management of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices , Rajkot and their workman referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal , Rajkot in exercise ofpowers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) of section ( 10) of the रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
2949
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 , formulating the terms of reference as follows under the schedule .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices , Rajkot Division Rajkot in terminating the services of Sh. Rasul Mohammed Sipai is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. Notices were sent to the parties ' for submitting their pleadings statement of claim and written statement withdocuments . Consequently the party - workman second party submitted his statement of claim at Ext . 2 with list of document at Ext . 4 regarding his provisional appointment order dated 24-12-1992 . His case is that he was engaged as EDBPM (Extra Departmental Branch Post Master) at Village Dhuva, Branch office Vakaner from 18-12-1992 and was allowed to continue in the employment up to 06-10-1995 . Since thereafter his service was terminated without following rules and without compliance of Section 25 (f) of the ID Act , 1947. He approached to the Officials of the department requesting to permit and engage him on the work but he was not given any work . Further case is that junior persons to him were continued in the department whereas his services was terminated and so the management ofPost Office have violated the provisions of Section 25 (g) of the ID Act. Further case is that even though he was old face but he was not recalled and reengaged by the management of Post Office. Whereas fresh persons were appointed at many other branches of Post Offices and sub Post office after termination of his service and so the management of post office has also violated the provision ofSection 25 ( H ) of the ID Act. On these grounds prayer hasbeen made todeclare his termination from service illegal , ineffective , null and void . Further prayer for his reinstatement with back wages and for other relief to which he may be found entitled .
3. Disputing to the statement of claim of the workman, the first party in his written statement at Ext. 8 pleaded interallia that the details and facts of the claim statement of the workman are not true and correct , the workman has no cause of action and this reference is not maintainable . Further admitting para one of the statement ofclaim regarding provisional appointment of the workman as EDBPM Dhuva branch post office from 18-12-1992 to 05-10-1995 . In this respect contention of the first party is that the workman was engaged in terms of memo No. B2/ 25/ Dhuva/92 dated 24-12-1992 and 10-03-1992 that provisional appointment is tenable till the disciplinary proceeding against Shri M.M. Pandya the permanent , EDBPM , Dhuva who was working since 05-07-1981 are finally disposed off and he had exhausted all channes of departmental and judicial appeals and petitions etc. and in case it is finally decided not to take Shri M.M. Pandya back into service and till regular appointment is made. Further contention is that there was condition in the provisional appointment order of the workman that even if it isdecided to take Shri M.M. Pandya back into service , the provisional appointment will be terminated without notice and also that the management of Superintendent of PostOffice of Rajkot reserves the right to terminate the provisional appointment at any time before period given to the second party ( workman ) , without notice and without assigning any reason and that these conditions were accepted by the second party workman . And so , the question of termination of services of second party does not arise and provision of Section 25 ( F) ID Act , is not applicable . It has been further submitted that no fresh or new person were appointed on the post of EDBPM, Dhuva since Shri M.M. Pandya a regular and permanent EDBPM has been taken back on service as he was put off from duties due to some disciplinary proceeding and so there is no question in violation of provision of Section 25 (G) or 25 (H). On these scores prayer has been made to dismissed the reference since the second party workman is not entitled to get any relief. Subsequently the case record was transferred from the State Industrial Court Rajkot to State Industrial Court Ahmedabad from where fresh notices were issued to the parties . But the second party workman did not appear. Subsequently the case record received on transfer from the court of Industrial Court Ahmedabad to thisTribunal on 26-11-2010 and again fresh notices were issued to the parties at Ext . 10 from this tribunal . In response to the notice the first party management of Post Office appeared through its retained lawyer Shri P.M. Rami , Assistant Government Pleader by filing fresh Vakalatnama atExt . 11. But the second party workman did not appear in spite of notices . The second party workman appears to have lost interest in this reference case to carryon . On behalf of the first party a pursis has been filed at Ext. 12 praying for passing necessary order in this reference since the second party workman has lost interest.
5. Since the second party workman has lost interest and is not interested to carry on with reference case and so the terms of reference as per schedule is answered that the action of the management of Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Rajkot Division , Rajkot in terminating the service ofShri Rasul Mohammed Sipai is legal and justified . Itistherefore,
ORDERED
That this reference case is dismissed for non - prosecution bythe second party workman . This is my award let copies of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.
BINAY KUMAR SINHA , Presang Officer
नई दिल्ली , 9 मार्च, 2012
का.आ. 1223.-औद्योगिक विवाद अर्धिन. 1947 (1947
का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीयनल मैनजर
बी.एस.एन.एल. , अलवर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबऔर उनके 2950
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012/CHAITRA 11 , 1934
कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या केस न 07/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-3-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-40012/ 110/2005- आईआर ( डी.यू.) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 9th March, 2012
S.O. 1223. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.07/ 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of General Manager , BSNL, Alwar and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 9-3-2012 .
