रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05 प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं. 31] नई दिल्ली, जुलाई 28—अगस्त 3, 2013, शनिवार/श्रावण 6—श्रावण 12, 1935
No. 31] NEW DELHI, JULY 28—AUGUST 3, 2013, SATURDAY/SRAVANA 6—SRAVANA 12, 1935
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 मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
कामक, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्राालय
;कामक और प्रशिक्षण विभागद्ध
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
नई दिल्ली, 24 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1502.—केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अध्निियम, 1946 ;1946 का अध्निियम सं. 25द्ध की धरा 6 के साथ पठित धरा 5 की उप-धरा ;1द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केरल राज्य सरकार, गृह ;एमद्ध विभाग, तिरूवनंतपुरम की दिनांक 22 जून, 2013 की अध्सिूचना जी.ओ. ;एम.एस.द्ध सं. 158/2013/गृह द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से अवैध् मानव तस्करी से संबंध्ति पुलिस थाना नेडुम्बाशेरी में पंजीकृत मामला अपराध् संख्या 1568/12 एवं 835/2012 तथा पुलिस मुख्यालय, अपराध् शाखा, तिरूवनंतपुरम में पंजीकृत मामला अपराध् संख्या 726/सीआर/ओसीडब्ल्यू-II/ईकेएम/2012 एवं 755/सी आर/ओ सी डब्ल्यू-II/ई वेफ एम/2012 में तथा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराधें से संबंध्ति या उनसे सम्ब( अपराधें में किए गए प्रयासों, दुष्प्रेरणाओं और षड्यंत्राों तथा उसी संव्यवहार में किए गए या उन्ही तथ्यों से उत्पन्न किसी अन्य अपराध् या अपराधें का पंजीकरण/अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्रााध्किार का विस्तार समस्त केरल राज्य के सम्बन्ध् में करती है ।
[ सं. 228/38/2013-ए वी डी-IIद्ध] राजीव जैन, अवर सचिव
3196 GI/2013
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2013
S.O. 1502.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Kerala, Home (M) Department. Thiruvananthapuram vide Notification G.O. (Ms.) No. 158/2013/Home, dated 22nd June, 2013, hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Kerala for registration/investigation of cases Crime Nos. 1568/12 and 835/2012 registered at Police Station Nedumbassery and cases Crime Nos, 726/CR/OCW-II/ EKM/2012 and 755CR/OCW-II/EKM/2012 registered at Police Headquarters, Crime Branch Thruvananthapuram relating to illegal human trafficking and attempts, abetments and conspiracy in relation to or connection with the above mentioned offences and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[ No. 228/38/2013-AVD-II] RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
(3739)3740 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 24 जुलाई, 2013
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2013
S.O. 1504.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Smt. Indira Jaisingh, Additional Solicitor General of India as Special Public Prosecutor for appearing on behalf of CBI in RC 5(S)/ 2011-Mum (Ishrat Jahan encounter case) before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and appeals, revisions or other matter connected therewith and incidental thereto.
[ No. 225/40/2013-AVD-II]
RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
वित्त मंत्राालय
;राजस्व विभागद्ध
मुख्य आयुक्त सीमा-शुल्क का कार्यालय
का.आ. 1503.—केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अध्निियम, 1946 ;1946 का अध्निियम सं. 25द्ध की धरा 6 के साथ पठित धरा 5 की उप-धरा ;1द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केरल राज्य सरकार, गृह ;एमद्ध विभाग, तिरूवनंतपुरम की दिनांक 3 मई, 2013 की अध्सिूचना सं. जी.ओ. ;एम.एस.द्ध सं. 120/2013/गृह, एसआरओ सं. 407/2013 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से केरल राज्य विद्युत बोर्ड, गुजरात उफर्जा लि. एवं उड़ीसा पन उफर्जा निगम को संयुक्त रूप से आवंटित बैतरणी वेस्ट कोल ब्लॉक में किसी भी अनियमिता से सम्ब( प्रयास, दुष्प्रेरणा तथा षड्यंत्रा तथा उसी संव्यवहार के क्रम में लिए गए या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न किसी अन्य अपराध् या अपराधें का, केंद्र या राज्य के किसी अध्निियम के अध्ीन अन्वेषण करने के संबंध् में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्रााध्किार का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण केरल राज्य में करती है ।
[ सं. 228/3/2013-ए वी डी-II]
राजीव जैन, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2013
चेन्नै, 22 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1505.—भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्राालय, राजस्व विभाग, नई दिल्ली द््वारा दिनांक 01-07-1994 की अध्सिूचना सं. 33/94-सीमा-शुल्क ;एन.टी.द्ध के तहत अधेहस्ताक्षरी को प्रदत्त अध्किारों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा दिनांक 07-03-2002 की अध्सिूचना सं. 14 एवं 15/2002-सी.शु. ;एन.टी.द्ध के साथ पठित सीमा-शुल्क अध्निियम, 1962 की धरा 152 के खंड ;कद्ध के अध्ीन, मैं, माला श्रीवास्तव, मुख्य आयुक्त, सीमा-शुल्क, सीमा-शुल्क भवन, चेन्नै, एतद््द्वारा तमिलनाडु राज्य, तिरूवल्लुवर जिला में पोन्नेरी तालूक में स्थित ''काटटुपल्ली ग्राम'' को सीमा-शुल्क अध्निियम, 1962 की धरा 9 के अंतर्गत भांडागारण स्टेशन घोषित करती हूँ ।
[पफा. सं. 2/90/2013-मु.आ.का. ;प्रशा.द्ध]
माला श्रीवास्तवा, मुख्य आयुक्त
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue )
S.O. 1503.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with consent of the State Government of Kerala, Home (M) Department. Thiruvananthapuram, vide S.R.O. No. 407/2013, Notification G.O. (Ms.) No. 120/2013/Home dated 3rd May, 2013, hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Kerala for investigation into any irregularities in the joint allocation of Baitarni West Coal Block to Kerala State Electricity Board, Gujarat Power Corporation Limited and Orissa Hydro Power Corporation and attempts, abetments and consipiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[No. 228/3/2013-AVD-II]
RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 25 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1504.—केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ;1974 का अध्निियम सं. 2द्ध की धरा 24 की उप-धरा ;8द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद््द्वारा, आरसी 5;एसद्ध/2011-मुम. ;इशरत जहां मुठभेड़ मामलाद्ध में तथा अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों या उससे संबंध्ति या संब( अन्य मामलों में के.अ. ब्यूरो की ओर से गुजरात के माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष उपस्थित होने के लिए श्रीमती इंदिरा जयसह, भारत की अपर महान्यायवादी को विशेष अभियोजक नियुक्ति करती है ।
[सं. 225/40/2013-ए वी डी-II] राजीव जैन, अवर सचिव OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
Chennai, the 22nd July, 2013
S.O. 1505.—In exercise of the powers delegated to the undersigned vide Notification No. 33/94-Customs (NT) dated 1st July, 1994 by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi under clause (a) of Section 152 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Notification Nos. 14 and 15/2002-Cus.(NT), dated 7-3-2002 as amended, I, Mala Srivastava, Chief Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Chennai hereby declare ''Kattupalli Village" Ponneri Taluk in Tiruvallur District, State of Tamil Nadu, to be a warehousing station under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962.
[ F. No. 2 /90/2013-CCO(Admn.)]
MALA SRIVASTAVA, Chief Commissioner[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3741
कार्यालय मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त
जयपुर, 22 जुलाई, 2013
बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम, 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अध्निियम, 1961 की धरा 10 के खंड ;23सीद्ध की उप-धरा (vi) के प्रावधनों के अनुरूप कार्य करे ।
सं. 05/2013-14
[क्रमांकः मुआआ/अआआ/;मु.द्ध/जय/10;23सीद्ध(vi)/13-14/2169]
अतुलेश जदल, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त
Jaipur, the 22nd July, 2013
No. 03/2013-14
का.आ. 1506.—आयकर नियम, 1962 के नियम 2सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अध्निियम 1961 ;1961 का 43वांद्ध की धरा 10 के खण्ड ;23 सीद्ध की उप-खण्ड ;viद्ध के द््वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जयपुर एतद्द्वारा दिनांक 20-04-2012 एवं आगे के लिये कथित धरा के उद्देश्य से फ्चिल्डे्रन एकेडेमी सोसाइटी, अलवरय् ;स्थाई खाता संख्या-AAATC9914F) को स्वीकृति देते हैं ।
2. बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम, 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अध्निियम, 1961 की धरा 10 के उप-खंड ;23सीद्ध की उप-धरा (vi) के प्रावधनों के अनुरूप कार्य करेें ।
[क्रमाकः मुआआ/अआआ/;मु.द्ध/जय/10;23सीद्ध(vi)/13-14/2168]
अतुलेश जदल, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Jaipur, the 22nd July, 2013
S.O. 1507.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) read with rule 2CA of the
Incom-tax Rules, 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur hereby approves "Samajik Anusandhan Vikas Samiti, Jaipur" for the purpose of said Section for the A.Y. 2012-13 onwards :
Provided that the society conforms to and complies with the provisions of sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2CA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
[No. CCIT/JPR/ITO(Tech.)/10(23C)(vi)/2013-14/2169]
ATULESH JINDAL, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax
No. 05/2013-14
जयपुर, 22 जुलाई, 2013
सं. 04/2013-14
S.O. 1506.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) read with rule 2CA of the Incom-tax Rules, 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur hereby approves "M/s Children
Academy Society, Alwar" for the purpose of said section for with effect from 20-4-2012 and onwards:
Provided that the society conforms to and complies with the provisions of sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2CA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
[No. CCIT/JPR/ITO(Tech.)/10(23C)(vi)/2013-14/2168]
ATULESH JINDAL, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax
जयपुर 22 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1508.—आयकर नियम, 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अध्निियम, 1961 ;1961 का 43वांद्ध की धरा 10 के खण्ड ;23 सीद्ध की उप-धरा ;6द्ध के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जयपुर एतद्द्वारा निर्धरण वर्ष 2012-13 एवं आगे के लिये कथित धरा के उद्देश्य से ''मै. साईन इन्टरनेशनल एन्टरप्राइजेज, जयपुर'' ;स्थाई खाता संख्या-AAHTS 4207 Nद्ध को स्वीकृति देते हैं ।
2. बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम, 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अध्निियम, 1961 की धरा 10 के उपखंड ;23सीद्ध की उप-धरा ;viद्ध के प्रावधनों के अनुरूप कार्य करे ।
[क्रमांक : मुआआ/अआआ/;मु.द्धजय/10;23सीद्ध ;viद्ध/2013-14/2170]
अतुलेश जदल, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त
सं. 03/2013-14
Jaipur, the 22nd July 2013
No. 04/2013—14
का.आ. 1507.—आयकर नियम, 1962 के नियम 2सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अध्निियम, 1961 ;1961 का 43वांद्ध की धरा 10 के खण्ड ;23 सीद्ध की उपधरा ;viद्ध के द््वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जयपुर एतद्द्वारा निर्धरण वर्ष 2012-13 एवं आगे के लिए कथित धरा के उद्देश्य से फ्सामाजिक अनुसंधन विकास समिति, जयपुरय् ;स्थाई खाता संख्या-AADTS8652F) को स्वीकृति देते हैं :
S.O. 1508.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) read with rule 2CA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income-
tax, Jaipur hereby approves "M/s Sine International Enterprise, Jaipur" for the purpose of said section for the A. Y. 2012-13 onwards :
3742 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Provided that the society conforms to and complies with the provisions of sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2CA
of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
[No. CCIT/JPR/ITO (Tech.)/10 (23C) (vi)/2013-14/2170]
ATULESH JINDAL, Chief Commissioner of
Income tax विनिदष्ट बैंकों में सरकार द्वारा नामित निदेशक के रूप में तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेश होने तक, नामित करती है :-
;1द्ध ;2द्ध ;3द्ध
सेन्ट्रल बैंक डॉ. के.पी. कृष्णन, श्री आलोक टण्डन ऑपफ इंडिया अपर सचिव,
आथक कार्य विभाग
बैंक ऑपफ इंडिया श्री अनूप वधवन, श्री उमेश कुमार
;वित्तीय सेवाएं विभागद्ध
नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1509.—भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ;समनुषंगी बैंकद्ध अध्ि नियम, 1959 की धरा 26 की उप-धरा ;2कद्ध के साथ पठित धरा 25 की उप-धरा ;1द्ध के खण्ड ;गकद्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, स्टेट बैंक ऑपफ पटियाला के विशेष सहायक श्री नरेश गौड़ ;जन्म तिथि : 21-04-1964द्ध, को दिनांक 22-07-2013 से या उनकी नियुक्ति की अध्सिूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवध् ि के लिए अथवा स्टेट बैंक ऑपफ पटियाला के कर्मकार कर्मचारी के रूप में उनके पद पर बने रहने तक अथवा आगामी आदेशों तक, इनमें से जो भी पहले हो, स्टेट बैंक ऑपफ पटियाला के निदेशक मण्डल में कर्मकार कर्मचारी निदेशक नियुक्त करती है ।
[पफा. सं. 6/26/2012-बीओ-I]
विजय मल्होत्राा, अवर सचिव संयुक्त सचिव, वित्तीय सेवाए विभाग
इंडियन बैंक श्रीमती सुध कृष्णन, डॉ. रजत भार्गव
संयुक्त सचिव, व्यय विभाग
केनरा बैंक डॉ. रजत भार्गव, श्रीमती सुध कृष्णन
संयुक्त सचिव, आथक कार्य विभाग
[पफा. सं. 6/3/2012-बीओ-I]
श्रेया गुहा, निदेशक
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2013
S.O. 1510.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2013
S.O. 1509.—In pursuance of the clause (CA) of sub-section (1) of Section 25 read with sub-section (2A) of Section 26 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Naresh Gaur (Date of Birth : 21-04-1964) Special
Assistant, State Bank of Patiala as Workmen Employee Director on the Board of Directors of State Bank of Patiala for a period of three years with effect from 22-07-2013 or till he ceases to be a Workmen Employee of the State Bank of Patiala, or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.
[F. No. 6/26/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 26 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1510.—राष्ट्रीय बैंक ;प्रबंध् एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध् द्ध स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड ;1द्ध के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ;उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरणद्ध अध्निियम, 1970/1980 की धरा 9 की उप-धरा 3 के खंड ;खद्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, नीचे दी गई सारणी के कालम 2 में विनिदष्ट व्यक्तियों को उक्त सारणी के कालम 3 में विनिदष्ट व्यक्तियों के स्थान पर कालम ;1द्ध में Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby nominate the persons specified in column 2 of the table bwlow as Government Nominee Director of the Banks specified in column 1 thereof, in
place of persons specified in column 3 of the said table, with immediate effect and until further order :—
(1) (2) (3)
Central Bank Dr. K. P. Krishnan, Sh. Alok Tandon of India Additional Secretary,
Department of Eco- nomic Affairs
Bank of Sh. Anup Wadhawan, Sh. Umesh Kumar India Joint Secretary, Deptart-
ment of Financial Services
Indian Bank Smt. Sudha Dr. Rajat Bhargava
Krishnan, Joint Secretary Depart-
ment Expenditure
Canara Bank Dr. Rajat Bhargava, Smt. Sudha Krishnan
Joint Secretary,
Department of
Economic Affairs
[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]
SREYA GUHA, Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3743 नई दिल्ली, 26 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1511.—राष्ट्रीय कृषि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक अध्निियम, 1981 ;1981 का 61द्ध की धरा 6 की उप-धरा ;1द्ध के खण्ड ;घद्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री अरविन्द कुमार संयुक्त सचिव, वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग, वित्त मंत्राालय, नई दिल्ली को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेशों तक, श्री उमेश कुमार के स्थान पर राष्ट्रीय कृषि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक ;नाबार्डद्ध के निदेशक मण्डल में निदेशक नामित करती है ।
[पफा. सं. 6/3/2012-बीओ-I]
श्रेया गुहा, निदेशक
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2013
S.O. 1511.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of the sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61 of 1981), the Central Government, hereby nominate Shri Arvind Kumar, Joint Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi as a Director on the Board of Directors of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Umesh Kumar.
[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]
SREYA GUHA, Director
नई दिल्ली, 30 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1512.—बीमा विनियामक और विकास प्राध्किरण अध्निियम, 1999 ;1999 का 41द्ध की धरा 4 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतदद्वारा श्री अनूप वधवन, संयुक्त सचिव, वित्तिय सेवाएं विभाग, वित्त मंत्राालय को श्री अरविन्द कुमार के स्थान पर तत्काल प्रभाव से अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, बीमा विनियामक और विकास प्राध्किरण ;आईआरडीएद्ध के अंशकालिक सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
[पफा. सं. 11/6/2003-बीमा-III]
प्रिया कुमार, निदेशक
New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013
S.O. 1512.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Act, 1999 (41 of 1999), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Anup Wadhawan, Joint Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance as Part-time Member of the Insurance Regulatory and
Development Authority (IRDA)vice Shri Arvind Kumar, Joint Secretary, DFS with immediate effect and until further orders.
[F. No. 11/6/2003-Ins.-III]
PRIYA KUMAR, Director नई दिल्ली, 30 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1513.—राष्ट्रीय आवास बैेंक अध्निियम, 1987 ;1987 का 53द्ध की धरा 6 की उप-धरा ;1द्ध के खण्ड ;ड.द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा श्री अनुराग जैन, आईएएस, संयुक्त सचिव के स्थान पर श्री अरविन्द कुमार, आईएएस, संयुक्त सचिव ;आई.एपफ.द्ध, वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग, वित्त मंत्राालय, नई दिल्ली को तत्काल प्रभाव से तथा अगले आदेशों तक राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक ;एनएचबीद्ध के निदेशक मंडल में निदेशक नामित करती है ।
[पफा. सं. 24/17/2010-आईएपफ-II]
अतीश सह, निदेशक ;आईएपफ-II]
New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013
S.O. 1513.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Arvind Kumar, IAS,
Joint Secretary (IF), Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi as a Director on the Board of Directors of National Housing Bank (NHB) with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Anurag Jain, IAS, Joint Secretary.
[F. No. 24/17/2010-IF-II]
ATEESH SINGH, Director (IF-II)
नई दिल्ली, 30 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1514.—वर्ष 2000 में यथासंशोध्ति भारतीय लघु उद्योग विकास बैंक अध्निियम, 1989, की धरा 6;1द्ध ;गद्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एदत्द्वारा, श्री अनुराग जैन के स्थान पर श्री अरविन्द कुमार, संयुक्त सचिव, वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग को तत्काल प्रभाव से तथा अगले आदेशों तक भारतीय लघु उद्योग विकास बैंक के निदेशक मण्डल में निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।
[पफा. सं. 24/05/2002-आईएपफ-I ;खंड-IV)]
अतीश सह, निदेशक ;आईएपफ-II]
New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013
S.O. 1514.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (6) (1) (C) of the Small Industries Development Bank of India Act, 1989 as amended in the year 2000, the
Central Government hereby nominates, Shri Arvind Kumar, Joint Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi as Director on the Board of Small Industries Development Bank of India with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Anurag Jain.
[F. No. 24/05/2002-IF-I (Vol. IV)]
ATEESH SINGH, Director (IF-II)3744 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
विदेश मंत्राालय
;सीपीवी प्रभागद्ध
(CPV Division)
नई दिल्ली, 29 जुलाई, 2013
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2013
S.O. 1515.— 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 Mohitesh Sharma, Assistant in Consulate General of India, Dubai to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 29-7-2013.
का.आ. 1515.—राजनयिक और कौंसलीय ऑपिफसर ;शपथ और पफीसद्ध के अध्निियम, 1948 ;1948 का 41द्ध की धरा 2 के खंड ;कद्ध के अनुसरण में केंद्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा श्री मोहितेश शर्मा, सहायक को 29 जुलाई, 2013 से भारत के कौंसलावास, दुबई, सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राध्किृत करती है ।
[No. T. 4330/l/2006] R. K. PERINDIA, Dy. Secy. (Consular) [सं. टी. 4330/1/2006] आर. के. पेरिनडिया, उप सचिव ;कोंसुलरद्ध
स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्राालय
;स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण विभागद्ध
नई दिल्ली, 23 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1516.—केन्द्र सरकार, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् अध्निियम, 1956 ;1956 का 102द्ध की धरा 12 की उप-धरा ;2द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद, उक्त अध्निियम की द्वितीय अनुसूची में एतद्द्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोध्न करती है, नामतः—
उक्त अनुसूची में फ्नेपालय् शीर्षक के तहत — फ्त्रिाभुवन विश्वविद्यालय, नेपालय् के समक्ष, शीर्ष 'उपाध्'ि के तहत [इसके बाद जैसा कि कॉलम ;2द्ध में संदभत है], 'डिप्लोमा में यथा उल्लिखित अर्हता की प्रकृति' [इसके बाद जैसा कि कॉलम ;3द्ध में संदभत है] तथा फ्संक्षिप्तिय् [इसके बाद जैसा कि कॉलम ;4द्ध में संदभत है], अंतिम प्रविष्टि और उससे संबंध्ति प्रविष्टि के पश्चात्, निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां अंतस्थापित की जाए्रगी, नामतः—
;2द्ध ;3द्ध
;4द्ध
'' एम डी ;आंतरिक फ्डाक्टर ऑपफ मेडिसिन त्रिाभुवन विश्वविद्यालय, नेपाल आयुवज्ञानद्ध'' ;आंतरिक आयुवज्ञानद्ध'' [आयुवज्ञान संस्थान, महाराजगंज, काठमांडु, नेपाल में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्याथयों के संबंध् में त्रिाभुवन विश्वविद्यालय, नेपाल द्वारा वर्ष 1997 में या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई यह अर्हता मान्यताप्राप्त होगी] ।
सभी के लिए टिप्पणी :
1. प्रवेश की संख्या प्रतिवर्ष चार विद्याथयों तक सीमित कर दी गई है ।
2. स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम को प्रदान की गई ऐसी मान्यता की अध्कितम अवध् ि5 वर्षों के लिए होगी जिसके उपरान्त इसका नवीकरण कराना होगा ।
3. उप-खंड ;4द्ध की आवश्यकता के अनुसार मान्यता का समय पर नवीकरण न कराने के परिणामस्वरूप संबंध्ति स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम में प्रवेश अनिवार्य रूप से बंद हो जाएं्रगे ।
[सं. वी.-11015/1/2011-एमई-पी-I]
ध्ु्रव चक्रवर्ती, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013
S.O. 1516.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the Section 12 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the Second Schedule to the said Act, namely:—
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3745In the said Schedule under the heading "Nepal" — against "Tribhuvan University, Nepal", under the headings 'Title' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], 'Nature of qualifications as stated in diploma' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)] and "Abbreviation" [hereinafter referred to as column (4)], after the last entry and entry relating therto the following shall be inserted, namely:—
(2)
(3) (4)
"MD (Internal Medicine)" "Doctor of Medicine Tribhuvan University, Nepal
(Internal Medicine)" [This shall be a recognized qualification when granted by Tribhuvan University, Nepal in respect of students being trained at Institute of Medicine, Maharaj Gunj, Kathmandu, Nepal on or after 1997].
Note to all :
1. The number of admissions are restricted to Four students per year.
2. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall have to be renewed.
3. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause (4) shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.
[No. V.-11015/1/2011-ME-P-I]
DHRUV CHAKRAVARTY, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 23 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1517.—केन्द्र सरकार, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् अध्निियम, 1956 ;1956 का 102द्ध की धरा 12 की उप-धरा ;2द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद, उक्त अध्निियम की द्वितीय अनुसूची में एतद्द्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोध्न करती है, नामतः—
उक्त अनुसूची में फ्नेपालय् शीर्षक के तहत — फ्त्रिाभुवन विश्वविद्यालय, नेपालय् के समक्ष, शीर्ष 'उपाध्'ि के तहत [इसके बाद जैसा कि कॉलम ;2द्ध में संदभत है], 'डिप्लोमा में यथा उल्लिखित अर्हता की प्रकृति' [इसके बाद जैसा कि कॉलम ;3द्ध में संदभत है] तथा फ्संक्षिप्तिय् [इसके बाद जैसा कि कॉलम ;4द्ध में संदभत है], अंतिम प्रविष्टि और उससे संबंध्ति प्रविष्टि के पश्चात्, निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां अंतःस्थापित की जाए्रगी, नामतः—
;2द्ध ;3द्ध ;4द्ध
'' एम डी ;डीवीएलद्धय् फ्डाक्टर ऑपफ मेडिसिन ;त्वचा विज्ञान त्रिाभुवन विश्वविद्यालय, नेपाल
एवं यौन रोग तथा कुष्ठ रोग विज्ञानद्ध'' [आयुवज्ञान संस्थान, महाराजगंज, काठमांडु, नेपाल में प्रशिक्षित कए जा रहे विद्याथयों के संबंध् में त्रिाभुवन विश्वविद्यालय, नेपाल द्वारा वर्ष 2007 में या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई यह अर्हता मान्यताप्राप्त होगी] ।
सभी के लिए टिप्पणी :
1. प्रवेश की संख्या प्रतिवर्ष चार विद्याथयों तक सीमित कर दी गई है ।
2. स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम को प्रदान की गई ऐसी मान्यता की अध्कितम अवध् ि5 वर्षों के लिए होगी जिसके उपरान्त इसका नवीकरण कराना होगा ।
3. उप-खंड ;4द्ध की आवश्यकता के अनुसार मान्यता का समय पर नवीकरण न कराने के परिणामस्वरूप संबंध्ति स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम में प्रवेश अनिवार्य रूप से बंद हो जाएं्रगे ।
[सं. वी.-11015/1/2011-एमई-पी-I]
ध्ु्रव चक्रवर्ती, अवर सचिव3746 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013
S. O. 1517.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the Section 12 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the Second Schedule to the said Act, namely:—
In the said Schedule under the heading "Nepal" — against "Tribhuvan University, Nepal", under the headings 'Title' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], 'Nature of qualifications as stated in diploma' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)] and "Abbreviation" [hereinafter referred to as column (4)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto the following shall be inserted, namely:—
(2)
(3)
(4)
"MD (DVL)" "Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology & Tribhuvan University, Nepal
Venereology and Leprosy)" [This shall be recognized qualification when granted by Tribhuvan University, Nepal in respect of students being trained at Institute of Medicine, Maharaj Gunj, Kathmandu, Nepal on or after 2007].
Note to all :
1. The number of admissions are restricted to Four students per year.
2. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall have to be renewed.
3. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause (4) shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.
[No. V.-11015/1/2011-ME-P-I]
DHRUV CHAKRAVARTY, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 23 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1518.—केन्द्र सरकार, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् अध्निियम, 1956 ;1956 का 102द्ध की धरा 12 की उप-धरा ;2द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद, उक्त अध्निियम की द्वितीय अनुसूची में एतद्द्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोध्न करती है, नामतः—
उक्त अनुसूची में फ्नेपालय् शीर्षक के तहत — फ्त्रिाभुवन विश्वविद्यालय, नेपालय् के समक्ष, शीर्ष 'उपाध्'ि के तहत [इसके बाद जैसा कि कॉलम ;2द्ध में संदभत है], 'डिप्लोमा में यथा उल्लिखित अर्हता की प्रकृति' [इसके बाद जैसा कि कॉलम ;3द्ध में संदभत है] तथा फ्संक्षिप्तिय् [इसके बाद जैसा कि कॉलम ;4द्ध में संदभत है], अंतिम प्रविष्टि और उससे संबंध्ति प्रविष्टि के पश्चात्, निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां अंतस्थापित की जाए्रगी, नामतः—
;2द्ध ;3द्ध ;4द्ध
'' एम एस ;अस्थि विज्ञानद्धय् फ्मास्टर ऑपफ सर्जरी
त्रिाभुवन विश्वविद्यालय, नेपाल
;अस्थि विज्ञानद्ध'' [आयुवज्ञान संस्थान, महाराजगंज, काठमांडु, नेपाल में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्याथयों के संबंध् में त्रिाभुवन विश्वविद्यालय, नेपाल द्वारा वर्ष 2001 में या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई यह अर्हता मान्यताप्राप्त होगी] ।
सभी के लिए टिप्पणी :
1. प्रवेश की संख्या प्रतिवर्ष तीन विद्याथयों तक सीमित कर दी गई है ।
2. स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम को प्रदान की गई ऐसी मान्यता की अध्कितम अवध् ि5 वर्षों के लिए होगी जिसके उपरान्त इसका नवीकरण कराना होगा ।
3. उप-खंड ;4द्ध की आवश्यकता के अनुसार मान्यता का समय पर नवीकरण न कराने के परिणामस्वरूप संबंध्ति स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम में प्रवेश अनिवार्य रूप से बंद हो जाएं्रगे ।
[सं. वी.-11015/1/2011-एम ई-पी-I] ध्ु्रव चक्रवर्ती, अवर सचिव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3747
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013
S. O. 1518.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the Section 12 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the Second Schedule to the said Act, namely:—
In the said Schedule under the heading "Nepal" — against "Tribhuvan University, Nepal", under the headings 'Title' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], 'Nature of qualifications as stated in diploma' {hereinafter referred to as column (3)} and "Abbreviation" [hereinafter referred to as column (4)], after the last entry and entry relating therto the following shall be inserted, namely:—
(2)
(3)
(4)
"MS (Orthopaedics)" "Master of Surgery Tribhuvan University, Nepal
(Orthopaedics)"
[This shall be recognized qualification when granted by Tribhuvan University, Nepal in respect of students being trained at Institute of Medicine, Maharaj Gunj, Kathmandu, Nepal on or after 2001].
Note to all :
1. The number of admissions are restricted to Three students per year.
2. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall have to be renewed.
3. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause (4) shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.
[No. V.-11015/1/2011-ME-P-I]
DHRUV CHAKRAVARTY, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 23 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1519.—केन्द्र सरकार, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् अध्निियम, 1956 ;1956 का 102द्ध की धरा 12 की उप-धरा ;2द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद, उक्त अध्निियम की द्वितीय अनुसूची में एतद्द्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोध्न करती है, नामतः—
उक्त अनुसूची में फ्नेपालय् शीर्षक के तहत — फ्बी.पी. कोइराला स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान संस्थान, ध्रन, नेपालय् के समक्ष, शीर्ष 'उपाध्'ि के तहत [इसके बाद जैसा कि कॉलम ;2द्ध में संदभत है], 'डिप्लोमा में यथा उल्लिखित अर्हता की प्रकृति' {इसके बाद जैसा कि कॉलम ;3द्ध में संदभत है} तथा फ्संक्षिप्तिय् [इसके बाद जैसा कि कॉलम ;4द्ध में संदभत है], अंतिम प्रविष्टि और उससे संबंध्ति प्रविष्टि के पश्चात्, निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां अंतःस्थापित की जाए्रगी, नामतः—
;2द्ध ;3द्ध ;4द्ध
'' एम एस ;ओबीजीद्धय् फ्मास्टर ऑपफ सर्जरी बी.पी. कोइराला स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान संस्थान, ध्रन, नेपाल ;प्रसूति एवं स्त्राी रोग विज्ञानद्ध'' [बी.पी. कोइराला स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान संस्थान, ध्रन, नेपाल में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्याथयों के संबंध् में बी.पी. कोइराला स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान संस्थान, ध्रन, नेपाल ;सम विश्वविद्यालयद्ध द्वारा वर्ष 2003 में या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई यह अर्हता मान्यताप्राप्त होगी]
सभी के लिए टिप्पणी :
1. प्रवेश की संख्या प्रतिवर्ष दो विद्याथयों तक सीमित कर दी गई है ।
2. स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम को प्रदान की गई ऐसी मान्यता की अध्कितम अवध् ि5 वर्ष के लिए होगी जिसके उपरान्त इसका नवीकरण कराना होगा ।
3748 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]3. उप-खंड ;4द्ध की आवश्यकता के अनुसार मान्यता का समय पर नवीकरण न कराने के परिणामस्वरूप संबंध्ति
स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम में प्रवेश अनिवार्य रूप से बंद हो जाएं्रगे ।
[सं. वी.-11015/1/2011-एम ई-पी-I]
ध्ु्रव चक्रवर्ती, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013
S. O. 1519.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the Section 12 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the Second Schedule to the said Act, namely:—
In the said Schedule under the heading "Nepal" — against "B. P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal", under the headings 'Title' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], 'Nature of qualifications as stated in diploma' {hereinafter referred to as column (3)} and "Abbreviation" [hereinafter referred to as column (4)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto the following shall be inserted, namely:—
(2)
(3)
(4)
"MS (OBG)" "Master of Surgery B. P. Koirala Institute of Health
(Obstetrics & Gynecology)" Sciences, Dharan, Nepal
[This shall be a recognized qualification when granted by B. P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal (Deemed University) in respect of students being trained at B. P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal on or after 2003].
Note to all :
1. The number of admissions are restricted to Two students per year.
2. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon which it shall have to be renewed.
3. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause (4) shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.
[No. V.-11015/1/2011-ME-P-I]
DHRUV CHAKRAVARTY, Under Secy.
मानव संसाध्न विकास मंत्राालय
2. केंद्रीय विद्यालय संगठन, क्षेत्राीय कार्यालय, रॉची, नामकुम
परिसर, रॉची, झारखंड- 834 010
;उच्चतर शिक्षा विभागद्ध
;राजभाषा यूनिटद्ध
नई दिल्ली, 24 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1520.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ;संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोगद्ध नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम ;4द्ध के अनुसरण में, मानव संसाध्न विकास मंत्राालय ;स्कूल शिक्षा एवं साक्षरता विभागद्ध के अंतर्गत केंद्रीय विद्यालय संगठन के निम्नलिखित 3 क्षेत्राीय कार्यालयों तथा 14 केंद्रीय विद्यालयों को, ऐसे कार्यालयों के रूप में, जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अध्कि कर्मचारी-वृृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अध्सिूचित करती है :
1. केंद्रीय विद्यालय संगठन, क्षेत्राीय कार्यालय, ग्रांड परेड रोड,
आगरा छावनी, उत्तर प्रदेश -282001
3. केंद्रीय विद्यालय संगठन, क्षेत्राीय कार्यालय, गुवाहाटी, निपसीड रोड, जवाहर नगर, गुवाहाटी, जिला-कामरूप, मैट्रो, आसाम- 781 022
4. केंद्रीय विद्यालय, बरपेटा, कृृष्णनगर, बरपेटा टाउन,
आसाम-781 301
5. केंद्रीय विद्यालय, कलिम्पोंग, जिला-दाजलिंग, पश्चिम
बंगाल -734 301
6. केंद्रीय विद्यालय, अलीपुरदवार जंक्शन, जिला-जलपाईगुडी,
पश्चिम बंगाल-736 123
7. केंद्रीय विद्यालय, तुरा, नाजिंग बाजार, अरायमैल, जिला-
वेस्ट गारो हिल्स, मेघालय- 794 001[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3749
8. केंद्रीय विद्यालय, वायुसेना, बागडोगरा, जिला-दाजलिंग,
पश्चिम बंगाल -734 421
9. केंद्रीय विद्यालय, एन. एच. पी. सी. सिंगताम, पश्चिम
बंगाल -737 124
10. केंद्रीय विद्यालय , आई. आई. टी., गुवाहाटी, जिला-कामरूप,
आसाम- 781 039
11. केंद्रीय विद्यालय, मिसा छावनी, डाकघर-मिसा, जिला-नगांव,
आसाम- 782 138
12. केंद्रीय विद्यालय, खानपारा, जवाहरनगर, कामरूप, मैट्रो,
आसाम- 781 022
13. केंद्रीय विद्यालय, दिरांग, पश्चिम कामेंग, अरूणाचल प्रदेश,
790 101
14. केंद्रीय विद्यालय, बी.एस. एपफ. बैंवुफठपुर, सालुगाडा,
जलपाईगुडी, पश्चिम बंगाल-734 008
15. केंद्रीय विद्यालय, नेहु परिसर, मतलाई, उमसिंड, मनकिनरोह,
शिलांग - 793 022
16. केंद्रीय विद्यालय, गोलपारा, जे. टी. एस. भवन, बेलतोला,
बलदमारी, आसाम -783 121
17. केंद्रीय विद्यालय, राम्बी, एन. एच. पी. सी. ;टी. एल. डी.
