रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05
REGD. NO.D.L. (IN) 04/0007/2003-05
भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं. 3]
नई दिल्ली, जनवरी 13 जनवरी 19 , 2013 , शनिवार/पौष 23 पौष 29 , 1934
No. 3] NEW DELHI , JANUARY 13- JANUARY 19 , 2013 , SATURDAY/PAUSA 23-PAUSA 29, 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 3-उप -खण्ड ( ii )
PART II- Section 3 Sub- section ( ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अभिसूजनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issuedby the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
वित्त मंत्रालय
(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )
नई दिल्ली , 19 दिसम्बर , 2012
का.आ. 119.--वित्तीय आस्तियों का प्रतिभूतिकरण एवं पुनर्गठन और प्रतिभूति हित का प्रवर्तन अधिनियम, 2002 की धारा 21 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , श्री आर. वी. वर्मा , अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक, राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक ( एनएचबी ) के रजिस्ट्रार तथा प्रबंध निदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यकारी अधिकारी ( केन्द्रीय रजिस्ट्रार ) , भारतीय केन्द्रीय आस्ति प्रतिभूतिकरण पुनर्गठन और प्रतिभूति हित रजिस्ट्री ( सीईआरएसएआई ) , के रूप में उनके कार्यकाल को अगले छः माह के लिए अर्थात् (0) 07 2012 से 31 12 2012 तक या अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, बढ़ाती है ।
2. श्री आर. वी. वर्मा, राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक के अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक के रूप में अपने कर्तव्यों के अतिरिक्त केन्द्रीय रजिस्ट्रार काकार्यभार भी संभालेंगे ।
[फा. सं. 56/5/2007 बीओ II ( रिकवरी ) ] मिहिर कुमार , निदेशक ( रिकवरी ) MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Departmentof Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 19th December , 2012
S.O. 119. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( i ) of Section 21 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002, the Central Government hereby extends the tenure of Shri R.V. Verma , Chairman and Managing Director, National Housing Bank ( NHB ) , as the Registrar and Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer ( Central Registrar ) . Central Registry of Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India ( CERSAI ) for a further period of six months with effect from 01-07-20121ill 31-12-2012 or until further orders . whichever is earlier.
2. Shri R.V. Verma shall hold the charge of Central Registrar in addition to his duties as Chairman & Managing Director, National Housing Bank (NIIB) .
JF. No. 56/5/2007 - BO - II ( REC) )
MIHIR KUMAR , Director ( Recovery)
(267 )
83G1/2013 268
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
(राजस्व विभाग)
तारीख से अगले आदेशों तक, औद्योगिक और वित्तीय पुनर्निर्माण बोर्ड के अध्यक्ष के रूप में कार्य करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।
नई दिल्ली , 31 दिसम्बर , 2012
[फा. सं. 20/2/2011- आईएफ- II ]
अतीश सिंह, निदेशक ( आई एफ- II )
New Delhi , the 11th January, 2013 का.आ. 120.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप - नियम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्व विभाग के अधीन प्रवर्तन निदेशालय के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रीय तथा उप क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों को जिनके 80 % से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्य साधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है:-
1 . प्रवर्तन निदेशालय , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय चैन्नई , शास्त्री भवन , तृतीय तल , तीसरा ब्लॉक, बी विंग , नं. 26 , हडडोस रोड , चैन्नई-600006.
S.O. 121. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 5) of Section 6 of the Sick Industrial Companies ( Special Provisions ) Act , 1985 , the Central Government hereby authorizes Shri B.S. Meena , IAS (Retd .) , Member in the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction ( BIFR ) to act as Chairman , BIFR from the date of assumption of the charge until further orders .
[F.No. 20/2/2011 - IF- II] 2. प्रवर्तन निदेशालय , उप क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , 209 , पालिका प्लाजा (फेस-2 ) , एम. टी. एच. कम्पाउंड , इंदौर, मध्य प्रदेश ।
ATEESH SINGH , Director ( IF - II)
नई दिल्ली , 11 जनवरी , 2013 3. प्रवर्तन निदेशालय , उप क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , पुराना नं. 43 , नया नं. -6 , बैसेन्ट रोड चोक्कीकुलम, मदुरै-625002.
[फा. सं. ई. 11017/1/2012 - एडी ( हिन्दी-4 ) ]
चन्द्रभान नारनौली , निदेशक ( राजभाषा )
(Department ofRevenue)
New Delhi , the 31st December , 2012
का.आ. 122. राष्ट्रीय बैंक ( प्रबंध प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) , स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) और खंड 8 के उपखंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9कीउप - धारा ( 3 ) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् एतद्वारा , सेन्ट्रल बैंक आफ इंडिया के कार्यपालक निदेशक श्री आर. के. दुबे ( जन्म तिथि: 10-9-1954 ) को उनके द्वारा पद ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 30-9-2014 तक अर्थात् उनके द्वारा अधिवर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त कर लेने तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , केनरा बैंक के अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
S.O. 120. In pursuance of sub rule (4 ) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages ( Use for Official Purpose ofthe Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following regional and Sub - Regional Offices of the Directorate of Enforcement under the Department of Revenue , where more than 80 % staff have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi :-
[ फा. सं. 4/4/2011 - बीओ-- I ] .
विजय मल्होत्रा , अवर सचिव 1 . Directorate of Enforcement, Regional Office Chennai , Shashtri Bhavan, Third Floor, Third Block , B Wing No. 26 , Haddos Road . Chanai -600006 .
New Delhi , the 11th January, 2013
2. Directorate of Enforcement . Sub - Regional Office Indore, 209 Palika Plaza, (Phase - II ) MFH Compound , Indore, M.P.
3. Directorate of Enforcement, Sub-Regional Office , Chokkikulam , Old No. -42 , New No- 6 , Basant Road, Chokkikulam , Madurai - 625002 .
[F.No. E. 11017/ 1 /2012 -AD( Hindi -4) ]
CHANDERBHAN NARNAULI , Director (OL)
नईदिल्ली , 11 जनवरी, 2013
S.O. 122. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause( a) of sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies ( Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub - clause ( 1 ) of Clause 3 and sub- clause ( 1 ) of Clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme , 1970/1980 , the Central Government , after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India , hereby appoints Sh . R.K. Dubey (DoB: 10-9-1954) , Executive Director, Central Bank of India as Chairman and Managing Director , Canara Bank for a period with effect from the date of his taking over the charge of the post till 30-9-2014 , i.e. date of his attaining the ageof superannuation or until further orders , whichever isearlier.
(F. No. 4/4/2011 -BO- I ] का.आ. 121.- रुग्ण औद्योगिक कंपनी ( विशेष उपबंध ) अधिनियम, 1985 की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 5 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों क़ा प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , औद्योगिक और वित्तीय पुनर्निर्माण बोर्ड ( बीआईएफआर ) में सदस्य श्री बी. एस. मीना, आईएएस ( सेवानिवृत्त ) को उनके कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की
VIJAY MALHOTRA , Under Secy.
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
269
नई दिल्ली, ।। जनवरी , 2013
1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri Raj Kumar Goyal (DoB: 1-1-1957), General Manager, Bank of India asExecutive Director, Cental Bank India, with effect from the date of his taking over the charge of the post till 31-12-2016 , i.e. the date of his attaining the age of superannuation or until further orders , whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 4/5/2011 -BO-I ]
VIJAY MALHOTRA , Under Secy.
का.आ. 123. मंत्रिमंडलीय नियुक्ति समिति द्वारा दिनांक 11-12-2008 को अनुमोदित दिशानिर्देश संख्या 18 ( 52 ) ईओ/08 (एसीसी) के साथ पठित भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम , 1934 की धारा 8 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , डॉ. उर्जित आर. पटेल को उनकीनियुक्तिकी अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के डिप्टी गवर्नर के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
रेल मंत्रालय
[ फा. सं. 7/ 1/2012- बीओ- [ ]
( रेलवे बोर्ड)
श्रेया गुहा , निदेशक
नई दिल्ली, 14 जनवरी , 2013
New Delhi , the 11th January, 2013
का.आ. 125. राष्ट्रपति , संविधान के अनुच्छेद 309 परंतुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए रेल सेवा ( पेंश संराशीकरण ) नियम, 1993 में और संशोधन करने के लिए निम्नलिखि नियम बनाते हैं:
1 . ( 1 ) इन नियमों का संक्षिप्त नाम रेल सेवा ( पेंशन संराशीकरण (संशोधन ) नियम , 2013 है ।
S.O. 123. In exercise of the powers conferredby clause ( a) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 read with guidelines No. 18( 52 ) EO /08 ( ACC ) dated 11-12-2008 , approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet , the Central Government hereby appoints Dr. Urjit R. Patel , as Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India for a period of three years from the date of Notification of his appointment or until further orders , whichever is earlier .
[F. No. 7/1 /2012-BO- 1 ]
SREYA GUHA , Director
नई दिल्ली, ।। जनवरी , 2013
(2 ) ये 2 सितंबर, 2008 से प्रवृत्त हुए समझे जाएंगे और इ नियमों से संलग्न पेंशन के लिए संराशीकृत मूल्य की पुनरीक्षि सारणी, पेंशन के सभी संराशीकरण के लिए प्रयोग की जाएग जो 2 सितम्बर , 2008 से पूर्ण होती है तथा ऐसे पेंशनभोगिय की दशा में , जिनकी पेंशन का संराशीकरण , 1 जनवरी , 2000 को या उसके पश्चात्, किन्तु 2 सितंबर , 2008 से पूर्व, पूर्ण ह चुका है , पेंशन के लिए संराशीकृतः मूल्य की पूर्व पुनरीक्षित सारणी , पूर्व पुनरीक्षित वेतन या पेंशन पर आधारित पेंशन कं संराशीकरण के संदाय के लिए प्रयोग की जाएगी और ऐस् पेंशनभोगियों के संबंध में, इन नियमों से संलग्न पेंशन के लिए संराशीकृत मूल्य की पुनरीक्षित सारणी, पेंशन की ऐसी अतिरिक्त राशिके संराशीकरण के लिए जो वेतन और पेंशन के भूतलक्ष पुनरीक्षण के कारण संराशीकृत हुई है , प्रयोग की जाएगी ।
2 रेल सेवा ( पेंशन संराशीकरण ) नियम , 1993 में,
(i) नियम 3. उप-नियम ( 1 ) , खंड ( क ) में, " अंश" शब्द के स्थान पर " प्रतिशतता " शब्द रखा जाएगा;
का.आ. 124. राष्ट्रीय बैंक ( प्रबंध प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) , स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) और खंड 8 के उपखंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) के खंड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् एतद्वारा , बैंक आफ इंडिया के महाप्रबंधक श्री राज कुमार गोयल ( जन्म तिथि : 1-1-1957) को उनके द्वारा पद ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 31-12-2016 तक अर्थात् उनके द्वारा अधिवर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त कर लेने तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , सेन्ट्रल बैंक आफ इंडिया के कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
[फा. सं. 4/5/2011- बीओ -1 ]
( ii ) नियम 5 में, " अंश " शब्द के स्थान पर " प्रतिशतता " शब्द रखा जाएगा;
विजय मल्होत्रा, अवर सचिव
(iii ) नियम 6 उप नियम ( 2 ) में, " अंश " शब्द के स्थान पर " प्रतिशतता" शब्द रखा जाएगा;
New Delhi , the 11th January, 2013
(iv) नियम 6 उप नियम ( 3 ) में , निम्नलिखित उपनियम रख जाएगा , अर्थात्: -
S.O. 124. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a) of sub-section (3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies ( Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act , 1970/1980 read with sub - clause ( 1 ) of Clause 3 and sub- clause ( 1 ) of Clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme ,
" (3 ) यदि संराशीकृत की जाने वाली पेंशन की प्रतिशतता रुपए वं किसी भाग में आती तो संराशीकरण के प्रयोजन के लिए रुपर के ऐसे भाग को छोड़ दिया जाएगा । ";
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19, 2013/PAUSA 29 , 1934
270
(क) खंड ( iii ) में, " मृत्यु तथा " शब्द का लोप किया जाएगा;
( ख) नियम ( v ) के बाद और परंतुक से पहले आने वाले " अंश " शब्द के स्थान पर " प्रतिशतता " शब्द रखा जाएगा ।
(v) नियम 7 , उप- नियम ( 2 ) में, " जहां संराशीकृत मूल्य का संदाय दो प्रक्रमों में किया जाता है" शब्दों के स्थान पर " जहां संराशीकृत मूल्य का संदाय दो या अधिक प्रक्रमों में किया जाता है " रखा जाएगा ।
(vi ) नियम 10 , उप - नियम ( 3 ) में,
(xi ) नियम 14 में, " अंश " शब्द जहां- जहां आते हैं , के स्थान पर क्रमशः " प्रतिशतता " शब्द रखा जाएगा;
(क) खंड ( i ) में, " अंश " शब्द के स्थान पर " प्रतिशतता " शब्द रखा जाएगा;
(xii ) नियम 15 में , " अंश " शब्द दो स्थानों पर जहां आते हैं. के स्थान पर " प्रतिशतता " शब्द रखा जाएगा;
(ख) खंड ( i ) तथा ( ii ) " दो हजार " शब्दों के स्थान पर , जहां-जहां वे आते हैं , क्रमशः " छह हजार " शब्द रखे जाएंगे;
(xiii ) नियम 16 , उप- नियम (i ) , खंड ( ख ) में, " अंश " शब्द के स्थान पर " प्रतिशतता " शब्द रखा जाएगा:
(vii) नियम 11में-
(xiv) नियम 17 , उप- नियम ( 1 ) खंड ( ख ) में, " अंश " शब्द के स्थान पर क्रमशः " प्रतिशतता " शब्द रखा जाएगा;
(क ) " अंश " शब्द जहां - जहां वे आते हैं, क्रमशः " प्रतिशतता " शब्द रखा जाएगा;
(xv) नियम 18 , 19 एवं 20 में, " अंश " शब्द के स्थान पर क्रमशः " प्रतिशतता " शब्द रखा जाएगा;
(ख) " दो हजार " शब्दों के स्थान पर , जहां-जहां वे आते हैं, क्रमशः " छह हज्जार " शब्द रखे जाएंगे;
(xvi ) नियम 23 , उप- नियम ( 1 ) , खंड ( ख ) में " दो हज़ार " शब्दों के स्थान पर " छह हजार " शब्दों को रखा जाएगा;
(viii ) नियम 11 के बाद , निम्नलिखित नियम को शामिल किया जाएगा; अर्थात्-
(xvii ) नियम 27 , उप - नियम ( 2 ) , खंड ( vii ) में " अंश " शब्द कं स्थान पर " प्रतिशतता " शब्द रखा जाएगा:
(xviii ) नियम 28 , उप- नियम ( 1 ) , खंड ( vii ) में " अंश " शब्द के स्थान पर " प्रतिशतता " शब्द रखा जाएगा;
" 11. क यदि संराशीकृत पेंशन का प्रत्यावर्तन-पेंशन की संराशीकृत राशिका, नियम 7 के अनुसार संराशीकरण के प्रवृत्त होने के कारण पेंशन कम करने की तारीख से पंद्रह वर्ष पूर्ण होने पर प्रत्यावर्तन किया जाएगाः
(xix) नियम 32 में,
(क) " अंश " शब्द के स्थान पर , जहां- जहां वह आता है क्रमशः " प्रतिशतता " शब्द रखा जाएगा; और
परंतु जब संराशीकृत राशि को पेंशन के ऊपर पुनरीक्षण के कारण एक बार से अधिक संदत्त किया गया था तो पेंशन की क्रमशः संराशीकृत राशि, संबंधित तारीख ( तारीखों ) से पंद्रह वर्ष पूर्ण होने पर प्रत्यावर्तन किया जाएगा । " ;
(ख) " एक सौ " शब्दों के स्थान पर, जहां- जहां वे आते हैं, क्रमशः " छह हजार " शब्द रखे जाएंगे;
(ix) नियम 12 में , " अंश " शब्द के स्थान पर " प्रतिशतता " रखा जाएगा;
(xx) इन नियमों से उपाबद्ध सारणी के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित सारणी रखी जाएगी , अर्थात्: -
(x) नियम 13 में,
सारणी
" एक रुपया वार्षिक पेंशन के लिए संराशीकृत मूल्य "
1-1-2006 से प्रभावी
[नियम 3 ( 1 ) ( ट) 9,27 ( 7 ) 29 ( 5 ) और 30 ( 1 ) तथा 30 ( 2 ) देखिए ]
जन्म की अगली तारीख पर आयु
जन्म की अगली तारीख पर आयु
जन्म की अगली तारीख पर आयु
वर्ष-क्रय की संख्या के रूप में अभिव्यक्त संराशीकृत मूल्य
वर्ष- क्रय की संख्या
के रूप में अभिव्यक्त
संराशीकृत मूल्य
वर्ष- क्रय की संख्या के रूप में अभिव्यक्त संराशीकृत मूल्य
6
4
5
3
2
1
8.093
62
9.075
41
20
9.188
7.982
63
9.059
42
9.187
21 271
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
2 3 4 5 6
22 9.186 43 9.040 64 7.862
23 9.185 44 9.019 65 7.731
24 9.184 45 8.996 66 7.591
25 9.183 46 8.971 67 7.431
26 9.182 47 8.943 68 7.262
27 9.180 48 8.913 69 7.083
28 9.178 49 8.881 70 6.897
29 9.176 50 8.846 71 6.703
30 9.173 51 8.808 72 6.502
31 9.169 52 8.768 73 6.296
32 9.164 53 8.724 74 6.085
33 9.159 54 8.678 75 5.872
34 9.152 55 8.627 76 5.657
35 9.145 56 8.572 77 5.443
36 9.136 57 8.512 78 5.229
37 9.126 58 8.446 79 5.018
38 9.116 59 8.371 80 4.812
39 9.103 60 8.287 81 4.611
40 9.090 61 8.194
[फा. सं. 2011 /एफ. ( ई ) III/ 1 ( 2 ) / 13 ]
संजय लवानिया, कार्यपालक निदेशक , वित्त स्थापना
स्पष्टीकरण ज्ञापन
छठे केंद्रीय वेतन आयोग की सिफारिशों के क्रियान्वयन के कारण, प्रस्तावित संशोधनों को, उस तारीख से, जिसकों छठे केन्द्रीय वेतन आयोग की सिफारिशें कार्यान्वित की गई थी , भूतलक्षी प्रभाव देना आवश्यक हो गया है । यह प्रमाणित किया जाता है कि प्रस्तावित संशोधनों को भूतलक्षी प्रभाव देने से किसी व्यक्ति के हित पर कोई प्रतिकूल प्रभाव नहीं पड़ता है ।
टिप्पण : रेल सेवा ( पेंशन संराशीकरण ) नियम , 1993 की अधिसूचना संख्याक का.आ. 930 ( अ ) तारीख 3 दिसंबर 1993 द्वारा प्रकाशित किया गया था और तत्पश्चात् निम्नलिखित संशोधन किए गए थे:-
तारीख क्र.सं. अधिसूचना संख्या
3 2
1
1.
30-12-2003
एफ ( ई ) III/2003/पीएन 1/38 ( संशोधन ) II
24-1-2005 2. एफ ( ई ) III/ 2003/पीएन 1/25
भारत के राजपत्र , भाग -2 खंड-3 उप - खंड ( ii ) में प्रकाशित प्रकाशन की तारीख का. आ. सं.
5
4
30-12-2003
1489(अ)
5-2-2005
400 272
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/PAUSA 29 , 1934
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)
New Delhi , the 14th January, 2013
S.O. 125. In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution , the President hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Railway Services ( Commutation of Pension) Rules , 1993 , namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Railway Services ( Commutation of Pension ) ( Amendment ) Rules , 2013 .
(2)They shall be deetned to have come into force with effect from the 2nd September, 2008 and the revised Table of Commutation Value for Pension , appended to these rules shall be used for all commutation of pension which becomes absolute from the 2nd September , 2008 and in the case of pensioners whose commutation of pension became absolute on or after the 1st January, 2006 but before the 2nd September. 2008 the pre - revised Table of Commutation Value for Pension shall be used for payment of commutation of pension based on pre - revised pay or pension and in respect of such pensioners , the revised Table of Commutation Value of Pension , appended to these rules shall be used for the commutation of additional amount of pension that has become commutable on account of retrospective revision of pay and pension .
2. Inthe Railway Services ( Commutation of Pension ) Rules , 1993.-
(i) in rule 3 , in sub - rule ( 1 ) , in clause ( a), for the word " fraction " , the word " percentage" shall be substituted:
( ii) in rule 5. for the word " fraction ", the word " percentage " shall be substituted:
(B ): in rule 6. in sub - rule ( 2 ) , for the word "fraction " the word " percentage " shall be substituted;
( iv) in rule 6. sub - rule (3 ) . the following sub - rule shall be substituted , namely : ---
"(3 ) If the percentage of pension to be commuted results in fraction of rupee , such fraction shall be ignored for the purpose of commutation ." :
(v) in rule 7 , in sub - rule ( 2 ) , for the words "the commuted value shall be paid in two stages ", the words "the commuted value is paid in two or more stages" shallbe substituted.
(vi) in rule 10 , in sub - rule ( 3 )
(a) in clause ( i ) . for the word " fraction " the word " percentage " shall be substituted ;
(b) in clauses ( i ) and ( ii) , for the words " two thousand " , wherever they occur, the words " six thousand shall respectively be substituted:
(vii) in rule 11 :-
(a) for the word " fraction " , wherever it occurs , the word " percentage" shall respectively be substituted:
(b) for the words " two thousand " , wherever they occur , the words " six thousand shall respectively be substituted:
after rule It , the following rule shall be inserted, namely : (viii)
" ILA . Restoration of commuted pension-- the commuted amount of pension shall be restored on completion of fifteen years from the date the reduction of pension on account of commutation becomes operative in accordance with the privisions of rule 7 :
Provided that when the commutation amount was paid on more than one occasion on account of upward revision of pension , the respective commuted amount of the pension shall be restored on completion of fifteen years from the respective date ( s ) . " ;
in rule 12 , for the word " Fraction", the word " percentage " shall be substituted: (ix)
(x) in rule 13 .
(a) in clause ( iii ) , the words " death- cum- " shall be omitted;
(b) for the word " fraction " occurring after rule ( v) and before the proviso , the word " percentage " shall be substituted :
(xi) in rule 14, for the word " fraction ", wherever it occurs , the word " percentage shall respectively be substituted :
(xii) in rule 15, for the word " fraction " , occurring at both the places , the word " percentage " shall be substituted:
(xii) in rule 16. in sub - rule ( i ) . in clause ( b ) , for word " fraction " , the word ' percentage " shall be substituted ;
[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
273
भारत का राजपत्र : जनबरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
(xiv) in rule 17 , in sub- rule ( 1 ) , in clause (b ), for the word , " fraction " , the word " percentage" shall be substituted;
(xv) in rules 18, 19 and 20, for the word " fraction " , the word " percentage" , shall respectively be substituted:
(xvi)
in rule 23 , in sub -rule ( 1 ), in clause (b), for the words " two thousand " , the words " six thousand " shall substituted;
(xvii)
in rule 27, in sub rule ( 2), in clause ( vii ) , for the word " fraction " , the word " percentage " shall be substituted;
(xviii) in rule 28 , in sub- rule ( 1 ) , in clause ( vii ) , for the word " fraction " , the word " percentage " shall be subotated;
(xix) inrule 32,
( a) for the word " fraction " wherever it occurs, the word " percentage " shall respectively be substituted;
(b ) for the words " one hundred " , wherever they occur , the words " six thousand " shall respectively be substituted;
(xx)
for the Table appended to these rules , the following table shall be substituted namely:-
TABLE
"Commutation Values For A Pension of Rs . 1 Per Annum
Effective from 1-1-2006
[see rules 3( 1) ( k) 9 , 27(7) , and 30( 1) and 30(2) ]
Age next Birthday
Age next birthday Commutation value expressed as number of year's purchase
Agenext birthday
Commutation value expressed as number of year's purchase
Commutation
value expressed
as number of year's
purchase
1
2
3
20
9.188
41
21
9.187
42
22
9.186
43
23
9.185
44
24
45
9.184
25
9-183
46
26
9.182
47
27.
9.180
48
28
9.178
49
29
9.176
50
30
9.173
51
31
9.169
52
32
53
9.164
33
9.159
54
34
9.152
55
35
9.145
56
36
9.136
57
37
9.126
58
38
9.116
59
39
9.103
60
40
9.090
61 4
5
6
9.075
62
8.093
9.059
63
7.982
9.040
64
7.862
9.019
66
7.731
8.996
66
7.591
8.971
67
7.431
8.943
68
7.262
8.913
69
7,083
8.881
70
6.997
71
8.846
6.703
8.808
72
6.502
8.768
73
6.296
8.724
74
6.085
8.678
75
5.872
8.627
76
5.657
8.572
77
5.443
8.512
78
5.229
8.446
79
5.018
8.371
80
4.812
8.287
81
4.611
8.194
[F.No. 2011 /F(E)/ Ш/1 (2)/13)
SANJAY LAVANIA , Executive Director , Finance Establishment 274
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19. 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
[ PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
Due to implementation of the recommendations of the sixth Central Pay Commission , it has become necessary to give retrospective effect to the proposed amendments from the date from which the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission were given effect to. It is certified that the interest of no person is adversely affected by giving retrospective effect to the proposed amendments .
Note : TheRailway Services ( Commutation of Pension ) Rules , 1993 were published in the Gazette of India. Extraordinary . vide, Notification number S.O. 930(E ) dated the 3rd December, 1993 and subsequently amended as follows: ----
Date
Notification number
Published in the Gazette of India Part- II Section 3 Sub- Section ( ii) $.No .
S.O.No.
Date of publication
2
3
4
5
30-12-2003
30-12-2003
1489(E)
F(E) III/2003 /PN1 /38 (Amendment) II
2
400
24-01-2005
06-02-2005
F(E) III/2003 /PN1/25
विदेश मंत्रालय
(सीपीवी प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 9 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 126. राजनयिक और कांसलीय ऑफिसर ( शपथ और फीस ) के अधिनियम , 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड ( क ) के अनुसरण मेंों केंद्र सरकार एतद्वारा श्री एस. आर. एच. फहमी , कौसल और श्री श्रवण कुमार सहायक को 4-1-2013 से भास्त के कौसंलावास , जद्दा में सहायक कौसुलर अधिकारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।
| सं. टी. 4330/01/2006 ]
आर. के. पेरिनडिया , अवर सचिव (कोंसुलर )
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi , the 9th January, 2013
S.O. 126. In pursuance of the clause ( a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers ( Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948 ), the Central Government hereby authorize Shri S.R.H. Fahmi , Consul and Shri Srawan Kumar Assistant Consulate General of India , Jeddah to perform their duties of Assistant Consular Officers with effect from 4th January, 2013 .
( No. T. 4330/01/2006 ]
R.K. PERINDIA , Under Secy. ( Consular)
वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय
( वाणिज्य विभाग )
नई दिल्ली , 8 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 127. केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उप - नियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स देवी एंड कं. जो चन्द्रमोलेश्वर बिल्डिंग , 15 वार्ड अमरावती, होसपेट 583 201 , बेल्लारी जिला , कर्नाटक में स्थित है को इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार के वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975 , तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 से अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क समूह 1 , अर्थात् लौह अयस्क , के निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन , उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कों का होसपेट में , निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है, अर्थात्:-
275 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष29 , 1934
( i ) मैसर्स देवी एड कं. चन्द्रमोलेश्वर बिल्डिंग , 15 वार्ड अमरावती , होसपेट 583 201 , बेल्लारी जिला , कर्नाटक खनिज और अयस्क समूह -I का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1965 के नियम , 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन " निरीक्षण का प्रमाण पत्र " देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई निरीक्षण की पद्धति जांच करने के लिए, इस निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी; और
( ii ) मैसर्स देवी एंड क. चन्द्रमोलेश्वर बिल्डिंग , 15 वार्ड अमरावती , होसपेट 583 201 , बेल्लारी जिला , कर्नाटक इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के अनुपालन में ऐसे निदेशों से आबद्ध होगा , जो निदेशक ( निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा समय- समय पर लिखित में दिए जाएं ।
[फा. सं. 4/5/2011- निर्यात निरीक्षण ]
ए. के. त्रिपाठी, संयुक्त सचिव
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi , the 8th January, 2013
S.O. 127. In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection ) Act , 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , read with sub- rule (2) of 12 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection) Rules , 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises , M/s . Devi and Co. located at Chandramouleswara Building. 15th Ward, Amaravathi , Hospet- 583 201 , Bellary District , Karnataka, for a period of three years from the date ofpublication ofthis notification , as an agency for the inspection of Minerals and Ores Group- I , namely, Iron Ore, specified in the Schedule annexed to notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce notification number S.O. 3975. dated the 20thDecember, 1965, prior to export of the said minerals and ores at Hospet, subject to the following conditions , namely:-
(i ) M/s . Devi and Co. , Chandramouleswara Building , 15th Ward , Amaravathi , Hospet- 583 201 , Bellary District, Karnataka , shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the " Certificate of Inspection " under rule 4 of the Export ofMinerals and Ores -Group I ( Inspection) Rules , 1965; and
(ii)M/s. Devi and Co. , Chandramouleswara Building , 15th Ward , Amaravathi , Hospet- 583 201 , Bellary District, Karnataka , in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as the Director ( Inspection and Quality Control ) in the Export Inspection Council may give in writing , from time to time.
[F. No. 4/5/2011 -Export Inspection ]
A. K. TRIPATHY, Jt . Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 8 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 128.- केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के साथ पठित , निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स इन्सपेक्टोरेट ग्रिप्थ इंडिया प्राइवेट लि. 4 तल , पी.टी.ली. चेंगालवारया नाइकर मालीगई , 23 , राजाजी सलाई, ( ब्रीच रेलवे स्टेशन के सामने ) चेन्नई-600 001 को 25 दिसम्बर , 2012 से प्रभावी तीन वर्ष की और अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार के वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 और संख्यांक का.आ. 3978 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क ( समूह- I ) , अर्थात् लौह अयस्क और मैगनीज , खनिज और अयस्क ( समूह- II ) , अर्थात् मैगनीज डॉयक्साइड का निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए , क्रमशः उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कों का चेन्नई में, निर्यात से पूर्व निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है , अर्थात्: -
(i ) मैसर्स इन्सपेक्टोरेट ग्रिप्थ इंडिया प्राइवेट लि. 4 तल , पी.टी.ली. चेंगालवारया नाइकर मालीगई , 23 , राजाजी सलाई , ( ब्रीच रेलवे स्टेशन के सामने ) चेन्नई-600 001 खनिज और अयस्क समूह- I का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1965 और खनिज और अयस्क समूह-II का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का कार्यान्वयन के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई निरीक्षण की पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए इस निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी ; और
( ii ) मैसर्स इन्सपेक्टोरेट ग्रिप्थ इंडिया प्राइवेट लि. 4 तल , पी.टी.ली. चेंगालवारया नाइकर मालीगई , 23 , राजाजी सलाई, ( ब्रीच रेलवे स्टेशन के सामने ) चेन्नई-600 001 इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) निर्मात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा समय - समय पर लिखित रूप में दिए गए ऐसे निदेशों से आबद्ध होंगे ।
[फा.सं. 4/12/2012-निर्यात निरीक्षण ]
ए. के. त्रिपाठी, संयुक्त सचिव 83 G5 /13-2 276
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
New Delhi , the 8th January, 2013
S.O. 128. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export ( Quality Controi and Inspection ) Act , 1963 (22 of 1963) , read with rule 12 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection ) Rules , 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises , for a further period of three years with effect from 25th December , 2012 . M/s. Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt . Ltd. located at 4th Floor , P.T. Lee , Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai , 23 , Rajaji Salai (OppositeBreach Railway Station) , Chennai - 600 001 , as an agency for the inspection of Minerals and Ores Group- I, namely, Iron Ore and Manganese Ore and Group - II , namely, Manganese Dioxide , specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December, 1965 , and number S.O. 3978, dated the 20th December, 1965 respectively, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Chennai , subject to the following condiions , namely:-
(i) that M/s . Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt . Ltd. located at 4th Floor, P.T. Lee . Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai , 23, Rajaji Salai (Opposite Breach Railway Station ) , Chennai - 600001 , shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in carrying out the inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores , Group - I (Inspection ) Rules , 1965 and the Export of Minerals and Ores , Group - II ( Inspection) Rules , 1965; and
(ii) thatM/ s . Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt . Ltd. located at 4th Floor , P.T. Lee . Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai , 23. Rajaji Salai (Opposite Breach Railway Station ) , Chennai - 600 001 , in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directions as the Director Inspection and Quality Control , Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time.
[F. No. 4/ 12/2012 -Export Inspection ]
A.K. TRIPATHY , Jt. Secy.
उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय
( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )
( भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )
नई दिल्ली , 31 दिसम्बर , 2012
का.आ. 129.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :
अनुसूची
क्रम सं.
संशोधन की संख्या
और तिथि
संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक
संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि
(1)
( 2)
(3)
(4)
तत्काल प्रभाव से
संशोधन संख्या 4 ,
नवंबर 2012
1. आईएस 3028 : 1998 स्वचलन वाहन- गतिमान वाहनों से उत्पन शोर- मापन पद्धति
(दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)
इस संशोधन की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह ज़फर 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 , परवाणु , देहरादून तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[ संदर्भ टी ई डी/जी-16 ]
पी. सी. जोशी , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( टी ई डी ) [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
277
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department ofConsumerAffairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi , the 31st December , 2012
S.O. 129. 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 amendments , to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:
SCHEDULE
SI.No. No. , year title of the Indian Standards
No. and year ofthe
amendment
Date ofwhich the amendment shall have effect
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Amendment No. 4 November 2012
With immediate effect
1. IS 3028 :1998 Automotive vehicles- Noise emittedby moving vehicles- Methods of measurement
Copy of this Standards 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 , Parwanoo , Dehradun , Thiruvananthapuram .
(Ref. TED/G- 16)
P. C. JOSHI , Scientist ' F' & Head (Transport Engg.)
नई दिल्ली, । जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 130.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खांड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक व्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए है :-
अनुसूजी
क्रम सं. स्थापित भारतीय मानक(कों)
स्थापित तिथि
नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा
कौ संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक
अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों , यदि कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष
(1 )
(2)
(3)
(4)
( 1) आई एस 10124 ( भाग 1 ) : 2009
आई एस 10124
31-12-2012
(भाग 1) : 1988
पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए सविरचित पीवीसी -यूफिटिंगें विशिष्टि: भाग । सामान्य अपेक्षाएँ
(2)
आई एस 10124
31-12-2012
(भाग 2) : 1988
आई एस 10124 ( भाग 2 ) : 2009 पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए सविचित पीवीसी- यूफिटिंगें विशिष्टि : भाग 2 साकेटों की विशिष्ट अपेक्षाएँ [PART II SEC. 3( ii ) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19, 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
278
(2)
(1)
(3) आई एस 10124 ( भाग 3 ) : 2009 पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए सविचित पीवीसी यूफिटिंगें- विशिष्टि: भाग 3 स्ट्रेट रिडयूसरो की विशिष्ट अपेक्षाएँ
(4) आई एस 10124 ( भाग 4) : 2009 पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए सविरचित पीवीसी- यूफिटिंगें-विशिष्टि: भाग 4 कैपों की विशिष्ट अपेक्षाएँ
(5) आई एस 10124 ( भाग 5 ) : 2009 पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए सविरचित पीवीसी-यूफिटिंगें- विशिष्टि: भाग 5 समान टी की विशिष्ट अपेक्षाएँ
(6) आई एस 10124 ( भाग 6 ) : 2009 पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए सविरंचित पीवीसी यू फिटिंगें- विशिष्टि: भाग 6 मैटेलिक फ्लैजों के फ्लैजड टेल पीसों की विशिष्ट अपेक्षाएँ
(7 ) आई एस 10124 ( भाग 7 ) 2009 पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए सविचित पीवीसी -यू फिटिंगें- विशिष्टि: भाग 7 चूड़ीदार अदेप्टरों की विशिष्ट अपेक्षाएँ
(8) आई एस 10124 ( भाग 8 ) : 2009 पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए सविरंचित पीवीसी-यू फिटिंगें विशिष्टि: भाग 8 90° बैंडों की विशिष्ट अपेक्षाएँ
(9) आई एस 10124 ( भाग 9 ) : 2009 पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए सविरचित पीवीसी यूफिटिंगें विशिष्टि: भाग 9 60° बैंडों की विशिष्ट अपेक्षाएँ
(10 ) आई एस 10124 ( भाग 10 ) : 2009 पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए सविरचित पीवीसी यूफिटिंगें विशिष्टि: भाग 10 45° बैंडों की विशिष्ट अपेक्षाएँ
( 11 ) आई एस 10124 ( भाग 11 ) 2009 पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए सविरचित पीवीसी- यूफिटिंगें- विशिष्टि: भाग ।। 30° बैंडों की विशिष्ट अपेक्षाएँ
(4)
(3)
31-12-2012 आई एस 10124
(भाग 3 ) : 1988
31-12-2012 आई एस 10124
(भाग 4) : 1988
31-12-2012 आई एस 10124
(भाग 5 ) : 1988
31-12-2012 आई एस 10124
(भाग 6 ) : 1988
31-12-2012 आई एस 10124
(भाग 7) : 1988
31-12-2012 आई एस 10124
(भाग 8 ) : 1988
31-12-2012 आईएस 10124
(भाग 9 ) : 1988
31-12-2012 आई एस 10124
(भाग 10 ) : 1988
31-12-2012 आई एस 10124
( भाग 11 ) : 1988 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
279
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
(1)
(2)
( 12) आई एस 10124 ( भाग 12) : 2009 पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए सविरचित पीवीसी यूफिटिंगें विशिष्टिः भाग 12 22 1 /2 ° बैंडों की विशिष्ट अपेक्षाएँ
( 13) आई एस 10124 (भाग 13 ) : 2009 पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए सविरचित पीवीसी-यूफिटिंगें- विशिष्टिः भाग 13 11 1/4 ° बैंडों की विशिष्ट अपेक्षाएँ (3)
(4)
आईएस 10124
31-12-2012
(भाग 12 ) : 1988
आई एस 10124
31-12-2012
(भाग 13 ) : 1988
इस भारतीय मानक की प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, 9 , बहादुर शाह ज़फर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[संदर्भ. सीईडी/राजपत्र ]
डी. के. अग्रवाल, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी )
New Delhi , the 1st January, 2013
S.O. 130. In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987. the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :---
SCHEDULE
Sl.No.
No. and year of the
No. and year of the Indian Standards Established
( 1 )
(2)
( 1 ) IS 10124 (Part 1) : 2009 Fabricated PVC- U Fittings for PotableWater Supplies- Specification : Part I General requirements
(2) IS 10124 (Part 2 ) : 2009 Fabricated PVC - U Fittings for Potable Water Supplies Specification : Part 2 Specific requirements for sockets
(3) IS 10124 (Part 3 ) : 2009 Fabricated PVC - U Fittings for Potable Water Supplies Specification : Part 3 Specific requirements for straight reducers
(4) IS 10124 (Part 4) : 2009 Fabricated PVC-U Fittings for Potable Water Supplies Specification : Part 4 Specific requirements for caps
Date of Established
Indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard
(3 )
(4)
31-12-2012
IS 10124 ( Part 1 ) : 1988
31-12-2012
IS 10124 ( Part 2 ) : 1988
31-12-2012
IS 10124 ( Part 3 ) : 1988
31-12-2012
IS 10124 ( Part 4) : 1988 [PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) )
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19, 2013/PAUSA 29 , 1934
280
(2)
(1)
(5) IS 10124 (Part 5 ) : 2009 Fabricated PVC - U Fittings for Potable Water Supplies- Specification: Part 5 Specific requirements for equal tees
(6) IS 10124 (Part 6): 2009 Fabricated PVC-U Fittings for Potable Water Supplies- Specification : Part 6 Specific requirements for flanged tail pieces with metallic flanges
(7) IS 10124 (Part 7): 2009 Fabricated PVC-U Fittings for Potable Water Supplies- Specification : Part 7 Specific requirements for threaded adaptors
(8) IS 10124 (Part 8) : 2009 Fabricated PVC -U Fittings for Potable Water Supplies Specification : Part 8 Specific requirements for 90 ° bends
(9) IS 10124 (Part 9) : 2009 Fabricated PVC-U Fittings for Potable Water Supplies Specification : Part 9 Specific requirements for 60º bends
10 (10) IS 10124 (Part 10 ) : 2009 Fabricated PVC- U Fittings for Potable Water Supplies Specification: Specific requirements for 45° bends
( 11 ) IS 10124 (Part 11 ) : 2009 Fabricated PVC -U Fittings for Potable Water Supplies Specification : Part 11 Specific requirements for 30º bends
(12) IS 10124 (Part 12) : 2009 Fabricated PVC-U Fittings for Potable Water Supplies Specification : Part 12 Specific requirements for 22 1/2" bends
( 13) IS 10124 (Part 13): 2009 Fabricated PVC- U Fittings for Potable Water Supplies- Specification : Part 13 Specific requirements for 11 1/40 bends
(4)
(3)
31-12-2012
IS 10124 ( Part 5 ) : 1988
31-12-2012
IS 10124 (Part 6 ): 1988
31-12-2012
IS 10124 ( Part 7): 1988
31-12-2012
IS 10124 ( Part 8 ) : 1988
31-12-2012
IS 10124 ( Part 9 ) : 1988
31-12-2012
IS 10124 ( Part 10) :
1988
31-12-2012
IS 10124 (Part 11 ) : 1988
31-12-2012
IS 10124 (Part 12) : 1988
31-12-2012
IS 10124 ( Part 13 ) :
1988
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. CED/Gazette]
D. K. AGRAWAL, Scientist ' F ' & Head ( Civil Engg . ) [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
281
नईदिल्ली , 7 जनवरी, 2013
का.आ. 131.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/ किये गये हैं :
क्रम सं. संशोधित भारतीय मानक (कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
अनुसूची
संशोधन की संख्या
और तिथि
(1)
(2)
1. आईएस 1918 : 1966 फाउंड्री रेत की भौतिक परीक्षण विधि
संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि
(3)
(4)
31-01-2013 संशोधन संख्या 1. , जनवरी 2013
इस संशोधन की प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह ज़फर भार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[ संदर्भ, एमटीडी 14/टी-4 ]
पी. घोष, वैज्ञानिक' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी)
New Delhi , the 7th January, 2013
S.O. 131. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules . 1987, theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the amendments , to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.No. IS No. & title of the amendment( s)
No. and year of the
amendment
(1)
(2)
1. IS 1918: 1966 Methods of Physical tests for foundry sands
Date from which the amendment shail have effect
(3)
(4)
31-01-2013 Amendment No. I January 2013
Copy of this amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai . Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad . Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. MTD 14/T-4]
P. GHOSH , Scientist ' F' & Head (Met Engg.) [PART II SEC . 3( ii ) )
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
282
नई दिल्ली, 9 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 132. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 4 के उप -विनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिनके विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, को लाइसेंस प्रदान किए गए हैं :
अनुसूची
लाइसेंसधारी का
नाम व पता
लाइसेंस संख्या
क्रम सं.
स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि, वर्ष/माह
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
03-09-2012
1.. 3864982
मैसर्स श्री श्याम ज्वेलस ओस्वाल प्लाजा के पीछे , श्री निवास कालोनी , पटेल समय , मैन रोड, जिला-जामनगर , गुजरात
3865075
2
03-09-2012 जयसुखलाल केसवलाल जवेरी महालक्ष्मी चोक , हवेली रोड , कयास्थांवली, जी. डी. शाह शाला के पास , जिला जामनगर , गुजरात-361001
04-09-2012
3865277
3.
मारूति इलेक्ट्रीक बालाजी इन्डस्ट्रीज पार्क , प्लॉट नम्बर बी 6 , बी. एच. गोंडल रोड , ओक्टरी पोस्ट, गोंडल रोड , जिला राजकोट , गुजरात-360002
05-09-2012
3865176
4.
ग्रींप्लाय इन्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड प्लॉट नम्बर 912 , 913 , जी. आई. डी. सी. इस्टेट बामांबोर, तालुका चोटिला, जिला राजकोट , गुजरात-363520
3866582 06-09-2012
$
मेसर्स युनाइटेड बेवरेजेस प्लॉट नम्बर. 4 , सर्वे नम्बर. 71 शिवम इस्टेट राफलेशवर रोड , गाँव जोधपुर , तालुका मोरवी, जिला राजकोट , गुजरात-363642
07-09-2012
3866683
6.
मेसर्स अमृत गंगा , सर्वे नम्बर 461 पाईकी, गॉव भादरोद , तालुका महुआ, जिला भावनगर , गुजरात -364295
वर्ष
अनु
भा. मा. भाग संख्या
भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक
(8 ) ( 9 )
(7)
(6)
(5)
0 1999
0
1417
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं , आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन- विशिष्टि
0
0 1999
1417
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन- विशिष्टि
0
0 2002
8034
निमज्जनीय पम्प सेट
0 1999
2202
1
लकड़ी के सपाट दरवाजे के शटर (ठोस कोर टाइप) भाग 1 प्लाईवुड के सतह युक्त पल्ले
0 2004
0
14543
पैकेजबंद पेयजल
(पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)
0
0 2004
14543
पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) [ भाग II खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013/पौष 29, 1934
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
7. 3866784
07-09-2012
283
(5)
(6) (7) (8) (9)
0
14543
0 2004 पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेअर्थद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)
मेसर्स अमृत बेवरेजेस , शिवम नगर, मेन रोड, गीतांजली विद्यालय के पास, आर. टी. ओ. ऑफिस के पीछे जिला राजकोट , गुजरात-360003
8 3867079 07-09-2012
14543 0
0 2004 पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)
मेसर्स वातसल्य बेवरेजेस श्री हरि इन्डस्ट्रीज जोनस्ट्रीट नम्बर 5 , मीरा उद्योग के पास , एन एच 8 बी, रिंग रोड राजकोट, गुजरात-360003
9. 3867180
07-09-2012
1417
0
0 1999
जिवरामभाई जेरामभाई रानिंगा देसाई वर्धस के पीछे , वाद चोक, राममार्ग उपलेटा , जिला राजकोट, गुजरात-360490
10. 3866986
10-09-2012
स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन- विशिष्टि
ब्लॉक बोर्ड
0
1659
0 2004
मैसर्स अर्चित प्लाईवुड प्राईवेट लिमिटेड, सर्वे नम्बर 327 , 3271 , प्लॉट नम्बर 1 और 4 , गांव भीमासर , तालुका अंजार, जिला कच्छ गुजरात-370240
11 . 3867281 10-09-2012 मेसर्स किंजल बेवरेजेस गुमेरा पारो पचांयत , ओफिसके पास , गाँव लाखाबावल , जिला जामनगर गुजरात-361001
12. 3867382
10-09-2012
14543 0
0 2004 पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)
710 0
0 2010 समुद्री उपयोग के लिए प्लाईवुड
मैसर्स अर्चित प्लाईवुड प्राईवेट लिमिटेड , सर्वे नम्बर 327 , 3271 , प्लॉट नम्बर । , गांव भीमासर, तालुका अंजार, जिला कच्छ, गुजरात-370240
13. 3867482
10-09-2012
303
0
0 1989 सामान्य प्रयोजनों के लिए प्लाईवुड
मैसर्स अर्चित प्लाईवुड प्राईवेट लिमिटेड , सर्वे नम्बर. 327 , 3271 , प्लॉट नम्बर 1 और 4, गांव भीमासर , तालुका अंजार, जिला कच्छ गुजरात-370240
83 40713-3 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) )
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
284
(4)
(3)
(1) (2)
10-09-2012
3867584
14.
भरमाल ट्रेडलिक प्राईवेट लिमिटेड, वेनुस इन्डस्ट्रीज पार्क, सर्वे नम्बर 205 , बेरावल मैन रोड, एस वी आई बैंक कंपाउड, गांव बेरावल , तालुका कोटडा सांगानी, जिला राजकोट , गुजरात-360025
3868485
15.
11-09-2012 मेसर्स अमृत बेवरेजेस 2 पृथविराज प्लॉट , प्रविन मोजिक टाइल्स के सामने, सनाला रोड, गांव मोरवी, जिला राजकोट , गुजरात-363641
12-09-2012
3868384
16.
मैसर्स लाम्बा टिम्बर वर्क्स प्राईवेट लिमिटेड , सर्वे नम्बर 2054, गायत्री पैट्रोल पम्प, गांव चुडया , तालुका गांधीधाम, जिला कच्छ, गुजरात-370201
13-09-2012
3869386
17.
मैसर्स भावना प्लास्टिक इन्डस्ट्रीज , जुनागढ़ रोड, धोराजी, जिला राजकोट , गुजरात 360410
3869487 13-09-2012
18 .
मैसर्स श्रीजी पी वी सी पाईप माधव ओयल मील के पास , पंचासर रोड, बांकानेर जिला राजकोट , गुजरात-363641
19. 3869588 14-09-2012 विजय टिम्बर इन्डस्ट्रीज प्राईवेट लिमिटेड , सर्वे नम्बर 515 , 1 , मोडवदर रोड , गांव मिथिरोहर, तालुका गांधीधाम , जिला कच्छ, गुजरात 370201
14-09-2012
20. 3869689
मेसर्स ओम साई बेवरेजेस हनुमानजी मंदिर के पास , जी आई डी सी 1 के सामने गुडाला, तालुका सिहोर, जिला भावनगर , गुजरात 364240
(9)
(8)
(7)
(6)
(5)
0 2004
0
14543
पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)
0
0 2004
14543
पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)
0 2010
710
0
समुद्री उपयोग के लिएप्लाईवुड
3
0 1983
9537
विद्युत संस्थापनों के लिए कंडयूटस भागः 3 विद्युत रोधन सामग्री के दृढ सादे कंडयूट
(0
02000
4985
पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए अप्लास्टिकृत पीवीसी पाइप
()
2010
710
समुद्री उपयोग के लिए प्लाईवुड
0 2004
0
14543
पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
285
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
21. 3870573
18-09-2012
(7)
(6)
(5)
(8 ) ( 9 )
0
0 1986
11501
कृषि प्रयोजन के लिए स्वच्छ, ठंडे और ताजे जल हेतु मानांसेट पम्प के इंजन की विशिष्टि
जी आई डी सी इन्डस्ट्रीज इस्टेट , लोधिका मेटोडा , कालावड रोड जिला राजकोट , गुजरात-360021 टोपलेन्ड इन्जिन्स प्राईवेट लिमिटेड प्लॉट नम्बर 213 , 214 ,
22. 3872173
21-09-2012 मेसर्स परेश इंटरप्राइजेज रामदेव मंदिर के पास, गाँव कल्यानपुर , तालुका जामनगर , गुजरात-361315
23 . 3873175
26-09-2012
14543 0
0 2004 पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)
2202
1
0 1999 लकड़ीके सपाट दरवाजे के शटर (ठोस कोर टाइप) भाग 1 प्लाईवुड के सतह युक्त पल्ले
मैसर्स अर्चित प्लाईवुड प्राईवेट लिमिटेड , सर्वे नम्बर 327 , 3271 , प्लॉट नम्बर 1 और 4, गांव भीमासर , तालुका अंजार, जिला कच्छ गुजरात-370240
24. 3873882
27-09-2012 पुष्पज्वेलर्स सोनी बाजार वेराबल, जिला जुनागढ़,. गुजरात-362001
0
1417
0 1999 स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन- विशिष्टि
[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/ 13 : 11 ]
एम. राधाकृष्ण, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख
New Delhi , the 9th January, 2013
S.O. 132. In pursuance of sub - regulation (5) of the Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certificate) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given below in the following schedule :-
SCHEDULE
Grant Date
SI . No.
Licence No.
Name and Address of theParty
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
1. 3864982
03-09-2012 Shree Shyam Jewellers Opposite Oswal Plaza , Shree Nivas Colony Patel , SamayMain Road District: Jamnagar Gujarat
2. 3865075
03-09-2012
Jaysukhlal Keshavlal Zaveri , Mahalaxmi Chowk, Haveli Road , Kayastha Ambali Near G. D. Shah School District: Jamnagar Gujarat-361001
ISNo. Part Sec . Year Title of the Standard
(5)
(6)
(9)
(7) (8)
1417 0 0
1999 Goldand gold alloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts-Fineness andMarking Specification
0
1417
0
1999
Goldandgold alloys. Jewellery/ Artefacts -- Fineness andMarking Specification [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013/PAUSA 29 , 1934
286
(4) (2)
(3)
(1)
04-09-2012
3 3865277
Maruti Electric Balaji Industrial Park PlotNo. B- 6 Behind Gondal Road, Octory Post, Gondal Road; District : Jamnagar Gujarat-360002
05-9-2012
3865176
Greenply Industries Limited, Plot No. 912 & 913 , GIDC Estate, Bamanbore, Taluka Chotila, District: Surendranagar Gujarat-363520
3866582
5
06-09-2012 United Beverages . Plot No. 4, Survey No. 71 , Shivam Estate Rafaleshwar Road, Village Jodhpar (Nadi ) TalukaMorbi, District: Rajkot Gujarat-363642
6. 3866683 07-09-2012 AmrutGanga Survey No. 461 Paikee VillageBhadrod. Taluka Mahuva District : Bhavnagar Gujarat-364295
7. 3866784 07-09-2012 Amrut Beverages . Shivam Nagar, MainRoad Near Gitanjali School , Behind R.T.O. Office, District: Rajkot Gujarat-360003
3867079 07-09-2012
8.