[No. L -40012/ 110/2005 - IR (DU) ] RAMESH SISNGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
PRESENT
N.K.PUROHIT, PRESIDING OFFICER
Case No. 7/2007
Reference No.L- 40012/ 110/2005 - IR( DU) dt . 9-1-2007
Shri Suresh Chand Through Shri Devi Sahai Saini Friends Sweet Home , Road No.2 , Pratapwas,Alwar. V/s The General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Alwar.
AWARD 10-1-2012
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause ( d) of Sub- section 1 & 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication: -
"Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Alwar in terminating the services of their workman Shri Suresh Chand Sharma w.e.f. 21-1-92 is legal and justified ? If not , to what reliefthe workman is entitled to and from which date ?"
2. The workman in his statement of claim has pleaded thatduring years 1989-90, 1990-91 , & 1991-92 , he has worked
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]
as daily wager under the employment of non - applicant for 46, 288 & 10 days respectively. He has further pleaded that he has worked for more than 240 days during said period but in spite ofthis his services have been terminated on 21-2-1992 without any notice or pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation . He has also pleaded that after termination of his services fresh hands have been recruited by the management.
3. In reply, the management has denied the claim of the workman . It has been averred that the workman has not worked for 240 days in any calendar year . The certificate produced by the workman regarding his working days is forged & in this regard a complaint was also lodged against the workman in the police station , Alwar. It has further been averred that no junior to the workman was given appointment in violation of Section 25 - H of the 1.D.Act . The appointments given wer. only against the backlog posts of SC/ST.
4. In rejoinder, the work has denied that certificate produced by him is a forgedument & that he himself had left the service .
5. The workman has submitted his affidavit in support of his claim . The management has submitted the counter affidavits of management witnesses Sh.Om Prakash Sharma , S.D.E & Sh . B.S.Chaudhary, SDO , Telephones .
6. In documentary evidence the workman has produced documents Ex - 1 to Ex - 8 & the management has produced document Ex - M - 1 in support of their respective case .
7. Heard learned representatives on behalf of both the parties & perused the relevant record .
8. In view of the rival pleadings of both the sides the following questions crop up for consideration: -
i . Whether the workman has worked for at least 240 daysduring preceding 12 months from the alleged date of termination & whose services were terminated in violation of Section 25 - F of the Act ?
ii . Whether junior to the workman were retained at the time of his termination ?
iii . Whether fresh hands were given recruitment without any offer of reemployment to the workman , in violation of Section 25 - H of the I.D. Act?
iv. To what relief the workman is entitled to ? Point No. I
9. The workman in his statement has deposed that he was engaged in the month of December , 89 in the office of non - applicant at Alwar but his services have been terminated on 21-1-92 without any notice or compensation in lieu of notice . He has further deposed that he has worked for more than 240 days during preceding 12 months from 2951
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012 /चैत्र 11 , 1934
[ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
both the sides reveals that the workman has worked for following working days during period 89 to 92: - the date ofhis termination & his total working days during period from December , 89 to January, 92 were 344 days .
Year
Working days
46
1989-90
288
1990-91
10
1991-92
344
Total working days
10. In support of his statement the workman has produced documents Ex-2 & Ex -4. Ex-2 is a certificate said to be issued by S.D.O. , Telegraph , Alwar Sh . B.L.Arora . As per said certificate his total working days during period December , 89 to January, 92 are 344 days only. Ex - 3 letter dated 27-8-05 is a letter of S.D.O.T. , Alwar whereby information regarding working days of the workman was furnished to GMTD, Alwar. Ex - 4 is a provisional seniority list of casual workers wherein 344 working days have been shown against the name of the workman.
11. Controverting it , the management witness Sh . O.P.Sharma , SDE , has stated that workman did not work for more than 240 days in any calendar year. He has further stated that the alleged signature of Sh . B.L.Arora onEx -2 certificate is forged & in this regard a complaint Ex- M- 1 was also lodged against the workman in the police station , Alwar. But he has admitted his signature on the letterEx-3.
12. Management witness Sh . B.S.Chaudhary, SDO, Telephones has also deposed that certificate Ex - W - 2 is a forged document . It does not bears signature of Sh . B.L.Arora. But he has 5 also admitted that letter Ex- W-3 bears signature of Sh . O.P.Sharma, S.D.E.