पी-2द्ध, रेंग, दाजलिंग, पश्चिम बंगाल-21
[सं. 11011-1/2013-रा.भा.ए.]
अनन्त कुमार सिंह, संयुक्त सचिव
Guwahati, Distt. Kamrup Assam - 781022 4. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Barpeta Krishannagar, Barpeta Town, Assam-781301 5. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kalimpong, Distt. Darjiling, West Bengal- 734301 6. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Alipurduar JN P.O. Jalpaiguri, West Bengal-736 123 7. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Tura, Najing Bazar, Araymail, West Garo Hills- Meghalaya-794001 8. Kendriya Vidyalaya, AFS, Bagdogra, Distt. Darjiling, West Bengal-734 421 9. Kendriya Vidyalaya, NHPC, Singtam, West Bengal- 737 134 10. Kendriya Vidyalaya, IIT, Guwahati, Distt.- Kamrup, Assam - 781 039 11. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Misa Cantt. PO Misa, Distt. Nagaon, Assam - 782 138 12. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Khanapara Jawaharnagar, Kamrup Metro, Assam - 781022 13. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dirang, West Kameng, Arunachal Pradesh - 790 101 14. Kendriya Vidyalaya, BSF, Baikunthpur, Salugara, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal-734 008 15. Kendriya Vidyalala, Nehu Campus, Matlai, Usmind, Mankinroh, Shillong-793 022
16. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Goalpara, JTS Building, Beltola, Baldmari, Assam-783 121
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT
(Department of Higher Education )
17. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rambi, NHPC, (TLDP-II), Reang, Darjiling West Bengal-21
(O. L. Unit)
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2013
[No. 11011-1/2013-O. L. U.]
ANANT KUMAR SINGH, Jt. Secy.
विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्राालय
;विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी विभागद्ध
S.O. 1520.—ln pursuance of sub. rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following 3 Regional Offices and 14 Kendriya Vidyalayas of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, (Department of School Education & Literacy) as offices, whose more than 80% members of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Grand Parade, Agra cantt.,Uttar Pradesh -282 001
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Namkum Campus Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834 010
3. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Guwahati, NPCCD Road, Jawaharnagar Khanapara, नई दिल्ली, 23 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1521.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ;संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोगद्ध नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम ;4द्ध के अनुसरण में, विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी विभाग के स्वायत्त शासी संस्थान ''आघारकर अनुसंधन संस्था, पुणे'' को जिनके 80% से अध्कि कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अध्सिूचित करती है ।
[सं. ई-11028/1/2013-रा.भा.]
पी. एन. प्रसाद, निदेशक ;प्रशा. एवं रा. भा.द्ध3750 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(Department of Science and Technology)
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013
S.O. 1521.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of
the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the Autonomous Institute "AGHARKAR
RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PUNE" of Department of Science
and Technology the 80% and more staff whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. E.-11028/1/2013 (O.L.)]
P. N. PRASAD, Director (Admn. & O. L.) नियम 10 के उप-नियम ;4द्ध के अनुसरण में, सांख्यिकी और कार्यक्रम कार्यान्वयन मंत्राालय के अध्ीन क्षेत्रा संकार्य प्रभाग, राष्ट्रीय प्रतिदर्श सर्वेक्षण कार्यालय के क्षेत्राीय कार्यालय, पोर्ट ब्लेयर को, जिसके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, भारत के राजपत्रा में अध्सिूचित करती है ।
[सं. ई-11011/2/2006-हदी]
एस. एस. बधवन, संयुक्त सचिव
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2013
S. O. 1523.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule
10 of the Official Language (Use for Official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended - 1987), the Central
Government hereby notify the Regional Office, Port Blair of Field Operation Division, NSSO under the Ministry of
Statistics and Programme Implementation in the Gazette सांख्यिकी और कार्यक्रम कार्यान्वयन मंत्राालय नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1522.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ;संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोगद्ध नियम, 1976 ;यथा संशोध्ति 1987द्ध के नियम 10 के उप-नियम ;4द्ध के अनुसरण में, सांख्यिकी और कार्यक्रम कार्यान्वयन मंत्राालय के अध्ीन क्षेत्रा संकार्य प्रभाग, राष्ट्रीय प्रतिदर्श सर्वेक्षण कार्यालय के क्षेत्राीय कार्यालय, मोहाली को, जिसके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, भारत के राजपत्रा में अध्सिूचित करती है ।
[सं. ई-11011/2/2006-हदी]
एस. एस. बधवन, संयुक्त सचिव of India where 80 percent of the staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. E-11011/2/2006-Hindi]
S. S. BADHAWAN, Jt. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1524.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ;संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोगद्ध नियम, 1976 ;यथा संशोध्ति 1987द्ध के नियम 10 के उप-नियम ;4द्ध के अनुसरण में, सांख्यिकी और कार्यक्रम कार्यान्वयन मंत्राालय के अध्ीन क्षेत्रा संकार्य प्रभाग, राष्ट्रीय प्रतिदर्श सर्वेक्षण कार्यालय के उप-क्षेत्राीय कार्यालय, हमीरपुर को, जिसके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, भारत के राजपत्रा में अध्सिूचित करती है ।
MINISTRY OF STATISTICS AND PROGRAMME
IMPLEMENTATION
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2013
S.O. 1522.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended - 1987), the Central
Government hereby notify the Regional Office, Mohali of Field Operation Division, NSSO under the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation in the Gazette of India where 80 percent of the staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. E -11011/2/2006 Hindi]
S. S. BADHAWAN, Jt. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1523.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ;संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोगद्ध नियम, 1976 ;यथा संशोध्ति 1987द्ध के
[सं. ई-11011/2/2006-हदी]
एस. एस. बधवन, संयुक्त सचिव
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2013
S.O. 1524. —In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended - 1987), the Central Government hereby notify the Sub-Regional Office, Hamirpur of Field Operation Division, NSSO under the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation in the Gazette of India where 80 percent of the staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. E-11011/2/2006-Hindi]
S. S. BADHAWAN, Jt. Secy.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3751उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्राालय
;उपभोक्ता मामले विभागद्ध
भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो
नई दिल्ली, 23 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1525.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप-नियम ;1द्ध के खंड ;खद्ध के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक मेें संशोध्न किया गया है ।
अनुसूची
क्रम सं. संशोध्ति भारतीय मानक की संशोध्न की संख्या संशोध्न लागू होने की संख्या और वर्ष और तिथि
तिथि
;1द्ध ;2द्ध
;3द्ध
;4द्ध
1. आई एस 4622ः 2003 स्थिर-व्हील गेट संशोध्न संख्या 2, 31 जुलाई, 2013 के संरचनात्मक डिजाइन की सिपफारिशें जुलाई, 2013 ;तीसरा पुनरीक्षणद्ध
इस संशोध्न की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9, बहादुर शाह ज़पफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002, क्षेत्राीय 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 उपलब्ध् हैं । भारतीय मानकों को http://www.standardsbis.in पर इंटरनेट द्वारा खरीदा जा सकता है ।
[संदर्भ डब्ल्यू आर डी 12/टी-1] जे. सी. अरोड़ा, वैज्ञानिक 'एपफ' एवं प्रमुख ;जल संसाध्न विभागद्ध
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013
S.O. 1525.—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 amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars of which is given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :
SCHEDULE
Sl.No. No. Title and Year of the No. and year of the Date from which Indian Standards
amendment
the amendment shall have effect
;1द्ध ;2द्ध
;3द्ध
;4द्ध
1. IS 4622 : 2003
Amendment No. 2 31st July, 2013 July 2013
Recommendations for Structural Design of Fixed-Wheel Gates (Third Revision)3752 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Copies of this Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram. On line purchase of Indian standard can be purchased from BIS Sales Portal http://www.standardsbis.in
[Ref. WRD 12 /T-1]
J. C. ARORA, Scientist 'F' & Head (Water Resources Deptt.)
नई दिल्ली, 25 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1526.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ;1द्ध के खंड ;खद्ध के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :—
अनुसूची
क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानक;कोंद्ध की संख्या, वर्ष नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा स्थापित तिथि संख्या और शीर्षक अतिक्रमित भारतीय
मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष
1. IS 15858 : 2013 — 30 जून, 2013 कॉटन सीड डीलिन्टग मशीनरी—विद्युत तापन और द्रव चालित पद्वति सहित डीलिन्टग मशीन-विशिष्टि
2. IS 15859ः 2013 — 30 जून, 2013 कॉटन सीड डीलिन्टग मशीनरी—एअर जेट एवं नॉयलॉन ब्रश मशीन सहित बपफग मशीन- विशिष्टि
3. IS 15860ः 2013 — 30 जून, 2013 कॉटन सीड डीलिन्टग मशीनरी—अमोनिया वाष्पक सहित अमोनिया कॉटन सीड न्यूट्रालाइजर मशीन-विशिष्टि
4. IS 15861ः 2013 — 30 जून, 2013 कॉटन सीड डीलिन्टग मशीनरी—स्क्रबर, साइक्लोन, चिमनी, हुड एवं संवातक सहित प्रदूषक नियंत्राक प्रणाली-विशिष्टि
5. IS 15862ः 2013 — 30 जून, 2013 कॉटन सीड डीलिन्टग मशीनरी—एचसीएल गैस उत्पादक इकाई—विशिष्टि
इन मानकों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9, बहादुर शाह जपफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002, क्षेत्राीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चैन्नई, मुम्बई चण्डीगढ़ तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा कोचि में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध् हैं ।
[संदर्भ एपफएडी/जी-128]
कुमार अनिल, वैज्ञानिक 'एपफ' एवं प्रमुख ;खाद्य एवं कृषिद्ध[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3753
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2013
S.O. 1526.—In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :
SCHEDULE
Sl. No. & Year of the Indian No. & Year of Indian Date of No. Standards Standards, if any, Establishment
Superseded by the New Indian Standard
1. IS 15858: 2013 — 30 June, 2013 Cotton seed delinting machinery— Delinting machine with electrical heating and hydraulic system— Specification
2. IS 15859: 2013 — 30 June, 2013 Cotton seed delinting machinery— Buffing machine with air jet and nylon brush—Specification
3. IS 15860 : 2013 — 30 June, 2013 Cotton seed delinting machinery— Ammonia cotton Seed neutralizer machine
with ammonia vaporizer—Specification
4. IS 15861: 2013 — 30 June, 2013 Cotton seed delinting machinery— Pollution control system with scrubber, cyclone, chimney, hoods
and ducting—Specification
5. IS 15862: 2013 — 30 June, 2013 Cotton seed delinting machinery— HCI gas generation unit- Specification
Copy of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubhneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Kochi.
[Ref. FAD/G-128]
KUMAR ANIL, Scientist 'F' and Head (Food & Agri.)
नई दिल्ली, 29 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1527.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ;1द्ध के खंड ;खद्ध के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक;कोंद्ध में संशोध्न किया गया/किये गये हैं ।
अनुसूची
क्रम संशोध्ति भारतीय मानक;कोंद्ध की संख्या, संशोध्न की संख्या और तिथि स्थापित तिथि संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
1. आईएस 877ः 1989 सक्रियित कार्बन चूणत संशोध्न संख्या नं. 2 31 जुलाई, 2013 और दानेदार के नमूने लेने और परीक्षण की जुलाई 2013 प(तियों की विशिष्टि का मसौदा ;दूसरा पुनरीक्षणद्ध3754 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] इन भारतीय मानकों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9, बहादुरशाह जपफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110 002, क्षेत्राीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चैन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध् हैं । भारतीय मानकों को http:// www.standardsbis.in द्वारा इंटरनैट पर खरीदा जा सकता है ।
[संदर्भ सीएचडी 1/आईएस 877]
डॉ. राजीव के. झा, वैज्ञानिक 'एपफ' एवं प्रमुख ;रसायनद्ध
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2013
S.O. 1527.—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 amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :
SCHEDULE
Sl. No. & Year of the Indian No. and year of Date from which the No. Standards
the amendment amendment shall have
effect
1. IS 877:1989 Activated carbons, Amendment No. 2 31 July, 2013 powdered and granular— July 2013 Methods of sampling and test (second revision)
Copy of this standards is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmadabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram. On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at :http://www.standardsbis.in.
[Ref CHD/1/IS 877]
Dr. RAJIV K. JHA, Scientist 'F' & Head (CHD)
नई दिल्ली, 29 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1528.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप-नियम ;1द्ध के खंड ;खद्ध के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक;कोंद्ध में संशोध्न किया गया/किये गये हैं ।
अनुसूची
क्रम संशोध्ति भारतीय मानक ;कोंद्ध की संख्या, संशोध्न की संख्या और तिथि स्थापित तिथि संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
1. आईएस 15489 : 2004 पेन्ट, प्लास्टिक संशोध्न संख्या नं. 1 31 जुलाई, 2013 इमल्शन-विशिष्टि
जुलाई 2013
इन भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9, बहादुर शाह जपफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110 002, क्षेत्राीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध् हैं । भारतीय मानकों को http://www.standardsbis.in द्वारा इंटरनैट पर खरीदा जा सकता है ।
[संदर्भ सीएचडी 20/आईएस 15489]
डा. राजीव के. झा, वैज्ञानिक 'एपफ' एवं प्रमुख ;रसायनद्ध[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3755
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2013
S.O. 1528.—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 amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :
SCHEDULE
Sl. No. and Year of the Indian No. and year of Date from which the No. Standards
the amendment amendment shall have
effect
1. IS 15489 : 2004 Paint, Plastic Amendment No. 1 31 July, 2013 Emulsion—Specification
July 2013
Copy of this Standards is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmadabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubhneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram. On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at : http://www.standardsbis.in.
[Ref : CHD 20/IS 15489]
Dr. RAJIV K. JHA, Scientist 'F' & Head (CHD)
नई दिल्ली, 30 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1529.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप-नियम ;1द्ध के खंड ;खद्ध के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिन मानकों का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया हैं वे स्थापित हो गये हैं :
अनुसूची
क्रम सं. स्थापित भारतीय मानकों ;कीद्ध नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा स्थापित तिथि संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक
अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष
;1द्ध ;2द्ध
;3द्ध ;4द्ध
1. आई एस 8112 : 2013 साधरण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट, आई एस 8112 : 1989 31,जुलाई 2013 43 ग्रेड- विशिष्टि ;दूसरा पुनरीक्षणद्ध
इस भारतीय मानक की प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9, बहादुर शाह ज़पफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002, क्षेत्राीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा कोचि में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध् हैं ।
[संदर्भ सीईडी/राजपत्रा] सी. आर. राजेन्द्रा, वैज्ञानिक 'एपफ' एवं प्रमुख ;सिविल इंजीनियरीद्ध
New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013
S.O. 1529.—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 Indian No. and Year of the Date of Establishment Standards Established Indian Standards, if
any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
1. IS 8112 : 2013 Ordinary Portland Cement IS 8112 : 1989 31 July 2013 43 Grade-Specification (Second Revision)3756 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Copy of these Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Kochi.
[Ref. CED/Gazette)]
C. R. RAJENDRA, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)
नई दिल्ली, 30 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1530.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप-नियम ;1द्ध के खंड ;खद्ध के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ;काेंद्ध मेें संशोध्न किया गया/किये गये हैं ।
अनुसूची
क्रम सं. संशोध्ति भारतीय मानक ;कोंद्ध की संशोध्न की संख्या स्थापित तिथि संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक और तिथि
;1द्ध ;2द्ध
;3द्ध ;4द्ध
1. आई एस 101 ;भाग 6/अनुभाग1द्ध :1988 संशोध्न संख्या नं. 3, 31 जुलाई, 2013 रंग रोगनों, वानशों और संबंध्ति उत्पादों के जुलाई, 2013 नमूने लेने और परीक्षण की प(तियों भाग 6 स्थायित्व परीक्षण अनुभाग 1 संधनन की परिस्थितियों में आद्रता की प्रतिरोध्तिा ;तीसरा पुनरीक्षणद्ध
इन भारतीय मानकों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9, बहादुर शाह ज़पफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002, क्षेत्राीय 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 उपलब्ध् हैं । भारतीय मानकों को :http://www.standardsbis.in द्वारा इंटरनैट पर खरीदा जा सकता है ।
[संदर्भ सीएचडी 20/आईएस 101 ;भाग 6/अनुभाग 1द्ध] डॉ. राजीव के. झा, वैज्ञानिक 'एपफ' एवं प्रमुख ;रसायनद्ध
New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013
S.O. 1530.—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 amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :
SCHEDULE
Sl.No. No. and year of the No. and year of the Date from which Indian Standards
amendment
the amendment shall have effect
;1द्ध ;2द्ध
;3द्ध
;4द्ध
1. IS 101(Part 6/Sec 1) : 1988 Amendment No. 3 31 July, 2013 Methods of sampling and test for July, 2013
paints, varnishes and related
products Part 6 Durability Tests
Section 1 Resistance to humidity
under conditions of condensation (Third Revision)[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3757 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, Thiruvananthapuram. On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at :http://www.standardsbis.in
[Ref. CHD 20 /IS 101 (Part 6/Sec 1)]
Dr. RAJIV K. JHA, Scientist 'F' & Head (CHD)
नई दिल्ली, 30 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1531.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप-नियम ;1द्ध के खंड ;खद्ध के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ;काेंद्ध मेें संशोध्न किया गया/किये गये हैं :
अनुसूची
क्रम सं. संशोध्ति भारतीय मानक ;कोंद्ध की संशोध्न की संख्या स्थापित तिथि संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक और तिथि
;1द्ध ;2द्ध
;3द्ध ;4द्ध
1. आई एस 1288 : 1982 खनिज जिप्सम के संशोध्न संख्या नं. 1, 31 जुलाई, 2013 लिए परीक्षण की प(तियाँ जुलाई, 2013 ;दूसरा पुनरीक्षणद्ध
इन भारतीय मानकों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9, बहादुर शाह ज़पफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002, क्षेत्राीय 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 उपलब्ध् हैं । भारतीय मानकों को :http://www.standardsbis.in द्वारा इंटरनैट पर खरीदा जा सकता है ।
[संदर्भ सीएचडी 1/आईएस 1288] डॉ. राजीव के. झा, वैज्ञानिक 'एपफ' एवं प्रमुख ;रसायनद्ध
New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013
S.O. 1531.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :
SCHEDULE
Sl. No. No. and year of the No. and year of the Date from which Indian Standards
amendment
the amendment shall have effect
;1द्ध ;2द्ध
;3द्ध
;4द्ध
1. IS 1288 : 1982 Methods of
Amendment No. 1 31th July, 2013 test for mineral gypsum July, 2013 (second Revision)
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, Thiruvananthapuram. On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at :http://www.standardsbis.in
[Ref. CHD 1 /IS 1288]
Dr. RAJIV K. JHA, Scientist 'F' & Head (CHD)3758 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्राालय
नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1532.—केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि पटना से मोतिहारी और बेतालपुर तक पेट्रोलियम पदार्थों के परिवहन हेतु जिला सारन, राज्य बिहार में इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अध्सिूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वणत है, उपयोग का अर्जन किया जाए ।
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ;भूमि में उपयोग के अध्किार का अर्जनद्ध अध्निियम, 1962 ;1962 का 50द्ध की धरा 3 की उपधरा ;1द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अध्किार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है।
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितब( है, उस तारीख से जिसको, भारत के राजपत्रा में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधरण जनता को उपलब्ध् करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के अन्दर, भूमि के भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने हेतु उपयोग के अध्किार के अर्जन के लिए, श्री अरूण कुमार झा, बि.प्र.से. व सक्षम प्राध्किारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, ;पाइपलाइन्स डिवीजनद्ध पटना, पो.ओ. ढेलवा, सिपारा, जिला पटना, पिनः 800020, बिहार को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा।
अनुसूची
जिला : सारन
राज्य : बिहार
मौजा/ग्राम सर्वे/ब्लाक/सं. ;प्लोट सं.द्ध सब-डीव-सं. क्षेत्रापफल
हेक्टेयर आरे वर्ग मीटर ;1द्ध
;2द्ध ;3द्ध ;4द्ध ;5द्ध ;6द्ध रायपुर बेनगवान
313;नदीद्ध 00 32 16 थाना नंबर : 523
121;नदीद्ध 07 44 35
65 00 28 79
78 00 46 49
111/330 00 29 97 खवासपूर खुर्द
248 ;कच्चा रास्ताद्ध 00 01 64 थाना नंबर : 510
53 00 01 78
52 00 10 20
51 00 00 38
50 00 00 20
54 00 00 20
60 00 03 72
61 00 01 86
62 00 02 16
65 00 01 10
66 00 02 65
67 00 00 20
68 00 01 87
71 00 01 09
72 00 02 21
73 00 02 53 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3759 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
42 00 01 04
76 00 00 78
77 00 00 43
41;कच्चा रास्ताद्ध 00 00 14
40 00 05 75
39 00 00 20
13 00 03 42
14 00 01 12
15 00 02 75
16 00 00 96
19 00 00 20
20 00 00 20
12 00 07 09
11 00 04 08
10 00 00 20
7 00 00 37
8 00 06 16
6 00 04 63
5 00 01 19
1 00 00 66
खवासपूर 177 00 05 03
थाना नंबर : 513
इस्माइलपुर 183 00 01 10
थाना नंबर : 509 181 00 07 51
182 00 05 78
180 00 00 88
118 00 07 64
119 00 00 98
120 00 00 24
117 00 00 53
115 00 01 18
114 00 10 32
121 00 04 70
122 00 00 24
123 00 00 24
113 00 00 42
96;रास्ताद्ध 00 03 23
50 00 00 20
3760 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
47 00 00 24
43 00 04 03
44 00 00 24
42 00 03 08
39 00 00 37
40 00 00 20
38 00 03 83
37 00 00 58
36 00 00 24
36/219 00 00 78
38/216 ;कच्चा रास्ताद्ध 00 01 13
जगदीशपुर 993 00 01 68
थाना नंबर : 508 939 00 01 79
940 00 00 20
941 00 00 20
832 00 00 20
938 00 04 81
937 00 02 99
936 00 03 43
835 00 05 20
836 00 07 96
837 00 00 20
845 00 04 72
846 00 00 20
844 00 00 20
851 00 01 33
850 00 02 95
849 00 00 48
858 00 02 54
859 00 00 20
857 00 01 21
864 00 02 14
865 00 01 36
863 00 00 52
872 00 01 54
871 00 01 94
870 00 01 91
693 00 01 34
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3761
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
876 00 00 20
691 00 01 97
692 00 01 38
639 00 00 20
878 00 02 00
634 00 04 86
633 00 00 20
635 00 03 49
636 00 00 20
307;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 36
311 00 00 20
312 00 16 96
313 00 02 78
314 00 00 20
267 00 00 36
268 00 00 20
266 00 03 16
265 00 05 89
264 00 05 74
263 00 09 54
253 00 00 77
262 00 02 20
254 00 04 42
255 00 08 80
256 00 00 20
244 00 01 44
245 00 03 85
238 00 00 20
243 00 12 01
240 00 00 20
241 00 03 50
242 00 09 70
चक जमाली 31 00 03 04
थाना नंबर : 507 54 00 00 66
32 00 05 69
30 00 00 34
29 00 00 20
33 00 16 46
3762 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
38 00 02 48
39 00 02 12
40 00 00 20
41 00 05 58
42 00 01 78
7;रास्ताद्ध 00 02 62
14 00 00 32
15 00 00 20
13 00 08 52
12 00 00 20
9 00 01 51
11 00 00 92
10 00 05 60
4 00 10 15
काजीपूर 584 00 06 26
थाना नंबर : 514 585 00 05 41
586 00 17 16
720 00 00 20
583 00 00 31
587 00 04 75
580 00 00 20
579 00 02 17
578 00 00 20
597 00 00 20
598 00 14 51
577 00 00 68
576 00 00 20
599 00 04 91
600 00 05 66
601 00 09 22
602 00 03 71
605 00 00 20
607 00 00 20
567 00 00 65
606 00 11 63
565 00 06 23
562 00 04 82
561 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3763
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
530 00 07 50
531 00 02 57
532 00 00 20
535 00 00 20
533 00 06 64
534 00 06 44
520 00 00 40
519 00 06 97
518 00 02 87
468 ;रेलवेद्ध 00 05 87
453;रेलवेद्ध 00 04 74
463 00 03 11
464 ;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 40
422 00 05 30
426 00 00 61
425 00 02 57
423 00 10 20
424 00 00 90
421 00 01 85
419 00 00 37
420 00 05 28
418 00 00 20
415 00 00 20
417 00 04 08
416 00 04 02
62 00 00 85
61 00 01 79
59 00 04 86
58 00 02 29
54 00 02 64
53 00 03 60
52 00 12 12
51 00 04 91
48 00 00 20
47 00 08 78
45 00 00 52
44 00 00 20
46 00 03 53
3764 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
4 00 00 20
हसनपुरा दखीलीखल 103 ;नालाद्ध 00 01 96
थाना नंबर : 517 64 00 06 66
63 00 03 65
62 00 07 55
61 00 03 52
56;नालाद्ध 00 02 77
1;नालाद्ध 00 03 07
हसनपुरा 77 00 04 48
थाना नंबर : 516 75 00 06 71
74 00 18 55
73 00 00 46
98 00 05 72
69 00 15 13
67 00 12 17
52 ;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 22
33 00 11 12
32;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 24
31 00 07 01
26 00 00 83
30 00 01 69
29 00 00 20
27 00 02 82
28 00 04 64
19 00 08 88
6 00 00 20
20 00 06 29
5 00 05 15
4 00 04 72
1 00 04 51
2 00 00 20
जलालपूर 7 00 01 97
थाना नंबर : 515 6 00 03 06
5 00 01 14
4 00 01 45
3 00 03 06
2 00 03 71
1 00 00 50
थाना नंबर : 497 38;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 02 39[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3765 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
244 00 00 52
32 00 12 50
31 00 06 44
30 00 05 30
29 00 00 20
28 00 05 50
26 ;रास्ताद्ध 00 05 27
12 00 02 38
13 00 08 88
14 00 00 20
21 00 02 93
20 00 13 09
1;केनालद्ध 00 02 81
ध्रमपुरा 516 00 03 00
थाना नंबर : 305 442 00 04 18
443 00 00 20
450 00 00 20
453 00 15 44
454 00 00 73
457 00 00 20
452 00 17 08
458 00 05 06
459 00 00 20
439 00 07 82
438;केनालद्ध 00 01 72
289;केनालद्ध 00 04 66
243 00 00 77
242 00 00 20
288 00 01 99
287 00 03 06
286 00 02 83
285 00 03 48
284 00 03 08
283 00 02 44
282 00 03 19
281 00 02 56
280 00 01 61
279 00 12 77
3766 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
जीलकाबाद 1436 00 01 39
थाना नंबर : 495 1435 00 10 04
1432 00 03 87
1432/1535 00 01 16
1431 00 04 16
1431/1534 00 01 26
1428 00 19 49
1427 00 05 71
1426 00 02 50
1423 00 05 42
1422 00 01 74
1421 00 01 28
1418 00 02 23
1419 00 00 32
1414 00 00 20
1417 00 06 58
1415 00 04 07
1416 00 00 20
1393 00 09 35
1400 00 03 91
1401 00 00 20
1399 00 00 20
1383 00 04 05
1382 00 00 93
1403 00 05 28
1382/1537 00 09 95
1404 00 04 89
1380 00 00 20
1370 00 00 20
1371;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 00 52
1372 00 00 54
1331 00 19 46
1332 00 02 98
1332/1538 00 02 84
1333 00 02 18
1333/1539 00 01 60
1342 00 01 15
1329 ;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 84
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3767
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1327 00 06 89
1321 00 04 60
1320 00 02 65
1322 00 01 54
1326 00 00 20
1322 00 05 10
1319 00 01 14
1316;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 89
पीरारी 1371;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 68
थाना नंबर : 306 1427 00 27 00
1426 00 06 13
1428 00 29 29
1424 00 00 20
1429 00 00 20
1398 00 36 43
769 00 02 14
761 00 02 15
762 00 01 54
763 00 01 98
767 00 01 70
768 00 00 20
1430 ;कच्चा रास्ताद्ध 00 01 27
दरीयाव गंज थाना नंबर : 303 2;नालाद्ध 00 00 20
महाराज गंज 44;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 80
थाना नंबर : 308 43 00 02 97
42 00 04 33
41 00 04 25
40 00 02 64
39 00 02 03
38 00 02 67
37 00 03 98
35 00 03 86
34 00 04 21
32 00 05 01
31 00 00 86
30 00 10 13
23 00 02 07
29 00 00 20
3768 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
20 00 03 00
18 00 02 41
14 00 02 49
13 00 03 61
12 00 03 52
11 00 11 17
10 00 01 79
4 00 04 63
2 00 01 21
1;रास्ताद्ध 00 02 57
बीसूनपुरा 2350;रास्ताद्ध 00 03 04
थाना नंबर : 314 2348 00 05 60
2346 00 00 20
2347 00 06 35
2340 00 03 54
2339 00 03 14
2338 00 03 65
2311 00 03 02
2315 00 03 44
2318 00 02 80
2294 00 02 98
2293 00 03 32
2290 00 06 41
2291 00 00 20
2286 00 05 17
2285 00 03 17
2228;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 02 96
2227 00 16 26
2229 00 04 31
2230 00 02 09
2226 00 01 63
2231 00 04 19
2225 00 10 44
2224 00 00 85
2223;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 43
2134 00 06 13
2129 00 08 70
2026 00 05 41
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3769
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
2025 00 00 20
2031 00 04 52
2032 00 00 20
2039 00 04 80
2040 00 03 92
2042 00 04 74
2048 00 03 68
2022;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 43
1911 00 04 33
1912 00 04 10
1913 00 03 05
1914 00 02 22
1915 00 04 50
1918 00 02 66
1919 00 00 48
1939 00 00 20
1990;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 04
1950 00 02 52
1995 00 03 37
1994 00 00 20
1987 00 11 30
1988 00 00 20
1986 00 06 68
1985 00 06 61
1983 00 00 20
1958;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 00 83
1952 00 03 70
1951 00 00 91
1953 00 07 22
1954 00 00 20
1956 00 05 72
1955 00 05 27
1860;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 08
1856;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 03
1811 00 07 26
1810 00 05 10
1808 00 00 20
3770 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1805 00 00 60
1802 00 03 02
1800 00 00 20
1799 00 02 96
1730 ;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 03 44
1727 00 03 76
1726 00 04 40
1725 00 02 72
1719 00 00 20
1720 00 06 46
1717 00 05 72
1712 00 02 87
1711 00 03 19
1710 00 00 20
1707 00 03 35
1706 00 02 03
1705 00 02 16
1700 00 00 71
1702 00 02 70
1684 00 00 20
1683 00 00 20
1701 00 01 40
1685 00 03 54
1686 00 02 53
1688 00 01 64
1689 00 00 20
1687 00 02 90
1691 00 01 63
1692 00 03 32
1693 00 00 34
1493 00 02 16
1694 00 00 20
1281 00 05 64
1284 00 06 10
1280 00 00 20
1277 00 00 74
1278 00 05 57
1276 00 06 16
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3771
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1272 00 00 95
1271 00 00 20
1270 00 00 20
1237 00 00 20
1238 00 00 20
1273 00 02 50
1236 00 04 08
1239 00 01 00
1240 00 04 30
1241 00 04 42
1200 00 00 20
1242 00 02 84
1199 00 00 72
1198 00 04 63
1169 ;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 86
1120 00 09 14
1121 00 00 20
1118 00 00 20
1123 00 00 20
1119 00 02 96
1122 00 06 05
1125 00 03 25
1131 00 00 20
1130 00 00 20
1126 00 02 63
1127 00 05 56
1128 00 06 78
1129 00 00 84
1054 ;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 84
706 ;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 30
1008 00 00 29
1009 00 08 96
1010 00 00 20
1011 00 09 49
1012 00 03 29
1013 00 02 89
1014 00 01 72
1015 00 01 55
3772 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
935;केनालद्ध 00 01 07
833 00 14 29
834 00 00 80
837 00 09 43
836 00 00 20
838 ;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 06
845 00 00 20
846 00 18 40
848 00 00 20
847 00 02 09
886 ;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 68
112 00 10 06
113 00 07 12
111 00 01 30
114 00 02 76
115 00 00 23
116 00 14 96
109 00 00 20
117 00 04 02
108 00 08 69
90 00 03 78
91 00 00 20
89 00 03 24
73 00 03 07
80 00 00 24
79 00 02 20
74 00 00 74
77 00 00 20
76 00 00 20
78 00 05 98
मोबारकपुर 884 00 09 41
थाना नंबर : 317 886 00 00 20
887 00 00 20
880 00 03 16
883 00 16 88
876 00 09 29
875 ;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 82
874 ;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 12
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3773
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
836 00 05 03
838 00 06 38
837 00 00 20
839 00 02 22
840 00 07 68
841 00 01 27
843 00 00 29
842 00 13 69
818 ;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 38
737 00 17 15
733 00 17 22
732 ;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 44
730 00 05 15
714 00 07 39
715 00 07 31
713 00 08 57
716 00 00 20
709 00 02 66
708 00 00 89
710 00 03 16
711 00 01 52
712 00 00 20
695 00 10 03
694 00 05 53
682 00 09 85
681 00 06 13
680 00 00 20
683 00 00 68
678 00 00 20
679 00 08 15
697 ;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 79
माला शेरपुर 664 ;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 44
थाना नंबर : 315 90 00 05 96
89 ;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 02 71
91 00 00 55
88 00 02 24
77 00 10 13
74 00 00 20
3774 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
80 00 00 20
72 00 11 72
71 ;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 60
70 00 02 68
69 00 00 54
68 00 00 92
67 00 01 90
64 00 06 66
63 00 03 79
59 00 02 27
50 00 02 89
58 00 00 90
52 00 16 40
53 00 00 20
51 00 03 30
153 ;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 37
माला मीर्जा तुकरा 151 ;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 20
थाना नंबर : 291 15 00 14 76
13 00 21 82
12 ;रास्ताद्ध 00 00 92
11 ;रास्ताद्ध 00 00 84
10 ;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 00
6 00 02 80
5 00 03 80
7 00 07 88
4 00 06 61
3 00 08 03
महमदा 4288 00 05 31
थाना नंबर : 334 4287 00 00 31
4289 00 00 71
4286 00 11 42
4285 00 03 08
4296 ;नालाद्ध 00 01 01
4772 00 06 87
4283 00 22 97
4282 ;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 96
4281 ;रास्ताद्ध 00 04 59
4280 ;केनालद्ध 00 00 91
4209 ;रास्ताद्ध 00 02 94[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3775 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
4207 00 00 38
4206 00 00 20
4201 00 10 10
4202 00 03 04
4198 00 04 64
4203 00 07 36
4204 00 01 08
मेहीयन 286 00 01 47
थाना नंबर : 290 285 00 06 77
288 00 00 20
284 00 00 30
289 00 06 97
342 00 00 37
297 00 08 59
296 00 00 20
340 00 00 42
339 00 00 77
338 00 01 56
298 00 10 30
323 00 06 88
1360 00 00 20
299 00 00 49
300 00 00 33
322 00 08 29
301 00 00 32
302 00 00 89
312 00 03 85
303 00 02 36
304 00 02 78
305 00 08 76
310 00 02 87
309 00 04 40
417;केनालद्ध 00 02 72
419 00 18 35
420 00 01 16
421 00 06 77
425 00 00 20
424 00 00 20
3776 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
430 00 06 69
429 00 00 20
195;रास्ताद्ध 00 02 27
658 00 02 88
657 00 03 65
656 00 00 20
660 00 02 93
661 00 03 52
659 00 02 06
105 00 01 65
662 00 03 16
104 00 03 86
663 00 04 34
103 00 08 48
664 00 00 38
102 00 09 52
49 00 04 60
48 00 04 40
44 00 21 22
665 00 00 20
45 00 00 76
41 00 08 30
42 00 03 96
37 00 00 20
43 00 04 41
1;कच्चा रास्ताद्ध 00 01 28
मवना 832 ;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 37
थाना नंबर : 286 831 00 08 45
830 00 04 00
829 00 06 35
835 00 05 03
836 00 01 58
828 00 01 04
827 00 06 29
825 00 01 72
824 00 01 86
823 00 04 00
821 00 03 54
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3777
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
815 00 03 44
812 00 07 55
813 00 00 95
811 00 21 65
808 00 03 46
807 00 00 20
713;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 06 55
716 00 01 55
719 00 17 09
720 00 02 09
407 00 04 92
408 00 04 40
409 00 04 01
410 00 02 47
411 00 03 30
412 00 05 02
413 00 14 02
401 00 05 25
414 00 02 96
399 00 14 36
387;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 62
398 00 00 20
365 00 06 59
364 00 06 22
363 00 06 19
362 00 03 08
361 00 04 40
360 00 08 20
355;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 60
357 00 12 26
356 00 11 23
342 00 05 77
343 00 03 61
349 00 00 67
348 00 05 74
344 00 00 40
347/2035 00 09 17
346 00 00 76
2;रेलवेद्ध 00 14 713778 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 3 00 05 41
4 00 05 17
1272;कच्चा रास्ताद्ध 00 01 12
संधन
1108;कच्चा रास्ताद्ध 00 00 88
थाना नंबर : 342
1083 00 00 20
1083 00 33 08
1084 00 00 20
1082 00 21 24
1072;कच्चा रास्ताद्ध 00 00 89
1071 00 00 20
[पफा. सं. आर-25011/20/2013-ओआर-I]
पवन वुफमार, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, 27th July, 2013
S.O. 1532.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in Dist. Saran in the State of Bihar for 'Patna to Motihari and Baitalpur Pipeline' for the transportation of Petroleum Product;
And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Arun Kumar Jha B.A.S. & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited. (Pipelines Division) P.O. Dhelwan, Sipara, Dist. Patna (Bihar.) Pin – 800020.