Vatsalya Beverages . Shree Hari Industrial Zone . Street No. 5, Near Meera Udhyog . N. H. 8 -B , Ring Road District: Rajkot Gujarat-360003
07-09-2012
9. 3867180
Jivrambhai Jerambhai Raninga, Opposite Desai Brother , Vad Chowk, Rajmarg, Upaleta, District : Rajkot Gujarat-360490
(9)
(6)
(7) (8)
(5)
0 2002
0
8034
Submersible Pumpsets- Specification
0
1999
1
2202
Wooden flush door shutters (solid core type ) : Part1 Plywood face panels
0
0 2004
14543
Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water) Specification
2004
0
0
14543
Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water) Specification
0
2004
0
14543
Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water) Specification
2004
0 0
14543
Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water)
Specification
0 0
1999
1417
Gold and gold Alloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts -Fineness andMarking Specification [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
287
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
10. 3866986
10-09-2012 Archit Plywood Private Limited, Survey No. 327, 327/1 , Plot No. 1 & 4, Village Bhimasar, TalukaAnjar, District : Kachchh Gujarat-370240 11. 3867281
10-09-2012 Kinjal Aqua Beverages Nr. Panchayat Office . At . Lakhabavad , Village Lakhabavad , Taluka Jamnagar Lakhabaval . District: Jamnagar Gujarat-361001 12. 3867382
10-09-2012 Archit Plywood Private Limited, C/ o Poonam Prajapati Plot No. 106 Sector 4, Gandhidham , District: Kachchh Gujarat-370201 13. 3867483 10-09-2012 Archit Plywood Private Limited , Survey No.327, 327/1 , Plot No. 1 & 4, Village Bhimasar, TalukaAnjar, District : Kachchh Gujarat-370240 14. 3867584
10-09-2012
(5)
(9)
(6)
(7) (8)
1659 0 0 2004 Blockboards
0 0 2004
14543
Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water) Specification
0 0
2010
710
Plywood for general purposes
303
0 0
1989 Plywoodfor general purposes
0
0 2004
14543
Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water) Specification
Bharmal Tradelink Pvt . Ltd. Venus Industrial Park , ServeyNo. 205. Veraval Main Road, SBI Bank Compound, Village:Veraval, Taluka Kotda - Sangani , District: Rajkot, Gujarat-360025
15. 3868485 11-09-2012 Ami Beverages 2-Pruthviraj Plot , Opposite Pravin Mosaic Tiles , Sanala Road , VillageMorbi, District: Rajkot, Gujarat-363641 16. 3868384 12-09-2012 Lamba Timber works PvtLtd. C/o Post Box No. 184 , Survey No. 205/4, Gayatri Petrol Pump, Village Chudva , Taluka Gandhidham District: Kachchh Gujarat-370120
0
0 2004
14543
Packaged drinking water ( other than packaged natural mineral water) Specification
0 0 2010 MarinePlywood 710 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19, 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
288
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
13-09-2012
3869386
17.
Bhavna Plastic Industries , Junagadh Road , P. B. No. 82 , Dhoraji District: Rajkot, Gujarat-360410
18. 3869487 13-09-2012 Shreeji PVC Pipe Near Madhav Oil Mill , Panchasar Road . Wankaner District: Rajkot, Gujarat-363622
14-09-2012
19. 3869588
Vijay Timber Industries Private Limited, Survey No. 515/1 , Modvadar Road, Village Mithirohar, Taluka Gandhidham , District : Kachchh Gujarat-370201
14-09-2012
20. 3869689
Om Sai Beverages Near Hanumanji Temple, Opposite GIDC - 1. Gudala , Taluka Sihor , District : Bhavnagar Gujarat-364240
21. 3870573 18-09-2012 Topland Engines Pvt . Ltd. Plot No. 213/214 . GIDC Industrial Estate, Lodhika , Metoda Kalawad Road District : Rajkot Gujarat-360021
3872173
21-09-2012
22.
Paresh Enterprise Near Ramdevpir Temple , Village-Kalyanpur District : Jamnagar Gujarat
26-09-2012
23. 3873175
(9)
(6)
(7) (8 )
(5)
0 1983
3
9537
Conduits for electrical Installa- tions: part 3 , Rigid plainconduits of insulating materials (superseding IS: 2509)
0 2000
0
4985
Unplasticized PVC, Pipes for Potable Water Supplies- Specification
710
0 2010
0
MarinePlywood
2004
0
0
14543
Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water) Specification
0
()
1986
11501
Engine Monoset Pumps for Clear , Cold. Fresh Water forAgricultural Purposes
0
0
2004
14543
Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water) Specification
1 0
1999
2202
Wooden flush door shutters ( solid core type): Part 1 Plywood face
panels
ArchitPlywood Private Limited. Survey No. 327 , 327/1 , Plot No. 1 & 4, VillageBhimasar , TalukaAnjar. District : Kachchh Gujarat-370240 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
289
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
(2)
(3)
( 1)
(4)
24. 3873882 27-09-2012 Pushp Jeweellers
District: Junagadh
Soni Bajar, Veraval Gujarat-362001 (5)
(6)
(9)
(7) (8)
0
1417
0
1999 Gold and gold
alloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts-Fineness andMarking Specification
[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]
M. RADHAKRISHNA . Scientist ' F' & Head
नई दिल्ली, 11 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 133. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए है :-
अनुसूची
क्रम सं. स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
स्थापित तिथि
नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष
(1)
(2)
1 आईएस 6873 ( भाग 5 ) : 2012 सीआईएसपीआर 15 2009 रेडियो व्यधान लक्षणों की मापन पद्धतियां एवं सीमाएं भाग 5 विद्युत प्रकाश व्यवस्थाऔर ऐसे ही उपस्कर ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण ) 2 आईएस 6873 ( भाग 7 ) : 2012 सीआईएसपीआर 22 2008 रेडियो व्यधान लक्षणों की मापन पद्धतियां एवं सीमाएं : भाग 7 सूचना प्रौद्योगिक उपस्कर ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)
3 आईएस 12552 : 2012 सीआईएसपीआर 20: 2006 ध्वनि एवं टेलिविजन प्रसारण रिसिवरों और संबंधित उपस्कर प्रतिरक्षा लक्षण सीमाएँ तथा मापन पद्धतियाँ (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)
4 आईएस 8161 ( भाग 7 ) : 2012/आईईसी 61124: 2006 उपस्कर विश्वसनीयता परीक्षण के लिए मार्गदर्शिका भाग 7 स्थिर विफलता दर एवं स्थिर तीव्रता के लिए अनुपालन परीक्षण ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )
5 आईएस 15444 ( भाग 1 ) : 2012/आईईसी61163- 1: 2006 विश्वसनीयता स्ट्रेस स्क्रीनिंग भाग । लाट में निर्मित मरम्मत योग्य ऐसेम्बली ( पहला पुनरीक्षण ) 6 आईएस/ आईईसी 61196-1-302 : 2005 समाक्ष संचार केबल भाग 1-302 यांत्रिक परीक्षण विधिया उत्केन्द्रता परीक्षण
7 आईएस/ आईईसी 61196-1-308 : 2005 समाक्ष संचार केबल भाग 1-308 यांत्रिक परीक्षण विधिया तांबा चढ़ी धातुओं की तन्य शक्ति और बढाव के लिए परीक्षण
(3)
(4)
दिसम्बर , 2012
दिसम्बर , 2012
दिसम्बर , 2012
दिसम्बर , 2012
दिसम्बर , 2012
दिसम्बर , 2012
दिसम्बर , 2012 [PART II SEC . 3(ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
290
(4)
(3)
( 1)
(2)
नवम्बर , 2012 8 आईएस/ आईईसी 60794-1-1 : 2001 प्रकाशिक तंतु केबल, भाग 1 वर्गिय विशिष्टि अनुभाग । सामान्य
इन भारतीय मानकों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह ज़फर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[संदर्भ एल आई टी डी/जी -75 ] पी. राधाकृष्णा, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( इलैक्ट्रॉनिकी एवं आई टी)
New Delhi, the 11th January, 2013
S.O. 133. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :-
SCHEDULE
Date of Established Sl . No. No. and Year of the Indian Standards Established
No. and Year of the Indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
Dec 2012
1 IS 6873 (Part 5) : 2012
CISPR 15 : 2009 Limits and methods of measurements of radio disturbance characteristics
Part 5 Electrical lighting and similar equipment (Second Revision)
Dec 2012
2 IS6873 (Part 7) : 2012
CISPR 22 : 2008 Limits and methods of measurements of radio disturbance characteristics Part 7 Information technology equipments (Second Revision)
Dec 2012
3 IS 12552: 2012
CISPR 20 : 2006 Sound and television broadcast receivers and associated equipment - Immunity characteristics- Limits and methods of measurement (Second Revision )
Dec 2012
4 IS 8161 (Part 7) : 2012
IEC 61-124: 2006 Guide for equipment reliability testing Part 7 Compliance tests for constant failure rate and constant failure intensity (FirstRevision)
Dec 2012
5 IS 15444 (Part 1) : 2012/IEC 61163-1: 2006 Reliability stress screening Part 1 Repairable assemblies manufactured in lots ( First Revision) [ भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
291
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
(1)
(2)
6 IS/IEC 61196-1-302: 2005 Coaxial
communication cables
Part 1-302 mechanical test methods -- Test foreccentricity
7 ISMEC 61196-1-308 : 2005 Coaxial communication cables
Part 1-308 mechanical test methods - Test for tensile strength and elongation for copper-cladmetals
8 IS/IEC 60794-1-1: 2001 Optical fibre cables Part 1 Generic specification Section 1- general
(3)
(4)
Dec 2012
Dec 2012
Nov 2012
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .
[Ref. LITD/G- 75]
P. RADHAKRISHNA, Scientist ' F' & Head (LITD)
नई दिल्ली , 11 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 134.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 4 के उप - नियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं:-
अनुसूची
क्रम सं
लाइसेंस संख्या
स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि
लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता
( 1) (2)
(3)
(4)
1. 3855678 6-11-2012 मैसर्स प्रतिभा बेवरेजेज प्रा.लि.
गट सं. 12 , ए/पी जतेगांव
खुर्द, तालुका शिरुर
जिला पुणे
महाराष्ट्र-412208
2. 3895690 3-12-2012 मैसर्स श्री कर्मवीर इंडस्ट्रीज
गट सं. 1015
गांव हाटकानंगले
तालुका हाटकानंगले
जिला कोल्हापुर
महाराष्ट्र-416109
3. 3895791 7-12-2012 मैसर्स शंभूराजे इंडस्ट्रीज
गटसं. 348
एट पोस्टखाली
तालुका गंगाखेड
जिला परभणी
महाराष्ट्र-431514
4 3895084
मैसर्स जय माता दी इंडस्ट्रीज 29-11-2012
म. नं. 10-2-824/3सी
गट सं. 65 , कौथा जिला नांदेड
महाराष्ट्र-431603
83 9 / 13-4
अनु वर्ष
भा. मा. भाग संख्या
भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक
(6)
(5)
(7) (8) ( 9)
14543
पैकेजबंद पेयजल
2004
(पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक
मिनरल जल के
अलावा)
4985
2000 पेयजल आपूर्ति के
लिए अप्लास्टिकृत
पी वी सीपाइप्स
पैकेजबंद पेयजल 14543
2004
(पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक
मिनरल जल के
अलावा)
14543
पैकेजबंद पेयजल
2004
(पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के
अलावा) 292
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
(1)
(3)
(2)
(4)
5
30-11-2012
3856377
मैसर्स साई इंडस्ट्रीज प्लाट नं. सी-18 एमआईडीसी चिंचोली तालुका मोहोल जिला सोलापुरं महाराष्ट्र
3833870 6-12-2012 मैसर्स पठान इंडस्ट्रीज प्लाट नं. 24 स. नं. 248 , ओम शांतिनगर सटोनारोड, संलु तालुका और जिल्ला परभणी महाराष्ट्र 431503
7 3897391 3-12-2012 मैसर्स प्रगति इरीगेशन टेक्नोलॉजीज प्रा. लि. गट सं. 16/4 , प्लॉट नं. ५ प्रगति नगर , बीएसएनएल कार्यालय के पास एमआईडीसी कुपत्राड कं पास कुपवाड, तालुका मिरज जिला सांगली महाराष्ट्र -416436
5 12-2012
3897290
मैसर्स महेश इंडस्ट्रीज डी 63 , एमआईडीसी एरिया शेंड्रा जिला औरंगाबाद महाराष्ट्र-431201
( PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
(6) (7)
(5)
(9)
(8)
14543
2004 पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकंजचंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)
14543
21X4 पंकजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरन्न जन्न के अन्नात्रा)
12786
1989 मिचाई उपम्कर सिंचाइ लेटर के लिए पॉन्नीइथाइलीन पाइएस विशिष्टि
14543
पैकेजबंद पेयजल
2004
(पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)
[ सं. सीएमडी/ 13 : 11 ]
त्री. एम . हनीफ, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख
New Delhi, the 11th January, 2013
S.O. 134. In pursuance of sub- regulation ( 5) of the Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Si Licence
GrantDate
No No.
Name and Address of the Party
(2)
(3)
(4)
1. 3855678
6-11-2012
M/s Pratibha Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Gat No. 12 A/P Jategaon Khurd Taluka Shirur District Pune Maharashtra- 412208 Title of the
ISNo. Part Sec . Year
Standard
(5)
(6)
(7) (8) (9)
2004
14543
Packaged Drinking Water ( Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water) [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
293
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934.
( 1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
? 3895690
3-12-2012
(5)
(6)
(7) ( 8 ) (9)
2000
4985
M/ s Shri Karmveer Industries , Gat No. 1015
Village Hatkanangale Taluka Hatkanangale District Kolhapur Maharashtra -416109
3. 3895791
7-12-2012 M/sShambhuraje
Industries .. Gat No. 348 AtPost Khali Taluka Gangakhed District Parbhani Maharashtra -431514
4. 3895084 29-11-2012 M/ s Jai - Mata -Di- Industries , H. No. 10- 2-824/3C, Gut No.65 Koutha District Nanded Maharashtra-431603
5. 3856377
30-11-2012 M/ s Sai Industries
Plot No. C- 18 MIDC Chincholi Taluka Mohal District Solapur Maharashtra
6. 3833870 6-12-2012 M/sPathan Industries
PlotNo.24 OmShantinagar Satone Road , Selu Tal& Dist Parbhani Maharashtra -431503
7. 3897391
3-12-2012
M/sPragati Irrigation Technologies Pvt. Ltd. GatNo. 16/4, Plot No. 9 Pragati Nagar Near BSNL Office Near MIDC Kupwad Kupwad TalukaMiraj District Sangli Maharashtra-416436
8. 3897290
5-12-2012 M/ sMahesh Industries D-63, MIDCArea Shendra District Aurangabad Maharashtra- 431201 Unplasticized PVC Pipes for Potable WaterSupplies
2004
14543
Packaged Drinking Water ( Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)
2004
14543
Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water )
2004
14543
Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)
2004
14543
Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)
1989 Irrigation Equipment 12786
Polyethylene Pipes forIrrigation Laterals- Specification
2004
14543
Packaged Drinking Water( Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)
[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]
B. M. HANEEF, Scientist 'F ' & Head [PART 11 - Six . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
294
कोयला मंत्रालय
आदेश
नई दिल्ली , 10 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 135. कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 9 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 2267 तारीख 29 जून, 2012 के भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड (ii ) तारीख 1 जुलाई से 7 जुलाई, 2012 में प्रकाशित होने पर उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि और भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भूमि कहा गया है ) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर, आत्यांतिक रूप में केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए थे;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, सैंक्टोरिया, डाकघर दिसेरगढ़, जिला बर्द्धमान-713 333 (पश्चिम बंगाल ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् सरकारी कम्पनी कहा गया है ) ऐसे निबंधनों और शर्तों का जो केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित्त अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे, अनुपालन करने के लिए रजामंद है;
अतः, अब, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि और उस पर के सभी अधिकार, तारीख 1 जुलाई से 7 जुलाई , 2012 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने की बजाय, निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए , उक्त सरकारी कंपनी में निहित हो जाएंगे , अर्थात् ;
1. सरकारी कम्पनी, उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन यथा अवधारित प्रतिकर, व्याज नुकसान और वैसी ही मदों की बाबत किए गए सभी संदायों की केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी ;
2. शर्त ( 1 ) के अधीन, उक्त सरकारी कंपनी द्वारा केन्द्रीय सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजन के लिए धारा 14 के अधीन एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा तथा ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और अधिकरण की सहायता करने के लिए नियुक्त व्यक्तियों के संबंध में उपगत सभी व्यय, सरकारी कंपनी द्वारा वहन किये जायेंगे और इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार के लिए या उसके संबंध में जैसे अपील आदि सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों की बाबत उपगत, सभी व्यय भी, इसी प्रकार उक्त सरकारी कंपनी द्वारा वहन किये जायेंगे;
295 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29, 1934
3. सरकारी कंपनी, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदाधिकारियों की, ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में, क्षतिपूर्ति करेंगी जो इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के बारे में, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदाधिकारियों द्वारा या उनके विरूद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो ;
4. सरकारी कंपनी के पास, केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना, उक्त भूमि और भूमि में या उसके ऊपर इस प्रकार निहित अधिकार को किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी ; और
5. सरकारी कंपनी, ऐसे निदेशों और शर्तों का, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा, जब कभी आवश्यक हो, उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिए दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित किये जाएं, पालन करेगी ।
[फा. सं. 43015/28/2008-पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-[ ]
वी. एस. राणा , अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF COAL
ORDER
New Delhi , the 10th January, 2013
S.O. 135. Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal , number S.O.2267 dated the 29th June , 2012 , published in the Gazette of India, Part- II , Section - 3 , Sub - section ( ii ) dated 1st July to 7th July, 2012 , issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the land and all rights in or over the land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification ( hereinafter referred to as the said land) are vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub- section (1) of section 10 of the said Act;
And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, Post Office Dishergarh , District- Burdwan -713 333 (West Bengal ) (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section (1 ) of section 11 of the said act , the Central Government hereby direct , that the said land and all rights in or over the said land so vested shall , with effect from 1st July to 7th July, 2012, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government , shall vest in the Government Company , subject to the following terms and conditions, namely: -
1. TheGovernment Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation , interest , damages and the like, as determined under the provisions of the saidAct:
296
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013/PAUSA 29 , 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 2. A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act, for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government by the Government Company under conditions ( 1) and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals etc. , for or in connection with the rights in or over the said land, so vested , shall also be borne by the Government Company :
3. The Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials, regarding the rights in or over the said land so vested;
4. TheGovernment Company shall have no power to transfer the said land to any other person without the previous approval of the Central Government; and
5. The Government Company shall abide by such direction and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said land , as and when necessary.
- [ F. No. 43015 /28 /2008 - PRIW - I ]
V. S. RANA , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 11 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 136.-केन्द्रीय सरकार सरकारी स्थान (अप्राधिकृत अभियोगियों की बेदखली) अधिनियम, 1971 की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 1294, तारीख 29 मार्च, 2005 , जो भारत के राजपत्र के भाग ॥ , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii) , तारीख 9 अप्रैल, 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, को अधिक्रान्त करते हुए नीचे सारणी के स्तंभ ( 1 ) में उल्लिखित अधिकारियों को, जो सरकार के राजपत्रित् अधिकारी की पंक्ति के समतुल्य अधिकारी है, उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए सम्पदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है जो सारणी के स्तंभ (2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट सरकारी स्थानों की बाबत अपनी-अपनी अधिकारिता की सीमाओं के भीतर उक्त अधिनियम द्वारा या उसके अधीन सम्पदा अधिकारियों को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग और अधिरोपित कर्तव्यों का पालन करेंगे ; अर्थात्
सारणी
सरकारी स्थानों के प्रवर्ग और अधिकारिता की स्थानीय सीमाएं अधिकारियों का पदनाम
(2)
(1)
गए सभी परिसर । मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में नार्दर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, जयंत परियोजना के या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए महाप्रबंधक अथवा जयंत परियोजना. मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, [ भाग 1 ]-खण्ड 3(ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29, 1934
297
महाप्रबंधक अथवा मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, ब्लॉक-बी परियोजना, गोरबी,
मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में नार्दर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, ब्लॉक-बी परियोजना के या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए सभी परिसर ।
महाप्रबंधक अथवा मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, निगाही परियोजना, गोरबी.
मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में नार्दर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, निगाही परियोजना के या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए सभी परिसर ।
महाप्रबंधक अथवा मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, अमलोरी परियोजना.
मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में नार्दर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, अमलोरी परियोजना के या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए सभी परिसर ।
महाप्रबंधक अथवा मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, झिंगुरदा परियोजना.
मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में नार्दर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, झिंगुरदा परियोजना के या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए सभी परिसर ।
मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में नार्दर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, केन्द्रीय कर्मशाला जयंत के या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए सभी परिसर ।
महाप्रबंधक अथवा मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, केन्द्रीय कर्मशाला (सीडब्ल्यूएस) , जयंत.
महाप्रबंधक अथवा मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, खडिया परियोजना.
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में नार्दर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, खडिया परियोजना के या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए सभी परिसर।
महाप्रबंधक अथवा मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, बीना परियोजना.
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में नार्दर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , बीना परियोजना के या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए सभी परिसर ।
महाप्रबंधक अथवा मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, ककरी परियोजना,
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में नार्दर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, ककरी परियोजना के या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए सभी परिसर ।
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में नार्दर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, दुधीचुआ परियोजना के या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए सभी परिसर ।
महाप्रबंधक अथवा मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, दुधीचुआ परियोजना.
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में नार्दर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , कृष्णशिला परियोजना के या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए सभी परिसर ।
महाप्रबंधक अथवा मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, कृष्णशिला परियोजना.
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में नार्दर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , एकीकृत जलापूर्ति प्रणाली (आईडब्ल्यूएसएस) , खडिया के या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए सभी परिसर ।
प्रभारी, इंटीग्रेटिड वाटर सप्लाई सिस्टम (आईडब्ल्यूएसएस) , खड़िया.
[PART 11 SP.3 ( ii ) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
298
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में नार्दर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , नेहरू शताब्दी चिकित्सालय ( एनएससी) , जयंत के या उसके द्वारा या उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए सभी परिसर ।
प्रमुख चिकित्सा सेवाएं, मेहरू शताब्दी चिकित्सालय (एनएससी) , जयंत.
[फा. सं. 43022/3/2012- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]
वी. एस. राणा , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 11th January, 2013
:
S.O. 136. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants ) Act , 1971 and in suppression of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal , Number S.O. 1294 dated the 29th March 2005, published in the Gazette of India , Part II , Section 3 , Sub -Section (ii) , dated the 9th April, 2005, the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (1) of the table below, being officers equivalent of the rank of Gazetted Officers of the Government to be Estate Officers for the purposes of the said Act , who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officers , by or under the said Act, within the limits of their respective jurisdiction in respect of public premises specified in column (2) of the Table , namely :
Designation of the Officers
(1)
General Manager or Chief General Manager , Jayant Project .
General Manager or Chief General Manager, Block-B Project, Gorbi .
General Manager or ChiefGeneral Manager, Nigahi Project .
General Manager or Chief General Manager, Amlori Project .
General Manager or Chief General Manager , Jhingurda Project .
General Manager or Chief General Manager, Central Workshop ( CWS) , Jayant .
TABLE
Categories of public premises and local limits of jurisdiction
(2)
All premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Northern Coalfields Limited, Jayant Project in the State of Madhya Pradesh .
All premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Northern Coalfields Limited , Block- B Project , Gorbi in the State of Madhya Pradesh .
All premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Northern Coalfields Limited , Nigahi Project in the State of Madhya Pradesh .
All premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Northern Coalfields Limited , Amlori Project in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
All premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Northern Coalfields Limited , Jhingurda Project in the State of Madhya Pradesh .
All premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Northern Coalfields Limited , Central Workshop , Jayant in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
299
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
General Manager or Chief General Manager, Khadia Project .
General Manager or Chief General Manager, Bina Project.
General Manager or Chief General Manager, Kakri Project.
General Manager or Chief General Manager, Dudhichua Project
General Manager or Chief General Manager, Krishnashila Project.
Incharge, integrated Water Supply System (IWSS), Khadia.
Chief of Medical Services , Nehru Satabdi Chikitsalay (NSC) , Jayant.
All premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Northern CoalfieldsLimited, Khadia Project in the State of Uttar Pradesh .
All premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Northern Coalfields Limited, Bina Project in the State of Uttar Pradesh .
All premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Northern Coalfields Limited , Kakri Project in the State of Uttar Pradesh .
All premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Northern Coalfields Limited, Dudhichua Project in the State of Madhya Pradesh. and Uttar Pradesh.
All premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Northern Coalfields Limited, Krishnashila Project in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
All premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Northern Coalfields Limited , Integrated Water Supply System ( IWSS) , Khadia in the State ofUttar Pradesh .
All premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Northern Coalfields Limited, Nehru Satabdi Chikitsalay, Jayant in the State of Madhya Pradesh .
[ F. No. 43022/3 /2012-PRIW-I ]
V. S. RANA , Under Secy.
पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली , 8 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 137.-सार्वजनिक परिसर (अनधिकृत कब्जाधारियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम 1971 ( 1971 का 40) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्राप्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग तथा भारल के गजट में दिनांक 28.5.2007 की का.आ. संख्या 2592 के अंतर्गत प्रकाशित पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार की दिनांक 15.9.2007 की अधिसूचना संख्याः आर -25015/1 /2007-ओ.आर-2 में आंशिक संशोधन करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार इस अधिसूचना के साथ संलग्न सारणी में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है जो इस प्रकार है:
8368/13-5 [PART 11--SEC . 3 ( ії ) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
300
सारणी
अधिकारी का पद
क्रम_सं. यूनिट/कार्यालय सार्वजनिक परिसरों की श्रेणियों तथा
का नाम स्थानीय क्षेत्राधिकार की क्षेत्र सीमाएं
क्रम पारादीप वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक ( प्रशासन) - इंडियन उड़ीसा राज्य के अंदर तथा आसंपास
संख्या 9 रिफाइनरी ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पारादीप इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के
परियोजना रिफाइनरी , बिजयचन्द्रपुर, पारादीप , प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण वाले सार्वजनिक
जिला- जगतसिंहपुर उड़ीसा-754142 परिसर
इनके स्थान पर निम्नलिखित को रखा जाए: -
पारादीप वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक ( मानव संसाधन) - उड़ीसा राज्य के अंदर तथा आसपास
रिफाइनरी इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के
परियोजना पारादीप रिफाइनरी , बिजयचन्द्रपुर , प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण वाले सार्वजनिक
पारादीप , जिला-जगतसिंहपुर , उड़ीसा परिसर
754142
[फा. सं. आर.- 25015/1/2007- ओ.आर. -1 ]
पवन कुमार, अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi , the 8th January, 2013
S.O. 137. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Un - authorized Occupants) Act - 1971 (40 of 1971 ) and in partial modification of the notification of the Govt . of India in the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas No. R-25015/ 1 /2007 -OR- 2 dated 28.5.2007 published vide S.O. 2592 dated 15.9.2007 in the Gazette of India , the Central Government makes the following amendments in the table annexed to this notification as under namely: -
TABLE
Designation of the Officer
SI . No.
Nameof the Unit/Office
Sr. No. 9 Paradip Refinery Project Categories of public premises and local limits of jurisdiction
Public premises under the administrative control of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. within the State of Orissa .
Sr.Manager (Admn. ) , Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Paradip Refinery, Bijaychandrapur, Paradip . Distt. Jagatsinghpur, Orissa 754 142.
Shallbe Substituted as under:
Paradip Refinery Project Public premises under the administrative control of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. within the State of Orissa.
Sr. Human Resources Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Paradip Refinery, Bijaychandrapur, Paradip, Distt . Jagatsinghpur, Orissa - 754 142 .
I. No. R - 25015/ 1 /2007-0.R . - 1 |
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Seev.
301
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013/पौष 29, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 18 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 138.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में पारादीप(उड़ीसा) से दुर्गापुर (पश्चिम बंगाल) तक वाया हल्दिया एलपीजी गैस परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि मे जो इस से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एस.सी. सरकार, डब्ल्यू. बी. सी. एस. (प्रशासनिक ) सेवानिवृत्त सक्षम प्राधिकारी , पारादीप - हल्दिया- दुर्गापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन एवम् पारादीप - हल्दिया - बरौनी पाइपलाइन ऑगमेंटेशन योजना, डाकघर दुईल्या, आन्दुल मौरी , मौरीग्राम हावड़ा-711 302 (पश्चिम बंगाल) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
पुलिस स्टेशन: चण्डीतला ।
राज्य: पश्चिम बंगाल
जिला : हूगली
क्षेत्रफल
मौजा का नाम
कम सं.
खसरा सं. (आर.एस.)
वर्ग मी.
हेक्टेयर एयर
2
1
3
4
5
1
688
00
07
00
कृष्णरामपुर 59
735
00
00
50
687
00
04
50
00
02
70
648/6455
650 00 01 00
651 00 01 70
653 00 03 00
652 00 00 20
655 00 02 00
654 00 01 10
657 00 00 20
00 00 80
657/6457
00
660
04
10 302
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
3
2
1
661
1 कृष्णरामपुर -59 (जारी---)
663
620
662
6
5
4
00
05
60
00
00
20
00
00
20
00
00
20
00
00
02
696/6881
680 00 02 30
619 00 00 80
614 00 00 20
615 00 00 30
00 01 30
617/6448
617 00 02 20
616 00 01 80
1855 00 01 60
00 02 70
2636/4484
2 मणिरामपुर 64
2636 00 01 10
2633 00 02 10
2634 00 00 70
2632 00 08 20
2585 00 00 30
मणिरामपुर 64
जारी..... 2587 00 00 70
2616 00 02 30
2614 00 00 20
2617 00 01 90
2618 00 00 80
2615 00 02 20
2613 00 05 20
2599 00 00 90
2600 00 04 90
2602 00 01 40
2601 00 02 90
2603 00 01 80
2604 00 01 40
2606 00 01 90
2610 00 00 50
2607 00 00 70
2605 00 00 30
2608 00 01 60
00 01 00
2609/4497
2609 00
04
00 [ भाग II--खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
303
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
1 2
3 4 5 6
मणिरामपुर - 64 2358 00 00 20
जारी..... 2357 00 01 10
2356 00 02 40
2355 00 01 10
2361 00 03 20
2347 00 07 50
2366 00 01 50
2345 00 00 50
2344 00 00 40
2343 00 01 70
2342 00 03 00
2333 00 00 90
2332 00 00 20
2340 00 01 70
2334 00 01 20
2335 00 03 20
2339 00 00 20
2337 00 00 20
2326 00 00 20
2336 00 02 00
2319 00 00 50
2314 00 00 20
2318 00 02 20
2317 00 03 40
2316 00 00 40
2289 00 03 50
2290 00 00 70
2293 00 03 20
2292 00 02 70
3 गंगाधरपुर 63 2396 00 03 40
2395 00 00 20
2389 00 05 10
2384 00 03 00
2381 00 00 90
2361 00 00 70
2362 00 02 10
2380 00 00 20
2360 00 01 00
2363 00 00 70
[PART II- SC. 3 ( ii )]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
304
4 T 5 6
3
1 2
00 00 20
2359
गंगाधरपुर 63 00 01 70
2358
जारी.....
00 03 00
2357
2355 00 02 80
2275 00 01 70
2274 00 00 20
2270 00 01 90
00 01 50
2269
00 00 20
2266
00 01 60
2265
00 01 50
2264
00 00 20
2258
00 03 60
2260
00 04 70
2259
00 01 90
2236
00 00 80
2237
00 03 30
2235
00 01 20
2234
1406 00 01 40.
00 00 20
1385
00 01 30
1407
00 01 50
1408
00 00 20
1409
00 01 40
1401
00 00 40
1400
00 00 20
1402
00 01 50
1398
00 01 60
1397
00 01 30
1395
00 00 20
1393
00 00 50
1394
00 03 40
1374
00 01 00
1373
00 03 10
1372
1365 00 01 80
00 00 80
1364
00 00 70
1363
00 05 60
1357
00 00 50
1310
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
1 2
3
गंगाधरपुर 63 3258
जारी..... 3216
3215
3213
3212
3220
3204
3203
3202
3189
3201
3200
3194
3193
3197
3195
3196
305
4 5 6 00 02 00 00 01 80 00 01 60 00 01 00 00 01 30 00 00 20 00 00 30 00 00 20 00 01 60 00 00 20 00 00 40 00 02 50 00 00 40 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 01 70 00 01 10. 00 01 70
2958/3333
00
00
80
2957/3497
3188 00 00 30
2958 00 01 00
2959 00 02 10
3182 00 00 70
00 00 20
2960/3498
3181 00 03 00
2963 00 02 60
2968 00 01 30
2967 00 01 70
3035 00 00 70
00 00 80
2980/3503
2983 00 02 00
2984 00 00 60
2964 00 00 20
2986 00 01 10
2985 00 01 60
2982 00 00 20
00 00 40
2987/3514
306
[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
3 4 5 6
1 2
63 2499 00 00 90
गंगाधरपुर
जारी..... 2498 00 00 40
2497 00 00 20
2495 00 01 90
2494 00 01 50
2493 00 00 20
2459 00 00 40
2460 00 02 00
2464 00 00 40
2463 00 01 00
2461 00 01 60
2448/3430 00 00 60
2447 00 03 40
2437 00 00 50
2438 00 01 40
2436 00 01 80
2430 00 00 40
2432 00 02 40
2433 00 00 20
2426 00 01 00
2425 00 01 70
2423 00 00 20
2424 00 00 20
[फा. सं. आर.- 25011/2/2012- ओ.आर. - 1 ] पवन कुमार , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 18th January, 2013
S.O. 138. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha ) to Durgapur (West Bengal ) Via Haldia a pipeline should be laid in State of West Bengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii )]
307
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S.C.Sarkar W.B.C.S ( Exe. ) Retd. Competent Authority Paradip - Haldia -Durgapur LPG Pipeline & Augmentation of Paradip - Haldia -Barauni Pipeline Project, P.O , Duillya, Andul - Mouri , Mourigram . Howrah , 711-302 (West Bengal)
SCHEDULE PS: CHANDITALA - 1
DISTRICT : HOOGHLY
SI . KhasraNo.
Name of the Mouza
No. (R.S)
1 2 3
1 KRISHNARAMPUR -59 688
735
687
648/6455
650
651
653
652
655
654
657
657/6457
660
661
663
620
662
696/6881
680
619
614
STATE: WEST BENGAL
Area
Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
4 5 6
00 07 00
00 00 50
00 04 50
00 02 70
00 01 00
00 01 70
00 03 00
00 00 20
00 02 00
00 01 10
00 00 20
00 00 80
00 04 10
00 05 60
00 00 20
00 00 20
00 00 20
00 02 00
00 02 30
00 00 80
00 00 20
308
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
1
2
3
615
1 KRISHNARAMPUR-59
PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
6
4
5
00
00
30
00
01
617/6448
(Contd...) 30
617 00 02 20
616 00 01 80-
1855 00 01 60
2 MANIRAMPUR - 64
00 02
2636/4484
2636
2633
2634
2632
MANIRAMPUR - 64
2586
Contd ...
2587
2616
2614
2617
2618
2615
2613
2599
2600
2602
2601
2603
2604
2606
2610
2607
2605
2608
70
00 01 10 00 02 10 00 00 70 00 08 20 00 00 30 00 00 70 00 02 30 00 00 20 00 01 90 00 00 80 00 02 20. 00. 05 20 00 00 90 00 04 90 00 01 40 00 02 90 00 01 80 00 01 40 00 01 90 00 00 50 00 00 70 00 00 30 00 01 60 00 01 00
2609/4497
2609 00 04 00 2358 00 00 20 2357 00 01 10 2356 00 02 40 2355 00 01 10 2361 00 03 20 2347 00 07 50 2366 00 01 50 2345 00 00 50
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]
309
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
1 2 5 6
MANIRAMPUR - 64 2344 00 00 40
Contd... 2343 00 01 70
2342 00 03 00
2333 00 00 90
2332 00 00 20
2340 00 01 70
2334 00 01 20
2335 00 03 20
2339 00 00 20
2337 00 00 20
2326 00 00 20
2336 00 02 00
2319 00 00 50
2314 00 00 20
2318 00 02 20
2317 00 03 40
2316 00 00 40
2289 00 03 50
2290 00 00 70
2293 00 03 20
2292 00 02 70
3 GANGADHARPUR - 63 2396 00 03 40
2395 00 00 20
2389 00 05 10
2384 00 03 00
2381 00 00 90
2361 00 00 70
2362 00 02 10
2380 00 00 20
2360 00 01 00
2363 00 00 70
2359 00 00 20
2358 00 01 70
2357 00 03 00
2355 00 02 80
2275 00 01 70
2274 CO 00 20
2270 00 01 90
2269 00 01 50
310
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii )) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
GANGADHARPUR - 63 00 00 20
2266
Contd... 00 01 60
2265
00 01 50
2264
00 00 20
2258
00 03 60
2260
00 04 70
2259
00 01 90
2236
00 00 80
2237
00 03 30
2235
00 01 20
2234
00 01 40
1406
00 00 20
1385
00 01 30
1407
00 01 50
1408
00 00 20
1409
00 01 40
1401
00 00 40
1400
00 00 20
1402
00 01 50
1398
00 01 60
1397
00 01 30
1395
00 00 20
1393
1394 00 00 50
00 03 40
1374
00 01 00
1373
00 03 10-
1372
1365 00 01 80
00 00 80
1364
00 00 70
1363
00 05 60
1357
00 00 50
1310
00 02 00
3258
00 01 80
3216
3215 00 01 60
00 01 00
3213
00 01 30
3212
00 00 20
3220
00 00 30
3204
00 00 20
3203
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
311
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013/पौष 29, 1934
1
2
3
GANGADHARPUR - 63 3202
Contd... 3189
3201
3200
3194
3193
3197
3195
3196
5
4
6
00 01 60 00 00 20 00 00 40 00 02 50 00 00 40 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 01 70 00 01 10 00 01 70
2958/3333
00
00
80
2957/3497
3188 00 00 30
2958 01 00
2959 00 02 10
3182 00 00 70
00 00 20
2960/3498
3181 00 03 00
2963 00 02 60
(আচ্ছ 2968 00 01 30
2967 00 01 70
3035 00 00 70
00 00
2980/3503
2983 2984 2964 2986 2985 2982
80
00 02 00 00 00 60- 00 00 20 00 01 10 00 01 60 00 00 20 00 00
2987/3514
40
2499 00 00 90
2498 00 00 40
2497 00 00 20
2495 00 01 90
2494 00 01 50
2493 00 00 20
2459 00 00 40
2460 00 02 00
2464 00 00 40
2463 00 01 00
312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
1 2 3
GANGADHARPUR - 63 2461
Contd... 2448/3430
2447
2437
2438
2436
2430
2432
2433
2426
2425
2423
2424
[ PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
4 5 6
00 01 60
00 00 60
00 03 40
00 00 50
00 0 40
00 01 80
00 00 40
00 02 40
00 00 20
01 00
00 01 70
00
00 20
F.No. R - 25011 : 2: 2012- O.R. - I ] PAWAN KUMAR . Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली , 18 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 139.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में पारादीप (उडीसा ) से दुर्गापुर (पश्चिम बंगाल ) तक वाया हल्दिया एलपीजी गैस परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इस से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एस.सी. सरकार डब्ल्यू. बी. सी . एस. (प्रशासनिक ) सेवानिवृत्त सक्षम प्राधिकारी, पारादीप - हल्दिया दुर्गापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन एवम् पारादीप - हल्दिया बरौनी पाइपलाइन ऑगमेंटेशन योजना, डाकघर दुईल्या, आन्दुल मौरी , गौरीग्राम हावडा -711 302 (पश्चिम बंगाल) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
313
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
अनुसूची
पुलिस स्टेशन : पोलबा
राज्य : पश्चिम बंगाल
जिला: हूगली
मौजा का नाम
कम सं.
क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर
वर्ग मी.
एयर
खसरा सं.
(आर.एस.)
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 मिर्जापुर 104 12 00 05 40
11 00 10 10
4 00 00 20
8 00 01 60
9 00 13 90
65 00 01 40
66 00 00 20
129 00 03 00
128 00 00 80
130 00 02 40
132 00 00 20
131 00 04 70
133 00 06 00
141 00 01 10
140 00 00 20
135 00 04 90
137 00 05 00
2 सारांपुर 111 947 00 02 60
984 00 05 10
985 00 00 30
986 00 09 60
989 00 06 80
990 06 00
974 00 02 70
00 01 80
:
991/1054
992 00 00 20 973 00 00 20 978 00 00 20 972 00 07 20 971 00 02 30
314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/ PAUSA 29 , 1934
1
2
3
514
सारांपुर 111 (जारी.....)
2594
95
3 पउनान
2597
2596
2595
2593
2615
2607
2612
2609
2608
[ PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) |
6
5
4
00
01
80
06
20
00
20
00
00
01
00
00
90
00
03
00
20
00
09
80
00
02
70
00
00
20
00
00
70
00
00
01
60
60
00
08
2604/5056
10
01
00
2604/5054
2606 00 06 40
2605 00 01 10
4 गोयालयोड़ 102 647 00 05 40
680 00 04 40
686 00 05 20
683 00 00 20
685 00 09 90
689 00 09 00
690 00 03 50
979 00 07 00
978 00 02 70
976 00 02 40
977 00 03 80
00 01 30
978/1028
975 00 08 60 989 00 00 20 996 00 00 40 974 00 10 00 973 00 00 90 972 00 04 10 971 00 04 30
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]
315
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
1
2
3
102
970
गोयालयोड़
जारी.....
969
282 5 पोलबा 96
281
278
277
283 4
5
6
00
03
80
00
04
00
00
03
40
00
90
08
00
03
50
00
03
40
00
00
60
00
00
60
290/1964
303 360 359 358 304 354 353 350 349 324 348 325 327 344 340 342 338 341 343 337 331 332 333 464 466 465
8340 / 13-7
00 09 10 00 02 20 00 06 10 00 01 50 00 00 20 00 04 60 00 02 40 00 04 60 00 02 60 00 03 70 00 02 00 00 03 50 00 00 20 00 00 70 00 02 30 00 01 70 00 00 20 00 02 10 00 00 90 00 04 90 00 01 30 00 02 00 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 06 40
[PART 11-SEC. 3(ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
316
2
3 1
468
पोलबा 96
469
जारी.....
1715
1712
1713
6
5
4
60
05
00
70
00
02
20
00
07
90
00
04
04
10
00
02
00
20
1712/8098
1711 00 02 00 1710 00 00 30 1704 00 03 60 1706 00 05 40 1705 00 01 50 1693 00 05 60 1703 00 03 40 1695 00 09 90 1451 00 04 60 1450 00 02 50 1449 00 01 20 1434 00 02 50 1447 00 03 70 1446 00 00 20 1458 00 00 20 1441 00 03 50 1444 00 00 60 1443 00 00 50 1442 00 01 50 1459 00 00 20 1440 00 06 80 1439 00 00 50 1466 00 03 10 1467 00 03 80 1464 00 00 50 1468 00 02 60 1469 00 02 60 1470 00 03 30
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii ) ]
317
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
1 2 3 4
5 6
पोलबा 96 1471 00 03 50
जारी..... 1473 00 00 20
1472 00 04 30
1490 00 04 10
1492 00 03 40
1491 00 00 20
1696 00 00 20
1493 00 03 30
1496 00 00 20
1494 00 00 90
1495 00 04 90
1498 00 04 60
1499 00 04. 70
1500 00 04 00
1505 00 02 20
1506 00 00 70
1507 00 00 20
1501 00 00 50
1502 00 01 90
1503 00 03 50
1301 00 02 00
1302. 00 00 40
1300 00 02 40
1299 00 06 30
4512 00 00 20
4511 00 07 80
4510 00 07 80
4509 00 00 40
4508 00 00 20
4506 00 01 10
4546 00 01 30
4504 00 09 90
3425 00 01 90
3317 00 05 30
318
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29. 1934
1 2 3
पोलबा 96 3315
जारी.. 3314
3313
3312
3311
3306
3319
3309
3307
3308
3326
3328
3327
3329
3330
3397
PART II St 3 ( ii ) |
4 5 6 00 01 70 00 01 90 00 00 20 00 06 30 00 02 50 00 02 80 00 00 20 00 01 60 00 05 70 00 04 10 00 00 20 00 03 70 00 03 40 00 00 20 00 04 80 00 01 70 00 04 80
3336/8388
3337 00 05 70 3339 00 00 90 3338 00 06 40 3336 00 00 20 3368 00 05 30 3369 00 03 20 3373 00 00 20 3370 00 07 40 3371 00 06 30 3375 00 02 60 3374 00 03 30 3376 00 00 30 3377 00 00 20 3082 00 14 00 3081 00 03 90 3080 00 04 20 3077 00 06 90
[ भाग ।। खण्ड ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29. 1934
1 2
3
पोलबा 96 3068
जारी..... 3066
3067
3065
3592
3593
3594
3601
3597
3600
3599
3609
3608
3610
3614
3607
3613
2982
2975
2976
2973
2974
2983
2966
3647
2972
2970
3640
3639
3641
3638
3649
3650
3651
319
4 5 6 00 09 00 00 02 60 00 02 60 00 06 40 00 04 50 00 00 80 00 02 00 00 00 20 00 03 80 00 02 20 00 02 40 00 03 70 00 01 20 00 00 20 00 10 50 00 00 20 00 01 70 00 01 90 00 04 80 00 01 10 00 00 20 00 07 70 00 00 30 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 20 00 09 10 00 07 50 00 00 20 00 03 70 00 01 40 00 05 80 00 01 00 00 00 20
320
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 / PAUSA 29.1934
1
2
3
पोलबा 96
3653
3654 जारी....
PAR 11 St 300
4
5
6
00
06
10
00
00
70
00
05
90
3654/8472
3652 00 00 90
3664 00 05 60
3663 00 03 70
3656 00 03 10
3658 CO 00 50
3657 00 07 70
00 CO 80
3842/8557
00
03
60
3838/8654
00
02
40
3657/8632
3659 00 07 20
00 00 20
3842/8554
3660 00 00 20
3824 00 10 10
3823 00 00 20
3822 00 01 50
3809 00 10 20
3805 00 00 50
3806 00 01 70
3808 00 12 30
3896 00 01 80
3899 00 05 80
3897 00 06 80
3898 00 04 70
3900 00 06 30
3892 00 00 20
3891 00 02 00
6 भोयागाछि 160 16 00 05 60
00 00 90
15/1362
00
02
40
15/1363
14 00 04 60 24 00 00 20
[भाग ।।--- खण्ड 3(ii ) }
321
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013 /पौष 29, 1934
1 2 3 4
5 6
भोयागाछि 160 13 00 02 80
जारी..... 12 00 09 10
11 00 00 20
28 00 09 50
29 00 05 00
32 00 05 50
31 00 01 40
102 00 07 40
101 00 01 10
103 00 00 60
108 00 00 60
107 00 07 40
110 00 03 80
111 00 01 50
112 00 07 70
00 05 40
407/1376
406 00 03 90
405 00 10 50
413 00 00 20
414 00 40
415 00 06 00
416 00 10 30
438 00 04 60
420 00 07 50
421 00 20 70
422 00 02 90
123 00 00
20
7 मेरिया 140 2684 00 04 30
2685 00 05 00
2686 00 00 20
2688 00 00 30
2687 00 05 20
2699 00 01 70
2700 00 06 20
322
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
1 2 3
मेरिया 140 2701
जारी. 2698
2702
2703
2771
2940
2776
2941
2942
2943
2787
2762
2761
2788
2789
2792
2795
2794
2793
2801
2802
2806
2818
2817
2816
2812
2811
2810
2813
2814
2845
2844
2842
2843
[PART II--SEC . 3 ( ii) )
4 5 6 00 02 90 00 03 60 00 05 50 00 00 90 00 06 10 00 05 50 00 00 70 00 04 20 00 05 80 00 05 20 00 03 40 00 00 20 00 01 60 00 02 20 00 04 20 00 04 80 00 01 10 00 00 20 00 07 00 00 04 40 00 04 10 00 03 70 00 01 00 00 03 10 00 00 90 00 04 90 00 00 20 00 02 00 00 01 60 00 00 30 00 00 20 00 03 60 00 01 30 00 06 50
[ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
323
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
1 2 3
मेरिया 140 2847
जारी..... 2841
2840
8 धुलियारा 149 2255
2245
2251
2244
2246
2248
2242
2249
2212
2211
2335
2336
2210
2337
2338
2201
1532
1533
1531
1534
1535
1539
1544
1543
1548
1542
1549
1552
1553
1555
1554
83 66113-8
4 5 6 00 01 70 00 08 60 00 00 30 00 01 80 00 04 40 00 00 20 00 03 60 00 04 80 00 01 40 00 01 30 00 00 40 00 10 60 00 03 10. 00 04 10 00 08 80 00 03 40 00 07 10 00 03 40 00 05 00 00 07 10 00 03 10 00 05 50 00 06 70 00 01 80 00 00 20 00 03 60 00 06 30 00 00 40 00 00 20 00 04 70 00 02 50 00 00 20 00 02 90 00 06 40
324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 / PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2
3
धुलियारा 149 1600
जारी..... 1599
1602
1601
1603
1701
1618
1619
1617
1620
1702
1738
1705
1703
1700
1698
1699
1686
1687
1681
1688
1689
1716
1717
1691
805
796
806
803
802
800
801
783
788
PART II Sic. ( ii ) ]
4 5 6 00 04 90 00 00 20 00 04 20 00 00 20 00 03 10 00 04 10 00 00 40 00 09 10 00 04 20 00 02 60 00 03 40 00 16 40 00 10 10 00 02 80 00 10 60 00 00 80 00 00 20 00 01 50 00 02 20 00 01 90 00 02 30 00 02 90 00 02 10 00 03 30 00 05 10 00 19 20 00 00 20 00 03 60 00 00 20 00 07 00 00 00 20 00 04 80 00 12 00 00 00 20
[भाग ।। खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
325
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
धुलियारा 149 787 00 03 40
जारी..... 786 00 03 30
769 00 02 40
775 00 01 20
767 00 01 50
770 00 04 40
691 00 00 20
771 00 00 20
689 00 06 50
690 00 00 20
772 00 01 00
688 00 02 60
684 00 00 20
685 00 06 30
682 00 00 40
681 00 04 00
680 00 00 90
679 00 01 60
678 00 02 40
662 00 02 00
663 00 05 40
664 00 05 60
661 00 00 20
665 00 17 30
654 00 00 60
9 भाटुया 158 597 00 04 40
00 00 20
2490/597
598 00 06 40 604 00 09 20 606 00 12 20 605 00 01 10 611 00 00 40 608 00 12 60 607 00 04 20 644 00 01 40 564 00 02 60 563 00 00 40 565 00 04 40 566 00 05 80
326
[PART II--SEC . 3 (fi ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/ PAUSA 29 , 1934
2
3 1
560
158
भादुया
567 जारी.....
569
498
499
443
441
442 4
5
6
00
20
00
00
20
00
00
20
00
50
00
06
00
00
50
05
90
00
10
05
00
00
00
70
00
50
02
2486/438
438 00 04 10 437 00 04 10
[फा. सं. आर. - 25011/4/2012- ओ.आर. - 1 ]
पवन कुमार , अवर सचित्र
New Delhi , the 18th January, 2013
S.O. 139. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal ) Via Haldia a pipeline should be laid in State of West Bengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the sald pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto:
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S.C.Sarkar, W.B.C.S ( Exe . ) Retd . Competent Authority Paradip - Haldia -Durgapur LPG Pipeline & Augmentation of Paradip - Haldia -Barauni Pipeline Project , P.O , Duillya Andul- Mouri , Mourigram, Howrah , 711-302 (West Bengal ) 327
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
SCHEDULE
DISTRICT : HOOGHLY P.S : POLBA
SI . Khasra
Name of the Mouza
No. (R.S)
1 2 3
1 MIRZAPUR -104 12
11
4
8
9
65
66
129
128
130
132
131
133
141
140
135
137
2 SARANPUR -111 947
984
985
986
989
990
974
991/1054
992
973
978
972
971
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Area
Нес. Are Sq.mtr.
4 5 6
00 05 40
00 10 10
00 00 20
00 01 60
00 13 90
00 01 40
00 00 20
00 03 00
00 00 80
00 02 40
00 00 20
00 04 70
00 06 00
00, 01 10
00 00 20
00 04 90
00 05 00
00 02 60
00 05 10
00 00 30
00 09 80
00 08 80
00 08 00
00 70
00 01 80
00 00 20
00 00 20
00 00 20
00 07 20
00 02 30
328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
1 2 3
SARANPUR -111 ( Contd...) 514
3 PAUNAN -95 2594
2597
2596
2595
2593
2615
2607
2612
2609
2608
[PART II--SEC. 3(ii) ]
4 5 6 00 01 80 00 06 20 00 00 20 00 01 00 00 03 90 00 00 20 00 09 80 00 02 70 00 00 20 00 00 70 00 01 60
00
2304/5056
08 60
2604/5054 00 01 10
2606 00 06 40
2605 00 01 10
4 GOALJOR - 102 647 00 05 40
680 00 04 40
686 00 05 20
683 00 00 20
685 00 09 90
689 00 09 00
690 00 03 50
979 00 07 00
978 00 02 70
976 00 02 40
977 00 03 80
978/1028 00 01 30
975 00 08 60
989 00 00 20
996 00 00 40
974 00 10 00
973 00 00 90
972 00 04 10
971 00 04 30
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
329
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
1
2
3
GOALGORA - 102 970
Contd... 969
5 POLBA - 96 282
281
278
277
283
290/1964
303
360
359
358
304
354
353
350
349
324
348
325
327
344
340
342
338
341
343
337
331
332
333
464
466
465
4
5
6
00 03 80 00 04 00 00 03 40 00 08 90 00 03 50 00 03 40 00 00 60 00 00 60 00 09 10 00 02 20 00 06 10 00 01 50 00 00 20 00 04 60 00 02 40 00 04 60 00 02 60 00 03 70 00 02 00 00 03 50 00 00 20 00 00 70 00 02 30 00 01 70 00 00 20 00 02 10 00 00 90 00 04 90 00 01 30 00 02 00 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 06 40
330
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 / PAUSA 29 , 1934
2
3 1
468 POLBA - 96
469
Contd...