17. To attract the provisions of Section 25 - F of I.D.Act one of the conditions required is that the workman is employed in any industry for a continuous period which would not be less than one year. Under sub - clause ( 1 ) of the Section 25 -F , if a workman has put in uninterrupted service of establishment including the service which may interrupted on account of sickness , authorize leave , accident , a strike which is not illegal, a lock out or secession of work that is not due to any fault on the part of the workman shall be said to be in continuous service for one year i . e . 12 months in respect of number of days he has actually worked with interrupted service permissible under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 25 ( B). 18. It is not the case of the workman that he was in continuous service of the non- applicant for one year within the meaning of Section ( 1 ) of Section 25 (B ) of the I.D.Act . Thus , the scope of enquiry is now confined to only 12 months preceding the date of termination to consider the questions whether the case of theworkman falls under sub section (2) of Section 25 (8 ) & attract the provisions under Section 25 - F of I.D.Act . Section 25 (B )( 2 ) says that even if a workman has not been in continuous service for a period of one year as envisaged under sub section ( 1 ) of25 (B ) of I.D.Act, he shall be deemed to have been in such continuous service for a period of one year if he has actually worked under the employer for 240 days in preceding period of twelve months from the date of his termination .
13. The learned representative on behalf of the workman has contended that the management has not produced Sh. B.L. Arora to disprove his signature on the certificate Ex -W- 2 . Letter Ex -3 is an admitted document by the management witness . As per said letter the workman had worked for 288 days during period 90 to 91. It is an admitted fact by the management that no notice or retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman. Therefore , the termination of the workman was in violation ofSection 25 - F of the I.D.Act . In this regard , he has relied on 1976 LLJ (S.C. ) 478 .
19. In present matter , as per pleadings in the claim statement & documents relied upon by the workman he has worked for 288 days during period 1990-91 & during period 1991-92 he has worked for 10 days only. To attract the provisions of Section 25 - F ofthe 1. D.Act relevant period isonly preceding 12 months from the date ofhis termination i.e. from 21-1-1991 to 21-1-1992 . It is evident from the document Ex-W-3 relied onby the workman himself that he has worked during 21-1-1991 to March, 1991 & 10days during January, 1992. It is also evident that the workman has not worked for more than 240 days during preceding 12 months from the date of his termination i.e. 21.1.1992 . Thus , the workman has failed to establish that his termination was in violation of Section 25 - F ofthe I.D.Act .
14. Per contra , the learned representative for the I have given my thoughtful consideration on the rival management has submitted that the certificate produced by the workman is a forged document . He has also submitted that on the basis of his oral & documentary evidence the workman has failed to establish that he has worked for 240 days during preceding 12 months fromthe date of his termination. He has further submitted that no appointment letter was ever given to the workman . The workman was engaged on contract basis & after ' efflux of period of contract the workman had left the service. Therefore , provisions of Section 25 - F of the I.D. Act are not attracted.
15. I have given my thoughtful consideration on the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties .
20. In decision 1976 LLJ ( S.C . ) 478 referred to by the learned representative for the workman Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the workman swims into the harbor of Section 25 - F, he cannot be retrenched without payment at the time of retrenchment compensation as prescribed 16. Letter Ex - w - 3 which is an admitted document by 2952.
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 31 , 2012/CHAITRA 11 , 1934
[PART II -SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
therein read with Section 25 (B) (2) . But in instant case the workman has failed to prove that he has been in continuous service for a period of one year as envisaged under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 25(8 ) ofthe 1. D.Act . Therefore, the learned representative for the workman does not derive any assistance from the decision supra. Thus, this point is decided against the workman .
and outsider . Further directions were given for maintaining the register of casual labourer containing the period of service rendered by them & their engagement were to be done in accordance with the said register & regularization was to be done after compliance of requisite period in accordance with scheme prepared for the purpose of regularization of Casual Labourer in the department .
Point No. II
26. The workman has deposed in his affidavit that as per aforementioned directions of the CAT the management has not given any preference to him while recruiting fresh hands .
21. The workman in his claim statement has pleaded thatjuruor to him were working at the time of his termination. The workman in his affidavit has not deposed that at the time of his termination any junior to him was retained . There is no documentary or oral evidence in support of above pleadings . Thus , the workman has failed to establish any violation of Section 25 -G of the I.D.Act.
Point No.III.
27. Controverting the evidence of the workman , the management witness Sh . B.S.Chaudhary has stated that there is complete ban for engagement of the casual labourer. He has also stated that the CAT did not give any specific directions regarding appointment of the workman .
22. The learned representative for the workman has contended that services of the workman were terminated on 21.1.1992 & thereafter directions were given by the CAT, Principle Bench, Delhi vide order dated 9.9.1992 (Ex- 5) In O.A. 746/92 to give appointment as per seniority register of the casual labour which was to be maintained by the non - applicant . He has further contended that in provisional seniority list of casual labourer dated 30.9.1992 ( Ex-4 ) the name of the workman is at S.No. 9 but the management did not give him appointment as per his seniority & after termination ofthe services ofthe workman fresh hands have been recruited whose working days were less than the working days of the workman.