SCHEDULE
Dist.: Saran
State : Bihar
Mouja / Village Survey/BlockNo. Sub-Div-No. Area
Hectare Are Sq.mtr. (1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6) RAIPUR BENGAWAN 313(River) 00 32 16 Thana Number : 523 121(River) 07 44 35
65 00 28 79
78 00 46 49
111/330 00 29 97 KHAWASPUR 248-(Cart Track) 00 01 64 KHURD 53 00 01 78 Thana No:-510
52 00 10 20
51 00 00 38 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3779 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
61 00 01 86
62 00 02 16
65 00 01 10
66 00 02 65
67 00 00 20
68 00 01 87
71 00 01 09
72 00 02 21
73 00 02 53
74 00 03 16
75 00 00 47
42 00 01 04
76 00 00 78
77 00 00 43
41(Cart Track) 00 00 14
40 00 05 75
39 00 00 20
13 00 03 42
14 00 01 12
15 00 02 75
16 00 00 96
19 00 00 20
20 00 00 20
12 00 07 09
11 00 04 08
10 00 00 20
7 00 00 37
8 00 06 16
6 00 04 63
5 00 01 19
1 00 00 66
KHAWASPUR Thana No.513 177 00 05 03
ISMAILPUR 183 00 01 10
Thana Number :- 509 181 00 07 51
182 00 05 78
180 00 00 88
118 00 07 64
119 00 00 98
120 00 00 24
117 00 00 53
115 00 01 18
114 00 10 32
121 00 04 70
3780 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
96(Road) 00 03 23
50 00 00 20
49 00 07 50
48 00 03 35
47 00 00 24
43 00 04 03
44 00 00 24
42 00 03 08
39 00 00 37
40 00 00 20
38 00 03 83
37 00 00 58
36 00 00 24
36/219 00 00 78
38/216 (Cart Track) 00 01 13
JAGDISHPUR 993 00 01 68
Thana Number :- 508 939 00 01 79
940 00 00 20
941 00 00 20
832 00 00 20
938 00 04 81
937 00 02 99
936 00 03 43
835 00 05 20
836 00 07 96
837 00 00 20
845 00 04 72
846 00 00 20
844 00 00 20
851 00 01 33
850 00 02 95
849 00 00 48
858 00 02 54
859 00 00 20
857 00 01 21
864 00 02 14
865 00 01 36
863 00 00 52
872 00 01 54
871 00 01 94
870 00 01 91
693 00 01 34
874 00 01 90
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3781
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
692 00 01 38
639 00 00 20
878 00 02 00
634 00 04 86
633 00 00 20
635 00 03 49
636 00 00 20
307(Road) 00 01 36
311 00 00 20
312 00 16 96
313 00 02 78
314 00 00 20
267 00 00 36
268 00 00 20
266 00 03 16
265 00 05 89
264 00 05 74
263 00 09 54
253 00 00 77
262 00 02 20
254 00 04 42
255 00 08 80
256 00 00 20
244 00 01 44
245 00 03 85
238 00 00 20
243 00 12 01
240 00 00 20
241 00 03 50
242 00 09 70
CHAK JAMALI 31 00 03 04
Thana Number :-507 54 00 00 66
32 00 05 69
30 00 00 34
29 00 00 20
33 00 16 46
35 00 00 20
37 00 02 46
38 00 02 48
39 00 02 12
40 00 00 20
41 00 05 58
42 00 01 78
3782 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
13 00 08 52
12 00 00 20
9 00 01 51
11 00 00 92
10 00 05 60
4 00 10 15
QAZIPUR 584 00 06 26
Thana Number :- 514 585 00 05 41
586 00 17 16
720 00 00 20
583 00 00 31
587 00 04 75
580 00 00 20
579 00 02 17
578 00 00 20
597 00 00 20
598 00 14 51
577 00 00 68
576 00 00 20
599 00 04 91
600 00 05 66
601 00 09 22
602 00 03 71
605 00 00 20
607 00 00 20
567 00 00 65
606 00 11 63
565 00 06 23
562 00 04 82
561 00 00 20
529 00 02 48
528 00 00 20
530 00 07 50
531 00 02 57
532 00 00 20
535 00 00 20
533 00 06 64
534 00 06 44
520 00 00 40
519 00 06 97
518 00 02 87
468(RAILWAY) 00 05 87
453(RAILWAY) 00 04 74
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3783
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
426 00 00 61
425 00 02 57
423 00 10 20
424 00 00 90
421 00 01 85
419 00 00 37
420 00 05 28
418 00 00 20
415 00 00 20
417 00 04 08
416 00 04 02
62 00 00 85
61 00 01 79
59 00 04 86
58 00 02 29
54 00 02 64
53 00 03 60
52 00 12 12
51 00 04 91
48 00 00 20
47 00 08 78
45 00 00 52
44 00 00 20
46 00 03 53
43 00 03 30
42 00 05 47
4 00 00 20
HASANPURA DAKHILIKHAL 103(Nala) 00 01 96
Thana Number - 517 64 00 06 66
63 00 03 65
62 00 07 55
61 00 03 52
56(Nala) 00 02 77
1(Nala) 00 03 07
HASANPURA 77 00 04 48
Thana Number :- 516 75 00 06 71
74 00 18 55
73 00 00 46
98 00 05 72
69 00 15 13
67 00 12 17
52(FIELD CHENNAL) 00 01 22
33 00 11 12
3784 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
30 00 01 69
29 00 00 20
27 00 02 82
28 00 04 64
19 00 08 88
6 00 00 20
20 00 06 29
5 00 05 15
4 00 04 72
1 00 04 51
2 00 00 20
JALALPUR 7 00 01 97
Thana Number :- 515 6 00 03 06
5 00 01 14
4 00 01 45
3 00 03 06
2 00 03 71
1 00 00 50
MIRZAPUR 39 00 01 06
Thana Number :- 497
38(Field Channel) 00 02 39
244 00 00 52
32 00 12 50
31 00 06 44
30 00 05 30
29 00 00 20
28 00 05 50
26(Road) 00 05 27
12 00 02 38
13 00 08 88
14 00 00 20
21 00 02 93
20 00 13 09
1(Canal) 00 02 81
DHARAMPURA 516 00 03 00
Thana Number :- 305 442 00 04 18
443 00 00 20
450 00 00 20
453 00 15 44
454 00 00 73
457 00 00 20
452 00 17 08
458 00 05 06
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3785
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
289(Canal) 00 04 66
243 00 00 77
242 00 00 20
288 00 01 99
287 00 03 06
286 00 02 83
285 00 03 48
284 00 03 08
283 00 02 44
282 00 03 19
281 00 02 56
280 00 01 61
279 00 12 77
278 00 00 64
277 00 00 20
JILKABAD 1436 00 01 39
Thana Number : 495 1435 00 10 04
1432 00 03 87
1432/1535 00 01 16
1431 00 04 16
1431/1534 00 01 26
1428 00 19 49
1427 00 05 71
1426 00 02 50
1423 00 05 42
1422 00 01 74
1421 00 01 28
1418 00 02 23
1419 00 00 32
1414 00 00 20
1417 00 06 58
1415 00 04 07
1416 00 00 20
1393 00 09 35
1400 00 03 91
1401 00 00 20
1399 00 00 20
1383 00 04 05
1382 00 00 93
1403 00 05 28
1382-1537 00 09 95
1404 00 04 89
1370 00 00 20
3786 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1332 00 02 98
1332/1538 00 02 84
1333 00 02 18
1333/1539 00 01 60
1342 00 01 15
1329(Field Channel) 00 01 84
1328 00 00 20
1327/1536 00 00 70
1327 00 06 89
1321 00 04 60
1320 00 02 65
1322 00 01 54
1326 00 00 20
1322 00 05 10
1319 00 01 14
1316(Field Channel) 00 01 89
PIRARI Thana Number : 306 1371(Field Channel) 00 01 68
1427 00 27 00
1426 00 06 13
1428 00 29 29
1424 00 00 20
1429 00 00 20
1398 00 36 43
769 00 02 14
761 00 02 15
762 00 01 54
763 00 01 98
767 00 01 70
768 00 00 20
1430(Cart Track) 00 01 27
DARIYAW GANJ 2(Nala) 00 00 20
Thana Number : 303
MAHRAJ GANJ Thana Number :- 308 44(Field Channel) 00 01 80
43 00 02 97
42 00 04 33
41 00 04 25
40 00 02 64
39 00 02 03
38 00 02 67
37 00 03 98
35 00 03 86
34 00 04 21
32 00 05 01
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3787
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
29 00 00 20
22 00 03 48
21 00 06 26
20 00 03 00
18 00 02 41
14 00 02 49
13 00 03 61
12 00 03 52
11 00 11 17
10 00 01 79
4 00 04 63
2 00 01 21
1(Road) 00 02 57
BISHUNPURA 2350(Road) 00 03 04
Thana Number :- 314 2348 00 05 60
2346 00 00 20
2347 00 06 35
2340 00 03 54
2339 00 03 14
2338 00 03 65
2311 00 03 02
2315 00 03 44
2318 00 02 80
2294 00 02 98
2293 00 03 32
2290 00 06 41
2291 00 00 20
2286 00 05 17
2285 00 03 17
2228(Field Channel) 00 02 96
2227 00 16 26
2229 00 04 31
2230 00 02 09
2226 00 01 63
2231 00 04 19
2225 00 10 44
2224 00 00 85
2223(Field Channel) 00 01 43
2134 00 06 13
2129 00 08 70
2026 00 05 41
2027 00 02 21
2028 00 03 10
3788 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
2039 00 04 80
2040 00 03 92
2042 00 04 74
2048 00 03 68
2022(Field Channel) 00 01 43
1911 00 04 33
1912 00 04 10
1913 00 03 05
1914 00 02 22
1915 00 04 50
1918 00 02 66
1919 00 00 48
1939 00 00 20
1990(Field Channel) 00 01 04
1950 00 02 52
1995 00 03 37
1994 00 00 20
1987 00 11 30
1988 00 00 20
1986 00 06 68
1985 00 06 61
1983 00 00 20
1958(Field Channel) 00 00 83
1952 00 03 70
1951 00 00 91
1953 00 07 22
1954 00 00 20
1956 00 05 72
1955 00 05 27
1860(Road) 00 01 08
1856(Road) 00 01 03
1811 00 07 26
1810 00 05 10
1808 00 00 20
1809 00 04 91
1804 00 04 30
1805 00 00 60
1802 00 03 02
1800 00 00 20
1799 00 02 96
1730(Field Channel) 00 03 44
1727 00 03 76
1726 00 04 40
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3789
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1717 00 05 72 1712 00 02 87 1711 00 03 19 1710 00 00 20 1707 00 03 35 1706 00 02 03 1705 00 02 16 1700 00 00 71 1702 00 02 70 1684 00 00 20 1683 00 00 20 1701 00 01 40 1685 00 03 54 1686 00 02 53 1688 00 01 64 1689 00 00 20 1687 00 02 90 1691 00 01 63 1692 00 03 32 1693 00 00 34 1493 00 02 16 1694 00 00 20 1281 00 05 64 1284 00 06 10 1280 00 00 20 1277 00 00 74 1278 00 05 57 1276 00 06 16 1275 00 05 02 1274 00 02 08 1272 00 00 95 1271 00 00 20 1270 00 00 20 1237 00 00 20 1238 00 00 20 1273 00 02 50 1236 00 04 08 1239 00 01 00 1240 00 04 30 1241 00 04 42 1200 00 00 20 1242 00 02 84 1199 00 00 72 1198 00 04 633790 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1121 00 00 20
1118 00 00 20
1123 00 00 20
1119 00 02 96
1122 00 06 05
1125 00 03 25
1131 00 00 20
1130 00 00 20
1126 00 02 63
1127 00 05 56
1128 00 06 78
1129 00 00 84
1054(Road) 00 01 84
706(Road) 00 01 30
1008 00 00 29
1009 00 08 96
1010 00 00 20
1011 00 09 49
1012 00 03 29
1013 00 02 89
1014 00 01 72
1015 00 01 55
1018 00 02 64
1019 00 08 87
935(Canal) 00 01 07
833 00 14 29
834 00 00 80
837 00 09 43
836 00 00 20
838(Field Channel) 00 01 06
845 00 00 20
846 00 18 40
848 00 00 20
847 00 02 09
886(Field Channel) 00 01 68
112 00 10 06
113 00 07 12
111 00 01 30
114 00 02 76
115 00 00 23
116 00 14 96
109 00 00 20
117 00 04 02
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3791
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
89 00 03 24
73 00 03 07
80 00 00 24
79 00 02 20
74 00 00 74
77 00 00 20
76 00 00 20
78 00 05 98
MOBARAKPUR 884 00 09 41
Thana Number :- 317 886 00 00 20
887 00 00 20
880 00 03 16
883 00 16 88
876 00 09 29
875(Road) 00 01 82
874(Road) 00 01 12
873 00 06 55
835 00 05 24
836 00 05 03
838 00 06 38
837 00 00 20
839 00 02 22
840 00 07 68
841 00 01 27
843 00 00 29
842 00 13 69
818(Field Channel) 00 01 38
737 00 17 15
733 00 17 22
732(Field Channel) 00 01 44
730 00 05 15
714 00 07 39
715 00 07 31
713 00 08 57
716 00 00 20
709 00 02 66
708 00 00 89
710 00 03 16
711 00 01 52
712 00 00 20
695 00 10 03
694 00 05 53
682 00 09 85
3792 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
678 00 00 20
679 00 08 15
697(Road) 00 01 79
MALA SHERPUR 664(Road) 00 01 44
Thana Number :- 315 90 00 05 96
89(Field Channel) 00 02 71
91 00 00 55
88 00 02 24
77 00 10 13
74 00 00 20
78 00 09 08
79 00 01 19
80 00 00 20
72 00 11 72
71(Field Channel) 00 01 60
70 00 02 68
69 00 00 54
68 00 00 92
67 00 01 90
64 00 06 66
63 00 03 79
59 00 02 27
50 00 02 89
58 00 00 90
52 00 16 40
53 00 00 20
51 00 03 30
153(Field Channel) 00 01 37
MALA MIRZA TUKRA 151 (Field Channel) 00 01 20
Thana Number : 291 15 00 14 76
13 00 21 82
12(Road) 00 00 92
11(Road) 00 00 84
10(Road) 00 01 00
6 00 02 80
5 00 03 80
7 00 07 88
4 00 06 61
3 00 08 03
MAHAMDA 4288 00 05 31
Thana Number : 334 4287 00 00 31
4289 00 00 71
4286 00 11 42
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3793
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
4283 00 22 97
4282(Road) 00 01 96
4281(Road) 00 04 59
4280(Canal) 00 00 91
4279 00 24 86
4209(Road) 00 02 94
4207 00 00 38
4206 00 00 20
4201 00 10 10
4202 00 03 04
4198 00 04 64
4203 00 07 36
4204 00 01 08
MEHIAN 286 00 01 47
Thana Number : 290 285 00 06 77
288 00 00 20
284 00 00 30
289 00 06 97
342 00 00 37
297 00 08 59
296 00 00 20
340 00 00 42
339 00 00 77
338 00 01 56
298 00 10 30
323 00 06 88
1360 00 00 20
299 00 00 49
300 00 00 33
322 00 08 29
301 00 00 32
302 00 00 89
312 00 03 85
303 00 02 36
304 00 02 78
305 00 08 76
310 00 02 87
309 00 04 40
417(Canal) 00 02 72
419 00 18 35
420 00 01 16
421 00 06 77
425 00 00 20
3794 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
430 00 06 69
429 00 00 20
195(Road) 00 02 27
658 00 02 88
657 00 03 65
656 00 00 20
660 00 02 93
661 00 03 52
659 00 02 06
105 00 01 65
662 00 03 16
104 00 03 86
663 00 04 34
103 00 08 48
664 00 00 38
102 00 09 52
49 00 04 60
48 00 04 40
44 00 21 22
665 00 00 20
45 00 00 76
41 00 08 30
42 00 03 96
37 00 00 20
43 00 04 41
1(Cart Track) 00 01 28
MAWNA Thana Number - 286 832 (Field Channel) 00 01 37
831 00 08 45
830 00 04 00
829 00 06 35
835 00 05 03
836 00 01 58
828 00 01 04
827 00 06 29
825 00 01 72
824 00 01 86
823 00 04 00
821 00 03 54
817 00 06 52
816 00 03 16
815 00 03 44
812 00 07 55
813 00 00 95
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3795
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
713(Field Channel) 00 06 55
716 00 01 55
719 00 17 09
720 00 02 09
407 00 04 92
408 00 04 40
409 00 04 01
410 00 02 47
411 00 03 30
412 00 05 02
413 00 14 02
401 00 05 25
414 00 02 96
399 00 14 36
387(Field Channel) 00 01 62
398 00 00 20
365 00 06 59
364 00 06 22
363 00 06 19
362 00 03 08
361 00 04 40
360 00 08 20
355 (Field Channel) 00 01 60
357 00 12 26
356 00 11 23
342 00 05 77
343 00 03 61
349 00 00 67
348 00 05 74
344 00 00 40
347/ 2035 00 09 17
346 00 00 76
347 00 00 48
2(Railway) 00 14 71
3 00 05 41
4 00 05 17
1272(Cart Track) 00 01 12
SANDHAN 1108(Cart Track) 00 00 88
Thana No : 342 1083 00 00 20
1083 00 33 08
1084 00 00 20
1082 00 21 24
[F. No. R-25011/20/ 2013-OR-I]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
3796 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1533.—केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि पटना से मोतिहारी और बेतालपुर तक पेट्रोलियम पदार्थो के परिवहन हेतु जिला सारन, राज्य बिहार में इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अध्सिूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वणत है, उपयोग का अर्जन किया जाए ।
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ;भूमि में उपयोग के अध्किार का अर्जनद्ध अध्निियम, 1962 ;1962 का 50द्ध की धरा 3 की उपधरा;1द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अध्किार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है।
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितब( है, उस तारीख से जिसको, भारत के राजपत्रा में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधरण जनता को उपलब्ध् करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के अन्दर, भूमि के भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने हेतु उपयोग के अध्किार के अर्जन के लिए, श्री अरूण कुमार झा, बि.प्र.से. व सक्षम प्राध्किारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, ;पाइपलाइन डिवीजनद्ध पटना, पो.ओ. ढेलवा, सिपारा, जिला पटना, पिनः 800020, बिहार को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा।
अनुसूची
जिला : सारन राज्य : बिहार
मौजा/ग्राम सर्वे/ब्लाक/सं. ;प्लोट सं.द्ध सब-डीव-सं. क्षेत्रापफल
हेक्टेयर आरे वर्ग मीटर
1 2 3 4 5 6
esFkokyh;k 463dPpk jkLrk 00 00 60
Fkkuk uacj % 343 467 00 02 72
466 00 04 91
465 00 02 05
464 00 00 20
468 00 16 81
462 00 01 30
469 00 02 99
471 00 00 20
470 00 16 42
459 00 00 20
458 00 02 69
837 vu ykbUM dsuky 00 01 72
456 00 07 55
450 00 06 95
451 00 00 54
316 00 00 77
315 00 10 02
314 00 01 36
88 00 00 60
89 00 03 28
83 00 00 20
91 00 00 20
92 00 00 78
87 00 01 42
93 00 05 47
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3797
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
95 00 07 94
100 00 00 20
96 00 00 20
97 00 09 53
98 00 02 41
99 00 00 20
110 00 00 20
141dPpk jkLrk 00 01 50
66 00 00 20
64 00 02 10
63 00 08 65
62 00 01 44
60 00 01 63
61 00 06 36
33 00 00 20
32 00 00 20
31 00 00 20
30 00 00 20
29 00 00 20
34 00 05 78
35 00 11 77
36 00 00 78
28 00 07 00
26 00 00 20
27 00 01 84
pu pkSju 825 00 07 38
Fkkuk uacj % 345 824 00 29 39
816 00 00 20
815 00 00 20
814 00 02 83
813 00 02 82
224 00 05 65
225 00 07 81
223 00 00 85
222 00 01 02
221 00 01 03
220 00 00 95
219 00 00 41
218 00 00 47
217 00 00 73
226 00 31 46
216 00 01 58
215 00 01 96
3798 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
214 00 02 52
213 00 03 64
234 00 00 20
212jkLrk 00 01 13
211jkLrk 00 03 31
210jkLrk 00 02 23
177 00 03 67
178 00 05 77
176 00 00 20
175 00 06 70
174 00 05 46
173 00 04 01
gluiqjk 480 00 00 52
Fkkuk uacj % 344 481 00 13 03
472fQYM psuy 00 01 43
470 00 05 00
469 00 01 08
468 00 00 81
471 00 09 96
472fQYM psuy 00 01 68
473 00 11 16
464 00 05 09
465 00 04 91
472fQYM psuy 00 01 34
466fQYM psuy 00 01 72
467 00 04 11
185 00 19 24
188 00 00 20
186 00 19 32
187492 00 00 20
176 00 03 35
182 00 00 20
183 00 45 41
jruiqjk 20 00 05 07
Fkkuk uacj % 283 19 00 14 21
18 00 06 00
14 00 06 60
12 00 17 66
11 00 07 18
972jkLrk 00 01 59
971jkLrk 00 01 45
970jkLrk 00 02 19
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3799
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
cjgkeiqj 4958ukyk 00 01 95
Fkkuk uacj % 277 4277 00 00 20
4278 00 05 44
4281 00 04 94
4280 00 08 54
4279 00 07 53
4291ukyk 00 01 77
4282 00 00 20
4293 00 07 23
4292 00 19 61
4295dPpk jkLrk 00 00 92
4329 00 06 84
4330 00 14 91
4339ukyk 00 01 08
4340 00 23 96
4326ukyk 00 02 73
4353 00 23 27
4352 00 17 76
4351 00 26 83
4350 00 10 27
3555ukyk 00 01 34
3547 00 00 42
3546 00 00 58
3545 00 00 75
3542 00 01 26
3541 00 01 14
3540 00 00 20
3535 00 02 08
3534 00 01 92
3533 00 02 22
3530 00 02 81
3531 00 00 20
3529 00 03 43
3526 00 03 00
3523 00 02 96
3524 00 00 20
3522 00 00 69
3521 00 05 40
3518 00 05 74
3519 00 00 20
3516 00 03 10
3517 00 01 12
3515 00 02 26
3514 00 01 16
3800 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
3513 00 01 85 3511 00 03 52 3509 00 00 20 3510 00 06 12 3506 00 04 34 3507 00 00 20 3501 00 00 20 3505 00 01 13 3502 00 06 13 3500ukyk 00 00 88 3293 00 18 46 3294 00 08 87 3295 00 03 23 3296 00 00 20 3292 00 02 74 3291 00 00 20 3275 00 03 80 3272 00 04 66 3268 00 01 57 3267 00 01 52 3266 00 04 01 3265 00 03 56 3264 00 03 54 3247 00 03 74 3246 00 03 59 3245 00 01 64 3226 00 00 20 3244 00 02 90 3227 00 00 20 3243 00 04 22 3228 00 00 20 3242 00 03 46 3241 00 03 29 3229 00 01 54 3232 00 01 31 3240 00 02 36 3239 00 02 16 3233 00 02 40 3238 00 01 11 3237 00 00 88 3234 00 04 82 3235 00 01 50 3211ukyk 00 01 31[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3801 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
3210ukyk 00 01 22
lh/kokyh;k 926ukyk 00 00 92
Fkkuk uacj % 276 924 00 00 82
925 00 02 32
917 00 08 49
916 00 03 10
915 00 02 75
918 00 08 70
923 00 00 20
922 00 00 20
921 00 00 36
920 00 00 63
919 00 00 35
904 00 06 77
553 00 02 87
552 00 03 63
551 00 05 94
550 00 04 94
549 00 03 87
544 00 03 27
545 00 00 20
543 00 02 73
542 00 01 88
541 00 00 87
540 00 00 64
539 00 00 37
538 00 00 33
536 00 00 20
537 00 00 20
Qdqyh 3099ukyk 00 01 38
Fkkuk uacj % 260 3005 00 03 09
3006 00 02 50
3008 00 00 20
3007 00 01 59
3003 00 00 20
3004 00 04 13
3013 00 00 20
3012 00 00 20
3043 00 00 20
3042 00 00 20
3014 00 06 42
3015 00 00 20
3020 00 05 33
3802 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
3021 00 02 05
3022 00 08 71
3037 00 00 20
3029 00 05 78
3030 00 02 44
3035 00 00 20
3031 00 00 87
3032 00 01 06
3028 00 00 20
3027 00 08 09
3026 00 00 20
3025 00 00 20
3033 00 04 26
3034 00 00 20
2924ukyk 00 00 71
2882 00 08 37
2881 00 00 20
2883 00 03 70
2886 00 02 93
2885 00 04 69
2889 00 01 14
2904 00 00 70
2884 00 00 20
2905 00 05 01
2906 00 00 86
2907 00 00 20
2911 00 05 45
2910 00 03 03
2909 00 00 20
2711dPpk jkLrk 00 00 67
2678 00 00 20
2677 00 07 58
2673 00 00 20
2674 00 01 29
2675 00 03 28
2676 00 00 49
2672dPpk jkLrk 00 00 86
2670 00 07 52
2664 00 04 28
2663 00 00 99
2662 00 00 20
2669 00 00 20
2666 00 02 05
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3803
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
2667 00 00 20 2665 00 02 21 2632 00 04 05 2642 00 00 20 2631 00 00 20 2630 00 00 39 2633 00 01 91 2634 00 00 68 2641 00 00 20 2635 00 02 19 2629 00 00 89 2628 00 04 00 2627 00 00 89 2610ukyk 00 09 37 2626 00 00 41 2624 00 00 20 1197 00 00 97 1205jkLrk 00 00 65 1226 00 03 49 2622 00 00 20 1227 00 03 26 1229 00 03 71 1230 00 03 57 1231 00 03 45 1232 00 01 44 1233 00 00 20 214jkLrk 00 06 06 1256 00 00 20 1257 00 04 76 1258 00 03 21 1259 00 03 32 1260 00 03 45 1261 00 02 82 1253 00 00 20 1265 00 05 59 1262 00 00 91 1264 00 00 20 1265 00 01 41 1989 00 00 20 1988 00 01 57 1987 00 05 91 1986 00 08 01 1985 00 12 813804 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1971 00 00 20 1984 00 04 32 1973 00 06 76 1974 00 04 46 1975 00 00 37 1949 00 03 85 1669 00 00 20 1948 00 03 53 1947 00 02 46 1946 00 06 58 1947 00 01 17 1945 00 03 66 1903 00 01 49 1904 00 00 20 1902 00 00 56 1897 00 19 50 1894 00 00 20 1901 00 00 37 1900 00 00 68 1899 00 00 28 1898 00 00 20 1895 00 00 20 1896 00 01 41 1850 00 03 45 1849 00 15 00 1848 00 00 20 1847 00 03 87 1802 00 00 20 1845 00 01 63 1846 00 06 99 1803 00 00 20 1804 00 00 20 1826 00 10 94 1827 00 00 20 1806 00 01 77 1825 00 03 32 1821 00 04 90 1824 00 01 34 1822 00 06 01 1823 00 02 02 1819 00 00 20 1820 00 02 01[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3805 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
jktey fijkjh 212 00 13 53
Fkkuk uacj % 261 211 00 00 20
2181110 00 00 20
218 00 00 20
219 00 00 20
220 00 00 20
213 00 07 07
217 00 05 01
216 00 04 71
215 00 04 54
236 00 07 63
235 00 00 20
237 00 03 09
238 00 03 52
234 00 00 20
239 00 03 40
240 00 03 93
241 00 06 96
255 00 00 20
252 00 12 30
253 00 00 20
251 00 07 94
2621112 00 00 20
250 00 04 25
262 00 00 20
249 00 04 34
267 00 00 14
268 00 00 35
269 00 04 64
283 00 01 21
280 00 15 14
279 00 00 20
281 00 01 26
308 00 05 16
306 00 19 29
316 00 00 20
354 00 02 02
353 00 01 51
352 00 02 51
351 00 02 02
350 00 02 62
342 00 13 65
349 00 02 07
348 00 01 29
3806 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
343 00 05 57
341 00 05 23
378 00 02 65
379 00 03 16
386 00 00 95
385 00 00 43
380 00 03 90
384 00 00 20
374 00 02 75
373 00 00 44
381 00 04 30
382 00 04 05
383 00 00 25
411ukyk 00 01 68
420 00 06 54
427 00 00 20
419 00 06 87
421 00 07 07
422 00 00 20
424 00 03 24
423 00 04 40
425 00 02 49
Vsduokl 3252unh 00 04 52
Fkkuk uacj % 263 3263 00 01 13
3250dPpk jkLrk 00 01 26
3230 00 03 91
3231 00 00 20
3229 00 17 53
3228 00 07 74
3237 00 00 20
3170 00 06 94
3172 00 00 20
3152 00 00 20
3171 00 01 07
3175 00 00 20
3169 00 03 07
3163 00 00 52
3164 00 00 20
3168 00 09 38
3179 00 00 05
3144 00 02 01
3180 00 07 91
3186 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3807
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
3143 00 00 04 3142 00 00 20 3103 00 01 88 3104 00 00 20 3102 00 16 07 3101 00 01 39 3100 00 00 20 3107 00 01 99 3106 00 00 20 3108 00 01 17 3097 00 04 33 3098 00 00 20 3111 00 00 53 3096 00 05 62 3095 00 03 88 3094 00 07 40 3092 00 00 20 3091 00 00 20 3093 00 00 20 3068 00 01 64 3031 00 01 10 3029 00 03 78 3066 00 01 73 3064 00 02 21 3063 00 02 34 3062 00 06 55 3050 00 00 27 3061 00 00 96 3060 00 00 97 3058 00 01 71 3057 00 01 01 3056 00 02 63 3055 00 02 50 3054 00 02 02 3251 00 00 65 3252 00 00 20 3053 00 00 20 3250 00 00 87 3249 00 00 88 3248 00 00 74 3247 00 00 31 3246 00 04 60 3045 00 00 203808 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
2913 00 00 48
3204ukyk 00 02 69
3005dPpk jkLrk 00 01 55
jsokjh 1032ukyk 00 01 47
Fkkuk uacj % 262 2757ukyk 00 01 75
1142 00 02 82
1143 00 02 27
1144 00 00 50
1145 00 00 34
1141 00 06 31
1140 00 01 89
1139 00 01 15
1138 00 01 64
1137 00 00 20
1136 00 08 85
1135 00 02 63
1134 00 01 13
1133 00 00 20
1128 00 06 90
1129 00 00 20
1127 00 00 20
1147 00 00 20
1148 00 08 57
1120 00 04 84
1119 00 01 57
1121 00 00 47
1118 00 03 95
1117 00 03 89
1150 00 01 12
1116 00 01 55
1114 00 00 20
1113 00 09 89
1112 00 02 93
1111 00 03 37
1101 00 00 33
1096 00 00 20
1097 00 03 43
1098 00 03 60
1095 00 00 31
1094 00 01 44
1093 00 04 60
1099 00 01 14
1092 00 03 96
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3809
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1091 00 05 40
1090 00 00 72
1089 00 05 01
1082 00 00 55
1083 00 07 38
1084 00 00 20
1076 00 01 09
1075 00 07 46
1074ukyk 00 01 49
1073dPpk jkLrk 00 02 09
1054 00 04 93
1055 00 00 25
1056 00 00 20
1053 00 12 61
1052 00 06 01
1051 00 06 08
1050 00 03 60
1018 00 01 69
1049 00 01 21
1048 00 00 20
1019 00 07 61
1020 00 00 20
1022 00 24 95
1031 00 00 20
1014 00 04 08
1029 00 00 48
1026 00 00 20
1023 00 07 38
1024 00 03 60
1025 00 04 91
1059ukyk 00 00 79
1071ukyk 00 00 95
506 00 00 33
507 00 00 20
508 00 07 65
510 00 00 37
499 00 00 20
511 00 11 94
5492780 00 00 20
512 00 00 28
514 00 04 74
515 00 05 28
517 00 00 20
3810 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
516 00 04 77
518 00 02 38
532 00 00 44
528 00 00 61
531 00 00 20
529 00 10 64
527 00 02 58
525 00 00 20
526 00 00 20
375 00 00 20
376 00 05 13
394 00 05 88
392 00 00 20
377 00 03 78
378 00 05 54
379 00 01 09
381 00 04 97
368 00 00 20
382 00 01 81
383 00 01 94
386 00 00 20
385 00 00 20
384 00 03 82
364 00 01 87
367 00 00 20
365 00 02 16
362 00 00 20
363 00 00 39
337 00 04 58
336 00 00 20
338 00 01 22
346 00 03 26
339 00 04 75
340 00 00 20
335 00 00 20
334 00 03 37
333 00 03 47
608dPpk jkLrk 00 02 74
332ukyk 00 02 82
330 00 00 20
329 00 02 49
324 00 03 22
323 00 04 38
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3811
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
322 00 03 12
321 00 01 72
319 00 02 26
318 00 02 18
317 00 04 14
316 00 04 37
315ukyk 00 01 25
314 00 03 05
313 00 04 69
309 00 03 28
308 00 00 24
297 00 00 20
295 00 04 51
294 00 00 92
293 00 03 20
280 00 02 62
279 00 02 36
274 00 00 20
269 00 00 20
275 00 03 29
268 00 03 74
263 00 01 08
264 00 05 30
266 00 00 20
265 00 00 20
257 00 00 65
256 00 02 54
255 00 03 08
254 00 03 90
250 00 00 62
249 00 02 66
248 00 02 21
247 00 04 23
246 00 01 99
238 00 00 20
277dPpk jkLrk 00 00 25
ikS[kj HkhUMk 389 00 02 88
Fkkuk uacj % 236 388 00 11 47
387 00 00 20
385 00 00 20
386 00 01 64
382jkLrk 00 02 70
366 00 01 91
3812 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
365 00 00 37 367 00 01 80 370 00 01 54 368 00 00 27 369 00 04 36 378 00 00 20 377 00 00 27 376 00 02 68 375 00 02 83 301 00 00 20 349 00 10 47 339 00 00 54 348 00 03 19 347 00 02 37 341 00 00 20 346 00 01 45 345 00 00 74 344 00 01 17 342 00 00 20 343 00 04 54 292 00 00 20 280ukyk 00 01 62 284 00 00 42 291 00 04 67 255 00 02 66 254 00 00 14 256 00 06 67 258 00 05 63 261 00 01 79 260 00 00 70 262 00 00 20 259 00 06 02 264 00 01 01 211 00 00 20 263 00 00 20 265 00 05 29 209 00 01 06 208 00 02 43 266 00 01 23 207 00 04 55 197 00 03 10 198 00 02 25 199 00 04 68[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3813 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
195 00 00 20 200 00 01 04 190 00 00 20 201 00 00 99 166 00 09 89 15 00 00 20 167 00 04 26 192 00 00 32 168 00 04 41 188 00 01 99 189 00 00 20 169 00 07 09 187 00 00 20 183 00 00 20 170 00 04 50 171 00 02 56
[पफा. सं. आर-25011/20/2013-ओआर-I] पवन वुफमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2013
S.O. 1533.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in Dist. Saran in the State of Bihar for 'Patna to Motihari and Baitalpur Pipeline' for the transportation of Petroleum Product;
And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Arun Kumar Jha B.A.S. & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited. (Pipelines Division) P.O. Dhelwan, Sipara, Dist. Patna (Bihar) Pin – 800020.