1715
1712
1713
[PART 11 SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
4
5
6
00
05
60
70
00
02
07
20
00
00
04
90
04
10
OC
02
20
1712/8098
1711 1710 1704 1706 1705 1693 1703 1695 1451 1450 1449 1434 1447 1446 1458 1441 1444 1443 1442 1459 1440 1439 1466 1467 1464 1468 1469 1470
00
00 02 00 00 00 30 00 03 60 00 05 40 00 01 50 00 05 60 00 03 40 00 09 90 00 04 60 00 02 50 00 01 20 00 02 50 00 03 70 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 03 50 00 00 60 00 00 50 00 01 50 00 00 20 00 06 80 00 00 50 00 03 10 00 03 80 00 00 50 00 02 60 00 02 60 00 03 30
331
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013/पौष 29, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1 2 3
POLBA-96 1471
Contd... 1473
1472
1490
1492
1491
1696
1493
1496
1494
1495
1498
1499
1500
1505
1506
1507
1501
1502
1503
1301
1302
1300
1299
4512
4511
4510
4509
4508
4506
4546
4504
3425
3317
83 90113-9
4 5 6 00 03 50 00 00 20 00 04 30 00 04 10 00 03 40 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 03 30 00 00 20 00 00 90 00 04 90 00 04 60 00 04 70 00 04 00 00 02 20 00 00 70 00 00 20 00 00 50 00 01 90 00 03 50 00 02 00 00 00. 40 00 02 40 00 06 30 00 00 20 00 07 80 00 07 80 00 00 40 00 00 20 00 01 10 00 01 30 00 09 90 00 01 90 00 05 30
332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2 3
POLBA - 96 3315
Contd... 3314
3313
3312
3311
3306
3319
3309
3307
3308
3326
3328
3327
3329
3330
3397
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]
4 5 6 00 01 70 00 01 90 00 00 20 00 06 30 00 02 50 00 02 80 00 00 20 00 01 60 00 05 70 00 04 10 00 00 20 00 03 70 00 03 40 00 00 20 00 04 80 00 01 70 00 04 80
3336/8388
3337 00 05 70 3339 00 00 90 3338 00 06 40 3336 00 00 20 3368 00 05 30 3369 00 03 20 3373 00 00 20 3370 00 07 40 3371 00 06 30 3375 00 02 60 3374 00 03 30 3376 00 00 30 3377 00 00 20 3082 00 14 00 3081 00 03 90 3080 00 04 20 3077 00 06 90
[ भाग II-- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
भारत का राजषत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
1 2
3
POLBA - 96 3068
Contd... 3066
3067
3065
3592
3593
3594
3601
3597
3600
3599
3609
3608
3610
3614
3607
3613
2982
2975
2976
2973
2974
2983
2966
3647
2972
2970
3640
3639
3641
3638
3649
3650
3651
333
4 5 6 00 09 00 00 02 60 00 02 60 00 06 40 00 04 50 00 00 80 00 02 00 00 00 20 00 03 80 00 02 20 00 02 40 00 03 70 00 01 20 00 00 20 00 10 50 00 00 20 00 01 70 00 01 90 00 04 80 00 01 10 00 00 20 00 07 70 00 00 30 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 09 10 00 07 50 00 00 20 00 03 70 00 01 40 00 05 80 00 01 00 00 00 20
PARI 11 SEC. 3 ( ii ) |
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19 , 2013/ PAUSA 29. 1934
334
3
2
1
3653
POLBA - 96
3654
Contd...
3654/8472
3652
3664
3663
3656
3658
3657
6
5
4
10
06
00
70
00
00
90
05
00
90
00
00
05
60 00
70
03
00
10
03
00
50
00
00
70
07
00
80
00
00
3842/8557
60
03
00
3838/8654
40
02
00
3657/8632
00 07 20
3659
00 00 20
3842/8554
00 00 20
3660
00 10 10
3824
00 00 20
3823
00 01 50
3822
00 10 20
3809
00 00 50
3805
00 01 70
3806
00 12 30
3808
00 01 80
3896
00 05 80
3899
00 06 80
3897
00 04 70
3896
00 06 30
3900
00 00 20
3892
00 02 00
3891
16 00 05 60
6 BHOAGACHHI - 180
15/1362 00 00 90
00 02 40
15/1363
00 04 80
14
00 00 20
24
335
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1 2 3 4 5 6
BHOAGACHHI - 160 13 00 02 80
Contd... 12 00 09 10
11 00 00 20
28 00 09 50
29 00 05 00
32 00 05 50
31 00 01 40
102 00 07 40
101 00 01 10
103 00 00 60
108 00 00 60
107 00 07 40
110 00 03 80
111 00 01 50
112 00 07 70
00 05 40
407/1376
406 00 03 90
405 00 10 50
413 00 00 20
414 00 01 40
415 00 06 00
416 00 10 30
438 00 04 60
420 00 07 50
421 00 20 70
422 00 02 90
423 00 00 20
7 MERIA - 140 2684 00 04 30
2685 00 05 00
2686 00 00 20
2688 00 00 30
2687 00 05 20
2699 00 01 70
2700 00 06 20
336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2 3
MERIA - 140 2701
Contd... 2698
2702
2703
2771
2940
2776
2941
2942
2943
2787
2762
2761
2788
2789
2792
2795
2794
2793
2801
2802
2806
2818
2817
2816
2812
2811
2810
2813
2814
2845
2844
2842
2843
(PART 11 - SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
4 5 6 00 02 90 00 03 60 00 05 50 00 00 90 00 06 10 00 05 50 00 00 70 00 04 20 00 05 80 00 05 20 00 03 40 00 00 20 00 01 60 00 02 20 00 04 20 00 04 80 00 01 10 00 00 20 00 07 00 00 04 40 00 04 10 00 03 70 00 01 00 00 03 10 00 00 90 00 04 90 00 00 20 00 02 00 00 01 60 00 00 30 00 00 20 00 03 60 00 01 30 00 06 50
337
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1 2 3 4 5 6
MERIA - 140 2847 00 01 70
Contd... 2841 00 08 60
2840 00 00 30
8 DHULIARA - 149 2255 00 01 80
2245 00 04 40
2251 00 00 20
2244 00 03 60
2246 00 04 80
2248 00 01 40
2242 00 01 30
2249 00 00 40
2212 00 10 60
2211 00 03 10
2335 00 04 10
2336 00 08 80
2210 00 03 40
2337 00 07 10
2338 00 03 40
2201 00 05 00
1532 00 07 10
1533 00 03 10
1531 00 05 50
1534 00 06 70
1535 00 01 80
1539 00 00 20
1544 00 03 60
1543 00 06 30
1548 00 00 40
1542 00 00 20
1549 00 04 70
1552 00 02 50
1553 00 00 20
1555 00 02 90
1554 00 06 40
[PART II--SEC. 3( ii ))
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
338
3 4 5 6
1 2
00 04 90
DHULIARA - 149 1600
1599 00 00 20
Contd...
1602 00 04 20
1601 00 00 20
1603 CO 03 10
1701 00 04 10
00 00 40
1618
00 09 10
1619
1617 00 04 20
1620 00 02 60
00 03 40
1702
1738 00 16 40
00 10 10
1705
00 02 80
1703
1700 00 10 60
1698 00 00 80
00 00 20
1699
1686 00 01 50
1687 00 02 20
1681 00 01 90
00 02 30
1688
00 02 90
1689
00 02 10
1716
1717 00 03 30
1691 00 05 10
805 00 19 20
796 00 00 20
806 00 03 60
00 00 20
803
00 07 00
802
800 00 00 20
00 04 80
801
783 00 12 00
00 00 20
788
339
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
[भाग II--खण्ड 3(ii) ]
2 3
1
DHULIARA - 149 787
Contd... 786
769
775
767
770
691
771
689
690
772
688
684
685
682
681
680
679
678
662
663
664
661
665
654
9 BHATUA - 158 597
2490/597
598
604
606
605
611
608
607
8395/13- 10
4 5 6
00 03 40
00 03 30
00 02 40
00 01 20
00 01 50
00 04 40
00 00 20
00 00 20
00 06 50
00 00 20
00 01 00
00 02 60
00 00 20
06 30
00 00 40
00 04 00
00 00 90
00 01 60
00 02 40
00 02 00
00 05 40
00 05 60
00 00 20
00 17 30
00 00 60
00 04 40
00 00 20
00 06 40
00 09 20
00 12 20
00 01 10
00 00 40
00 12 60
00 04 20
340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19. 2013 PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2 3
BHATUA 158 644
Contd.. 564
563
565
566
560
567
569
498
499
443
441
442
2486/438
438
437
PART II -SEC. 3 (ii) ]
4 5 6 00 01 40 00 02 60 00 00 40 00 04 40 00 05 80 00 00 20 00 00 20 CO 00 20 00 06 50 00 00 50 00 05 90 00 05 10 00 00 70 00 02 50 00 04 10 00 04 10
[ F. No. R - 25011 /4/2012 - O.R. - I ] PAWAN KUMAR , Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली , 18 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ.140.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में पारादीप (उड़ीसा) से दुर्गापुर (पश्चिम बंगाल ) तक वाया हल्दिया एलपीजी गैस परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि मे जो इस से उपाबद्व अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एस.सी. सरकार, डब्ल्यू. बी. सी. एस. (प्रशासनिक) सेवानिवृत्त सक्षम प्राधिकारी , पारादीप हल्दिया दुर्गापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन एवम् पारादीप हल्दिया बरौनी पाइपलाइन ऑगमेंटेशन योजना, डाकघर दुईल्या, आन्दुल मौरी , मौरीग्राम हावड़ा-711 302 (पश्चिम बंगाल) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
अनुसूची
पुलिस स्टेशन : धनियाखाली
341
राज्य: पश्चिम बंगाल
जिला: हूगली
मौजा का नाम
कम सं.
क्षेत्रफल
खसरा सं.
(आर.एस.)
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मी.
1 2 3
4 5 6
1 बेलमुड़ि 190
476 00 01 50
477 00 07 60
478 00 06 30
906 00 04
30
905 00 07 70
904 00 00 30
907 00 00
20
908 00 06
10
903 00 00
50
909 00 01 30
902 00 08 80
888 00 00 20
901 00 02 50
889 00 08 10
890 00 00. 30
894 00 04 10
893 00 02 70
892 00 05
40
891 00 01 00
1779 00 03 70
1556 00 09 40
1557 00 02 50
1558 00 06 40
1559 00 06 10
1703 00 03 00
1701 00 05
70
1702 00 00 40
1563 00 01 30
1700 00 02 10.
1696 00 00 40
[PART 11- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
342
4 5 6
2 3
1
00 00 20
190 1695
बेलमुड़ि 02 00
1697 00
जारी.....
00 01 60
1698
00 00 90
1699
00 01 90
1575
00 07 00
1692
00 12 80
1691
00 01 20
1609
00 05 10
1610
00 00 20
1690
00 01 30
1640
00 04 70
1639
00 00 40
1611
00 00 60
1635
00 01 20
1642
00 03 90
1631
00 02 00
1529
00 03 70
1630
00 03 70
1637
00 00 20
1628
00 01 60
1627/1848
00 03 30
1627
00 01 30
1626
90 00 20
1647
00 OC 80
1638
09 00 20
1636
00 08 80
1347
00 03 10
1346
00 00 60
1345
00 03 10
1344
1341 00 02 60
00 02 90
1343
00 00 70
1342
00 06 10
1324
343
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
[ भाग 11-खण्ड 3(ii) ]
3 4 5 6
1 2
1323 00 02 80
बेलमुड़ि 190
1323/1858 00 02 20
जारी....
1319 00 03 90
1318 00 01 20
1322 00 00 20
1317 00 00 70
1292 00 02 00
1289 00 04 60
1305 00 00 80
1293 00 04 10
1300 00 06 50
1295 00 00 30
1304 00 00 90
1301 00 01 30
1299 00 00 20
1302 00 04 10
1303 00 01 90
1308 00 06 30
601 00 02 40
2 पुरन्दरपुर 208
608 00 03 00
602 00 02 00
606 00 01 00
605 00 01 60
523 00 04 90
524 00 01 90
524/950 00 00 20
525 02 70
527 00 01 60
526 00 00 20
528 00 01 40
514 00 01 70
513 00 02 20
510/947 00 08 30
487 00 01 80
344
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
1 2 3
पुरन्दरपुर 208 488
जारी..... 486
492
491
499
497
498
495
501
502
473
322
299
300
305
301
302
303
275
274
276
273
269
272
271
210
209
212
208
207
949
216
217
706
PART 11 -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
4 5 6 00 02 70 00 00 20 00 02 40 00 01 10 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 01 40 00 03 30 GO 02 10 00 01 40 00 00 30 00 05 00 00 01 00 00 02 80 00 00 20 00 03 80 00 03 30 00 00 90 00 03 70 00 00 50 00 03 50 00 00 20 00 04 90 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 00 60 00 01 00 00 03 90 00 01 10 00 01 30 00 01 70 00 02 30 00 02 80 00 02 20
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
1 2
3
पुरन्दरपुर 208 705
जारी.. 704
3 बागनान 199 1569
1570
1571
1573
1572
1560
1558
1559
1555
1553
1554
1508
1552
1507
1509
1510
1511
1444
1512
1443
1380
1367
1387
1388
1305
1259
1260
1765
1261
1263
1264
1233
345
4 5 6 00 00 70. 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 02 20 00 01 60 00 02 10 00 00 20 00 06 10 00 05 90 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 01 00 00 01 60 00 02 40 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 03 00 00 02 40 00 00 40 00 02 40 00 01 20 00 09 20 00 06 00 00 03 80 00 00 20 00 06 40 00 00 50 00 02 50 00 01 80 00 00 20 00 00 70 00 03 00 00 01 90 00 00 20
THE GAZET TE OF INDIA JANUARY 19, 2013 PAUSA 29.1934
346
3
2
1
1202
बागनान 199
1203
जारी..
6
5
4
07
60 00
30
00
00
70
03
00
1024/1706
1199 00 01 70
00 00 70
1054/1723
20
01
00
1269/1760
01
10
00
1054/1722
50
00
1054/1721
40
00
00
1199/1717
00 03 10
1200
1196 00 00 70
00 01 70
1195
on 04 60
1024/1708
1049 00 01 40
1025 CO 01 50
1031 00 00 20
1030 00 03 CO
1034 00 02 80
1035 00 00 20
00 01 70
1011/1682
1011 00 01 30
1010 00 03 50
1009 00 02 40
1007 00 00 70
1008 00 02
00 01 70
1007/1690
1194 00 01 60
1192 00 02 30
1193 00 00 70
1191 00 01 70
1190 00 00 30
1050 00 00 20
1051 00 00 20
00 07 00
1049
[ भाग II खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
347
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
1
2
3
1048 बागनान 199
जारी.....
4
6
5
00
01
60
00
00
20
1026/1757
1032 00 02 00
1045 00 02 10
1046 00 01 90
1047 00 09 00
1064 00 00 20
1065 00 05 70
1069 00 02 70
1068 00 00 20
1070 00 03 50
00 00 69
1071/1694
01
00
10
1071/1692
1081
1080
1084
1085
1086
1087
4 रूद्राणी 189 218
219
221
220
222
261
262
263
280
281
253
252
292
293
294
83GI/2013-11
00 06 00 00 00 20 00 10 30 00 00 40 00 05 50 00 00 20 00 01 60 00 01 10 00 00 70 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 00 60 00 01 20 00 03 70 00 02 90 00 01 20 00 00 60 00 05 30 00 00 20 00 04 20 00 02 40
348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19, 2013/PAUSA 29 , 1934
1
2
3
रूद्राणी 189
299
जारी.....
335
334
333
337
331
332
330
314
312
313
311
311/425
386
175
110
111
622
627
630
631
629
632
633
635
640
639
717/1868
1861
1092/1870
1094/1860
1088
1092
1067
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]
4
5
6
00
03
70
00
03
50
00
00
80
00
00
20
00
03
10
00
02
30
00
02
00
00
05
00
06
10
00
00
40
00
05
70
00
00
90
00
04
70
G
00
50
00
24
00
00
08
30
00
00
20
00
00
20
00
00
60
00
01
90
00
00
80
00
00
20
00
00
50
00
02
60
00
01
10
00
02
30
00
01
60
00
00
20
00
01
50
00
00
90
00
02
30
00
02
80
00
04
30
00
03
00 349
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
1 2 3 4 5 6
रूद्राणी 189 1068 00 03 40
जारी..... 00 01 30
1050 00 02 90
1048 00 00 60
1051 00 03 00
1052 00 02 50
1044 00 00 40
1043 00 03 70
1040 00 03 30
1034 00 00 20
1039 00 00 20
1038 00 02 50
1036 00 00 20
1035 00 00 20
1018 00 05 00
1019 00 00 20
00 01 00
1019/1805
1017 00 00 70
1011 00 01 00
1245 00 05 10
1010 00 00 20
1246 00 02 40
1247 00 00 20
1258 00 02 00
1256 00 03 10
1255 00 03 60
1254 00 03 10
580 00 15 00
5 उत्तर मोगलपुर 180
00 04 80
581/697
700 00 03 00
579 00 04 40
571 00 00 40
585 00 07 30
00 03 60
585/698
350
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
1 2 3
उत्तर मोगलपुर 180 587
जारी..... 539
591
592
538
535
536
532
527
529
528
172
171
170
669
[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
4 5 6 00 00 20 00 03 10 00 02 20 00 00 20 00 02 80 00 06 20 00 02 00 00 00 20 00 01 70 00 00 20 00 00 50 00 02 30 00 01 70 00 02 40 00 01 10 00 01 30
118/668
118 00 01 80 123 00 00 20 119 00 02 80 114 00 01 00 120 00 00 20 88 00 01 70 89 00 02 90 90 00 00 20 82 00 06 30 81 00 00 20 80 00 03 30 71 00 01 70 72 00 02 70 79 00 00 20 73 00 02 20 8 00 03 10 7 00 01 10 6 00 02 10
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
351
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
1 2 3 4
5 6
उत्तर मोगलपुर 180 5 00 01 40
जारी..... 2 00 00 20
3 00 01 70
4 00 00 50
6 बड़खॉपुर - 181 818 00 00 50
817 00 00 80
816 00 01 10
815 00 00 20
700 00 02 90
701 00 00 50
809 00 04 80
702 00 00 50
808 00 01 60
705 00 04 30
707 00 03 70
710 00 00 20
709 00 04 60
714 00 00 30
726 00 03 50
725 00 05 30
724 00 02 10
723 00 02 20
722 00 02 10
511 00 06 40
512 00 01 90
513 00 01 30
495 00 04 10
482 00 03 50
494 00 00 20
493 00 01 60
481 00 02 00
477 00 02 60
478 00 00 20
476 00 02 30
352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
1
2
3
475
बड़खॉपुर 161 जारी.....
473
474
472
471
466
468
467
53
66
54
63
55
56
57
58
371 7 वाथानगड़िया 159
372
361
379
553
378
589
384
388
387
390
389
274
249
[PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii)]
4
5
6
00
02
20
00
03
90
00
00
20
00
02
90
00
00
20
00
02
80
00
00
20
00
06
10
00
01
50
00
01
50
00
04
70
00
00
20
00
04
00
00
02
10
00
02
20
00
05
30
00
01
30
00
09
30
00
00
90
00
00
03
00
00
20
00
04
40
00
00
90
00
06
50
00
00
20
00
03
70
00
02
20
00
00
30
00
02
90
00
00
20
00
242/578
242
00
90
00
01
00
00
242/577
243
01
00
00
02
90 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
353
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
1 2 3
4 5 6
वाथानगडिया 159 245 00 02 70
जारी..... 234 00 06 60
209 00 06 40
207 00 01 80
203 00 01 00
204 00 04 50
205 00 03 80
58 00 04 40
62 00 02 30
64 00 01 90
66/597 00 02 00
233/607 00 07 10
73 00 01 10
72/596 00 01 80
76 00 00 20
91 00 02 40
89 00 02 60
90 00 01 60
92/614 00 02 80
92 00 02 90
102 00 05 90
120 00 04 10
103 00 00 20
117 00 04 50
118 00 00 20
116 00 01 70
115 00 01 30
106 00 00 70
105 00 01 80
104 00 06 90
8 चेड़ाग्राम 158 2915/3542 00 05 70
2488 00 00 20
2914 00 06 80
2907 00 00 20
354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
1 2 3
चेड़ाग्राम 158 2908
जारी...... 2491
2543
2545
2546
2547
2548
2626
2832
2830
2827
2831
2829
2828
2825
2826
2692
2700
2701
2702
2780
2703
2779
2777
2770
[ PART II-SEC . 3(ii ) ]
4 5 6
00 03 10
00 05 60
00 05 00
00 00 20
00 05 20
00 06 40
00 03 40
00 00 80
00 01 20
00 00 20
00 00 20
00 01 20
00 00 30
90 00 20
00 01 40
00 02 00
00 00 70
00 05 30
00 50
DO 08- 40
00 01 40
00 00 20
00 00 60
00 03 60
-00 00 20
00 00 20
2778/3556
01
30
00
2761/3555
2761 00 03 40 2744 00 00 40 2745 00 01 80 2746 00 00 20 2747 01 50 2748 -00 00 30 2749 00 01 70
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
355
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
1
2
3
158
2750 चेड़ाग्राम
जारी.....
2742
2737
2740
2739
2738
1992
1125
1124
1123
1122
1120 5
4
6
00
00
20
00
02
30
00
00
02
00
00
20
00
01
50
00
02
10
00
20
00
00
01
80
00
00
20
00
10
03
00
60
00
00
00
20
00
01
10
1121/2984
1121 00 01 80
00 01 70
1121/2983
2982 00 00 20
1113 00 00 40
1114 00 00 20
1112 00 01 60
00 01 60
1114/2980
1115 00 04 10
1108 00 01 30
1107 00 00 20
1106 00 02 50
1104 00 00 60
1101 00 00 40
1105 00 04 70
702 00 00 20
703 00 00 70
738 00 05 70
00 01 00
736/3654
30
00
00
739/3024
80
00
00
737/3023
3022
83 G1/2013-12
00
08
20 396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
1 2 3
चेड़ाग्राम 158 3029
जारी..... 3032
3031
732
731
750
1164
755
756
757
758
761
888
1132
762
763
764
765
473
472
471
777
778
779
780
781
783
785
787
796
795
797
[PART --St.C . (ii ) ]
4 5 6 00 02 80 00 02 80 00 02 10 00 06 30 00 01 40 00 00 20 00 01 30 00 05 50 00 04 60 00 03 90 00 06 80 00 05 10 00 00 20 00 03 10 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 10 00 00 03 60 00 04 90 00 03 40 00 01 10 00 01 90 00 00 20 00 02 60 00 02 10 00 02 40 00 02 00 00 00 40 00 03 30 00 01 70 00 01 30 00 00 40
794/3821
798 00
07
80 357
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड-3( ii) ]
3
2
1
810
158
चेड़ाग्राम
1156 जारी.....
802
803
804
9 बालिदह 125
5
6
4
00
20
00
10
00
05
60
01
00
04
70
00
07
80
00
02
90
00
842/1038
971 00 00 40
970 00 05 80
968 00 02 20
00 00 50
972/1049
973 00 00 50
00 00 20
968/1035
716/0 00 00 50
966 00 03 60
967 00 01 70
795 00 01 40
796 00 03 50
800 00 06 40
801 00 04 10
802 00 01 60
00 03 10
802/1026
810 00 01 70 809 00 00 20 811 00 01 50 812 00 04 30 713 OC 02 70 714 00 03 80 711 00 00 20 710 00 03 00 709 00 00 40 708 00 01 80 707 00 01 20 706 00 01 30 370 00 02 20
358
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2 3
बालिदह 125 369
जारी..... 368
367
364
365
366
10 गुड़ाप 126 4388
4389
4387
4781
4390
4480
4782
4391
4383
4362
4376
4375
4776
4777
4377
4374
4366
4368
4367
4311
4310
4309
4308
4305
4176
3294
3293
3269
PART 11 -SEC. 3( ii ) ]
4 5 6 00 00 20 00 03 70 00 02 10 00 01 00 00 04 90 00 03 30 00 08 10 00 01 30 00 00 20 00 01 60 00 01 90 00 00 20 00 00 40 00 06 10 00 01 20 00 00 20 00 01 80 00 00 80 00 00 30 00 01 00 00 00 30 00 03 10 00 06 40 00 01 80 00 04 10 00 04 00 00 00 20 00 03 60 00 00 20 00 01 10 00 00 20 00 05 00 00 03 80 00 00 20
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
359
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
गुड़ाप 126 3270 00 00 80
जारी..... 3291 00 02 40
3292 00 02 20
3289 00 05 60
3288 00 02 00
3287 00 01 90
3188 00 03 00
3189 00 00 20
3187 00 04 00
3184 00 02 90
3185 00 00 30
2239 00 01 50
3015 00 01 40
3016 00 01 70
3017 00 00 20
3012 00 02 20
3011 00 02 10
3010 00 02 10
3009 00 01 00
3008 00 01 20
3006 00 02 70
2995 00 02 70
2990 00 02 60
2975 00 04 10
2974 00 03 90
2977 00 00 20
2965 00 01 30
2964 00 00 20
2963 00 03 10
2961 00 03 30
2950 00 02 00
2949 00 01 90
2948 00 00 20
2937 00 02 20
360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013/PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2 3
गुड़ाप 126 3316
जारी..... 2936
2945
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2752
2753
2756
2755
2758
2759
2760
2859
2489
2857
2860
2862
2869
2867
2868
2866
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2833
361
360
362
359
[ PART 11-SEC . 3( ii) ]
4 5 6 00 01 20 00 00 20 00 04 40 00 03 60 00 06 90 00 00 50 00 07 30 00 01 20 00 00 40 00 00 70 00 04 00 00 00 80 00 01 60 00 03 90 00 00 20 00 03 50 00 01 20 00 00 20 00 05 20 00 00 20 00 00 40 00 02 10 00 02 90 00 00 20 00 02 80 00 00 40 00 05 70 00 05 50 00 02 60 00 03 30 00 07 60 00 01 20 00 02 60 00 02 60
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
361
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29, 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
गुड़ाप 126 368 00 12 50
जारी..... 364 00 00 20
369 00 01 20
347 00 02 00
346 00 03 10
342 00 03 70
341 00 00 40
343 00 00 40
340 00 02 30
339 00 01 80.
338 00 00 20
337 00 04 70
336 00 00 20
307 00 01 20
319 00 02 60
317 00 00 70
318 00 02 10
320 00 00 70
328 00 07 30
321 00 00 30
949 00 02 60
952 00 01 60
951 00 04 60
950 00 00 20
955 00 06 00
956 00 03 00
1046 00 00 60
960 00 00 20
961 00 04 30
962/1121 00 00 20
962 00 04 60
677 00 00 20
669 00 01 90
672 00 01 40
362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
1
2
3
670
साटिदह 132
647 जारी.....
646
649
645
640
639
641
637
634
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]
6
4
5
00
00
60
00
01
10
10
00
01
00
02
30
40
00
00
00
01
10
01
60
00
00
20
00
00
02
50
00
00
20
00
00
20
634/1151
00
00
20
638/1083
635 00 03 10 636 00 00 20 630 00 03 30 560 00 02 60 604 00 00 20 603 00 01 20 602 00 02 40 601 00 01 00 599 00 00 70 600 00 02 50 591 00 02 80 592 00 04 20 587 00 00 20 305 00 00 50 306 00 01 70 307 00 02 30 308 00 01 80 309 00 11 00 326 00 03 00 327 00 00 70 328 00 00 20 324 00 13 40
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
1 2 3
साटिदह 132 325
जारी..... 322
331
330
119
118
333
334
335
336
63
61
337
338
344
345
347
346
348
349
363
4 5 6
00 00 40
00 00 20
00 05 30
00 14 30
00 00 20
00 00 70
00 12
00 /
00 02 10
00 01 00
00 03 40
00 00 40
00 08 10
00 01 90
00 03 70
00 07 50
00 06 70
00 02 90
00 00 40
00 01 30
00 00 20
00 02 70
349/1095
351 00 02 20 350 00 01 20 354 00 02 70 355 00 05 90 6 00 00 50
[फा. सं. आर. - 25011/6/2012- ओ.आर. -1 ]
83 GI /2013-13
पवन कुमार, अवर सचिव 364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
[PART 11 SLC. 3( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 18th January, 2013
S.O. 140.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal ) Via Haldia a pipeline should be laid in State of WestBengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this motification are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S.C.Sarkar , W.B.C.S ( Exe . ) Retd . Competent Authority Paradip - Haldia -Durgapur LPG Pipeline & Augmentation of Paradip - Haldia -Barauni Pipeline Project , P.O , Duillya , Andul - Mouri , Mourigram , Howrah , 711-302 (West Bengal ) [ भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
365
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
SCHEDULE
P.S : DHANIAKHALI
STATE : WEST BENGAL
DISTRICT : HOOGHLY
Name of the Mouza
SI . No.
Area
Kkseva No.
(R.S.)
Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 BELMURI -190 476 00 01 50
477 00 07 60
478 00 06 30
906 00 04 30
905 00 07 70
904 00 00 30
907 00 00 20
908 00 06 10
903 00 00 50
909 00 01 30
902 00 08 80
888 00 00 20
901 00 02 50
889 00 08 10
890 00 00 30
894 00 04 10
893 00 02 70
892 00 05 40
891 00 01 00
1779 00 03 70
1556 00 09 40
1557 00 02 50
1558 00 06 40
1569 00 06 10
1703 00 03 00
1701 00 05 70
1702 00 00 40
1563 00 01 30
1700 00 02 10
1696 00 00 40
366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 / PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2 3
BELMURI - 190 1695
Contd... 1697
1698
1699
1575
1692
1691
1609
1610
1690
1640
1639
1611
1635
1642
1631
1629
1630
1637
1628
1627/1848
1627
1626
1647
1638
1636
1347
1346
1345
1344
1341
1343
1342
1324
[ PART II SEC. 3( ii ) ]
4 5 6 00 00 20 00 02 00 00 01 60 00 00 90 00 01 90 00 07 00 00 12 80 00 01 20 00 05 10 00 00 20 00 01 30 00 04 70 00 00 40 00 00 60 00 01 20 00 03 90 00 02 00 00 03 70 00 03 70 00 00 20 00 01 60 00 03 30 00 01 30 00 00 20 00 00 ४० 00 00 20 00 08 80 00 08 10 00 00 60 00 03 10 00 02 60 00 02 90 00 00 70 00 06 10
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
367
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013/पौष 29, 1934
1
2
3
BELMURI -190
1323
Contd...
4
5
6
00
02
80
1323/1858
00 02 20
1319 00 03 90
1318 00 01 20
1322 00 00 20
1317 00 00 70
1292 00 02 00
1289 00 04 60
1305 00 00 80
1293 00 04 10
1300 00 06 50
1295 00 00 30
1304 00 00 90
1301 00 01 30
1299 00 00 20
1302 00 04 10
1303 00 01 90
1308 00 06 30
2 PURANDARPUR - 208 601 00 02 40
608 00 03 00
602 00 02 00
606 00 01 00
605 00 01 60
523 00 04 90
524 00 01 90
524/950 00 00 20
525 00 02 70
527 00 01 60
526 00 00 20
528 00 01 40
514 00 01 70
513 00 02 20
510/947 00 08 30
487 00 01 80
368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2 3
PURANDARPUR - 208 488
Contd... 486
492
491
499
497
498
496
501
502
473
322
299
300
305
301
302
303
275
274
276
273
269
272
271
210
209
212
208
207
949
216
217
706
[PARI 11 SEX. 3(ii) ]
4 5 6 00 02 70 00 00 20 00 02 40 00 01 10 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 01 40 00 03 30 00 02 10 00 01 40 00 00 30 00 05 00 00 01 00 00 02 80 00 00 20 00 03 80 00 03 30 00 00 90 00 03 70 00 00 50 00 03 50 00 00 20 00 04 90 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 00 60 00 01 00 00 03 90 00 01 10 00 01 30 00 01 70 00 02 30 00 02 80 00 02 20
[ भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
369
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
1 2
3 4 5 6
PURANDARPUR - 208 705 00 00 70
Contd... 704 00 00 20
3 BAGNAN -199 1569 00 00 20
1570 00 02 20
1571 00 01 60
1573 00 02 10
1572 00 00 20
1560 00 06 10
1558 00 05 90
1559 00 00 20
1555 00 00 20
1553 00 01 00
1554 00 01 60
1508 00 02 40
1552 00 00 20
1507 00 00 20
1509 00 03 00
1510 00 02 40
1511 00 00 40
1444 00 02 40
1512 00 01 20
1443 00 09 20
1380 00 06 00
1367 00 03 80
1387 00 00 20
1388 00 06 40
1305 00 00 50
1259 00 02 50
1260 00 01 80
1765 00 00 20
1261 00 00 70
1263 00 03 00
1264 00 01 90
1233 00 00 20
[ PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) |
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
370
3
2
1
1202
BAGNAN -199
1203
Contd...
1024/1706
1199
1054/1723
1269/1760 5
4
07
00
60
30
00
00
70
03
00
70
00
01
70
00
00
01
20
00
10
01
00
1054/1722
1054/1721 00 00 50
1199/1717 00 00 40
1200 00 03 10
1196 00 00 70
1195 00 01 70
1024/1708 00 04 60
1049 00 01 40
1025 00 01 50
1031 00 00 20
1030 00 03 00
1034 00 02 80
1035 00 00 20
1011/1682 00 01 70
1011 00 01 30
1010 00 03 50
1009 00 02 40
1007 00 00 70
1008 00 02 80
00 01 70
1007/1690
1194 00 01 60 1192 00 02 30 1193 00 00 70 1191 00 01 70 1190 00 00 30 1050 00 00 20 1051 00 00 20 1049 00 07 00
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]
371
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
1 2 3
BAGNAN -199 1048
Contd ... 1026/1757
1032
1045
1046
1047
1064
1065
1069
1068
1070
1071/1694
1071/1692
1081
1080
1084
1085
1086
1087
4 RUDRANI -189 218
219
221
220
222
261
262
263
280
281
253
252
292
293
294
83GI/2013-14
4 5 6 00 01 60 00 00 20 00 02 00 00 02 10 00 01 90 00 09 00 00 00 20 00 05 70 00 02 70 00 00 20 00 03 50 00 00 60 00 01 10 00 06 00 00 00 20 00 10 30 00 00 40 00 05 50 00 00 20 00 01 60 00 01 10 00. 00 70 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 00 60 00 01 20 00 03 70 00 02 90 00 01 20 00 00 60 00 05 30 00 00 20 00 04 20 00 02 40
372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
1 2 3
RUDRANI -189 299
Contd... 335
334
333
337
331
332
330
314
312
313
311
31/425
386
175
11
622
627
630
631
629
632
633
635
640
639
717/1868
1861
[PART II--SEC . 3( ii ) ]
4 5 6
00 03 70
00 03 50
00 00 80
00 00 20
00 03 10
00 02 30
00 02 00
00 05 00
00 06 10
00 00 40
00 05 70
00 00 90
00 04 70
00 00 50
24 00
00 08 30
00 20
00 00 20
00 00 60
00 01 90
00 00 80
00 00 20
00 00 50
00 02 60
00 01 10
00 02 30
00 01 60
00 00 20
00 01 50
00 00
1092/1870
1094/1860 1088 1092 1067
90
00 02 30 00 02 80 00 04 30 00 03 OG
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013/पौष 29, 1934
1
2
3
RUDRANI -189 1068
Contd...
1049
1050
1048
1051
1052
1044
1043
1040
1034
1039
1038
1036
1035
1018
1019
373
4 5 6 00 03 40 00 01 30 00 02 90 00 00 60 00 03 00 00 02 50 00 00 40 00 03 70 00 03 30 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 02 50 00. 00 20 00 00 20 00 05 00 00 00 20
1019/1805
00 01 00
1017 00 00
70
1011 00 01
00
1245 00 05 10
1010 00 00 20
1246 00 02 40
1247 00 00
20
1258 00 02
00
1256 00 03 10
1255 00 03 60
1254 00 03 10
5 UTTAR MOGALPUR -180 580 00
15 00
581/697
00 04 80
700 00 03 00
579 00 04 40
571 00 00
40
585 00 07 30
585/698 00 03 60
374
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2 3
UTTAR MOGALPUR -180 587
Contd... 539
591
592
538
535
536
532
527
529
528
172
171
170
669
118/668
118
123
119
114
120
88
89
90
82
81
80
71
72
79
73
8
7
6
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]
4 5 6 00 00 20 00 03 10 00 02 20 00 00 20 00 02 80 00 06 20 00 02 00 00 00 20 00 01 70 00 00 20 00 00 50 00 02 30 00 01 70 00 02 40 00 01 10 00 01 30 00 01 80 00 00 20 00 02 80 00 01 00 00 00 20 00 01 70 00 02 90 00 00 20 00 06 30 00 00 20 00 03 30 00 01 70 00 02 70 00 00 20 00 02 20 00 03 10 00 01 10 00 02 10
[ भाग II--खण्ड 3( ii) ]
375
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
UTTAR MOGALPUR - 180 5 00 01 40
Contd... 2 00 00 20
3 00 01 70
4 00 00 50
6 BARA KHANPUR - 161 818 00 00 50
817 00 00 80
816 00 01 10
815 00 00 20
700 00 02 90
701 00 00 50
809 00 04 80
702 00 00 50
808 00 01 60
705 00 04 30
707 00 03 70
710 00 00 20
709 00 04 60
714 00 00 30
726 00 03 50
725 00 05 30
724 00 02 10
723 00 02 20
722 00 02 10
511 00 06 40
512 00 01 90
513 00 01 30
495 00 04 10
492 00 03 50
494 00 00 20
493 00 01 60
481 00 02 00
477 00 02 60
478 00 00 20
476 00 02 30
376
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2
3
BARA KHANPUR -161 475
Contd ... 473
474
472
471
466
468
467
53
66
54
63
55
56
57
58
7 BATHANGARIA - 159 371
372
361
379
553
378
589
384
388
387
390
389
274
249
242/578
242
242/577
243
[PART 11-SEC. 3(ii) ]
4 5 6 00 02 20 00 03 90 00 00 20 00 02 90 00 00 20 00 02 80 00 00 20 00 06 10 00 01 50 00 01 50 00 04 70 00 00 20 00 04 00 00 02 10 00 02 20 00 05 30 00 01 30 00 09 30 00 00 90 00 03 00 00 00 20 00 04 40 00 00 90 00 06 50 00 00 20 00 03 70 00 02 20 00 00 30 00 02 90 00 00 20 00 00 90 00 01 00 00 01 00 00 02 90
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
377
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5
6
BATHANGARIA -159 245 00 02 70
Contd... 234 00 06 60
209 00 06 40
207 00 01 80
203 00 01 00
204 00 04 50
205 00 03 80
58 00 04 40
62 00 02 30
64 00 01 90
66/597 00 02 00
233/607 00 07 10
73 00 01 10
72/596 00 01 80
76 00 00 20
91 00 02 40
89 00 02 60
90 00 01 60
92/614 00 02 80
92 00 02 90
102 00 05 90
120 00 04 10
103 00 00 20
117 00 04 50
118 00 00 20
116 00 01 70
115 00 01 30
106 00 00 70
105 00 01 80
104 00 06 90
8 CHERAGRAM -158 2915/3542 00 05 70
2488 00 00 20
2914 00 06 80
2907 00 00 20
378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2 3
CHERAGRAM -158 2908
Contd ... 2491
2543
2545
2546
2547
2548
2626
2832
2830
2827
2831
2829
2828
2825
2826
2692
2700
2701
2702
2780
2703
2779
2777
2770
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
4 5 6 00 03 10 00 05 60 00 05 00 00 00 20 00 05 20 00 06 40 00 03 40 00 00 80 00 01 20 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 01 20 00 00 30 00 00 20 00 01 40 00 02 CO 00 00 70 00 05 30 00 00 50 00 08 40 00 01 40 00 00 20 00 00 60 00 03 60 00 00 20
20
2778/3556
00
00
00
01
30
2761/3555
2761 00 03 40 2744 00 00 40 2745 00 01 80 2746 00 00 20 2747 00 01 50 2748 00 00 30 2749 00 01 70
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
379
भारत राजपत्र जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
1 2 3
CHERAGRAM -158 2750
Contd... 2742
2737
2740
2739
2738
1992
1125
1124
1123
1122
1120
1121/2984
1121
1121/2983
2982
1113
1114
1112
1114/2980
1115
1108
1107
1106
1104
1101
1105
702
703
738
736/3654
739/3024
737/3023
3022
83 GI/2013-15
4 5 6 00 00 20 00 02 30 00 02 00 00 00 20 00 01 50 00 02 10 00 00 20 00 01 80 00 00 20 00 03 10 00 00 60 00 00 20 00 01 10 00 01 80 00 01 70 00 00 20 00 00 40 00 00 20 00 01 60 00 01 60 00 04 10 00 01 30 00 00 20 00 02 50 00 00 60 00 00 40 00 04 70 00 00 20 00 00 70 00 05 70 00 01 00 00 00 30 00 00 80 00 08 20
380
[PART -SEC . 3 ( ii)]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
1 2 3
CHERAGRAM -158 3029
Contd... 3032
3031
732
731
750
1164
755
756
757
758
761
888
1132
762
763
764
765
473
472
471
777
778
779
780
781
783
785
787
796
795
797
794/3821
798
==
4 5 6 00 02 80 00 02 80 00 02 10 00 06 30 00 01 40 00 00 20 00 01 30 00 05 50 00 04 60 00 03 90 00 06 80 00 05 10 00 00 20 00 03 10 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 10 00 00 03 60 00 04 90 00 03 40 00 01 10 00 01 90 00 00 20 00 02 60 00 02 10 00 02 40 00 02 CO 00 00 40 00 03 30 00 01 70 00 01 30 00 00 40 00 07 80
[ भाग ।।-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
381
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
3
2
1
CHERAGRAM -158
810
1156 Contd...
802
803
804
842/1038 9 BALIDAHA -125
971
970
968
6
4
5
00
00
20
10
00
05
01
60
00
70
04
00
80
00
07
02
00
40
00
00
00
05
80
02
20
00
50
00
972/1049
973
00
00 00 50 00 00 20
968/1035
716/0 00 00 50
966 00 03 60
967 00 01 70
795 00 01 40
796 00 03 50
800 00 06 40
801 00 04 10
802 00 01 60
00 03 10
802/1026
810 00 01 70 809 00 00 20 811 00 01 50 812 00 04 30 713 00 02 70 714 00 03 80 711 00 00 20 710 00 03 00 709 00 00 40 708 00 01 80 707 00 01 80 706 00 01 30 370 00 02 20
382
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
1 2 3
BALIDAHA - 125 369
Contd... 368
367
364
365
366
10 GURAP -126 4388
4389
4387
4781
4390
4480
4782
4391
4383
4362
4376
4375
4776
4777
4377
4374
4366
4368
4367
4311
4310
4309
4308
4305
4176
3294
3293
3269
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
4 5 6 00 00 20 00 03 70 00 02 10 00 01 00 00 04 90 00 03 30 00 08 10 00 01 30 00 00 20 00 01 60 00 01 90 00 00 20 00 00 40 00 06 10 00 01 20 00 00 20 00 01 80 00 00 80 00 00 30 00 01 00 00 00 30 00 03 10 00 06 40 00 01 80 00 04 10 00 04 00 00 00 20 00 03 60 00 00 20 00 01 10 00 00 20 00 05 00 00 03 80 00 00 20
[भाग II खण्ड 3( ii) ]
383
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
GURAP -126 3270 00 00 80
Contd... 3291 00 02 40
3292 00 02 20
3289 : 00 05 60
3288 00 02 00
3287 00 01 90
3188 00 03 00
3189 00 00 20
3187 00 04 00
3184 00 02 90
3185 00 00 30
2239 00 01 50
3015 00 01 40
3016 00 01 70
3017 00 00 20
3012 00 02 20
3011 00 02 10
3010 00 02 10
3009 00 01 00
3008 00 01 20
3006 00 02 70
2995 00 02 70
2990 00 02 60
2975 00 04 10
2974 00 03 90
2977 00 00 20
2965 00 01 30
2964 00 00 20
2963 00 03 10
2961 00 03 30
2950 00 02 00
2949 00 01 90
2948 00 00 20
2937 00 02 20
384
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/ PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2 3
GURAP-126 3316
Contd... 2936
2945
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2752
2753
2756
2755
2758
2759
2760
2859
2489
2857
2860
2862
2869
2867
2868
2866
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2833
361
360
362
359
[PART II Sec . 3 ( ii) )
4 5 6 00 01 20 00 00 20 00 04 40 00 03 60 00 06 90 00 00 50 00 07 30 00 01 20 00 00 40 00 00 70 00 04 00 00 00 80 00 01 60 00 03 90 00 00 20 00 03 50 00 01 20 00 00 20 00 05 20 00 00 20 00 00 40 00 02 10 00 02 90 00 00 20 00 02 80 00 00 40 00 05 70 00 05 50 00 02 60 00 03 30 00 07 60 00 01 20 00 02 60 00 02 60
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1 2 3 4 5 6
GURAP-126 368 00 12 50
Contd... 364 00 00 20
369 00 01 20
347 00 02 00
346 00 03 10
342 00 03 70
341 00 00 40
343 00 00 40
340 00 02 30
339 00 01 80
338 00 00 20
337 00 04 70
336 00 00 20
307 00 01 20
319 00 02 60
317 00 00 70
318 00 02 10
320 00 00 70
328 00 07 30
1 321 00 00 30
11 SATIDAHA -132 949 00 02 60
952 00 01 60
951 00 04 60
950 00 . 00 20
955 00 06 00
956 00 03 00
1046 00 00 60
960 00 00 20
961 00 04 30
00 00 20
962/1121
962 00 04 60 677 00 00 20 669 00 01 90 672 00 01 40
386
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
1
2
3
670 SATIDAHA -132
647 Contd...
646
649
645
640
639
641
637
634
[PART II---SEC . 3 (ii)]
5
4
6
00
00
60
01
10
00
01
10
00
30
00
02
00
00
40
01
00
10
01
00
60
00
20
00
00
02
50
00
00
20
00
00
20
634/1151
638/1083 00 00 20 635 00 03 10 636 00 00 20 630 00 03 30 560 00 02 60 604 00 00 20 603 00 01 20 602 00 02 40 601 00 01 00 599 00 00 7C 600 00 02 50 591 00 02 80 592 00 04 20 587 00 00 20 305 00 00 50 306 00 01 70 307 00 02 30 308 00 01 80 309 00 11 00 326 00 03 00 327 00 00 70 328 00 00 20 324 00 13
[ भाग ।।-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
387
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
SATIDAHA -132 325 00 00 40
Contd... 322 00 00 20
331 00 05 30
330 00 14 30
119 00 00 20
118 00 00 70
333 00 12 00
334 00 02 10
335 00 01 00
336 00 03 40
63 00 00 40
61 00 08 10
337 00 01 90
338 00 03 70
344 00 07 50
345 00 06 70
347 00 02 90
346 00 00 40
348 00 01 30
349 00 00 20
00 02 70
349/1095
351 350 354 355 6
83 GI/2013-16
00 02 20 00 01 20 00 02 70 00 05 90 00 50
[F. No. R -25011/6/2012-O.R. -I ]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
[PART II-- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/ PAUSA 29 , 1934
388
नई दिल्ली , 18 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 141.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में पारादीप (उड़ीसा) से दुर्गापुर ( पश्चिम बंगाल) तक वाया हल्दिया एलपीजी गैस परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि मे जो इस से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसका इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एस.सी. सरकार, डब्ल्यू. बी. सी . एस. (प्रशासनिक) सेवानिवृत्त सक्षम प्राधिकारी , पारादीप हल्दिया दुर्गापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन एवम् पारादीप हल्दिया - वरौनी पाइपलाइन ऑगमेंटेशन योजना, डाकघर दुईल्या, आन्दुल मौरी , मौरीग्राम हावड़ा -711 302 (पश्चिम बंगाल) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
389
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
अनुसूची
राज्य: प्रश्चिम बंगाल
जिला: वर्द्धमान
पुलिस स्टेशन: मेमारी
क्षेत्रफल
कम खसरा सं.
मौजा का नाम
सं. (आर.एस) हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मी.
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 देउले 137 234 00 01 20
235 00 00 20
233 00 02 50
232 00 01 50
2343 00 01 20.
2338/3775 00 01 10
2191 00 02 90
2190/3774 00 01 30
2344 00 00 40
2188 00 04 70
2187 00 02 20
2189 00 01 50
2185 00 03 80
1989 00 00 60
1985 00 03 90
2184 00 01 10
1990 00 00 60
1999 00 07 00
2002 00 00 70
1998 00 03 50
2003 00 06 30
1995 00 05 00
1994 00 02 80
2036 00 03 90
2035 00 05 40
2028 00 00 20
2029 00 08 10
2024 00 03 10
2030 00 00 80
2023 00 02 60
[PART I -SEC. 3( ii ) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
390
3 4 5 6
1 2
2070 00 01 20
देउले 137
00 08 20
जारी..... 2071
2073 00 03 50
2072 00 07 00
2074 00 01 80
1554 00 04 60
1521 00 00 20
1553 00 03 90
1552 00 01 30
1523 00 02 60
1550 00 06 70
1549 00 00 20
1525 00 05 90
1547 00 00 20
1546 00 02 10
1542 00 00 60
1545 00 00 30
00 05 30
1544
00 01 70
1543
00 00 50
1635
1636 00 02 90
1637 00 00 50
1638 00 00 20
1539 00 00 20
1639 00 06 50
1307 00 00 30
00 03 50
1306
00 02 70
1305
1304 00 01 20
1303 00 00 90
1230 00 03 80
00 00 40
1302
1231 00 03 00
00 02 60
1236
391
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]
1 2 3 4 5 6
देउले 137 1232 00 00 20
जारी..... 1235 00 02 70
1244 00 01 50
1234 00 00 20
1243 00 00 20
1245 00 00 80
1251 00 01 20
1250 00 01 40
1252 00 00 20
1249 00 00 40
1253 00 00 90
1248 00 00 70
1256 00 02 50
1257 00 01 20
1258 00 03 20
1261 00 00 20
1260 00 00 60
1259 00 01 60
1041 00 03 70
1043 00 01 40
1042 00 03 40
1009 00 01 60
1010 00 01 20
1012 00 01 20
1013 00 01 40
1003 00 02 70
1001 00 00 40
2 चॉचाइ 46 5022 00 00 30
3023 00 01 90
5024 00 02 00
5036 00 00 20
5025 00 00 40
5035 00 00 70
5034 00 02 00
392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
1 2 3
चॉचाइ 46 5033
जारी..... 5032
5028
5031
5030
5042
5121
4967
5125
5124
5136
5137
5134
5138
5139
5140
5111
5191
5196
5195
5194
5192
5193
5247
5246
5250
5244
5240
5253
5252
5254
5255
5256
5513
[PART 11- SFC. 3 ( ii ) ]
=
4 5 6 00 00 50 00 02 00 00 00 20 00 03 20 00 03 50 00 00 30 00 00 30 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 05 10 00 05 70 00 00 20 00 01 90 00 00 90 00 02 40 00 01 50 00 00 20 00 02 00 00 00 60 00 02 30 00 02 40 00 01 50 00 04 90 00 02 30 00 04 90 00 00 90 00 02 50 00 03 60 00 03 50 00 00 70 00 00 50 00 22 10 00 02 70 00 00 30
393
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
3 4 5 6
1 2
चॉचाइ 46 5511 00 02 50
जारी..... 5510 00 00 30
5512 00 00 50
5509 00 03 20
5506 00 00 70
5508 00 00 20
5507 00 05 50
5486 00 06 70
5485 00 02 10
5480 00 00 20
5484 00 00 20
5481 00 02 20
5482 00 02 60
5475 00 00 20
5474 00 02 70
5473 00 02 00
5472 00 00 20
3746 00 02 40
3745 00 02 70
3612 00 01 30
3611 00 00 20
3613 00 01 70
3614 00 02 10
3617 00 01 80
3615 00 00 40
3616 00 01 20
3623 00 00 20
00 31 70
3631/3864
3586 00 02 70 3587 00 01 20 3593 00 00 60 3588 00 03 90 3573 00 05 60 3572 00 00 30
394
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
2
3 1
चॉचाइ 46
6
4
5
00
00
70
3606/3863
जारी..... 3517 00 00 50
3518 00 01 70
3519 00 07 40
3525 00 02 80
3524 00 02 40
3523 00 01 80
3522 00 00 30
3508 00 12 10
3506 00 00 30
3505 00 06 00
3499 00 03 20
3495 00 02 30
3496 00 02 90
3497 00 01 50
3498 00 02 00
3484 00 02 50
3483 00 01 20
3 दादपुर 44 498 00 00 90
496 00 03 70
497 00 05 40
495 00 01 00
486 00 00 40
00 02 90
495/1796
488 00 07 00 481 00 05 70 480 00 00 20 479 00 11 30 482 00 00 70 449 00 02 40 450 00 05 10 448 00 02 30 445 00 00 40 444 00 01 00
395
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013/पौष 29, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1 3 4 5 6
2
44 441 00 05 40
दादपुर
जारी..... 440 00 05 00
434 00 00 20
435 00 00 40
439 00 03 00
436 00 00 50
437 00 00 70
438 00 02 80
595 00 01 90
594 00 01 40
593 00 01 80
589 00 01 60
588 00 02 10
127 00 02 90
118 00 05 80
113 00 06 10
104 00 04 80
106 00 02 10
00 04 50
106/1785
00
00
02
110/1812
13
14
4 बेलुट - 54 2774
1372
1371
1375
1781/2780
1810
1809
1376
1377
1806
1382
1383
83 GI /2013-17
00 04 30 00 03 30 00 03 20 00 01 30 00 01 00 00 03 40 00 00 40 00 01 60 00 03 00 00 01 00 00 04 40 00 02 30 00 04 90 00 00 20
396
[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 / PAUSA 29, 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
बेलुट - 54 1353 00 02 40
जारी..... 1352 00 04 40
1347 00 00 30
1346 00 02 10
1330 00 03 30
1341 00 01 00
1331 00 03 30
1327 00 02 20
1328 00 03 20
1321 00 01 00
1322 00 00 20
1320 00 00 30
2425 00 00 80
2424 00 02 20
2423 00 02 50
2420 00 00 20
2278 00 05 80
2279 00 02 40
2277 00 00 20
2280 00 02 90
2284 00 01 50
2286 00 03 20
2285 00 00 60
2287 00 04 00
2263 00 00 60
2292 00 02 20
2257 00 04 70
2293 00 00 70
2258 00 01 00
2256 00 05 10
2262 00 00 20
2255 00 00 70
2306 00 04 10
00 02 70
2306/2739
39
भारतः का राजपन्न : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
[ भाग 1 ]-खण्ड 3(ii) ]
1 2 3 4 5 6
बेलुट 54 2305 00 01 60
जारी..... 2304 00 00 80
2308 00 05 40
2309 00 04 80
2314 00 00 50
2227 00 03 80
2316 00 02 30
2225 00 00 20
2224 00 03 60
2317 00 00 20
2318 00 00 50
2186 00 02 70
2172 00 00 20
2185 00 02 20
2183 00 03 30
2173 00 02 10
2174 00 02 10
2175 00 01 90
2179 00 00 20
2163 00 01 00
2153 00 02 50
2176 00 00 20
2162 00 00 90
2154 00 02 30
2155 00 04 20
5 नबग्राम 52 122 00 04 10
123 00 01 00
120 00 00 30
119 00 02 40
118 00 06 50
115 00 02 00
114 00 01 80
113 00 00 20
111 00 01 80
[PART II--SEC. 3( ii ) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
398
4 5 6
2 3
1
109 00 04 50
नबग्राम 52
108 00 01 80
जारी.....