28. The workman has produced copy of the provisional seniority list Ex-w -4 dated 30.9.1992 . The name ofthe workman finds at sl.no. 9 in the said list. He has also produced photo copies of the documents Ex - w - 6 to Ex - w- 7. Ex- W- 6 is the copy of the reply filed by the non - applicant before A.L.C. ( C ) , Jaipur. It has been stated in the said reply that casual laboueres have not been recruited by the department & after directions of the CAT, no casual labour has been engaged . Only persons belonging to SC/ ST have been appointed in a special drive to fulfill their backlog posts after obtaining list of the candidates from employment exchange . EX- W- 7 order dated 27.3.1988 pertains to appointment of Mahendrapal Singh as daily wager in compliance of the award of the CGIT dated 28.7.1997 . Ex- W-8 dated 27.1.1997 is an order pertaining to selected candidates of SC / ST as regular mazdoor & safaiwala.
23. Controverting the above contentions , it has been submitted on behalf ofthe learned representative for the management that there is complete ban on the appointment of casual labour in the non - applicant establishment. No junior to the workman was given appointment . Only persons belonging to SC/ST were given appointment against the backlog post of SC/ST after obtaining a list from Employment exchange , therefore , there is no violation of provisions u/s 25 - H of the I.D.Act .
29. The workman in his claim statement & affidavit has not disclosed the name of persons allegedly given appointment in violation of Section 25 -H of the I.D.Act . In his cross examination he has stated that Sh. Ramavatar, Sh . Ramesh , Smt . Santa Devi & Sh. Mahendra Pal & Sh . Bannilal were given employment after termination of his services .
24. I have given my thoughtful consideration on the above submissions .
30.Upon perusal of the provisional list Ex- 4 it is evident that Ramavatar, Ramesh Chand & Savita Devi were senior to the workman & their working days were also not less than the working days of the workman shown against his name. Further they have not been given appointment videorder Ex - 8 dated 27-1-97 . So far as Mahendrapal Singh isconcerned his appointment has been given in compliance ofthe award of the tribunal vide order Ex - 7 . The name of the Bannelal is mentioned at sl.no. 21 but he has not been given appointment as regular mazdoor vide order Ex- 8 dated 27-1-1997 .
31. To attract the provisions of Section 25 -H , the workman should have been retrenched & such retrenchment should be from the same category of service in the establishment in which the fresh hands have been 25. In O.A. No.746/92 before principle bench of the CAT, Delhi the appointments of casual labourer were made in Telecom Department . It was stated on behalf of the applicant therein that the applicants who were disengaged from service have worked from 2 to 9 months in the year 1989 to 1991. They have , however, not completed 240 days ofservice & it was contended on behalf ofthe respondents therein that there is no work in their office for which the applicants could be accommodated & no junior to the applicants is working in their office . In above factual backdrop vide order dated 9.9.1992 directions were given in the said O.A. to consider the case of the applicants in casethe management needs the services ofCasual Labourer & in preference to persons with lesser length of service 2953
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
recruited. Re -employment within the meaning of Section 25 -H imports the significance of taking back a retrenched workman in the same category to which he belongs .
32. It is an admitted case of the workman that at the time oftermination he was working as a casual labour. The workman in his cross - examination has admitted that the persons whose names have been mentioned in the order Ex-W- 8 -were given appointments against the backlog posts ofSC/ ST. Upon perusal of the order Ex- W- 8 , it reveals that appointments to the persons mentioned in the list were given as regular Mazdoor not as casual worker . It further reveals that all the persons who were given appointments vide Ex - 8 after holding interview on 24-1-97 belongs to SC/ ST Category. It is not the case of the workman that he was entitled to be appointed as regular labourer against the backlog posts of SC/ST.
33. For the forgoing reasons provisions of Section 25-H the I.D. Act are not attracted in the present matter. Accordingly, this point is also decided against the workman
34. Since , as per conclusions drawn in respect of point no. I, II & III , the workman has failed to prove any violation ofsection 25 -F, G & H of the I.D. Act , the alleged action of the non -applicant is not illegal & unjustified. Resultantly, the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
35. Award as above .
36. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication u/s 17 ( 1 ) ofthe I.D.Act .
N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 9 मार्च, 2012
का.आ. 1224.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कमानडेन्ट, ए. उ.र. डी. ई. पाश्न , पुणे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय , पुणे के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 345/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-3-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -14012/ 11 / 2003- आई आर ( डी यू) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 9th March, 2012
S.O. 1224. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 345/ 2003) of Labour Court, Pune as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Commandant ARDE , PASHAN , Pune and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 9-3-2012.