SCHEDULE
Dist.: Saran
State : Bihar
Mouja /Village Survey/BlockNo. Sub-Div-No. Area
Hectare Are Sq. mtr.
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
METHWALIA 463(Cart Track) 00 00 60 Thana Number : 343 467 00 02 72
466 00 04 91
465 00 02 05 3814 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
471 00 00 20
470 00 16 42
459 00 00 20
458 00 02 69
837(Unlined Canal) 00 01 72
456 00 07 55
450 00 06 95
451 00 00 54
316 00 00 77
315 00 10 02
314 00 01 36
88 00 00 60
89 00 03 28
83 00 00 20
91 00 00 20
92 00 00 78
87 00 01 42
93 00 05 47
95 00 07 94
100 00 00 20
96 00 00 20
97 00 09 53
98 00 02 41
99 00 00 20
110 00 00 20
141(Cart Track) 00 01 50
66 00 00 20
64 00 02 10
63 00 08 65
62 00 01 44
60 00 01 63
61 00 06 36
33 00 00 20
32 00 00 20
31 00 00 20
30 00 00 20
29 00 00 20
34 00 05 78
35 00 11 77
36 00 00 78
28 00 07 00
26 00 00 20
27 00 01 84
CHAN CHOURAN 825 00 07 38
Thana Number - 345 824 00 29 39
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3815
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
813 00 02 82
224 00 05 65
225 00 07 81
223 00 00 85
222 00 01 02
221 00 01 03
220 00 00 95
219 00 00 41
218 00 00 47
217 00 00 73
226 00 31 46
216 00 01 58
215 00 01 96
214 00 02 52
213 00 03 64
234 00 00 20
212(Road) 00 01 13
211(Road) 00 03 31
210(Road) 00 02 23
177 00 03 67
178 00 05 77
176 00 00 20
175 00 06 70
174 00 05 46
173 00 04 01
HASANPURA 480 00 00 52
Thana Number : 344 481 00 13 03
472(Field Channel) 00 01 43
470 00 05 00
469 00 01 08
468 00 00 81
471 00 09 96
472(Field Channel) 00 01 68
473 00 11 16
464 00 05 09
465 00 04 91
472(Field Channel) 00 01 34
466(Field Channel) 00 01 72
467 00 04 11
185 00 19 24
188 00 00 20
186 00 19 32
187/492 00 00 20
176 00 03 35
182 00 00 20
183 00 45 41
RATANPURA 20 00 05 07
Thana Number - 283 19 00 14 21
3816 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
18 00 06 00
14 00 06 60
12 00 17 66
11 00 07 18
972(Road) 00 01 59
971(Road) 00 01 45
970(Road) 00 02 19
BARHAMPUR 4958(Nala) 00 01 95
Thana Number - 277 4277 00 00 20
4278 00 05 44
4281 00 04 94
4280 00 08 54
4279 00 07 53
4291(Nala) 00 01 77
4282 00 00 20
4293 00 07 23
4292 00 19 61
4295(Cart Track) 00 00 92
4329 00 06 84
4330 00 14 91
4339(Nala) 00 01 08
4340 00 23 96
4326(Nala) 00 02 73
4353 00 23 27
4352 00 17 76
4351 00 26 83
4350 00 10 27
3555(Nala) 00 01 34
3547 00 00 42
3546 00 00 58
3545 00 00 75
3542 00 01 26
3541 00 01 14
3540 00 00 20
3535 00 02 08
3534 00 01 92
3533 00 02 22
3530 00 02 81
3531 00 00 20
3529 00 03 43
3526 00 03 00
3523 00 02 96
3524 00 00 20
3522 00 00 69
3521 00 05 40
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3817
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
3517 00 01 12
3515 00 02 26
3514 00 01 16
3513 00 01 85
3511 00 03 52
3509 00 00 20
3510 00 06 12
3506 00 04 34
3507 00 00 20
3501 00 00 20
3505 00 01 13
3502 00 06 13
3500(Nala) 00 00 88
3293 00 18 46
3294 00 08 87
3295 00 03 23
3296 00 00 20
3292 00 02 74
3291 00 00 20
3275 00 03 80
3272 00 04 66
3268 00 01 57
3267 00 01 52
3266 00 04 01
3265 00 03 56
3264 00 03 54
3247 00 03 74
3246 00 03 59
3245 00 01 64
3226 00 00 20
3244 00 02 90
3227 00 00 20
3243 00 04 22
3228 00 00 20
3242 00 03 46
3241 00 03 29
3229 00 01 54
3232 00 01 31
3240 00 02 36
3239 00 02 16
3233 00 02 40
3238 00 01 11
3237 00 00 88
3234 00 04 82
3235 00 01 50
3211(Nala) 00 01 31
3210(Nala) 00 01 22
SIDHWALIA 926(Nala) 00 00 92
3818 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
Thana Number - 276 924 00 00 82
925 00 02 32
917 00 08 49
916 00 03 10
915 00 02 75
918 00 08 70
923 00 00 20
922 00 00 20
921 00 00 36
920 00 00 63
919 00 00 35
904 00 06 77
553 00 02 87
552 00 03 63
551 00 05 94
550 00 04 94
549 00 03 87
544 00 03 27
545 00 00 20
543 00 02 73
542 00 01 88
541 00 00 87
540 00 00 64
539 00 00 37
538 00 00 33
536 00 00 20
537 00 00 20
PHAKULI 3099(Nala) 00 01 38
(Thana No : 260) 3005 00 03 09
3006 00 02 50
3008 00 00 20
3007 00 01 59
3003 00 00 20
3004 00 04 13
3013 00 00 20
3012 00 00 20
3043 00 00 20
3042 00 00 20
3014 00 06 42
3015 00 00 20
3020 00 05 33
3021 00 02 05
3022 00 08 71
3037 00 00 20
3029 00 05 78
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3819
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
3032 00 01 06
3028 00 00 20
3027 00 08 09
3026 00 00 20
3025 00 00 20
3033 00 04 26
3034 00 00 20
2924(Nala) 00 00 71
2882 00 08 37
2881 00 00 20
2883 00 03 70
2886 00 02 93
2885 00 04 69
2889 00 01 14
2904 00 00 70
2884 00 00 20
2905 00 05 01
2906 00 00 86
2907 00 00 20
2911 00 05 45
2910 00 03 03
2909 00 00 20
2711(Cart Track) 00 00 67
2678 00 00 20
2677 00 07 58
2673 00 00 20
2674 00 01 29
2675 00 03 28
2676 00 00 49
2672(Cart Track) 00 00 86
2670 00 07 52
2664 00 04 28
2663 00 00 99
2662 00 00 20
2669 00 00 20
2666 00 02 05
2667 00 00 20
2665 00 02 21
2632 00 04 05
2642 00 00 20
2631 00 00 20
2630 00 00 39
2633 00 01 91
2634 00 00 68
2641 00 00 20
3820 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
2627 00 00 89 2610(Nala) 00 09 37 2626 00 00 41 2624 00 00 20 1197 00 00 97 1205(Road) 00 00 65 1226 00 03 49 2622 00 00 20 1227 00 03 26 1229 00 03 71 1230 00 03 57 1231 00 03 45 1232 00 01 44 1233 00 00 20 214(Road) 00 06 06 1256 00 00 20 1257 00 04 76 1258 00 03 21 1259 00 03 32 1260 00 03 45 1261 00 02 82 1253 00 00 20 1265 00 05 59 1262 00 00 91 1264 00 00 20 1265 00 01 41 1989 00 00 20 1988 00 01 57 1987 00 05 91 1986 00 08 01 1985 00 12 81 1971 00 00 20 1984 00 04 32 1973 00 06 76 1974 00 04 46 1975 00 00 37 1949 00 03 85 1669 00 00 20 1948 00 03 53 1947 00 02 46 1946 00 06 58 1947 00 01 17 1945 00 03 66 1903 00 01 49 1904 00 00 20[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3821 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1901 00 00 37
1900 00 00 68
1899 00 00 28
1898 00 00 20
1895 00 00 20
1896 00 01 41
1850 00 03 45
1849 00 15 00
1848 00 00 20
1847 00 03 87
1802 00 00 20
1845 00 01 63
1846 00 06 99
1803 00 00 20
1804 00 00 20
1826 00 10 94
1827 00 00 20
1806 00 01 77
1825 00 03 32
1821 00 04 90
1824 00 01 34
1822 00 06 01
1823 00 02 02
1819 00 00 20
1820 00 02 01
RAJMAL PIRARI 212 00 13 53
(Thana No. 261) 211 00 00 20
218/1110 00 00 20
218 00 00 20
219 00 00 20
220 00 00 20
213 00 07 07
217 00 05 01
216 00 04 71
215 00 04 54
236 00 07 63
235 00 00 20
237 00 03 09
238 00 03 52
234 00 00 20
239 00 03 40
240 00 03 93
241 00 06 96
255 00 00 20
252 00 12 30
3822 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
250 00 04 25
262 00 00 20
249 00 04 34
267 00 00 14
268 00 00 35
269 00 04 64
283 00 01 21
280 00 15 14
279 00 00 20
281 00 01 26
308 00 05 16
306 00 19 29
316 00 00 20
354 00 02 02
353 00 01 51
352 00 02 51
351 00 02 02
350 00 02 62
342 00 13 65
349 00 02 07
348 00 01 29
343 00 05 57
341 00 05 23
378 00 02 65
379 00 03 16
386 00 00 95
385 00 00 43
380 00 03 90
384 00 00 20
374 00 02 75
373 00 00 44
381 00 04 30
382 00 04 05
383 00 00 25
411(Nala) 00 01 68
420 00 06 54
427 00 00 20
419 00 06 87
421 00 07 07
422 00 00 20
424 00 03 24
423 00 04 40
425 00 02 49
TEKNWAS 3252(Nadi) 00 04 52
Thana No. 263 3263 00 01 13
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3823
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
3229 00 17 53 3228 00 07 74 3237 00 00 20 3170 00 06 94 3172 00 00 20 3152 00 00 20 3171 00 01 07 3175 00 00 20 3169 00 03 07 3163 00 00 52 3164 00 00 20 3168 00 09 38 3179 00 00 05 3144 00 02 01 3180 00 07 91 3186 00 00 20 3143 00 00 04 3142 00 00 20 3103 00 01 88 3104 00 00 20 3102 00 16 07 3101 00 01 39 3100 00 00 20 3107 00 01 99 3106 00 00 20 3108 00 01 17 3097 00 04 33 3098 00 00 20 3111 00 00 53 3096 00 05 62 3095 00 03 88 3094 00 07 40 3092 00 00 20 3091 00 00 20 3093 00 00 20 3068 00 01 64 3031 00 01 10 3029 00 03 78 3066 00 01 73 3064 00 02 21 3063 00 02 34 3062 00 06 55 3050 00 00 27 3061 00 00 96 3060 00 00 973824 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
3054 00 02 02
3251 00 00 65
3252 00 00 20
3053 00 00 20
3250 00 00 87
3249 00 00 88
3248 00 00 74
3247 00 00 31
3246 00 04 60
3045 00 00 20
2913 00 00 48
3204(Nala) 00 02 69
3005(Cart Track) 00 01 55
REWARI No. 262 1032(Nala) 00 01 47
2757(Nala) 00 01 75
1142 00 02 82
1143 00 02 27
1144 00 00 50
1145 00 00 34
1141 00 06 31
1140 00 01 89
1139 00 01 15
1138 00 01 64
1137 00 00 20
1136 00 08 85
1135 00 02 63
1134 00 01 13
1133 00 00 20
1128 00 06 90
1129 00 00 20
1127 00 00 20
1147 00 00 20
1148 00 08 57
1120 00 04 84
1119 00 01 57
1121 00 00 47
1118 00 03 95
1117 00 03 89
1150 00 01 12
1116 00 01 55
1114 00 00 20
1113 00 09 89
1112 00 02 93
1111 00 03 37
1101 00 00 33
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3825
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1094 00 01 44
1093 00 04 60
1099 00 01 14
1092 00 03 96
1091 00 05 40
1090 00 00 72
1089 00 05 01
1082 00 00 55
1083 00 07 38
1084 00 00 20
1076 00 01 09
1075 00 07 46
1074(Nala) 00 01 49
1073(Cart Track) 00 02 09
1054 00 04 93
1055 00 00 25
1056 00 00 20
1053 00 12 61
1052 00 06 01
1051 00 06 08
1050 00 03 60
1018 00 01 69
1049 00 01 21
1048 00 00 20
1019 00 07 61
1020 00 00 20
1022 00 24 95
1031 00 00 20
1014 00 04 08
1029 00 00 48
1026 00 00 20
1023 00 07 38
1024 00 03 60
1025 00 04 91
1059(Nala) 00 00 79
1071(Nala) 00 00 95
506 00 00 33
507 00 00 20
508 00 07 65
510 00 00 37
499 00 00 20
511 00 11 94
549/2780 00 00 20
512 00 00 28
514 00 04 74
3826 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
518 00 02 38
532 00 00 44
528 00 00 61
531 00 00 20
529 00 10 64
527 00 02 58
525 00 00 20
526 00 00 20
375 00 00 20
376 00 05 13
394 00 05 88
392 00 00 20
377 00 03 78
378 00 05 54
379 00 01 09
381 00 04 97
368 00 00 20
382 00 01 81
383 00 01 94
386 00 00 20
385 00 00 20
384 00 03 82
364 00 01 87
367 00 00 20
365 00 02 16
362 00 00 20
363 00 00 39
337 00 04 58
336 00 00 20
338 00 01 22
346 00 03 26
339 00 04 75
340 00 00 20
335 00 00 20
334 00 03 37
333 00 03 47
608(Cart Track) 00 02 74
332(Nala) 00 02 82
330 00 00 20
329 00 02 49
324 00 03 22
323 00 04 38
322 00 03 12
321 00 01 72
319 00 02 26
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3827
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
315(Nala) 00 01 25
314 00 03 05
313 00 04 69
309 00 03 28
308 00 00 24
297 00 00 20
295 00 04 51
294 00 00 92
293 00 03 20
280 00 02 62
279 00 02 36
274 00 00 20
269 00 00 20
275 00 03 29
268 00 03 74
263 00 01 08
264 00 05 30
266 00 00 20
265 00 00 20
257 00 00 65
256 00 02 54
255 00 03 08
254 00 03 90
250 00 00 62
249 00 02 66
248 00 02 21
247 00 04 23
246 00 01 99
238 00 00 20
277(Cart Track) 00 00 25
POKHAR BHINDA 389 00 02 88
Thana Number - 236 388 00 11 47
387 00 00 20
385 00 00 20
386 00 01 64
382(Road) 00 02 70
366 00 01 91
365 00 00 37
367 00 01 80
370 00 01 54
368 00 00 27
369 00 04 36
378 00 00 20
377 00 00 27
376 00 02 68
3828 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
348 00 03 19 347 00 02 37 341 00 00 20 346 00 01 45 345 00 00 74 344 00 01 17 342 00 00 20 343 00 04 54 292 00 00 20 280(Nala) 00 01 62 284 00 00 42 291 00 04 67 255 00 02 66 254 00 00 14 256 00 06 67 258 00 05 63 261 00 01 79 260 00 00 70 262 00 00 20 259 00 06 02 264 00 01 01 211 00 00 20 263 00 00 20 265 00 05 29 209 00 01 06 208 00 02 43 266 00 01 23 207 00 04 55 197 00 03 10 198 00 02 25 199 00 04 68 195 00 00 20 200 00 01 04 190 00 00 20 201 00 00 99 166 00 09 89 15 00 00 20 167 00 04 26 192 00 00 32 168 00 04 41 188 00 01 99 189 00 00 20 169 00 07 09 187 00 00 20 183 00 00 20
[F. No. R-25011/20/2013-OR-I]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3829नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1534.—केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि पटना से मोतिहारी और बेतालपुर तक पेट्रोलियम पदार्थो के परिवहन हेतु जिला सारन, राज्य बिहार में इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अध्सिूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वणत है, उपयोग का अर्जन किया जाए ।
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ;भूमि में उपयोग के अध्किार का अर्जनद्ध अध्निियम, 1962 ;1962 का 50द्ध की धरा 3 की उप-धरा ;1द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अध्किार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है।
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितब( है, उस तारीख से जिसको, भारत के राजपत्रा में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधरण जनता को उपलब्ध् करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के अन्दर, भूमि के भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने हेतु उपयोग के अध्किार के अर्जन के लिए, श्री अरूण कुमार झा, बि.प्र.से. व सक्षम प्राध्किारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, ;पाइपलाइन डिवीजनद्ध पटना, पो.ओ. ढेलवा, सिपारा, जिला पटना, पिनः 800020, बिहार को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
जिला : सारन
राज्य : बिहार
मौजा/ग्राम सर्वे/ब्लाक/सं. ;प्लोट सं.द्ध सब-डीव-सं. क्षेत्रापफल
हेक्टेयर आरे वर्ग मीटर
1 2 3 4 5 6
legqrklegqrklegqrklegqrklegqrk 6407 00 02 50
Fkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacj-&234-&234-&234-&234-&234 6406 00 06 99
6405 00 03 36
6404 00 08 34
6410 00 00 20
6397 00 02 69
6412 00 02 27
6413 00 00 20
6402 00 02 88
6401 00 03 83
6403 00 01 08
6400 00 02 80
6432 00 00 20
6431 00 00 20
6433 00 00 14
6399 00 01 76
6434 00 02 52
6392 00 01 23
6440 00 02 59
6441 00 04 68
6439 00 00 58
6442 00 03 87
6443 00 04 80
6444 00 00 80
6447 00 00 20
6445 00 05 23
6446 00 06 24
3830 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
6451 00 00 62 6553 00 04 90 6552 00 01 92 3971 00 00 20 6479 00 00 20 3969 00 37 45 3968 00 00 20 3980 00 05 28 3962 00 00 25 3961 00 02 10 3960 00 00 20 3956 00 00 20 3946 00 01 12 3981 00 03 92 3982 00 00 76 3983 00 00 20 3984 00 00 20 3945 00 09 24 3944 00 01 75 3943 00 12 44 3922 00 00 20 3995 00 00 96 3931 00 01 95 3932 00 00 20 3930 00 02 70 3929 00 03 22 3928 00 02 27 3927 00 02 53 4000 00 00 20 3926 00 08 85 4001 00 08 65 4002 00 00 45 4004 00 00 20 4005 00 15 92 4006jkLrk 00 01 34 4007jkLrk 00 01 31 4008jkLrk 00 02 18 4009 00 06 47 4010 00 02 29 4011 00 14 20 4012 00 05 28 4013 00 15 28 4014 00 02 01 4024 00 11 09 4027 00 27 87[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3831 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
4031 00 01 27 4034 00 04 28 4033 00 03 18 4032 00 03 74 3859 00 05 05 3851 00 22 57 3852 00 02 77 3853 00 02 10 3850 00 00 20 3823 00 04 80 3854 00 00 20 3830 00 00 20 3822 00 06 06 3824 00 00 56 3749 00 03 79 3748 00 04 48 3750 00 01 74 3745 00 00 20 3751 00 06 95 3752 00 00 20 3753 00 00 20 3744 00 00 20 3743 00 03 44 3754 00 09 82 3755 00 03 35 3756 00 02 86 3757 00 03 41 3740 00 00 20 3760 00 04 73 3759 00 00 20 3761 00 07 32 4143 00 00 20 3762 00 09 58 4142 00 01 69 4141 00 01 65 4139 00 01 01 4140 00 07 84 4138 00 01 07 4159 00 11 39 4157 00 00 20 4160 00 00 66 4158 00 02 27 4186 00 12 75 4184 00 00 20 4184 00 01 593832 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
4185 00 06 76
4187 00 02 81
4188 00 08 23
4189 00 08 86
4190 00 01 79
4191 00 00 20
4214jkLrk 00 04 15
4256 00 05 00
4222 00 00 36
4223 00 07 54
4228 00 01 88
4229 00 00 20
4227 00 04 86
4226 00 00 20
4230 00 06 26
4231 00 00 20
4233 00 06 65
4235 00 03 95
4238 00 00 20
4236 00 03 54
4237 00 05 61
5791 00 01 56
4240 00 00 66
5790 00 06 74
57897184 00 00 20
5789 00 06 99
57887182 00 00 79
5788 00 06 92
5786 00 00 20
5787 00 02 00
dksikdksikdksikdksikdksik 767 00 13 75
Fkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacj-&231-&231-&231-&231-&231 763 00 00 20
766 00 05 90
764 00 01 46
765 00 04 33
760 00 02 32
583 00 00 66
584 00 09 60
585 00 02 86
586 00 00 20
580 00 06 06
579 00 00 42
590 00 00 20
591 00 08 18
578 00 03 72
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3833
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
592 00 06 23 564 00 02 04 563 00 08 29 593 00 00 20 562 00 01 01 559 00 02 29 560 00 04 88 558 00 06 18 557 00 00 84 556 00 10 55 533 00 00 20 555 00 01 53 545 00 00 20 534 00 04 45 542 00 02 67 535 00 00 84 541 00 05 24 540 00 03 90 397 00 05 67 396 00 00 27 321 00 00 20 322 00 00 20 317 00 00 63 316 00 00 73 315 00 00 91 313 00 05 81 283jkLrk 00 00 87 254 00 04 19 253 00 06 93 252 00 04 34 251 00 00 11 250 00 00 47 249 00 01 62 248 00 02 08 247 00 05 61 246 00 00 73 181 00 04 91 185 00 06 01 182 00 00 20 183 00 00 20 184 00 02 63 173 00 00 20 171 00 00 20 172 00 06 89 168 00 00 743834 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
170 00 04 70
169 00 01 30
156 00 15 24
155 00 00 20
157 00 03 92
159 00 00 93
158 00 04 05
110 00 02 95
111 00 02 57
127 00 00 20
112 00 05 26
113 00 04 22
114 00 07 24
115 00 00 51
116 00 01 77
117 00 00 20
12 00 16 72
120 00 00 20
119 00 00 20
6 00 14 22
7 00 00 56
5 00 16 49
eqlsgjheqlsgjheqlsgjheqlsgjheqlsgjh 815 00 01 32
Fkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacj-&233-&233-&233-&233-&233 809 00 09 87
810 00 08 12
806 00 00 20
811 00 00 20
812 00 00 20
805 00 07 84
799 00 05 33
804 00 05 70
803 00 03 72
802 00 02 01
782 00 06 33
783 00 00 40
784 00 00 20
781 00 09 05
780 00 00 40
776 00 07 77
777 00 01 15
775 00 04 45
772 00 04 37
771 00 00 64
770 00 03 38
768 00 03 80
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3835
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
767 00 05 09
766 00 01 85
760 00 04 35
759 00 04 24
748 00 04 19
745 00 01 66
742 00 02 52
741 00 00 20
736 00 07 78
740 00 01 01
737 00 07 82
700 00 07 62
697 00 04 57
696 00 04 69
690 00 02 04
694 00 00 20
695 00 03 96
691 00 04 80
692 00 00 97
687 00 11 71
686 00 00 99
685 00 06 01
675 00 00 20
684 00 04 14
683 00 05 88
682 00 02 13
681 00 01 52
679 00 00 20
680 00 00 20
vuoyvuoyvuoyvuoyvuoy 1448 00 02 90
Fkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacj-&199-&199-&199-&199-&199 1449 00 00 20
1447 00 02 81
1450 00 00 31
1445 00 03 68
1444 00 01 58
1443 00 01 54
1439 00 01 71
1438 00 02 16
1437 00 02 35
1435 00 04 10
1434 00 00 39
1367jkLrk 00 00 75
1430 00 00 20
1431 00 04 03
1432 00 02 14
3836 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1429 00 01 25
1510dPpk jkLrk 00 01 49
1368 00 00 76
1369 00 09 41
1364 00 09 92
1351 00 02 51
1363 00 00 20
1355 00 00 20
1350 00 06 05
1372 00 00 20
1373 00 02 32
1374 00 00 20
1346 00 00 20
1349 00 04 33
1348 00 03 53
1320 00 00 20
1347 00 01 48
1321 00 02 81
1322 00 02 89
1323 00 00 20
1324 00 01 95
1319 00 01 20
1317 00 00 20
1326 00 00 20
1325 00 02 35
1298 00 04 92
1299 00 02 90
1297 00 00 20
1301 00 02 09
1289 00 02 63
1300 00 00 38
1290 00 05 08
1288 00 03 22
1292 00 00 20
1287 00 01 84
1286 00 00 41
1291 00 06 31
1283 00 03 98
1284 00 02 52
1285 00 00 36
1281 00 07 46
1274 00 01 50
1275 00 03 92
1280 00 00 37
1277 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3837
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1276 00 11 88
1265 00 03 16
1264 00 00 20
1266 00 04 39
1267 00 06 64
1144 00 00 61
1143 00 02 90
1142 00 00 20
1140 00 00 20
1268jkLrk 00 02 21
ihvkuksihvkuksihvkuksihvkuksihvkuks 2091jkLrk 00 02 83
Fkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacj-&200 -&200 -&200 -&200 -&200 2493 00 10 54
2494 00 00 20
2488 00 02 07
2487 00 00 20
2489 00 08 03
2490 00 03 52
2473 00 00 20
2474 00 00 20
2491 00 13 58
2472 00 01 92
2471dPpk jkLrk 00 02 63
2099 00 38 05
2098 00 01 87
2097 00 00 20
2096 00 00 20
2081 00 04 63
2076 00 07 52
2075 00 00 20
2077 00 08 48
2079 00 00 32
2078 00 07 94
2069 00 00 20
2067 00 05 91
2066 00 04 92
2065 00 05 61
2064 00 00 25
2062 00 00 20
2059 00 00 20
2061 00 06 20
2060 00 00 98
2040 00 00 20
2104 00 02 00
2107 00 00 39
2106 00 03 60
3838 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
2105 00 04 72
2121 00 00 20
2039 00 01 24
2122 00 00 85
2038 00 01 75
2035 00 00 20
2037 00 05 09
2036 00 02 08
1975 00 03 76
1976 00 06 53
1980 00 08 02
1979 00 00 20
1981 00 06 24
1982 00 16 80
1973fQYM psuy 00 01 64
1969 00 00 48
1968 00 00 20
1966 00 07 32
1967 00 07 37
1964 00 00 20
1965 00 05 34
1950 00 01 22
1944 00 03 41
1945 00 00 83
1946 00 00 20
1943 00 11 16
1941 00 00 70
1938 00 00 20
1942 00 07 71
1940 00 00 20
1424dPpk jkLrk 00 03 39
1413 00 00 31
1411 00 00 20
1399 00 08 21
1400 00 02 97
1398 00 00 42
1401 00 03 12
1402 00 10 30
13962628 00 00 20
1396 00 00 20
1395ukyk 00 00 97
1394ukyk 00 00 97
1391 00 07 61
1389 00 25 33
1392ukyk 00 01 68
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3839
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1393ukyk 00 02 00
1438 00 06 85
1441 00 33 92
1442 00 00 20
1489dPpk jkLrk 00 01 54
39 00 09 74
38 00 34 58
36 00 08 20
37dPpk jkLrk 00 01 35
42 00 02 64
41 00 00 20
43 00 09 25
44 00 14 10
21 00 06 00
20dPpk jkLrk 00 01 06
17 00 00 25
18 00 13 83
19 00 00 20
8 00 00 20
9 00 10 64
10 fQYM psuy 00 01 02
ljh ih ljh ih ljh ih ih ljh ih ljh 163166 fQYM psuy 00 01 39
Fkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacj-&1521-&1521-&15 21-&1521-&1521 161 00 05 00
162 00 00 20
157 00 17 26
lk/kiqj Nrjlk/kiqj Nrjlk/kiqj Nrjlk/kiqj Nrjlk/kiqj Nrj 661ukyk 00 01 82
Fkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacj-&197-&197-&197-&197-&197 660 00 00 56
587 00 05 46
586 00 03 80
584 00 00 20
588 00 03 21
591 00 00 20
581 00 02 45
582 00 00 20
580 00 14 95
578 00 00 20
529 00 03 62
576 00 00 40
574 ukyk 00 01 92
523 00 02 60
524 00 00 20
525 00 09 35
526 00 08 05
528 ukyk 00 01 20
527 00 00 20
3840 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
531 00 00 20
530 00 05 54
532 00 00 20
533 00 00 20
529 00 04 75
549 00 05 06
548 00 05 53
550 00 01 04
547 00 12 15
546 00 01 09
544 00 00 20
540 00 00 53
539 00 00 20
542 00 04 85
541 00 04 78
463 ukyk 00 01 27
452 00 00 20
449 00 00 20
451 00 03 84
450 00 05 81
447 00 00 20
446 00 01 12
445 00 05 50
433 00 00 20
444 00 00 20
442 00 01 13
441 00 03 01
434 00 01 08
428 00 00 20
435 00 03 87
436 00 00 94
427 00 00 95
426 00 07 42
425 00 04 03
424 00 00 97
422 00 10 70
421 00 02 34
610666 dsuky 00 02 73
418 dsuky 00 01 43
csyljkcsyljkcsyljkcsyljkcsyljk 2974 00 00 26
Fkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacjFkkuk uacj-&152-&152-&152-&152-&152 2973 00 09 02
2958dPpk jkLrk 00 02 27
2957 00 09 93
2956 00 00 20
2955 00 03 29
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3841
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1764ukyk 00 01 43 1763 00 10 68 1762 00 12 89 1781 00 03 56 1782 00 01 38 1783 00 00 20 1780 00 06 81 1779 00 00 20 1784 00 04 81 1785 00 03 33 1787 00 01 85 1788 00 00 20 1786 00 01 53 1758 00 00 20 1793 00 07 68 1792 00 01 41 1794 00 03 49 1797 00 03 20 1796 00 10 90 1799jkLrk 00 00 92 1915jkLrk 00 01 59 1737 00 05 46 1738 00 01 35 1739 00 04 65 1692 00 05 06 1690 00 00 20 1691 00 04 27 1684 00 00 20 1689 00 00 20 1687 00 01 56 1688 00 04 19 1693 00 00 20 1655 00 02 82 1654 00 00 20 1694 00 02 58 1696 00 01 05 1695 00 00 40 1636 00 00 84 1697 00 00 89 1699 00 00 21 1700 00 00 20 1633 00 01 22 1635 00 01 27 1634 00 01 09 1632 00 03 913842 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1627 00 00 46
1631 00 03 26
1630 00 01 94
1628 00 01 71
1629 00 00 61
1626 00 02 07
1619 00 00 20
1625 00 00 20
1620 00 06 38
1622 00 00 20
1621 00 01 14
1608 00 00 20
1614 00 00 52
1613 00 00 20
1610 00 06 06
1611 00 05 17
1612dPpk jkLrk 00 02 56
1375 00 09 13
1376 00 12 09
1373 00 01 00
1374 00 04 92
1377 00 00 20
1372 00 00 35
1367 00 01 71
1364 00 00 21
1365 00 04 07
1361 00 02 16
1358 00 03 73
1366 00 00 20
1355 00 02 39
1354 00 01 87
1353 00 00 56
1351 00 04 29
1255 00 05 10
1256 00 04 70
1250 00 01 77
1249 00 01 46
1246 00 03 30
1244 00 01 14
1243 00 01 64
1242 00 01 68
1240 00 05 74
1241 00 00 20
1239 00 02 09
1238 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3843
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1236 00 05 09
1237 00 00 20
1155 00 03 58
1158 00 02 96
1259 00 00 20
1162 00 02 29
1161 00 00 20
1163 00 02 30
1165 00 00 20
1166 00 02 11
1167 00 02 77
1164 00 00 20
1170 00 09 32
1171 00 00 20
1172 00 00 20
1180 00 01 29
1179 00 00 20
1177 00 03 07
1173 00 00 37
1176 00 01 97
1178 00 00 20
1175 00 02 65
1174 00 05 15
1196dPpk jkLrk 00 00 83
815 00 02 00
814 00 02 13
813 00 01 77
816 00 00 20
817 00 02 40
819 00 02 58
818 00 05 01
840 00 02 23
842 00 02 37
843 00 01 87
844 00 02 67
846 00 03 72
847 00 03 54
849 00 13 73
875 00 05 21
876 00 03 55
896 00 01 24
897 00 01 17
898 00 02 39
901 00 04 56
902 00 02 23
3844 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
905 00 02 35 906 00 02 86 908 00 00 91 909 00 02 24 911 00 01 46 910 00 05 75 939 00 00 42 940 00 01 51 941 00 01 35 942 00 00 54 944 00 06 81 945 00 03 96 943 00 00 20 952 00 01 80 947 00 02 16 951 00 04 39 954 00 00 20 955 00 00 20 956 00 00 20 972 00 00 20 973 00 00 20 948 00 00 50 949 00 00 44 950 00 06 68 980 00 03 14 981 00 00 20 979 00 02 63 976 00 00 20 977 00 03 56 978 00 03 23 983 00 00 40 1046 jkLrk 00 00 97 408 00 00 92 407 00 04 21 405 00 00 77 406 00 02 74 403 00 00 20 404 00 00 20 421 00 00 20 422 00 04 52 420 00 00 20 423 00 07 14 425 00 00 20 424 00 00 20 430 00 00 66 426 00 02 31[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3845 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
427 00 03 92
390 00 00 89
389 00 09 62
360 00 00 20
385 00 00 20
386 00 00 20
361 00 00 89
388 00 03 11
387 00 03 17
369 00 03 18
370 00 00 20
366 00 04 27
368 00 01 62
367 00 04 48
365 00 03 30
255 00 00 20
256 00 06 97
257 00 00 20
320 00 00 82
259 00 01 12
266 00 07 25
267 00 00 32
265 00 01 99
268 00 05 86
264 00 00 20
271 00 00 20
269 00 04 61
279 00 00 20
33 00 02 52
20 00 06 86
19 00 02 85
16 00 00 20
21 00 00 20
18 00 03 11
17 00 05 36
14 00 02 85
13 00 01 00
12 00 04 30
22 00 00 20
11 00 08 96
9 00 05 04
10 00 00 20
8 00 00 55
106 dsuky 00 02 36
[पफा. सं. आर-25011/20/2013-ओआर-I] पवन वुफमार, अवर सचिव3846 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 27th July, 2013
S.O. 1534.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in Dist. Saran in the State of Bihar for 'Patna to Motihari and Baitalpur Pipeline' for the transportation of Petroleum Product;
And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Arun Kumar Jha B.A.S. & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division) P.O. Dhelwan, Sipara, Dist. Patna (Bihar.) Pin-800020.