107 00 04 40
152 00 00 30
154 00 00 20
157 00 03 50
155 00 01 30
156 00 00 20
158 00 04 00
199 00 00 60
161 00 02 50
159 00 02 20
160 00 01 80
162 00 04 90
163 00 00 20
167 00 00 70
166 00 02 60
168 00 02 60
165 00 02 30
169 00 02 20
170 00 01 00
171 00 00 20
172 00 05 20
173 00 01 00
174 00 00 50
175 00 02 10
00 01 60
176
177 00 01 70
179 00 04 50
181 00 00 30
73 00 04 90
72 00 03 30
71 00 01 90
69 00 03 80
399
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
4 5 6
2 3
1
68 00 01 80
नबग्राम. 52
67 00 07 80
जारी.....
1600 00 03 00
6 पालसिट 39
1599 00 03 20
1601/2023 00 00 20
1602 00 01 00
1603 00 02 00
1598 00 00 30
1606 00 02 50
1607 00 04 00
1610 00 01 40
1611 00 01 20
1612 00 00 20
1608 00 00 20
1613 00 01 10
1614 00 03 30
1615 00 04 30
1595 00 01 00
1620 00 03 50
1648 00 00 20
1621 00 02 50
1622 00 02 20
1623 00 00 90
1624 00 01 30
1625 00 01 70
1626 00 00 90
1627 00 03 20
1628 00 03 20
1635 00 01 00
1629 00 04 40
1634 00 03 70
1630 00 02 10
00 02 20
1631
1633 00 03 00
400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
1
2
3
39
पालसिट
1632
जारी.....
1833
1831
1836
1835
[ PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii )]
4
5
6
00
04
10
00
00
20
00
03
60
00
01
80
00
03
40
00
00
1835/2043
1841
50
00
03
80
00
1841/2045
00 20
1834 00 03 60
1847 00 03 00
1846 00 00 30
1844 00 01 90
1845 00 00 30
00 01
1845/2046
10
00
00
1851/2047
20
00
00
1841/2045
1851 1850 1854 1856 1857 1860 1861
20
00 01 20 00 05 60 00 01 30 00 02 30 00 02 50 00 03 30 00 07 20 00 01
1966/2051
60
00
01
1838(बांका नदी)
7 भैटा 40
1736
80
00
03
50
00
03
1737/1959
00
00
01
1737/1958
1738 1824
40
00 00 20 00 03 40
00
1825/1966
01 50
1825 00 02 00
1832 00 00 90
1827 00 01 70
404
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
5
6
4
3
2
1
भैटा 40
00
70
1826
00
02
00
30
1828
जारी.....
00
20
00
1829
10
00
1846
03
70
1847
00
00
00
01
1845
90
[फा. सं. आर.- 25011/16/2012- ओ.आर. - 1 ]
पवन कुमार , अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 18th January, 2013
S.O. 141. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal ) Via Haldia a pipeline should be laid in State of WestBengalby Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S.C.Sarkar, W.B.C.S ( Exe. ) Retd . Competent Authority Paradip - Haldia -Durgapur LPG Pipeline & Augmentation of Paradip - Haldia -Barauni Pipeline Project , P.O, Duillya , Andul - Mouri , Mourigram , Howrah , 711-302 (West Bengal ) 402
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
SCHEDULE
DISTRICT : HOWRAH PS : MEMARI
Name of the Mouza
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Area
Khasra No.
(R.S)
SI .
No. Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
3 4 5 6
1 2
DEULE - 137 234 00 01 20
1
235 00 00 20
233 00 02 50
232 00 01 50
2343 00 01 20
2338/3775 00 01 10
2191 00 02 90
2190/3774 00 01 30
2344 00 00 40
2188 00 04 70
2187 00 02 20
2189 00 01 50
2185 00 03 80
1989 00 00 60
1985 00 03 90
2184 00 01 10
1990 00 00 60
1999 00 07 00
2002 00 00 70
1998 00 03 50
2003 00 06 30
1995 00 05 00
1994 00 02 80
2036 00 03 90
2035 00 05 40
2028 00 00 20
2029 00 08 10
2024 00 03 10
2030 00 00 80
2023 00 02 60
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]
1 2 3
DEULE - 137 2070
Contd... 2071
2073
2072
2074
1554
1521
1553
1552
1523
1550
1549
1525
1547
1546
1542
1545
1544
1543
1635
1636
1637
1638
1539
1639
1307
1306
1305
1304
1303
1230
1302
1231
1236
83GI/2013-18
4 6 6 00 01 20 00 08 20 00 03 50 00 07 00 00 01 80 00 04 60 00 00 20 00 03 90 00 01 30 00 02 60 00 06 70 00 00 20 00 05 90 00 00 20 00 02 10 00 00 60 00 00 30 00 05 30 00 01 70 00 00 50 00 02 90 00 00 50 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 06 50 00 00 30 00 03 50 00 02 70 00 01 20 00 00 90 00 03 80 00 00 40 00 03 00 00 02 60
404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
1 2 3
DEULE - 137 1232
Contd... 1235
1244
1234
1243
1245
1251
1250
1252
1249
1253
1248
1256
1257
1258
1261
1260
1259
1041
1043
1042
1009
1010
1012
1013
1003
1001
2 CHANCHAI - 46 5022
5023
5024
5036
5025
5035
5034
[PART 11--SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
4 5 6 00 00 20 00 02 70 00 01 50 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 00 80 00 01 20 00 01 40 00 00 20 00 00 40 00 00 90 00 00 70 00 02 50 00 01 20 00 03 20 00 00 20 00 00 60 00 01 60 00 03 70 00 01 40 00 03 40 00 01 60 00 01 20 00 01 20 00 01 40 00 02 70 00 00 40 00 00 30 00 01 90 00 02 00 00 00 20 00 00 40 00 00 70 00 02 00
405
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
[ भाग ।। खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
1 2 3 4 5 6
CHANCHAI - 46 5033 00 00 50
Contd... 5032 00 02 00
5028 00 00 20
5031 00 03 20
5030 00 03 50
5042 00 00 30
5121 00 00 30
4967 00 00 20
5125 00 00 20
5124 00 05 10
5136 00 05 70
5137 00 00 20
5134 00 01 90
5138 00 00 90
5139 00 02 40
5140 00 01 50
5111 00 00 20
5191 00 02 00
5196 00 00 60
5195 00 02 30
5194 00 02 40
5192 00 01 50
5193 00 04 90
5247 00 02 30
5246 00 04 90
5250 00 00 90
5244 00 02 50
5240 00 03 60
5253 00 03 50
5252 00 00 70
5254 00 00 50
5255 00 22 10
5256 00 02 70
5513 00 00 30
406
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
2 3 4 5 6
1
CHANCHAI - 46 5511 00 02 50
Contd... 5510 00 00 30
5512 00 00 50
5509 00 03 20
5506 00 .00 70
5508 00 00 20
5507 00 05 50
5486 00 06 70
5485 00 02 10
5480 00 00 20
5484 00 00 20
5481 00 02 20
5482 00 02 60
5475 00 00 20
5474 00 02 70
5473 00 02 00
5472 00 00 20
3746 00 02 40
3745 00 02 70
3612 00 01 30
3611 00 00 20
3613 00 01 70
3614 00 02 10
3617 00 01 80
3615 00 00 40
3616 00 01 20
3623 00 00 20
00 31 70
3631/3864
3586 00 02 70 3587 00 01 20 3593 00 00 60 3588 00 03 90 3573 00 05 60 3572 00 00 30
407
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29, 1934
भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
4 5 6
1 2 3
3606/3863 00 00 70
CHANCHAI - 46
3517 00 00 50
Contd...
3518 00 01 70
3519 00 07 40
3525 00 02 80
3524 00 02 40
3523 00 01 80
3522 00 00 30
3508 00 12 10
3506 00 00 30
3505 00 06 00
3499 00 03 20
3495 00 02 30
3496 00 02 90
3497 00 01 50
3498 00 02 00
3484 00 02 50
3483 00 01 20
498 00 00 90
3 DADPUR - 44
496 00 03 70
497 00 05 40
495 00 01 00
486 00 00 40
495/1796 00 02 90
488 00 07 00
481 00 05 70
480 00 00 20
479 00 11 30
482 00 00 70
449 00 02 40
450 00 05 10
448 00 02 30
445 00 00 40
444 00 01 00
408
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2 3
DADPUR - 44 441
Contd... 440
434
435
439
436
437
438
595
594
593
589
588
127
118
113
104
106
106/1785
110/1812
13
14
4 BELUT - 54 2774
1372
1371
1375
[PART II-SEC. 3( )]
4 5 6 00 05 40 00 05 00 00 00 20 00 00 40 00 03 00 00 00 50 00 00 70 00 02 80 00 01 90 00 01 40 00 01 80 00 01 60 00 02 10 00 02 90 00 05 80 00 06 10 00 04 80 00 02 10 00 04 50 00 02 00 00 04 30 00 03 30 00 03 20 00 01 30 00 01 00 00 03 40
00
1781/2780
00 40
1810 00 01 60
1809 00 03 00
1376 00 01 00
1377 00 04 40
1806 00 02 30
1382 00 04 90
1383 00 00 20
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29, 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
BELUT - 54 1353 00 02 40
Contd... 1352 00 04 40
1347 00 00 30
1346 00 02 10
1330 00 03 30
1341 00 01 00
1331 00 03 30
1327 00 02 20
1328 00 03 20
1321 00 01 00
1322 00 00 20
1320 00 00 30
2425 00 00 80
2424 00 02 20
2423 00 02 50
2420 00 00 20
2278 00 05 80
2279 00 02 40
2277 00 00 20
2280 00 02 90
2284 00 01 50
2286 00 03 20
2285 00 00 60
2287 00 04 00
2263 00 00 60
2292 00 02 20
2257 00 04 70
2293 00 00 70
2258 00 01 00
2256 00 05 10
2262 00 00 20
2255 00 00 70
2306 00 04 10
00 02 70
2306/2739
410
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
1 2 3
BELUT - 54 2305
Contd... 2304
2308
2309
2314
2227
2316
2225
2224
2317
2318
2186
2172
2185
2183
2173
2174
2175
2179
2163
2153
2176
2162
2154
2155
5 NABAGRAM - 52 122
123
120
119
118
115
114
113
111
[PART 11---SEC . 3 (
4 5 6 00 01 60 00 00 80 00 05 40 00 04 80 00 00 50 00 03 80 00 02 30 00 00 20 00 03 60 00 00 20 00 00 50 00 02 70 00 00 20 00 02 20 00 03 30 00 02 10 00 02 10 00 01 90 00 00 20 00 01 00 00 02 50 00 00 20 00 00 90 00 02 30 00 04 20 00 04 10 00 01 00 00 00 30 00 02 40 00 06 50 00 02 00 00 01 80 00 00 20 00 01 80
411
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
1 2 3
NABAGRAM - 52 109
Contd... 108
107
152
154
157
155
156
158
199
161
159
160
162
163
167
166
168
165
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
179
181
73
72
71
69
83GI/2013-19
4 5 6. 00 04 50 00 01 80 00 04 40 00 00 30 00 00 20 00 03 50 00 01 30 00 00 20 00 04 00 00 00 60 00 02 50 00 02 20 00 01 80 00 04 90 00 00 20 00 00 70 00 02 60 00 02 60 00 02 30 00 02 20 00 01 00 00 00 20 00 05. 20 00 01 00 00 00 50 00 02 10 00 01 60 00 01 70 00 04 50 00 00 30 00 04 90 00 03 30 00 01 90 00 03 80
412
[PART 11-SEC. 3 (i))
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
3
2
1
68
NABAGRAM - 52
67
Contd...
1600
6 PALSIT - 39
1599
6
4
5
00
01
80
07
80
00
00
03
00
03
20
00
20
00
00
1601/2023
1602 00 01 00 1603 00 02 00 1598 00 00 30. 1606 00 02 50 1607 00 04 00 1610 00 01 40 1611 00 01 20 1612 00 00 20 1608 00 00 20 1613 00 01 10 1614 00 03 30 1615 00 04 30 1595 00 01 00 1620 00 03 50 1648 00 00 20 1621 00 02 50 1622 00 02 20 1623 00 00 90 1624 00 01 30 1625 00 01 70 1626 00 00 90 1627 00 03 20 1628 00 03 20 1635 00 01 00 1629 00 04 40 1634 00 03 70 1630 00 02 10 1631 00 02 20 1633 00 03 00
413
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
3
2
1
1632
PALSIT - 39
1833 Contd...
1831
1836
1835
6
4
5
00
10
04
20
00
00
60
00
03
80
00
01
40
00
03
50
00
00
1835/2043
1841 00 03 80
00 00 20
1841/2045
1834 00 03 60
1847 00 03 00
1846 00 00 30
1844 00 01 90
1845 00 00 30
00 01 10
1845/2046
00
00
20
1851/2047
20
00
00
1841/2045
1851 00 01 20
1850 00 05 60
1854 00 01 30
1856 00 02 30
1857 00 02 50
1860 00 03 30
1861 00 07 20
00 01 60
1966/2051
01
00
80
1838 ( Banka River)
BHAITA -40
1736
7
50
00
03
00
03
00
1737/1959
40
00
01
1737/1958
1738 00 00 20 1824 00 03 40 1825/1966 00 01 50 1825 00 02 00 1832 00 00 90 1827 00 01 70
414
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
[PART II-Sec. 3(ii))
2
1
4
3
6
5
BHAITA - 40
1826
00
00
70 Contd...
00
1828
02
30
1829
00
00
20
1846
00
03
10
1847
00
00
70
1845
00
01
90
[F. No. R -25011 / 16/2012-O.R. - I ]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2013
का. आर. 142.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में पारादीप(उड़ीसा) से दुर्गापुर (पश्चिम बंगाल) तक वाया हल्दिया एलपीजी गैस परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि मे जो इस से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एस.सी. सरकार, डब्ल्यू. बी. सी. एस. (प्रशासनिक) सेवानिवृत्त सक्षम प्राधिकारी , पारादीप हल्दिया दुर्गापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन एवम् पारादीप हल्दिया - बरौनी पाइपलाइन ऑगमेंटेशन योजना, डाकघर दुईल्या, आन्दुल मौरी, मौरीग्राम हावड़ा-711 302 (पश्चिम बंगाल) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
f [भाग II खण्ड 3( ii) ]
415
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
पुलिस स्टेशन: दादपुर जिला : हुगली
मौजा का नाम
कम सं.
खसरा सं. (आर.एस.)
2
1
3
4 1 आयमा 36
6
5
15
16
17
18
2339
2 गोस्वामी मालिपाड़ा 116
2340
2341
2338
2332
2333
2348
2331
2349
2330
2329
2315
2328
2320
2321
2322
2319
2318
2297
2299
2298
2302
2269 राज्य: पश्चिम बंगाल
क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मी.
4
5
6
70
05
00
90
00
04
30
02
00
20
01
00
40
00
03
02
40
00
00
04
40
00
02
60
70
00
04
70
00
03
00
70
00
00
04
50
00
00
90
00
00
40
00
04
90
00
00
20
00
20
05
00
90
01
20
00
00
00
13
10
00
40
04
02
00
70
00
00
20
00
06
70
00
01
10
00
70
08
02
40
00
00
05
80
05
00
30
00
05
20 416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
3 1
2
2276 गोस्वामी मालिपाड़ा जारी..... 116
2275
2278
2274
2281
2193
2282
2191
2190
2189
2525
[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii))
4
5
6
00
01
50
00
07
20
00
03
60
00
08
70
00
00
80
00
07
20
00
03
00
00
60
04
00
00
04
00
00
30
00
01
40
00
01
10
2523/3790
00
04
30
2428/3800
2526 00 15 60
3283 00 00 50
2527 00 00 40
3279 00 01 30
3280 00 04 00
3281 00 00 20
3278 00 09 90
3305 00 04 00
3304 00 05 00
3306 00 00 20
3303 00 05 90
00 00 20
3307/3755
3309 00 02 60 3302 00 02 70 3301 00 03 10 3376 00 02 50 3323 00 01 30 3325 00 07 30 3328 00 06 70 3332 00 11 10 3331 00 00 20
417
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/ पौष 29, 1934
[ भाग ।-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
1 3 4 5 6
2
गोस्वामी मालिपाड़ा 3334 00 03 60
116
जारी..... 3333 00 02 80
3336 00 08 50
3338 00 01 20
3339 00 04 00
3144 00 00 20
3342 00 01 70
3340 00 01 90
3341 00 04 30
3134 00 04 80
3552 00 02 50
3551 00 01 60
3553 00 02 70
3554 00 05 30
3133 00 00 20
3555 00 03 80
3556 00 04 90
3649 00 07 70
3648 00 03 10
3572 00 03 80
3644 00 05 20
3643 00 05 50
3638 00 04 90
3637 00 04 60
3636 00 08 80
3634 00 01 60
3639 00 00 20
3630 00 03 00
3631 00 00 50
3623 00 02 00
3624 00 04 70
3625 00 05 70
3620 00 01 10
953 00 03 20
3 पोपाइ 109
418
[PART 11-- SEC . 3 ( i)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
पोपाइ 109 955 00 02 80
जारी..... 954 00 02 30
951 00 03 50
952 00 00 60
950 00 03 80
1002 00 06 20
1001 00 05 50
993 00 08 70
1000 00 00 20
994 00 07 40
995 00 00 20
996 00 09 60
[फा. सं. आर. - 25011/8/2012 ओ.आर. - 1 ] पवन कुमार , अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 18th January, 2013
S.Q. 142. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha ) to Durgapur (West Bengal ) Via Haldia a pipeline should be laid in State of WestBengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein ;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S.C.Sarkar, W.B.C.S ( Exe . ) Retd . Competent Authority Paradip - Haldia -Durgapur LPG Pipeline & Augmentation of Paradip - Haldia -Barauni Pipeline Project , P.O, Duillya, Andul - Mouri , Mourigram , Howrah , 711-302 (West Bengal) [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
419
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013 /पौष 29, 1934
SCHEDULE
P.S :DADPUR
DISTRICT : HOOGHLY
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Area
Name of the Mouza
SI . No.
KhasraNo.
(R.S.)
Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
1 2 3 4 5
1 ΑΙΜΑ -36 4 00 05 70
6 00 04 90
5 00 02 30
15 00 01 20
16 00 03 40
17 00 02 40
18 00 04 40
2 GOSWAMI MALIPARA -116 2339 00 02 60
2340 00 04 70
2341 00 03 70
2338 00 00 70
2332 00 04 50
2333 00 00 90
2348 00 00 40
2331 00 04 90
2349 00 00 20
2330 00 05 20
2329 00 01 90
2315 00 00 20
2328 00 13 10
2320 00 04 40
2321 00 02 70
2322 00 00 20
2319 00 06 70
2318 00 01 10
2297 00 08 70
2299 00 02 40
2298 00 05 80
2302 00 05 30
2269 00 05 20
83GI/2013--20 420
[PART I -SEC. 3(ii) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
3 4 5 6
2
2276 00 01 50
GOSWAMI MALIPARA -116
2275 00 07 20
Contd...
2278 00 03 60
00 08 70
2274
2281 00 00 80
2193 00 07 20
2282 00 03 00
2191 00 04 60
2190 00 04 00
2189 00 00 30
2525 00 01 40
00 01 10
2523/3790
2428/3800 00 04 30
2526 00 15 60
00 00 50
3283
00 00 40
2527
3279 00 01 30
3280 00 04 00
00 00 20
3281
3278 00 09 90
00 04 00
3305
3304 00 05 00
3306 00 00 20
3303 00 05 90
00 00 20
3307/3755
3309 00 02 60 3302 00 02 70 3301 00 03 10 3376 00 02 50 3323 00 01 30 3325 00 07 30 3328 00 06 70 3332 00 11 10 3331 00 00 20
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013/ 29, 1934
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii)]
1 2 3 4 5
GOSWAMI MALIPARA - 116 3334 00 03 60
Contd... 3333 00 02 80
3336 00 08 50
3338 00 01 20
3339 00 04 00
3144 00 00 20
3342 00 01 70
3340 00 01 90
3341 00 04 30
3134 00 04 80
3552 00 02 50
3551. 00 01 60
3553 00 02 70
3554 00 05 30
3133 00 00 20
3555 00 03 80
3556 00 04 90
3649 00 07 70
3648 00 03 10
3572 00 03 80
3644 00 05 20
3643 00 05 50
3638 00 04 90
3637 00 04 60
3636 00 08 80
3634 00 01 60
3639 00 00 20
3630 00 03 00
3631 00 00 50
3623 00 02 00
3624 00 04 70
3625 00 05 70
3620 00 01 10
3 POPAI -109 953 00 03 29
[PART 11-SEC . 3(ii)]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
3
2
1
955
POPAI -109
954
Contd...
951
952
950
1002
1001
993
1000
994
995
996
6、
5
4
80
02
00
30
02
00
50
03
00
60
00
00
80
03
00
20
06
00
50
05
00
70
08
00
20
00
00
40
07
00
20
00
00
60
09
00
[F. No. R-25011 /8/2012-0R-]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2013
सर.आर. 143.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में पारादीप (उड़ीसा) से दुर्गापुर (पश्चिम बंगाल) तक वाया हल्दिया एलपीजी गैस परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि मे जो इस से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एस.सी. सरकार, डब्ल्यू. बी. सी. एस. (प्रशासनिक) सेवानिवृत्त सक्षम प्राधिकारी, पारादीप हल्दिया दुर्गापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन एवम् पारादीप - हल्दिया - बरौनी पाइपलाइन ऑगमेंटेशन योजना, डाकघर दुईल्या, आन्दुल मौरी , मौरीग्राम हावड़ा-711 302 (पश्चिम बंगाल) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
423
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
[भाग II--खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
अनुसूची
पुलिस स्टेशन : सॉकराइल
राज्य: पश्चिम बंगाल
जिला: "हावड़ा
मौजा का नाम
कम सं.
क्षेत्रफल
खसरा सं.
(आर.एस.)
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मी.
1 2 3
4 5 6
1 जला धूलागड़ि 2 568 00
11 70
572 00 04 40
573 00 00 20
365 00 01 20
364 00 01 20
587 00 00 70
588 00 05 10
586 00 00 20
580 00 08 70
615 00 01 70
616 00 01 80
614 00 02 60
613 00 03 70
620 00 06 20
618 00 00 20
2086 00 00 80
219 00 00 00
231 00 03 80
207 00 11 80
227 00 02 00
210 00 00 00
206 00 06 30
200 00 03 70
197 00 04 50
1358 00 00 70
1359 00 01 40
1360 00 01 20
1314 00 01 10
1368 00 00 20
1367 00 02 10
424
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
जला धूलागड़ि - 2 1369 00 00 40
जारी..... 1366 00 01 30
1370 00 02 30
1375 00 03 20
1376 00 01 80
1377 00 02 70
1382 00 00 20
1383 00 00 50
1384 00 01 30
1385 00 04 00
1386 00 04 30
1387 00 02 60
1390 00 07 60
1485 00 01 60
1604 00 01 30
1605 00 02 90
1606 00 01 50
1608 00 01 90
1607 00 01 60
1610 00 01 30
1611 00 07 50
1613 00 00 40
1627 00 04 00
1626 00 06 80
1622 00 01 10
1621 00 00 20
1623 00 02 60
1625 00 04 50
1624 00 03 90
1663 00 26 50
1620 00 00 20
1693 00 01 60
1691 00 08 10
00 00 70
1690/2107
425
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013 /पौष 29, 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
4
6 1
2
3
5
01
40
00
1690
जला धूलागड़ि 2
00
60
2111
03
जारी.....
02
2110
00
90
00
04
30
2109
00
40
02
1679
20
00
1678
00
[फा. सं. आर. - 25011 / 10/2012 - ओ.आर. -1 ]
पवन कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 18th January, 2013
3.0. 143-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal ) Via Haldia, a pipeline should be laid in State of WestBengalby Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
Andwhereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962(50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition ofthe right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S.C.Sarkar, W.B.C.S (Exe . ) Retd.Competent Authority Paradip - Haldia -Durgapur LPG Pipeline & Augmentation of Paradip - Haldia -Barauni Pipeline Project , P.O, Duillya , Andul - Mouri , Mourigram , Howrah , 711-302 (West Bengal).
426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
SCHEDULE
P.S : SANKRAIL
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( i ))
DISTRICT : HOWRAH
Name of the Mouza
SI . No.
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Area
Khasra No.
(R.S.)
Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 JALA DHULAGARI - 2 568 00 11 70
572 00 04 40
573 00 00 20
365 00 01 20
364 00 01 20
587 00 00 70
588 00 05 10
586 00 00 20
580 00 08 70
615 00 01 70
616 00 01 80
614 00 02 60
613 00 03 70
620 00 06 20
618 00 00 20
2086 00 00 80
219 00 01 00
231 00 03 80
207 00 11 80
227 00 02 00
210 00 01 00
206 00 06 30
200 00 03 70
197 00 04 50
1358 00 00 70
1359 00 01 40
1360 00 01 20
1314 00 01 10
1368 00 00 20
1367 00 02 10
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013 /पौष 29, 1934
[ भाग II खण्ड 3( ii) ]
1 2 3 4 5 6
JALA DHULAGARI - 2 1369 00 00 40
Contd...... 1366 00 01 30
1370 00 02 30
1375 00 03 20
1376 00 01 80
1377 00 02 70
1382 00 00 20
1383 00 00 50
1384 00 01 30
1385 00 04 00
1386 00 04 30
1387 00 02 60
1390 00 07 60
1485 00 01. 60
1604 00 01 30
1605 い 00 90
02
1606 00 01 50
1608 00 01 90
1607 00 01 60
1610 00 01 30
1611 00 07 50
1613 00 00 40
1627 00 04 00
1626 00 06 80
1622 00 01 10
1621 00 00 20
1623 00 02 60
1625 00 04 50
1624 00 03 90
1663 00 26 50
1620 00 00 20
1693 00 01 60
1691 00 08 10
00 00 70
1690/2107
83G1/2013-21 428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
[PART II-SEC. 3( 0 )]
1
2
3
4
5
6 JALA DHULAGARI - 2
1690
00
01
40 Contd ..
2111
00
03
60
2110
00
02
90
2109
00
04
30
1679
00
02
40
1678
00
00
20
[F. No. R-25011 /10/2012-0.R. - I ]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secу.
नई दिल्ली , 18 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 144.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में पारादीप (उड़ीसा) से दुर्गापुर (पश्चिम बंगाल ) तक वाया हल्दिया एलपीजी गैस परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि मे जो इस से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइफ्लाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जम के सम्बन्ध में श्री एस.सी. सरकार, डब्ल्यू. बी. सी. एस . (प्रशासनिक) सेवानिवृत्त सक्षम प्राधिकारी, पारादीप - हल्दिया दुर्गापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन एवम् पारादीप हल्दिया - बरौनी पाइपलाइन ऑगमेंटेशन योजना, डाकघर दुईल्या, आन्दुल मौरी, मौरीग्राम हावड़ा -711 302 (पश्चिम बंगाल) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
[ भाग ।। खण्ड 3( ii) ]
429
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
अनुसूची
राज्य: पश्चिम बंगाल
जिला: हावड़ा
पुलिस स्टेशन : पाँचला
मौजा का नाम
कम सं.
क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर
वर्ग मी.
एयर
खसरा सं.
(आर.एस.)
1
2
3
166 1 बेलडूबि 30
189
192
191
1213
183
6
5
4
01
00
40
50
00
01
20
00
00
00
06
00
06
90
00
20
00
02
00
02
90
182/1163
184 00 00 20
278 00 02 40
279 00 03 90
181 00 02 00
280 00 00 60
178 00 01 70
294 00 04 00
301 00 05 40
00 04 60
300/1222
300 00 02 70
298 00 02 90
299 00 03 00
311 00 06 00
312 00 01 30
313 00 01 50
00 03 70
314/1223
315 00 00 80
635 00 00 20
316 00 03 60
317 00 03 60
00 01 70
631/1229
631 00 01 50
632 00 03 60
628 00 07 10
897 00 00 70
898 00 . 00 20
00 00 40
4/1164
916 00
02
90 430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2 3
बेलडूबि 30 917
जारी..... 918
612
611
608
607
606
363
364
378
369
377
370
374
376
1167
446
447
448
488
491
490
450
449
[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii )]
4 5 6 00 00 50 00 02 90 00 03 40 00 02 40 00 03 10 00 03 20 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 14 50 00 07 60 00 00 60 00 04 70 00 00 40 00 08 60 00 01 30 00 01 70 00 10 50 00 00 90 00 00 40 00 03 60 00 01 50 00 00 20 00 00 40 00 00 40
[फा. सं. आर.- 25011/12/2012- ओ.आर. - 1 ]
पवन कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 18th January, 2013
S.O. 144.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal ) Via Haldia a pipeline should be laid in State of WestBengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
Andwhereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962(50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
431
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
[ भाग 1]-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S.C.Sarkar , W.B.C.S ( Exe . ) Retd . Competent Authority Paradip - Haldia -Durgapur LPG Pipeline & Augmentation of Paradip - Haldia -Barauni Pipeline Project , P.O, Duillya , Andul -Mouri , Mourigram , Howrah , 711-302 (West Bengal )
SCHEDULE STATE : WEST BENGAL
DISTRICT : HOWRAH
P.S : PANCHALA
Name of the Mouza
Area
Khasra No.
(R.S.)
SI .
No. Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
3 4 5 6
1 2
166 00 01 40
1 BELDUBI - 30
189 00 01 50
192 00 00 20
191 00 06 00
1213 00 06 90
183 00 02 20
182/1163 00 02 90
184 00 00 20
278 00 02 40
279 00 03 90
181 00 02 00
280 00 00 60
178 00 01 70
294 00 04 00
301 00 05 40
300/1222 00 04 60
300 00 02 70
298 00 02 90
299 00 03 00
311 00 06 00
312. 00 01 30
313 00 01 50
314/1223 00 03 70
315 00 00 80
635 00 00 20
316 00 03 60
317 00 03 60
631/1229 00 01 70
631 00 01 50
432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
1 2 3
BELDUBI - 30 632
Contd.. 628
897
898
4/1164
916
917
918
612
611
608
607
606
363
364
378
369
377
370
374
376
1167
446
447
448
488
491
490
450
449
[PART II----St.C. 3( ii) ]
4 5 6 00 03 60 00 07 10 00 00 70 00 00 20 00 00 40 00 02 90 00 00 50 00 02 90 00 03 40 00 02 40 00 03 10 00 03 20 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 14 50 00 07 60 00 00 60 00 04 70 00 00 40 00 08 60 00 01 30 00 01 70 00 10 50 00 00 90 00 00 40 00 03 60 00 01 50 00 00 20 00 00 40 00 00 40
[F. No. R-25011 / 12/2012-O.R. - I ]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
433
नई दिल्ली , 18 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 145. केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में पारादीप (उड़ीसा) से दुर्गापुर (पश्चिम बंगाल) तक वाया हल्दिया एलपीजी गैस परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि मे जो इस से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एस.सी. सरकार, डब्ल्यू. बी. सी. एस. (प्रशासनिक) सेवानिवृत्त सक्षम प्राधिकारी, पारादीप हल्दिया दुर्गापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन एवम् पारादीप - हल्दिया - बरौनी पाइपलाइन ऑगमेंटेशन योजना, डाकघर दुईल्या, आन्दुल मौरी, मौरीग्राम हावड़ा-711 302 (पश्चिम बंगाल) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
434
[PART 11 - SEC. 3( ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
अनुसूची
राज्य: पश्चिम बंगाल
पुलिस स्टेशन भगरा
जिला : हुगली
क्षेत्रफल
मौजा का नाम
:
कम सं.
वर्ग मी.
हेक्टेयर एयर
खसरा सं.
(एल. आर.)
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 डिंगलहाट -44 24 00 00 90
23 00 00 20
26 00 00 80
27 00 00 80
31 00 00 50
41 00 02 00
40/605 00 00 60
38/588 00 00 20
38/586 00 04 30
38/587 00 01 60
36/562 00 00 80
38/600 00 00 20
36 00 03 00
36/563 00 00 80
38/582 00 01 90
37/566 00 02 90
116 04 10
141 00 00 80
142 00 21 60
168 00 02 10
152 00 02 90
220 00 03 00
155 00 00 20
[फा. सं. आर -25011 /14/2012 - ओ.आर. - 1 ]
पवन कुमार , अवर सचिव [ भाग II--खण्ड 3(ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013/पौष 29, 1934
435
New Delhi , the 18th January, 2013
S.O. 145. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal) Via Haldia a pipeline should be laid in State of WestBengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
Andwhereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962(50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S.C.Sarkar , W.B.C.S ( Exe. ) Retd. Competent Authority Paradip - Haldia -Durgapur LPG Pipeline & Augmentation of Paradip - Haldia -Barauni Pipeline Project , P.O, Duillya , Andu! - Mouri , Mourigram , Howrah , 711-302 (West Bengal )
83 G1 /13-22 [PART 11- SEC. 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
436
SCHEDULE
STATE : WEST BENGAL
DISTRICT : HOOGHLY
P. S : MAGRA
Name of the Mouza
Area
Are Sq.mtr. Hectare
Khasra No.
(L.R.)
SI . No.
4 5 6
2 3
1
24 00 00 90
1 DINGALHAT - 44
23 00 00 20
26 00 00 80
27 00 00 80
31 00 00 50
41 00 02 00
40/605 00 00 60
38/588 00 00 20
38/586 00 04 30
00 01 60
38/587
00 00 80
36/562
38/600 00 00 20
36 00 03 00
36/563 00 00 80
38/582 00 01 90
00 02 90
37/566
116 00 04 10
141 00 00 80
142 00 21 60
168 00 02 10
152 00 02 90
220 00 03 00
155 00 00 20
A
[F. No. R -25011 / 14/2012 -O.R. - 1 ]
PAWAN KUMAR. Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ.146.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में पारादीप (उड़ीसा) से दुर्गापुर (पश्चिम बंगाल) तक वाया हल्दिया एलपीजी गैस परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि मे जो इस से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
431
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है. इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एस.सी. सरकार , डब्ल्यू. बी. सी. एस . (प्रशासनिक) सेवानिवृत्त सक्षम प्राधिकारी , पारादीप - हल्दिया- दुर्गापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन एवम् पारादीप - हल्दिया - करोनी पाइपलाइन ऑगमेंटेशन योजना, डाकघर दुईल्या, आन्दुल मौरी, मौरीग्राम हावड़ा-711 302 (पश्चिम्म बंगाल) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
राज्य : पश्चिम बंगाल
जिला: वर्द्धमान
पुलिस स्टेशन : मेमारी
मौजा का नाम
कम सं.
खसरा सं. (एल.आर.)
3 1
2
1
220 साहापुर 49
220/421
200
218
201
207
206
205
191
208
189
188
187
183
226
1112 2 नगरकोणा 48
1111
1110
1108
1107
1106
1105 क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मी.
4
5
6
00
00
30
00
01
00
00
01
80
00
03
60
00
09
50
04
23
00
00
60
04
00
01
90
00
03
70
01
20
00
04
00
60
01
00
30
00
06
30
01
20
00
01
60
00
40
00
00
00
03
20
01
00
00
10
70
00
00
02
20
01
50
00
00
00
20 438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
1 2 3
नगरकोणा 48 778
जारी..... 777
779
780
776
781
785
786
787
789
790
788
791
811
810
808
812
813
814
816
817
818
819
509
822
823
824
825
487
486
483
482
481
480
469
470
466
467
462
[PART II-SEC . 3(
4 5 6 00 02 50 00 00 50 00 01 80 00 02 00 00 00 20 00 04 70 00 01 80 00 00 80 00 03 40 00 00 50 00 00 20 00 00 60 00 03 30 00 01 90 00 01 60 00 00 20 00 02 30 00 00 20 00 00 60 00 02 40 00 00 20 00 02 10 00 00 20 00 00 90 00 03 10 00 01 00 00 00 40 00 05 40 00 00 60 00 01 30 00 00 80 00 00 30 00 04 40 00 02 60 00 01 20 00 00 20 00 02 10 00 00 30 00 00 20
[भाग खण्ड (ii) ]
का राजपत्र जनवरी 19,2013/चौथ 29, 1934
1 2
3 4 5 6
नगरकोणा 48 463 00 02 20
जारी..... 465 00 00 20
464 00 00 20
461 00 00 80
460 00 03 40
458 00 00 30
459 00 02 90
404 00 01 30
396 00 01 80
395 00 02 90
397 00 00 20
392 00 00 20
394 00 01 80
393 00 00 40
373 00 02 90
354 00 02 40
355 00 00 20
353 00 00 20
374 00 00 20
371 00 02 70
372 00 00 30
369 00 01 00
364 00 03 30
363 00 01 80
295 00 02 20
246 00 00 40
296 00 06 20
297 00 03 10
298 00 00 40
3 कोडारपाडा 41 184 00 13 80
170 00 01 70
169 00 02 00
171 00 00 20
167 00 04 20
166 00 01 70
[फा. सं. आर.- 25011 / 16/2012- ओ.आर. -1 ] पवन कुमार , अवर सचिव 440
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
[PART 1 SEC. 3( ii)) NewDelhi, the 18th January, 2013
8.0.146-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal ) Via Haldia a pipeline should be laid in State of WestBengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
Andwhereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein ;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S.C.Sarkar , W.B.C.S ( Exe . ) Retd . Competent Authority Paradip - Haldia - Durgapur LPG Pipeline & Augmentation of Paradip - Haldia -Barauni Pipeline Project , P.O , Duillya , Andul - Mouri , Mourigram , Howrah , 711-302 (West Bengal ) [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
441
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
SCHEDULE
PS : MEMARI
DISTRICT : HOWRAH
STATE : WEST BENGAL
SI . Khasra No. Area
Name of the Mouza
No.
(L.R) Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
1 2 3 5
4 6
1 SAHAPUR - 49 220 00 00 30
220/421 00 01 00
200 00 01 80
218 00 03 60
201 00 09 50
207 00 04 23
206 00 04 60
205 00 01 90
191 00 03 70
208 00 01 20
189 00 04 60
188 00 01 30
187 00 06 30
183 00 01 20
226 00 01 60
2 NAGARKONA - 48 1112 00 00 40
1111 00 03 20
1110 00 01 00
1108 00 10 70
1107 00 02 20
1106 00 01 50
1105 00 00 20
778 00 02 50
777 00 00 50
779 00 01 80
780 00 02 00
776 00 00 20
781 00 04 70
785 00 01 80
786 00 00 80
442
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2 3
NAGARKOΝΑ - 48 787
Contd ... 789
790
788
791
811
810
808
812
813
814
816
817
818
819
509
822
823
824
825
487
486
483
482
481
480
469
470
466
467
462
463
465
464
461
460
458
459
[PART 11--SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
4 5 6 00 03 40 00 00 50 00 00 20 00 00 60 00 03 30 00 01 90 00 01 60 00 00 20 00 02 30 00 00 20 00 00 60 00 02 40 00 00 20 00 02 10 00 00 20 00 00 90 00 03 10 00 01 00 00 00 40 00 05 40 00 00 60 00 01 30 00 00 80 00 00 30 00 04 40 00 02 60 00 01 20 00 00 20 00 02 10 00 00 30 00 00 20 00 02 20 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 00 80 00 03 40 00 00 30 00 02 90
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
443
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
1 2 3 4 5 6
NAGARKOΝΑ - 48 404 00 01 30
Contd... 398 00 01 80
395 00 02 90
397 00 00 20
392 00 00 20
394 00 01 80
393 00 00 40
373 00 02 90
354 00 02 40
355 00 00 20
353 00 00 20
374 00 00 20
371 00 02 70
372 00 00 30
369 00 01 00
364 00 03 30
363 00 01 80
295 00 02 20
246 00 00 40
296 00 06 20
297 00 03 10
298 00 00 40
3 KONARPARA - 41 184 00 13 80
170 00 01 70
169 00 02 00
171 00 00 20
167 00 04 20
166 00 01 70
[F. No. R -25011 /16/2012-O.R. -I ] PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 147.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पश्चिम बंगाल रेज्यि में पारादीप (उड़ीसा) से दुर्गापुर (पश्चिम बंगाल) तक वाया हल्दिया एलपीजी गैस परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि मे जो इस से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त 83// 23 444
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
PART II - St . 3 ( ii ) ]
शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एस.सी. सरकार, डब्ल्यू. बी . सी. एस. (प्रशासनिक) सेवानिवृत्त सक्षम प्राधिकारी , पारादीप - हल्दिया- दुर्गापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन एवम् पारादीप - हल्दिया - बरौनी पाइपलाइन ऑगमेंटेशन योजना, डाकघर दुईल्या, आन्दुल - मौरी , मौरीग्राम हावड़ा-711 302 ( पश्चिम बंगाल) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
राज्य : पश्चिम बंगाल
पुलिस स्टेशन: मगरा
जिला: हूगली
क्षेत्रफल
कम खसरा सं.
मौजा का नाम
सं. (आर.एस.) हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मी.
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 बांशबाडिया 53 269 00 11 90
241 00 02 40
242 00 07 20
118 00 02 70
150 00 00 20
575 00 00 90
301 00 02 20
258 00 00 40
243 00 08 70
245 00 02 80
244 00 10 50
272 00 00 50
247 00 01 70
274 00 00 20
273 00 04 20
275 00 01 00
136 00 01 50
271 00 05 60
253 00 01 70
[फा. सं. आर.-25011/14/2012-ओ.आर. - 1 ]
पवन कुमार , अवर सचिव, 445
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
New Delhi, the 18th January, 2013
S.O. 147. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal ) Via Haldia, a pipeline should be laid in State of West Bengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto:
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S.C.Sarkar, W.B.C.S ( Exe . ) Retd . Competent Authority Paradip - Haldia -Durgapur LPG Pipeline & Augmentation of Paradip - Haldia -Barauni Pipeline Project , P.O, Duillya , Andul - Mouri , Mourigram, Howrah , 711-302 (West Bengal )
SCHEDULE
STATE : WEST BENGAL
P. S : MAGRA
DISTRICT : HOOGHLY
Area
Name of the Mouza
SI . No.
Khasra No.
(R.S.)
Hectare Are Sq.mtr .
5
3
4
6 2
3
11
90
00
269
1 BANSBERIA - 53
02
40
241
00
20
00
07
242
70
00
02
118
20
00
00
150
90
00
00
575 446
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2. 3
1 BANBERIA - 53 301
Contd... 258
243
245
244
272
247
274
273
275
136
271
253
[PART 11 ---SÉC. 3(if)]
4 5 6 00 02 20 00 00 40 00 08 70 00 02 80 00 10 50 00 00 50 00 01 70 00 00 20 00 04 20 00 01 00 00 01 50 00 05 60 00 01 70
[ F. No. R -25011 / 14/2012 -O.R.- [ ]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 18 जनवरी , 2013
का.आ. 148.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में पारादीप (उड़ीसा) से दुर्गापुर (पश्चिम बंगाल) तक वाया हल्दिया एलपीजी गैस परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि मे जो इस से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है:
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एस.सी. सरकार, डब्ल्यू. बी . सी. एस. (प्रशासनिक) सेवानिवृत्त सक्षम प्राधिकारी, पारादीप हल्दिया दुर्गापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन एवम् पारादीप हल्दिया बरौनी . पाइपलाइन ऑगमेंटेशन योजना, डाकघर दुईल्या, आन्दुल मौरी , मौरीग्राम हावड़ा-711 302 (पश्चिम बंगाल) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौव 29 , 1934
अनुसूची
पुलिस स्टेशन : सुताहाटा ।
447
जिला: पूर्व मेदिनीपुर
मौजा का नाम
कम सं.
राज्य : पश्चिम बंगाल
क्षेत्रफल
खसरा सं.
(आर.एस.)
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मी.
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 कसबेड़े 146 449 00 05 40
417 00 01 20
416 00 02 00
351 00 11 90
350 00 03 90
352 00 00 80
341 00 00 50
357 00 01 30
349 00 01 10
1755 00 04 60
359 00 00 50
1749 00 00 40
360 00 06 50
363 00 04 80
98 00 00 60
97 00 03 10
96 00 04 50
162 00 00 20
169 00 01 00
171 00 03 30
170 00 00 70
1729 00 00 30
240 00 03 00
178 00 03 70
179 00 01 20
183 00 00 50
180 00 00 20
187 00 02 00
186 00 02 50
2 डिः शिवरामनगर 95 484 00 02 00
448
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
1 2 3
डिः शिवरामनगर 95 483
जारी ..... 480
477
470
476
460
461
455
454
444
443
442
479
440
438
1016
1015
1014
[PART 1 ] SEC. 3( ii) ]
4 5 6 00 01 30 00 00 30 00 02 20 00 01 30 00 01 10 00 00 50 00 03 20 00 01 30 00 01 00 00 03 10 00 01 80 00 01 60 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 00 20 00 01 20 00 01 10 00 00 50
[फा. सं. आर. - 25011/23/2012- ओ.आर. -1 ] पवन कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 18th January, 2013
80. 148-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal ) Via Haldia a pipeline should be laid in State of West Bengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
449
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S.C.Sarkar , W.B.C.S (Exe. )Retd . Competent Authority Paradip - Haldia -Durgapur LPG Pipeline & Augmentation of Paradip - Haldia -Barauni Pipeline Project , P.O , Duillya , Andul - Mouri , Mourigram, Howrah , 711-302 (West Bengal )
SCHEDULE
STATE : WEST BENGAL
DISTRICT : PURBA MEDINIPUR
P.S : SUTHAHATA - I
Name of the Mouza
Area
Are Sq.mtr.
Hectare
Khasra. No.
(R.S.)
SI . No.
3
2
1
449
1 KASBERE - 146
417
416
351
350
352
341
357
349
1755
359
1749
360
363
98
97
96
162
169
171
170
1729
240
6
5
4
40
05
00
20
01
00
00
02
00
90
11
00
90
03
00
80
00
00
50
00
00
30
01
00
10
01
00
60
04
00
50
00
00
40
00
00
50
06
00
80
04
00
60
00
00
10
03
00
50
04
00
20
00
00
00
01
00
30
03
00
70
00
00
30
00
00
00
03
00
450 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/ PAUSA 29 , 1934
= PART 1 SEC, 3 ( ii ) )
1 2
4 5 6
1 KAS.BERE - 146 178 00 03 70
179 00 01
20
183 00 00
50
180 00 00
20
187 00
02 00
186 00 02 50
2 DIH SHIBRAMNAGAR - 95 484 00 02 00
483 00 01 30
480 00 00 30
477 00 02 20:
-470 00 01 30
476 00 01 10
460 00 00
50
461 00 03 20
455 00 01 30
454 00 01 00
444 00 03 10
443 00 01 80
442 00 01 60
479 00 00 20
440 00 00 20
438 00 00 20
1016 00 01 20
1015 00 01 10
1014 00 00 50
[ F. No. R - 25011 /23 /2012-O.R. - J] PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
451
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 21 दिसम्बर , 2012
का.आ. 149. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण पूर्व मध्य रेलवे 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 92/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-12-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल-41012 /41 /2005- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 21st December , 2012
S.O.149. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. 92/2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of South East Central Railway and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-12-2012 .
No. L -41012/41 /2005 - IR (B-I ) ] SURENDRA KUMAR , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
No. CGIT/NGP /92/2007
Dated 6-12-2012
Both the parties are absent on calls . None appears onbehalfof either of the parties . The union representative is absent. No statement of claim is filed.
Perused the record . On the previous date , a last chance was given to the petitioner to file the statement of claim. In spite of the same , no statement of claim has been filed. It appears from record that the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the case . Hence , the case is closed. Put up later on for award .
Party No.1 : The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager. South East Central Railway, Nagpur Division , Nagpur(MS) .
V/ s
Party No. 2: The General Secretary,
Parcel Porter Sanghatna,
83 GI/ 2013-24
South East Central Railway,
New Mankapur, Plot No. 37 , Mhada Colony,
Nagpur -30(MS) .
AWARD
(Dated: 6th December , 2012)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2( A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act " in short ), the Central Government had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of South East Central Railway and their workman , Shri Murlidhar Gomaji Chawde, for adjudication, asper letter No.L - 41012/41 /2005- IR(B- 1 ) dated 15-11-2007, for adjudication with the following schedule:-
"Whether the Parcel Porters /Hammal are workmen of theRailway Administration ? If so , whether the action ofthe management of South East Central Railway, Nagpur Division , Nagpur (MS) in terminating/ stopping from the services of Shri Murlidhar Gomaji Chawde, Parcel Porter , is proper and justified? Ifnot , what reliefthe Parcel Porter is entitled to ? "
2.Onreceipt ofthe reference , parties were noticed to filetheir respective statement of claim and written statement. In spite of appearance ofthe parties in the case and several adjournments of the reference, neither any statement of claim nor written statement was filed .
3. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the Party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must fail . Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of the service, it is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produces evidence to prove his case . If the workman fails to appear or file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the Government cannot be answered. in his favour and he would not be entitled to anyrelief.
4.Applying the above principles to the present case in hand, it is found that no statement of claim has been liled by the petitioner in spite ofgiving sufficient scope for the same and no evidence has been produced in support of his claim, the workman is not entitled to any relief. Hence, itis ordered: ...
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer 452
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 PAUSA 29 , 1934
नई दिल्ली, 21 दिसम्बर , 2012
का.आ. 150.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण पूर्व मध्य रेलवे 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 93/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-12-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल-41012/ 103 /2005 आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र कुमार, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 21st December , 2012
S.O.150 .-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes t award ( Ref. No. 93/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of South East Central Railway and their workman , receivedby the Central Government on 21-12-2012 .
[No. L -41012/103/2005 - IR ( B - I ) ]
SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
No. CGIT/NGP/93 /2007 Dated 6-12-2012
Both the parties are absent on calls . None appears on behalf of either of the parties . The union representative is absent . No statement of claim is filed.
Perused the record . On the previous date , a last chance was given to the petitioner to file the statement of claim. In spite of the same , no statement of claim has been filed. It appears from record that the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the case . Hence , the case is closed. Put up later on for award.
PartyNo.1 : The Sr. Divisional Commercial
Manager, South East Central Railway, NagpurDivision , Nagpur(MS). V/s
PartyNo. 2: The General Secretary, Parcel Porter Sanghatna , South East Central Railway, New Mankapur, Plot No. 37, Mhada Colony, Nagpur-30(MS) .
[ PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
AWARD
(Dated : 6th December . 2012 )
In exercise of the powers conterred 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 had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of South East Central Railway and their workman , Shri Vinod Jagdish Meshram , for adjudication . as per letter No. L - 41012/ 103/ 2005 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated 13-11-2007, for adjudication with the following schedule: -
"Whether the Parcel Porters / flammal are workmen of theRailway Administration ? If so , whether the action of the management of South East Central Railway, Nagpur Division , Nagpur ( MS ) in terminating stopping from the services of Shri Vinod Jagdish Meshram, Parcel Porter , w.e.f. 3-1-2005 is proper and justified ? Ifnot, what relief the Parcel Porter is entitled to?"
2.On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to filetheir respective statement of claim and written statement . In spite of appearance ofthe parties in the case and several adjournments of the reference , neither any statement of claim nore written statement was filed .
3. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the Party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must fail . Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity nor written statement was filed . of the termination of the service , it is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds onwhich the order is challenged and he must also produces evidence to prove his case . If the workman fails to appear or file written statement or produce evidence , the dispute referred by the Government cannot be answered in his favour and he would not be entitled to any relief.
4. Applying the above principles to the present case in hand , it is found that no statement of claim has been filed by the petitioner inspite of giving sufficient scope for the same and no evidence has been produced in support of his claim , the workman is not entitled to any relief. Hence, it is ordered:-
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman . The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer 453
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29, 1934
[ भाग ।।-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
AWARD
नई दिल्ली, 21 दिसम्बर , 2012
(Dated: 6th December , 2012) का.आ. 151.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण पूर्व मध्य रेलवे 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 88/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-12-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -41012/93/2005- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] सुरेन्द्र कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) (" the Act " in : short) , the Central Government had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of South East Central Railway and their workman , Shri Milind Jairam Bhowate, for adjudication , as per letter No. L- 41012/93/2005 - IR( B - 1 ) dated 13-11-2007, for adjudication with the following schedule:-
New Delhi , the 21st December, 2012
"Whether the Parcel Porters/Hammal are workmen of the Railway Administration ? If so, whether the action of the management of South East Central Railway, Nagpur Division, Nagpur (MS) in terminating/ stopping from the services of Shri Milind Jairam Bhowate, Parcel Porter, w.e.f. 3-1-2005 is proper and justified ? Ifnot, what reliefthe Parcel Porter is entitled to ?"
S.O.151 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 88/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of South East Central Railway, Nagpur Division and their workmen, receivedby the Central Government on 21-12-2012 .
[No. L41012/93/2005 -IR (B- 1 )] SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
2.On receipt ofthe reference , parties were noticedto file their respective statement of claim and written statement. In spite ofappearance ofthe parties in the case and several adjournments of the reference , neither any statement of claim nor written statement was filed.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
No. CGIT/NGP/88/2007 Dated 6-12-2012
Both the parties are absent on calls . None appears onbehalf of either ofthe parties. The union representative is absent. None appears to move the petition filed on 10-9-2012 on behalf of the petitioner. Hence the said petition is rejected as not pressed .
No statement ofclaim is filed.
3. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the Party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court mush fail . Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity ofthe termination of the service , it is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produces evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the Govt . cannot be answered in his favour and he would not be entitled to any relief.
Perused the record. On the previous date , a last chance was given to the petitioner to file the statement of claim. In spite of the same , no statement of claim has been filed. It appears from record that the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the case . Hence , the case is closed. Put up later on for award.
4. Applying the above principles to the present case in hand, it is found that no statement of claim has been filed by the petitioner inspite of giving sufficient scope for the same and no evidence has been produced in support of his claim , the workman is not entitled to any relief. Hence, it is ordered:-
Party No. 1 : The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, South East Central Railway, Nagpur Division , Nagpur(MS). V/s
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman . The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer Party No. 2: The General Secretary, Parcel Porter Sanghatna , South East Central Railway, New Mankapur, Plot No. 37, MhadaColony, Nagpur- 30 (MS) .