[No. L- 14012/ 11 /2003 - IR ( DU) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER THIRD LABOUR COURT, PUNE
Reference ( IDA) No. 345/2003
The Commandant
...FirstParty ARDE, PASHAN , Pune 411008 AND
Shri . Karna Vinayak Swami C/o . M. V. Swamy Ashtvinayak Apartment 25/2 , A/ 1 , Flat No. 2 Tuljabhavani Nagar GuravPimple Pune 411 027
...Second Party
Coram
: Shri D. D. Kamble
Appearances : Mr Salvi -Govt . Pleader for FirstParty Mr. S. S. Khare-Adv . for Second Party
AWARD
(Delivered on this 21st day of February, 2011 )
1. This reference has been referred to this Court by Government of India, Ministry of Labour,, New Delhi under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .
2. The Second Party has filed statement of claim at Exh . 6 in this reference . He has contended that the First Party Armament Research Development Establishment , Pune is a Central Government Establishment . Huge staff is engaged for running of the said establishment , and to facilitate the said staff employees , a canteen is run by said establishment at their place at Pashan , Pune . The canteen is named as AROMI i.e. Armanent Officer's Mess and Institute . There are 25 employees employed at the mess . Hewasworking there as a waiter -cum -helper since January 1993 till the date of his termination on 23-12-2001 .
3. The First Party has terminated his services orally on 23-12-2001 . He requested the First Party to reinstate him. However, his request was not considered . Therefore , he raised an industrial dispute at the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner , ( Central ) Pune and sought intermission in the said dispute . Conciliation proceedings were held there, but no positive response was given by the First Party, so that the conciliation ended in faillure .
4. He was working with First Party continuously from January 1993 as a waiter- cum- helper . He was getting monthly salary of Rs . 1500. His name was entered on the muster roll ofthe First Party. He was working at the best of his ability and to the satisfaction of his superiors ; He worked there for 9 years continuously and honestly.
2954
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 31 , 2012/CHAITRA 11 , 1934
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
Yes
2. Does he proves that his oral termination w.e.f. 23-12-2001 is
illegal?
Yes
3. Whether he is entitled to the reliefs prayed for?
4. What award ?
Asperfinal order
REASONS
HISSUENO.1:
5. On 23-12-2001 he went to resume on his duties in usual manner . He was not allowed to work by Mess President Mr. Vijay Prabhu Brigadier ARDE and Mr. Parmal told him that his services were terminated . They did not give any reason of termination. Afterwards , he went there for joining on duty, for couple of days , but he was not allowed to resume on duty. The First Party has not given him termination letter, notice or notice pay, compensation , and other legal dues , were not paid to him . The seniority list of the employees working with the First Party was not displayed . He was not paid wages of December 2001. As such , his termination is illegal , and it amounts to retrenchment .
The Second Party has filed his affidavit of examination in chief at Exh . 10. He has examined one witness at Exh . 14. The said witness has produced on record documents at Exh . 15 to 18 so as to prove employer- employee relationship between First party and Second party.
6. He is suffering hardship , due to his termination . He is unable to maintain himself. Therefore , he has prayed thathis termination of services , be declared as illegal and unjustified and First Party be directed to reinstate him with full back wages and continuity of service .
12.TheOfficer of the First Party S. S. Kulkarni has filed his affidavit at Exh . 20. He has produced on record various documents along, vith his affidavit, which he has marked at Exh .A to K. These documents are xerox copies .
7. The First Party has resisted this reference by filing written statement at Exh . 7. According to First Party, this reference is not tenable . The contentions raised by First Party in this reference are vague . Second Party has suppressed material facts of his employment . He has not come before this Court with clean hands , so that this reference deserves to be dismissed .
13. After careful scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties at the outset it is noticed that , this reference was decided exparte on 29-3-2006 as per Award Exh . 12 by my pre decessor. After that it has been restored .
8. The Armament Officer's Mess and Insti.ution (AROMI ) is self accounting unit , and its employees are not Government servants . This fact has been suppressed by Second party. Second party is employee of AROMI . He has admitted said fact , in his application dated 13-1-2002. As such, he is claiming wrong relief against First party. Second Party is not employee of First Party. He has falsely filed this reference .
14. The officer of the Second Party has stated that FirstParty is a Central Government Establishnlent . It has no concern with working of the Second party. The Second party was working with AROMI . It is purely an officers club managed by the committee of the officers . The First . Party has no responsibility in respect of the employees employed by Armament Officer's Mess and Institute (AROMI) . The Officer club is run by Officers from their owncontribution . The club is run by Committee of officers . The First Party has no control over the functioning of the club . The engagement termination of the employee of the club isdone by officers of the club .