SCHEDULE
Dist.: Saran
State : Bihar
Mouja / Village Survey/BlockNo. Sub-Div.-No. Area
Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
SAMAHUTA 6407 00 02 50
Thana Number : 234 6406 00 06 99
6405 00 03 36
6404 00 08 34
6410 00 00 20
6397 00 02 69
6412 00 02 27
6413 00 00 20
6402 00 02 88
6401 00 03 83
6403 00 01 08
6400 00 02 80
6432 00 00 20
6431 00 00 20
6433 00 00 14
6399 00 01 76
6434 00 02 52
6392 00 01 23
6440 00 02 59
6441 00 04 68
6439 00 00 58
6442 00 03 87
6443 00 04 80
6444 00 00 80
6447 00 00 20
6445 00 05 23
6446 00 06 24
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3847
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
3971 00 00 20
6479 00 00 20
3969 00 37 45
3968 00 00 20
3980 00 05 28
3962 00 00 25
3961 00 02 10
3960 00 00 20
3956 00 00 20
3946 00 01 12
3981 00 03 92
3982 00 00 76
3983 00 00 20
3984 00 00 20
3945 00 09 24
3944 00 01 75
3943 00 12 44
3922 00 00 20
3995 00 00 96
3931 00 01 95
3932 00 00 20
3930 00 02 70
3929 00 03 22
3928 00 02 27
3927 00 02 53
4000 00 00 20
3926 00 08 85
4001 00 08 65
4002 00 00 45
4004 00 00 20
4005 00 15 92
4006 (Road) 00 01 34
4007 (Road) 00 01 31
4008 (Road) 00 02 18
4009 00 06 47
4010 00 02 29
4011 00 14 20
4012 00 05 28
4013 00 15 28
4014 00 02 01
4024 00 11 09
4027 00 27 87
4031 00 01 27
4034 00 04 28
4033 00 03 18
3848 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
3852 00 02 77 3853 00 02 10 3850 00 00 20 3823 00 04 80 3854 00 00 20 3830 00 00 20 3822 00 06 06 3824 00 00 56 3749 00 03 79 3748 00 04 48 3750 00 01 74 3745 00 00 20 3751 00 06 95 3752 00 00 20 3753 00 00 20 3744 00 00 20 3743 00 03 44 3754 00 09 82 3755 00 03 35 3756 00 02 86 3757 00 03 41 3740 00 00 20 3760 00 04 73 3759 00 00 20 3761 00 07 32 4143 00 00 20 3762 00 09 58 4142 00 01 69 4141 00 01 65 4139 00 01 01 4140 00 07 84 4138 00 01 07 4159 00 11 39 4157 00 00 20 4160 00 00 66 4158 00 02 27 4186 00 12 75 4184 00 00 20 4184 00 01 59 4185 00 06 76 4187 00 02 81 4188 00 08 23 4189 00 08 86 4190 00 01 79 4191 00 00 20
3196—M-8 Mss. 443 to 480
3849[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3849 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
4223 00 07 54
4228 00 01 88
4229 00 00 20
4227 00 04 86
4226 00 00 20
4230 00 06 26
4231 00 00 20
4233 00 06 65
4235 00 03 95
4238 00 00 20
4236 00 03 54
4237 00 05 61
5791 00 01 56
4240 00 00 66
5790 00 06 74
5789/7184 00 00 20
5789 00 06 99
5788/7182 00 00 79
5788 00 06 92
5786 00 00 20
5787 00 02 00
KOPA 767 00 13 75
Thana Number:231 763 00 00 20
766 00 05 90
764 00 01 46
765 00 04 33
760 00 02 32
583 00 00 66
584 00 09 60
585 00 02 86
586 00 00 20
580 00 06 06
579 00 00 42
590 00 00 20
591 00 08 18
578 00 03 72
592 00 06 23
564 00 02 04
563 00 08 29
593 00 00 20
562 00 01 01
559 00 02 29
560 00 04 88
558 00 06 18
557 00 00 84
3850 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
545 00 00 20 534 00 04 45 542 00 02 67 535 00 00 84 541 00 05 24 540 00 03 90 397 00 05 67 396 00 00 27 321 00 00 20 322 00 00 20 317 00 00 63 316 00 00 73 315 00 00 91 313 00 05 81 283(Road) 00 00 87 254 00 04 19 253 00 06 93 252 00 04 34 251 00 00 11 250 00 00 47 249 00 01 62 248 00 02 08 247 00 05 61 246 00 00 73 181 00 04 91 185 00 06 01 182 00 00 20 183 00 00 20 184 00 02 63 173 00 00 20 171 00 00 20 172 00 06 89 168 00 00 74 170 00 04 70 169 00 01 30 156 00 15 24 155 00 00 20 157 00 03 92 159 00 00 93 158 00 04 05 110 00 02 95 111 00 02 57 127 00 00 20 112 00 05 26 113 00 04 22[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3851 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
117 00 00 20 12 00 16 72 120 00 00 20 119 00 00 20 6 00 14 22 7 00 00 56 5 00 16 49
MUSEHRI
815 00 01 32
Thana Number : 233 809 00 09 87
810 00 08 12
806 00 00 20
811 00 00 20
812 00 00 20
805 00 07 84
799 00 05 33
804 00 05 70
803 00 03 72
802 00 02 01
782 00 06 33
783 00 00 40
784 00 00 20
781 00 09 05
780 00 00 40
776 00 07 77
777 00 01 15
775 00 04 45
772 00 04 37
771 00 00 64
770 00 03 38
768 00 03 80
767 00 05 09
766 00 01 85
760 00 04 35
759 00 04 24
748 00 04 19
745 00 01 66
742 00 02 52
741 00 00 20
736 00 07 78
740 00 01 01
737 00 07 82
700 00 07 62
697 00 04 57
696 00 04 69
690 00 02 04
3852 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
692 00 00 97
687 00 11 71
686 00 00 99
685 00 06 01
675 00 00 20
684 00 04 14
683 00 05 88
682 00 02 13
681 00 01 52
679 00 00 20
680 00 00 20
ANWAL 1448 00 02 90
Thana Number : 199 1449 00 00 20
1447 00 02 81
1450 00 00 31
1445 00 03 68
1444 00 01 58
1443 00 01 54
1439 00 01 71
1438 00 02 16
1437 00 02 35
1435 00 04 10
1434 00 00 39
1367(Road) 00 00 75
1430 00 00 20
1431 00 04 03
1432 00 02 14
1429 00 01 25
1510(Cart Track) 00 01 49
1368 00 00 76
1369 00 09 41
1364 00 09 92
1351 00 02 51
1363 00 00 20
1355 00 00 20
1350 00 06 05
1372 00 00 20
1373 00 02 32
1374 00 00 20
1346 00 00 20
1349 00 04 33
1348 00 03 53
1320 00 00 20
1347 00 01 48
1321 00 02 81
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3853
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1319 00 01 20
1317 00 00 20
1326 00 00 20
1325 00 02 35
1298 00 04 92
1299 00 02 90
1297 00 00 20
1301 00 02 09
1289 00 02 63
1300 00 00 38
1290 00 05 08
1288 00 03 22
1292 00 00 20
1287 00 01 84
1286 00 00 41
1291 00 06 31
1283 00 03 98
1284 00 02 52
1285 00 00 36
1281 00 07 46
1274 00 01 50
1275 00 03 92
1280 00 00 37
1277 00 00 20
1276 00 11 88
1265 00 03 16
1264 00 00 20
1266 00 04 39
1267 00 06 64
1144 00 00 61
1143 00 02 90
1142 00 00 20
1140 00 00 20
1268(Road) 00 02 21
PIANO 2091(Road) 00 02 83
Thana Number : 200 2493 00 10 54
2494 00 00 20
2488 00 02 07
2487 00 00 20
2489 00 08 03
2490 00 03 52
2473 00 00 20
2474 00 00 20
2491 00 13 58
2472 00 01 92
2471(Cart Track) 00 02 63
3854 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
2097 00 00 20
2096 00 00 20
2081 00 04 63
2076 00 07 52
2075 00 00 20
2077 00 08 48
2079 00 00 32
2078 00 07 94
2069 00 00 20
2067 00 05 91
2066 00 04 92
2065 00 05 61
2064 00 00 25
2062 00 00 20
2059 00 00 20
2061 00 06 20
2060 00 00 98
2040 00 00 20
2104 00 02 00
2107 00 00 39
2106 00 03 60
2105 00 04 72
2121 00 00 20
2039 00 01 24
2122 00 00 85
2038 00 01 75
2035 00 00 20
2037 00 05 09
2036 00 02 08
1975 00 03 76
1976 00 06 53
1980 00 08 02
1979 00 00 20
1981 00 06 24
1982 00 16 80
1973(Field Channel) 00 01 64
1969 00 00 48
1968 00 00 20
1966 00 07 32
1967 00 07 37
1964 00 00 20
1965 00 05 34
1950 00 01 22
1944 00 03 41
1945 00 00 83
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3855
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1938 00 00 20
1942 00 07 71
1940 00 00 20
1424(Cart Track) 00 03 39
1413 00 00 31
1411 00 00 20
1399 00 08 21
1400 00 02 97
1398 00 00 42
1401 00 03 12
1402 00 10 30
1396/2628 00 00 20
1396 00 00 20
1395(Nala) 00 00 97
1394(Nala) 00 00 97
1391 00 07 61
1389 00 25 33
1392(Nala) 00 01 68
1393(Nala) 00 02 00
1438 00 06 85
1441 00 33 92
1442 00 00 20
1489(Cart Track) 00 01 54
39 00 09 74
38 00 34 58
36 00 08 20
37(Cart Track) 00 01 35
42 00 02 64
41 00 00 20
43 00 09 25
44 00 14 10
21 00 06 00
20(Cart Track) 00 01 06
17 00 00 25
18 00 13 83
19 00 00 20
8 00 00 20
9 00 10 64
10(Field Channel) 00 01 02
SAREA PATTI Thana No : 152/1 163/166 (Field Channel) 00 01 39
161 00 05 00
162 00 00 20
157 00 17 26
SADHPURCHHATAR Thana Number : 197 661(Nala) 00 01 82
660 00 00 56
3856 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
588 00 03 21 591 00 00 20 581 00 02 45 582 00 00 20 580 00 14 95 578 00 00 20 529 00 03 62 576 00 00 40 574(Nala) 00 01 92 523 00 02 60 524 00 00 20 525 00 09 35 526 00 08 05 528(Nala) 00 01 20 527 00 00 20 531 00 00 20 530 00 05 54 532 00 00 20 533 00 00 20 529 00 04 75 549 00 05 06 548 00 05 53 550 00 01 04 547 00 12 15 546 00 01 09 544 00 00 20 540 00 00 53 539 00 00 20 542 00 04 85 541 00 04 78 463(Nala) 00 01 27 452 00 00 20 449 00 00 20 451 00 03 84 450 00 05 81 447 00 00 20 446 00 01 12 445 00 05 50 433 00 00 20 444 00 00 20 442 00 01 13 441 00 03 01 434 00 01 08 428 00 00 20 435 00 03 87[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3857 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
425 00 04 03
424 00 00 97
422 00 10 70
421 00 02 34
610/666(canal) 00 02 73
418(canal) 00 01 43
BELSARA 2974 00 00 26
Thana Number:152 2973 00 09 02
2958(Cart Track) 00 02 27
2957 00 09 93
2956 00 00 20
2955 00 03 29
1764(Nala) 00 01 43
1763 00 10 68
1762 00 12 89
1781 00 03 56
1782 00 01 38
1783 00 00 20
1780 00 06 81
1779 00 00 20
1784 00 04 81
1785 00 03 33
1787 00 01 85
1788 00 00 20
1786 00 01 53
1758 00 00 20
1793 00 07 68
1792 00 01 41
1794 00 03 49
1797 00 03 20
1796 00 10 90
1799(Road) 00 00 92
1915(Road) 00 01 59
1737 00 05 46
1738 00 01 35
1739 00 04 65
1692 00 05 06
1690 00 00 20
1691 00 04 27
1684 00 00 20
1689 00 00 20
1687 00 01 56
1688 00 04 19
1693 00 00 20
1655 00 02 82
3858 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1695 00 00 40
1636 00 00 84
1697 00 00 89
1699 00 00 21
1700 00 00 20
1633 00 01 22
1635 00 01 27
1634 00 01 09
1632 00 03 91
1627 00 00 46
1631 00 03 26
1630 00 01 94
1628 00 01 71
1629 00 00 61
1626 00 02 07
1619 00 00 20
1625 00 00 20
1620 00 06 38
1622 00 00 20
1621 00 01 14
1608 00 00 20
1614 00 00 52
1613 00 00 20
1610 00 06 06
1611 00 05 17
1612(Cart Track) 00 02 56
1375 00 09 13
1376 00 12 09
1373 00 01 00
1374 00 04 92
1377 00 00 20
1372 00 00 35
1367 00 01 71
1364 00 00 21
1365 00 04 07
1361 00 02 16
1358 00 03 73
1366 00 00 20
1355 00 02 39
1354 00 01 87
1353 00 00 56
1351 00 04 29
1255 00 05 10
1256 00 04 70
1250 00 01 77
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3859
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1243 00 01 64
1242 00 01 68
1240 00 05 74
1241 00 00 20
1239 00 02 09
1238 00 00 20
1236 00 05 09
1237 00 00 20
1155 00 03 58
1158 00 02 96
1259 00 00 20
1162 00 02 29
1161 00 00 20
1163 00 02 30
1165 00 00 20
1166 00 02 11
1167 00 02 77
1164 00 00 20
1170 00 09 32
1171 00 00 20
1172 00 00 20
1180 00 01 29
1179 00 00 20
1177 00 03 07
1173 00 00 37
1176 00 01 97
1178 00 00 20
1175 00 02 65
1174 00 05 15
1196(Cart Track) 00 00 83
815 00 02 00
814 00 02 13
813 00 01 77
816 00 00 20
817 00 02 40
819 00 02 58
818 00 05 01
840 00 02 23
842 00 02 37
843 00 01 87
844 00 02 67
846 00 03 72
847 00 03 54
849 00 13 73
875 00 05 21
3860 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
898 00 02 39
901 00 04 56
902 00 02 23
905 00 02 35
906 00 02 86
908 00 00 91
909 00 02 24
911 00 01 46
910 00 05 75
939 00 00 42
940 00 01 51
941 00 01 35
942 00 00 54
944 00 06 81
945 00 03 96
943 00 00 20
952 00 01 80
947 00 02 16
951 00 04 39
954 00 00 20
955 00 00 20
956 00 00 20
972 00 00 20
973 00 00 20
948 00 00 50
949 00 00 44
950 00 06 68
980 00 03 14
981 00 00 20
979 00 02 63
976 00 00 20
977 00 03 56
978 00 03 23
983 00 00 40
1046(Road) 00 00 97
408 00 00 92
407 00 04 21
405 00 00 77
406 00 02 74
403 00 00 20
404 00 00 20
421 00 00 20
422 00 04 52
420 00 00 20
423 00 07 14
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3861
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
426 00 02 31
427 00 03 92
390 00 00 89
389 00 09 62
360 00 00 20
385 00 00 20
386 00 00 20
361 00 00 89
388 00 03 11
387 00 03 17
369 00 03 18
370 00 00 20
366 00 04 27
368 00 01 62
367 00 04 48
365 00 03 30
255 00 00 20
256 00 06 97
257 00 00 20
320 00 00 82
259 00 01 12
266 00 07 25
267 00 00 32
265 00 01 99
268 00 05 86
264 00 00 20
271 00 00 20
269 00 04 61
279 00 00 20
33 00 02 52
20 00 06 86
19 00 02 85
16 00 00 20
21 00 00 20
18 00 03 11
17 00 05 36
14 00 02 85
13 00 01 00
12 00 04 30
22 00 00 20
11 00 08 96
9 00 05 04
10 00 00 20
8 00 00 55
106(Canal) 00 02 36
[F. No. R-25011/20/ 2013-OR-I]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
3862 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई, 2013
dk-vk- dk-vk- dk-vk- dk-vk- dk-vk- 1535.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd yksd fgr esa ;g vko";d gS fd iVuk ls eksfrgkjh vkSj csrkyiqj rd isVªksfy;e inkFkksZ ds ifjogu gsrq ftyk floku] jkT; fcgkj esa bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs"ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,(
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, vko";d izrhr gksrk gS fd ml Hkwfe esa ftlds Hkhrj mDr ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkus dk izLrko gS vkSj tks bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS] mi;ksx dk vtZu fd;k tk,(
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk "kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/akdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk"k; dh ?kks'k.kk djrh gS A
dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks] Hkkjr ds jkti= esa ;Fkk izdkf"kr bl vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds vUnj] Hkwfe ds Hkhrj ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus gsrq mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds fy,] Jh v:.k dqekj >k] fc-iz-ls- o l{ke izkf/kdkjh bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs"ku fyfeVsM ¼ikbiykbu fMohtu½ iVuk] iks-vks-
अनुसूची
जिला : सिवान
राज्य : बिहार
मौजा/ग्राम सर्वे/ब्लाक/सं. ;प्लॉट सं.द्ध सब-डीव-सं. क्षेत्रापफल
हेक्टेयर आरे वर्ग मीटर
1 2 3 4 5 6
tykyiwjtykyiwjtykyiwjtykyiwjtykyiwj 2232&ukyk2232&ukyk2232&ukyk2232&ukyk2232&ukyk 0 00 00 00 00 0 1 01 01 01 01 0 7 27 27 27 27 2
Fkkuk uacj&236Fkkuk uacj&236Fkkuk uacj&236Fkkuk uacj&236Fkkuk uacj&236 2233&ukyk2233&ukyk2233&ukyk2233&ukyk2233&ukyk 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 10 10 10 10 1 0 80 80 80 80 8
2238 00 01 65
2239 00 13 27
2240 00 00 20
2242 00 05 00
2247 00 04 91
2248 00 03 49
2258 00 10 30
2257 00 12 90
2256 00 01 43
2300 00 12 27
2299 00 09 48
2304 00 06 08
2305 00 03 99
2306 00 00 20
2307 00 01 10
2308 00 02 37
2309 00 03 25
2314 00 01 14
2315 00 10 68
2233&ukyk2233&ukyk2233&ukyk2233&ukyk2233&ukyk 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 10 10 10 10 1 4 64 64 64 64 6 2226&ukyk2226&ukyk2226&ukyk2226&ukyk2226&ukyk 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 30 30 30 30 3 8 08 08 08 08 0[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3863 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
2225&ukyk2225&ukyk2225&ukyk2225&ukyk2225&ukyk 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 70 70 70 70 7 3 53 53 53 53 5
1075¼dsuky½1075¼dsuky½1075¼dsuky½1075¼dsuky½1075¼dsuky½ 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 10 10 10 10 1 7 87 87 87 87 8
1074¼dsuky½1074¼dsuky½1074¼dsuky½1074¼dsuky½1074¼dsuky½ 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 10 10 10 10 1 1 61 61 61 61 6
1073¼dsuky½1073¼dsuky½1073¼dsuky½1073¼dsuky½1073¼dsuky½ 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 20 20 20 20 2 3 83 83 83 83 8
988 00 00 20
987 00 02 30
986 00 06 94
986@9306 00 05 11
815 00 00 20
814 00 00 20
985 00 04 57
817 00 02 44
818 00 04 10
822 00 07 85
820 00 00 20
821 00 00 20
836 00 00 20
833@9307 00 06 69
833 00 04 03
834 00 10 18
775 00 00 20
777 00 05 89
786 00 05 18
787 00 00 20
778 00 02 35
779 00 03 87
785 00 04 48
784 00 01 60
735 00 00 20
780 00 00 26
781 00 03 07
782 00 01 49
783 00 00 20
738 00 01 63
739 00 00 20
737 00 07 25
744 00 02 19
3864 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
429¼jkLrk½429¼jkLrk½429¼jkLrk½429¼jkLrk½429¼jkLrk½ 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 10 10 10 10 1 1 81 81 81 81 8
311 00 13 18
310 00 00 20
313 00 02 39
328 00 05 21
324 00 04 87
325 00 02 08
327 00 00 20
273 00 07 93
274 00 00 20
326 00 00 35
267 00 00 20
269 00 08 14
268 00 05 04
259 00 00 20
251 00 01 19
252 00 01 76
253 00 01 97
256 00 00 76
254 00 02 58
255 00 09 28
239 00 00 20
244 00 00 20
243 00 00 78
245 00 00 20
242 00 02 86
241 00 03 54
236 00 01 60
3457 00 02 00
235 00 00 34
233 00 00 20
234 00 00 20
3458 00 10 47
enkjhpdenkjhpdenkjhpdenkjhpdenkjhpd 919&ukyk919&ukyk919&ukyk919&ukyk919&ukyk 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 20 20 20 20 2 8 08 08 08 08 0
Fkkuk uacj&235Fkkuk uacj&235Fkkuk uacj&235Fkkuk uacj&235Fkkuk uacj&235 920&ukyk920&ukyk920&ukyk920&ukyk920&ukyk 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 00 0 2 02 02 02 02 0
918&ukyk918&ukyk918&ukyk918&ukyk918&ukyk 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 50 50 50 50 5 0 90 90 90 90 9
906&ukyk906&ukyk906&ukyk906&ukyk906&ukyk 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 00 0 8 88 88 88 88 8
917 00 00 71
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3865
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
904 00 00 51
909 00 01 54
903 00 06 49
900 00 03 83
902 00 00 20
901 00 00 20
899 00 04 20
898 00 00 20
895 00 06 34
882 00 01 28
881 00 01 08
880 00 02 40
874 00 09 91
869&jkLrk869&jkLrk869&jkLrk869&jkLrk869&jkLrk 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 10 10 10 10 1 1 11 11 11 11 1
750&jkLrk750&jkLrk750&jkLrk750&jkLrk750&jkLrk 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 00 0 2 02 02 02 02 0
748 00 00 20
875 00 00 20
810 00 00 20
751 00 04 31
803 00 01 27
802 00 01 08
801 00 00 20
804 00 00 89
805 00 04 29
806 00 04 31
797&ukyk797&ukyk797&ukyk797&ukyk797&ukyk 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 00 0 4 04 04 04 04 0
791 00 00 20
807 00 00 89
808&ukyk808&ukyk808&ukyk808&ukyk808&ukyk 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 00 0 2 02 02 02 02 0
795&ukyk795&ukyk795&ukyk795&ukyk795&ukyk 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 10 10 10 10 1 0 90 90 90 90 9
796&ukyk796&ukyk796&ukyk796&ukyk796&ukyk 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 10 10 10 10 1 0 40 40 40 40 4
792 00 00 20
793 00 00 66
794&ukyk794&ukyk794&ukyk794&ukyk794&ukyk 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 00 0 2 02 02 02 02 0
779 00 02 62
778 00 02 31
777 00 02 30
774 00 05 87
3866 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
772 00 00 20
cxkSjkcxkSjkcxkSjkcxkSjkcxkSjk 5674 00 06 41
Fkkuk uacj&234Fkkuk uacj&234Fkkuk uacj&234Fkkuk uacj&234Fkkuk uacj&234 5675 00 05 80
5676 00 00 80
5677 00 03 09
5680 00 05 82
5681 00 02 01
5682 00 03 01
5717 00 04 82
5715 00 06 42
5714 00 02 13
5691 00 01 78
5692 00 00 93
5693 00 02 68
5694 00 02 83
5695 00 02 31
5696 00 02 36
5699 00 02 22
5700 00 01 80
5701 00 04 95
1472 00 02 29
1471 00 00 76
1470 00 02 19
1405 00 05 53
1404 00 08 68
1407 00 01 86
1409 00 04 62
1408 00 00 20
1413 00 02 45
1414 00 03 70
1417 00 01 96
1419 00 02 19
1420 00 08 35
1385 00 00 20
1124 00 14 70
1115 00 00 36
1116 00 15 55
721 00 05 63
720 00 05 51
719 00 05 94
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3867
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
656 00 00 20
657 00 10 50
633 00 00 20
649 00 01 72
648 00 20 71
640 00 05 72
639 00 00 20
641 00 01 65
642 00 01 01
643 00 03 79
106 00 07 38
107 00 00 20
108 00 00 20
105 00 00 46
104 00 03 19
109 00 04 06
103 00 05 17
110 00 02 85
111 jkLrk jkLrk jkLrk jkLrk jkLrk 00 01 42
112 00 00 48
145 00 05 12
113 00 04 12
143 00 08 85
142 00 06 27
140 00 00 20
141 00 05 11
139 00 07 13
134 00 00 20
138 00 06 18
deljkdeljkdeljkdeljkdeljk 1387 00 02 56
Fkkuk uacj&232Fkkuk uacj&232Fkkuk uacj&232Fkkuk uacj&232Fkkuk uacj&232 1386 00 00 79
1400 00 04 08
1399 00 08 75
1401 00 05 94
1402 00 09 03
1398&dPpk jkLrk1398&dPpk jkLrk1398&dPpk jkLrk1398&dPpk jkLrk1398&dPpk jkLrk 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 10 10 10 10 1 6 76 76 76 76 7
1394 00 00 20
1395 00 00 20
1403 00 21 08
1404 00 00 72
1127 00 00 90
35 ¼vsu-vsp-&85½35 ¼vsu-vsp-&85½35 ¼vsu-vsp-&85½35 ¼vsu-vsp-&85½35 ¼vsu-vsp-&85½ 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 40 40 40 40 4 4 14 14 14 14 1
3868 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 741 00 01 17
1407 00 00 44
740 00 01 94
731 00 00 20
739 00 03 91
738 00 01 22
1403 00 02 12
1398 00 01 41
1394 00 11 53
1393 00 05 22
1392 00 01 19
1376 00 08 16
1377 00 02 12
1375 00 07 45
1374 00 00 73
1372 00 07 13
1371 00 04 10
1370 00 04 10
1369 00 04 58
1132 00 00 20
1368 00 00 42
1365 00 08 37
1364 00 06 14
1133 00 00 10
1134 00 00 80
1363 00 03 43
1136 00 03 69
1135 00 00 20
1137 00 04 85
1138 00 00 20
1150&jkLrk1150&jkLrk1150&jkLrk1150&jkLrk1150&jkLrk 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 10 10 10 10 1 3 43 43 43 43 4
1153 00 02 85
1152 00 02 15
1337 00 34 03
1158 00 00 20
1331 00 21 26
1330 00 06 55
1328 00 00 92
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3869
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
736 00 00 20
733 00 00 77
734 00 07 89
735 00 06 07
732 00 00 20
274&jsyos274&jsyos274&jsyos274&jsyos274&jsyos 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 90 90 90 90 9 8 58 58 58 58 5
722 00 14 80
721 00 22 14
720 00 00 11
691 00 01 55
690 ¼jkLrk½690 ¼jkLrk½690 ¼jkLrk½690 ¼jkLrk½690 ¼jkLrk½ 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 10 10 10 10 1 2 32 32 32 32 3
689 ¼ukyk½689 ¼ukyk½689 ¼ukyk½689 ¼ukyk½689 ¼ukyk½ 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 20 20 20 20 2 3 53 53 53 53 5
cyqghcyqghcyqghcyqghcyqgh 296 00 02 06
Fkkuk uacj&233Fkkuk uacj&233Fkkuk uacj&233Fkkuk uacj&233Fkkuk uacj&233 207 00 07 28
207@322 00 09 01
206 00 02 77
205 00 02 75
204 00 01 99
208 ¼ugj½208 ¼ugj½208 ¼ugj½208 ¼ugj½208 ¼ugj½ 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 10 10 10 10 1 2 62 62 62 62 6
203 00 00 20
319 00 12 24
320 00 00 20
317 00 00 29
316 00 08 75
199 00 04 30
198 00 00 45
108 ¼ugj½108 ¼ugj½108 ¼ugj½108 ¼ugj½108 ¼ugj½ 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 10 10 10 10 1 7 47 47 47 47 4
150 00 04 09
149 00 03 74
154 00 07 49
156 00 07 11
155 00 00 62
157 00 08 02
111 00 10 66
110 00 03 96
112 00 00 20
109 00 14 12
103¼dPpk jkLrk½103¼dPpk jkLrk½103¼dPpk jkLrk½103¼dPpk jkLrk½103¼dPpk jkLrk½ 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 20 20 20 20 2 5 25 25 25 25 2
102 00 05 70
3870 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
87 00 12 03
96 00 07 02
309 00 05 58
305 00 00 57
94 00 00 20
95 00 12 61
304 00 00 20
94@326 00 13 74
93 00 10 31
1¼ugj½1¼ugj½1¼ugj½1¼ugj½1¼ugj½ 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 10 10 10 10 1 3 83 83 83 83 8
ckyMhgckyMhgckyMhgckyMhgckyMhg 76 00 08 18
Fkkuk uacj&183Fkkuk uacj&183Fkkuk uacj&183Fkkuk uacj&183Fkkuk uacj&183 77 00 00 20
75 00 00 20
78 00 00 20
79 00 02 08
80 00 00 20
90 00 09 66
91 00 00 46
74¼dPpk jkLrk½74¼dPpk jkLrk½74¼dPpk jkLrk½74¼dPpk jkLrk½74¼dPpk jkLrk½ 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 10 10 10 10 1 2 92 92 92 92 9
56 00 02 82
55 00 08 97
54 00 00 20
53 00 00 73
51 00 00 20
97 00 09 42
96 00 03 23
95 00 01 38
94 00 00 20
98 00 06 69
99 00 04 22
101 00 00 20
100 00 07 38
102 00 00 22
103 00 11 25
jkuhckjhjkuhckjhjkuhckjhjkuhckjhjkuhckjh 339 00 00 91
Fkkuk uacj&182Fkkuk uacj&182Fkkuk uacj&182Fkkuk uacj&182Fkkuk uacj&182 355 00 17 74
347 00 00 20
346 00 00 20
348 00 05 23
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3871
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
350 00 05 28
301 00 00 20
352 00 03 91
353 00 00 20
290 00 00 20
289 00 03 66
288 00 10 92
287 00 06 61
264 00 00 20
266 00 05 99
271 00 04 08
282 00 00 20
270 00 00 20
273 00 02 42
272 00 07 42
223 00 00 20
275 00 01 07
274 00 04 01
222 00 00 20
221 00 02 55
220 00 06 37
cSnkiqjcSnkiqjcSnkiqjcSnkiqjcSnkiqj 588 00 00 52
Fkkuk uacj&184Fkkuk uacj&184Fkkuk uacj&184Fkkuk uacj&184Fkkuk uacj&184 585 00 00 20
589 00 14 44
593 00 00 20
590 00 08 49
591 00 04 82
592 00 04 07
602 00 02 48
603 00 00 90
604 00 00 20
605 00 00 20
965¼jkLrk½965¼jkLrk½965¼jkLrk½965¼jkLrk½965¼jkLrk½ 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 30 30 30 30 3 7 77 77 77 77 7
966 00 00 20
964 00 06 31
963 00 15 05
956 00 00 20
962 00 07 08
3872 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
819 00 05 45
820 00 02 51
821 00 02 31
823 00 01 73
824 00 01 86
825 00 02 08
828 00 01 33
831 00 01 14
832 00 01 04
827 00 01 44
835 00 01 39
836 00 02 44
837 00 03 45
838 00 04 95
839 00 01 10
840 00 00 93
841 00 01 05
fc'kwuiqjkfc'kwuiqjkfc'kwuiqjkfc'kwuiqjkfc'kwuiqjk 1538 00 01 85
Fkkuk uacj&165Fkkuk uacj&165Fkkuk uacj&165Fkkuk uacj&165Fkkuk uacj&165 1537 00 00 20
1536 00 00 20
1535 00 00 20
1534 00 00 20
1539 00 02 07
1540 00 02 15
1541 00 03 83
1542 00 03 22
1547 00 00 20
1543 00 10 58
1546 00 03 00
1532 00 00 90
1544 00 02 24
1545 00 00 20
1640¼jkLrk½1640¼jkLrk½1640¼jkLrk½1640¼jkLrk½1640¼jkLrk½ 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 20 20 20 20 2 1 91 91 91 91 9
758 00 06 85
764 00 02 94
759 00 03 56
760 00 01 84
761 00 03 59
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3873
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
718 00 00 51 721 00 01 26 722 00 07 15 730 00 00 95 729 00 00 20 731 00 03 94 732 00 00 41 735 00 02 26 735 00 02 00 736 00 03 35 740 00 00 20 739 00 00 20 656 00 00 20 738 00 08 20 688 00 04 14 687 00 03 61 686 00 02 83 685 00 02 97 661 00 04 89 662 00 03 27 666 00 03 26 667 00 02 67 641 00 02 27 639 00 02 32 640 00 02 25 275 00 02 40 434 00 04 17 433 00 01 00 432 00 02 95 431 00 01 51 430 00 00 83 429 00 02 64 428 00 02 74 427 00 05 35 424 00 01 29 289 00 00 20 425 00 03 03 426 00 00 203874 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
283 00 00 20
403 00 01 05
402 00 05 14
399@1641 00 06 37
398 00 01 09
397 00 02 16
385 00 02 43
386 00 02 77
387 00 00 35
307¼jkLrk½307¼jkLrk½307¼jkLrk½307¼jkLrk½307¼jkLrk½ 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 10 10 10 10 1 1 31 31 31 31 3
374 00 00 20
372 00 00 20
378 00 01 27
379 00 04 08
380 00 03 91
381 00 01 02
382 00 00 20
373 00 09 16
369 00 09 64
368 00 04 39
367 00 02 46
366 00 02 78
365 00 04 61
364 00 08 47
363 00 02 47
336 00 05 74
362 00 05 87
337 00 03 62
361 00 01 22
359 00 03 27
358 00 00 20
356 00 00 20
351 00 00 20
360 00 01 17
355 00 02 39
352 00 02 22
350 00 10 88
349 00 01 61
#dqUnhiwj#dqUnhiwj#dqUnhiwj#dqUnhiwj#dqUnhiwj 1635&jkLrk1635&jkLrk1635&jkLrk1635&jkLrk1635&jkLrk 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 10 10 10 10 1 6 06 06 06 06 0
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3875
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1629 00 02 34 1636 00 00 20 1628 00 02 85 1627 00 01 48 1637 00 00 40 1625 00 03 73 1626 00 01 09 1621 00 00 20 1622 00 06 60 1619 00 02 97 1615 00 00 20 1616 00 03 09 1613 00 03 50 1611 00 03 65 1609 00 02 80 1588 00 02 55 1589 00 02 58 1594 00 00 20 1593 00 01 45 1596 00 00 20 1592 00 00 20 1595 00 01 65 1599 00 01 76 1598 00 00 35 1575 00 02 22 1572 00 03 06 1571 00 04 71 1569 00 00 43 1508 00 00 20 1570 00 02 00 1567 00 03 35 1566 00 01 67 1565 00 01 13 1564 00 00 63 1512 00 00 20 1513 00 03 97 1561 00 00 203876 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1516 00 02 02
1517 00 04 00
1518 00 00 82
1519 00 04 92
1520 00 00 26
1526 00 04 08
1528 00 01 66
1625 00 04 47
1637 00 00 48
1527 00 05 74
1409 00 08 88
1445 00 00 69
1446 00 00 20
1444 00 00 20
1410 00 04 67
1412 00 03 26
1411 00 00 71
1413 00 05 31
1414 00 01 73
1254 00 03 96
1230 00 00 20
1255 00 00 80
1257 00 00 20
1258 00 00 20
1253 00 00 45
1249 00 01 91
1248 00 02 14
1247 00 02 61
1246 00 03 32
1245 00 04 31
1244 00 00 20
1242 00 08 30
1243 00 04 37
1220&dsuky1220&dsuky1220&dsuky1220&dsuky1220&dsuky 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 30 30 30 30 3 1 71 71 71 71 7
1211 00 00 20
1209 00 02 02
1212 00 05 00
1214 00 00 35
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3877
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1207 00 03 81 1208 00 01 78 1206 00 03 87 1205 00 00 20 1201 00 00 65 1203 00 00 20 1204 00 07 19 999 00 00 20 360 00 02 08 358 00 00 20 361 00 07 48 362 00 00 41 359 00 02 22 367 00 10 39 356 00 06 07 355 00 17 21 354 00 01 64 516 00 10 17 517 00 00 20 518 00 00 89 507 00 06 56 520 00 04 21 519 00 04 00 521 00 02 33 506 00 00 20 529 00 00 20 530 00 00 20 528 00 02 89 527 00 02 58 526 00 05 14 577 00 06 61 576 00 00 20 578 00 03 65 579 00 02 31 574 00 00 78 573 00 00 89 572 00 06 19 571 00 00 203878 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
567 00 05 70
565 00 00 20
566 00 06 29
txnh'kiqjtxnh'kiqjtxnh'kiqjtxnh'kiqjtxnh'kiqj 597 00 00 99
Fkkuk uacj&160Fkkuk uacj&160Fkkuk uacj&160Fkkuk uacj&160Fkkuk uacj&160 598 00 00 20
599 00 00 20
603 00 02 70
602 00 04 44
601 00 02 29
600 00 01 73
612 00 00 20
593 00 06 17
592 00 02 21
591 00 00 89
587 00 00 20
613 00 08 24
614 00 10 45
616 00 04 22
617 00 02 62
618 00 01 87
619 00 02 89
625 00 03 84
620 00 00 92
624 00 04 24
621 00 00 20
626 00 00 32
623 00 03 51
548 00 04 56
547 00 08 18
549 00 00 20
551 00 03 03
546 00 12 65
655 00 00 20
665 00 00 20
657 00 00 96
659 00 02 75
545 00 00 53
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3879
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
663 00 00 20
662 00 00 20
671 00 02 12
672 00 00 20
676 00 01 80
675 00 01 79
670 00 00 20
674 00 03 83
677 00 00 20
678 00 00 97
679 00 04 66
681 00 01 28
680 00 00 20
740¼jkLrk½740¼jkLrk½740¼jkLrk½740¼jkLrk½740¼jkLrk½ 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 20 20 20 20 2 9 09 09 09 09 0
1005 00 00 27
1004 00 00 20
1003 00 03 17
875 00 00 65
974 00 00 20
876 00 04 93
1002 00 04 12
997 00 01 89
878 00 00 20
988 00 05 14
995 00 00 20
1001 00 09 62
999 00 00 80
991 00 07 89
970 00 02 82
990 00 00 53
969 00 01 72
971 00 04 59
910 00 01 74
911 00 00 20
909 00 02 00
908 00 03 79
907 00 02 68
3880 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
ckaxjkckaxjkckaxjkckaxjkckaxjk 3581 00 05 95
Fkkuk uacj 156Fkkuk uacj 156Fkkuk uacj 156Fkkuk uacj 156Fkkuk uacj 156 3582 00 02 85
3583 00 00 20
3578¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½ 00 02 03
3003 00 00 60
3002 00 00 20
3004 00 10 74
3005 00 00 20
3006 00 02 85
3007 00 05 71
3008 00 07 79
3010 00 00 20
3014 00 01 53
3013 00 00 20
3015 00 02 62
3048 00 00 20
3047 00 00 20
3048 00 00 20
3046 00 00 60
3045 00 01 32
3016 00 01 58
3044 00 04 42
3018 00 00 20
3043 00 10 43
3042 00 05 02
3041 00 00 48
3040 00 02 80
3031 00 02 61
3036 00 00 66
3034 00 00 20
3035 00 05 07
3095¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½ 00 01 08
3099 00 03 79
3098 00 00 20
3100 00 00 33
3101 00 04 84
3102 00 01 30
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3881
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
3163 00 02 92
3172 00 03 14
3171 00 01 51
3173 00 05 91
3180 00 00 20
3174 00 02 10
3175 00 00 20
3177 00 01 74
3176 00 07 24
3157 00 00 20
3156 00 04 26
3155 00 08 28
3154 00 02 45
3188 00 00 69
3189 00 10 69
3190 00 00 20
3204¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½ 00 01 92
3220 00 01 60
3219 00 04 35
3215 00 09 24
3214 00 00 20
3217 00 00 20
3216 00 03 26
3223 00 00 20
3213 00 00 82
3212 00 00 20
3211 00 00 20
3224 00 08 82
3208 00 08 19
3235 00 00 32
3207 00 03 00
3236 00 03 88
2489 00 00 36
3642 00 01 79
2488 00 14 85
2487 00 00 20
2493¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½ 00 01 98
3882 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
2509 00 02 74
2510 00 01 89
2513 00 00 20
2498 00 09 62
2497 00 00 20
2463¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½ 00 03 20
2404 00 00 20
2408 00 02 46
2409 00 04 69
2410 00 06 16
2458 00 00 20
2457 00 06 01
2459 00 05 14
2460 00 04 51
2461 00 01 38
2452 00 05 39
2453 00 03 63
2454 00 00 20
2455 00 00 20
2446@3640 00 00 63
2447 00 00 60
2446 00 08 55
2419 00 00 20
2445 00 02 78
2420 00 02 02
2421 00 08 53
2423 00 00 20
2422 00 07 96
2424 00 04 95
2195 00 00 20
2425 00 01 51
2186 00 00 20
2187 00 04 84
2188 00 07 30
2189 00 03 59
3236@3642 00 00 20
2181¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½¼jkLrk½ 00 01 19
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3883
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
2149 00 00 20
2152 00 06 09
2153 00 05 80
2154 00 09 32
2147 00 00 20
2155 00 04 72
2157 00 00 20
2156 00 00 20
[पफा. सं. आर-25011/14/2013-ओआर-I]
पवन वुफमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2013
S.O. 1535.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in Dist. Siwan in the State of Bihar for 'Patna to Motihari and Baitalpur Pipeline' for the transportation of Petroleum Product;
And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Arun Kumar Jha B.A.S. & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited. (Pipelines Division) P.O. Dhelwan, Sipara, Dist. Patna (Bihar.) Pin – 800020.