454
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
AWARD
नई दिल्ली, 21 दिसम्बर , 2012
(Dated: 6th December, 2012 )
का.आ. 152. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण पूर्व मध्य रेलवे 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 91/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-12-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of South East Central Railway and their workman , Shri Mahesh Bharatlal Prajapati , for adjudication, as per letter No. L - 41012 /40/2005 - IR ( B- I ) dated 15-11- 2007, for adjudication with the following schedule :-
[सं. एल-41012/40/2005- आई आर ( बी -1 )] सुरेन्द्र कुमार, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 21st December , 2012
"Whether the Parcel Porters /Hammal are workmen of the Railway Administration ? If so, whether the action of the management of South East Central Railway, Nagpur Division , Nagpur ( MS ) in terminating/stopping from the services of Shri Mahesh Bharatlal Prajapati , Parcel Porter, is proper and justified ? If not , what relief the Parcel Porter is entitled to ? "
S.O.152 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 91/2007) of the Central Government industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of South East Central Railway and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 21-12-2012.
[No. L-41012/40/2005 - IR (B- I ) ] SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
2.Onreceipt ofthe reference , parties were noticed to filetheir respective statement of claim and written statement . In spite of appearance of the parties in the case and several adjournments of the reference , neither any statement of claim nor written statement was filed .
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
No. CGIT/NGP/91 /2007
Dated6-12-2012
Both the parties are absent on calls . None appears on behalf of either of the parties . The union representative is absent . No statement of claim is filed.
3. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced , the Party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must fail . Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of the service , it is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produces evidence to prove his case . If the workman fails to appear or file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the Govt . cannot be answered in his favour and he would not be entitled to any relief.
Perused the record . On the previous date , a last chance was given to the petitioner to file the statement of claim . In spite of the same , no statement of claim has been filed. It appears from record that the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the case . Hence, the case is closed. Put up later on for award.
Party No. 1 : The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager,
SouthEast Central Railway,
Nagpur Division ,
Nagpur(MS). V/ s
4.Applying the above principles to the present case in hand, it is found that no statement of claim has been filed by the petitioner inspite of giving sufficient scope for the same and no evidence has been produced in support ofhisclaim, the workman is not entitled to any relief. Hence , itisordered:-
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
Party No. 2 : The General Secretary, Parcel Porter Sanghatna , SouthEast Central Railway, New Mankapur, Plot No. 37 , MhadaColony,
Nagpur-30 ( MS) .
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer 455
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
AWARD
नई दिल्ली, 26 दिसम्बर , 2012
(Dated: 6th December, 2012) का.आ. 153.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण पूर्व मध्य रेलवे 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 86/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-12-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
In exercise ofthe 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 had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of South East Central Railway and their workman , Shri Shailesh Shravan Bagade, for adjudication, as per letter No.L- 41012/30/2005 - IR(B- I ) dated 16-11-2007, for adjudication with the following schedule: - [सं. एल -41012/30/2005- आई आर ( बी -1) ] सुरेन्द्र कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 26th December, 2012
"Whether the Parcel Porters/Hammal are workmen of the Railway Administration ? If so, whether the action of the management of South East Central Railway, Nagpur Division , Nagpur (MS ) in terminating /stopping from the services of Shri Shailesh Shravan Bagade, Parcel Porter , is proper and justified ? If not, what reliefthe Parcel Porter is entitled to ?"
S.O. 153. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 86/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of South East Central Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26-12-2012 .
2.On receipt ofthe reference , parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement. In spite of appearance of the parties in the case and several adjournments of the reference, neither any statement of claim nore written statement was filed.
[No. L-41012/30/2005 - IR (B- I) ] SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
No. CGIT/NGP/86/2007
Dated 6-12-2012
Both the parties are absent on calls . None appears onbehalf of either of the parties . The union representative is absent . No statement ofclaim is filed.
3. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the Party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court mush fail . Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of the service , it is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produces evidence to prove his case . If the workman fails to appear or file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the Govt. cannot be answered in his favour and he would not be entitled to any relief.
Perused the record. On the previous date , a last chance was given to the petitioner to file the statement of claim. In spite of the same , no statement of claim has been filed. It appears from record that the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the case. Hence , the case is closed. Put up later on for award .
4.Applying the above principles to the present case in hand, it is found that no statement of claim has been filedby the petitioner in spite ofgiving sufficient scope for the same and no evidence has been produced in support ofhisclaim , the workman is not entitled to any relief. Hence, itisordered:-
ORDER
Party No. 1 : The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, South East Central Railway, Nagpur Division, Nagpur(MS). V/s
The reference is answered against the workman . The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 26 दिसम्बर , 2012
Party No. 2 : The General Secretary, Parcel Porter Sanghatna, South East Central Railway, New Mankapur, Plot No. 37, Mhada Colony, Nagpur-30(MS).
का.आ. 154. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण पूर्व मध्य 456
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19, 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
[PART 11 SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
AWARD
(Dated: 6th December, 2012)
रेलवे 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 62/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-12-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-41012/42/2005- आई आर ( बी -1) ] सुरेन्द्र कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 26th December, 2012
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 had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of South East Central Railway and their workman , Shri Umashankar Ramprasad Yadav, for adjudication, as per letter No.L - 41012 /42/2005 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated 14-11-2007 , for adjudication with the following schedule:-
S.O. 154. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 62/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of South East Central Railway and their workman , received by the Central Government on 26-12-2012 .
"Whether the Parcel Porters /Hammal are workmen of the Railway Administration ? If so , whether the action of the management of South East Central Railway, Nagpur Division , Nagpur ( MS ) in terminating/ stopping from the services of Shri Umashankar Ramprasad Yadav, Parcel Porter, is proper and justified ? If not , what relief the Parcel Porter is entitled to ? "
[No. L -41012/42/2005 - IR ( B -I ) ] SURENDRA KUMAR , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
No. CGIT/NGP/ 62/2007 Dated 6-12-2012
2.Onreceipt of the reference , parties were noticed to filetheir respective statement of claim and written statement, in response to which the workman , Umashankar Ramprasad Yadav filed his statement of claim pleading inter- alia that though the Parcel Porters are agitating to make them permanent employees of the Railway, the management are treating them as Licensed Porter illegally and . he is entitled for regularization in service.
Both the parties are absent on calls . None appears onbehalf of either of the parties . The union representative is absent.
Inspite of appearance of the management through their advocate and taking time for filing written statement . no written statement was filed.
Onperusal of the record , it is found that the statement of claim has already been filed by the workman on 7-10-2008 . However, after filing of the statement ofclaim, the workman is not appearing . The union has also not taken any step on behalf of the workman . It appears from record that the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the case. Hence , the case is closed . Put up later on for award.
Party No. 1 : The Sr. Divisional Commercial
Manager, South East Central Railway, Nagpur Division , Nagpur(MS).
3. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced , the Party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court mush fail . Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of the service , it is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produces evidence to prove his case . If the workman fails to appear or file written statement or produce evidence , the dispute referredby the Govt . cannot be answered in his favour and he would not be entitled to any relief.
V/s
4. Applying the above principles to the present case in hand, it is found that no evidence has been produced by the workman in support of his claim , the workman is not entitled to any relief . Hence , it is ordered: -
ORDER
Party No. 2: The General Secretary, Parcel Porter Sanghatna, South East Central Railway, New Mankapur , Plot No. 37. Mhada Colony,
Nagpur -30 (MS).
The reference is answered against the workman . The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND , PresidingOfficer 457
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29,1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
AWARD
नई दिल्ली, 26 दिसम्बर , 2012
(Dated: 6th December, 2012 )
का.आ.155.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण पूर्व मध्य रेलवे 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 89/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-12-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-41012/102/2005- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र कुमार, अनुभाग अधिकारी
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act " in short), the Central Government had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the managementment of South East Central Railway and their workman , Shri Rajendra Prasad Ram Prasad Paul , for adjudication , as per letter No.L- 41012/ 102 / 2005 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated 13-11-2007 , for adjudication with the following schedule: -
New Delhi , the 26th December , 2012
"Whether the Parcel Porters/Hammal are workmen of the Railway Administration ? If so , whether the action of the management of South East Central Railway, Nagpur Division , Nagpur ( MS ) in terminating /stopping from the services of Shri Rajendra Prasad Ram Prasad Paul , Parcel Porter w.e.f. 3-1-2005 is proper and justified ? If not , what relief the Parcel Porter is entitled to ? "
S.O.155 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 89/2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of South East Central Railway and their workman , received by the Central Government on 26-12-2012.
[No. L-41012/102/2005 - IR (B -I ) ] SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
2.On receipt ofthe reference , parties were noticed to fue their respective statement of claim and written statement . In spite of appearance of the parties in the case and several adjournments of the reference , neither any statement of claim nor written statement was filed.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
No. CGIT/NGP/89/2007 Dated 6-12-2012
Both the parties are absent on calls . None appears onbehalf of either of the parties . The union representative is absent . No statement of claim is filed.
3. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the Party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must fail . Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination ofthe service , it is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produces evidence to prove his case . If the workman fails to appear or file written statement or produce evidence , the dispute referred by the Govt . cannot be answered in his favour and he would not be entitled to any relief.
Perused the record. On the previous date , a last chance was given to the petitioner to file the statement of claim. In spite of the same , no statement of claim has been filed. It appears from record that the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the case . Hence, the case is closed. Put up later on for award.
Party No.1: The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, South East Central Railway, Nagpur Division , Nagpur(MS).
V/s
4.Applying the above principles to the present case in hand, it is found that no statement of claim has been filed bythe petitioner in spite ofgiving sufficient scope for the same and no evidence has been produced in support of his claim, the workman is not entitled to any relief. Hence , it is ordered:-
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman . The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer Party No. 2: The General Secretary, Parcel Porter Sanghatna, South East Central Railway, NewMankapur , Plot No. 37 , Mhada Colony, Nagpur-30(MS) .
458
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 / PAUSA 29, 1934
नई दिल्ली , 26 दिसम्बर , 2012
का.आ. 156. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण पूर्व मध्य रेलवे 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 87/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-12-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -41012/ 101 /2005- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 26th December , 2012
S.O. 156. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 87/2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of South East Central Railway, Nagpur Division and their workman , received by the Central Government on 26-12-2012.
[No. L-41012/101 /2005- IR (B- I )]
SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
No. CGIT/NGP/87/2007 Dated6-12-2012
Both the parties are absent on calls . None appears on behalf of either of the parties . The union representative is absent . No statement of claim is filed.
Perused the record . On the previous date , a last chance was given to the petitioner to file the statement of claim. In spite ofthe same , no statement of claim has been filed. It appears from record that the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the case . Hence , the case is closed. Put up later on for award .
PartyNo.1 : The Sr. Divisional Commercial
Manager, South East Central Railway, Nagpur Division , Nagpur(MS) .
V/s
Party No. 2: The General Secretary, ParcelPorter Sanghatna, South East Central Railway, NewMankapur , Plot No. 37, Mhada Colony, Nagpur - 30 (MS) .
[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
AWARD
(Dated: 6th December , 2012 )
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 had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of South East Central Railway and their workman , Shri Moreshwar Nandlal Masboinwar, for adjudication , as per letter No.L - 41012 / 101 /2005 - IR(B - 1 ) dated 13-11-2007 , for adjudication with the following schedule :-
"Whether the Parcel Porters /Hammal are workmen of theRailwayAdministration ? If so , whether the action of the management of South East Central Railway, Nagpur Division, Nagpur ( MS) in terminating/ stopping from the services of Shri Moreshwar Nandlal Masboinwar , Parcel Porter w.e.f. 21-1-2005 , is proper andjustified ? If not, what relief the Parcel Porter is entitled to ? י
2. On receipt ofthe reference , parties were noticed to filetheir respective statement of claim and written statement . In spite of appearance of the parties in the case and several adjournments of the reference , neither any statement of claim nore written statement was filed.
3. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced , the Party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must fail . Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of the service , it is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produces evidence to prove his case . If the workman fails to appear or file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the Govt . cannot be answered in his favour and he would not be entitled to any relief.
4. Applying the above principles to the present case in hand , it is found that no statement of claim has been filed by the petitioner in spite of giving sufficient scope for the same and no evidence has been produced in support of his claim , the workman is not entitled to any relief . Hence , it is ordered : --
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer 459
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 26 दिसम्बर , 2012
का.आ. 157.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार चीफ इन्जीनियर (डब्ल्यूजैड ) सी.पी.डब्ल्यू. डी. और अदर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी.ए, ऑफ 145/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-12-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42011 /10/1997- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र कुमार, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 26th December, 2012
S.O. 157. 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 145/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief Engineer ( WZ ) CPWD & Others and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-12-2012.
[No. L-42011/10/1997- IR (DU)] SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present:
BINAY KUMAR SINHA , Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum - Labour Court ,
Ahmedabad, Dated 22nd May, 2012
Reference: ITC No. 24 of 1997 Old
Reference: CGITA of 145 of 2006
( 1 ) The Chief Engineer , (WZ) CPWD, 14th Floor, Old Annexer, 101 , M.K. Road, New Marine Lines , Mumbai -20 .
(2) The Superintending Engineer,
CPWD , Ahmedabad Central Circle . 7thFloor, Mridul Tower, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad- 380009 .
83G1/2013-25
( 3) The Executive Engineer,
CPWD, Gandhinagar Central Division,
First Parties Sector-6, Gandhinagar.
And their workman:-
Bhimji Hariji Bihola
Through Regional Secretary,
All India, CPWD Employee's Union ,
Western Region ; C/o Shri Vinod Parmar,
17/465, Vikasnagar, Nr. Janta Nagar,
Amraiwadi Road, Ahmedabad-380026.
.......Second Party
Shri R.S. Munshi , Advocate For the First party :
Shri Lalit Patil , Advocate Fro the Second party:.
AWARD
The Central Government/ Ministry of Labour vide its order No. L -42011 / 10/97 - IRDU , New Delhi dated 17/27-10-1997 in exercise ofpower conferred by clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 referred the dispute existing between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD, Ahmedabad and their workman, for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal , Ahmedabadby formulating the terms of reference as follows:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Central Public Works Department , Gandhinagar in denying regularisationto Shri Bhimji Hariji Bihola as Work Charge Motor Lorry Driver w.c.f. 17-10-1989 but regularising him at the post lower than Motor Lorry Driver by taking undertaking dated 16-10-1989 is legal. and justified? If not , to what relief the concerned employce is entitled to?"
( 2) On notices to the parties both sides appeared and filed their pleadings - statement of claim by the second partyat Ext . & and written statement by the first party at Ext. 9.
(3) The case ofthe second party workman, shortly stated, is that be was engaged by the first party as Lorry driver on 27-08-1984 and his services were regularised on 03-10-1989 on the post of work charge Beldar and in this connection obtaining a consent letter by force on 16-10-1989 and then from 17-10-1989 he was offered post ofwork charge Beldarwhereas he worked up to 16-10-1989 as lorry driver. Further case is that in spite of offering lower post of work charge Beldar by the first party on 17-10-1989, the first 460
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013/PALUSA 29, 1934
party issued certificate showing him as motor lorry driver . Further case is that the workman was working as a driver but he was being paid only as labourer against which he raised an Industrial Dispute and subsequently the dispute was referred for adjudication . Prayer has been made for the reliefs of declaring the order of the management of first partyto offer lower cadre post of work charge Beldar as illegal , unjust and proper and which is fit to be set aside, with further prayer for regularising his service w.e.f. 17-10-1989 as motor lorry driver with consequential benefit and wages and also for cost of suit and for any other relief to which the workman is found entitled.
(4) The first party has made parawise reply to the statement of claim of the workman and has admitted that the workman has worked as motor forry driver on muster roll (dailywages) in CPWD prior to 16-10-1989 in two spells i.e. from 27-08-1984 to 29-03-1986 and from 11-08-1986 to 16-10-1989 . The case of the first party is that Government of India's order issued from time to time for Muster Roll workers who have worked for 240 days in two consecutive yeats are entitled for regularisation in work charge establishment subject to they are found fit in the trade test and approval of the screening committee and availability of sanctioned post in the department . Although the workman Shri Bhimji Harijee Bihola fulfilled the conditions for regularisation as M.L.D. but could not be absorbed in the post of M.L.D due to non availability of post of M.L.D. However, posts of Beldar ( unskilled labour ) were available withthe department. If a worker is found fit to be regularised in a lower post , his option for such posting is invariably called for before acceptance of the regular lower post or to wait till the post in which he is working on Muster Roli is made available . Further case is that it was open on his part either to accept the lower post or remain on muster roll as M.L. D till occurrence of regular sanctioned post of M.L.D. But the workman instead of waiting for the occurrence of M.LID . s post , accepted the lower post of Beldar offeredto m vide office order No. 9 ( 16 ) /A.C.D./89/3741 dated 0-1989 . The workman Bhimji Hariji Bihola joined the Poids of Beldar with a doubt in his mind that, he may loose the regular appointment of M.L.D. in the department then the workman submitted option/undertaking dated 16-10- 1989 without any force to accept the lower post of work charge Beldar. The contents of the undertaking were explained to him by the Head Clerk and no compulsion was made to him to sign it . Further case is that after getting regularised in the lower post of Beldar, the workman Bhimji Hariji Bihola raised the Industrial Dispute which is an after thought of the workman . Whereas . since from his regularisation as beldar i.e. 17-10-1989, onwards his services exclusivelywere utilised as beldar only, except on few rare occasions i.e. only merely for 40 days he was engaged for driving jeep - in exigency of work as and when the regular M.L. D. was remain on leave during he span of 7 years 1990 to 1996. On this score contention of the first party is that
[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii)]
the claim of the workman for demanding equal pay for equal word. is not in order as he has suppressed the facts and already got the wages of M.L.D. during the entire period of hisbeing muster roli M.L.D. which were being paidto the counter parts in C.P.W.D. Thus prayer has been made to reject the reference .
(5) On behalf of the first party list of documents at Ext.10were filed through which documents were produced which were given Exhibits 12 to 16. Ext. 12 is offer of appointment ( memorandum ) dated 3-10-1989. Ext . 13 is undertaking dated 16-10-1989 given by the workman Shri Bhimji Hariji Bihola. Ext . 14 is approval of the screening committee dated 27-9-1989 . Ext . 15 is details showing number ofdays work as M. L. D. after reularise as Beldar showing 40 day's . Ext . 16 is joining report as Beldar bythe workman Shri Bhimji Hasiji Bitolated 17-101989.
(6) On behalf of the second party through Regional Secretary of the union documents were produced as per list Ext . through which as many as 10 documnets were produced. Among those docum, nis in the list at serial No, I xerox copy of the vaild driving license of the workman dated2-10-1997 was marked at Ext 17 and the document at serial No. 2 -Xerox copy of thecertificate issued by Executive Engineer ( civil ) CPWD, Gandhinagar Central Division dated 7-4-1986 is Ext . 18 and the document at serial No. 3 xerox copy of certificate issued by assistant Engineer BC- SD, Baroda Central Sub -Devision CPWD Baroda dated 28-12-1989 . Ext . 19 and at serial No. 4 documents- appointment order's Xerox copy as beldar dated 3-10-1989. Ext. 20 documents at ist serial No 5 to 9 have not been given pakka exhibits . The last documents at serial No. 10 . Copy ofoflice memorandum dated 20-07-1995 ofDeputy Director Administration CPWD New Delhi dated 20-07-1995 isExt. 21 .
(7) The workman Shri Bhimji Harji Bihola gave his oral deposition at Ext. 22 and he was cross - examined by the first party lawyer. Another oral evidence of the witness on behalf of the second party ,workman is of Jashubhai at Ext. 23 to support the case of the workman regarding workingas M.L.D. by the workman Shri Bhimji Hariji Bihola upto 16-10-1989 and thereafter offering him lower post of work charge beldar but taking work from the workman as motor driver he was also cross - examined by the first party's lawyer. The management witness namely Shatrugan Prasad deposed to support the case of the first party as per pleadings w.s. , his oral deposition is at Ext . 26. He was also cross- examined by Shri Vinod Parmar union representative for the second party.
(8) It may be noted that those documentary and oral evidence had been recorded when the reference ITC 25/97 pending before the Industrial Tribunal , Ahmedabad and the said Industrial Tribunal , Ahmedabad who was in sesin ofthe case also heard the argument of both sides who had also submitted their written arguments , the written arguments of the second party was filed at Ext . 33 whereas 461
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013/पौष 29, 1934
[ भाग ।। खण्ड 3( ii) ]
light ofobservation of the Hon'ble High Court passed in the aforesaid SCA but by that time the record received before this tribunal ( CGIT) and the parties were heard at length.
thewritten argument of the first partywas filed at Ext . 32 subsequently the Central Industrial Tribunal , Ahmedabad then.presided over by Shri P.R. Desai passed the award at Ext. 34 by which the reference was rejected and the second partyworkman was not found to get any relief in this case.
( 11 ) In view ofthe rival contention of the parties in... their pleadings and also in view of the further evidence adduced by both sides and also in view of the observation ofthe Hon'ble Court passed by their lordship in the order dated 23-01-2006 in SCA 346/2002, the following issues are taken up for determination in this case ..
ISSUES
(1) Whether the reference is maintainable ?
(11) Has the workman Bhimji Hariji Bihola has got valid cause of action to raise the dispute?
(III ) Whether under the rules of the first party (CPWD) the workman Shri Bhimji Hariji Bihola had become eligible for the promotion as M.L.D. or not , in view of giving undertaking dated 16-10-1989 ?
(IV) Whether the workman is entitled to the relief as claimed?
FINDINGS
(9)Aggrieved with the award dated 6-03-2000 atExt. 34 the second party workman preferred Special Civil Application No. 346 of2002 before the High Court ofGujarat atAhmedabad and the Hon'ble Court by the order dated : 23-01-2006 hasbeen pleased to allow the SCA and has been pleased to quash and set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal , Ahmedabad passed in reference ITC 25/97 dated6-09-2000 and the matter was remandedtothe Industrial Tribunal for examining the matter afresh in view ofthe observation made in this order. The Hon'ble Court in its order has observed at para 5.1 " from the under taking (dated 16-10-1989 ) it is clear that the petiioner could not have claimed promotion unless he is eligible for he higher post as per the rules and regulations of the department . If he is otherwise eligibel his case can be considered as per the undertaking . However that aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned award. I am of the view that the Tribunal is required to examine whether under the rules the petitioner has become cligible for the promotion or not . In that view ofthe matter the Tribunal is required to reconsider the matter afresh" .
( 12) ISSUE No. StI
Some of the admitted facts are as follows . The workman prior to his joining as work charge Beldar on 17-10-1987has all along worked as motor torry driver on muster roll intwo phases 27-8-1984 10 29-3-1986 vide Ext . 18 and then from 11-8-1986 to 16-10-1989 vide Ext. 19. That means on the date of giving undertaking by the workman on 16-10-1989 regarding accepting the post of work charge Beldar he had worked as motor lorry driver in the department of the first party. Further as per Ext . 14 the office memorandum dated 27-09-1989 regularisation of muster roll staff working in Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar Central Division CPWD was issued for regularisation for the post ofBellar as approved by the screening committee giving an option that the workman working on muster roli on higher post and eligible for absorption on higher post andoccurrence of vacancy in the higher post will have the option to either accepting the post of Beldar or wait to become eligible for absorption on higher post . However whatever may be circumstances the workman Shri Bhimji Hariji Biholt appearing at serial No. 11 inthe list approved by screening committee ( Ext. 14 ) opted for the lower post for the present since there was no vacancy in the higher post ofM ... D. Undertaking given by the workman Ext. 13 dated 16-10-1989 is to the effect that I will not claim for any posting in higher post then Beldar in the work charge establishment in EPWD unless I became cligible for such post as per the rules and regulations of the department . It (10)The case record was received on 28-04-2011 in thistribunal( CGIT ) on transfer as per order No. 2-22019/6/ 2007 IR(C-H) dated 19, October-2010 .Thereafter the parties were noticed afresh for their appearance. It may be pertinent to mention here that before receiving the record in this tribunal and when the case record was pending before the Industrial Tribunal ( Central ) at Ahmedabad in reference IIC 145/2006 the workman Bhimji Ilarji Bihola submitted his further affidavit at Ext. 39 on 1-08-2007 and there after he was cross-examine by the first party's lawyer Shri R.S. Munshi on 16-07-2008 . Thereafter on behalf of the first party a management witness namely Kesha was also examined in his oral deposition by Shri K.S. Munshi , Advocate at Ext . 47 and was cross - examined by the second. party advocate Shri 1 .. Patil on 1-02-2010 and the record was pending and some documents as per list Ext . 50 was produced on behalf of the first party. Ext . 50/1 is extract of regulation rules of motor lorry driver. Ext . 50/2 is the copy oforder dated 31-03-2003 of CPWD in which the name of the workman Shri Bhimji Harji Bihola is mentioned at serial No. 17 showing his designation as Nalsaj . Ext. 50/3 is the undertaking of the workman dated 16-10-1989.1 :xt. 50/4 is the joining report of the workman on the post of Heldar dated 17-10-1989. Ext. 50/5 is the office memorandum. Government of India, Directorate Cieneral of works, Central Public WorksDepartment , New Delhi dated 5-04-2005.on the subject survey reporting ofold vehicle and replacement ofcondemned vehicle regarding. Thereafter the recordwas pending for hearing arguments of the parties atresh in the 462
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
PAR 11 St 3 ( ii) ]
maybe noted here that the rules and regulations of the department of CPWD at that time was not enabling the workman for the higher post of M.L.D. for which he was quite eligible in view of his past experience of driving all kinds of vehicle heavy and midweight vehicles as he all along worked as motor lorry driver up to 16-10-1989 right from his engagement on muster roll from 27-08-1984 . The workman was also possessing valid driving license as per Ext . 17. It is also admitted position the officer of the department of CPWD with whom the workman had performed the duty of driver never made any complaint against the workman or even had questioned regarding his ability ofbeing eligible driver. It has also to be taken into consideration in view of such admitted position that the workman Shri Bhimji Harji Bihola was efficient motor lorry driver having valid license but even in the event he was accepting the lower post of work charge Beldar as per his undertaking dated 16-10-1989 andjoining to the post from 17-10-1989. But his duty of a motor lorry driver had not come to an end , rather the management of first party was utilizing his service as motor/jeep driver even after 17-10-1989 and theIst party had taken work of motor /jeep driver from. 16-01-1992 and onward up to the year 26-09-1995 as per Ext . 15. So, the management of first party though was taking work of a driver from the workman was paying him the wages ofthe lower post of work-charge Beldar. More so , as perfurther evidence of the workman.at Ext. 39 it has come at para 2 in his affidavit that although on 16-10-1989 the first party took an undertaking from him, after that a'lso he had worked as work charge motor lorry driver. His such evidenceis corroborated by documentary evidence Ext . 15 produced by the first party. Further evidence of the workman at para 3 at Ext . 39 is that till today 5-6 drivers are working with the first party on the contract basis at various places like Gandhinager , Ahmedabad , Rajkot and Baroda so the first party on contract basis takes the permanent nature of work and he has been deprived of the legal and constitutional right . At para 5 he further stated that undertaking dated 16-10-1989 is not given by him voluntarily and willingly. His further evidence is that he had qualified trade test for the post of M.L.D.driver conducted by the department and he is also possessing requisite drivinglicense for driving heavy motor /lorry.
jeep of the department of the first party that go to show that the vacancy of motor lorry driver exists but the management of first party has not filled up the vacancy and that when such vacancy had existing for the higher post of M.L.D. then there remains no meaning of the undertaking dated 16-10-1989 ( Ext ( 13 ) to be treated as undertaking for life , rather on the existing vacancy of motor lorry driver the workman Shri Bhimji Harji Bihola ought to have been offered the higher post of M.L.D. and the workman ought to have been regularised on the higher post, ifnot possible from 17-10-1989. then from the future date when the vacancy created / existed for the post of M.L.D in the department . On the other hand it has been argued by the learned counsel for the first party: that when the petitioner was found fit for regularisation for the post ofBeldar in the work charge establishment while working as motor lorry driver, the workman had exercised his option to accept the post of Beldar and so now he cannot claim for any higher post unless he became cligible for the same in the normal course . Such arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the first party does not appear to be convincing because in the normal course under the rules of the department of CPWD the vacancy of M.1..D. had arisen and without filling up the vacancy by permanent work charge M.L.D. the department was engaging driver on contract basis that clearly speaks volume that the vacancy subsequently arose but even then the management of first party in the garb of so called undertaking dated 16-10-1989 deprived the workman for the higher post of M.L.D. for which he had worked right from 27-08-1984 to 16-10-1989 and the department of the first party had also utilised his service as motor lorry driver from 92 to 95 even offering him the lower post of Beldar from 17-10-1989 . More so the office memorandum New Delhi dated 5-04-2005 as per Ext . 15/5 produced on behalf of the first party does not appear to have come as hurdle to the workman Shri Bhimji Harji Bihola in his claim for higher post of M.L.D. This office memorandum as to hiring of private vehicles from outside shall be limited to the number of vehicles condemned and should be done with approval of Chief Engineer concerned . Moreover , said situation regarding survey reporting of old vehicles and replacement ofcondemned vehicles regarding has come up in the year April-2005 whereas the workman is agitating about his claim under the Industrial Dispute Act from before the order 1997 when dispute was referred for adjudication. More so, the first party itself recognized the performance of the workman even after offering the lower post of work charge Beldar and had taken work of motor lorry deriver during interval of considerable long period from 1992 to 1995. There is not such evidence on behalf of the first party to rebut the evidence of the second party that vacancy in the higher post of M.L.D. had not accrued since after acceptance of lower post of beldar by the workman .
( 13 ) It has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the second party that such undertaking dated 16-10-1989 vide Ext. 13 cannot bind the workman Shri Bhimji Harji Bihola forever, because he had already passed the tradetest ofwork charge motor lorry driver for higher post. He further argued that if there was no vacant post of L.M.D. at the time of offer of appointment for the lower post of work charge Beldar, then the case ofthe workman ought to have been considered by the management of first party as and when the vacancy arose . In this regard it has been further argued that as per evidence of the workman at Ext . 39, 4 to 5 drivers on contract basis are driving the motor/ 463
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
(14)After reexamining of matter afresh in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Court in the order dated 23-01-2006 passed in SCA 346/2002 , I am of the considered view that the undertaking given by the workman Shri Bhimaji Harji Bihola is not for whole life rather the said undertaking is held to be conditional till the workman becomes eligible for the higher post because he had become eligible for the post of M.L.D. and for his regularisation on thatpost after arising/creating the vacancy of the M.L.D. in the department . More so, I further find and hold that the rules of the CPWD was not coming as obstacle that if the workman as per approval of the screening committee dated 27-09-1989 as per Ext . 14 had chosen to accept the post of Beldar, he will not be given offer of higher post in future. This issue is answered in affirmative in favour of the workman.
(15) ISSUE No. IV
नई दिल्ली, 26 दिसम्बर , 2012
का.आ. 158. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार चीफ जरनल, मैनेजर , टेलीकम्यूनीकेशन देहरादून के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 256/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है . जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-12-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40012/281/2000- आई आर ( डी यू) । सुरेन्द्र कुमार, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 26th December , 2012
S.O.158 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 256/ 2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No.1 , Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief General Manager, Telecommunication , Dehradun and their workman , which wasreceivedby the Central Government on 20-12-2012 .
No. L-40012/281 /2000- IR (DU) ]
[ SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
REFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 , KARKARDOOM A COURTSCOMPLEX, DELHI
I. D. No. 256/2011
In view ofthe findings given to issue No. III in the foregoing I further find and hold that the workman Shri Bhimaji Harji Bihola is entitled for his regularisation to the post ofwork charge motor lorry driver from 16-01-1992 when in spite of offering him lower post of Beldar by the first party, the first party after his regularisation though in the lower post , had started taking the works of higher post of M.L.D. but the workman was not paid the wages of higher post rather he was receiving the wages ofthe lower post of Beldar. I further find and hold that since there was no any vacancy in higher post ofmotor lorry driver w.e.f. 17-10-1989 . So, the workman is not entitled for his regularisation as work charge motor lorry driver w.e.f. 17-10-1989 , instead ofworkman is found entitled for the regularisation to the higher post of work charge motor lorry driver from 16-01-1992 as per Ext . 15 , 1 further find and hold that the workman is entitled for the higher wages and post from 16-01-1992 . This issue is decided accordingly in favour of the second party workman .
(16) ISSUE NO . 1 & II
In view of the findings given to issue no . III and IV, in the foregoings further find and hold that the reference is maintainable and the workman has valid cause of action . This reference is accordingly allowed in part on contest. No order as to any cost . The first parties are directed to regularise the workman Shri Bhimji Harji Bihola on the post ofwork charge lorry driver from 16-01-1992 and to pay the arrears of wages accruing to the workmen to the post of work charge motor lorry driver from 16-01-1992 . The first party are directed to comply with this order within 60 days ofthe publication of the award failing which the arrears of wages accrued to the workman from 16-01-1992 will carry interest as 9 % per annum .
Thisismy award .
BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer Shri Jaspal Singh . R/o Vill . Shiv Nagar , Jakhan Jauri Road, Vivek Vihar , Part - IV P.O. Kishanpur Dehradun -248001 .
Workman
Versus
The Chief General Manager ,
Telecommunication . U. P. ( West ) Circle Windlas Shopping Complex, RajpurRoad,
Dehradun -248001 .
.......Management
AWARD
Adeceptive document was obtained by department of Tele- communication and Chief General Manager . Telecom ( W), U.P. Circle , Rajpur Road. Dehradun ( in short the management ) from Shri Jaspal Singh wherein he was projected as Contractor , who agreed to drive vehicle ofthe 464
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
[ PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
( ii ) Whether there existed an agreement of driving car between the claimant and the management for six months with effect from 1-7-1998 as claimed by the management and the same came to an end ? If so , its effect?
( iii) As in terms of reference .
5.Claimant has examined himself in support of his cash . No witness was examined on behalf of the management.
management for a period of six months w.e.f. 4-10-1998 . Не was paid on daily rate basis fixed by the Government for casual labours from time to time. The said contract was extended from time to time and lasted on 31-8-1999. Shri Jaspal Singh raised a demand on the management , claiming himself to be an employee , and sought re - instatement in service . His demand was not conceded to . He raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since the management contested the claim , conciliation proceedings ended into a failure . On consideration of failure report , so submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No.L-40012/ 281 / 20 / IR ( DU ), New Delhi ,dated 29-8-2000 , with following terms:--
6.Vide order No.Z - 22019/ 6/2007/ 1R ( C - II ) , New Delhi dated 11-2-2008 the case was transferred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II . New Delhi , by the appropriate Government . The case was re- transferred to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide order No. Z-22019/6/2007 /IR ( C - II ) , New Delhi , dated 30-03-2011 . for disposal .
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom, Dehradun in terminating the services of Sh.Jaspal Singh , Ex-Driver w.e.f. 1-7-1999 is just , fair and legal ? If not , to what telief he is entitled and from what date ?"
7.Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri M.C. Pant . authorized representative , advanced arguments on behalf by the management . Shri A.K. Misra , authorized representative , presented facts on behalf of the management . I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows : ---
Issue Nos . 1 , 2 & 3 .
2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Jaspal Singh pleading therein that he was engaged by the management as a driver on 4-10-1997. He served the management in that capacity up to 31-8-1999 . He rendered more than 240 days continuos service in each calendar year. His services were terminated without compliance ofthe provisions of section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short theAct) . In fact with a view to deprive him from the status of a workinan the management prepared a contract showing him to be a contractor for driving its car. This contract has no legal sanctity is sham in the eyes of law. Law does not permit for execution , ofsuch a contacted and therefore the action ofthe management is illegal , arbitrary and unjustifed when his service were terminated . He claims re - instatement in service ofthe management with continuity and full back wages.
8. In his affidavit dated 14-10-2002 , tendered as evidence, claimant swears that he was engaged as a driver by the management on 5-10-1997 . He worked with the management till 30-6-1999. Though the management projects him to be an independent contractor yet he was working under control of the management . He was not having an independent status and worked as an employee of the management . He was being paid at the rate of Rs . 117.92 per day and at Rs . 40.00 per night in case he was made to work during night hours also . For extra hours of work , he was paid at the rate of Rs . 14.75 per hour. His wages were thus paid at the rate of Rs . 4358.75 p.m. Ilis services were terminated on 1-7-1999 without any reason . No notice or pay in lieu thereof was given . No retrenchiment compensation was paid. During the course of cross - examination he presents that letter dated 1-7-1998 was signed by him without understanding its contents . He was told that it was his appointment letter.
3. Claim was demurred by the management pleading that Shri Jaspal Singh is not entitled to any relief, since relationship of master and servant never existed between the parties . The claimant was a contractor . He was awarded contract for looking, maintaining and attending the staff car of the Management . Terms of the contract are specific and clear and the claimant cannot raise any grievances in that regard . The management disputes that he was engaged as a driver on 4-10-1997 and worked as such till 31-8-1999 , He was given contract for driving vehicle initially on 30-10-1999 . which was extended from time to time and ultimately came to an end on 30-6-1999. Since he was not an employee , there was no question of application of provisions of Section 25F of the Act. His claim is devoid of merits. Hence it may be dismissed, pleads the management.
4.On pleadings of the parties the following issues were framedby my Ld. predecessor :-
( i ) Whether there exists/ existed an agreement between the claimant and management as alleged?
9. When facts unfolded by the claimant in his testimony and those pleaded by the management in its written statement are appreciated it came to light that an agreement was entered into between the claimant and the management todrive government vehicles . IHe was to subinit hismonthly bill for the work executed by him , based on daily rates fixed by the government for casual labours of his category. His normal working hours for daily rates of 465
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
[ भाग 11-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
were eight hours a day and for extra duty amount he was to be paid on pro -rata basis . Daily wages of his categorywere Rs.114.00 as on 1.1.1998 . For extra work, executed at outstation except for full night stay, he was to get nighit duty charge at Rs . 40.00 per night .
10. A short question which is required to be addressed in the present controversy is as to whether the claimant is an independent contractor, or employee ofthe management. For an answer, it is expedient to have a glance on factors which distinguishes relationship of master and servant from an independent contract relationship . Identifying mark of a servant is that he should be under the control or supervision of the employer in respect of details of the work . See Chintaman Rao [ 1958 (2 ) LLJ 252 ) . Precedent in Shivanandan Sharma ( 1955 ( 1 ) LLJ 688 ) ] projects the instance where the Apex Court considered the test for determiding the question whether a person is an "employee " or " independent contractor ' and ruled that "supervision and control is the crucial test for determination of the relationship " . In Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. ( 1957 ( 1 ) LLJ 477 ] the Apex Court announced that the test of " supervision and control " may be taken as the prima facie test for determining the relationship of employment. The prima facie test for determining the relationship was held to be the existence of the right in the master to "superwise and control " the work done by the servant not only in matter of directing what work the servant is to do but also the manner in which he shall do his work . But since nature or extent of control which is requisite to establish the relationship of employer and employee must necessarily vary from business to business and is by its very nature incapable of precise definition . Hence correct method of approach would be to consider whether having regard to the nature of work there was due control and supervision by the employer. The greater the amount of direct control exercised over the person rendering the services by the person contracting for them , the stronger the ground for holding it to be a contract of service. The above test was reaffirmed in Chintamon Rao (supra ) and was followedby the Apex Court in Shankar Balaji Waze [ 1962( 1 ) LLJ 119] .
11. In many cases the Apex Court discovered that there was a common practice of using deceptive devices and the so called independent contractors were really agents or workers of the employer posing as independent contractors for purpose of circumventing the Factories Act 1948 or like status which compel employers to meet certaineconomic and social obligations towards the worker. Such deseptive devices were also noticed by the legislature and with a view to obviate the vices of such devices , the Parliament enacted Beddi and Cigars Workers (Conditions ofEmployment)Act 1966.
12. In V.P. Gopala Rao ( 1970 (2 ) LLJ 59 ] the Apex Court said that it is a question of fact in each case whether the relationship of master and servant exists between the management andthe workman and there is no abstract a priori test ofthe work control required for establishing the contract of service . In recent years " control test " as traditionally formulated has not been treated as an exclusive test. In a large number of cases the court can only perform a balancing operation weighing up the factors which point in one direction and balancing them against those pointing ir. the opposite direction . See Silver Jubilee Tailoring House [1973 (2) LLJ 495] , wherein the Apex Court pointed out that it is in its application to skilled and particularly professional work the controltest in its traditional form has really broken down . It has been said that in interpreting " control " as meaning the power to direct how the servant should to his work, the court has been applying a concept suited to a post age". Thus it is emerging that control is obviously an important factor and in many cases it may still be the decisive factor but it would be wrong to say that in every case it is decisive . The broad distinction between a workman and independent contractor lies in this that while the former agrees himself to work, latter agrees to get other person to work .Aperson who agrees himself to work and does so he does not cease to be a workman by reason merely of the fact that he gets other person to work along with him and those persons are controlled and paid by him . What determines whether a person is a workmen or an independent contractor is whether he has agreed to work personally or not . If he has than he is workman and the fact that he takes assistance from other persons would not affect his status . Reference can be made to D.C. Works Ltd. [ 1957 ( 1 ) LLJ 477] . Tune test to determine the question as to whether the relationship of master and servant exists betweenthe particular parties are:
1. Whether the management exercise control over such persons , and
2.Whether the stipulated time is really at the disposal ofthe management .
13. When his contract agreement , referred above, is construed in the light of law detailed , it emerge that the claimant was not an independent contractor. The claimant agreed to execute the work of a driver. He used to remain under control ofthe officers of the management for whom he used to drive vehicle . The claimant was at the disposal of the management throughout his duty hours. Test of control and supervision make it apparent that contract agreement is deceptive document . In fact the claimant executed the work of driving the vehicle personally and acquired status of an employee . With a view to obviate benefit of labour laws the management introduced a sham contract . The contract seems to be a perfect paper arrangement . However, the real proposition is that the claimant was an employee and the management was his pay master. He never acquired status of an independent contractor. Consequently it is concluded that the contract agreement, which was executed between the claimant and 466
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
the management and extended from time to time , does not espouse the cause of the management . The claimant was in fact an employee and acquired status of a workman as contemplatedby the provisions of Section 2( s) of the Act .
14. There is no dispute that the claimant worked as a driver with effect from 4-10-1997 to 30-6-1999 . Whether continuous service for a period of one year was rendered by the claimant with the management ? For an answer to this proposition it would be ascertained asto what continuous service means . " Continuous Service " has been dafined by section 25B of the Act . Under sub- section ( 1 ) of the said section , " continuous service for a period" may comprise of two period viz . ( i) uninterrupted service , and (ii ) interrupted service on account of ( a ) sickness , ( b) authorized leave , ( c) an accident, ( d ) a strike which is not legal , ( e ) a lock -out, and ( f) a cessation of work that is not dực to any fault on the part of the workman, shall be included in the " continuous service . " Sub- section (2 ) of the said section introduces a fiction to the effect that even if a workman is not in " continuous service " within the meaning of clause ( 1 ) for a period of one year or six months , hoshall be deemed to in continuous service for that period urider an employer if he has actually worked for the days specified in clauses ( a ) and ( b ) thereof. In Vijay Kumar Majoo ( 1968 Lab.I.C. 1180 ) it was held that one year's period contemplated by sub - section ( 2) furnished a unit of measure and if during that unit of measure the period of service actually rendered by the workman is 240 days , then he can be considered to have rendered one year's continuous service for the purpose of the section . The idea is that if within a unit period of one year a person had put in at least 240 days of service , then he must get the benefit conferred by the Act . Consequently, an enquiry has to be made to find out whether the workman has actually worked for not less than 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment.
15. The claimant was engaged on 4-10-97 and bade farewell on 30-6-1999 without any notice , as contemplated by the provisions of section 25 F of the Act . No pay in lieu of notice was given to him . No retrenchment compensation was also paidto him. The claimant had rendered continuous service of a year or more , as contemplated by section 25 - B oftheAct . His service was dispensed with on 01-07-99.11e presents that retrenchiment compensation was not paid to him, which fact was not dispelled by the management. The management was under an obligation to pay him compensation for retrenchment at the time when his services were dispensed with Payment of retrenchment compensation is a condition precedent to a valid order of refrenchment . Precedents in Bombay Union of Journalists case 1964 ( 1 ) L1J351 ] , Adaishwar Laal [ 1970 Lab.1.C.936 ] and B.M.Gupta [ 1979 ( 1 ) LLJ 168 ] announce that subservent payment of compensation cannot validate an invalid order retrenchment as retrenchment . compensation was not paid
[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
to the claimant, consequenty action of the management falls within the mischief of section 25 - F of the Act .
16. These facts make me to announce that service of the Claimant was dispensed with by the managerment in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act . However, it is not the case of the claimant that he was engaged in consonance with the rules of recruitment. The claimant does not project that his name was sent by the employment exchange for the post of casual labour. Therefore , it is emerging over the record that engagement of the claimant by the management was dehors the rules . In Uma Devi [ 2006 (4 ) SCC ] the Apex Court considered the proposition as to whether the persons who got employment , without following of a regular procedure or even from the back door or on daily wages can be ordered tobe made.permanent - in their posts , to prevent regular recruitment to the posts concerned . Catena of decisions over the subject were considered and the Court declined the submissions of the workmen to be made permanent on the post which was held by them in temporary or ad hoc capacity for a fairly long spell . The Court ruled thus:
"With respect , why should the State be allowed to depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary employment in permanent posts ? This Court , in our view, is bound to insists on the State making regular and proper recruitments , and is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules of regular recruitment . The direction to make permanent - the distinction between regularization and making permanent , was not emphasized here - can only encourage the State , the modal employer , to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on a few at the cost of many waiting to compete . With respect the directions made in Piara Singh ( supra) is to some extent inconsistent with the conclusion in para 45 ofthe said judgment there in . With great respect , it appears to us that the last of the directions clearly runs counter to the constitutional scheme of employment recognized in the earlier part of the decision. Really, it cannotbe said that this decision has laid down the law that all ad -hoc , temporary or casual employees engaged without following a regular recruitment procedure should be made permanent . "
17. Taking note of some of recent decisions , the Apex Court held that the State does not enjoy a power to make appointments in terms of article 162 of the Constitution. The Court quoted its decision in Girish Jyanti Lal Vaghela [2006 ( 2 ) SCC 482 ] with approval , wherein it was ruled thus.
"The appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of a selection by a body - of- experts or a specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29. 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
have applied in response to the advertisement made . A regular appointment to the post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribedmanner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange , where eligible candidate get their names registered . Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution " .
18. In P.Chandra Shekhara Rao and Others [2006 (7) SCC 488 ] the Apex Court referred Uma Devi's Case (supra) with approval . It also relied the decision in a Uma Rani [2004 ( 7 ) SCC 112 ] and ruled that no regularization is permissible in exercise of statutory powers conferred in Article 162 of the Constitution , if the , appointment have been made in contravention of the statutory rules . In Somveer Singh [2006 ( 5 ) SCC 493 ] the Apex Court ruled that appointment made without following due procedure cannot be regularized. Relying the above law, it is concluded that the claimant has no right of continuance on casual job in which he was engaged dehors the rules . Hence no order for re - instatement of his services can be made , since it would amount to allow him to continue on a job where he was not lawfully recruited .
19. When the claimant is not to be reinstated in service , in such a situation the Tribunal can award compensation to him . For award of compensation to the claimant, parameters for fixation of amount of compensation are to be noticed. The Apex Court and High Courts dealt with the issue of award of compensation in catena of decisions , when reinstatement in service was not found expedient . Those precedents may help the Tribunal in ascertaining the quantum of compensation , which may be awarded to the claimant. In S.S.Shetty [ 1957 ( II ) LLJ 696] the Apex Court indicated some relevant factors which an adjudicator has to take into account in computing compensation in lieu of reinstatement in the following words:
"The industrial Tribunal would have to take into account the terms and conditions of employment , the tenure ofservice, the possibility oftermination of the employment at the instance of either party, the possibility of retrenchment by the employer or resignation or retirement bythe workman and even of the employer himself ceasing to exist or of the workman being awarded various benefits including reinstatement under the terms of future awards by industrial Tribunal in the event of industrial disputes arising between the parties in future... In computing the money value ofthe benefits of reinstatement, the industrial adjudicator would also have to take into account the present
23 26
467
value of what his salary, benefits etc. would be till he attained the age of superannuation and the value of such benefits would have to be computed as from the date when such reinstatement was ordered under the terms of the award.
Having regardto the considerations detailed above . it isimpossible to compute the money value of this benefit ofreinstatement awarded to the appellant with mathematical exactitude and the best that any tribunal , or court would do under the circumstances would be to make as correct as estimate as is possible bearing , of course in mind all the relevant factors pro and con .
20. A Divisional Bench of the Patna High Court in B.Choudhary ( 1983 ) Lab.1.1755 ( 1758 ) deduced certain guidelines which have to be borne in mind in determining the quantum of compensation viz . ( i ) the back wages receivable ( ii ) compensation for deprivation of the job with future prospect and obtainability of alternative employment ; ( iii ) employee's age ; ( iv) Length ofservice in the establishment; ( v) capacity of the employer to pay and the nature of the employer's business ; ( vi ) gainful employment in mitigation of damages ; and ( viii ) circumstances leading to the disengagement and the past conduct . These factors are only illustrative and not exhaustive . In addition to the amount of compensation, it is also within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to award interest on the amount determined as compensation . Furthermore , the rate of such interest is also in the discretion of theTribunal . Reference can be made to Tabesh Process, Shivakashi ( 1989 Lab.1.C.1887 ) .
21. In Assam Oil Co. Ltd. [ 1960 ( 1 ) LLJ 587 ] the Apex Court-took into account countervailing facts that the employer had paid certain sums to the workmen and her own earning in the alternative employment and ordered that " it would be fair and just to direct the appeliant a substantial sum as compensation to her " . In Utkal Machinery Ltd. [ 1966 ( 1 ) LLJ 398 ] the amount of compensation equivalent to two year salary ofthe employee awarded by the industrial Tribunal was reduced by the Supreme Court to an amount equivalent to one year salary of the employee in view of the fact that she had been in service with the employer only for 5 months and also took into consideration the unusual manner of her appointment atthe instance of the Chief Minister of the State . In A.K.Roy [ 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 228 ] compensation equivalent to two years salary last drawn by the workmen was held to be fair and proper to meet the ends of justice . In Anil Kumar Chakaraborty [ 1962 ( 11 ) LLJ 483 ] the Court converted the award of reinstatement into compensation of a sum of Rs.50000 as just and fair compensation in full satisfaction of all his claims for wrongful dismissal from service . In O.P.Bhandari [ 1986 ( 11 ) LLJ 509 ] , the Apex Court observed that it was a fit case for grant of compensation in view of reinstatement . The Court awarded compensation 468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19 , 2013/ PAUSA 29 , 1934
equivalent , to 3.33 years salary as reasonable . In M.K.Aggarwal [ 1988 Lab.1.C 380 ] , the Apex Court though confirmed the order of reinstatement yet restricted the back salary to 50 % of what would otherwise be payable to the employee . In Yashveer Singh ( 1993 Lab.1 C.44 ) the court directed payment of Rs .75000 in view of reinstatement with back wages . In Naval Kishor ( 1984 ( II ) LLJ 473 ) theApex Court observed that in view of the special circumstances ofthe case adequate compensation would be in the interest of the appellant . A sum of Rs.2 lac was awarded as compensation in lieu of reinstatement . In Sant Raj [ 1985 ( 11 ) LLJ 19 ] a sum of Rs . 2 lac was awarded as compensation in lieu of reinstatement . In Chandu Lal [ 1985 Lab.I.C.1225 ) a compensation of Rs.2 lac by way of backwages in lieu of reinstatement was awarded. In Ras Bihari ( 1988 Lab.1.C.107) a compensation of Rs . 65000 was granted in lieu of reinstatement , since the employee was gainfully employed elsewhere . In V.V.Rao ( 1991 Lab . l.C. 1650 ) a compensation of Rs . 2.50 lac was awarded in lieu of reinstatement .
22. The claimant nowhere projects that he was engaged as a driver by the management , in consonance with the recruitment rules . No evidence has been brought over the record to point out that vacancy of a driver was notified for the public at large and the claimant submitted his application to the management in response to the notification . It is also not projected that his name was sponsored by the employment exchange . There is complete vacuum as to whether procedure for recruitment to the post of driver was followed . It is thus evident that the engagerment of the claimant was dehors the rules . The claimant had worked with the management for 20 months only. Taking into account all these aspects compensation of Rs.30,000.00 would be appropriate amount in lieu of reinstatemnt of the claimant onjob . The management shall pay a sum of Rs . 30,000.00 to the claimant in lieu of reinstatement in service within a period of one month from the date the award becomes operative . An award is , accordingly, passed . It be sent to the appropriate Govelmment for publication.
Dated01-10-2012
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 26 दिसम्बर , 2012
का.आ. 159, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ज्वाइन डाइरेक्टर एडमिस्ट्रेशन , इस्ट्रीट्यूट ऑफ अपलाइड मैनपावर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न. । , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 146/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-12-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/26/ 1998- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र कुमार, अनुभाग अधिकारी
[PART 1 ] SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 26th December , 2012
S.O. 159. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 146/ 2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the Jt . Director Administration , Institute of Applied Manpower Research and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-12-2012 .
[No. L-42012/26 / 1998 - IR ( DU ) ] SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
1. D. NO . 146/2011 Shri Kailash Joshi S/ o Late Sh . J.C. Joshi , R/ o S - 1 , New Block No. 1 , Railway Colony, Sarojni Nagar, New Delhi - 110023
Workman
Versus
TheJt. Director Administration , Institute ofApplied Manpower Research . 1. P. Estate, New Delhi - 110001
.....Management
AWARD
The Institute of Applied Manpower Research (hereinafter referred to as the Institute ) appointed a temporary messenger on 8-5-1990 . The messenger used to remain absent frequently from his duties . He was irregular too in attending to his duties . Various memos were issued to him from time to time . but to no avail. In May, 95. he again absented himself from his duties in an unauthorized manner . Memo dated 12-6-1995 was sentby post . calling upon him to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated for his unauthorized absence . He opted not to receive the postal article . Efforts to trace whereabouts ofthe messenger proved futile . On 17-7-1995 , the Institute terminated his services . After two years , the messenger raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since his claim was contested by the Institute . conciliation proceedings ended into failure. On consideration of failure report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer . the appropriate 469
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 / पौष 29 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No. L-42012/26/ 98 - IR(DU), New Delhi dated 31-8-1998 , with the following terms:
dispute. The Institute is governed by its memorandum of association , rules and regulations and bye laws framed there-under. Its activities carinot be said to be carried out either by or under the authority ofthe Central Government . Consequently, Central Government is not the appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 2(a) oftheAct. The reference is as such incompetent .