9. Second Party has raised dispute about his services rendered in AROMI . As such , First Party has no comment on that pleading. Second Party is not employee of First Party. There is no employee - employer relationship between Second Party and First Party . Second Party was not appointed on any vacancy of First Party. No appointment letter was issued to him . Hence , this reference deserves to be dismissed . One recognised union in respect of same undertaking has applied that Second party was never an employee of First Party . Therefore , question of his reinstatement does not arise . Accordingly, First Party has prayed to reject this reference .
10. In view ofthe rival contentions of the parties , my learned pre- decessor has framed following issues at Exh.9 . I have recorded my findings against them , with reasons herein after discussed as under:
15.Admittedly Second Party is engaged by officers club , which is known as Armament Officer's Mess and Institute ( AROMI ) . He has also stated in respect of various documentsat Exh . A to K. These are letters written by Second Party to Labour Commissioner, letter written by Director of First Party to President of. Mess Committee , letter written by Asstt . Labour Commissioner to First Party Commandant , second letter written by First Party to Labour Commissioner. These documents are relating to correspondence between first party and Labour Commissioner. The Judgment of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal is filed on record at Exh.K.
ISSUES
FINDINGS
Yes
1. Does Second Party established the employee- employer relationship?
16. In view of these documents and evidence of First Party, it is noticed that officers of the First Party knows Second Party workman . Second Party was working in Armament Officer's Mess a " nd Institute ( AROMI ) as a [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 , 1934
2955
waiter. Residential accommodation was given to him by FirstParty. It abdantly proves that Armament Officer's Mess and Institute (AROMI ) is run by Officers of the First Party. It is their club ..They manage said club from the contribution of the Officers. It proves functional integrity between officers of First Party and their club - cum- mess which is called as Armament Officer's Mess and Institute (AROMI) . The accommodation was given to Second Party by First Party. It proves that First Party has admitted status of Second Party as an employee of the Armament Officer's Mess and Institute (AROMI ) which is run by Officers of the first Party. The employees of the AROMI are not workers of the Central Government, but the officers of the First Party have appointed them .
(AROMI) are two different institutions . He was getting payment from Armament Officer's Mess and Institute (AROMI). However, that Armament Officer's Mess and Institute ( AROMI ) is run by Officers of First Party. Therefore, though First Party and Armament Officer's Mess and Institute (AROMI ) are different institution, there is some connection between them because Armament Officer'sMess and Institute (AROMI ) is mess of officers of First Party. The First Party has not given appointment letter to Second Party. On that ground, it cannot be held thatFirst Party has no connection with Armament Officer's Mess and Institute (AROMI ) and as such Second Party is not employee of First Party. The contention of the First Party to that effect is not acceptable.
21. The Second Party has examined one witness at Exh . 14 - Mr. Vitthal Pandit Khandale . He has stated in his affidavit at Exh . 14 that he was working with Armament Officer'sMess and Institute (AROMI ) , run by First Party as a waiter . The Second Party was also working with him. Hewas given Government Family quarter, Medical benefits for his family by First Party, and mess of the First Party is only for defence officer.
17. The witness of the First Party has admitted that Brigadier Vijay Prabhu and R. Perumal terminated services of Second Party by oral order. He has also admitted that First Party runs Mess for the Pashan Defence Offices . Those who are in defence establishment are permitted in saidMess. Only Officers of the First Party are permitted to take advantage of the Mess . This version of the witness of the First Party abudantly proves employee employer relationship of Second Party with First Party.
18.He has further admitted in para 1 of cross examination that officers of First Party look after , management of Armament Officer's Mess and Institute (AROMI ) with other officers . This witness has not produced constitution and rules of AROMI . He has not produced names of executive committee of AROMI . So also he has not produced documentary evidence to show that officers of the First Party are having contribution in respect of AROMI . In view of oral testimony of witness of First Party, it can be very well inferred that the AROMI is runby -First Party where Second Party was working. The Officers of First Party look after AROMI , which is Officers Mess and Club . Therefore , it cannot be held that there is no employer - employee relationship between First Party and Second Party.
22.He has produced on record , documents at Exh .15, wherein it has been mentioned , that Vitthal Pandit Khandale was serving for last 5 years as supervisor in Armament Officer'sMess and Institute ( AROMI) managed by jointly HEMRL and ARDE . This letter mentions at top name of Government of India , Ministry of Defence. It is dated 1-7-98 . This letter proves that First Party and Armament Officer's Mess and Institute (AROMI ) are interlinked institutions . This letter is signed for Director, High Energy Material Research Lab , Sutarwadi Pune . The second letter atExh . 16 dated 4-8-2000 shows that it is written by First Party to its officer Mr. D.S. Thorat due to his absency from Armament Officer's Mess and Institute ( AROMI ) . It proves that First Party and Armament Officer's Mess and Institute (AROMI ) is having functional integrity and therefore , it can be very well held that Second Party was working with FirstParty. The letter Exh . 17 dated 26-3-1996 shows that it was written by PMC , AROMI to Directors ARDE Pashan and HEMRL Sutarwadi for renovation of canteen of Armament Officer's Mess , and Institute ( AROMI ) and list of items to be purchased is produced on record is at Exh . 18.