SCHEDULE
Dist.: Siwan
State : Bihar
Mouja / Village Survey/BlockNo. Sub-Div-No. Area
Hectare Are Sq.mtr. (1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6) JALALPUR 2232-Nala 00 10 72 Thana No-236 2233-Nala 00 01 08
2238 00 01 65 2239 00 13 27 2240 00 00 20 2242 00 05 00 2247 00 04 91 2248 00 03 49 2258 00 10 30 2257 00 12 90 2256 00 01 433884 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
2305 00 03 99 2306 00 00 20 2307 00 01 10 2308 00 02 37 2309 00 03 25 2314 00 01 14 2315 00 10 68 2316 00 06 12
2233-Nala 00 01 46
2226-Nala 00 03 80
2225-Nala 00 07 35
1075(CANAL) 00 01 78
1074(CANAL) 00 01 16
1073(CANAL) 00 02 38
988 00 00 20 987 00 02 30 986 00 06 94 986/9306 00 05 11 815 00 00 20 814 00 00 20 985 00 04 57 817 00 02 44 818 00 04 10 822 00 07 85 820 00 00 20 821 00 00 20 836 00 00 20 833/9307 00 06 69 833 00 04 03 834 00 10 18 775 00 00 20 777 00 05 89 786 00 05 18 787 00 00 20 778 00 02 35 779 00 03 87 785 00 04 48 784 00 01 60 735 00 00 20 780 00 00 26 781 00 03 07 782 00 01 49 783 00 00 20 738 00 01 63 739 00 00 20 737 00 07 25 744 00 02 19[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3885 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
749 00 00 95
429(ROAD) 00 01 18
311 00 13 18
310 00 00 20
313 00 02 39
328 00 05 21
324 00 04 87
325 00 02 08
327 00 00 20
273 00 07 93
274 00 00 20
326 00 00 35
267 00 00 20
269 00 08 14
268 00 05 04
259 00 00 20
251 00 01 19
252 00 01 76
253 00 01 97
256 00 00 76
254 00 02 58
255 00 09 28
239 00 00 20
244 00 00 20
243 00 00 78
245 00 00 20
242 00 02 86
241 00 03 54
236 00 01 60
3457 00 02 00
235 00 00 34
233 00 00 20
234 00 00 20
3458 00 10 47
MADARICHAK 919-Nala 00 02 80
Thana No-235
920-Nala 00 00 20 918-Nala 00 05 09 906-Nala 00 00 88 917 00 00 71 907 00 03 08 908 00 04 73 911 00 00 31 904 00 00 51 909 00 01 54 903 00 06 49
899 00 04 20 898 00 00 203886 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
895 00 06 34
882 00 01 28
881 00 01 08
880 00 02 40
874 00 09 91
869-Brick Road 00 01 11
750-Brick Road 00 00 20
748 00 00 20
875 00 00 20
810 00 00 20
751 00 04 31
803 00 01 27
802 00 01 08
801 00 00 20
804 00 00 89
805 00 04 29
806 00 04 31
797-Nala 00 00 40
791 00 00 20
807 00 00 89
808-Nala 00 00 20
795-Nala 00 01 09
796-Nala 00 01 04
792 00 00 20
793 00 00 66
794-Nala 00 00 20
779 00 02 62
778 00 02 31
777 00 02 30
774 00 05 87
775 00 00 35
773/1191 00 00 00
773 00 00 00
772 00 00 20
BAGAURA 5674 00 06 41
Thana No-234
5675 00 05 80 5676 00 00 80 5677 00 03 09 5680 00 05 82 5681 00 02 01 5682 00 03 01 5717 00 04 82 5715 00 06 42 5714 00 02 13 5691 00 01 78 5692 00 00 93 5693 00 02 68[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3887 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
5699 00 02 22 5700 00 01 80 5701 00 04 95 1472 00 02 29 1471 00 00 76 1470 00 02 19 1405 00 05 53 1404 00 08 68 1407 00 01 86 1409 00 04 62 1408 00 00 20 1413 00 02 45 1414 00 03 70 1417 00 01 96 1419 00 02 19 1420 00 08 35 1385 00 00 20 1124 00 14 70 1115 00 00 36 1116 00 15 55 721 00 05 63 720 00 05 51 719 00 05 94 718 00 04 14 634 00 02 44 656 00 00 20 657 00 10 50 633 00 00 20 649 00 01 72 648 00 20 71 640 00 05 72 639 00 00 20 641 00 01 65 642 00 01 01 643 00 03 79 106 00 07 38 107 00 00 20 108 00 00 20 105 00 00 46 104 00 03 19 109 00 04 06 103 00 05 17 110 00 02 85 111 (Road) 00 01 42 112 00 00 48 145 00 05 12 113 00 04 123888 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
141 00 05 11
139 00 07 13
134 00 00 20
138 00 06 18
KAMSARA 1387 00 02 56
Thana No-232 1386 00 00 79
1400 00 04 08
1399 00 08 75
1401 00 05 94
1402 00 09 03
1398-Cart Track 00 01 67
1394 00 00 20
1395 00 00 20
1403 00 21 08
1404 00 00 72
1127 00 00 90
35-NH85 00 04 41
741 00 01 17
1407 00 00 44
740 00 01 94
731 00 00 20
739 00 03 91
738 00 01 22
1403 00 02 12
1398 00 01 41
1394 00 11 53
1393 00 05 22
1392 00 01 19
1376 00 08 16
1377 00 02 12
1375 00 07 45
1374 00 00 73
1372 00 07 13
1371 00 04 10
1370 00 04 10
1369 00 04 58
1132 00 00 20
1368 00 00 42
1365 00 08 37
1364 00 06 14
1133 00 00 10
1134 00 00 80
1363 00 03 43
1136 00 03 69
1135 00 00 20
1137 00 04 85
1138 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3889
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1337 00 34 03 1158 00 00 20 1331 00 21 26 1330 00 06 55 1328 00 00 92 1327 00 00 20 739 00 00 70 738 00 04 91 737 00 02 48 736 00 00 20 733 00 00 77 734 00 07 89 735 00 06 07 732 00 00 20
274-Railway 00 09 85
722 00 14 80 721 00 22 14 720 00 00 11 691 00 01 55 690 (Road) 00 01 23
689 (Nala) 00 02 35
BALUHI
Thana No-233
296 00 02 06 207 00 07 28 207/322 00 09 01 206 00 02 77 205 00 02 75 204 00 01 99
208 (Unlined Canal) 00 01 26
203 00 00 20 319 00 12 24 320 00 00 20 317 00 00 29 316 00 08 75 199 00 04 30 198 00 00 45
108 (Unlined Canal) 00 01 74
150 00 04 09
149 00 03 74
154 00 07 49
156 00 07 11
155 00 00 62
157 00 08 02
111 00 10 66
110 00 03 96
112 00 00 20
109 00 14 12
103 (CART TRACK) 00 02 52
3890 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
87 00 12 03
96 00 07 02
309 00 05 58
305 00 00 57
94 00 00 20
95 00 12 61
304 00 00 20
94/326 00 13 74
93 00 10 31
1 (Unlined Canal) 00 01 38
BALDIH 76 00 08 18
Thana No-183
77 00 00 20 75 00 00 20 78 00 00 20 79 00 02 08 80 00 00 20 90 00 09 66 91 00 00 46
74 (CART TRACK) 00 01 29
56 00 02 82 55 00 08 97 54 00 00 20 53 00 00 73 51 00 00 20 97 00 09 42 96 00 03 23 95 00 01 38 94 00 00 20 98 00 06 69 99 00 04 22 101 00 00 20 100 00 07 38 102 00 00 22
RANIBARI
103 00 11 25 339 00 00 91
Thana No-182
355 00 17 74 347 00 00 20 346 00 00 20 348 00 05 23 349 00 09 61 351 00 00 20 350 00 05 28 301 00 00 20 352 00 03 91 353 00 00 20 290 00 00 20 289 00 03 66 288 00 10 92 287 00 06 61[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3891 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
264 00 00 20
266 00 05 99
271 00 04 08
282 00 00 20
270 00 00 20
273 00 02 42
272 00 07 42
223 00 00 20
275 00 01 07
274 00 04 01
222 00 00 20
221 00 02 55
220 00 06 37
BAIDAPUR 588 00 00 52
Thana No-184
585 00 00 20
589 00 14 44
593 00 00 20
590 00 08 49
591 00 04 82
592 00 04 07
602 00 02 48
603 00 00 90
604 00 00 20
605 00 00 20
965 (ROAD) 00 03 77
966 00 00 20
964 00 06 31
963 00 15 05
956 00 00 20
962 00 07 08
959 00 00 20
961 00 05 98
960 00 01 11
819 00 05 45
820 00 02 51
821 00 02 31
823 00 01 73
824 00 01 86
825 00 02 08
828 00 01 33
831 00 01 14
832 00 01 04
827 00 01 44
835 00 01 39
836 00 02 44
837 00 03 45
838 00 04 95
839 00 01 10
840 00 00 93
3892 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
841 00 01 05
BISHUNPURA 1538 00 01 85
Thana No-165
1537 00 00 20 1536 00 00 20 1535 00 00 20 1534 00 00 20 1539 00 02 07 1540 00 02 15 1541 00 03 83 1542 00 03 22 1547 00 00 20 1543 00 10 58 1546 00 03 00 1532 00 00 90 1544 00 02 24 1545 00 00 20
1640(ROAD) 00 02 19
758 00 06 85 764 00 02 94 759 00 03 56 760 00 01 84 761 00 03 59 762 00 00 20 719 00 07 06 748 00 01 18 720 00 01 10 718 00 00 51 721 00 01 26 722 00 07 15 730 00 00 95 729 00 00 20 731 00 03 94 732 00 00 41 735 00 02 26 735 00 02 00 736 00 03 35 740 00 00 20 739 00 00 20 656 00 00 20 738 00 08 20 688 00 04 14 687 00 03 61 686 00 02 83 685 00 02 97 661 00 04 89 662 00 03 27 666 00 03 26[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3893 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
640 00 02 25 275 00 02 40 434 00 04 17 433 00 01 00 432 00 02 95 431 00 01 51 430 00 00 83 429 00 02 64 428 00 02 74 427 00 05 35 424 00 01 29 289 00 00 20 425 00 03 03 426 00 00 20 422 00 00 20 423 00 10 14 283 00 00 20 403 00 01 05 402 00 05 14 399/1641 00 06 37 398 00 01 09 397 00 02 16 385 00 02 43 386 00 02 77 387 00 00 35
307(ROAD) 00 01 13
374 00 00 20 372 00 00 20 378 00 01 27 379 00 04 08 380 00 03 91 381 00 01 02 382 00 00 20 373 00 09 16 369 00 09 64 368 00 04 39 367 00 02 46 366 00 02 78 365 00 04 61 364 00 08 47 363 00 02 47 336 00 05 74 362 00 05 87 337 00 03 62 361 00 01 22 359 00 03 27 358 00 00 203894 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
355 00 02 39 352 00 02 22 350 00 10 88 349 00 01 61
RUKUNDIPUR Thana No.-168 1635-Road 00 01 60
1634 00 02 53 1630 00 00 64 1629 00 02 34 1636 00 00 20 1628 00 02 85 1627 00 01 48 1637 00 00 40 1625 00 03 73 1626 00 01 09 1621 00 00 20 1622 00 06 60 1619 00 02 97 1615 00 00 20 1616 00 03 09 1613 00 03 50 1611 00 03 65 1609 00 02 80 1588 00 02 55 1589 00 02 58 1594 00 00 20 1593 00 01 45 1596 00 00 20 1592 00 00 20 1595 00 01 65 1599 00 01 76 1598 00 00 35 1575 00 02 22 1572 00 03 06 1571 00 04 71 1569 00 00 43 1508 00 00 20 1570 00 02 00 1567 00 03 35 1566 00 01 67 1565 00 01 13 1564 00 00 63 1512 00 00 20 1513 00 03 97 1561 00 00 20 1562 00 00 20 1514 00 03 78 1515 00 03 39[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3895 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1518 00 00 82 1519 00 04 92 1520 00 00 26 1526 00 04 08 1528 00 01 66 1625 00 04 47 1637 00 00 48 1527 00 05 74 1409 00 08 88 1445 00 00 69 1446 00 00 20 1444 00 00 20 1410 00 04 67 1412 00 03 26 1411 00 00 71 1413 00 05 31 1414 00 01 73 1254 00 03 96 1230 00 00 20 1255 00 00 80 1257 00 00 20 1258 00 00 20 1253 00 00 45 1249 00 01 91 1248 00 02 14 1247 00 02 61 1246 00 03 32 1245 00 04 31 1244 00 00 20 1242 00 08 30 1243 00 04 37
1220-canal
00 03 17
1211 00 00 20
1209 00 02 02
1212 00 05 00
1214 00 00 35
1213 00 02 01
1215 00 00 47
1216 00 00 20
1207 00 03 81
1208 00 01 78
1206 00 03 87
1205 00 00 20
1201 00 00 65
1203 00 00 20
1204 00 07 19
999 00 00 20
360 00 02 08
358 00 00 20
3896 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
361 00 07 48
362 00 00 41
359 00 02 22
367 00 10 39
356 00 06 07
355 00 17 21
354 00 01 64
516 00 10 17
517 00 00 20
518 00 00 89
507 00 06 56
520 00 04 21
519 00 04 00
521 00 02 33
506 00 00 20
529 00 00 20
530 00 00 20
528 00 02 89
527 00 02 58
526 00 05 14
577 00 06 61
576 00 00 20
578 00 03 65
579 00 02 31
574 00 00 78
573 00 00 89
572 00 06 19
571 00 00 20
561 00 03 35
570 00 00 43
569 00 02 21
562 00 01 88
567 00 05 70
565 00 00 20
566 00 06 29
JAGDISHPUR 597 00 00 99
Thana No.-160 598 00 00 20
599 00 00 20
603 00 02 70
602 00 04 44
601 00 02 29
600 00 01 73
612 00 00 20
593 00 06 17
592 00 02 21
591 00 00 89
587 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3897
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
617 00 02 62
618 00 01 87
619 00 02 89
625 00 03 84
620 00 00 92
624 00 04 24
621 00 00 20
626 00 00 32
623 00 03 51
548 00 04 56
547 00 08 18
549 00 00 20
551 00 03 03
546 00 12 65
655 00 00 20
665 00 00 20
657 00 00 96
659 00 02 75
545 00 00 53
544 00 00 69
543 00 00 20
660 00 04 34
661 00 04 64
663 00 00 20
662 00 00 20
671 00 02 12
672 00 00 20
676 00 01 80
675 00 01 79
670 00 00 20
674 00 03 83
677 00 00 20
678 00 00 97
679 00 04 66
681 00 01 28
680 00 00 20
740(ROAD) 00 02 90
1005 00 00 27
1004 00 00 20
1003 00 03 17
875 00 00 65
974 00 00 20
876 00 04 93
1002 00 04 12
997 00 01 89
878 00 00 20
988 00 05 14
995 00 00 20
1001 00 09 62
3898 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
999 00 00 80
991 00 07 89
970 00 02 82
990 00 00 53
969 00 01 72
971 00 04 59
910 00 01 74
911 00 00 20
909 00 02 00
908 00 03 79
907 00 02 68
906 00 07 23
905 00 08 59
903 00 03 85
902 00 01 41
BANGRA 3581 00 05 95
Thana No.-156
3582 00 02 85 3583 00 00 20
3578(ROAD) 00 02 03
3003 00 00 60
3002 00 00 20
3004 00 10 74
3005 00 00 20
3006 00 02 85
3007 00 05 71
3008 00 07 79
3010 00 00 20
3014 00 01 53
3013 00 00 20
3015 00 02 62
3048 00 00 20
3047 00 00 20
3048 00 00 20
3046 00 00 60
3045 00 01 32
3016 00 01 58
3044 00 04 42
3018 00 00 20
3043 00 10 43
3042 00 05 02
3041 00 00 48
3040 00 02 80
3031 00 02 61
3036 00 00 66
3034 00 00 20
3035 00 05 07
3095(ROAD) 00 01 08
3099 00 03 79
3098 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3899
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
3100 00 00 33
3101 00 04 84
3102 00 01 30
3164 00 04 26
3103 00 00 20
3104 00 00 20
3163 00 02 92
3172 00 03 14
3171 00 01 51
3173 00 05 91
3180 00 00 20
3174 00 02 10
3175 00 00 20
3177 00 01 74
3176 00 07 24
3157 00 00 20
3156 00 04 26
3155 00 08 28
3154 00 02 45
3188 00 00 69
3189 00 10 69
3190 00 00 20
3204(ROAD) 00 01 92
3220 00 01 60
3219 00 04 35
3215 00 09 24
3214 00 00 20
3217 00 00 20
3216 00 03 26
3223 00 00 20
3213 00 00 82
3212 00 00 20
3211 00 00 20
3224 00 08 82
3208 00 08 19
3235 00 00 32
3207 00 03 00
3236 00 03 88
2489 00 00 36
3642 00 01 79
2488 00 14 85
2487 00 00 20
2493(ROAD) 00 01 98
2503 00 22 41 2505 00 00 20 2501 00 07 77 2509 00 02 743900 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
2497 00 00 20
2463(ROAD) 00 03 20
2404 00 00 20 2408 00 02 46 2409 00 04 69 2410 00 06 16 2458 00 00 20 2457 00 06 01 2459 00 05 14 2460 00 04 51 2461 00 01 38 2452 00 05 39 2453 00 03 63 2454 00 00 20 2455 00 00 20 2446/3640 00 00 63 2447 00 00 60 2446 00 08 55 2419 00 00 20 2445 00 02 78 2420 00 02 02 2421 00 08 53 2423 00 00 20 2422 00 07 96 2424 00 04 95 2195 00 00 20 2425 00 01 51 2186 00 00 20 2187 00 04 84 2188 00 07 30 2189 00 03 59 3236/3642 00 00 20
2181(ROAD) 00 01 19
2151 00 03 49 2180 00 00 20 2150 00 02 16 2149 00 00 20 2152 00 06 09 2153 00 05 80 2154 00 09 32 2147 00 00 20 2155 00 04 72 2157 00 00 20
[F. No. R-25011/14/2013-OR-I]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3901नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1536.—केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि पटना से मोतिहारी और बेतालपुर तक पेट्रोलियम पदार्थों के परिवहन हेतु जिला सिवान, राज्य बिहार में इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अध्सिूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वणत है, उपयोग का अर्जन किया जाए ।
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ;भूमि में उपयोग के अध्किार का अर्जनद्ध अधिनियम, 1962 ;1962 का 50द्ध की धारा 3 की उप-धरा;1द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अध्किार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ।
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितब( है, उस तारीख से जिसको, भारत के राजपत्रा में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधरण जनता को उपलब्ध् करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के अन्दर, भूमि के भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने हेतु उपयोग के अध्किार के अर्जन के लिए, श्री अरूण कुमार झा, बि.प्र.से. व सक्षम प्राध्किारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, ;पाइपलाइन डिवीजनद्ध पटना, पो.ओ. ढेलवा, सिपारा, जिला पटना, पिनः 800020, बिहार को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
जिला : सिवान
राज्य : बिहार मौजा/ग्राम सर्वे/ब्लाक/सं. ;प्लोट सं.द्ध सब-डीव-सं. क्षेत्रापफल
हेक्टेयर आरे वर्ग मीटर (1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
28 00 10 03 Hkh[kk cuHkh[kk cuHkh[kk cuHkh[kk cuHkh[kk cu
26 00 14 11 Fkkuk uacj&169Fkkuk uacj&169Fkkuk uacj&169Fkkuk uacj&169Fkkuk uacj&169
40 00 04 55
22 jkLrk22 jkLrk22 jkLrk22 jkLrk22 jkLrk 0000000000 0202020202 3434343434
16 00 05 15
43 00 00 20
44 00 00 20
36 00 00 20
41 00 09 87
42 00 03 86
15 00 00 20
2331 00 01 38
2332 unh2332 unh2332 unh2332 unh2332 unh 0000000000 0303030303 5757575757 nsmjh;knsmjh;knsmjh;knsmjh;knsmjh;k
381 unh381 unh381 unh381 unh381 unh 0000000000 0303030303 2525252525 Fkkuk uacj&153Fkkuk uacj&153Fkkuk uacj&153Fkkuk uacj&153Fkkuk uacj&153
382 jkLrk382 jkLrk382 jkLrk382 jkLrk382 jkLrk 0000000000 0101010101 3636363636
379 jkLrk379 jkLrk379 jkLrk379 jkLrk379 jkLrk 0000000000 0000000000 2020202020
384 00 00 38
387 00 00 20
378 00 04 12
377 00 00 20
371 00 05 35 3902 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
370 00 01 03
369 00 02 82
368 00 03 42
366 00 00 25
367 00 07 41
8 00 00 20
9 00 00 20
10 00 00 53
11 00 00 81
12 00 03 00
13 00 10 22
364 00 00 20
16 00 00 20
17 00 00 20
15 00 00 20
20 00 09 28
21 00 00 20
22 00 00 20
19 00 01 32
18 00 00 32
24 00 02 40
25 00 02 16
26 00 02 66
29 00 00 85
30 00 00 20
1183 jkLrk1183 jkLrk1183 jkLrk jkLrk1183 jkLrk1183 0000000000 0505050505 7575757575
1251 00 08 37
1250 00 01 91
1249 00 00 20
1437 00 00 20
1436 00 00 20
1252 00 01 31
1253 00 04 26
1254 00 04 44
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3903
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1267 00 02 45
12673930 00 01 24
1268 00 00 20
1281 00 01 96
1282 00 07 06
1311 00 05 50
1310 00 00 20
1312 00 02 98
1313 00 00 20
1314 00 04 92
1315 00 00 20
1317 00 00 78
1318 00 03 33
1323 00 07 74
13243931 00 00 20
1325 00 00 20
1329 00 00 34
1330 00 13 47
1332 00 03 50
1812 00 16 17
ch'kwuiwj egkSjh Fkkuk uacj&154ch'kwuiwj egkSjh Fkkuk uacj&154ch'kwuiwj egkSjh Fkkuk uacj&154ch'kwuiwj egkSjh Fkkuk uacj&154ch'kwuiwj egkSjh Fkkuk uacj&154 2727 00 04 45
2728 00 06 28
2732 00 05 68
2729 00 00 20
2733 00 04 74
2731 00 00 20
2734 00 02 53
2735 00 00 20
2739 00 09 48
2738 00 10 40
2740 00 00 57
2737 00 02 39
2804 00 06 78
2831 00 01 91
2830 00 02 75
2826 00 03 44
3904 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
2806 00 00 20
2825 00 00 20
2823 00 11 34
2822 00 01 82
2821 00 06 07
2819 00 04 82
2818 00 00 20
2820 00 00 20
2855 00 01 63
2817 00 00 20
2816 00 01 73
2815 00 00 20
2813 00 00 20
2856 00 06 54
2857 00 03 71
2858 00 07 52
2859 00 00 20
2896 00 07 48
2895 00 05 21
2891 00 01 93
2892 00 00 20
2890 00 03 44
2889 00 03 87
2885 00 08 52
2882 00 03 27
2883 00 03 76
2881 00 05 54
2879 00 04 30
2930 jkLrk2930 jkLrk2930 jkLrk jkLrk2930 jkLrk2930 0000000000 0202020202 3535353535
1959 00 00 20
1954 00 21 47
1951 00 00 84
1955 00 08 32
1956 00 00 32
1949 00 03 00
1973 00 01 01
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3905
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1947 00 04 76
1946 00 05 16
1945 00 03 70
1944 00 06 04
1943 00 04 81
1942 00 04 55
1941 00 04 44
1940 00 04 40
1938 00 05 02
1937 00 00 20
1933 00 13 46
1932 00 02 97
2917jkLrk2917jkLrk2917jkLrk2917jkLrk2917jkLrk 0000000000 0606060606 8585858585
1931 00 00 38
1863 00 00 20
1857 00 07 12
1856 00 01 25
1855 00 00 85
1844 00 00 38
1843 00 00 20
1751 00 00 85
1752 00 00 20
1750 00 01 83
1749 00 09 85
1748 00 01 52
lwjchjlwjchjlwjchjlwjchjlwjchj 213 00 18 25
Fkkuk uacj&152Fkkuk uacj&152Fkkuk uacj&152Fkkuk uacj&152Fkkuk uacj&152 214 00 04 82
215 00 01 57
821 00 00 20
820 00 00 20
819 00 01 43
815 00 05 01
814 00 03 63
816 00 00 20
813 00 00 20
812 00 09 53
3906 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
809 00 02 81 810 00 00 20 837 00 00 66 836 00 00 20 835 00 00 20 838 00 03 09 839 00 03 62 840 00 01 86 841 00 00 26 855 00 00 20 856 00 28 94 976 00 00 20 858 00 00 25 859 00 00 20 857 00 00 73 865 00 04 16 964 00 00 20 866 00 04 25 974 00 01 28 973 00 01 62 971 00 00 37 972 00 03 01 970 00 00 45 968 00 04 49 965 00 00 73 966 00 01 10 963 00 03 50 962 00 02 00 961 00 00 20 960 00 00 63 993 00 02 80 992 00 02 22 994 00 03 26 995 00 01 03 997 00 00 94 996 00 00 20[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3907 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1228 00 02 79 996 00 00 20 1227 00 04 96 1226 00 07 42 1225 00 00 20 1221 00 03 63 1222 00 05 32 1225 00 00 20 1220 00 02 63 1022 00 00 20 1219 00 04 41 1218 00 01 64 1217 00 00 43 1216 00 05 36 1223 00 00 20 1207 00 00 20 1209 00 04 65 1210 00 03 92 1208 00 06 04 1211 00 14 44 1204 00 00 77 1199 00 00 71 1198 00 07 65 1190 00 08 03 1185 00 06 06 1179 00 03 53 1178 00 00 20 1176 00 00 20 1174 00 00 20 1173 00 00 20 1175 00 00 20 1171 00 09 46 1162 00 00 39 1160 00 00 20 1163 00 02 85 1164 00 00 203908 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1158 00 04 79
1041 jkLrk1041 jkLrk1041 jkLrk jkLrk1041 jkLrk1041 0000000000 0202020202 2121212121
1125 00 00 20
1328 00 01 22
1329 00 05 25
1330 00 01 79
1331 00 00 94
1332 00 03 89
1333 00 00 28
1340 00 03 16
1342 00 02 12
1343 00 00 20
1341 00 01 77
1339 00 07 37
1345 00 00 20
1348 00 03 11
1347 00 00 20
1350 00 00 20
1524 00 00 20
1349 00 03 15
1523 00 02 45
1524 00 00 20
1522 00 03 14
1520 00 05 71
1415 dPpk dPpk dPpk dPpk dPpk jkLrk1415 jkLrk1415 jkLrk jkLrk1415 jkLrk1415 0000000000 0101010101 8989898989
1405 00 05 30
1366 00 00 61
1365 00 00 20
1404 00 14 11
1406 00 10 55
1414 00 00 20
1407 00 02 13
1408 00 02 45
1409 00 04 39
1401 00 04 58
1400 00 01 66
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3909
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1426 00 03 70
1427 00 09 30
1428 00 05 04
1429 00 00 99
1430 00 02 98
1431 00 00 20
bBkjhbBkjhbBkjhbBkjhbBkjh 772 00 14 69
Fkkuk uacj&145Fkkuk uacj&145Fkkuk uacj&145Fkkuk uacj&145Fkkuk uacj&145 773 00 00 20
808 00 05 15
809 00 00 20
807 00 11 09
806 00 08 02
805 00 06 28
804 00 07 23
651 00 01 94
650 00 04 02
649 00 09 32
648 00 04 36
647 00 02 17
813 00 03 34
634 00 00 20
635 00 00 20
814 00 25 45
815 00 11 96
615 00 04 84
614 00 00 20
816 00 00 20
620 00 01 16
619 00 00 90
616 00 04 87
618 00 01 77
617 00 00 93
395 00 07 18
394 00 18 97
396 00 00 20
397 00 00 20
3910 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
400 00 00 20
401 00 01 52
402 00 00 74
403 00 00 20
404 00 00 20
405ukyk405ukyk405ukyk405ukyk405ukyk 0000000000 0202020202 2121212121
511 00 02 97
511877 00 02 34
509jkLrk509jkLrk509jkLrk509jkLrk509jkLrk 0000000000 0101010101 6060606060
407 00 02 06
408 00 00 20
406 00 03 85
410 00 00 53
413 00 00 20
333 00 19 27
366 00 00 20
334 00 00 20
335 00 00 20
336 00 00 88
332 00 03 57
339 00 00 49
340 00 01 67
331 00 06 79
330875 00 02 66
330 00 01 97
341 00 01 99
342 00 00 20
328 00 07 76
329 00 00 63
322 00 00 85
323 00 07 07
321 00 00 20
324 00 12 12
325 00 02 10
319 fQYM fQYM fQYM fQYM fQYM psuy319 psuy319 psuy psuy319 psuy319 0000000000 0101010101 1010101010
316 00 05 28
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3911
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
309 00 00 20
310 00 02 82
311 00 03 28
312 00 13 24
ggokggokggokggokggok 1152jkLrk1152jkLrk1152jkLrk1152jkLrk1152jkLrk 0000000000 0101010101 6767676767
Fkkuk uacj&130Fkkuk uacj&130Fkkuk uacj&130Fkkuk uacj&130Fkkuk uacj&130 1151 00 03 22
1150 00 01 38
1147 00 01 75
1146 00 03 28
1145 00 04 80
1143 00 06 76
1142 00 09 23
1141fQYM psuy1141fQYM psuy1141fQYM psuy psuy1141fQYM psuy1141fQYM 0000000000 0000000000 7979797979
1139 00 00 20
1138 00 05 53
1137 00 02 27
1126 00 00 20
1136 00 04 84
1134 00 29 31
11341483 00 00 20
txnh'kiwjtxnh'kiwjtxnh'kiwjtxnh'kiwjtxnh'kiwj 286 00 04 84
Fkkuk uacj&129Fkkuk uacj&129Fkkuk uacj&129Fkkuk uacj&129Fkkuk uacj&129 285 00 00 20
288 00 02 26
287 00 06 89
283 00 03 00
291 00 00 20
315 00 00 51
281 00 01 57
316 00 00 64
314 00 00 20
250 00 01 61
317 00 14 07
249 00 00 26
318 00 00 45
324 00 00 25
325 00 00 20
3912 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
334 00 00 20 336 00 00 20 331 00 00 54 333 00 01 02 337 00 03 27 330 00 00 20 342 00 03 27 338 00 00 47 340 00 00 54 341 00 00 57 506 00 02 26 507 00 02 41 509 00 02 72 510 00 00 42 512 00 02 78 508 00 00 20 528 00 00 20 527 00 04 67 526 00 00 20 537 00 00 20 529 00 00 20 535 00 03 81 536 00 00 99 539 00 03 44 540 00 01 95 542 00 02 07 543 00 02 97 534 00 02 17 544 00 04 15 550 00 03 11 551 00 03 26 556 00 03 94 555 00 00 20 552 00 00 20 554 00 00 20 557 00 03 98[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3913 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
564jkLrk564jkLrk564jkLrk564jkLrk564jkLrk 0000000000 0303030303 0505050505
856 00 09 67
857 00 00 81
858 00 03 34
859 00 01 87
862 00 00 20
860 00 05 13
890 00 00 31
861 00 04 96
889 00 02 17
863 00 04 18
880 00 03 32
881 00 05 89
885 00 00 25
882 00 01 67
886 00 00 20
884 00 03 73
883 00 05 42
jhlkSjkjhlkSjkjhlkSjkjhlkSjkjhlkSjk 4469 00 01 12
Fkkuk uacj&131Fkkuk uacj&131Fkkuk uacj&131Fkkuk uacj&131Fkkuk uacj&131 4468 00 00 20
4467 00 00 20
4425 00 01 50
4426 00 01 15
4427 00 01 91
4433 00 07 82
4432 00 00 20
4434 00 04 52
4436 00 06 96
4437 00 00 59
4438 00 01 26
4447 00 07 12
4448 00 09 79
4449 00 00 20
4450 00 09 48
4451 00 05 83
4452 00 03 92
3914 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