"Whether the action of the management of the Institute of Applied Manpower Research in terminaing the services of Shri Kailash Joshi S/o . Late Sh . J.C. Joshi , ex- messenger in the I.A. M.R. is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "
2. Claim statement was filed by the messenger, namely, Shri Kailash Joshi pleading that he was appointed bythe Institute in its services on 8-5-1990 . He was kept on probation for a period of one year . After successful completion of period of probation , he was confirmed in service . On 28-4-1995 , he was confined to bed on account of relapse of enteric fever. He remained incapacitated to attend to his duties for a period of 14 weeks . On regaining health and being fit to resume duties , he came to the Institute on 3-8-1995 alongwith medical and fitness certificates . The Institute had not allowed him to resume duties . He was told that his services have been terminated with effect from 17-7-1995 . He was shocked to know that his services were dispensed with in an illegal manner. Even termination order was not sent to him . Subsequently, he came to know that the termination letter was sent to C-413 , Sarojni Nagar, New Delhi, where he was not residing at the relevant time . He had already informed the Institute about his new address . Deliberately, termination letter was sent to his old address . He made a number of verbal as well as written requests to the Institute to reconsider his case , but to no avail.
5. Institute pleads that the claimant was appointed as a temporary employee. He was never made permanent nor appointed against any permanent vacancy. Claimant was in the habit of frequently taking leave and remaining absent without prior permission . Various memoes were issued, including those which were issued on 1-9-1994, 4-1-1995, 28-3-1993 and 27-4-1995 . Claimant had applied for leave on medical grounds from 27-4-1995 to 5-5-1995. His application was received in the Institute on 1-5-1995. Since the application was not supported by any medical certificate nor his address during leave was mentioned therein leaves were not sanctioned. Memo dated 9-5-1995 was issued relating to unauthorized absence , calling upon him to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him . Letter sent by registered post could not be delivered since the claimant had submitted wrong residential address . The claimant was absent from his duties and not traceable at all . Notice was displayed on the notice board , notifying to all staff members to inforin whereabouts of the claimant and to advise him to report for duties by 30-6-1995 . There was no response to the notice . Authorities ofPolice Station I.P. Estate were informed about absence ofthe claimant from duties . When he did not report for duty till 17-7-1995 , his services were terminated on payment of one months ' pay in lieu of notice under bye law No. 16( 1 ) ( ii ) of the bye laws of the Institute . His services weredispensed with , in accordance with the bye laws . Till two years , the claimant did not raise any dispute. For the first time, legal notice was received after two years , in September 1997 , wherein he raised a demand for reinstatement in service . Action of the Institute is in consonance with the law. Claimant is not entitled to relief of reinstaternent : His claim is liable to be dismissed, being devoid of merits .
3. Claimant projects that there cannot be automatic termination of his service . Such automatic termination of his service is illegal . Since he has rendered more than 240 days continuous service in every calendar year, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act) were applicable to him . Retrenchment compensation was not paid to him by the Institute . No charge sheet or show cause notice was issued nor any domestic enquiry was conducted. Hence, his termination order is violative of principles of natural justice also . He sent a legal notice to the Institute and thereafter raised the dispute . He is unemployed since the date of termination of his services . He claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages . He also claims compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lakh against wrongful termination , besides 12 % compound interest.
6.Vide order No. Z-22019/6/2007 - IR (C- II), New Delhi dated 11-2-2008 , case was transferred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 11. New Delhi for adjudication by the appropriate Government . It was re- transferred to this Tribunal vide order No. Z- 22019/ 6/2007- IR(C- II ), New Delhi dated 30-3-2011 by the appropriate Government, for adjudication .
4. Institute made a demurral to his claim pleading thatis a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is engaged in activities of research in the field ofapplied manpower. It is neither engaged in any trade nor in any business or activity analogous to trade or business. It is not an industry as defined under section 2 (j ) of the Act . The dispute raised cannot be called as an industrial
7. The claimant examined himself in support of his claim . Shri B.N. Mishra was examined on behalf of the Institute.Affidavit of Shri Shyam Sunder was also tendered in evidence . Since the claimant had abandoned the proceedings with effect from 24-9-2008 , no opportunity could be granted to him to purify testimony of Shri Shyam Sunder by an ordeal of cross examination.
[PART 11 SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29,1934
470
8. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Shaswat Singh Gaur, authorized representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the Institute . None came forward to raisę submissions on behalf of the claimant . I have given my careful consideration to arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on the issues involved in the controversy are as follows :-
background of the expression used in two parts of the definition of Industry " . would represent rather a zig zag curve . There have been various judicial ventures in this rather volatile area of law . The decided cases show that the efforts were made to evolve test by reference to characteristics regarded as essential for constituting an activity as an " Industry " . Various cases would show that the Apex Court has been guided more by empirical rather than a strictly analytical approach. Most of the decision have centered around the expression " undertaking " used inthe definition . In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board ( 1978 Lab. 1.C. 778 ) the Apex Court reviewed the earlier decisions on interpretation of the wide words encompassed in the definition and formulated positive and negative principles for identifying " industry " as enacted by clause (j ) of section 2 of the Act . It would be expedient to reproduce the authoritative pronouncement of the Court. in the very words set out in the majority decision , handed downby Justice Krishna lyer, which are extracted thus:
" 1. " Industry " as defined in S. 2 ( j ) and explained in Banerji ( AIR 1953 S.C. 58 ) has a wide import .
9. First and foremost contention advanced by Shri Gaur is that the Institute is engaged in carrying out research in the field of applied manpower. He presents that the Institute does not carry out any activity analogous to trade or business . According to him , the Institute is not an industry, hence the present dispute cannot be called an industrial dispute . In his testimony, Shri Mishra did not spell any fact relating to activities being carried on by the Institute. No different facts , than those testified by Shri Mishra, were detailedby Shri Shyam Sunder in his affidavit, which was tendered as evidence. In the light ofthese facts, it is expendient to adjudicate the proposition put forward by the Institute. For an answer to the proposition, it would be expedient to consider definition of the term ' industry ' as contained in section 2(j ) of the Act. For the sake of convenience , the said definition is extracted thus:
Industry " Industry " means any business . trade. undertaking , manufacture or calling ofemployers and includes any calling , services , employment , handicraft, or industry occupation or avocation of workmen;
( a) Where ( i ) systematic activity , ( ii ) organised by Co-operation between employer and employer ( the direct and substantial element is chimerical ) ( iii ) for the production and/ or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material things or services geared to celestial bliss i.e. making, on a large scale prasad or foods ) prima facic , there is an " industry " in that enterprise .
(b) Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant , be the venture in the public , joint , private or other sector.
(c) The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the employer -employee relations .
( d ) If the organization is a trade or business it does not cease to be one because of philanthropy animating the undertaking .
11 . Athough section 2 (j ) uses words of the widest amplitude in its two limbs , the re -meaning cannotbe magnified to over reach itself .
10. The definition of " industry " is both exhaustive and Inclusive . It is in two parts . The first part says that it "means any business , trade , undertaking , manufacture or calling of employers " and then goes to say that it " includes any calling service employment , handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workman. " Thus one part defined it from the stand point of the employer, and the other part from the stand point of the employees. The first part of the definition gives the statutory meaning of the industry, whereas the second part deliberately refers to several other items of industry and bring them in the definition in an inclusive way. The first part of the definition determines any industry by reference to occupation of employers in respect of certain activities viz. , business . trade, undertaking , manufacture of calling . The second part views the matter from the angle of employees and is designed to include something more in what the term primarily denotes . By this part of the definition any calling employment , handicraft , industrial occupation or avocation of workman is included in the concept of industry. This part gives extended connotation.
( a) "Undertaking " must sufler a contextual and associational shrinkage as explained in Banerjee and in this judgement , so also , service , calling and the like . This yields the inference that all organized activity possessing the triple elements in 1 ( supra ) . although not trade or business , may still be industry provided the nature of activity, viz. the employer - employee basis , bears resemblance to what we find in trade or business . This takes into the fold industry undertaking , calling and 11. Gloss was put on the definition of word "industry" by the High Courts and the Apex Court time and: again. The question as to what is " industry " has continuously batlled and perplexed the courts . A graph of the cases decided by the Apex Court , if plotted on the 471
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
[ भाग ।।...खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
services , adventures , analogous to the carring on the trade or business " . All features , other than the methodology of carrying on the activity viz . in organizing the co - operation between employer and employce , maybe dissimilar . It does not matter, if on the employment terms there is analogy.
ofDelhi case (AIR 1963 S.C. 1873 ) or some departments are not productive of goods and servicesif isolated , even then , the predominant nature ofthe services and the integrated nature of the departments as explaned in the Corporation of Nagpur (AIR 1960 S.C. 657 ) will be the true test . The whole undertaking will be industry although those who are not "workmen" by definition may not benefit by the status .
(b) Notwithstanding the previous clauses . sovereign functions , strictly understood (alone) qualify for exemption , not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaking by govt . or statutory bodies .
Application of these guidelines should not short of their logical reach by invocation of creeds, cults or inner sense of incongruity or outer sense of motivation for or resultant of the economic operations . The ideology ofthe Act being industrial peace , regulation and resolution of industrial dispute between employer and workmen . the range of their statutory ideology must inform the reach of the statutory definition . Nothing less , nothing more .
(c) Even in department discharging sovereign functions , ifthere are units which are industries and they are substantially severable, then they canbe considered to come within S. 2(j ) ( a ) The consequences are ( i ) profession , ( ii ) clubs , (iii ) education institutions , ( iv ) co - operatives , (v) research institutes , ( vi ) charitable projects and ( vii ) other kindered advantures, if they fulfil the triple tests listed in 1 ( supra ) , cannot be exempted from the scope of section 2 ( j ) .
(d) Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may remove from the scopeope of the all categories which otherwise maybe covered thereby.
V
( b ) A restricted category of professions , clubs , co -operatives and even gurukulas and little research labs may qualify for exemption if in simple ventures , substantially, and going by the dominant nature criterion, substantively no employees are entertained but in menial matters , marginal employees are hired without destroying the non employee character of the unit.
We overrule Safdarjung ( AIR 1970 S.C. 1407). Solicitors case(AIR 1962 S.C. 1080 ) , Gymkhana (AIR 1968 S.C. 554 ) , Delhi University ( AIR 1963 S.C. 1873 ) , Dhanraj Giriji Hospital ( AIR 1975 SC 2032 ) and other rulings whose ratio runs counter to the principles enunciated above , and the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha ( AIR 1960 SC 610 ) is hereby rehabilitated . "
12. Principles laid down in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board (supra ) hold ground . Therefore, the controversy raised will be adjudicated in view of the law laid by the Apex Court in the precedent referred above . The Centre agitates that it is not an industry. The view point held by the Centre is that no profit motive activitics are being carried on by it . No business is being run , hence the Centre cannot be terined as an industry ' . Except the facts referred above , the Centre nowhere projects any other factors to lay emphasis on the fact that it is not an 'industry' . Contra to it the claimant agitates that the Centre isan industry'.
( c ) If, in a pious or altruistic mission many employ themselves , free or for small honoraria or like return , mainlydrawn by sharing in the purpose or cause, such as lawyers volunteening to run a free legal services clinic or doctors serving in their spare hours in a free medical centre or ashramites working at the bidding of the holiness , divinity or like central personality, and the services are supplied free or at nominal cost and those who serve are not engaged for remuneration or on the basis of master and servant relationship , then , the institution is not anindustry even if stray servants , manuual or technical , are hired. Such eleemosynary or like undertakings alone are exempt not other generosity, compassion , developmental passion or project .
VI . The dominant nature test:
13. In Ahmedabad Textile Industry's Research Association [ 1960 ( 2 ) LLJ 720 the association was established to carry on research with respect to the textile industry with a view to secure greater efficiency , rationalization and reduction of cost , which were " material services" to the textile industry hence the association answered the definition of industry. But in Safdarjung Hospital case (supra ) was held to be an industy because it was a non -profit making body and its work was in the (a) Where a complex of activities , some of which qualify for exemption , other not , involves employees on the total undertaking some of whom are not " workmen" as in the University 472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19 , 2013 PAUSA 29 , 1934
nature of training , research and treatment . In Indian Standard Institute 1966 ( 1 ) LLJ 33 ) the Apex Court suggested that in , order to be recognized as an undertaking analogous to trade or business , the activity must be an economical activity in the sense that it is productive of material goods or material services. In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board ( supra ) , the Apex Court laid down that an activity systematically or habitually undertaken for production or distribution of goods for rendering material services to the community a large or a part of such community with the help of employees is an undertaking. An ' industry' thus was said to involve cooperation between the employer and employees for the object of satisfying material human needs but not for oneself nor for pleasure nor necessity for profit . Lack of business and profit motive or capital investment would not take out an activity from the sweep of ' industry' , if other conditions are satisfied . It is the activity in question which attracts the definition and absence of investment of any capital or the fact that the activity is conducted for profit motive or not , would not makematerial difference . Conversely mere existence of profit motive will not necessarily convert the activity into " industry" if other tests are not satisfied .
14. One may project that the Institute carry out sovereign functions hence it cannot be termed as an industry. Therefore it is expedient to know as to what are regal and sovereign functions of the State which may qualify for exemption from the ambit of the definition of word industry " ? Regal powers of the State has acquired a definite connotation , which can be described as " administration ofjustice , maintenance of order, repression of crime, security of borders from external aggression and legislative powers , as among the primary and inalienable functions of a Constitutional Government " . In Corporation ofCityof Nagpur [ 1960 ( 1 ) LLJ 523 ] theApex Court observed that is could not have been in contemplation of the legislature to bring in the regal functions of the State within the definition of " industry" and to confer jurisdiction on Industrial Tribunal to decide disputes in respect thereof. The activities of the Government which can be properly described as regal or sovereign activities , are therefore, outside the scope of industry. In Hospital Mazdoor Sabha [ 1960 ( 1 ) LLJ 251 ] the Supreme Court adumberated the test: can such activity be carried on by private individual or group of individuals ? The answer to this is : if a business or activity could not be carried on by a private individual or group of individuals , it could not be an industry, while if it could be , it might fall within the scope of " industry ". Thistest reiterated in Corporation of City ofNagpur ( supra) but rejected in Gymkhana Club [ 1967 ( II ) LLJ 720 ] . In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board ( supra ) the Apex Court observed " *** sovereign functions, strictly understood, ( alone ) qualify for exemption , not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by Government or statutory bodies . Even in departments
[PART 11 --SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
descharging sovereign functions , if there are units , which are " industry " and they are substantially severable , they can be considered to come within section 2 (j ) " . In Chief Conservator of Forests 1996 ( 1 ) LILJ [ 223 ] the above proposition was reiterated wherein it was observed ***** even within the wider circle of sovereign function , there may be an inner circle encompassing some units which could be considered as " industry " . if substantially severable".
15. In Physical Research Laboratory [ 1997 ( 2 ) LLJ ] Apex court held that the Physical Research Laboratory is not an industry' because it is not engaged in an activity which can be called business , trade or manufacturing nor it is an undertaking analogous to business or trade . It is not engaged in commercial or industrial activity and cannot be described as an economic venture or commercial enterprise as it is not its objective to produce and discharge services which would satisfy wants and needs of consumer community. It is not rendering any services to others . It is engaged in pure research in space seience .
16. While reaching the conclusion , referred above . the Apex Court relied observations made in Bangalore Water Supply ( supra) with respect to research institutes . which observations are extracted thus:
" Does research involve collaboration between employer and employee ? It does . The employer is the institution , the employees: the scientists , pага- scientists and other personnel . Is scientific research service ? Undoubtedly it is . Its discoveries are valuable contributions to the wealth of the nation . Such discoveries may be sold for a heavy price in the industrial or other markets . Technology has to be plate for and technological inventions and innovations may be patented and sold . In our scientific and techological age nothing has more cash value, as intangible goods and invaluable services . than discoveries . For instance , the discoveries of Thomas Alva Edison made him fabulously rich. It has been said that his brain had the highest cash value in history for he made the world vibrate with the miraculous discovery of recorded sound . Unlike most inventors , he did not have to wait to get his reward in heaven: he received it munificently on this gratified and grateful earth . thinks to conversion of his inventions into , money a plenty. Research benefits industry. Even though a research institute may be a separate entity disconnected from the many industries which funded the institute itself, it can be regarded as an Organisation , propelledby systematic activity, modelled on co- operation between employer and employee and calculated to throw up discoveries and inventions and useful solutions which benefit individual industries and the nation in terms of goods and services and wealth . It follows that research 473
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/ पौष 29 , 1934
[ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
institutes , albeit run without profit - motive , are industries".
17. Now, I would turn to the facts of the present controversy. In its written statement , the Institute nowhere mentions the activities being carried on by it. In the testimony of Shri Mishra as well as in the affidavit of Shri Shyam Sunder, no facts relating to activities being carried on by the Institute are mentioned . However, Memorandum of Association of the Institute has been placed over the record . When this document is scanned, it came to light that there are various objectives for which the Institute is established . It would be convenient to detail these objectives , which are extracted hereunder:
"( i ) To advance knowledge about the nature , characteristics and utilization of human resources in india.
( ii) To provide a broad perspective of requirements of trained manpower for economic development in different fields with due regard to the probable impact of technological charges on the pattern of employment.
(iii ) To develop improved methods of techniques for dealingwith:
a. Training and development of the existing workforce.
b. Educational preparation for employment .
c. Vocational guidance.
d. Identifying and developing highly talented persons .
e. Forecasting demand and supply of manpower and connected matters .
( iv) Γo provide manpower research services to Government departments , public corporations and private establishments .
(v) To establish and maintain centers of research into manpower problems .
(vi ) To undertake , organize and facilitate study courses . conferences , lectures , seminars and the like to promote the aforsaid objects .
(vii ) To undertake and provide for publication of journals and research papers and books to establish and maintain libraries in the furtherance of the aforesaid objects.
(viii ) To subscribe to or become a member or to co - operate or amalgamate with any other association or society whose objects are similar .
( ix) To stimulate interest in manpower problems generally and to co- operate with and assist manpower research by other agencies and institutes or professional associations .
(x) To co - operatve with the international agencies engaged in manpower research and arrange for inter change of personnel , materials and data .
(xi ) To provide advanced training in professional techniques for manpower planning and administration , and
(xii) To do all such other lawful things as are conducive or incidental to the attainment of the above objects .
18. As detailed above , the Institute provides manpower research services to Government departments . public corporations and private establishments . Therefore , there are no two opinions that the Institute renders services to public corporations and private establishments besides government departments . It emerges over the record that the Institute provides its skill , knowledge and dextenity for production of research in manpower . Such research work to public corporation and private establishment would amount to rendering services .
19. Whether services rendered by the Institute can be called material services ? In R. Srinivasa Rao ( 1990 Lab . I.C. 174 ) , activities of National Remote Sensing Agency. a research institute , mainly rendering consultancy service on survey facilities , viz. carry out survey by using remote sensing techniques for locating various natural resources for agriculture , hydrology, meteorology . fisheries, minerals . oil . soil , environmental manufacturing.forestry , ocean resources , tapping land sources and crop diseases and other sciences , surveillance.distribution of material to institutions and persons , were held to be material services . When assessed on above standards . activities being carried on by the Institute , such as to provide manpower research to public corporations and private establishments are found to be material services . Such material services are also performed by private persons companies too in other fields . Such services would not fall within the ambit of sovereign functions , since these functions would not answer the criteria of administrations ofjustice , maintenance of order. repression of crime, security of boarders from external aggression and legislative powers of the State . It could not be said that above services were being rendered by the Institute as welfare activities of the State . Consequently. the above activities do not fall within the ambit of regal funtions of the State. There is no doubt that the Institute carries out systematic activities and its employees do not belong to such category which renders their services volunatarily without any remuneration . Therefore , it is emerging that triple test . referred above , stood satisfied an activities of the Institute fall within the ambit of industry as defined in Section 2 (j ) of the Act. Objection raised by the Institute is brushed aside on that count .
474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA29 , 1934
20. The next proposition raised by the Institute is that it is a societyregistered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and as such is distinct and independent legal entity.Activities ofthe Institute cannot be said to be carried out either by or under the authority of the Central Government. Claim has been made that the Central Government is not the appropriate Government for the purpose of making reference of the dispute for adjudication . For an answer legal framework is to be noted. Clause ( a) of section 2 of the Act defines appropriate Government. It would be expedient to construe the definition of phrase 'appropriate Government ' , which is extracted thus:
" 2 ( a) " appropriate Government " means -
[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii)]
under section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987) , or the Banking Service Commission Act 1975 or an air transport Service , or a banking or an insurance company, a mine , an oil field , a Cantonment Board , or a major port , an company in which not less than fifty one percent of the paid up share capital is held by the Central Government , or any Corporation , not being a Corporation referredto in this clause , established by or under any law made by Parliament , or the Central Public Sector Undertaking , subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the Cenral Government , the Central Government , and
(ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute, the State public sector undertaking , subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the State Government, the State Government :
Provided that in case a dispute between a contractor andthe contrat labour employed through the contractor in any industrial establishment where such dispute first arose , the appropriate Government shall be the Central Government or the State Government , as the case may be , which has control over such industrial establishment ;
21. In relation to an industrial dispute , appropriate Government can either mean the Central Government or the State Government . The Central Government has been defined under section 3 ( 8 ) and the State Government under section 3 (60 ) ofthe General Clauses Act , 1897. In relation to an industrial dispute concerning-
(i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a railway company or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning a Dock Labour Board established under section SA of the DockWorkers(Regulation ofEmployment ) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948 ) , or the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 ( 1 of 1956) or the Employees ' State Insurance Corporation established under section 3 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) , or the Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees section 5A and section 5B , respectively, of the Employees ' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 ( 19 of 1952) or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) , or the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited registered under the Companies Act, 1956 ( 1 of 1956 ) , or the Deposit Insurance and CreditGuarantee Corporation established under section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act , 1961 ( 47 of 1961 ) , or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under section 3 of the Warehousing CorporationAct , 1962 (58 of 1962 ) , or the Unit Trust of India established under section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act , 1963 (52 of 1963 ) , or the Food Corporation of India established under section 3 , or a Board of Management established for two or more contiguous States under section 16 , of the Food Corporations Act, 1964 ( 37 of 1964) , or the Airports Authority of India constituted under section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (55 of 1994 ) , or a Regional Rural Bank established under section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act , 1976 (21 of 1976 ) , or theExport Credit and Guarantee Corporation Limited or the Industrial Reconstruction Corporation of India Limited, the National Housing Bank established 1. an industry carried on or under the authority ofthe Central Government , or a railway company, or
2. an such controlled industry as may be specified in thisbehalf by the Central Government , or
3. a Dock Labour Board established under section 5A ofthe Dock Workers ( Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 ( 9 of 1948 ) , or
4. the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed and registered under the companies Act, 1956, ог
5. the Employees ' State Insurance Corporation established under section 3 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ) , ог
6. the Board of Trustees constituted under section 3A of the Coal Mines provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1948 (46 of 1948 ) , or
7. the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under section 5A and section 5B , respectively, of the Employees ' ProvidentFund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( 19 of 1952), or
| भाग ।।-खण्ड 3( ii) ] भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29. 1934 475
8. the Life Insurance Corporation of India established 29. the Central Public Sector Undertaking, or
under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation
Act, 1956 ( 31 of 1956 ) . or 30. subsidiary companies set up by the principal
undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or
9. the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited controlled by the Central Government , the
registered under the Companies Act , 1956, or appropriate Government would mean the Central
Government" .
10. the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee
Corporation established under section 3 of the 22. In relation to any industrial dispute , other than
Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee those specified in sub -clause ( i) of clause ( a ) of section 2
Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961 ) , or of the Act . appropriate Government wouldbe State
11. the Central Warehousing Corporation established Government . In other words , all industrial disputes which
areoutside the purview of sub - clause ( i ) are concern ofthe
under section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations
Act , 1962 ( 58 of 1962 ) , or State Government under sub - clause ( ii ) of clause ( a ) of
section 2 of the Act . Thus , the general rule is that an
12. the Unit Trust of India established under section 3 industrial dispute raised between employer and his
ofthe Unit Trust of India Act , 1963 (52 of 1963 ) , or employees would be referred for adjudication by the State
13. the Food Corporation of India established under Governinent . except in cases falling under section 2( a)( i) of
theAct . Consequently, where industrial dispute which does
section 3 of the Food Corporation Act , 1964 (37 of
1964) , or not fall within the ambit of section 2 ( a ) ( i ) of the Act.
appropriate Government cannot be the Central Government .
14. a Board of Management established for two or
23. Now it would be ascertained as to whether the
more contiguous States under section 16 of the
Food Corporation Act , 1964 ( 37 of 1964 ) , or Institute falls within the ambit of industry.carried on by or
under the authority of the Central Government or is any
15. the Airports Authority of India constituted under such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalt
section 3 of the Airports Authority of Inttia Act . by the Central Government . Therefore the phrases " under
1994 ( 55 of 1994 ) , or the authority of and on behalf of ' would project that the
16. a Regional Rural Bank established under section 3 industry must be carried on by and under the authority of
ofthe Regional Rural Banks Act . 1976 (21 of 1976), the Central Government . The authority should mean as
or where an agent or servant acts under such authority of his
principal . These phrases mean much the same as on behalf
17. the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Limited ofthe Central Government . Therefore these phrases must
or
mean and are intended to apply to industries carried on
18. the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Limited, under the authority of or on behalf of the Central
or Government , it must be an industry belonging to the Central
Government that is to say its undertaking . Reference can
19. the National Housing Bank established under be made to precedent in Heavy Engineering Mazdoor
section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act . 1987 Union { 1969 ( 2 ) LLJ 549 ] . The expression carried on by or
(53 of1987), or under the authority of the Central Government involves a
20. an air transport service , or direct nexus with the industry through servants or agents
of the Central Government . In order to come within the
21. a banking company, or purvew of this expression , an industry mustbe acting
pursuant to the authority of the Central Government as if it
22. an insurance company, or
were an agent or servant of the Central Government as its
23. a mine , or principal . Sec Indian Naval Canteen Control Board | 1965
24. an oil -field , or ( 2)LLJ 366 and Management of Bihar Khadi Gram Udyog
Sangh ( 1977 Law I.C.466) .
25. a Cantonment Board , or
24. In Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union ( supra ) .
26. a major port, or the Apex Court ruled that an incorporated company has a
27. any company in which not less than fifty - one separate existence and the law recognizes it as a juristic
person separate and distint from its members . The inference
percent of the paid - up share capital is held by the
Central Government , or thatthe corporation is the agent of the government may be
draw where it is performing in substance governmental
28. any corporation , not being a corporation referred and not commercial functions . Reference can be made to
to in this clause , established by or under any law London County Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association
madeby Parliament , or [ 1942 ( 2 ) ALL . E.R. 432] . Where extensive powers conferred
23 GE 113-27 476
[PART 11 SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/PAUSA 29 , 1934
Government that has a pervasive control over it. Reference may be made to the precedent in Nand Kishore ( 1995. Lab. 1.C. 1513).
28.A sainik school established and controlled by a society, would not fall within the ambit of an industry being carried on by the Central Government in respect of a reference of an industrial dispute . The fact that some , authorities and officers from the Central Government are included while constituting the society to run the institution would not made it an institution run by and under the authority ofthe Central Government . See Narayan Chandra Muzumdar [ 1995 Lab . IC (NOC) 258 ] .
29.Now the law, referred above , would be appliedto the present controversy. Executive Council of the Institute wasconstituted wherein following members were initially included:
on Central Government to give directions as to the functioning of the company to appoint directors and to determine wages and salaries payable by the company to its employees are derived from the company's memorandum and articles of association , it would be said that is was controlled wholly or partially by the Central Government . In these circumstances the company can easily be identified as the agent of the Central Government. The companies and corporations held and controlled by the Central Government will be instrumentalities of the Central Government within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution , ruled the Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation [ 1997 ( 1 ) LLJ 1113 ] . This holding of the Apex Court overrules earlier dicta in Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union (supra). Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. [ 1975 (2) LLJ 336] , Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Union [ 1984 (2) LLJ $47] , Central Warehouse Corporation ( 1983 ( 64) FLR 124 (Delhi ) ] and National Buildings Construction Corporation (1981 Lab . IC 62 Delhi) .
(i ) Shri Vishnu Sahay, Secretary, Planning Commission , New Delhi .
(ii) Shri L.P. Singh , Additional Secretary, Ministry of Honie Affairs , New Delhi .
(iii) Shri Charat Ram , 15 , Diplomatic Enclave , Kitchner Road, New Delhi .
( iv) Shri R. Prasad, Director , Directorate of Manpower and Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs , New Delhi .
25. When authority to run an industry is derived from the Central Government , which exercised all control over the executive council to run it , it can be said that the industry was being run by and on and behalf of the Central Government . In case of National Institute for Training in Industrial Engineering Society [ 1988 ( 1 ) LLN 102 ] , it was ruled that the Institute was completely under the control of the Central Government , hence the Central Government was the appropriate Government in relation to any industrial dispute concerning the employees .
(v) Shri G. K. Chandiramani , Joint Educational Adviser (Technical) and Joint Secretary , Minsitry of Scientific Research and Cultural Affairs , New Delhi .
(vi) Shri D. Sandhya , Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce& Industry, New Delhi .
(vii ) Shri R.P. Padhi , Joint Secretary, (Personnel) Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure), New Delhi .
(viii) Shri S. Abdul Qadir , Director-General , Employment and Training and Joint Secretary , Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi .
26. Industry carried on by a corporation incorporated under the Companies Act and not directly by the Central Government or any of its department , it cannot be said to bean industry carried on by the Central Government though all the shares are owned by the President of India and some officials . Reference can be made to precedent in Heavy Engineer Mazdoor Union ( supra ) . Industries which are carried on for their own purposes by incorporated commercial corporations which are governed by their own constitution as authorized by the Companies Act cannot bedescribed as carried on ' under the authority of the Central Government ' , even when the Central Government controls these corporation . The industries are working under the authority of their constitutions or charters . See Abdul Rehaman Abdul Gafur [ 1962 (2 ) LLJ 693 ] .
30. As noted above , except one businessman , ali other members of the Executive Council are civil servants , occupying high position in Government of India , Institute was registered as a society and application in that behalf was submitted by Shri M.S. Ramanathan , Section Officer , Directorate of Manpower , Minsitry of Home Affairs,Govt . of India, New Delhi . Persons who had put in their hands to the Memorandum of Association are also civil servants occupying high position in Government of India , except Shri Charat Ram , Shanti Prakash and Shri P. Chentsal Rao . The persons who got the Institute registered as society are detailed as follows:
1. Shri Vishu Sahay, Secretary. Planning Commission , NewDelhi .
27. Khadi Ashram Panipat , a registered society, certified by Khadi Commission was held to be not an industry run under the authority of Central Government , within the meaning of Section 2 ( a ) of the Act . In the same manner it was ruled that to make a reference in respect of an industrial dispute in Khadi and Village Industry Commission, the appropriate government would be the State Government and not the Central Government since the commission carries on commercial activities on its own behalfand does not carry sovereign functions ofthe Central 477
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
2. Shri R.P. Padhi , Joint Secretary, (Personnel) , Ministry of Finance ( Department ofExpenditure ), NewDelhi .
3. Shri G.K. Chandiramani , Joint Educational Adviser (Technical ) and Joint Secretary, Minsitry of Scientific Research and Cultural Affairs , New Delhi .
4. Shri B. Mazumdar, Additional Member ( Staff) , Railway Board, Ministry ofRailway, New Delhi .
5. Shri D. Sandilya , Joint Secretary, Minsitry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi .
6. Shri Shanti Prakash , Honorary Secretary, All India ManagementAssociation, Press Bhawan , 8E , Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi .
7. Shri Charat Ram , 15, Diplomatic Enclave , Kitchner Road, New Delhi .
8. Shri P. Chentsal Rao , Secretary, All India Organization of Industrial Employers, 'Federal House , Bazar , New Delhi .
9. Shri L.P. Singh, Additional Secretary, Ministry of HomeAffairs , New Delhi .
10. Shri Pitambar Pant , Chief Perspective Planning Division , Planning Commision , New Delhi.
11. Shri R. Prasad , Director Directorate of Manpower and Joint Secretary, Ministry ofHome Affairs , New Delhi.
31. Rules were also framed , which project that the General Council consists of President (to be appointed by the Government of India ) , not more than three Vice Presidents (to be appointedby the Government of India) , Chairman ofthe Executive Council , Director (ex-official ) to be appointed by the Government of India, Treasurer and representatives of various bodies and Government departments , detailed as follows:-
(i) Planning Commission.
(ii) Ministry of Finance ( Department of Expenditure ).
(iii) Minsitry of Human Resource Development (Department ofEducation).
(iv) Ministry of Agriculture ( Department of Rural ) Development.
(v) Minsitry of Defence .
(vi) Minsitry of Health and Family Welfare ( Department ofHealth) .
(vii) Ministry of Industry ( Department of Indistrial Development).
(viii) Minsitry of Labour (DGE & T) .
(ix) Ministry of Personnel , Public Grievances and Pensions .
(x) Ministry of Railways .
(xi) Ministry of Science and Technology ( Department ofScience and Technology).
(xii) Ministry ofWelfare .
(xiii) Central Statistical Organization .
(xiv) Union Public Service Commission .
(xv) Council of Scientific and Industrial Research.
(xvi) University Grants Commision .
(xvii) All India Council of Technical Education .
(xviii) All India Council ofAgricultural Education .
(xix) Medical Council of India.
(xx) National Council for Vocational Training.
(xx) Institution of Engineering (India).
(xxii) Institution of Chemical Engineers.
(xxiii) Institution of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers.
(xxiv) Indian Statistical Institute .
(xxv) National Productivity Council.
(xxvi) National Labour Institute .
(xxvii) Indian Institute of Public Administration .
(xxviii) National Council ofApplied Economic Research .
(xxix) National Institute of Educational Planning Administration .
(xxx) All India Management Association .
(xxxi) Six representatvies of State Government one each representingNorthern , Eastern, Southern , Western , Central and North Eastern Zones , on rotation basis for a period of two years in each phase .
(xxxii) One representative of the North Eastern Zonal Council .
(xxxiii) One representative each of Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Employers Federation of India .
(xxxiv) All India Manufactures Organization .
(xxxv) Three representatives of labour nominated by Government for towards at a time but extendable.
(xxxvi) Two members of the faculty of Institute on two years rotation basis (to be nominated by the Director from amongst senior faculty members at two different levels .
(xxxvii) Two members of user organizations governmental or non -governmental envincing interesting in manpower issues and activity associating themselves therewith .
478
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/ PAUSA 29, 1934
[ PART II- SEC . 3( ii )]
32. Executive Council of the Institute was empower to manage its affairs . Executive Council consists of Chairman , Director and representatives of Planning Commission , Ministry of Finance , Department of Expendture , Minsitry of Human Resources Development, (Department of Education) , Ministry of Labour , National Poductivity Council , Employees Federation of India, All India Manufactures Organization , All India Management Association and All India Organization of Labour . Execrative Council functions subject to general control an directions of the General Council and subject to such limitation as may be imposed the Government of India from time to time.
contained in the contract to the contrary nothing would prevent the employer from extending the period of probation for a further reasonable period . The purpose of placing a person on probation is to try him during period of probation to assess his suitability for the job. If an employee who is on probation is removed from his service during his period of probation by order of termination simplesitor, it cannot be said that the order was stigmatic . The principle of law relating to discharge under contract and discharge simplestor were extended to the discharge ofprobationer by the Supreme Court in Express Newespaper Ltd. [ 1964 ( 1 ) LLJ 9] . The facts of the case were that a journalist was appointed on probation for a period of 6 months and was to be confirmed on being found suitable for the job . Before the expiry of period of probation the employer terminated his services on the ground that his work was not satisfactory. The journalist challenged his discharge on the ground that it was malafide and unfair labour practice on the part of the employer. The employer pleaded that the journalist was appointed on probation, hence termination of his service on account of unsatisfactory work was well within rights . The Apex Court recognized the right of the employer to terminate service of a probationer at the end of the period of probation . The observations made by the Apex Courts are extracted thus:
33. Out ofthe above facts , it emerges over the record that the Central Government exercises control over the Executive Council of the Institution . It is evident that the Institute is completely under the control of the Government of India . These facts make it clear that the activities of the Institute were being carried on under the directions and control ofthe Central Government . Relying these facts , I have no hesitation to conclude that the activities of the Institute are being carried on under the authority of the Central Government . It does not lie in the mouth of the Institute to agitate that the appropriate Government for making reference of the dispute is the State Government .
34.Now facts of the present controversy would be addressed . Shri Joshi unfolds that he was engaged by the Institute on 08-5-1990 . He continuously served the institute till 17-08-2005 . Letter No.2-4/ 36/Admn dated 11-05-1990, which is Ex.MW1 / 1 , has been relied by the claimant .When this letter was scanned , it came to light that the claimant was appointed as messenger in temporary capacity. He was to remain on probation for a period of one year , which period of probation was extendable , if necessary. Services ofthe claimant were liable to be terminated without notice or pay in lieu thereof and without assigning any reason thereof during the period of probation . Even on satisfactory completion of the period of probation, his services were liable to be terminated by notice of one month by the appointing authority or pay in lieu thereof or for such period asfall short of one month .
" there can , in our opinion be no doubt about the position in law that an employee appointed on probation for 6 months continues as probationer even after the period of 6 months if at the end of the period his services had either not been terminated or he is confirmed it appears clear to us that without anyting more an appointment on probation for 6 months give the employer no right to terminate the service of an employee before 6 months had expired except on the ground of misconduct or other sufficient reasons in which case even the service of a permanent employee could be terminated at the end of the 6 months period the employer can either confirm him or terminate his services because his performance is found unsatisfactory. If no action is takenby the employer either by way of confirmation or by way of termination the employee continues to be in services as a probatoiner "
35. Claimant unfolds in his testimony that his services were regularized in 1990. However, he opted not to file any documents to show that his services stood regularized . Thus it is clear that the Institute has not passed any order for regularsation of services of the claimant . Question for consideration would be as to whether the services of the claimant would deemed to have been regularized on completion of period of probation ? Legal propositions are to be taken note of, for adjudication of the question . A probationer does not automatically attain permanent status on expiry ofhis probation . If he is neither discharged nor confirmed, he continues to serve as a probationer until otherwise dealt with . Therefore, in the absence of anything
36.The distinction was maintained by the Apex Court between cases of termination of employment of a probationer before period of probation had expired and the caseswhere the employer exercise his inherent right either toconfirm or to terminate the employment of the probationer at the end the period of probation . When an employee appointed on probation for a specific period is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of that period without any specific order of confirmation , he continues in his post as a probationer only and acquirs no substantive right to the post in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary in the original order of appointment or service rules . When 479
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
[ भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
an employee is allowed to continue after end of period of probation , necessary implication would follow that his period ofprobation has been extended and it cannot be concluded that he should be deemed to have been confirmed . Law to this effect was laid by the Apex Court in Dharm Singh (AIR 1968 SC 1210 ) . Consequently it is clear that an express order ofconfirmation is necessary to give an employee substantive right to the post and from the mere fact that he is allowed to continue in the post after the end of period of probation , it is not possible to hold that he should be deemed to have been confirmed. In Unit Trust of India [ 1993 ( 1 ) LLJ 240] the Apex Court announced that the vary purpose of putting a person on probation is to which his performance . No express order ofconfirmation of services ofthe claimant was issued by the Institute. Hence it is clear that he was on probation when impugned action was taken by the Institute .
37. Whether assessment made by the employer about suitability of the employee can be weighed by an Industrial Adjudicator ? It is a settled proposition that assessment to the effect that service of a probationer is satisfactory or not rests with the satisfaction of the employer . Such satisfaction could be objectively assessed and employer is not bound to give any reason when he does not confirm a probationer on expiry of the period of probation . However the industrial adjudication may call upon the employer to put reason for not confirming an employee when he finds the order laced with malafide . In Upkar Machinery Ltd. [ 1996 ( 1 ) LLJ 398 ) the Apex Court ruled that when validity of termination ofservices , during period of probation without notice and without assigning any reason , is under challenge in that situation Industrial Adjudicator wouldbe competant to find out whether the order of termination was bonafide exercise of powerconferred by the contract . In Brook Bond India ( Pvt . ) Ltd. ( 1993 ( II ) LLJ 454 ] workman was appointed in the first instance for a period of six months , extendable for a further period of three months or more in absolute discretion of the employer. The terms of appointment further provided that the employer had a right to terminate the services of a probationer , " during the period of probation or extended period ofprobation or before confirmation in writing , without notice and without assigning reasons whatsoever. " Service was terminated within the period of probation . During the course of a adjudication the employer adduced no evidence to show that the work of probationer was unsatisfoctory. The Apex Court ruled that the order ofterminating the service of a probationer was capricious and unreasonable . The termination was held to be not justified . The above precedents make it is clear that an Industrial Adjudicator has a right to see whether the order of termination is malafide or whether it amounts to victimization or unfair labour practice.
38. Factual matrix of the controversy is detailed by the witnesses , as follows . Shri B.N. Mishra unfolds in his testimony the claimant absented himself from his duties with effect from 27-04-1995 . On 01-05-1995 , he sent an application for leave on medical grounds seeking leave with effect from 27-04-1995 to 05-05-1995 . Since the application was neither supported by medical certificate nor address of the claimant mentioned therein , hence leave was not sanctioned . Memo dated 09-05-1995 was served, which is Ex. WW1 /5 . He was called upon to resume his duties witheffectfrom 10-05-1995 . Memo sent by registered post wasreceived undelivered . Letter was also sent thorough special messenger, but it could not be delivered since the residential address of the claimant was incorrect . There was no response from the claimant , hence notice was displaye on the notice board calling upon him to resume his duties . No response was there to this notice also. Hence , his services were terminated on 17-07-1995 in consonance with Clause 16( 1 )( ii ). Same facts were reiterated by Shri Shyam Sunder in his affidavit dated 03-04-2006.
39. Claimant projects in his affidavit Ex . WW1 /1that he sent leave application . However , he nowhere explains that his leave was sanctioned . He could not dispel facts projected by Shri Mishra to the effect that leave application was neither supported by medical cartificate nor it contained his residential address . Therefore , it is evident that the claimant nowhere questions the proposition that his leave application was declined by the institute . Claimant had also failed to explain as towhy he could not join his duties on 10-05-1995 . It is not his case that a subsequent leave application , supported by medical certificate was tendered by him . Therefore , facts unfolded by Shri Mishra and Shri Shyam Sunder bring it to the light of the day that the claimant absented himself from his duties and opted not to resume the same. He opted not to inform the Institute about his address during the period of his absence . Under these circumstances . the Institute dispenced with his services with effect from 17-07-1995 under bye law 16 ( 1 ) ( ii ) of the Bye laws .
40. Whether the termination of services of the claimant amounts to retrenchment ? For an answer , definition of the term retrenchment" is to be considered . Definition of the term ' retrenchment ' as ended by the Act isextracted thus:
"(oo) " retrenchment " means the termination by the employer of the services of a workman for any reason whatsoever , otherwise than as a punishment inflictedby way of disciplinary action , but does not include--
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman ; or
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age ofsuperannuation ifthe contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behall:
(bb ) termination of the services of the workman as a result of the non - renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the 480
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19 , 2013 / PAUSA 29 , 1934
workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein : or
(c) termination of the services of a workman of the ground of continued ill -health " .
41. Definition of retrenchment is very wide and in two parts . The first part is exhaustive , which lays down that retrenchment means the termination of the service of a workman by the employer " for any reason whatsoever " otherwise then as a punishment inflictedby way of disciplinary action. Thus main part of the definition itself excludes the termination of service , as a measure of punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from the ambit of retrenchment. The second part further excludes (i) voluntary retirement of the workman . or ( ii ) retirement of workman on reaching the age of superannuation , or ( iii ) termination of the service of a workman as a result of non- renewal of contract of employment , or ( iv ) termination of contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained in the contract of employment in that behalf, or ( v ) termination of service on the ground of continued ill health ofthe workman . Reference can be made to the precedents inAvon Services ( Production Agencies ) ( Pvt . ) Ltd. [ 1979 ( 1 ) LLJ 1 ] and Mahabir ( 1979 ( 11 ) LLJ 363 ] " .
42.Appointment letter Ex . MWIstipulates that the claimant was appointed as a messenger on temporary capacity with effect from 08-05-1990 . He was to remain on probation for a period of one year. It could be extended by the competent authority, if necessary. His services were liable to be terminated without any notice or pay in lieu thereof and without assigning any reason thereof, during the period of probation . Even on satisfactory completion of the probation period , his services were liable to be terminated by notice of one month or pay in lieu thereof. Consequently. it is evident that the terms of services contained in appointment letter Ex.MWI / I empowered the Institute to dispense with his services by giving one month notice or pay in lieu thereof. Same is the proposition in bye law 16( 1 ) ( ii ) ofthe Bye laws .
43. Whether service of one month notice or pay in lieu thereof, as detailed in Ex.MWI / 1 amounts to pre condition for termintion of services of the claimant? For an answer to this proposition , it would be expedient to be true terms of service as contained in appointment letter Ex.MW 1/1 . For the sake of convenience , same are extracted thus:
"Director 1AMR has approved the appointment of the following persons as Messengers in a temporary capacity on an intial pay of Rs . 750 p.m. in the pay scale of Rs . 750-12-870- EB- 14-940 w.e.f. 8th May, 1990 and until further orders :-
1. Shri Nathu Ram ,
Bearer, IAMR Deptt. Canteen
[ PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) }
2. Shri Darban Singh Daily rated messenger
3. Shri Jagbir Singh , ad - hoc staff car driver
4. Shri Mahesh Verma , Daily rated messenger
5. Shri Kailash Joshi , Daily rated messenger
6. Shri Shiv Raj Giri , Daily rated messenger
7. Shri Ram Bharat , Daily rated messenger
8. Shri Bishan Singh , Daily rated messenger
9. Shri Harish Joshi , Daily rated messenger
2. Besides the pay they would also be entitled to such allowances as may be admissble from time to time under Government orders , made applicable to the IAMR,
4. They willbe on probation for a period of one year with effect from 08-05-1990 which may be extended by the Competent Authority, if necessary. Their services would be terminable without notice or pay in lieu thereof and without assigning any reasons therefore and/ or during the period of probation . On satisfactory completion of the probationary period. their services will be liable to termination by a notice of one month by the Appointing Authority or pay in licu thereof for such period as may fall short of one month.
6.Their temporary appointment will also be subject to all other bye laws / regulations of the 1AMR , as amended from time to time " .
44. As projected above , Institute is under an obligation to serve one month notice on the claimant to terminate his service . The said notice can be served by tendering one month pay to the claimant . Notice for termination ofthe service is to be given by the Appointing Authority. Office Oder dated 17-07-1995 makes it clear that his appointing authority passed an order detaining therein that in lieu of one month notice , claimant shall be paid wages for one month . It is not stipulated in the terms and conditions of service of the claimant that pay in lieu of the notice should be tendered first and thereafter services of the claimant can be terminated . Payment of one month wages in lieu or notice can be tendered even after termination of the service , since terms and conditions of his service nowhere mentions such pre condition of payment ofwages for one month in advance . Consequently, orderdated 17-07-1995 cannot be held to be violative of the terms and conditions of services of the claimant . Institute dispensed with the services of the claimant in accordance with the terms and conditions of service , which fact makes it apparent that the action of the Institute falls with in the 481
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19. 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
| भाग ।।- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) )
Versus
The General Manager,
exemption provided by sub - clause ( bb ) of clause ( oo ) of Section 2 of the Act . Action of the Institute howhere amounts to retrenchment .
Ordnance Factory, Raipur,
Dehradun - 248008
Management
AWARD
45. In view of the reasons detailed above , it is concluded that the action of the Institute is legal . No unjustifiability is found in the action of termination of services of the claimant who absented himself without getting his leaves sanctioned . The claimant opted not to inform the Institute about his whereabouts or to resume his duties . Under these circumstances , action oftermination of his services is found to be justified also . The claimant is not entitled to any relief His claim is , accordingly, brushed aside. An award is passed in favour of the Institute and against the claimant . Itbe sent to the appropriate Government for publication .
Dated:02-11-2012 Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ल्ली, 26 दिसम्बर, 2012
का.आ. 160. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947
का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार जनरत्न मैनेजर , आर्डिनेन्स फैक्ट्री, रायपुर, देहरादून के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. । , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 250/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जां कंन्द्रीय सरकार को 20 12 2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
| मं. एन्न 14012/ 14/1997- आई आर (डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 26th December, 2012
A sweeper was appointed by Ordnance Factory ( in shortthe Factory) , Raipur, on nerrick rate basis . He worked withthefactory for intermittent periods till 13-12-1994 , In 1992, 19 vacancies for regular sweepers occured in the Factory. A policy decision was taken that the sweeper, engaged on nerrick rate and who had put in 240 days service in a year continuously for two years and were sponsored by local employment exchange , would be regularized against these vacancies . Candidature of Shri Kishan Lal S/ o Shri Malkhan Singh , engaged on nerrick rate basis . was considered for regularization of his services . It was noted that he had not rendered continuous service for 240 days in any of the calendar year from 1985 to 1992. hence his services were not regularized on permanent post of sweeper . His services were dispensed with on 13-12-1994. Shri Kishan Lal raised a demand for reinstatement in services ofthe Factory, which demand was not conceded to. Hence, he raised an industriai dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since the Factory contested his claim , conciliation proceedings ended into failure . On consideration of failure report , submitted by the Conciliation Officer , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No. L- 14012/ 14 /97 - IR ( DU ) , New Delhi dated 15-12-1997 , with following terms :
S.O. 160. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 250/2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Raipur, Dehradun and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 20-12-2012.
"Whether the action of the management ofOrdnance Factory, Raipur, Dehradun , in terminating services of Shri Kishan Lal S /o Shri Malkhan , daily paid sweeper with effect from 13-12-1994 is legal , just and fair? If not, then what relief he is entitled to and from which date?"
[No. L - 14012/14/ 1997- [ R (DU) ]
SURENDRA KUMAR , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
I. D. No. 250/2011
Shri Kishan Lal
So Sh. Malkhan,
2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Kishan Lal pleading that the Factory is an industrial establishment, where more than 300 workman are employed . He was engaged by the Factory on 06-02-1994 after an interview. on his name being sponsored by the employment exchange . An appointment letter was issued in his favour. lle continuously worked with the Factory for more than 240 days in every calendar year . On 13-12-1994, his services were dispensed with , projecting that he had not rendered continuous service for 240 days in any of the calendar years.
R'o WingNo. 4,
PremNagar,
Dehradum -248008
3. Claimant pleads that neither notice was served upon him nor provisions of section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , ( in short the Act ) were complied with
Workman
482
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
Termination of his services is illegal and non est . Reasons for termination ofhis services , as projected by the Factory. are not correct . While calculating his days of work , national holdays and weekly off days were not counted . According to him, personsjunior to him were regularized on permanant posts of sweeper. New persons were also engaged and the Factory violated provisions of section 25 G and 25 H ofthe Act . Act of the Factory is unfair labour practice under Section 25 T of the Act . His right of livelihood was violated bythe Factory. When personsjunior to him were regularized in service , right of equal protection of law was denied to him . He claims that he may be reinstated in service of the Factory with continuity and full back wages .
4. Claim was demurred by the Factory pleading that it is not an industry, as defined by the Act. Ministry of Labour , Government of India , New Delhi , vide its lester dated 31-01-1994 , took a decision declaring that Ordnance Factories age not to be treated as " industry " under the Act. Since, Factory is not an industry, hence provisions of theAct are not applicable to it .
5. Factory projects that claimant was engaged as nerrick rated sweeper through employment exchange in order to cover deficiency amongst regular sweepers , due to leave/absenteeism. Claim was deployed to work on day to day basis as and when requirement arose . He never completed 240 days service in a year for two consecutive years , hence his services were not regularized , when 19 vacancies arose with the Factory. Nerrick rated sweepers , who fulfilled conditions of eligibility were regularized as sweepers . Since the claimant was not eligible to be regularized, no violation of provisions of Section 25 G and 25 H of the Act was committed when services of eligible persons were regularized . Claimant was engaged as nerrick rated sweeper , which post does not exist now. Sweeping in the Factory is now being performed by regular sweepers . His fundamental right of livelihood was not denied since he was not eligible for regularization . No person juniorto him was regularized, hence there is no case of discrimination. Factory pleads that the claim put forward by Shri Kishan Lal maybe dismissed , being devoid of merits.
6.On pleadings of the parties , following issues were settled:
( 1 ) Whether provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 are not applicable ? Ifyes , its effects ?
(2) As in terins of reference .
7. Claimant has examined himself in support of his claim. Affidavit of Ms. Deepika Lohia was tendered as evidence on behalf of the management . However , Ms. Deepika Lohia was never produced for her cross examination . No opportunity could be accorded to the claimant to purify her testimony by an ordeal of cross examination . When facts detailed by Ms. Deepika Lohia , in her affidavit dated 05-05-2008 , could not be tested on anvil
[PART II -SIC. 30 ) ]
of cross examination , her affidavit cannot be read in evidence for the Factory. Evidence of the management was closed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 25-04-2011 .
8.Vide order No. Z - 22019 /6/2007 - IR ( C - II ) . New Delhi dated 11-02-2008 , appropriate Government transferred the case to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2. New Delhi for adjudication . Case was retransferredto this Tribunal vide order No. Z -22019 / 6 /2007 - IR ( C - II ), New Delhi 30-03-2011 . for adjudication.
9. Arguments were heard at bar. Shri M.C. Pant . authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the claimant . Shri V.R.S. Krishnan , authorized representative , presented facts on behalf of the Factory . I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:-
Issue No. 1
10. In its written statement, the Factory projects that it is not an industry hence provisions of the Act are not applicable to it . However, the Factory could not adduce any legal evidence to substantiate its claim. Affidavit of Ms. Deepika Lohia was discarded when no opportunity was given to the claimant to purify contents of the affidavit through an ordeal of cross examination . However, objection raised by the Factory relates to legal proposition , hence I am constrained to proceed for its adjudication . For an answer, to the proposition, it is expedient to construe definition of the word industry as enacted by the Act . For sake of convenience , said definition is extracted thus:
"industry" means any business , trade , undertakaing . manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling , service employment , handicraft , or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen . "
11. The definition of " industry " is both exhaustive and inclusive . It is in two parts . The first part says that it " means any business , trade , undertaking , manufacture or calling of employers " and then goes to say that it " includes any calling, service , employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workman . " Thus one part defind itfrom the stand point of the employer, and the other part from the stand point of the employees . The first part of the definition gives the statutory meaing of the industry, whereas the second part deliberately refers to several other items of industry and being them in the definition in an inclusive way. The first part of the definition determines any industryby reference to occupation of employers in respect of certain activities viz .. business , trade , undertaking , manufacture or calling . The second part views the matter from the angle of employees and is designed to include something more in what the term primarily denotes . By this part of the definition any calling , employment , handicraft , industrial occupation or avocation of workmen 483
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
is included in the concept of industry. This part gives extended connotation .