19. The First Party has given residential accommodation to Second Party, because Second Party was working in AROMI which is Officers mess , and that Messisrun by First Party, for its defence officers at Pashan Pune. This very admission , of the witness , of the Second Party abudantly proves that there was employee - employer relationship between Second Party and First Party. The documents produced by this witness alongwith this affidavit do not prove that Second Party has no connection of any nature with First Party.
23. These documents and evidence of witness of Second Party at Exh 14 proves that , there was employer - employee relationship , between First Party and Second Party. This witness has categorically stated in his cross examination para 1 Exh . 14 that documents filed at Exh . 15 to 18 are documents which would show that both institutions are one and the same i.e. ARDE Pune and Armament Officer's Mess and Institute ( AROMI ) . It proves that there is employee - employer relationship between Second Party and First Party.
20. It is revealed from the evidence of Second Party that he was working with First Party from January 1993 , as waiter cum helper, till 23.12.2001 . On that day Brigadier Vijay Prabhu and R. Perumal of the First Party terminated services of Second Party. According to Second Party, the First Party and Armament Officer's Mess and Institute THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2012 /CHAITRA 11 , 1934
2956
stated , in his evidence, but nothing has been stated by him about efforts made by him for reemployment after 23.12.2001 . The Advocate for First Party has not cross examined Second Party on the ground of his re- employment. Therefore , Second Party is not entitled for full back wages as claimed by him .
} 24. The Judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal produced on record by First Party which is regarding Khandale is not helpful , to First Party on the ground that there is no employer - employee relationship between First Party and Second Party. That Judgment is given on point of jurisdiction and accordingly claim of the witness of Second Party -Vitthal Pandit Khandale has been dismissed . On that ground, it cannot be held that First Party and Armament Officer's Mess and Institute (AROMI ) have no functional link of any nature . Armament Officer's Mess and Institute (AROMI ) is run by First Party, that has been admitted by witness of First Party. Accordingly it proves employer -employee relationship between First Party and Second Party. Hence I answer Issue No. 1 in affirmative .
25. ISSUE No 2:
29.In fact First Party has illegally terminated services of Second Party, and contended that Second Party was working with Armament Officer's Mess and Institute (AROMI ) and ARDE has no connection with First Party , but evidence on record proves connection of First Party withArmament Officer's Mess and Institute (AROMI ). The First Party has not followed provisions of section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act . Therefore , it would be just and proper to grant 50 % back wages to Second Party due to his illegal oral termination by officer of First Party-Brigadier Vijay Prabhu and R.Perumal . Accordingly, I hold that Second Party is entitled to 50 % back wages with continuity of service . Thus Issue No. 3 is answered in partly affirmative.
The witness of First Party has categorically admitted in his cross examination para 1Exh . 20 that First Party runs mess for Pashan Defence Officer . Brigadier Vijay Prabhu and R. Perumal terminated services of second party by oral oraer. It is revealed from his evidence that officers of First Party look after management of Armament Officer'sMess and Institute (AROMI ) alongwith its office bearer.
26. If this version of witness of First Party is considered alongwith evidence of Second Party , and his witness Exh . 10 and 14 coupled, with documents Exh . 15 to 18, it can be very well held that First Party has illegally terminated services of Second Party, violating provisions of section 25 - F of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. While terminating services of Second Party, who has served with First Party for 9 years , he was not given one months notice inwriting indicating reasons for retrenchment. He was not paid in lieu of notice wages for period of notice . Second Party was also not paid retrenchment compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay. It proves that the services of Second Party were terminated illegally , in contravention of provisions of section 25 - F of IDA . Therefore , that termination is illegal on fact of it Accordingly, his oral termination w.e.f. 23-1-2001 is illegal Hence I answer Issue No.2 in affirmative .