4454 00 00 93 4520 00 01 53 4519 00 01 62 4518 00 00 20 4521 00 03 76 4522 00 06 86 4531 00 00 20 4523 00 00 20 4530 00 00 20 4524 00 00 53 4525 00 02 27 4526 00 04 07 4527 00 03 87 4528 00 02 69 4529 00 00 47 3553 00 03 75 3509 00 08 31 3552 00 00 20 3510 00 02 29 3551 00 00 20 3511 00 02 31 3512 00 02 21 3513 00 01 75 3514 00 01 48 3508 00 01 20 3515 00 00 46 3516 00 05 69 3497 00 00 20 3496 00 00 20 3517 00 03 04 3518 00 02 18 3520 00 00 20 3494 00 00 47 3493 00 01 81 3519 00 06 30 3492 00 01 80[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3915 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
3211 00 07 08 3208 00 00 22 3210 00 00 20 3217 00 18 75 3215 00 00 20 3216 00 00 44 3219 00 04 17 3228 00 14 38 3227 00 02 15 3226 00 00 28 3225 00 00 20 3103jkLrk3103jkLrk3103jkLrk3103jkLrk3103jkLrk 0000000000 0101010101 6666666666 3007 00 03 02 2995 00 01 86 2994 00 00 20 2993 00 00 20 3000 00 02 48 3001 00 00 20 2996 00 06 28 2997 00 00 20 2999 00 04 69 2998 00 02 24 2865jkLrk2865jkLrk2865jkLrk2865jkLrk2865jkLrk 0000000000 0101010101 4646464646 2965 00 05 08 2966 00 00 20 2963 00 00 20 2964 00 04 32 2963 00 02 49 2958 00 01 91 2957 00 01 55 2956 00 03 28 2904 00 00 20 2905 00 00 29 2906 00 00 83 2955 00 02 00 2907 00 01 113916 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
2952 00 00 20 2951 00 00 20 2932 00 00 20 2900 00 00 20 2909 00 02 89 2910 00 01 47 2911 00 01 53 2912 00 04 45 2899 00 07 10 2913 00 01 26 2914 00 00 20 2896 00 00 20 2897 00 01 49 2898 00 04 49 2831 00 03 22 2879 00 04 65 2878 00 00 26 2877 00 00 20 2834 00 00 20 2833 00 10 08 2832 00 02 07 2829 00 00 20 2836 00 04 13 2835 00 06 34 2787 00 08 63 2786 00 00 20 2788 00 01 91 2662 00 02 81 2665 00 02 76 2661 00 00 20 2666 00 03 03 2671 00 03 34 2670 00 00 20 2672 00 00 20 2673 00 03 73 2674 00 05 06[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3917 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
2639 00 00 29
2640 00 06 55
2641 00 01 00
vxs;kuvxs;kuvxs;kuvxs;kuvxs;ku 4450 00 06 57
Fkkuk uacj&113Fkkuk uacj&113Fkkuk uacj&113Fkkuk uacj&113Fkkuk uacj&113 4445 00 02 89
4449 00 00 20
4448 00 01 01
4451 00 04 72
4452 00 00 20
4454 00 13 87
4543 00 03 91
4542 00 00 20
4455 00 04 76
4456 00 00 20
4535 00 17 98
4540 00 00 20
4538 00 00 57
4539 00 00 20
4537 00 00 20
4536 00 04 57
4527 00 00 35
4528 00 04 39
4526 00 00 20
4529 00 00 82
4533 00 00 20
4530 00 04 11
4512 00 00 20
4531 00 00 49
4511 00 04 61
4510 00 00 20
4509 00 00 34
4507 00 02 11
4506 00 00 20
4505 00 00 20
4508 00 06 43
4495 00 01 42
3668dPpk jkLrk3668dPpk jkLrk3668dPpk jkLrk jkLrk3668dPpk jkLrk3668dPpk 0000000000 0202020202 4242424242
3918 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
4599 00 03 46 4600 00 04 15 4601 00 00 60 4602 00 04 93 4603 00 05 57 4611 00 00 20 4610 00 01 63 4609 00 08 16 4606 00 01 51 4607 00 00 20 4608 00 08 33 3666 00 00 80 3665 00 04 72 3664 00 00 20 3701 00 00 20 3702 00 05 94 3703 00 00 61 3704 00 07 31 3705 00 00 20 3709 00 00 72 3708 00 02 94 3707 00 00 20 3710 00 00 20 3491 00 04 34 3489 00 00 29 3490 00 04 41 3492 00 01 52 3493 00 03 40 3488 00 00 20 3494 00 06 68 3496 00 00 20 3487 00 01 66 3485 00 00 20 3486 00 02 42 3495 00 03 20 3469 00 07 20[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3919 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
3464 00 04 62 3465 00 00 53 3463 00 01 72 3454 00 09 43 3453 00 00 59 3452 00 07 91 3451 00 00 20 3450 00 01 82 3449 00 04 24 3455 00 00 20 3445 00 01 21 3448 00 04 09 3446 00 01 01 3447 00 03 04 3443 00 00 20 3442 00 07 59 3439 00 00 20 3440 00 02 97 3441 00 10 98 3395 00 00 20 3420 00 01 24 3401 00 00 20 3402 00 01 60 3403 00 03 52 3404 00 05 02 3405 00 03 46 3406 00 02 20 3407 00 00 20 3332 00 00 25 3331 00 05 51 3330 00 00 20 3329 00 06 43 3324 00 00 20 3328 00 05 38 3326 00 04 52 3325 00 01 28 2843jkLrk2843jkLrk2843jkLrk2843jkLrk2843jkLrk 0000000000 0101010101 66666666663920 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
2622 00 06 66 2620 00 01 91 2621 00 08 69 2590 00 02 78 2591 00 00 20 2589 00 01 60 2587 00 05 06 2588 00 04 67 2570 00 00 20 2578 00 07 23 2579 00 00 20 2577 00 03 71 2576 00 02 71 2531 00 06 44 2528 00 00 20 2532 00 01 93 2530 00 01 28 2524 00 01 07 2523 00 01 30 2520 00 00 63 2519 00 00 93 2533 00 01 56 1771 00 06 22 1743 00 00 41 17715002 00 00 75 1772 00 00 38 1773 00 00 56 1774 00 00 36 1775 00 00 37 1770 00 03 60 1769 00 00 88 1744 00 00 31 1767 00 02 63 1766 00 01 93 1765 00 00 20 1745 00 00 69[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3921 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1762 00 01 31 1761 00 01 20 1747 00 01 84 1748 00 03 22 1760 00 00 93 1758 00 00 56 1757 00 00 34 1753 00 05 40 1750 00 00 20 1751 00 00 20 1754 00 00 20 1752 00 04 16 1807 00 04 94 1808 00 03 05 1809 00 02 26 1670 00 01 25 1810 00 01 94 1811 00 02 29 1665 00 01 66 1812 00 04 02 1664 00 03 35 16505021 00 02 46 1654 00 01 21 1655 00 09 39 1645 00 00 93 1644 00 00 20 1643 00 00 20 1642 00 00 20 1641 00 00 20 1640 00 00 20 1656 00 08 33 1636 00 08 70 1635 00 00 82 1527 00 04 26 1526 00 00 20 1525 00 00 20 1528 00 18 303922 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1522 00 11 24
1519 00 05 89
1521 00 06 19
1520 00 04 03
723 jkLrk723 jkLrk723 jkLrk jkLrk723 jkLrk723 0000000000 0505050505 8282828282
1512 00 01 68
1437 00 00 20
1436 00 03 25
1511 00 05 18
1510 00 06 62
1469 00 00 20
1471 00 01 06
1472 00 02 14
1470 00 00 80
1499 dPpk dPpk dPpk dPpk dPpk jkLrk1499 jkLrk1499 jkLrk jkLrk1499 jkLrk1499 0000000000 0101010101 7070707070
1473 00 02 74
1464 00 03 01
1463 00 00 20
1474 00 02 20
1353 00 32 74
1375 00 02 12
1376 00 03 92
1377 00 00 74
1378 00 02 96
1373 00 03 25
1371 00 00 27
1372 00 02 22
1370 00 02 24
1367 00 02 87
1368 00 02 76
1369 00 05 07
1360 00 01 71
1359 00 03 75
1358 00 01 64
1357 00 00 20
1299 00 01 34
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3923
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1302 00 00 71
1303 00 00 20
1305 00 00 20
1306 00 03 60
1352 00 01 44
1342 00 21 82
1341 00 04 71
1330 00 05 10
1333 00 10 24
[पफा. सं. आर-25011/14/2013-ओआर-I]
पवन वुफमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2013
S.O. 1536.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in Dist. Siwan in the State of Bihar for 'Patna to Motihari and Baitalpur Pipeline' for the transportation of Petroleum Product;
And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Arun Kumar Jha B.A.S. & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited. (Pipelines Division) P.O. Dhelwan, Sipara, Dist. Patna (Bihar.) Pin – 800020.
SCHEDULE
Dist. : Siwan
State : Bihar
Mouja / Village Survey/Block No. Sub-Div-No. Area
Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
BHIKHA BAN 28
00 10 03 Thana No-169
26
00 14 11
40
00 04 55
22(ROAD)
00 02 34
16
00 05 15
43
00 00 20
44
00 00 20
36
00 00 20
41
00 09 87 3924 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
DEURIYA 381(NADI) 00 03 25
Thana No. 153 382(ROAD) 00 01 36
379(ROAD) 00 00 20
384 00 00 38
387 00 00 20
378 00 04 12
377 00 00 20
371 00 05 35
373 00 00 20
372 00 00 20
370 00 01 03
369 00 02 82
368 00 03 42
366 00 00 25
367 00 07 41
8 00 00 20
9 00 00 20
10 00 00 53
11 00 00 81
12 00 03 00
13 00 10 22
364 00 00 20
16 00 00 20
17 00 00 20
15 00 00 20
20 00 09 28
21 00 00 20
22 00 00 20
19 00 01 32
18 00 00 32
24 00 02 40
25 00 02 16
26 00 02 66
29 00 00 85
30 00 00 20
1183(ROAD) 00 05 75
1251 00 08 37
1250 00 01 91
1249 00 00 20
1437 00 00 20
1436 00 00 20
1252 00 01 31
1253 00 04 26
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3925
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1267/3930 00 01 24
1268 00 00 20
1281 00 01 96
1282 00 07 06
1311 00 05 50
1310 00 00 20
1312 00 02 98
1313 00 00 20
1314 00 04 92
1315 00 00 20
1317 00 00 78
1318 00 03 33
1323 00 07 74
1324/3931 00 00 20
1325 00 00 20
1329 00 00 34
1330 00 13 47
1332 00 03 50
1812 00 16 17
BISHUNPUR MAHUARI 2727 00 04 45
Thana No. 154 2728 00 06 28
2732 00 05 68
2729 00 00 20
2733 00 04 74
2731 00 00 20
2734 00 02 53
2735 00 00 20
2739 00 09 48
2738 00 10 40
2740 00 00 57
2737 00 02 39
2804 00 06 78
2831 00 01 91
2830 00 02 75
2826 00 03 44
2827 00 02 71
2828 00 02 53
2806 00 00 20
2825 00 00 20
2823 00 11 34
2822 00 01 82
2821 00 06 07
2819 00 04 82
3926 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
2816 00 01 73
2815 00 00 20
2813 00 00 20
2856 00 06 54
2857 00 03 71
2858 00 07 52
2859 00 00 20
2896 00 07 48
2895 00 05 21
2891 00 01 93
2892 00 00 20
2890 00 03 44
2889 00 03 87
2885 00 08 52
2882 00 03 27
2883 00 03 76
2881 00 05 54
2879 00 04 30
2930(ROAD) 00 02 35
1959 00 00 20
1954 00 21 47
1951 00 00 84
1955 00 08 32
1956 00 00 32
1949 00 03 00
1973 00 01 01
1948 00 18 55
1974 00 00 20
1947 00 04 76
1946 00 05 16
1945 00 03 70
1944 00 06 04
1943 00 04 81
1942 00 04 55
1941 00 04 44
1940 00 04 40
1938 00 05 02
1937 00 00 20
1933 00 13 46
1932 00 02 97
2917(ROAD) 00 06 85
1931 00 00 38
1863 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3927
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1843
00 00 20
1751 00 00 85
1752 00 00 20
1750 00 01 83
1749 00 09 85
1748 00 01 52
SURBIR 213 00 18 25
Thana No. 152 214 00 04 82
215 00 01 57
821 00 00 20
820 00 00 20
819 00 01 43
815 00 05 01
814 00 03 63
816 00 00 20
813 00 00 20
812 00 09 53
808 00 00 20
811 00 02 45
809 00 02 81
810 00 00 20
837 00 00 66
836 00 00 20
835 00 00 20
838 00 03 09
839 00 03 62
840 00 01 86
841 00 00 26
855 00 00 20
856 00 28 94
976 00 00 20
858 00 00 25
859 00 00 20
857 00 00 73
865 00 04 16
964 00 00 20
866 00 04 25
974 00 01 28
973 00 01 62
971 00 00 37
972 00 03 01
970 00 00 45
968 00 04 49
3928 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
961 00 00 20 960 00 00 63 993 00 02 80 992 00 02 22 994 00 03 26 995 00 01 03 997 00 00 94 996 00 00 20 998 00 00 91 1229 00 00 60 1228 00 02 79 996 00 00 20 1227 00 04 96 1226 00 07 42 1225 00 00 20 1221 00 03 63 1222 00 05 32 1225 00 00 20 1220 00 02 63 1022 00 00 20 1219 00 04 41 1218 00 01 64 1217 00 00 43 1216 00 05 36 1223 00 00 20 1207 00 00 20 1209 00 04 65 1210 00 03 92 1208 00 06 04 1211 00 14 44 1204 00 00 77 1199 00 00 71 1198 00 07 65 1190 00 08 03 1185 00 06 06 1179 00 03 53 1178 00 00 20 1176 00 00 20 1174 00 00 20 1173 00 00 20 1175 00 00 20 1171 00 09 46 1162 00 00 39[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3929 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1159 00 04 79
1158 00 04 79
1041 (ROAD) 00 02 21
1125 00 00 20
1328 00 01 22
1329 00 05 25
1330 00 01 79
1331 00 00 94
1332 00 03 89
1333 00 00 28
1340 00 03 16
1342 00 02 12
1343 00 00 20
1341 00 01 77
1339 00 07 37
1345 00 00 20
1348 00 03 11
1347 00 00 20
1350 00 00 20
1524 00 00 20
1349 00 03 15
1523 00 02 45
1524 00 00 20
1522 00 03 14
1520 00 05 71
1415(CART TRACK) 00 01 89
1405 00 05 30
1366 00 00 61
1365 00 00 20
1404 00 14 11
1406 00 10 55
1414 00 00 20
1407 00 02 13
1408 00 02 45
1409 00 04 39
1401 00 04 58
1400 00 01 66
1397 00 01 32
1424 00 01 11
1426 00 03 70
1427 00 09 30
3930 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
ITHARI 772 00 14 69
Thana No. 145 773 00 00 20
808 00 05 15
809 00 00 20
807 00 11 09
806 00 08 02
805 00 06 28
804 00 07 23
651 00 01 94
650 00 04 02
649 00 09 32
648 00 04 36
647 00 02 17
813 00 03 34
634 00 00 20
635 00 00 20
814 00 25 45
815 00 11 96
615 00 04 84
614 00 00 20
816 00 00 20
620 00 01 16
619 00 00 90
616 00 04 87
618 00 01 77
617 00 00 93
395 00 07 18
394 00 18 97
396 00 00 20
397 00 00 20
398 00 00 20
399 00 00 20
400 00 00 20
401 00 01 52
402 00 00 74
403 00 00 20
404 00 00 20
405(NALA) 00 02 21
511 00 02 97
511/877 00 02 34
509(ROAD) 00 01 60
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3931
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
413
00 00 20
333 00 19 27
366 00 00 20
334 00 00 20
335 00 00 20
336 00 00 88
332 00 03 57
339 00 00 49
340 00 01 67
331 00 06 79
330/875 00 02 66
330 00 01 97
341 00 01 99
342 00 00 20
328 00 07 76
329 00 00 63
322 00 00 85
323 00 07 07
321 00 00 20
324 00 12 12
325 00 02 10
319(Field Channel) 00 01 10
316 00 05 28
307 00 03 96
315 00 08 12
309 00 00 20
310 00 02 82
311 00 03 28
312 00 13 24
HAHWA 1152(ROAD) 00 01 67
Thana No. 130 1151 00 03 22
1150 00 01 38
1147 00 01 75
1146 00 03 28
1145 00 04 80
1143 00 06 76
1142 00 09 23
1141(Field Channel) 00 00 79
1139 00 00 20
1138 00 05 53
1137 00 02 27
3932 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
JAGDISHPUR 286
00 04 84
Thana No. 129 285 00 00 20
288 00 02 26
287 00 06 89
283 00 03 00
291 00 00 20
315 00 00 51
281 00 01 57
316 00 00 64
314 00 00 20
250 00 01 61
317 00 14 07
249 00 00 26
318 00 00 45
324 00 00 25
325 00 00 20
326 00 00 65
332 00 07 30
334 00 00 20
336 00 00 20
331 00 00 54
333 00 01 02
337 00 03 27
330 00 00 20
342 00 03 27
338 00 00 47
340 00 00 54
341 00 00 57
506 00 02 26
507 00 02 41
509 00 02 72
510 00 00 42
512 00 02 78
508 00 00 20
528 00 00 20
527 00 04 67
526 00 00 20
537 00 00 20
529 00 00 20
535 00 03 81
536 00 00 99
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3933
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
534
00 02 17
544 00 04 15
550 00 03 11
551 00 03 26
556 00 03 94
555 00 00 20
552 00 00 20
554 00 00 20
557 00 03 98
559 00 00 20
558 00 03 83
564(ROAD) 00 03 05
856 00 09 67
857 00 00 81
858 00 03 34
859 00 01 87
862 00 00 20
860 00 05 13
890 00 00 31
861 00 04 96
889 00 02 17
863 00 04 18
880 00 03 32
881 00 05 89
885 00 00 25
882 00 01 67
886 00 00 20
884 00 03 73
883 00 05 42
RISAURA 4469 00 01 12
Thana No. 131 4468 00 00 20
4467 00 00 20
4425 00 01 50
4426 00 01 15
4427 00 01 91
4433 00 07 82
4432 00 00 20
4434 00 04 52
4436 00 06 96
4437 00 00 59
4438 00 01 26
3934 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
4451
00 05 83
4452 00 03 92 4453 00 09 76 4356 00 00 20 4454 00 00 93 4520 00 01 53 4519 00 01 62 4518 00 00 20 4521 00 03 76 4522 00 06 86 4531 00 00 20 4523 00 00 20 4530 00 00 20 4524 00 00 53 4525 00 02 27 4526 00 04 07 4527 00 03 87 4528 00 02 69 4529 00 00 47 3553 00 03 75 3509 00 08 31 3552 00 00 20 3510 00 02 29 3551 00 00 20 3511 00 02 31 3512 00 02 21 3513 00 01 75 3514 00 01 48 3508 00 01 20 3515 00 00 46 3516 00 05 69 3497 00 00 20 3496 00 00 20 3517 00 03 04 3518 00 02 18 3520 00 00 20 3494 00 00 47 3493 00 01 81 3519 00 06 30 3492 00 01 80 3491 00 02 34[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3935 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 3217 00 18 75
3215 00 00 20
3216 00 00 44
3219 00 04 17
3228 00 14 38
3227 00 02 15
3226 00 00 28
3225 00 00 20
3103(ROAD) 00 01 66
3007 00 03 02
2995 00 01 86
2994 00 00 20
2993 00 00 20
3000 00 02 48
3001 00 00 20
2996 00 06 28
2997 00 00 20
2999 00 04 69
2998 00 02 24
2865(ROAD) 00 01 46
2965 00 05 08
2966 00 00 20
2963 00 00 20
2964 00 04 32
2963 00 02 49
2958 00 01 91
2957 00 01 55
2956 00 03 28
2904 00 00 20
2905 00 00 29
2906 00 00 83
2955 00 02 00
2907 00 01 11
2908 00 02 15
2953 00 00 45
2952 00 00 20
2951 00 00 20
2932 00 00 20
2900 00 00 20
2909 00 02 89
2910 00 01 47
3936 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
2914
00 00 20
2896 00 00 20
2897 00 01 49
2898 00 04 49
2831 00 03 22
2879 00 04 65
2878 00 00 26
2877 00 00 20
2834 00 00 20
2833 00 10 08
2832 00 02 07
2829 00 00 20
2836 00 04 13
2835 00 06 34
2787 00 08 63
2786 00 00 20
2788 00 01 91
2662 00 02 81
2665 00 02 76
2661 00 00 20
2666 00 03 03
2671 00 03 34
2670 00 00 20
2672 00 00 20
2673 00 03 73
2674 00 05 06
2637 00 02 73
2638 00 03 60
2639 00 00 29
2640 00 06 55
2641 00 01 00
AGEYAN 4450 00 06 57
Thana No. 113 4445 00 02 89
4449 00 00 20
4448 00 01 01
4451 00 04 72
4452 00 00 20
4454 00 13 87
4543 00 03 91
4542 00 00 20
4455 00 04 76
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3937
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
4539
00 00 20
4537 00 00 20
4536 00 04 57
4527 00 00 35
4528 00 04 39
4526 00 00 20
4529 00 00 82
4533 00 00 20
4530 00 04 11
4512 00 00 20
4531 00 00 49
4511 00 04 61
4510 00 00 20
4509 00 00 34
4507 00 02 11
4506 00 00 20
4505 00 00 20
4508 00 06 43
4495 00 01 42
3668(CART TRACK) 00 02 42
4598 00 00 20
4599 00 03 46
4600 00 04 15
4601 00 00 60
4602 00 04 93
4603 00 05 57
4611 00 00 20
4610 00 01 63
4609 00 08 16
4606 00 01 51
4607 00 00 20
4608 00 08 33
3666 00 00 80
3665 00 04 72
3664 00 00 20
3701 00 00 20
3702 00 05 94
3703 00 00 61
3704 00 07 31
3705 00 00 20
3709 00 00 72
3938 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
3489
00 00 29
3490 00 04 41 3492 00 01 52 3493 00 03 40 3488 00 00 20 3494 00 06 68 3496 00 00 20 3487 00 01 66 3485 00 00 20 3486 00 02 42 3495 00 03 20 3469 00 07 20 3468 00 04 08 3470 00 00 20 3464 00 04 62 3465 00 00 53 3463 00 01 72 3454 00 09 43 3453 00 00 59 3452 00 07 91 3451 00 00 20 3450 00 01 82 3449 00 04 24 3455 00 00 20 3445 00 01 21 3448 00 04 09 3446 00 01 01 3447 00 03 04 3443 00 00 20 3442 00 07 59 3439 00 00 20 3440 00 02 97 3441 00 10 98 3395 00 00 20 3420 00 01 24 3401 00 00 20 3402 00 01 60 3403 00 03 52 3404 00 05 02 3405 00 03 46 3406 00 02 20[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3939 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
3329 00 06 43
3324 00 00 20
3328 00 05 38
3326 00 04 52
3325 00 01 28
2843(ROAD) 00 01 66
2618 00 00 20
2622 00 06 66
2620 00 01 91
2621 00 08 69
2590 00 02 78
2591 00 00 20
2589 00 01 60
2587 00 05 06
2588 00 04 67
2570 00 00 20
2578 00 07 23
2579 00 00 20
2577 00 03 71
2576 00 02 71
2531 00 06 44
2528 00 00 20
2532 00 01 93
2530 00 01 28
2524 00 01 07
2523 00 01 30
2520 00 00 63
2519 00 00 93
2533 00 01 56
1771 00 06 22
1743 00 00 41
1771/5002 00 00 75
1772 00 00 38
1773 00 00 56
1774 00 00 36
1775 00 00 37
1770 00 03 60
1769 00 00 88
1744 00 00 31
1767 00 02 63
1766 00 01 93
3940 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1762
00 01 31
1761 00 01 20 1747 00 01 84 1748 00 03 22 1760 00 00 93 1758 00 00 56 1757 00 00 34 1753 00 05 40 1750 00 00 20 1751 00 00 20 1754 00 00 20 1752 00 04 16 1807 00 04 94 1808 00 03 05 1809 00 02 26 1670 00 01 25 1810 00 01 94 1811 00 02 29 1665 00 01 66 1812 00 04 02 1664 00 03 35 1650/5021 00 02 46 1654 00 01 21 1655 00 09 39 1645 00 00 93 1644 00 00 20 1643 00 00 20 1642 00 00 20 1641 00 00 20 1640 00 00 20 1656 00 08 33 1636 00 08 70 1635 00 00 82 1527 00 04 26 1526 00 00 20 1525 00 00 20 1528 00 18 30 1529 00 00 20 1522 00 11 24 1519 00 05 89 1521 00 06 19[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3941 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1436 00 03 25
1511 00 05 18
1510 00 06 62
1469 00 00 20
1471 00 01 06
1472 00 02 14
1470 00 00 80
1499(Cart Track) 00 01 70
1473 00 02 74
1464 00 03 01
1463 00 00 20
1474 00 02 20
1353 00 32 74
1375 00 02 12
1376 00 03 92
1377 00 00 74
1378 00 02 96
1373 00 03 25
1371 00 00 27
1372 00 02 22
1370 00 02 24
1367 00 02 87
1368 00 02 76
1369 00 05 07
1360 00 01 71
1359 00 03 75
1358 00 01 64
1357 00 00 20
1299 00 01 34
1300 00 01 81
1301 00 01 91
1302 00 00 71
1303 00 00 20
1305 00 00 20
1306 00 03 60
1352 00 01 44
1342 00 21 82
1341 00 04 71
1330 00 05 10
1333 00 10 24
[F. No. R-25011/14/2013-OR-I] PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
3942 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1537.—केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि पटना से मोतिहारी और बेतालपुर तक पेट्रोलियम पदार्थो के परिवहन हेतु जिला सारन, राज्य बिहार में इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अध्सिूचना से संलग्न अनुसूचि में वणत है, उपयोग का अर्जन किया जाएऋ अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ;भूमि में उपयोग के अध्किार का अर्जनद्ध अध्निियम, 1962 ;1962 का 50द्ध की धारा 3 की उप-धरा ;1द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अध्किार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है।
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूचि में वर्णित भूमि में हितब( है, उस तारीख से जिसको, भारत के राजपत्रा में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधरण जनता को उपलब्ध् करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के अन्दर, भूमि के भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने हेतु उपयोग के अध्किार के अर्जन के लिए, श्री अरूण कुमार झा, बि.प्र.से. व सक्षम प्राध्किारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, ;पाइपलाइन डिवीजनद्ध पटना, पो.ओ. ढेलवा, सिपारा, जिला पटना, पिनः 800020, बिहार को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा।
अनुसूची
जिला : सारन
राज्य : बिहार मौजा/ग्राम सर्वे/ब्लाक/सं. ;प्लोट सं.द्ध सब-डीव-सं. क्षेत्रापफल
हेक्टेयर आरे वर्ग मीटर 1
2 3 4 5 6
3217 00 03 23 djuiqjkdjuiqjkdjuiqjkdjuiqjkdjuiqjk
3216 00 01 42 Fkkuk uacj % 85Fkkuk uacj % 85Fkkuk uacj % 85Fkkuk uacj % 85Fkkuk uacj % 85
3215 00 00 60
3209 00 04 55
3210 00 04 54
3211 00 08 36
3212 00 03 58
3213 00 00 20
3207 00 00 20
2343&dPpk jkLrk 00 00 88
2134 00 00 98
2131 00 00 20
2135 00 14 28
2136 00 01 46
2150 00 01 26
2149 00 03 18
2148 00 02 79
2146 00 01 57
2145 00 00 20 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3943 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
2162 00 00 20
2160 00 03 90
2163 00 02 28
2159 00 00 80
2164 00 06 96
2165 00 07 67
2158 00 00 20
2106 00 02 90
2166&dPpk jkLrk 00 01 70
2176 00 00 20
2177 00 02 44
2193 00 02 16
2194 00 06 67
2196 00 00 67
2195 00 00 20
2197 00 01 60
2198 00 00 82
2192 00 00 20
2199 00 04 52
2206 00 02 09
2200 00 00 48
2205 00 04 94
2207 00 05 49
2214 00 00 20
2212 00 00 64
2213 00 05 22
2218 00 05 91
2217 00 00 20
2223 00 01 04
2224 00 05 59
2225 00 00 20
2046&dPpk jkLrk 00 00 72
1393 00 00 20
1391 00 11 50
3944 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1360 00 00 04
1389 00 05 16
1388 00 05 93
1383 00 00 22
1386 00 00 22
1387 00 00 20
1385 00 02 61
1384 00 03 54
1377 00 00 20
1378 00 00 20
1514 00 01 51
1466 00 01 18
1513 00 03 66
1512 00 11 05
1511 00 12 06
1510 00 01 03
1521 00 00 20
1491 00 01 20
1509 00 03 08
1508 00 05 04
1501 00 03 99
1505 00 00 20
1500 00 00 73
1499 00 03 14
1498 00 02 32
1502 00 00 20
1497 00 00 77
1526 00 19 12
1547&jkLrk 00 02 19
3227&dsuky 00 06 66
1564 00 04 97
jkeiqjjkeiqjjkeiqjjkeiqjjkeiqj 561 00 05 37
Fkkuk uacj % 87 Fkkuk uacj % 87 Fkkuk uacj % 87 Fkkuk uacj % 87 Fkkuk uacj % 87 563 00 12 44
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3945
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
623 00 03 48
596 00 07 40
622 00 03 01
595719 00 04 26
597 00 05 97
617&dPpk jkLrk 00 00 20
620 00 00 20
600 00 00 20
601 00 09 75
602&dPpk jkLrk 00 01 21
ydr Nkijkydr Nkijkydr Nkijkydr Nkijkydr Nkijk 1899 dPpk jkLrk 00 00 90
Fkkuk uacj % 89Fkkuk uacj % 89Fkkuk uacj % 89Fkkuk uacj % 89Fkkuk uacj % 89 1508 00 00 38
1509 00 08 74
1510 00 03 12
1519 00 02 03
1520 00 05 87
1518 00 08 39
1515 00 00 20
1517 00 02 84
1521 00 01 22
1596 00 04 87
1525 00 01 76
1524 00 00 20
1526 00 07 08
1527 00 03 33
1528 00 00 20
1591 00 03 38
1589 00 02 17
1592 00 00 20
1587 00 00 40
1590 00 05 13
1588 00 03 36
1581 00 00 97
3946 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1611 00 05 61 1612 00 04 09 1613 00 03 74 1614 00 04 09 1615 00 00 20 1677 00 00 25 1675 00 09 92 1674 00 01 38 1628 00 01 40 1629 00 06 30 1630 00 03 58 1633 00 00 20 1634 00 00 20 1631 00 00 62 1632 00 08 99 1645 00 00 21 1643 00 05 75 1642 00 00 69 1644 00 06 87 1646 00 06 30 1647 00 03 80 1649 00 00 59 1648 00 01 72 1404 00 00 20 1403 00 00 20 1390 00 04 77 1391 00 05 91 1393 00 01 45 1392 00 00 20 1388 00 00 33 1389 00 00 20 1386 00 00 20 1387 00 00 47[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3947 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1379 00 00 20
1383 00 01 42
1380 00 08 73
1381 00 05 07
1368 00 02 35
1369 00 00 20
1367 00 00 38
1366 00 03 29
1363 00 02 85
1365 00 04 75
1364 00 00 20
465 00 03 21
466 00 10 58
469 00 02 19
494 00 05 82
495 00 01 61
493 00 05 83
492 00 00 20
516 00 00 20
491 00 02 73
490 00 03 04
489 00 00 63
488 00 00 20
517 00 01 87
518 00 06 44
524 00 00 20
519 00 05 30
521 00 08 39
520 00 00 20
522 00 06 40
523 00 01 33
535 00 01 56
534 00 00 20
252&fQYM psuy 00 01 63
3948 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
564 00 00 20
563 00 05 36