12. Gloss was put on the definition of word " industry" by the High Courts and the Apex Court time and again . The question as to what is " industry " has continuously baffled and perplexed the courts . A graph of the cases decided by the Apex Court , if plotted on the background of the expression used in two parts of the definition of " industry ", would represent rather a zig zag curve . There have been various judicial ventures in this rather volitile area of law . The decided cases show that the efforts were made to evolve test by reference to characteristics regarded as essential for constituting an activity as an " industry" . Various cases would show that the Apex Court has been guided more by empirical rather than a strictly analytical approach . Most of the decision have centered around the expression " undertaking " used inthe definition . In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board ( 1978 Lab . 1.C. 778 ) the Apex Court reviewed the earlier decisions on interpretation of the wide words encompassed in the definition and formulated positive and negative principles for identifying " industry " as enacted by clause (j ) of section 2 of the Act . It would be expedient to reproduce the authoritative pronouncement of the Court, in the very words set out in the majority decision , handed down by Justice Krishna lyer, which are extracted thus:
"1 . " Industry " as defined in S.2 (j ) and explained in Banerji ( AIR 1953 S.C. 58 ) has a wide import .
( a ) Where ( i ) systematic activity, ( ii ) organized by Co- operationbetween employer and employee ( the direct and substantial element is chimerical ) ( iii ) for the production and or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes ( not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material things or services geared to celestial bliss i.e. making , on a large scale prasad or foods ) prima facie , there is an " industry " in that enterprise.
(b ) Absence of profit motive or gaintul objective is irrelevant , be the venture in the public . joint, private or other sector .
(c) The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the employer - employee relations .
( d) If the organization is a trade or business it does not cease to be one because of philanthropy animating the undertaking .
11 . Athough section 2 (j ) uses words of the widest amplitude in its two limbs , the re -meaning cannot be magnifiedto overreach itself.
(a) "Undertaking must suffer a contextual and associational shrinkage as explained in Banerjee and
उजा- 13-28
in this judgement, so also , service , calling and the like. This yields the inference that all organized activity possessing the triple elements in I ( supra ). although not trade or business , may still be industry' provided the nature of activity, viz , the employer- employee basis , bears resemblance to what we find intrade or business . This takes into the fold industry' undertaking , calling and services , adventures . "analogous to the carrying on the trade or business " All features , other than the methodology of carrying on the activity viz in organizing the co -operation between employer and employce , may be dissimilar . Itdoes not matter, if on the employment terms there isanalogy.
III . Application of these guidelines should not short of their logical reach by invocation of creeds, cults or inner sense of incongruity or outer sence of motivation for or resultant of tre economic operations . The ideology of the Act being industrial peace , regulation and resolution of industrial disputes between employer and workmen , the range of their statutory ideology must inform the reach of the statutorydefinition . Nothing less , nothing more .
(a) The consequences are ( i ) profession . ( ii ) clubs ( iii ) education institutions , ( iv ) co - operatives ( v) research institutes , (vi ) charitable projects and (vii ) other kindered adventures , if they fulfil the triple test listed in 1 ( supra ) , cannot be exempted from the scope of section 2 (j ) .
(b) A restricted category of professions , clubs , co- operatives and even gurukulas and little research labs may qualify for exemption if in simple ventures , substantially , and going by the dominant nature criterion , substantively no employees are entertained but in menial matters , marginal employees are hired without destroying the non employee character of the unit .
(c ) It, in a pious or altruistic mission many employ themselves , free or for small honoraria or like return , mainly drawn by sharing in the purpose or cause . such as lawyers volunteering to run a free legal services clinic or doctors serving in their spare hours in a free medical centre or ashramites working at the bidding of the holiness , divinity or like central personality , and the services are supplied tree or at nominal cost and those who serve are not engaged for remuneration or on the basis of master and servant relationship , then the institution is not an industry even if stay servants . manual or technical , are hired . Such eleemosy nary or like undertakings alone are exempt not other generosity, compassion, developmental passion ofproject.
484
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
[PART 11 - SEC. 3 ( ії ) |
V The dominant nature test :
( a) . Where a complex of activities , some of which qualify for exemption other not, involves employees on the total undertaking , some of whom are not " workmen " as in the University of Delhi case ( AIR 1963 S.C. 1873 ) or some departments are not productive of goods and services if isolated , even then , the predominant nature of the services and the integrated nature of the departments as explained in the Corporation of Nagpur ( AIR 1960 S.C. 657) will be the true test. The whole undertaking will be industry although those who are not " workmen " by definition may not benefit by the status .
(b) Notwithstanding the previous clauses , sovereign . functions , strictly understood ( alone ) qualify for exemption , not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaking by Govt. or statutory bodies .
[ 1960 ( 1 ) LLJ 251 ] the Supreme Court adumberated the test: can such activity be carried on by a private individual or group of individuals ? The answer to this is ? If a business or activity could not be carried on by a private individual or group of individuals , it could not be an industry , while if itcouldbe, it might fall within the scope of " industry " . This test was reiterated in Corporation of City of Nagpur (supra) but rejected in Gymkhana Club [ 1967 ( II ) LLJ 720 ] . In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board ( supra) theApex Court observed *** sovereign functions , strictly understood . ( alone ) qualify for exemption , not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by Government or statutory bodies . Even in departments discharging sovereign functions , if there are units, which are " industry " and they are substantially severable , they can be considered to come within Section 2 (j ) " . In Chief Conservator of Forests [ 1996 ( 1 ) LLJ 1223 ] the above proposition was reiterted where in it was observed even within the wider circle of sovereign function , there may be an inner circle encompassing some units which could be considered as " industry " , if substantially severable" .
( c ) Even in department discharging sovereign functions , if there are units which are industries and they are substantially severable , then they can be considered to come within S.2 (j ) .
( d) Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may remove from the scope of the all categories which otherwise may be covered thereby .
V
14. Now I would turn to facts of the present controversy. In its written statement Factory presents that it activities are not industry as contemplatedby the provisions of the Act . It is an Ordnance Factory , primarily engaged in production of items for defence of the country . hence its activities would not amount to industry . As aforsaid , no evidence is put forward to establish the above claim. However, it is matter of common knowledge that Ordinance Factory is engaged in production of items for defence of the country. Therefore , it would be ascertained whether the Factory would answer the criteria laid down by the Apex Court in Bangalore Water and Sewerage Board ( supra) .
We overrule Safdarjung ( AIR 1970 S.C. 1407) . Solicitors case ( AIR 1962 S.C. 1080 ), Gymkhana ( AIR 1968 S.C. 554 ), Delhi University (AIR 1963 S.C. 1873 ) . Dhanraj Giriji Hospital ( AIR 1975 SC 2032 ) and other rufings whose ratio runs counter to the principles enunciated above , and the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha ( AIR 1960 SC 610 ) is hereby rehabilitated ."
15. This Tribunal shall not remain oblivious to para 4801 of the Procedure Manual for Ordinance Factories , issued by the Directory General of Ordnance Factories . The said para runs as follows :
"Introduction - Factories are primarily intended to manufacture armament stores requiredby the services . Due to reduction in service load and since factories have to maintain at all times . equipment and staft in order to prepared for a war load, which are far in excess of those that would be necessary to meet the requirement of peace load. factories may undertake civil trade work to utilize their spare capacity fafter meeting the service's demands ) as far as possible for the manufacture of stores etc. for sale of civil trade non - military departments " .
13. One may project that the Factory carry out sovereign functions hence it cannot be termed as an industry . Therefore it is expedient to know as to what are regal and sovereign functions of the State which may quality for exemption from the ambit of the definition of word " industry" ? Regal powers of the State has acquired a definite connotation , which can be described as " administration of justice , maintenance of order , repression of crime, security of borders from external aggression and legislative powers , as among the primary and inalienable Functions of a Constitutional Government " . In Corporation of City of Nagpur [ 1960 ( 1 ) LLJ 523| the Apex Court observed that it could not have been in contemplation of the legislature to bring in the regal functions of the State within the definition of industry " and to confer jurisdiction on Industrial Tribunal to decide disputes in respect thereof. The activities of the Government which can be properly described as regal or sovereign activities , are therefore, outside the scope of industry . In Hospital Mazdoor Sabha
16. The above paragraph of Procedure Manual for Ordinance Factories make it absolutely clear that an ordinance lactory is primarily intended to manufacture items for defence services . It has been enablely to utilized its 485 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
reaffirmed those very facts, which were detailed by him in the affidavit. Not even a suggestion was given to him to the effect that his services were not continuous with the Factory. Consequently, it is evident that the Factory failed to shake credit of testimony of the claimant relatingto continuity of his services .
19. Appointment letter Ex. WW1/ 2 was proved by the claimant . When contents of this letter are scanned , it came to light that a few conditions of service are detailed therein . Those conditions of service are reproduced thus:
"( i ) Your appointment will be on as and when required basis against the permanent leave vacancy of sweeper.
(ii ) Your service will be terminable at any time without any notice.
( iii) You will be required to work for 8 hours a day. including rest intervals .
spare capacity for the purpose of undertaking work in civil trade also . Consequently, there are no two opinion in saying that an ordinance factory is primarily intended to function as part of defence establishment though in peculia circumstances, as mentioned in para 4801 of Procedure Manual , it may utilize its capcity and may manufacture stores etc. for sale to civil trade/ other non - military departments. It was for the Factory to produce cogent evidence to the effect that it has not undertaken manufacture of stores etc. for sale to civil trade/ other non military departments . No evidence worth name was project on proposition , referred above . Consequently. I am constrained to concluded that the Factory was permitted to manufacture stores for sale to civil trade /other non military department . When it was so permitted, it had utilized its capacity for that purpose also , is a proposition which can be answered against the Factory . In case Factory has not utilized that capacity in that manner, it ought to have placed those facts before the Tribunal by convincing evidence . Since there is a vacuum of evidence on the above proposition , it cannot be said that the Factory was discharging purely sovereign functions .
( iv) You should furnish on reporting for service two certificates (on profroma attached ) from two different serving Gazetted Officers ofthe Central or State Govt . not related to you , who can certify form personal knowledge to your identity and Character . Unless this is done you shall not be appointed.
(v) You will not be entitled to any traveling allowance for your joining first appointment or after the termination ofyour service . "
17. In Union Bank of India [ 1996 ( 74 ) FLR 2222 ] . such proposition was raised before the Madhya Pradesh High Court , when Central Ordnance Depot claimed that it is not an industry . On consideration of facts of that controversy . High Court ruled that Central Ordnance Depot was an industry within the meaning of section 2(j ) of the Act . Here in the case , except bald claim , no facts are projected by the Factory before the Tribunal to establish that it had not manufactured stores for sale to civil trade other non - military department . Factory has failed to establish that it was producing only items of defence services and rendering sovereign functions . In view of these circumstances , I am constrained to conclude that the presumption in favour of the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to entertain the dispute is to be upheld. Provisions of the Act are applicable to the dispute which was referred by the appropriate government for adjudication . Resultantly, it is announced that the Factory is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j ) of the Act . Issue is answered in favour of the claimant and against the Factory.
Issue No. 2
20. The appointment letter nowhere details the period for which the claimant was appointed . Though it was mentioned that the appointment was on " as and when required basis " against the permanent leave vacancy of sweeper, yet services of the claimant were availed by the Factory for a long period of 9 years . Ex. WW1/2 gives reatfirmation tothis proposition . In this letter , the Factory makes reference to applicaton dated 25-11-1994 relating to regularization of services of the claimant and details that since he had not rendered 240 days service in any of the calendar year from 1985 to 1992 , his services could notbe regularized on the post of sweeper. The Factory had filed details of the days for which the claimant served it from 1985 till 1992. These documents were disputedby the claimant . However, these documents may be used to find facts in favour of the claimant . Consequently, these documents would be appreciated in subsequent sections in order to as certain as to whether the claimant rendered continuous service for 240 days in a calendar year.
18. In his aflidavit dated 18-05-2005 , tendered as evidence , claimant swears that he joined as sweeper with the Factory on 12-02-1984 . He was engaged as nerrick rated employce. He served the Factory continuously till 12-12- 1994. His services were dispensed with on 13-12-1994 on the pretext that he had not worked for 240 days continuosly in two consecutive years . Facts, unfolded by the claimant . on above points , were not dispelled by the Factory by way of cross - examination . In process of questioning the veracity of testimony of the claimant , he was asked as to for what period he worked and in response to that question claimant
21. Whether the claimant could project that he rendered continuous service for a period of 240 days in any of the calendar year from 1985 till 1994 ? For an answer to this proposition , it wouldbe ascertained as to what phrase " continuous service " means . " Continous Service has been defined by Section 25 - B of the Act . Under sub - section ( 1 ) of the said section , " continuous service 486
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013/PAUSA 29, 1934
Section 25 - B of the Act specifically includes the days on which workman was laid off under an agreement or he has been on leave with full wages , or he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out ofand in the course of his employment and in the case ofa female, maternity leave , under the expression ' actually worked' used in sub- section (2 ) of Section 25 B oftheAct .
for a period " may comprise of two period viz. ( i ) uninterrupted service , and ( ii ) interrupted service on account of (a) sickness , (b) authorized leave, ( c) an accident , (d) a strike which is not legal , ( e) a lock- out , and (f) a cessation ofwork that is not due to any fault on the part of theworkman , shall be included in the " continuous service . " Sub-section (2 ) of the said section introduces a fiction to the effect that even if a workman is not in " continuous service" within the meaning of clause ( 1 ) for a period of one year or six months , he shall be deemed to in continuous service for that period under an employer if he has actually worked for the days specified in clauses (a) and (b) thereof. In Vijay Kumar Majoo ( 1968 Lab.1.C. 1180) it was held that one year's period contemplated by sub- section (2) furnished a unit of measure and if during that unit of measure the period ofservice actually rendered by the workman is 240 days , then he can be considered to have rendered one year's continuous service for the purpose of the section . The idea is that ifwithin a unit period of one year a person had put in at least 240 days of service , then he must get the benefit conferred by the Act . Consequently, an enquiry has to be made to find out whether the workman actually worked for not less than 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment .
22. In Ramakrishna Ramnath [ 1970 (2 ) LLJ 306 ] , the Apex Court announced that when a workman renders continuous service of not less than 240 days in 12 calendar monthis , he is deemed to have completed one years ' service in the industry. It would be expedient to reproduce observations made by the Apex Court in that regard , which are extracted thus:
24.Question for consideration comes as to whether thewords ' actually worked' would not include holidays , Sundays and Saturdays for which full wages are paid . The Apex Court was confronted with such a proposition in AmericanExpress Banking Corporation ( 1985 (2 ) LLJ 539 ] wherein it was ruled that the expression ' actually worked under the employer cannot mean those days only when theworkmanworked with hammer, Sickle or pen , but must necessarily comprehend all those days during which he was in the employment of the employer and for which he had been paid wages either under express or implied contract of service or by compulsion of statute , standing orders etc. The Court ruled that Sundays and other holi- days , wouldbe comprehended in the words ' actually worked' and it countenanced the contention of the em- ployer that only days which are mentioned in the Explana- tion should be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the number of days on which the workmen had actually worked though he had not so worked and no other days . The Court observed that the Explanation is only clarificatory, as all explanations are , and cannot be used to limit the expanse of the main provision . Precedent in Lalappa Lingappa [ 1981 ( 1 ) LLJ 308 ] was distinguished by theApex Court in the case referred above . The precedent was followed in Standard Motor Products of India Ltd. [1986( 1 ) LLJ 34] . Thus , it is crystal clear from the law laid above that Sundays and holidays shall be included in com-
puting continuous service under Section 25B of the Act .
"Under Section 25 - B a workman who during the period of 12 calendar months has actually worked in an industry for not less than 240 days is to be deemed to have completed one year's service in the industry. Consequently an enquiry has to be made to find out whether the workman had actually worked for not less than 240 days during period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment . These provisions of law do not show that a workman after satisfying the test under section 25B has further to show that he has worked during all the period he has been in the service of the employer for 240 days in the year" .
25. Inhis testimony, claimant projects the he was in continuous service of the factory since 12-03-1984 to 13-12-1994. The Factory had placed reliance on letter dated 13-12-1994 , which was proved by the claimant as Ex .WW1 /4. This letter highlights that from 1985 to 1992 . the claimant had not actually worked continuously for a period of 240 days in any of the calendar years , hence liis services were not regularized . Factory had also relied on charts wherein actual days of work of the claimant from 1985 till 1992 are projected . Chart for the year 1985 makes it clear that for that year, the claimant attended his duties with the factory for 223 days . In computation of that period, Factory had not counted Sundays and holidays . However, for calculation of continuous period of 240 days or more, the Factory was under an obligation to calculate Sundays and holidays also . In case Sundays are included, continuous service of the claimant in the year 1985 would be more than 240 days . In the same manner, claimant had rendered 228 days service in 1990 and 226½ days service in 1992. For these two years also, if Sundays and holidays 23. When a workman concerned fails to establish that he worked for atleast 240 days in the year , he cannot claim protection against termination of his services in order to seek regularization of his services on monthly salary with benefits like pension , gratuity etc. Interruption of service, occurred during the course of job , has to be included in uninterrupted services. Fiction under section 25 B will operate if workmen has actually worked for 240 days in a calendar year. The Explanation appended to 487
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
are included , services of the claimant would be more than 240 days in those calendar years. Thus , it is evident that the claimant had rendered continuous service for more than 240 days in 1985 , 1990 and 1992.
26. Section 25F of the Act lays down the conditions pre requisite to retrenchment , which are as follows:
(1 ) There should be one month's notice in writing to the workmen concerned .
(2) The notice should specify the reason for retrench- ment.
(3) The period of one month's notice should have expired before retrenchment is enforced, or the work- man has been paid in lieu of such notice the wages fortheperiod.
(4) The workman has been paid retrenchment compen- sation which should be equivalent to 15 days ' aver- age pay for every one year's service or any part thereof, provided it exceeds six months .
(5) The notice is also given to the appropriate Government.
27. As projected above , the claimant, had rendered continuous service of not less than one year , as contem- plated by provisions of Section 25B of the Act . The factory was under an obligation to comply with provisions of Section 25F of the Act . As unfolded by the claimant, neither notice nor pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was paid to himby the Factory. Conse- quently, it is evident that provisions of section violatedby theFactory.
28. Claimant was engaged as nerrick rated sweeper by the Factory when his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange , which fact emerged out of Ex. WW 1/1. He was interviewed and found eligible for the post, as is evident through Ex. WW1 /2 . Thus , it emerges over the record that the claimant was recruited as sweeper in consonance with the recruitment rules . His services were dispensed with in violation of provisions of Section 25F of theAct . Therefore, it is a case where the claimant could project his right for reinstatement in service.
29. There is other facet of the coin . The claimant joined service with the Factory in 1985. His services were not regularized by the factory. On the other hand services of Ramesh Chand , Dharmbir, Komal , Sunder Lal , Vinod Kumar Ms.Asha , Rajesh , Ombir, Itwari , Bobby, Surendra Kumar, Ram Kishan , Rajesh , Muni , Anil , Ram Kishan , Sukhpal , Sunil Kumar, Veer Pal , Satya Pal and Smt . Beena, who joined after 1985 were regularized, which fact emerge out of the chart filed by the Factory. Thus it is evident that his juniors were regularized in service . Though the claim- ant also rendered continous service of 240 days in calendar years 1985, 1990 and 1992, as ruled above, yet his services were not regularized by the factory.
30. Equality before law and equal protection of laws are fundamental rights of every person, ordains Article 14 of the Constitution . The guiding principles laid in Article 14 are that persons, who are similarly situated , shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liability im- posed, which means that amongst equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that like should be treated alike . Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunities for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State . What is guaranteed is the equality of opportunity. Like all other employers , government is also entitled to pick and choose from amongst a large number of candidates offering themselves for employment. Butthe selection process must not be arbitrary. The guar- antee given by clause ( a) of Article 16 of the Constitution will cover (a) initial appointments (b ) promotions ( c) termination of employment (d ) and matters relating to salary, periodical increments , leaves, gratuity, pension , age of superannuation etc. Matters relating to employment or appointments include all mattes in relations to employ- ment both prior and subsequent to the employment which are incidental to the employment and form part ofthe terms and conditions of such employment .
31. Fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 for- bids class legislation , but does not forbid classification or differentiation which rests upon reasonable ground ofdis- cretion . Classification is the recognition of the relations , and in making it the Government must be allowed a wide latitude of discretion and judgment . In a way, the conse- quences of such classification would undoubtedly be to differentiate persons belonging to that class from others . The classification must be founded on an intelligible dif- ferentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought tobe achieved. Classification may be made accordingto the nature of persons , nature of business , and may be based with reference to time.
32. Concept of equality guaranteedby Article 16 of the Constitution is something more than formal equality and enables the underprivileged groups to have a fair share by having more than equal chance and enables the Stateto give favoured treatment to those groups by achieving real equality with reference to social needs . 'Protection dis- crimination' enabled the State to adopt new strategy to bring underprivileged at par with the rest ofthe society, by providing all possible opportunities and incentives to them . Therefore a class may be allowed to have preferential treatment in the matter relating to employment or appoint- ment . There cannot be rule of equality between members of separate and independent group of persons . Persons can be classified in different groups, based on in terms of nature of persons , nature of business and with reference to time.
488
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29. 1934
[ PART 11 SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
Complaint No. NTB - 4 of 2003
(Arising out of Ref. No. NTB - 1 of 1997 )
Parties:
V. Subramanian
Complainant
Vs.
M/s . Bajaj Electricals Ltd. Mumbai
Opp. Party
Appearances:
:
For the Opp . Party
Mr. Lancy D'souza . Management Representative Mr. Mathew . Adv.
For the Applicant
33. Persons , whose names are detailed in para 29 . were junior to the claimant . Though they were junior to the claimant yet their services were regularized by the factory onposts of sweepers . Services of the claimant were subsc- quently dispensed with . While retrenching his services , procedure provided in Section 25G of the Act was not fol- lowed. This fact also make the action of the factory illegal . Even otherwise the claimant had also rendered continuous services of more than 240 days in 1995 , 1990 and 1992. He was placed on the same pedestal on which " Persons , whose names are detailed in para 29 above , were placed . Hence it is clear that the claimant was discriminated by the factory. State
Maharashtra
Mumbai , dated the 30th day of November 2012 . AWARD
1. This is a complaint under Section33 - A of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 .
2. According to the complaint the complainant is a permanent workinan of the opposite party and hehas been working with the opposite party for more thaal5 years . Clause 5 and 6 of the Settlement dt . 19-4-1984 run as under :
34. Claimant admits in his testimony that he was working as a daily wager after his termination from service of the Factory. Under these circumstances , he is not entitled to any back wages . Taking into account all these facts , it is ordered that the Factory shall reinstate services of the claimant on the post of sweeper . Steps would also be taken for the regularization of his services , as and when a permanent post of sweeper occurs . Since the claimant has been gainfully employed, he will not be entitled to any back wages . However, his reinstatement shall entail all other consequential benefits to the claimant . An award is . accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate govern- ment for publication .
Dated: 19-10-2012 Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 26 दिसम्बर, 2012
Clause 5 : Henceforth office bearers of the employee's unions when they attend the Federation Conference and the Executive Committee Meeting once in a year shall be allowed on duty at the rate of three days and one day respectively plus travelling time .
Clause 6 : For the above prupose the Company shall reimburse the office bearers of the employee's unions TA DA upto 50º of the TA DA as applicable to them.
का.आ. 161. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( कम्पलेन्द 33A ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बजाज इलैक्ट्रिकलस लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच. अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय नं. १. मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ कम्पलेन्ट एन.टी.वी.04.03 891.12 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो कंन्द्रीय सरकार को 20 12 2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
| सं. एल 4202503-2012 आई आर ( डी. यू सुरेन्द्र कुमार, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 26th December, 2012
By Settlement dt . 3-12-1988 clause 6 of the ealier Settlement dt . 19-5-1984 has been revised and the TA DA which was paid a 50º is agreed to be paid a 100 ° . The complainant is a Executive Committee Member of the Federation since March 2000 and he is required to attend the Executive Committee Meetings and annual conferences of the federation held at different places in the country from time to time . The complainant has attended following meetings of the federation
SL Name of Place
Month &
Year
No. the Meeting Held
Executice Pondicherry Sept. 2000 Committee
(02 Annual Goa Feb. 2001 Conferenc
S.0.161 . -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( Complaint under 33A the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. Complaint NTB -04-03 891/12 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court No. 1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to Mis . Bajaj Electricals Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-12-2012.
03 Dec. 2001
[No. L-42025.03.2012- IR ( DU' ) )
Executice Ooty Committee
04 Feb. 2002
SURENDRA KUMAR , Section Officer ANNEXURE
Annual Jaipur Conference
BEFORE THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
05 Executive Mussorie Sept. 2002 Committee
JusticeG. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer 489
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/ पौष 29 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी. जी. आई.टी.01/44 ऑफ 2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-12-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -14012/03/2012- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 26th December , 2012 Theopposite party has not paid TA and DA without any reason and the opposite party has not followed any procedure as required by law to change the service conditions ofthe complainant when Ref. no . NTB - 1 of 1997 is pending adjudication beofre this Tribunal . The complainant has , therefore , prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay TA and DA to him as per Settlementdt . 3-12-1988 .
S.O.162 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 1 / 44 of2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No, 1 Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the 25 ED, Indian Air Force Station and Their workman , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-12-2012.
[No. L -14012/03/2012 -IR (DU ) ] SURENDRA KUMAR , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMNET INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NO.1 , MUMBAI 3.According to the wirtten statement the complainant is not concerned workmam in Ref. NTB - 1 of 1997. The complaint has been filed in 2003 whereas the complainant's claim pertainingto TA and DA was rejected in the year 2000 . Thus the complaint is delayed. According to the written statement as regards the Mumbai location the name of the complainant was never accepted by the opposite party. The complainant has accepted the benefit of the Settlement signed with Mumbai General Employees Association as such he is not covered by Ref. No. NTB- I of 1997. The opposite party has denied that it has changed the service conditions of the complainant during the pendency of Ref.No. NTB - 1 of1997. According to the written statement the complainant is not entitled to receive any TA and DA and therefore he has not been paid the said allowance .
Justice G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT- 1/44 of 2012
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of 25 ED Indian Air Force Station 4. The complainant has filed his affidavit and he has been cross -examined by learned counsel for the opposite party .The oposite Party has filed affidavit of Abbas Ismail Sheikh and he has been cross - examined by the complainant .
and (Their Workman ( Sunny R. Yesankar )
Appearances:
5. Heard Mr. Mathew learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. Lancy D'Souza for the opposite party.
For the Management
Mr. A.K. Chaudhary Warrant Oflicer
For the workman :
Workman present in person.
Maharashtra
:
State
6. There is nothing on the record to show that complainant is a workman concerned in Ref. No. NTB - 1 of 1997 and that the matter relating to the payment of his TA and DA is in any way conneted with the dispute in Ref . No. NTB - 1 of 1997. Moreover, here the dispute is with regard to eligibility to receive TA and DA and this does not amount 10 alteration in service conditions .
Mumbai , dated the 23rd day of November 2012 . AWARD
7. For the reasons stated above 1 am of the opinion thatthere is no force in this complaint .
Consequently the complaint is dismissed.
JUSTICE G S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer
1. In exercise of powers conferredby clause ( d) of sub section ( 1 ) and sub- section ( 2A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 the Central Government has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal,
नई दिल्ली, 26 दिसम्बर , 2012
Whether the action of the management of Air Force Station , Devlali ( South ) Nasik in removing the workman Shri Sunny R. Yesankar , from his service as casual worker of air Force Spots Club is justified ? If not, what relief or other benefits the workman is entitled to?
का.आ. 162 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार 25 ई.डी. इण्डियन एयर फोर्स स्टेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.। , मुम्बई के 490
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
Usual notices of the reference were issued to the parties.
3. Shri A. K. chaudhary, Warrant Officer is present on behalf of Air Force Station , Devlali ( South) Nasik and the workman is present in person .
4. The workman has moved an application that he has been employed as a regular employee and , therefore, his grievances have been settled by his employers .
5. It is thus clear from the above application that there remains no dispute between the parties .
Award is passed accordingly
JUSTICE G S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 26 दिसम्बर , 2012
का.आ. 163.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार जरनल मैनेजर , गन कैरियर फैक्ट्री 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 सी. जी. आई.टी. /एल सी / आर/ 104/ 91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-12-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -14011/ 20-1990 आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 26th December , 2012
S.O. 163. 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/ 104/91 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory and Their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-12-2012.
[No. L - 14011 /20/ 1990 - IR ( DU) ] SURENDRA KUMAR , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/ 104/91
Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN
The General Secretary,
GCF Mazdoor Sangh , Sarvodaya School ,
Workman/Union Ghamapur, Jabalpur
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) )
Versus
TheGereral Managar, GunCarriage Factory, Jabalpur
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 19th day of November 2012
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 14011 /20 /90-1R ( DU ) dated 9-5-91- has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-
"Whether the action of the General Manager, GCF, Jabalpur ( MP) in denying promotion , fixation of pay and supersession of the workmen mentioned below is justified? It not , what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?
2. The case of the workmen /Union in short is that the workmen were appointed in the Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur within the period of 1-7-66 to 14-7-71 in skilled GradeA of different trades like Turner, Fitter, Mitter, Borer, tool Maker etc. They passed several qualifying test and finally gradation test was also successfully cleared . The persons holding skilled Grade " B " were juniors than these workmen . These workmen were superseded in promotion for the post of Supervisor " B " S/ Shri H.R.Ahuja , Har Prasad . Narender Kumar and Daljit Singh were Skilled Grade " 13 " werepromoted directly to the past of supervisor B in 1967 but these workmen were neither considered nor listed in the seniority list which was considered for promotion: Similarly S / Shri Rajen Gupta , Bhagwan Das and Mahesh Pd . were promoted in the category of Supervisor B on 9-1-1968 . Thereafter S'Shri J.N. Tiwari , Ram Gopal Pal : David Johar were promoted on 30--1-68 . Again S Shri Laxmi Narayan , Ramesh Chandra , S.N. Vishwakarma , Khemchand. S.D. Trivedi , S.N.Mukherjee , Babbi and B.H.Choudhary were promoted superseding the workman . It is stated that that in similarly situated case the Central Govt . Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur passed an order in the case of Shri P.K.Bhattacharya & ors Vrs . Union of India and others in OA 131 1987 on 3-1-89 whereby those workmen were upgraded and consequential benefit was paid and they were placed above their juniors . It is submitted that the management be directed to promote these workmen as per Annexure A on or before juniors with all consequential benefits .
3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement . The case of the management , inter alia , is that the workmen raised the dispute after the lapse of 22 years and therefore it is hopelessly time barred . It is stated that in case the relief is allowed , it would amount to revising seniority of several hundred of employees and the whole seniority list would get disturbed at very belated stage . This will lead to multiplicity of court cases . The person likely to be affected by such revision of seniority list are not inade parties to the reference.
491
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
workmen . Thus the workmen are not entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly answered.
9. In the result, the award is passed without any order to costs .
MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , PresidingOfficer The case decided by the CAT is totally different . It is admitted that persons appointed in skilled Grade "A " are higher in status than the persons appointed in skilled Grade "B". It is stated that these workmen were not superseded in 1967 and 1968 and were correctly ordered in accordance with the rules and on the basis of fitness through DPC. It is submitted that the workmen are not entitled to any relief.
नई दिल्ली, 26 दिसम्बर , 2012
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties , the following issues are framed for adjudication.-
I. Whether the action of the management in denying the promotion and fixation of pay after supersession the juniors of the workmen as given in the reference order is correct and justified ?
11. To what relief the workmen are entitled?
का.आ. 164.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सब डिविजनल आफिसर टेलीफोन गोरखपुर 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 सी.जी.आई.टी./एल.सी /आर./85/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-12-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40012/171 / 1990- आई आर (डी यू)] सुरेन्द्र कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी 5.The workmen/Union became subsequently absent and did not file his evidence inspite of giving ample opportunities . Lastly the reference proceeded ex parte against the Union/workmen on 31-5-2011 .
New Delhi , the 26th December, 2012
6. Issue No. 1
S.O. 164.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/85/91 ) of the Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Anпехиге, in the Industrial Dispute between Sub Division Officer the Telephone , Gorakhpur and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 20-12-2012.
[No. L-40012/ 171 / 1990-IR (DU) ] The Union has filed documents in the case . The management has admitted some of the documents . Exhibit W/1 is the list of the reconstituted grade structure . This document shows that grades were reduced. Exhibit W/2 is the gazette notification of the amendment in the Rules of the Indian Ordnance Factories ( Recruitment and conditions ofService ofClass III Personnel )Rules 1956. Exhibit W/3 to W/7 are the promotion orders of other workmen . These promotion orders donot show that the workmen in reference were senior to them and they were entitled to be promoted .
SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR No. CGIT/ LC/R/85/91
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI MOHD.SHAKIR HASAN
Shri Chandrabhan Prasad,
Qr.No. 1166 , Lal Matti ,
SidhbabaRoad,
Post Kasturba Nagar,
Workman
Distt . Jabalpur.
Versus
Sub Divisional Officer,
....Management
Telephone, Gorakhpur, Jabalpur
7. The management has examined Shri N.N.Narendra who is presently working as Works Manager. He has supported , the case ofthe management . He has stated that the dispute is raised after about 22 years and it would result in re-opening of number of settled cases . It appears that the Union/workmen has not given any sufficient reason for raising the dispute at a very belated stage . This shows that the dispute is not tenable at a belated stage . He has stated in his evidence that the workmen were initially appointed on probation and after completion of probation, they were given temporary status . As such the workmen in reference were not in the feeder grade during the promotion given to other workers and therefore they have no locus standi to claim promotion at par with their so calledjunior. His evidence is unrebutted . There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence . This shows that the claim of the workmen in reference is not justified. This issue is decided against the workmen and in favour of the management .
AWARD
8. Issue No. II
Passed on this 23rd day of November 2012
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L-40012/ 371 /90- IR( DU) dated 19-4-91 On the basis of the discussion made above, I find that the claim of the workmen is raised at a very belated stage and also there is no evidence to prove the case of the
83GI/2013-29 492
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013/ PADSA 29 , 1934
[ PART 11- SEC. 3 ( ii ) )
has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-
"Whether the action of the management of SDO Phones- 11 , Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the services of Shri Chanderbhan Prasad S/o Shri Prabhanath , Ex -casual labour w.e.f. 30-4-90 is justified? If not , what relief he is entitled to and from what date ? "
months preceding the date of termination as provided under Section 25- B of the Act , 1947. He was admittedly engaged on casuei basis . This also shows that there is no violation of the provision of Section 25 - F of the Act as his service was in continuous for a period of one year. His evidence is Curebutted . There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence . His evidence is sufficient to prove that there is no violation in terminating him from services . This issue is decided against the workınan and in favour of the management . 7. Issue No. If
On the basis ofthe discussion made above , it is clear that the action of the management is justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered.
8. In the result, the award is passed without any order to costs .
2. The case of the workman , in short is that the workman Shri Chandrabhan Prasad was employed by the management as a casual labour and worked contir.uously from 1-8-84 to 30-4-90 . He was terminated w.e.f. 30-4-90 without following the provision of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( in short the Act , 1947) . He worked continuously within the provision of Section 25 B of the Act , 1947 and his termination was amount to retrenchment . It is stated that the provision of Section 25 G and H of the Act, 1947 is also not followed. It is submitted that the workman be reinstated with back wages.
MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर , 2012
का.आ. 165 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में कंन्द्रीय सरकार डाइरेक्टर , सैन्ट्रल इलेक्ट्रो कैमिकल रिसर्च इन्सटीटूिट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के श्रोच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट ओद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या %5/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-12-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42011 /19/2011 - आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 27th December , 2012 3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement . The case of the management, interalia, is that theworkman was engaged in the work ofExcel Cable Project in June 1984 intermittently and worked 194 days in the year 1984 and 166 days in the year 1985 only. He had never worked continuously and had not worked 240 days in a calendar year . He is not entitled to get the benefit of temporary status as he did not rendered 240 days service in a calendar year prior to the cut offdate of 22-6-88 . It is stated that the management had not violated any of the provision of the Act, 1947. It is submitted that he is not entitled to any relief.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed for adjudication.
I. Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 30-4-90 is justified?
II . To what relief the workman is entitled?
S.O. 165-1n porsuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 85/2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, Central Elector Chemical Reasearch Institute , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-12-2012 .
5. The workman appeared in the case and filed his statement of claim . Thereafter he or his lawyer became absent since 5-9-95 without any sufficient cause . Lastly ther reference proceeding proceeded exparte against the workman on 14-3-11 .
[No. L -42011 / 19/2011 - IR ( DU ) ] SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer ANNEXURE
6. Issue No. 1
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Thursday, the 7th June , 2012
Present : A.N. JANARDANAN Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 85/2011 The management has adduced evidence of one witness namely Shri Deepak Singh Thakur who is working asDivisional Engineer ( Legal ) BSNL , Jabalpur . He has stated that the workman had never worked continuously from 1-2-1984 to 30-4-1990 . He worked in Excel Cable Project in the year 1984 for 194 days on the basis of available record. This clearly shows that his service shall not be deemed tobe for a period of one year during twelve calendar
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of 493
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29, 1934
{ भाग, 11-खण्ड 3 (ii ) )
Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), between the Management of Central Electro Chemical Research Institute ( CECRI ), Karaikudi and their Workman)
BETWEEN
The General Secretary
Thenmandala Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam
Devakottai , Sivaganga District
Tamil Nadu
... 1st Party/Petitioner Union
Vs.
TheDirector
Central Electro Chemical Research Institute
Karaikudi -630006
...2nd Party/Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Pany/Petitioner : Sri K. Vasudevan, Advocate
: M/sT. Ravi Kumar , Advocate
For the 2nd Party/
Management:
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide its Order No. L-42011 / 19/2011 - IR(DU ) dated05.09.2011 referred the following industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the Management of Central Electro Chemical Research Institute ( CECRI ), Karaikudi for not regularizing the Contract Labour as claimed by the Thenmandala Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam. Devakottai is legal and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?"
2.After the receipt ofIndustrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 85/2011 and issued notices to both sides. Petitioner entered appearance through Advocate and led Claim Statement . Respondent though served with noticeby Registered Post did not turn up in spite ofseveral adjournments given and had been called absent and set ex -parte . Thereafter setting aside ex - parte decree Respondent appeared and filed counter.
3.The avements in the Claim Statement bereft of unnecessary details are as follows:
Mir. K. Balakrishnan of the Management was holding the post of President and Mr. K. Subramanian , Scientist as Secretary with other seven board of directors from the permanent staff. There have been repeated demands and agitation to regularize the workmen . The society functioned till 1996. Later Mr. K. Selvaraj , Sweeper was nominated as president . In 1998 the society was closed and the workers. were directed to form a separate society to ensure that the workers are employed continuously on daily rated basis, thus Sivaganga Distt . Labour Contract Society was formed by the workers. Thus the workers were continuously working. The name of the contractor was being changed to avoid regularization . In 2001 in the place ofthe said Society new Societyby name Om Shakti Oppandhakarargal Nala Sangam was formed. Management nominated its own workers S/Sri Saravana, P. Ganesan , S. Kannan as President , Secretary and Treasurer respectively who have been working for the last 20 years . Contract was not given to any outsiders . In 2002 Management formed Kaliamman- Oppandhakarargal Nala Sangam and nominated Mr. A. Raman, a retired employee ofthe Management as President . Later on direction workers formed another Society by name Sri Ganapathy Oppandhakarargal Nala Sangam in which oneR.K. Muthukumar , a Gardener was President who has beenworking for the last 25 years . The Contractors are not registered Contractors . In 2004 under Management's advice the name ofthe Contractor was changed as Sri Ganapathy Contractors in which Mr. R.M. Muthuk amar was President and K.R. Periyasamy was President ( Secretary ) who have beenworking for the last 25 years . The work performed is perennial in nature coming within the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act, 1970. The contracts between the Management and the Contractors are mere paper arrangement . The work is directly controlled by the Management . The Contractors are only name lenders. Payment is directly made by the Management in some cases. The Contractors never turn up to the work spot. The Contract is sham and make -believe arrangement to evade compliance ofvarious beneficial legislations and payment ofwages. It is exploitation of cheap labour and to avoid the workmen the status ofregular workmen . Scheme of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act is to avoid contract labour when the work is regular and perennial in nature. In SteelAuthority of India Ltd. and Othors Vs. National Union Waterled Workers and Others ( 2001-4- LLN- 135) Apex Court held as follows On issuance of prohibition notification under S.10 ( 1 ) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition ) Act prohibiting employment of contract labourer or otherwise . in any industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labourer in regard to condition ofservice, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labourer for work of the establishment under a get ine contract or is a mere ruse camouflage to evade The members of the Petitioner Union employed.as Sweepers and Gardeners in the Respondent/Managemem through Contractors after having put in minimum two years andmaximum 10 years ofservice, even with the change of Contractors every year, are continuing in employment without any interruption . They had been engaged on daily rate basis since 1977. Jn 1983 Management formed a Cooperative Society by name Alagappapuram Labour Contract Cooperative Society in which the Dy. Director 494
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19, 2013/ PAUSA 29, 1934
[PART 11 SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
Research and Industrial Research Utilization Committee wereconstituted . By another resolution dated 26-09-1942 Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) was constituted . The functions of the Council include the implementation ofthe resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly on 14-11-1941 as follows:
"ThisAssembly recommends to the Governor General in Council that a fund called the Industrial Research Fund be constituted for the purpose of fostering industrial development in this country and that provision be made in the budget for an annual grant of Rs . 10.00 lakhs to the fund for a period of 5 years" .
compliance of various beneficial legislations so asto deprive theworkers of the benefit thereunder. Ifthe contract iscamouflage, the so -called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall bedirected to regularize the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder" . Since the work is regular and perennial in nature it is just and necessary that the Respondent / Management should employ workmen in these areas directly under their control instead of contracting out the work .. Hence the demand for regular absorption in the fold ofthe Management is only justified . The names of workers employed as Sweepers and Gardeners with their dates of joining are given in the annexure viz . Sweepers serially numbered from 1 to 18 and Gardeners serially numbered from 1 to26. Their efforts having failed , ID raised . Merely because the Management has registered under the Contract Labour Act as contended, it does not mean that petitioner is barred from claiming absorption on the ground that the contract is sham and nominal . That the Management has no control over the workmen is untrue . The work is supervised by the officials of the Management who have given certificate vouchsafing them as workers under the Management which is simply deniedby the Management as being given only by the Heads of Department of their own capacity. It is nothing but exploitation of cheap labour, victimization and unfair labour practice . The workmen are therefore entitled to absorption and the claim is fully justified, which is prayed for.
4. Though the Respondent was served with notice it did not appear initially and was therefore called absent and set ex - parte. Thereupon petitioner let in evidence by tiling ProofAffidavit in lieu of Chief Examination and marked Ex .WI to Ex . W18 by way of ex - parte evidence . Afterwards an award was passed ex - parte on 22-11-2011 holding that action of the Management in not regularizing the contract labour is not legal and justified .
5.Aggrieved Respondent filed IA 158/2011 praying to set aside the ex- parte award which was not opposed. Accordingly, the ex - parte award was set aside on 21-12-2011 and the ID was restored to file .
6.On the side of the Respondent Counter Statement was filed to which petitioner filed rejoinder .
7.The Counter Statement averments briefly read as follows:
The ID is not maintainable since the dispute is not an Industrial Dispute and CSIR is not an industry as defined under the ID Act . The Prime Minister of India is Ex- Officio President and the Minister- in- Charge of Science and Technology is the Ex - Officio Vice - President of the Society.By resolution of Department of Commerce dated 27-04-1940 and 01-02-1941 Board of Scientific and Industrial
The CSIR set up a chain of national laboratories and research institutes in various parts of the country to make the nation self- sufficient in scientific and industrial spheres . Thus a framework for sustained scientific pursuit and endeavour was made . CSIR has a corps of over 25,000 highly qualified scientists and technologists . This sizeable scientific potential apart from undertaking prolonged investigations on the basic and fundamental problems also tackles specific time -targeted projects in more than one discipline . CECRI is constituent unit of CSIR at Karaikudi to seek excellence in research in electro- chemistry . The research organization catering to the needs of the nation for new inventions and research cannot be industry. It helps for future developments of society. Its main asset is the brain of the scientists doing research . CSIR/ CECRI is not indulged in business , trade or manufacture . It is not a commercial enterprise . It does not come within the definition of industry. The reference is not maintainable. Petitioner Sangam is not a contractor. Its activities are not connected with the Institute . It has no locus - standi . The Respondent does not have any Sweepers and Gardeners on its rolls . They are engagedby the Contractors and not by CECRI . There are no permanent posts of Sweepers or Gardeners . CECRI has not engaged Sweepers and Gardeners on daily rated basis from 1977 onwards . It is denied that Alagappapuram Labour Contract Cooperative Society ( ALCCS ) was formed by the Respondent and employees of the Respondent Institute were the Office Bearers of the Society. It isdenied that ALCCS was run by the Respondent till 1996. Respondent was not in any way connected with its formation. Respondent never engaged workers directly or paid wages monthly except for a briel period from 18-09 2001 to 28-02-2002 consequent on the notification dated 08-09-1997 by the Chief Labour Commisioner ( Central ) covering the Respondent under Section 10 ( 1 ) of the Contract Labour ( Regulation & Abolition ) Act , 1970. It is the petitioner union themselves which formed different societies and the closure of the earlier society and participated in the tender process of the Respondent. The works have been contracted to Mis . Om Shakti Oppandhakarargal Nala Sangam and M/ s . Kaliamman Oppandhakarargal Nala Sangam based on the lowest quote tendered . Respondent has got no relationship with the 495
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
[ भाग ।। खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
by the Officers of the Respondent Management. The contract was sham and nominal and with the change of Contractors the contract labour did not change . They had beenengaged on daily rate basis . The change of the contract waseffected in order to avert the regularization of the casual labour for which there has been clamour and agitation repeatedly. There has even been recommendation from the Management for regularization of the workmen . Though all the documents are admitted what is challenged is their genuineness because of being sham . Ex . MI -Agreement is discernibly purchased in the name of R. Saravanan who is only a Sweeper and Ex . M17 - M/s. Ganapathy is in the namę of R.K. Muthu Kumar, another Sweeper . The Cooperative . Society formed under Ex .W2 -Certificate was brought into existence merely at the instance of the Respondent / Management . The said Society is only manned and managed by the Officers of the Respondent/ Management . The workmen have been working for long years with less wages . They are to be regularized under the Respondent/ Management .
Petitioner's Sangam . Gardening , Sweeping and Cleaning are carried out by awarding contracts , as per rules . There is no master- servant relationship between the contract labour and the Respondent . Respondent Institute was registered under the Contract Labour ( Regulation & Abolition ) Act, 1970. There is an agreement between the Contractor and Respondent Institute for supply of labour. In the list of Sweepers submitted by the Petitioner there are only three persons who are at present in the rolls of M /s . New Security Force . Their joining date is 01-09-2010 . In the list of Gardeners there are 17 persons , now on the rolls ofM /s . Sri Ganapathy Oppandhakarargal Nala Sangam . Many ofthe listed workers were brought in as substitutes in 2008 and 2009 proving that the stated date of joining under the contract is false . Sweeping and Cleaning Contract at CECRI awarded through tender procedure to M /s . Om Shakti Oppandhakarargal Nala Sangam from 01-01-2005 for 12 year extended upto 31-05-2008 which work was subsequently awarded to M/ s . NAACS , Madurai from 01-06-2008 to 31-08-2010 . Again same was thereafter awarded to M / s . New Security Force , Trichy till 31-08-2012 and are on execution of proper agreements . Similarly horticulture contract was awarded to Sri Ganapathy Oppandhakarargal Nala Sangam from time to time till 29-02- 2012. The claim for regularization is devoid of merit and is to be rejected.
8. Rejoinder averments in a nutshell are as follows:
The workers have been working for the past 25 years . One permanent employee viz . one Mr. Kudumban is also working. The workers are working under the supervision ofthe Respondent and not under the Contractor.
9. Points for consideration are :
( i ) Whether non- regularizing the contract labour is legal and justified?
( ii ) To what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?
10. The evidence consists of the testimony of WWI and Ex . WI to Ex. W18 on the petitioner's side and the testimony of MWI and Ex. M1 to Ex. M60 on the Respondent's side .
Points ( i) and (ii )
12. Contra arguments on behalf of the Respondent are that the Respondent Institute does not come within the purview of Industry under the Industrial Disputes Act. The said issue is under consideration before a larger constitutional bench of the Supreme Court . The Respondent Institute is engaged in doing research work . The various agreements executed interse the Respondent and the various Contractors / Society are for fixing job contract or extension of the contract for doing gardening . etc. The employees are only contract labour under the control of Contractor . Consequent to agreements work orders have been issued by the Management . Being acts ofthe sovereign the presumption under Section - 114 of the Evidence Act could be drawn to infer that every official or judicial act is regularly and properly done . It is an act of outsourcing ofjobs by CSIR. All the documents are genuine and they demonstrate that the acts of the Respondent/ Management are true and genuine. No documents have beendisputed by the petitioner. There is no document to show that the contract labour was engaged by the Management. There is no master - servant relationship between the Respondent and the Contract Labour. There is no direct employment of the contract labour by the Respondent . The post of Gardeners is not a permanent post . There was license granted by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour ( Central ) to the Contractor under the Contract Labour ( Regulation & Abolition ) Act, 1970 . The contract is not sham and nominal . The claim is only to be dismissed . Ex . WI - Certificate is not issued by the appointing authority of CECRI and is not a genuine document. Respondent is in no way connected with the Alagappapuram Labour Contract Cooperative Society. The claim of Petitioner for regularization of the workmen is to be dismissed.
11. Heard both sides . Perused the records , documents , evidence and written submissions on behalf of the Respondent . Both sides argued in support of their respective pleadings with reference to documents , evidence and reported decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts . Conspicuous arguments advanced on behalf of the Petitioner Sangam are that the concerned workmen in the dispute viz . 14 Gardeners and 18 Sweepers have been engaged as Casual Labour since the year 1986 onwards . The Cooperative Society formed in 1983 was formed by the Respondent and its men only and the same was manned 496
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 19, 2013 / PAUSA 29, 1934
13. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras dated 04.01.2010 in WP No. 10861/2000 between THE GENERAL MANAGER BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. VS. CANTEEN WORKERS OF BHEL REPRESENTED BY THE BHEL CANTEEN WORKERS UNION , SECRETARY INDCO SERVICE SOCIETY LTD . AND PRESIDING OFFICER , LABOUR COURT which held that 93. "The carned Counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench in M. E. Ilangovan and Ors . v. Madras Refineries Ltd. Manu T1/0045/2005: 2005 ( 1 ) MLJ 686. In the said case the Division Bench found that the workmen never contended that the Society was sham and bogus . The Division Bench observed that on the basis of mere averments in the affidavit , it was not possible to declare that the contract entered intoby the Madras Refineries with the Contractors were sham and nominal . "
on: 14. On behalf of the Respondent reliance was placed
M/ S . SRIGANAPATHY OPPANDHAKARARGAL NALA SANGAM AND TWO OTHERS VS. THE DIRECTOR , CENTRAL ELECTRO - CHEMICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KARAIKUDI AND ANOTHER IN WROTE PETITION NO. 11332/2005, 9345/2006 AND 6432/ 2007 wherein it was held that " 5. There is no dispute in this case that the members of these Associations were not directly employed by the Respondents - Institute . The Respondents appointed contractors to supply labourers . The members of the petitioners - Associations were employed only by the Contractors and not by the respondents - Institute . Thus , in my considered opinion, there is no direct relationship of Master and Servant between the respondents - Institute and the members of the petitioners -Associations "
15. The Respondent had entered into different agreements such as Ex. MI to Ex. M10 with various agencies fordoing Sweeping . Cleaning and Horticultural and Allied Works . The various agencies had obtained licenses under Section- 12 ( 1 ) of Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970 for doing the items of work as is evident from Ex . M1110 Ex . M12- Licenses . The agreements and the license do not stand challenged and they go to show that the agreements are not sham and nominal . Consequent to the license work orders were given to them as is evident from Ex. MI4 and Ex . M15 -Extension of the work orders was given as is evident from Ex . M15 to Ex . M 38. The Contractors had given bio- data of workers as is evident from Ex .M39 to Ex.M44 . The bills marked as Ex . M45 and Ex. M46 show payment of charges to Contractors for doing Sweeping and Cleaning work together with Ex . M47 , Ex . M48 , lix . M49 and Ex. M50 being Attendance and Acquittance Registers . They would go to show that the agreements are not sham . The Respondent discernibly paid money to the Contractors only and not to the contract
[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
labour . The payments made to the Contractors are not disputed by the petitioner. Same is the position with acquittance and attendance register. The agreements prove that the Contractors provided the labour and has supervisory control over the workers and not by the Management . The case of the petitioner that disciplinary action is taken by the Management is not at all proved by citing even a single instance. It is clear that the petitioner- members were engaged by the Contractor only. No documentary evidence has been produced by them to prove that they were directly engaged by the Respondent . It is not proved that only the Contractors were changed from time to time and that the same work force was continued to be employed by the Management . In the various acts and rules strictly followed by the Management under the Ministry of Science and Technology there is no illegality on the part of the Management . It acted based on valid documents . A presumption can be drawn under Section- 114 ofthe Evidence Act that judicial and official acts have been regularly and properly performed .
16. Petitioners' claim that they had been direct employees under the Respondent/ Management though styled as contract labour , the case pleaded in their Claim Statement and Rejoinder , discernibly is without any supporting materials for being substantiated . As held in the very judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras cited on behalf of the petitioner ( supra ) with mere averments in the affidavit it was not possible to declare that the contract entered into by the Madras Refineries with the Contractors were sham and nominal . What is averred in the Clajm Statement is that the contract entered into between the Management and the different Contractors are sham and nominal and that the members of the Petitioner Sangam are really employees under the Management . Though the Petitioner Sangam enumerates various instances to support the contention it has miserably failed to substantiate the facts by means of any evidence or material to lead to the conclusion that they are really workmen under the Respondent/ Management and do not constitute a class of " contract labour " by itself through any Contractor. When in the box the case of WWI witness examined for the petitioner is that the powerto initiate disciplinary action against the workinen exclusively rests with the Respondent/Management , it has failedto single out and project any instance in which any disciplinary action has been taken by the Management against any of its members . The Petitioner Sangam has not succeeded in proving its case by any oral or documentary evidence to get entitled to the claim for regularization under the Management as though they have been working under the Management as direct employees . Ipse - dixit nature of the testimony of the petitioner is quite inapt to raise its case to the realm ofbeing proved to entitle it to the demand for regularization as though they are direct employees of the Management.