27. ISSUE No 3 :
30.In view of my aforesaid discussions , the evidence on record proves employee - employer relationship , between Second Party and First Party. First Party runs AROMI Defence Officers Canteen . The Officers of First Party have terminated services of Second Party. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for First Party submitted that there is no employee - employer relationship between Second Party and First Party. Second Party was waiter cum helper in Armament canteen. He was not Govermnent servant and employee of First Party. He relied on para 4 , 6, 7 ofwritten statement, and cross examination of Second Patty and his witness Exh . 10 and 14. However , this submission of Assistant Govt. Pleader are not acceptable because witness of Frist Party has admitted that First Party runs mess , for Pashan Defence offices . Only Officers of First Party are permitted to take advantage of mess and ARDE Officers looks after management of Armament Officer'sMess and Institute ( AROMI ) . The documents at Exh 14 to 18 proves connection between First Party and AROMI . Accordingly, this reference deserves to be partly allowed. In the result , I pass following order:
ORDER
1. The reference is partly allowed.
The Second Party has proved abourt his relationship with First Party. The First Party has link with Armanent Officer'sMess and Institute (AROMI ) . The officers of First Party has terminated services of Second Party in contravention of provision of section 25 - F of Industrial DisputesAct , 1947. Therefore , Second Party is entitled for reinstatement .
2. The First Party is directed to reinstate Second Party on his original post , with continuity of service and pay him 50% back wages within two months from the date of this order .
3. No order as to the costs .
Place: Pune
Date: 21-1-2012
28. However , it is revealed from evidence of Second Party that , he has not pleaded specifically in his statement ofclaim that he tried for alternative employment but could not get it . He has only contended in para 4 of statement of claim, that due to loss of employment, he is facing hardship and unable to maintain himself. The same facts has been
D.D. KAMBLE , Presiding Officer [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
2957
भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2012/चैत्र 11 ,1934
नई दिल्ली, 15 मार्च, 2012
2. जबकि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 ( 1 ) ( क ) के अतंर्गत एक्त प्रतिष्ठान को दिनांक 1-10-1990 से छूट प्रदान करते हुए भारत के राजपत्र में अधिसूचना संख्या एस. -35015/56/2007- एसएस -11 दिनांक 29 सितम्बर , 2009 को भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित की गयी है ।
का. आ. 1225. केंद्र सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 यथासंशोधित 1987 के नियम 10 के उपनियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में , श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय के प्रशासकीय नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को जिनके न्यूनतम 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है :-
3. और जबकि अब सरकार के ध्यान में यह आया है कि उक्त प्रतिष्ठान ने दिनांक1-8-2011 से अपनी छूट अभ्यार्पित कर दी है और अब यह कोई कार्यकलाप नहीं कर रहा है ।
उप- क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा निगम , उदयपुर
प्रभागीय कार्यालय , कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा निगम , जोधपुर
4. अतः , अब केन्द्र सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम , की धारा 17 की उपधारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतदद्वारा उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को दी गई छूट को दिनांक 1-8-2011 से रद्द करती है ।
[ सं. ई -11017/ 1 /2006 - रा. भा.नी. ]
चन्द्र प्रकाश , संयुक्त सचिव
[सं. एस-35017/1/2012- एस.एस. - 11 ]
New Delhi , the 15th March , 2012
सुभाष कुमार , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 19th March , 2012 S. O. 1225.- In pursuance of Sub - Rule (4) of Rule 10 ofthe Official Languages ( Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976, (as amended 1987 ) the Central Government hereby notifies following offices under the administrative control of the Ministry of Labour & Employment, at least 80% Staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi :-
Sub-Regional Office , Employees ' State Insurance Corporation, Udaipur
S.O. 1226. Whereas M/ s Avaya Global Connect Limited ( changed name to M/s AGC networks Limited) [under code No. GJ / 18706 in Ahmedabad, Gujarat region] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) has applied for cancellation of exemption granted by Government of India under clause (a) of sub - section ( 1 ) of section 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 ( 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as theAct) .
Divisional Office , Employees ' State Insurance Corporation , Jodhpur
2. Whereas a notification No.S-35015/56/2007- SS.II dated 29th September , 2009 granting exemption w.e.f. 01-10-1990 under section 17 ( 1 ) ( a) of the said Act to the said establishment was published in the Gazette of India .
[No. E- 11017/1 /2006-RBN] CHANDRA PRAKASH , Jt . Secу.
नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2012
3. And whereas now it has come to the notice to the Government that the establishment has surrendered its exemption with effect from the 01-08-2011 and it is no longer carrying on any activity.
4. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4 ) of section 17 of the said Act the Central Government hereby cancels the exemption granted to the said establishment with effect from the 01-08-2011.
[No. S - 35017/1 /2012- SS - II ] SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
का.आ. 1226. जबकि मैसर्स अभया ग्लोबल कनेक्ट लिमिटेढ (परिवर्तित नाम मैसर्स एजीसी नेटवर्क्स लिमिटेड ) कोड संख्या जीजे /18706 अहमदाबाद, गुजरात क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) को 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 भारत सरकार द्वारा प्रदान की गई छूट को रद्द करने के लिए आवेदन किया है ।
Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press , Ring Road , and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.