497 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 पौष 29. 1934
17. Thefollowing dictum in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras relied on behalf of the petitioner is relevant in this context:
31.18. The standards and nature of tests to be applied for finding out the existence of master and servant relationship cannot be confined to or concretised into fixed formula (e) for universal application , invariably in all class or category of cases .Though some common standards can be devised, the mere availability of anyone or more or their absence in a given case cannot by itself be held to be decisive of the whole issue, since it may depend upon each case to case and the peculiar device adopted by the employer to get his needs fulfilled without rendering him liable . That being the position , the veil may have to be pierced to get at the realities . Therefore , it would be not only impossible but also not desirable to lay down abstract principles or rules to serve as a ready reckoner for all situations and thereby attempt to compartmentalize and peg them into any pigeonhole formulae, to be insisted upon as proof of such relationship.
"Thiswould only help to perpetuate practicing unfair labour practices than rendering substantial justice to the class of persons who are invariably exploited on account of their inability of dictate terms relating to conditions of their service. Neither all the tests nor guidelines indicated as having been followed in the decisions noticed above should be invariably insisted upon in every case, not the mere absence of any such criteria could be held to be decisive of the matter a cumulative consideration of a few or more them , by themselves or in combination with any other relevant aspects , may also serve to be a safe and effective method to ultimately decide this often agitated question .Expecting similarity or identity of facts in all such variety or class of cases involving different type of establishments and in dealing with different employers would mean seeking for things , which are only impossible to find".
18. The Management has adequately discharged its function of disproving the case of the petitioner that the members of the Petitioner Sangam are direct employees under it . The various agreements under which they entered into agreement with various agencies for supply of labour to it for doing gardening , sweeping , cleaning and horticultural operations from time to time laying down clear conditions for the performance of the mutual obligations andthe considerations in terms ofmoney, etc. to be parted with for the due compliance of the obligations thereunder are before this Court. Discernibly the agreements were entered into between the Respondent/ Management , a Government of India institute as per the directions issued from the apex level for getting job contracts done by way of outsourcing . The official acts of the Management, thus
giving rise to the job contracts arose out of sovereign directions and are acts in exercise of sovereign functions . Being official acts Respondent seeks asylum in aid of Section- 114 ofthe Evidence Act and seeks to presume its act of outsourcing the gardening, cleaning , sweeping and horticultural operations as are only genuine and it is not to be regarded as sham and nominal . The question here is not whether the Management has succeeded to disprove the case of the Petitioner Sangam that its members are direct workers under the Respondent and that the agreements are merely sham and nominal but the question is whether the Petitioner Sangam has succeeded in proving its case as pleaded or claimed ? " The answer is an emphatic not. " Except by way of some averments in the Claim Statement that the members of the Petitioner Sangam are direct workers under the Respondent /Management or that the agreements aremerely sham and nominal , no evidence , even any material logically probative to a prudent mind to lead to such an irresistible conclusion has been adduced by it . should the petitioner stand to succeed. It is not by pricking holes in the evidence adduced by the Respondent that the petitioner should stand to gain . Though presumption under Section - 114 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be invariably of good aid to the Respondent to rebut or disprove the case of the petitioner as pleaded, the Petitioner Sangam having not succeeded in proving its case even with some evidence , say not with adequate evidence it is bound to fail in its claim, even ifthe principle under Section- 114 of the Evidence Act does not ensure to the benefit of the Respondent/Management as pleaded . It is worthy to note the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in RAJESH FRANCIS VS. PREETHI ROSLIN (2012-2 -ΚΙ . Τ- 613) wherein it was held that "Any interpretation which should lead to the tyranny of a conclusive presumption contrary to proved facts will certainly have tobe avoided and the other can be preferred. Courts must certainly prefer to come to just conclusions on the basis of facts rather than succumb to conclusive legal presumptions of law. When the fact situation offers a legitimate option for the courts, we have no hesitation to agree that such a construction has to be followed which will cater to the ends of justice . We do also feel that the first concern of any court must certainly be to avoid injustice being done on the basis of a legal presumption when justice can be done on the basis of fact . No court should consider itself a prisoner to the language of a statutory provision or precedents of a bygone era when interpretation consistent withthe current legally cognizable inputs and realities can help the court to render justice to the satisfaction of the judicial conscience" . As against the plea of the petitioner in his favour there is nothing to hold that the petitioner members are direct employees under the Respondent or that the agreements for contracts of outsourcing , proved genuine, are sham and nominal .
498
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013/ PAUSA 29 , 1934
19 In the light of what has been discussed above , 1 am to hold that Petitioner Sangam is not likely to succeed. It follows that non - regularizing the contract labour is iegal andjustified . The workmen are not entitled to any relief.
20. The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 7th June , 2012) .
A.N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the list Party/ Petitioner : WWI , Sri G. Sethuraman
For the 2nd Party/Management : MW1 , Sri Manual Thomas
DocumentsMarked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
ExWI 2-11-1995 Certificate issued by the Respondent
Ex.W2 7-06-1986 Certificate issued by the Algappapuram Labour Contract Co -operative Society.
Ex.W3 13-09-1995 Appointment order to Mr. Kurumban
Ex.W4 25-10-2000 Copy of the credit card
Ex.W5 17-07-2001 Interview card sent by the Respondent
Ex.W6 12-09-2001 Letter written to Sivaganga District Labour Contract Society.
Ex.W7 30-01-2002 Letter of the Respondent
Ex.W8 28-02-2002 Letter to Kaliamman Oppantha- karargal Nala Sangam .
Ex.W9 26-12-2002 Probation declared to Mr. Kurumban
Ex.W10 11-7-2003 Letter of the Respondent
Ex.WII 28-5-2004 Letter to Sri Ganapathy Oppantha- karargal Nala Sangam.
PART II SC. 3 ( ii ) ]
Ex.W18 5-09-2011 Letter ofthe Central Govt .
On the Management's side
Ex.No. Date
Description
Ex. M1 Q1-07-2003 Agreement made by Mis . Om Sakthi Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam for Sweeping and Cleaning work from 01-07-2003 10 30-09-2003 .
Ex-M2 01-10-2005 Agreement made by Ms. Om
Sakthi Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam for Sweeping and Cleaning work from 01-10-2005 to 30-09-2006.
Ex-M3 14-05-2008 Agreement made by M's . NACSS Neat and Clean Service Squad for Sweeping and Cleaning work from 01-06-2008 to 30-06-2010 ,
Ex-M4 01-07-2009 Agreement made by Ms. NACSS Neat and Clean Service Squad for Sweeping and Cleaning work from 01-07-2009 to 30-06-2010 ,
Ex-M5 30-08-2010 Agreement made by Ms. New Security Force for sweeping and Cleaning Work from 01-09-2010 10 31-08-2011 .
Ex - M6 21-12-2011 Agreement made by Ms. New Security Force for sweeping and Cleaning Work from 01-09-2011 to 31-08-2012 .
Ex- M7 01-02-2004 Agreement made by Ms. Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam for Horticulture Maintenance and allied work from 01-11-2008 to31-10-2009 ,
Ex-M8 01-11-2008 Agreement made by Ms. Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam for Horticulture Maintenance and Allied Work from 01-11-2008 to 31-10-2009 .
Ex- M9 10-11-2009
Ex.W12 27-07-2004 Letter to Om Sakthi Oppanthakarargal Nala Sangam.
Ex.W13 07-06-2007 Bonus issued by the Respondent
Ex.W14 20-11-2007 Order in W.P. No. 11571 of 2004 etc .. bath case
ExW15 7-3-2007 Petition filed by the Union
Ex.W16 24-01-2008 Interview letter
Ex.W17 10-10-2008 Letter of the Respondent
Agreement made by Ms. Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam for Horticulture Maintenance and Allied Work from 01-11-2009 to 31-10-2011 .
Ex-M10 01-01-2011 Agreement made by Ms. Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam for Horticulture Maintenance and Allied Work from01-01-2011 to 31-12-2011 .
499 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19, 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
Date
Date
Ex. No.
Ex.No.
Description
Description
Ex. M11 17-09-2003
31-05-2008 to M/ s.Om Sakthi Oppanthkararkal Nala Sangam .
Ex. M22 06-05-2008
License No. 46(76)/ 2003 - A/M dated 16-09-2003 of M/ s . Om Sakthi Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam.
30-09-2010
Ex . M12
Work Order awarding Job Contract for Sweeping and Cleaning Work in CECRI from 01-06-2008 to 31-05-2009 to M/s . Neat and Clean ServiceSquad.
License No. 217/2010 - A/M dated 30-09-2010 of M/ s New Security Force.
Ex. M23 01-07-2009
Εχ. Μ13 21-07-2010 License No. 162/2010 -A/ Mdated 21-07-2010 of M/ s . Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam .
Ex. M14 14-09-2005
Work Order awarding Job Contract for Sweeping and Cleaning Work in CECRI from 01-07-2009 31-06-2010 to M/s . Neat and Clean Service Squad .
Work Order 02/2005 awarding Job Contract for sweeping and Cleaning work in CECRI from 01-10-2005-30-09-2006 to M/ s . Om Sakthi Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam.
Εχ. Μ24 07-06-2010 Work Order awarding Job Contract for Sweeping and Cleaning Work in CECRI from 01-07-2010 31-08-2010 to M/s . Neat and Clean Service Squad.
Ex. M15 26-06-2006 Extension of Job Contract for Sweeping and Cleaning work in CECRI from01-10-2006-30-10-2006 to M / s . Om Sakthi Oppan- thakararkal Nala Sangam.
Ex . M25 23-08-2010 Work Order awarding Job , Contract for Sweeping and Cleaning Work in CECRI from 01-09-2010 31-08-2011 to M/ s . New Security Force .
Ex. M16 14-11-2006 Extension of Job Contract for Sweeping and Cleaning work in CECRI from 01-11-2006- 31-12-2006 to M/ s . Om Sakthi Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam .
Ex. M26 07-10-2006 Extension of Job Contract for Gardening Work in CECRI from 01-11-2006 to 30-11-2006 to M/s . Sri Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam.
Εχ . Μ17 29-12-2006
Ex. M27 12-12-2006
Extension of Job Contract for Sweeping and Cleaning work in CECRI from (01-01-2007-31-03-2007 to M /s . Om Sakthi Oppantha- kararkal Nala Sangam.
Extension of Job Contract for Gardening Work in CECRI from 01-12-2006 to 31-12-2006 10 M/s . Sri GanapathyOppanthakararkal Nala Sangam.
Εχ . Μ18 22-03-2007
Ex . M28 29-12-2006
Extension of Job Contract for Sweeping and Cleaning work in CECRI from 1-4-2007 to 30-9-2007 to M/ s . Om Sakhi Oppan- thakararkal Nala Sangam.
Extension of Job Contract for Gardening Work in CECRI from 01-01-2007 to 31-03-2007 10 M/s . Sri Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam.
Ex. M19 26-09-2007
22-03-2007
Ex . M29
Extension of Job Contract for Sweeping and Cleaning work in CECRI from 1-10-2007-31-3-200810 M/ s . Om Sakthi Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam.
Extension of Job Contract for Gardening Work in CECRI from 01-04-2007 to 30-09-2007 to M/ s. Sri GanapathyOppanthakarukal Nala Sangam.
Ex. M20 25-03-2008
26-09-2007
Ex. M30
Extension of Job Contract for Sweeping and Cleaning Work in CECRI from 1-4-2008 to 30-4-2008 to M/ s . Om Sakthi Oppan- thakararkal Nala Sangam.
Extension of Job Contract for Gardening Work in CECRI from 01-10-2007 to 31-03-2008 10 M/s . Sri GanapathyOppanthakararkal Nala Sangam.
Ex . M21 01-05-2008
25-03-2008
EX. M31
Extension of Job Contract for Gardening Work in CECRI from Extension of Job Contract for Sweeping and Cleaning Work in CECRI from 01-05-2008 10
8342/ 13-30 500
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29 , 1934
Ex. No. Date
Description
01-04-2008 to 30-04-2008 to M/ s. Sri Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam.
29-404-2008
Ex . M32
Extension of Job Contract for Gardening Work in CECRI from 01-05-2008 to 31-05-2008 to M/ s. Sri Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal NalaSangam.
Ex . M33 28-05-2008 Extension of Job Contract for Gardening Work in CECRI from 01-06-2008 to 31-08-2008 to M/s . Sri Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam .
Ex . M34 25-07-2008 Extension of Job Contract for Gardening Work in CECRI from 01-09-2008 to 31-10-2008 to M/ s . Sri GanapathyOppanthakararkal Nala Sangam .
Ex. M35 23-10-2008 Work Order awarding Job contract for Horticulture maintenance and allied work in CECRI from 01-11-2008 31-10-2009 to M/s. Sri Ganapathy Oppantnakararkal Nala Sangam.
Ex . M36 28-10-2009 Work Order awarding Job contract for Horticulture maintenance and allied work in CECRI from 01-11-2009--31-10-2010 to Ms. Sri Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam.
Ex . M37 29-10-2010 Extension of Job Contract for Horticulture maintenance and allied work in CECRI from 01-11-2010---31-12-2010 toM's . Sri Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam.
ΙΧ. Μ38 15-12-2010 Work Order awarding Job contract for Horticulture maintenance and allied work in CECRI from 01-01-2011---31.12.2011 to Ms. Sri Ganapathy Oppanıhakararkal Nala Sangam.
Ex . M39
Nil Bio - Data of Sri K. Chinnaswamy. contract Manpower of Mis . New Security Force .
Ex . M40
Nil Bio-Data of Sri M. Ramaiya, contract Manpower of M/ s . New Security Force.
[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
Ex. No. Date
Description
Ex.M41
Nil Bio -Data of Sri S. Ravichandran , Contract Manpower of M/ s . New Security Force.
Ex . M42 30-12-2010 Bio - Data of Sri T. Venkateswaran, Contract Manpower Mis . Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam. of
Ex. M43 30-12-2010 Bio- Data of Sri V. Chellakkannus of Contract Manpower Mis. Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam.
Ex.M44 30-12-2010 Bio - Data of Sri S. Sukumaran . Contract manpower of M's. Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam .
Fx . M45 04-12-2006 Bill and Attendance Ms. Om Sakihi Oppanthakararkal Nala Saangam towards labour charges forSweeping and Cleaing Work CECRI for the month ofNovember. 2006.
Ex .M46 01-3-2007 Bill and Attendance from Mis , Om Sakthi Oppanthakararkal Nala Saangam towards labour charges for Sweeping and Cleaing Work in in CECRI for the month of February .2006 .
Ex . M -47 30-08-2008 Attendance and Acquittance of Ms. Neat and clean Service Squad towards labour charges for Sweeping and Cleaning Work in CI- CRI for the month of August . 2008 .
Ex.M48 31-01-2009 Attendance and Acquittance of Ms. Neat and clean Service Squad towards labour charges for Sweeping and Cleaning Work in CECRI for the month of January . 2009
Ex. M49 08-11-2010 Attendance and Acquittance of Mis . Neat and clean Service Squad towards labour charges for Sweeping and Cleaning Work in CECRI for the month of October . 2010
08-12-2011
Ex . M50
Attendance and Acquittance of Ms. Neat and clean Service Squad 501
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Date
Description
Ex . No.
Date
Description
Ex. No.
Ex. M59 26-04-2005
towards labour charges for Sweeping and Cleaning Work in CECRI for the month of November, 2011 .
CSIR letter No. 4-14(24)/2003-F.11 regarding outsourcing of certain jobs viz . Security, Cleaning , Horticulture, etc.
04-12-2006
Ex . M51
Ex .M60 20-03-2012 Letter of Authorization to allow appearance of Sri Manuel Thomas , Controller of Adminis- tration of CFCRI on behalf of the Management
Attendance of Contract Labourers engaged by M / s . Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangamat CECRI for Horticulture main- tenance and allied work in CECRI for the month of November, 2006 .
नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर , 2012
01-03-2007
Ex. M52
Attendance of Contract Labourers engaged by M /s . Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam at CECRI for Horticulture maintenance and allied work in CECRI for the month of February, 2007.
01-04-2008
Ex.M53
का.आ. 166. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सी एम पी डी आई एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक त्रिवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 150/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27 12 2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/195/ 1996 आई आर ( सी -1) ] अजीत कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th December, 2012 Attendance and Acquittance of Contract Labourers engagedby M/s . Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam at CECRI for Horticulture maintenance and allied work in CECRI for the month ofMarch , 2008 .
04-01-2010
Ex. M54
Attendance and Acquittance of Contract Labourersengaged by M/s . Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam at CECRI for Horticulture maintenance and allied work in CECRI for the month ofDecember , 2009 .
31-04-2010
lix. M55
S.O. 166.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 150/97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , No. 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . CMPDII. and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 27-12-2012.
[No. 1.-20012/ 195/ 1996 - IR ( C -1 ) ] AJEET KUMAR , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
Attendance Roll of Contract Labourers engaged by M/s. Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam at CECRI for Horticulture maintenance and allied work in CECRI for the month ofApril , 2010.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( No. 1 ), DHANBAD
02-01-2012
Ex .M56
Inthematter of reference U /s 10( 1 ) ( d ) ( 2A ) of I. D. Act , 1947 Reference No. 150/1997
Employer in relation to the management ofC. M. P. D. 1. Ltd. and Their Workmen .
Attendance and Acquittance of Contract Labourers engaged by M/ s.Ganapathy Oppanthakararkal Nala Sangam at CECRI for Horticulture maintenance and alliedwork in CECRI for the month ofDecember 2011 .
13-01-2003
Present : Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran . Presiding Officer.
Ex . M57
Appearances :
: Sri B. K. Sinha , Dy, Manager
For the Employers
CSIR letter No. 14 ( 6 )/1/86-16.11 granting permission to engage works for Security and Cleanliness on contract basis .
: None.
For the workman
Industry: Coal
State: Jharkhand.
03-10-2003
Ex . M58
CSIR letter No. 14 ( 6 )/1/86-E.11 regarding engagement of Security Contractor.
Dated 10-12-2012 502
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 / PAUSA 29 , 1934
AWARD
ByOrder No. L-20012/ 195/96- IR ( C- I ), dt. 29-8-97, the Government of India , Ministry of Labour , has in , exercise ofthe power conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A ) of Section 10 of the Indistrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the CMPDIL management to revise the rate ofelectricity charges from Rs . 0.50 to Rs . 1.30 per unit constitute a charge of service conditions of workmen under Section 9A of the act? If so, whether management action to revise the same in August , 1995 is justified ? Ifnot,to what reliefare the workmen entitled ? "
2. Both parties are noticed and the management appeared through advocate Mr. Lał, workman remained absent constantly since the date fixed for appearance of the parties . Finally the management and the workman lost interest in the case . Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate to the Ministry.
R.K. SARAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 27 दिसम्बर , 2012
का.आ. 167. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी सी सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. । , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 140/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-12-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल-20012/508/1999 आई आर ( सी 1 ) ] अजीत कुमार, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 27th December, 2012
S.O. 167. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 140/ 200D) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure . in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-12- 2012 .
[No. L- 20012/508/ 1999 - IR ( C -1 ) ] AJEET KUMAR , Section Officer
ANNEXURĖ
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( No. 1 ) , DHANBAD
PART II SEC. 3( ii ) ]
Inthe matter of reference U's 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) (2A ) of I. D. Act . 1947 .
Reference No. 140/2000 .
Employer in relation to the management of Bhowra Area of Ms. B.C.C.I.. And
Their Workinen . Present : SHRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN. Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
Sri U.N. Lal . Advocate For the Employers
For the workman
State : Jharkhand .
:None Industry: Coal
Dated 10-12-2012
AWARD
ByOrder No. 1. - 20012-508 99 - IR ( C - 1 ) , dtd . 1-3-2000 , the Government of India . Ministry of labour , has in . exercise ofthe power conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section ( 2A ) of Section 10 of the Indistrial Disputes Act . 1947. referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bhowra( S) Colliery of M's . BCCI . in not providing employment to Smt . Shanti Devi Wo Late Raju Dusadh under clause 9.4.2 of NCWA- V is justified ? If not . to what relief Smt . Shanti Devi , W/ o Late Raju Dusadh is entitled ? "
2. Both workman and the management are noticed . The management appeared through advocate but the workman did not appear. The management also did not filed written statement. It is a case of 2000 , and it is lingered due to the negligence of the workman . As it appears , there is no dispute between the parties . Hence No Disptue Award is passed . Communicate to the Ministry.
R. K. SARAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर , 2012
का.आ. 168. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में कंन्द्रीय सरकार ची सी सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच. अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , धनवाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 100/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो कंन्द्रीय सरकार को 27 12 2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
| सं. एल 20012/64/2006 आई आर ( सी 1 ) अजीत कुमार . अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 27th December , 2012
S.O. 168. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central 503
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
[ भाग 11--खण्ड 3( ii) ]
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 100/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M /s . BCCL and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 27-12-2012 .
[No. 1.-20012/64 /2006-1R ( C - 1 ) ] AJEET KUMAR , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( No. 1), DHANBAD
Inthematterof the reference U/ s 10( 1 ) (d) (2A) of 1. D.Act, 1947
Reference No. 100/2006
Parties : Employers in relation to the mgt . of M/ s. Incline Mine Sudamdih M/s . B.C.C.L.. And Their Workman .
Present : Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran . Presiding Officer
Appearances :
:None.
For the Management
For the Union/Workman Sri R. R. Ram , General Secretary. BMU
State : Jharkhand.
Industry : Coal
Dated 12-12-2012
AWARD
ByOrder No. 1. -20012/ 64/2006- IR( CM -I ), dtd . 10-11- 2006, 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 Indistrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal ..
"Whether the action of the management of Incline Mine Sudamdih of M's . BCCL in dismissing Shri Harish Chand Bhuia PR M'L . from the service of the company w.e.f. 16-3-2005 is fair andjustifed ? It not , to what relief is the concerned workman is entitled ?"
2. Both parties are noticed. The workman did not appear . But on his behalf. the concerned Union representative has been appearing , though the case is posted for filing of written statement by the workman . The representative of the union submits that the workman is not traced or no response , was received through notice was sent properly. It is felt , there is no dispute between the parties.Hence no dispute award is passed. Communicate to the Ministry.
R. K. SARAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर , 2012
का.आ. 169. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी सी सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनकं कर्मकारों के बीच. अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1. धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 151/1991 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जां कंन्द्रीय सरकार को 27 12 2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल 20012/181/1991 आई आर ( सी )| अजीत कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी
NewDelhi, the 27th December , 2012
S.O. 169. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 151 1991 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - 1.abour Court . No. 1. Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure . in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of M's . BCCI , and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 27-12-2012.
No. L -20012 181 1991 - IR ( C - 1 ) |
AJEET KUMAR . Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( No. 1 ), DHANBAD
Inthe matter of reference U/s 10( 1 ) (d ) (2A) of 1. D. Act.1947 Reference No. 151 of 1991
Employer in relation to the management of B.C.C.1. , Ltd.
And Their Workmen
Present : Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran. Presiding Officer
Appearances :
:None
For the Employers
:None
For the Workmen
Industry : Coal
State: Jharkhand.
Dated 12-12-2012 AWARD
By Order No. L-20012 181 91-1R ( Coal -1 ) , dtd . Nil , the Government of India . Ministry of Labour , has in exercise of the power of conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A ) of Section 10 of the Indistrial Disputes Act. 1947. referred the following disputes for adjudication 10 this Tribunal : - 504
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
[PART II---SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
SCHEDULE
114- Fatehpur Sikri Road,
Agra , U.P. - 282001 .
...Management
AWARD
"Whether the action of the management of Bararee Colliery of M/ s . Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. in superannuating Sh . Baleshwar, Prop . Mazdoor, B.Β. No. 207819 w.e.f. 16-3-90 is justified ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled?"
1. After notice at the time of receiving the reference till 21-9-2012 , none appears i.e. either the management or the workman before this tribunal to put forth their claim . Finally on 21-9-12 registered post notice again sent to both parties but none appears to support their claim . In the meantime 21 years have been passed . Presumbly, the parties have settled their disputes between themselves . Hence a No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate to the Ministry.
R. K. SARAN , PresidingOfficer
नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर , 2012
का.आ. 170.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कैन्टोनमैन्ट इग्जेक्यूटिव आफिसर , आगरा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिकं विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.। नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 95/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2012-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Three vacancies of driver accrued in Cantonment Board, Agra ( in short the Cantonment Board ) owing to retirement of its employees . Vacancies were advertised for promotion by the Cantonment Board from amongst itsGroup D employees. 13 Group D employees submitted their applications for promotion . They were called for test and interview on 23-6-2004. Shri Sagar, Shri Dilip Kumar and Shri Shivpal Singh were found fit for promotion . S / Shri Rajesh Bharat, Bijender, Deep Chandra and Yad Kumar felt aggrieved when they were not found fit for promotion . They raised a demand for their promotion , which was not conceded to by the Cantonment Board. Ultimately they approached the Indian National Defence Workers Federation ( in short the Federatin ) for raising their dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Shri Surender Singh , Vice President of the Federation . raised their dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since the Cantonment Board contested their claim , conciliation proceedings ended into failure . On consideration of the failure report so submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred the disputeto Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Kanpur. for adjudication vide order No. 1. - 13011 / 4/ 2005 - IR( DU ). New Delhi dated 26-9-2005, with the following terms:
[सं. एल 13011 /04/2005- आई आर ( डी यू) । सुरेन्द्र कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th December, 2012
"Whether the action of the management of Cantonment Board , Agra by not appointing three workman out of the following, namely Shri Rajesh S'o Shri Ramji Lal Shri Bharat S/ o . Shri Prem Narain , Shri Bijendra Sio Shri Juggo . Shri Deep Chandra Sto Shri Mohan Lal , and Shri Yad Kumar S / o Shri Ram Charan on the basis of seniority is legal and /or justified . Ifnot ,to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?"
$.O . 170. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Goverriment hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 95/2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. 1. New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the Cantonment Executive Officer. Agra and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-12-2012 .
[No. 1-13011/04/2005 - IR ( DU ) |
SURENDRA KUMAR , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
I.D. No. 95/2011
Shri Surendra Singh, Vice President ,
Indain National Defence Workers Federation ,
43/16, Sector - 15 / A , Sector - 16 Sikandra .
Agra( UP) -282001.
Workman
Versus
The Cantonment Executive Officer Office of the Cantonment Board,
2. Claim statement was filed on behalf of the claimants pleading therein that Shri Rajesh , Bharat . Bijender, Deep Chander and Shri Yad Kumar are serving with the Cantonment Board for the last 20 years. They are trained heavy vehicle drivers . Work of driving vehicles is taken from them by the Cantonment Board from time to time . Since they are trained drivers , they were called for test the postofdriver on 23-6-2004 . Test for the post of driver was a mere formality and Cantonment Board had projected their choicest employees as successful . Their test was taken by Shri R.C. Sharma, Head Officer , who did not knowdriving meant for heavy vehicles . One of the candidates , declared successful in test, was not knowing the jab of driving at all . Shri Sagar, Shri Dilip Kumar and Shri Shivpal Singh , junior to the claimants , were selected with a view to favour them . Claimants appeared for test in past also but were not selected. Act of the Cantonment Board in not selecting them for the post of driver amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. It has been pleaded that the Cantonment Board is a local authority , which falls within the category 505
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013/पौष 29 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
persued the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:-
of industry. Claimants project that an award may be passed in their favour declaring them to be entitled to promotion for the post ofdriver on the basis of seniority .
8. Shri Yad Kumar deposed that he joined the CantonmentBoard as sweeper in 1984. During tenure ofhis service as sweeper, at intervals , he used to drive vehicles for the Cantonment Board . His test for the post of driver was initially taken in the year 1989. He qualified the test but wasnot promoted. Incumbent who obtained 20 marks in the test was promoted while he obtained 4 I marks . but was not promoted. Shri Ghanshyam obtained 20 marks and was promoted . Though he was driving vehicles for the Cantonment Board but was paid wages of loader .
3. Cantonment Board made a demurral of the claim , pleading that posts of drivers , pumpdrivers , road roller drivers and fire engine drivers are to be filled in by promoting lower grade employees provided they hold requisite quaification prescribed for the post by the General Officer Comanding - in -Chief, in perusuance of rule 5 - B (c) ofthe Cantonment Board Service Rules 1937 ( in short the Rules) . In case existing individuals do not fulfill requisite qualification , above posts are to befilled by way of direct recruitment . Three posts of drivers fell vacant and as such, office order dated 31-5-2004 was issued inviting applications from lower grade employees , who were eligible for promotion . In total 13 candidates applied, who were called for test on 23-6-2004 . Shri Sagar, Shri Dilip Kumar and Shri Shivpal Singh were found eligible , hence they were selected for the post of driver.
9.He appeared for the test on 23-6-2004 also . He was not informed about the result of that test . 4 posts ofdriver were lying vacant . On those posts, Shri Sagar, Shri Dilip and Shri Shivpal were appointed . Shivpal did not know driving .Hewas working as peon in the Cantonment Board for the last 4-5 years . During course of cross- examination, he concedes that three posts of drivers fell vacant owing to retirement of incumbents Post of driver is promotional post and to be filled from amongst lower grade empolyees . Employees , who were having valid driving licence , submitted their applications . Only 13 persons submitted their applications , out of whom 3 were selected. namely, Shri Sagar, Shri Dilip Kumar and Shri Shivpal . Post ofdriver isselection post . He showed his ignorance as to whether any seniority list of loaders is maintained by the Cantonment Board . He concedes that he was awarded 13 marks in the test. He showed his ignorance as to whether Shri Dilip Kumar obtained 15 makes . Shri Sagar 16 marks and Shri Shivpal Singh obtained 14 makes .
4.Cantonment Board pleads that there is no common seniority list for entire lower grade staff. Feeder cadre includes all lower servants of the Cantonment Board. Selection of the aforesaid three persons was made according to the prescribed procedure . It is wrong to claim that the person conducting test and interview must be a driver, eligible to drive heavy vehicles . Selection was not to be based on seniority- cum - merit. Since the claimants could not pass the test , hence they were not promoted. On the other hand , their alleged juniors passed the test , hence theywere promoted to the post of drivers . eligibility criteria meant for pormotion was duly followed . Claimants do not have right for promotion. They simply have a right to be considered for promtion. Claim put forward is devoid of merits, hence ti may be discarded , pleads the Cantonment Board.
5. Shri Yad Kumar, entered the witness box to unfold facts on behalfof the claimants . Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma Office Superintendent projected facts on behalf of the Cantonment Board . No other witness was examined by either of the parties .
6. Itwould not be out of context to mention that vide orderNo. 1.- 13011 / 4/2005 - IR ( DU ) . New Delhi dated 26-9- 2007, the appropriate Government transferred he dipsute to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 11. New Delhi . for adjudication. Vide order No. Z 22019 / 6 /2007-1R( C - 11 ) . New Delhi dated 30-3-2011 , case was transferred by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal for adjudication.
10. In affidavit Ex. MWI /A , tendered as evidence , Shri A. K. Sharma Swears that only 13 lower grade employees applied for promotion to the posts ofdriver . Only 3 persons . namely Shri Sagar, Shri Dilip Kumar and Shri Shivpal Singh were found eligibele , hence they were selected . Since post of driver is a selection post , hence it does not warrant any seniority criteria . There is no common seniority list of entire lower grade staff of the Cantonment Board . When grilled on behalf of the claimants , he concedes that Rajesh, Shri Bharat . Shri . Deep Chandra and Shri Yad Ram are regular employees of the Cantonment Board . He further concedes that they were called for driving test and interview. All of them were having valid driving licence . Shri Shivpal Singh was having driving license, valid with effect from 15-6- 2002. Shri Sagar and Dilip Kumar were serving as sweepers when they were selected as drivers . He concedes that at the relevanttime, Shri Sagar was working as chowkidar the residence of Chief Executive Officer. He disputes that marks were awarded to the candidates according to whims and fancies .
7. Agruments were heard at the bar. Despite apportunities none came forward on behalf of the claimants to raise submissions Shri Hari Shankar Goel authorized representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the Cantonment Board . I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously
11. When facts deposed by Shri Yad Ram and Shri Ashok Kumar are appreciated, it came to light that the claimants are working as sweepers with the Cantonment 506
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2013/PAUSA 29 , 1934
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ]
Board. Claimants possess driving license for driving heavy
transport vehicles . In year 2004, three vacancies of driver superseded have been so superseded on account of
arose with the Cantonment Board . Cantonment Board malafides or victimization . " Promotion generally
circulated those vacancies amongst its lower grade necessitated consideration of competitive suitbility ofthe
employees , posseessing heavy driving license calling upon eligibel workmen and such sclection process would require
them to submit their appllication for promotion. 13 ower the consideration not only of the past performance ofthose
grade employees submitted their applications . Theywere eligible but necessitates making of comparative estimate
called for written test and interview on 23-6-2004, out of oftheir skill , sometimes of technical nature, their personality,
whom Shri Sagar, Shri Dilip Kumar and Shri Shivpal Singh capacity to discharge heavier responsibilities and similar
were selected . other factors . Whether a particular employee should be
promoted from one grade to higher grade depends not
12. Shri Yad Kumar alleges that Shri Shivpal Singh, only on the legth of service but also his efficiency and
selected as driver, was not having any knowledge to drive other qualifications for the post to which he seeks to be
vehicles .According to him, he was working as peon in the pormoted and in the matter of promotion , intimate
Cantonment Board from last 4-5 years . Thus it emerges knowledge ofthe higher authority, empowered to promote,
over record that the claiments project malafide on the part have greater value . Seniority plays only a small part in the
ofthe Cantonment Board in making selection of Shri Shivpal matter of promotion. In the absence of any malafide under
Singh. However, when records were scrutinized, it came to labor practice or victimization , discretion of the management
light that Shri Shivpal Singh was having a valid driving cannot be questioned . Reference can be made to the
license for driving heavy transport vehicle, which was valid precedent in Reserve Bank of India [ 1965 ( 2 ) L.LJ 175 ] .
from 15-6-2002. Consequently, it is evident that the claim
made by Shri Yad Kumar that Shivpal Singh was in 14. When malafide , unfair labour practice or
competent to drive heavy transport vehicle, was victimization is allegd by the workmen adjudicator will have
unfounded. On the other hand, Shri Shivpal Singh was to enquire whether granting of witholding of certain
serving the Cantonment Board since 1997. He was an promotion is malafide or act of unfair labour practice or
intermediate and having certificate from ITI in fitter trade. victimization. It he finds that the promotions in question
Amongst 13 persons called for test and interview , Shri have been made which are uniustified on any one of these
Shivpal Singh was the most qualified. In the year 2004 hc groudns , appropriate course for him is to set aside the
was having 7 years service as peon with the Cantonment promotions and ask the employer to consider the case of
Board . Therefore , it is evident that Shri Yad Kumar had supereded employees and decide for himself whom to
levelled false allegations to the effect that Shri Shivpal promote after consdiering the records of the employees
Singh was not knowing driving on the date when he was worth consideration , except of course the persons whose
called for test and interview. Shri Dilip Kumar was serving promotions have been set aside .In other words , when the
as sweeper with the Cantonment Board since 1984 and Tribunal finds that some workers are superseded on account
possessed valid driving license with effect from 1996. Shri of legal malafide it may have to cancel the promotions
Sagar was serving as sweeper with the Cantonment Board ( 1 ) LLJ 32.] . made by the employer. Sce Williamson Magor & Co. ( 1982
from , last 16 years . He also possessed valid driving license
since 1-7-1995 . These factors make it apparent that the 15. The Tribunals are intended to adjudicate industrial
persons, who were selected for the posts ofdriver, were disputes between the management and the workmen, settle
cligible in all respects . them and pass effective awards in such a way that industrial
13. It is a matter of discretion of the management to peace between the employces and the employer may be
select persons for promotions , held Constitutional Bench maintained so that there can be more productions and
of theApex Court in Brooke Bond ( India ) ( Pvt . ) Ltd. ( 1963 ( 1 ) benefit of all concerned For the above purpose , industrial
LLJ 256). But three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in tribunal as for as practicable shall not be contstrained or
Hindustan Lever Ltd. ( 1984 Lab . 1. C. 1573 ) suggested that foamulate rules of laws and avoid any inabilty to arrive at
it is time to reconsider this archaic view of laissey faire aneffective award ofjustice in a particular dispute . In view
days where promotion was considered as management of the findings, first of all it should be declared that the
function because the whole gamut of labour legislation is promotios were illegal and unjustifed being an act of
to check, control and circumscribe uncontrolled managerial arbitrary action of the management and cancel those
exercise of power with a view to eschew the inherent promotions . There after the Tribunal should ask the
arbitrariness in exercise of such functions. Howerver, law management to consider the cases again and to promote
lard in Brpok Bond India Pvt . Ltd. ( supra ) rules the field it the eligible employees . But even after finding of malafide
was laid there in that though promotion is a management or victimization , it is not within the competence of the
function, it may be recoginzed that there may be occasions Tribunal to consider merits of various employees and
when a tribunal may have to inter fire with promotions thento decide to whom to promote . See Brooke Bond India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) .
made by the management where it is felf that persons
507
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29, 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
16. When facts of the present controversy are gauged, in view of the law referred above , it is evident that first of all this Tribunal should record finding that the promotion ofShri Sagar , Shri Dilip Kumar and Shri Shivpal Singh were malafide , arbitrary and an act of unfair labour practice on post of the Cantonment Board . As pointed out above claimants project that Shri Shivpal Singh was not knowing driving, when he was promoted by the Cantonment Board. On the other hand, this fact stands discredited since Shri Shivpal Singh was in possession of a valid driving license for driving heavy transport vehlices with efect from 15-6-2002.
20. There is other facet of the coin. Shri Sagar , Shri Dilip Kumar and Shri Shivpal Singh were not summoned to the Tribunal either suo motu or at the instance of the claimants to project their cause . Thus it is evident that they had no opportunity to present facts: before this Tribunal , an award interering with the promotion of workman without giving notice to him would be invalid, in as much as it would be violative of the rules of natural justice, announced High Court of Delhi in Shyam Lal (1973 9Lab . I. C. 957) . In case award ofthe Tribunal affects status ofanother person, that other person must be impleaded as a party to the proceedings and should be given an opportunity ofbeing heard before an award adverse to him is made . Law to this effect was laid down in Jaswant Singh (1987 Lab . I. C. 663 ) Since Shri Dilip Kumar, Sagar and Shri Shivpal were not heard over the matter, an award adverse to them cannot be made .
17. Ex . WW1 / 29 is the result sheet of the 13 employees who were called for test and interview on 23-6- 2004. Shri Dilip Kumar obtained 8 marks , Shri Sagar also obtained 8 marks while Shri Shivpal Singh obtained 6 marks in driving test , out of 10 marks . In interview , Shri Dilip obtained 7 marks , Shri Sagar 8 marks and Shri Shivpal obtained 8 marks out of 10 marks . Total marks obtained by Shri Dilip Kumar were 15, by Sagar it were 16 and those obtained by Shivpal Singh were 14 Shri Yad Kumar obtained only 13 marks and same was the case with Shri Bijender. Shri Deep Chand, Chandra Bhan and Hamid obtained 12 marks each . Shri Rajesh, Bharat and Shri Ranjit Ram obtained 11 marks each and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Neeru Kumar obtained 10 marks each only.
21. In view of the facts detailed above , I do not find the case warranting interference with promotion of Shri Sagar, Shri Dilip Kumar and Shri Shivpal Singh as drivers . claimants , simply agitate that their seniority was not considered. This agitations is unfounded since seniority played only a small part in the matter of promotion . No malafide, unfair labour practice or victimization on the part of the Cantonment Board was brought to the light of the day. Claimants are not entitiled to any relief. Action of Cantonment Board by not appointing three workmen out ofapplicants namely, Shri Rajesh , S/ o Shri Ramji Lal , Shri Bharat, S/o Shri Prem Narain , Shri Bijendra, S/o Shri Juggo, Shri Deep Chandra S/o Shri Mohan Lal and Shri Yad Kumar, S/o Shri Ram Charan on the basis of their seniority is legal and justifed. Claimants are not entitled to any relief. Their claim statement is discarded. An award is , accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.
Dated 26-10 2012
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर , 2012
का.आ. 171. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कमिश्नर, एम. सी.डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 55/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-12-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42011 / 192/2011- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th December, 2012
S.O. 171. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central 18. One may wonder as to on what standards such lower grade employees could be questioned in oral examination . When common knowledge is applied, it becomes apparent that such lower grade employees may be asked questions relating to traffic singals , average stopping distance of vehicles on dry landroads , hand signals given by traffic police , line marking on roads and rules relating to overtaking of vehicle on roads etc. Besides, questions on above counts , authorites may judge personality and capability to perform duties of an incumbent during the course of his interview. His intimate knowledge about efficiency, capabilities and capacity to discharge heavier responsibility of the incumbent may also provide parameters to the Competent Authority to award marks in the interview. Shri Shivpal Singh was as intermediate having certificate from ITI in fitter trade . He was in service as a Peon from the last 7 years . Shri Dilip Kumar was working as sweeper from the last 20 years at the time ofhis promotion while Shri Sagar had rendered 16 years service as sweeper with the Cantonment Board . Therefore , all these factors marks it clear that there were other factors , which were taken into consideration by the authorities and seniority played only a small role in promotion, I do not find even factual malafide, not to talk of legal malafide in promotion of Shri Dilip Kumar, Sagar and Shri Shivpal Singh . No case ofvictimization or unfair labour practice has been projected Consequenlty, I do not find it to be a case for interference bythisTribunal.
2301/ 13-31 508
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 /PAUSA 29, 1934
[PART II -SEC . 3( ii ) ]
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55 / 2012) of the Central Government industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , No. 1 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the Commissioner , MCD, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-12-2012 .
[No. L-42011 /192/2011 - IR (DU) ]
SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE Dr. R. K. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
I.D. No. 55/2012
Shri Jagdish Grover S/ o Shri J.R. Grover, C/ o The General Secretary, Hospital Employees Union, Agarwal Bhawan, G. T. Road Tis Hazari , Delhi- 110054 .
2. Claim statement was filed by the clerk, namely. Shri Jagdish Grover pleading therein that he is in the employment of the Corporation since January 1977. As on date, he is posted as clerk in RBTB Hospital , Delhi . On 9-09-2009, his wife fell ill . She was taken to Narender Mohan Hospital for treatment. She was treated there for five hours and discharged. On reaching home , her condition deteriorated. She was immediately taken to the hospital, in emergency, She was admitted there and treated from 10-09-2009 to 21-09-2009 . She was discharged from the hospital on 21-09-2009 . For her treatment , he -had to' spend a sum ofRs.64552.00 , towards medical expenses . He applied forreimbursement of medical bills . His request was rejected onthe grounds that the hospital is not on the panel of the Corporation. Action of the corporation is illegal bad and unjustified . He claims that an award may be passed commanding the Corporation to reimburse a sum of Rs. 64552.00 spent by him towards treatment of his wife, besides cost of litigation .
..Workman
Versus
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation ofDelhi , Town Hall Chandni Chowk . Delhi- 110002
......Management
AWARD
3.Notice ofthe claimant was sent to the Corporation Shri Kumar Anil Jha , U.D.C. appeared on behalf of the Corporation on 16-04-12, after adjournment ofthe case for 7-05-2012 and obtained copy of the claim statement . Thereafer , none appeared on behalf of the Corporation either on 7-05-2012, 11-06-2012, 3-07-2012 and 24-07-2012. Constrained with these circumstances , the Corporation was proceeded ex-parte .
4. Claimant tendered his affidavit as evidence . Since none appeared on behalf of the Corporation , hence opportunity could not be granted to the opposite partyto purify facts detailed in the affidavit, by an ordeal of cross examination.
5. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Rajiv Aggarwal, authorized representative, advanced arguments onbehalf of the claimant . None came forward on behalfof theCorporation to present facts . I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and carefully perused the records . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:
A clerk employed with Municipal Corporation of Delhi ( in short the Corporation) got his wife admitted in Sri Ganga Ram Hospital , New Delhi( in short the hospital ). for emergency treatment. She was treated there from 10-09-2009 to 20-09-2009. She was discharged from the hospital on 21-09-2009 .A sum of Rs.64552.00 was spentby the clerk on her treatment . He submitted bill for reimbursement to the Corporation . His reimbursement claim was rejected by the Corporation claiming that the hospital was not approved for treatment of its employees or their dependents . He raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. His claim was contested by the Corporation and as such conciliation proceedings ended into failure . On consideration of failure report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal ; for adjudication , vide order- No. L- 42011/ 192/2011 - IR( DU ), New Delhi dated 17-02-2012, withfollowing terms:
"Whether the action of the management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), New Delhi in rejecting medical reimbursement bill of Rs.64552.00 being treatment of Smt . Lalita Grover wife of Shri Jagdish Grover, S/ o Shri G.R.Grover, LDC, R.B.T.S. Hospital is just ? What relief the workman is entitled to? "
6. Claimant swears in his affidavit , tendered as evidence, that he is working with the , Corporation as clerk since December 78..At present, he is posts in R.B.Τ.Β. Hospital , His wife , namely,. Smt. Lalita Grover fell ill on 9-09-1999. She was admitted to Shri Narinder Mohan Hospital , where she was kept for five hours . On reaching home, her condition again deteriorated. Consequently, she was immediately taken to the hospital in emergency, where she was treated from 10-09-1999 to 21-09-1999. He had to spend Rs.65000.00 towards her medical expenses . He applied for medical reimbursement but his claim was rejected on the plea that the hospital is not on the panel of the 509 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 19 , 2013 /पौष 29 , 1934
5.Dependent divorced/abandoned or separated from their husbands/Widowed daughters (irrespective ofage) Corporation. Since his wife was taken to hospital in emergency and there was no other way, stand taken by the Corporation is totally illegal , bad and unjustified.
6. Dependent unmarried/divorced/ abandoned or separated from their husbands/widowed sisters
7.Minor brothers
8. Dependent brothers,
9. Step-mother
7. Claimant projects that a demand was raised on the Corporation vide communication dated 8-11-2010. Thereafter, conciliation proceedings were initiated. He relied bill amounting to Rs.64552.00, letter dated 7-12-2009written to the Corporation , discharge summary issued by the hospital , copy of Form II and III submitted by him to the Corporation under the scheme for medical facilities to its employees , discharge certificate dated 21-09-2009 issued by the hospital and copy of resolution dated 19-09-2010. wheby Hospital employees Union espoused his claim, besides his claim statement and written statement filed by theCorporation before the conciliation Officer.
9.No claim was put forward by the Corporatloin disputing that Smt. Lalita Grover was not legally wedded wife ofthe claimant not even an iota offact was projected before the Tribunal to the claim that Smt. LalitaGrover was not the wife ofthe claimant. Therefore, it is concluded that Smt. LalitaGrover is legally wedded wife of the claimant. She formed part of the family ofthe claimant and as such , the claimant is entitled to seek medical reimbursement bill relatingto her ailment.
8. When facts unfolded by the claimant in his affidavit are appreciated it emerged over the record that he isinthe service ofthe Corporation as clerk since December 78 and at present posted at R.B. T.B Hospital , Delhi , which is run by the Corporation . Smt. Lalita Grover , his legally weddedwife, fell ill on 9-09-2009 . Claimant tookher to the hospital for treatment on 10-9-2009 .As unfolded by the claimant, Smt . Lalita Grover was admitted in the hospital on 10-09-2009 . She remained admitted there and was- discharged on 21-09-2009 . Question for consideration comes as to whether the claimant is entitled to claim reimbursement of medical bills pertaining to the disease of his wife. For an answer health scheme applicable to the employees of the Corporation is to be considered. Corporation has adopted the Scheme of C.G.H.S, for its employees . As per the health scheme adopted by the Corporation , an employee is eligible to avail medical facilities, including members ofhis family. The term " family" means and includes:--
10.Medical claims of employees ofthe Corporation can broadly be categorized into:-(i ) claims preferred against treatment in Government hospital/ referral hospital/ recognised hospitals and ( ii) claims preferred against, treatment in unrecognised private hospitals . Corporation does not reimburse bills relating to treatments taken from private unrecognised hospitals. There is one exception to this general rule . In cases where treatment was taken in private unrecognised hospitals in emergency, claims preferred may be referred to recognised hospital, who after examination of each case on merit, will recommend the admissible amount for treatment to beneficiaries . Such proposals should be recommended by the Head of the Department. The claim is to be preferred within a period of three months from the date of discharge from the hospital . Ifthe claim becomes time barred, then condonation ofthe period is done by the Department concerned.
1.Husband/wife including more than one wife and a judicially separatedwife,
2. Parents (excluding step parents ,) subject to the following:
a. In case of adoption , adoptive parents and not real parents,
b. If adoptive father has more than one wife, only the first wife; and
c. In case of female employees, parents or parents- in- law, at her option, subject to the conditions of dependency and residence etc. being satisfied.
3. Children including step children, legally adopted children, children taken as wards by the Government servant under the Guardians and Ward Act, 1980
11. As is evident, Smt. Lalita Grover was taken to the hospital by the claimant, which was not a panel hospital recognized by the Corporation. Thus it is evident that the claim preferredby the claimant relates to treatment taken in an unrecognised private hospital . Consequently, it is tobe taken note of as to whether treatment was taken by Smt . Grover from the hospital in emergency. For an answer to thisproposition, I have to take note of facts contained in the discharge summary of the patient . Discharge summary issued by the hospital, makes it apparent that Smt . Lalita Grover was complaning of pain in nape of the neck from last two months with parasthesia. She felt weakness of left upper limb from last eight days , besides involvement of left side of the trunk and parasthesia. Weakness of left lower limb was complained by her from last four days , with difficulty in walking. With this history, she landed in the hospital where motor power was noted. In right side ofher 4. Sons suffering from permanent disability either physically or mentally, without any -age - limit.
$10
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19 , 2013 / PAUSA 29 , 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ]
body, including upper and lower limb, motor power was 5/5 , while in left side of her body, including upper and lower limb, motor power was 4/5. It was diagnosed that sensation below the cervical 4th level of left side decreased . MRI dorsal spine was done and lesion at cervical 4 to cervical 6 was doubted , Hospital authorities opined that she was suffering from myeletis .
spinal fluid for investigation. She was treated by medication for symptoms developed at the time of admission and during her hospitalization. For such a patient, one visit of the doctor per day is sufficient . Even otherwise , discharge summary or other documents nowhere project as to how many visits were paid by the doctor to the patient in a day. Taking into account these facts , it is emerging that the claimant is entitled for doctor's visit @ Rs.30 per visit . Thus his claim for reimbursement towards doctor's visit comes to Rs.330.00 only. Towards MRI charges , his entitlement is Rs. 1000.00 . For medicines , his entitlement is Rs.7872.00 , which was spent by him in the hospital . Therefore , claim for reimbursement of the claimant comes to Rs . 14,986.00 only.
14. In view of the reasons detailed above , it is crystal clear that the claimant is entitled for medical reimbursement claim from the Corporation , amounting to Rs . 14,986.00 only. An award is passed directing the Corporation to reimburse Rs . 14,986.00 to the claimant within a period of one month from the date award becomes operative . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .
Dated 19-11-2012
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 जनवरी , 2013
12. Whether there was emergency for Smt . Lalita Grover to land in the hospital for her treatment ? Decrease ofmotor power in left upper and lower limb , difficulty in walking and decrease of sensation below cervical 4th level of left sidemake a patient feel alarmed . Everyone has instinct to preserve and protect his body. A wise person always undertakes protective measures for his body. Even persons suffering from leprosy and other diseases do not wish to get rid oftheir body. self preservation is an instinct common to all beings. Therefore, it is apparent that Smt. LalitaGrover became apprehensive when motor power in left side of her body decreased, besides decrease in sensation below cervical 4th level . On examination , doctor confirmed her doubts and found her to be a patient of myelitis . In case parasthesia increases , it reaches the stage of anaesthesia . Therefore, the act of Smt . Lalita Grover rushing to the hospital for treatment cannot be taken as luxury hospitalization . Even otherwise , Corporation has not projected it to be a case of getting luxury treatment . Corporation filed its written statement before the Conciliation Officer , copy ofwhich has been placed before this Tribunal . In its written statement , referred above Corporation nowhere disputes it to be a case of taking treatment from the hospital in emergency.
का.आ. 172.- केन्द्र सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 ( यथासंशोधित 1987 ) के नियम 10 के उप- नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में , श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय के प्रशासकीय नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को, जिनके न्यूनतम 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है :-
प्रभागीय कार्यालय , कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा निगम , शाहदरा ( नंद नगरी )
[ सं. ई-11017/1/2006 - रा.भा.नी. ] चन्द्र प्रकाश , संयुक्त सचिव New Delhi , the 10th January, 2013
S.O. 172. In pursuance ofSub- Rule (4) ofRule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes ofthe Union) Rules , 1976 ( as amended1987) the Central Government hereby notifies following office under the administrativie control of the Ministry of Labour & Employment at least 80% Staff where of have acquired working knowledge ofHindi:
Divisional Office , Employees State Insurance Corporation Shahdara (Nand Nagari )
[No. E-11017/1 /2006-RBN] CHANDRA PRAKASH , Jt . Secy.
13. When claimant took his wife to the hospital in emergency, his claim was to be considered by the Corporation for reimbursement. However, his claim is tobe lirbited to the amount to which he is entitled. His entitlement is to be decided in accordance with his status of employment with the Corporation . As emerged out or records , he is working as clerk , whose basic pay is Rs.8870.00 with grade pay of Rs . 1900.00 . On this criteria, he is entitled for room facility of General Wards , reimbursement in respect of which is limited to Rs.500.00 per day. Wife ofthe claimant remained in the hospital for 11 days and was discharged in the morning hours of 21-09-2009 . Therefore , his entitlement towards room rent comes to Rs.5500.00 only. Towards X-ray, biochemistry laboratory charges , haematology laboratory Charge and micrabiology laboratory charges his entitlement comes only to Rs.80.00 , Rs.30.00, Rs.24.00 , Rs . 100.00 and Rs.50.00 respectively. In case of doctor's visit , I have to referred the discharge summary, which projects that the patient was managed conervatively, who showed improvement . Therefore , it is evident that no active treatment was given, except lumbar puncture done with a view to take cerebral
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.