566 00 02 26
567 00 00 20
565 00 02 94
570 00 02 44
569 00 00 20
571 00 09 92
591 00 00 20
572 00 02 94
590 00 08 34
589 00 00 20
586 00 06 91
587 00 04 46
/kkuk Mhg/kkuk Mhg/kkuk Mhg Mhg/kkuk Mhg/kkuk 277 00 08 80
Fkkuk uacj % 95Fkkuk uacj % 95Fkkuk uacj % 95Fkkuk uacj % 95Fkkuk uacj % 95 271 00 00 07
278 00 15 89
288 00 00 20
286 00 03 62
282 00 01 42
283 00 01 21
284 00 01 76
285 00 01 43
262 00 06 54
243 00 02 53
242 00 00 10
244 00 04 84
245 00 02 72
249 00 00 31
240 00 00 46
239 00 03 83
248 00 00 20
238 00 02 60
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3949
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
305 00 00 20
230 00 03 93
229 00 01 33
228 00 01 17
227 00 01 22
226 00 05 83
211 00 05 17
212 00 03 61
213 00 00 97
204&jkLrk 00 02 05
205 00 00 72
206 00 00 20
166 00 00 20
167 00 00 82
168 00 06 78
193 00 01 42
192 00 01 18
191 00 01 30
190 00 01 52
189 00 01 60
188 00 04 94
171 00 01 35
172 00 00 14
176 00 02 78
185 00 00 20
177 00 05 12
182 00 01 38
183 00 00 20
181 00 02 57
180 00 01 27
179 00 00 20
184&jkLrk 00 01 31
ikujs ds Hkqbuikujs ds Hkqbuikujs ds Hkqbuikujs ds Hkqbuikujs ds Hkqbu 216&jkLrk 00 01 29
3950 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
56 00 00 20 53 00 03 25 58 00 04 60 60 00 00 20 59 00 00 20 63 00 02 29 64 00 00 61 65 00 01 41 71 00 00 21 70 00 04 11 72 00 00 20 79 00 00 20 73 00 02 18 78 00 01 45 77 00 00 86 80 00 02 20 82 00 00 29 83 00 02 94 84 00 04 19 85 00 00 20 86 00 00 99 87 00 02 25 88 00 02 89 89 00 10 90 26 00 08 91 33 00 00 20 25 00 06 27 19 00 10 45 21 00 02 55 22 00 00 20 20 00 07 19 4 00 03 10 3 00 00 20[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3951 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1511 00 00 20 1528&ukyk 00 01 40 1559 00 02 72 1560 00 03 33 1561 00 06 13 1558 00 00 90 1562 00 07 44 1563 00 03 78 1556 00 00 20 1564 00 02 97 1565 00 00 20 1555 00 00 90 1554 00 09 67 1553 00 05 10 1550 00 01 15 1551 00 07 37 1552 00 00 20 1599 00 00 75 1598 00 00 20 1600 00 01 37 1601 00 01 44 1602 00 00 40 1597 00 00 68 1596 00 03 10 1592 00 00 54 1595 00 03 49 1594 00 02 15 1593 00 01 84 1603 00 02 34 1604 00 05 18 1605 00 01 47 1608 00 00 943952 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1622 00 02 73 1623 00 00 75 1628 00 00 20 1612 00 08 29 1613 00 01 01 1614 00 01 14 1615 00 00 20 1750 00 00 20 1749 00 05 24 1751 00 00 44 1752 00 00 26 1753 00 00 20 1748 00 06 39 1754 00 03 34 1744 00 00 40 1745 00 04 22 1755 00 00 20 1286&jkLrk 00 03 08 1038 00 00 20 1040 00 02 28 1041 00 03 52 1042 00 04 37 1043 00 08 43 1050 00 00 20 1044 00 01 76 1049 00 06 83 1048 00 02 88 1057 00 00 20 1047 00 02 81 1027 00 04 21 1026 00 04 08 1136 00 07 04[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3953 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1135 00 00 35 1009 00 05 85 1008 00 01 79 1137 00 00 20 1138 00 03 00 1140 00 02 62 1007 00 00 20 1142 00 01 54 1141 00 00 99 1143 00 04 76 1149 00 03 06 1145 00 00 20 1148 00 01 40 1150 00 02 25 1147 00 02 50 1152 00 07 76 1153 00 01 25 1156 00 00 23 1208 00 01 08 1203 00 07 78 1157 00 00 20 1204 00 03 71 1200 00 05 01 1199 00 02 68 1198 00 03 26 1197 00 02 37 1194 00 01 16 1195 00 00 51 1186 00 00 20 1185 00 00 20 1184 00 00 20 1183 00 00 20 1196 00 06 593954 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1180 00 02 45
1179 00 03 76
1175 00 03 90
1176 00 00 20
1174 00 03 49
1166 00 00 20
vklguhvklguhvklguhvklguhvklguh 4868 00 00 26
Fkkuk uacj % 7Fkkuk uacj % 7Fkkuk uacj % 7Fkkuk uacj % 7Fkkuk uacj % 7 4867 00 01 37
4866 00 01 21
4865 00 02 02
4862 00 00 50
4861 00 00 20
4864 00 04 84
4610 00 00 20
4863 00 01 79
4860 00 01 24
4859 00 03 24
4611 00 00 31
4612 00 00 20
4857 00 00 52
4858 00 03 80
4613 00 00 20
4855 00 01 36
4615 00 01 61
4853 00 00 20
4854 00 00 22
4616 00 03 67
4618 00 03 70
4617 00 06 50
4619 00 05 14
4342 00 23 12
4344 00 06 46
4345 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3955
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
4348 00 00 20
4351 00 04 20
4352 00 00 90
4353 00 07 44
4339&dPpk jkLrk 00 02 33
4338 00 01 41
4209 00 04 84
4210 00 05 64
4211 00 02 06
4212 00 00 23
4208 00 04 50
4207 00 00 20
4225&dPpk jkLrk 00 03 86
4213 00 00 20
4214 00 05 23
4215 00 02 78
4216 00 07 28
4221 00 01 27
4220 00 05 34
4217 00 00 20
4219 00 05 97
4229 00 00 20
4270 00 14 58
4268&jkLrk 00 02 64
4267 00 01 78
4266 00 00 20
4265 00 02 44
4264 00 01 76
4263 00 02 00
4262 00 01 48
4261 00 01 62
4260 00 04 79
4259 00 02 11
3956 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
4256 00 05 73
4255 00 02 13
vrkjluvrkjluvrkjluvrkjluvrkjlu 4805 00 10 25
Fkkuk uacj % 6Fkkuk uacj % 6Fkkuk uacj % 6Fkkuk uacj % 6Fkkuk uacj % 6 4806 00 00 20
4802 00 01 27
4804&dPpk jkLrk 00 07 61
3912 00 00 41
3913 00 03 72
3914 00 02 49
3915 00 05 64
3911 00 00 20
3916 00 00 82
3910 00 03 14
3906 00 19 36
3907 00 00 20
3905 00 04 71
3918 00 00 20
3920 00 00 20
3903 00 01 87
3904 00 06 73
3923 00 01 85
3900 00 00 72
3899 00 25 54
3898 00 11 90
3961 00 07 73
3881 00 01 64
3880 00 11 76
3879 00 00 56
3882 00 06 86
3878 00 04 92
3872 00 05 13
3873 00 02 70
3869 00 06 29
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3957
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
3863 00 00 20
3847 00 00 20
3854 00 06 69
3853 00 12 49
vVMhykvVMhykvVMhykvVMhykvVMhyk 35 00 05 64
Fkkuk uacj % 101Fkkuk uacj % 101Fkkuk uacj % 101Fkkuk uacj % 101Fkkuk uacj % 101 34 00 00 30
31 00 02 79
36 00 00 20
30 00 10 76
41 00 00 20
29 00 04 31
28 00 04 45
25 00 06 24
26 00 01 98
23 00 05 31
22 00 05 11
21 00 04 89
20 00 00 20
19 00 03 78
18 00 06 40
17 00 06 49
14 00 02 61
13 00 01 03
11 00 00 20
10 00 00 20
NijkbFkhNijkbFkhNijkbFkhNijkbFkhNijkbFkh 541&ukyk 00 02 40
Fkkuk uacj % 102Fkkuk uacj % 102Fkkuk uacj % 102Fkkuk uacj % 102Fkkuk uacj % 102 542&ukyk 00 03 34
571 00 00 20
572 00 00 20
574 00 00 60
575 00 02 52
576 00 03 89
579 00 07 30
3958 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
536 00 03 62 535 00 03 67 336 00 00 20 335 00 04 24 334 00 04 90 333 00 13 49 326 00 00 20 328 00 02 77 327 00 00 25 329 00 06 89 318 00 01 76 319 00 00 20 317 00 07 57 316 00 12 34 315 00 04 02 167 00 13 87 168 00 04 08 169 00 01 17 188 00 01 12 189 00 00 20 182 00 00 20 183 00 00 73 184 00 03 16 185 00 00 20 187 00 04 01 190 00 05 44 191 00 06 23 197 00 00 20 192 00 00 20 194 00 00 22 195 00 01 37 196 00 05 81 201 00 00 35[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3959 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
200 00 00 20
107 00 03 65
106 00 09 53
104 00 06 25
103 00 00 20
98 00 03 37
99 00 00 20
96 00 00 20
97&jkLrk 00 00 93
105&jkLrk 00 00 49
111&jkLrk 00 00 59
[पफा. सं. आर-25011/21/2013-ओआर-I]
पवन वुफमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2013
S.O. 1537.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in Dist. Saran in the State of Bihar for 'Patna to Motihari and Baitalpur Pipeline' for the transportation of Petroleum Product;
And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Arun Kumar Jha B.A.S. & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited. (Pipelines Division) P.O. Dhelwan, Sipara, Dist. Patna (Bihar.) Pin – 800020.
SCHEDULE
Dist.: Saran
State : Bihar Mouja / Village Survey/Block No. Sub-Div-No. Area
Hectare Are Sq.mtr. (1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6) KARANPURA 3217 00 03 23 Thana Number : 85 3216 00 01 42
3215 00 00 60
3209 00 04 55
3210 00 04 54
3211 00 08 36 3960 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
3207 00 00 20
2343-cart track 00 00 88
2134 00 00 98
2131 00 00 20
2135 00 14 28
2136 00 01 46
2150 00 01 26
2149 00 03 18
2148 00 02 79
2146 00 01 57
2145 00 00 20
2147 00 00 20
2161 00 05 61
2162 00 00 20
2160 00 03 90
2163 00 02 28
2159 00 00 80
2164 00 06 96
2165 00 07 67
2158 00 00 20
2106 00 02 90
2166-cart track 00 01 70
2176 00 00 20
2177 00 02 44
2193 00 02 16
2194 00 06 67
2196 00 00 67
2195 00 00 20
2197 00 01 60
2198 00 00 82
2192 00 00 20
2199 00 04 52
2206 00 02 09
2200 00 00 48
2205 00 04 94
2207 00 05 49
2214 00 00 20
2212 00 00 64
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3961
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
2223 00 01 04
2224 00 05 59
2225 00 00 20
2046-cart track 00 00 72
1393 00 00 20
1391 00 11 50
1390 00 01 81
1360 00 00 04
1389 00 05 16
1388 00 05 93
1383 00 00 22
1386 00 00 22
1387 00 00 20
1385 00 02 61
1384 00 03 54
1377 00 00 20
1378 00 00 20
1514 00 01 51
1466 00 01 18
1513 00 03 66
1512 00 11 05
1511 00 12 06
1510 00 01 03
1521 00 00 20
1491 00 01 20
1509 00 03 08
1508 00 05 04
1501 00 03 99
1505 00 00 20
1500 00 00 73
1499 00 03 14
1498 00 02 32
1502 00 00 20
1497 00 00 77
1526 00 19 12
1547-Road 00 02 19
3227-Canal 00 06 66
1564 00 04 97
RAMPUR 561 00 05 37
Thana Number : 87 563 00 12 44
3962 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
566 00 15 93
623 00 03 48
596 00 07 40
622 00 03 01
595/719 00 04 26
597 00 05 97
617-Cart track 00 00 20
620 00 00 20
600 00 00 20
601 00 09 75
602-Cart track 00 01 21
LAKAT 1899-Cart track 00 00 90
CHHAPRA 1508 00 00 38
Thana Number : 89 1509 00 08 74
1510 00 03 12
1519 00 02 03
1520 00 05 87
1518 00 08 39
1515 00 00 20
1517 00 02 84
1521 00 01 22
1596 00 04 87
1525 00 01 76
1524 00 00 20
1526 00 07 08
1527 00 03 33
1528 00 00 20
1591 00 03 38
1589 00 02 17
1592 00 00 20
1587 00 00 40
1590 00 05 13
1588 00 03 36
1581 00 00 97
1609 00 03 25
1610 00 04 84
1611 00 05 61
1612 00 04 09
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3963
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1677 00 00 25 1675 00 09 92 1674 00 01 38 1628 00 01 40 1629 00 06 30 1630 00 03 58 1633 00 00 20 1634 00 00 20 1631 00 00 62 1632 00 08 99 1645 00 00 21 1643 00 05 75 1642 00 00 69 1644 00 06 87 1646 00 06 30 1647 00 03 80 1649 00 00 59 1648 00 01 72 1404 00 00 20 1403 00 00 20 1390 00 04 77 1391 00 05 91 1393 00 01 45 1392 00 00 20 1388 00 00 33 1389 00 00 20 1386 00 00 20 1387 00 00 47 1385 00 00 74 1384-Road 00 02 06 1379 00 00 20 1383 00 01 42 1380 00 08 73 1381 00 05 07 1368 00 02 35 1369 00 00 20 1367 00 00 38 1366 00 03 293964 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
465 00 03 21
466 00 10 58
469 00 02 19
494 00 05 82
495 00 01 61
493 00 05 83
492 00 00 20
516 00 00 20
491 00 02 73
490 00 03 04
489 00 00 63
488 00 00 20
517 00 01 87
518 00 06 44
524 00 00 20
519 00 05 30
521 00 08 39
520 00 00 20
522 00 06 40
523 00 01 33
535 00 01 56
534 00 00 20
252-Field Channel 00 01 63
562 00 00 46
564 00 00 20
563 00 05 36
566 00 02 26
567 00 00 20
565 00 02 94
570 00 02 44
569 00 00 20
571 00 09 92
591 00 00 20
572 00 02 94
590 00 08 34
589 00 00 20
586 00 06 91
587 00 04 46
DHANA DIH 277 00 08 80
Thana Number : 95 271 00 00 07
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3965
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
288 00 00 20 286 00 03 62 282 00 01 42 283 00 01 21 284 00 01 76 285 00 01 43 262 00 06 54 243 00 02 53 242 00 00 10 244 00 04 84 245 00 02 72 249 00 00 31 240 00 00 46 239 00 03 83 248 00 00 20 238 00 02 60 236 00 03 00 231 00 00 48 305 00 00 20 230 00 03 93 229 00 01 33 228 00 01 17 227 00 01 22 226 00 05 83 211 00 05 17 212 00 03 61 213 00 00 97 204-Road 00 02 05 205 00 00 72 206 00 00 20 166 00 00 20 167 00 00 82 168 00 06 78 193 00 01 42 192 00 01 18 191 00 01 30 190 00 01 52 189 00 01 603966 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
172 00 00 14
176 00 02 78
185 00 00 20
177 00 05 12
182 00 01 38
183 00 00 20
181 00 02 57
180 00 01 27
179 00 00 20
184-Road 00 01 31
PANRE KE 216-Road 00 01 29
BHUIN 54 00 02 14
55 00 00 20
Thana Number : 93 56 00 00 20
53 00 03 25
58 00 04 60
60 00 00 20
59 00 00 20
63 00 02 29
64 00 00 61
65 00 01 41
71 00 00 21
70 00 04 11
72 00 00 20
79 00 00 20
73 00 02 18
78 00 01 45
77 00 00 86
80 00 02 20
82 00 00 29
83 00 02 94
84 00 04 19
85 00 00 20
86 00 00 99
87 00 02 25
88 00 02 89
89 00 10 90
26 00 08 91
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3967
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
21 00 02 55
22 00 00 20
20 00 07 19
4 00 03 10
3 00 00 20
RASULPUR 1874 00 18 32
Thana Number : 99 1512 00 00 98
1511 00 00 20
1528-Nala 00 01 40
1559 00 02 72
1560 00 03 33
1561 00 06 13
1558 00 00 90
1562 00 07 44
1563 00 03 78
1556 00 00 20
1564 00 02 97
1565 00 00 20
1555 00 00 90
1554 00 09 67
1553 00 05 10
1550 00 01 15
1551 00 07 37
1552 00 00 20
1599 00 00 75
1598 00 00 20
1600 00 01 37
1601 00 01 44
1602 00 00 40
1597 00 00 68
1596 00 03 10
1592 00 00 54
1595 00 03 49
1594 00 02 15
1593 00 01 84
1603 00 02 34
1604 00 05 18
1605 00 01 47
3968 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1622 00 02 73 1623 00 00 75 1628 00 00 20 1612 00 08 29 1613 00 01 01 1614 00 01 14 1615 00 00 20 1750 00 00 20 1749 00 05 24 1751 00 00 44 1752 00 00 26 1753 00 00 20 1748 00 06 39 1754 00 03 34 1744 00 00 40 1745 00 04 22 1755 00 00 20 1286-Road 00 03 08 1038 00 00 20 1040 00 02 28 1041 00 03 52 1042 00 04 37 1043 00 08 43 1050 00 00 20 1044 00 01 76 1049 00 06 83 1048 00 02 88 1057 00 00 20 1047 00 02 81 1027 00 04 21 1026 00 04 08 1136 00 07 04 1010 00 00 20 1011 00 00 20 1135 00 00 35 1009 00 05 85 1008 00 01 79 1137 00 00 20[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1142 00 01 54
1141 00 00 99
1143 00 04 76
1149 00 03 06
1145 00 00 20
1148 00 01 40
1150 00 02 25
1147 00 02 50
1152 00 07 76
1153 00 01 25
1156 00 00 23
1208 00 01 08
1203 00 07 78
1157 00 00 20
1204 00 03 71
1200 00 05 01
1199 00 02 68
1198 00 03 26
1197 00 02 37
1194 00 01 16
1195 00 00 51
1186 00 00 20
1185 00 00 20
1184 00 00 20
1183 00 00 20
1196 00 06 59
1182 00 02 50
1181 00 02 63
1180 00 02 45
1179 00 03 76
1175 00 03 90
1176 00 00 20
1174 00 03 49
1166 00 00 20
ASAHNI 4868 00 00 26
Thana Number : 07 4867 00 01 37
4866 00 01 21
4865 00 02 02
4862 00 00 50
4861 00 00 20
3970 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
4860 00 01 24
4859 00 03 24
4611 00 00 31
4612 00 00 20
4857 00 00 52
4858 00 03 80
4613 00 00 20
4855 00 01 36
4615 00 01 61
4853 00 00 20
4854 00 00 22
4616 00 03 67
4618 00 03 70
4617 00 06 50
4619 00 05 14
4342 00 23 12
4344 00 06 46
4345 00 00 20
4350 00 05 00
4349 00 01 52
4348 00 00 20
4351 00 04 20
4352 00 00 90
4353 00 07 44
4339-cart track 00 02 33
4338 00 01 41
4209 00 04 84
4210 00 05 64
4211 00 02 06
4212 00 00 23
4208 00 04 50
4207 00 00 20
4225- CT 00 03 86
4213 00 00 20
4214 00 05 23
4215 00 02 78
4216 00 07 28
4221 00 01 27
4220 00 05 34
4217 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3971
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
4268-Road 00 02 64
4267 00 01 78
4266 00 00 20
4265 00 02 44
4264 00 01 76
4263 00 02 00
4262 00 01 48
4261 00 01 62
4260 00 04 79
4259 00 02 11
4258 00 01 32
4257 00 00 50
4256 00 05 73
4255 00 02 13
ATARSAN 4805 00 10 25
Thana Number : 06 4806 00 00 20
4802 00 01 27
4804-cart track 00 07 61
3912 00 00 41
3913 00 03 72
3914 00 02 49
3915 00 05 64
3911 00 00 20
3916 00 00 82
3910 00 03 14
3906 00 19 36
3907 00 00 20
3905 00 04 71
3918 00 00 20
3920 00 00 20
3903 00 01 87
3904 00 06 73
3923 00 01 85
3900 00 00 72
3899 00 25 54
3898 00 11 90
3961 00 07 73
3881 00 01 64
3880 00 11 76
3879 00 00 56
3972 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
3873 00 02 70
3869 00 06 29
3874 00 00 20
3862 00 16 75
3863 00 00 20
3847 00 00 20
3854 00 06 69
3853 00 12 49
ATDILA 35 00 05 64
Thana Number : 34 00 00 30
101 31 00 02 79
36 00 00 20
30 00 10 76
41 00 00 20
29 00 04 31
28 00 04 45
25 00 06 24
26 00 01 98
23 00 05 31
22 00 05 11
21 00 04 89
20 00 00 20
19 00 03 78
18 00 06 40
17 00 06 49
14 00 02 61
13 00 01 03
11 00 00 20
10 00 00 20
CHAPRAITHI 541-Nala 00 02 40
Thana Number : 542-Nala 00 03 34
102 571 00 00 20
572 00 00 20
574 00 00 60
575 00 02 52
576 00 03 89
579 00 07 30
538 00 03 74
537 00 03 70
536 00 03 62
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3973
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
334 00 04 90 333 00 13 49 326 00 00 20 328 00 02 77 327 00 00 25 329 00 06 89 318 00 01 76 319 00 00 20 317 00 07 57 316 00 12 34 315 00 04 02 167 00 13 87 168 00 04 08 169 00 01 17 188 00 01 12 189 00 00 20 182 00 00 20 183 00 00 73 184 00 03 16 185 00 00 20 187 00 04 01 190 00 05 44 191 00 06 23 197 00 00 20 192 00 00 20 194 00 00 22 195 00 01 37 196 00 05 81 201 00 00 35 127 00 00 20 126 00 00 20 200 00 00 20 107 00 03 65 106 00 09 53 104 00 06 25 103 00 00 20 98 00 03 37 99 00 00 20 96 00 00 20 97-Road 00 00 93 105-Road 00 00 49 111-Road 00 00 59
[F. No. R-25011/21/2013-OR-I]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
3974 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1538.—केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि पटना से मोतिहारी और बेतालपुर तक पेट्रोलियम पदार्थों के परिवहन हेतु जिला सारन, राज्य बिहार में इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है, उपयोग का अर्जन किया जाएऋ अतः, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ;भूमि में उपयोग के अध्किार का अर्जनद्ध अध्निियम, 1962 ;1962 का 50द्ध की धरा 3 की उपधरा ;1द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अध्किार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है।
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितब( है, उस तारीख से जिसको, भारत के राजपत्रा में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधरण जनता को उपलब्ध् करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के अन्दर, भूमि के भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने हेतु उपयोग के अध्किार के अर्जन के लिए, श्री अरूण कुमार झा, बि.प्र.से. व सक्षम प्राध्किारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, ;पाइपलाइन डिवीजनद्ध पटना, पो.ओ. ढेलवा, सिपारा, जिला पटना, पिनः 800020, बिहार को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा।
अनुसूची
जिला : सारन राज्य : बिहार
मौजा/ग्राम सर्वे/ब्लाक/सं. ;प्लोट सं.द्ध सब-डीव-सं. क्षेत्रापफल
हेक्टेयर आरे वर्ग मीटर
1 2 3 4 5 6
दाउदपुर 1;केनालद्ध 00 02 58
थाना नंबर-155 223 00 00 20
222 00 02 30
220 00 03 87
221 00 01 02
227 00 00 20
219 00 03 80
218 00 09 22
216 00 00 20
217 00 02 26
206 00 00 20
194 00 05 30
198 00 01 47
197 00 01 58
196 00 03 91
195 00 05 80
193 00 00 20
192 00 10 80
191 00 00 20
190 00 00 24
187;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 03 52[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3975 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
383 00 04 89 389 00 00 20 384 00 04 75 385 00 06 16 388 00 13 20 387 00 00 20 435 00 00 20 436 00 05 90 437 00 10 75 438 00 00 20 449 00 04 71 448 00 09 77 447 00 03 62 453 00 00 20 445 00 04 23 444 00 00 20 446 00 23 36 460 00 00 20 461 00 01 95 471 00 00 20 469 00 23 77 468 00 00 20 530 00 04 27 529 00 00 20 528 00 08 77 531 00 00 20 532 00 02 47 533 00 06 61 523 00 00 20 534 00 06 94 539 00 06 10 535 00 00 23 538 00 00 60 537 00 01 49 536 00 00 20 546 00 00 31 545 00 00 20 547 00 10 273976 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
558 00 00 20
556 00 08 39
555 00 00 20
550 00 03 34
551 00 02 96
552 00 05 63
553 00 02 03
554 00 00 82
604;केनालद्ध 00 02 00
605 00 00 20
7 00 00 78
606 00 03 20
607 00 01 62
608 00 00 54
जैतपुर 2874 00 03 87
थाना नंबर-170 2875 00 06 38
2876 00 00 34
2873;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 23
2871 00 01 25
2870 00 03 17
2869 00 06 16
2868 00 11 82
2867 00 05 92
2864 00 00 20
2865 00 02 30
2866 00 04 78
2850;कच्चा रास्ताद्ध 00 01 67
2851 00 00 20
2708;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 33
2712 00 00 20
2711 00 09 96
2709 00 00 40
2714 00 00 35
2715 00 00 20
2717 00 00 20
2710 00 02 28
2702 00 00 20
2720 00 01 34
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3977
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
2701 00 02 48 2700 00 05 14 2699 00 01 24 2698 00 06 21 2697 00 02 51 2727;नालाद्ध 00 00 20 2695 00 00 20 2683 00 05 60 2696 00 12 90 2686 00 02 45 2694 00 00 50 2692 00 00 20 2687 00 03 13 2688 00 00 20 2689 00 03 09 2691 00 01 70 2690 00 01 34 2679 00 00 20 2736 00 00 48 2741 00 25 84 2678 00 02 62 2676 00 03 51 2675 00 05 12 2448;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 08 2400 00 08 04 2401 00 00 20 2402 00 00 20 2399 00 02 27 2403 00 05 17 2433 00 02 90 2437 00 00 20 2432 00 05 53 2431 00 02 74 2430 00 00 29 2442 00 12 22 2429 00 00 20 2427 00 01 97 2426 00 04 713978 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
2423 00 06 31 2422 00 02 68 2420 00 00 20 2421 00 02 24 2416 00 00 51 2458 00 00 20 2459 00 03 50 2466 00 12 29 2467 00 01 99 2468 00 03 12 2469 00 02 26 2470 00 03 99 2471 00 01 55 2472 00 00 46 2473 00 00 20 2474 00 00 20 2391;नालाद्ध 00 01 84 2215 00 00 40 2214 00 01 41 2213 00 02 28 2212 00 02 46 2211 00 09 04 2210 00 05 77 2209 00 06 04 2208 00 02 18 2207 00 01 75 2206 00 02 65 2205 00 02 20 2200 00 03 05 2203 00 01 36 2202 00 01 44 2201 00 05 58 2197 00 09 30 2198 00 00 95 2196 00 01 82 2195 00 03 67 2193 00 05 57 2192 00 05 67[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3979 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
2189 00 00 20
2188 00 09 58
2187 00 08 66
2186 00 08 55
2184 00 07 71
2183 00 00 20
2185 00 05 16
2172 00 00 20
2174 00 01 50
2173 00 16 48
2170 00 00 25
2257;नालाद्ध 00 00 96
1419 00 03 19
1420 00 01 70
1425 00 01 90
1424 00 07 88
1430 00 03 62
1423 00 00 36
1431 00 05 40
1432 00 06 41
1433 00 00 20
1440 00 05 99
1439 00 02 48
1435 00 00 34
1438 00 02 48
1437 00 07 81
1436 00 00 49
1450;नालाद्ध 00 01 24
1449 00 01 63
407 00 14 13
1451;नालाद्ध 00 00 36
406 00 02 28
404 00 15 75
403 00 04 02
434 00 00 20
435 00 03 46
402;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 31
400;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 04
401;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 42
3980 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
361 00 09 07
365 00 00 58
362 00 06 54
363 00 04 82
354 00 02 43
338 00 02 31
339 00 00 20
340 00 00 20
337 00 02 55
336 00 02 49
341 00 02 95
335 00 01 39
334 00 02 64
342 00 00 20
333 00 00 83
329 00 00 20
328 00 07 66
327 00 03 38
326 00 07 51
345;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 66
एनायतपुर 2035 00 02 01
थाना नंबर-156 2036 00 00 20
2034 00 00 20
2030 00 01 42
2031 00 04 41
2033 00 00 20
2032 00 01 86
2046 00 00 20
2029 00 00 39
2025 00 03 61
2024 00 05 24
2023 00 00 20
2018;नालाद्ध 00 01 41
माने 1608/3345 ;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 72
थाना नंबर-169 1615 00 05 74
1611 00 00 20
1612 00 00 20
1614 00 04 61
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3981
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1603 00 01 87 1602 00 02 09 1601 00 04 54 1599 00 05 02 1596 00 00 20 1598 00 03 93 1597 00 03 10 1594 00 02 37 1591 00 00 51 1592 00 01 70 1584 00 08 07 1582 00 04 97 1583 00 00 20 1576 00 03 08 1575 00 00 20 1577 00 03 53 1573 00 03 34 1572 00 02 41 1578 00 00 20 1568 00 11 67 1563 00 00 20 1569 00 00 20 1558 00 04 14 1557 00 00 25 1559 00 00 20 1560 00 02 67 1561 00 02 36 1562 00 00 41 1550 00 11 41 1551 00 01 42 1548 00 00 52 1549 00 03 56 1547 00 03 59 1546 00 04 22 1545 00 03 85 1544 00 03 85 1538 00 15 39 1445 00 00 203982 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1537 00 00 47
1451 00 10 51
1423 00 00 20
1448 00 00 33
1449 00 06 33
1450 00 07 45
1437 00 01 80
1433 00 00 46
1434 00 08 86
1431 00 00 20
1435 00 02 00
791 00 00 20
1430 00 00 85
1429 00 04 05
792 00 03 83
793 00 00 20
810 00 07 38
811 00 06 11
812 00 02 60
815 00 01 98
816 00 10 21
817 00 00 20
806 00 00 41
824 00 03 36
836 00 03 32
837 00 00 20
835 00 00 59
838 00 03 95
839 00 03 83
854 00 12 80
857 00 01 41
856 00 08 92
859 00 08 68
710 00 54 88
863 ;रास्ताद्ध 00 02 82
866 ;रास्ताद्ध 00 02 78
920 ;रेलवेद्ध 00 07 72
921;रेलवेद्ध 00 02 16
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3983
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1228 00 00 20
1230 00 06 22
1233 00 08 14
1277 00 00 20
1276 00 00 20
1234 00 09 75
1237 00 00 94
1235 00 03 78
1232 00 00 20
1236 00 01 62
1218 ;पिफल्ड चेनलद्ध 00 01 25
1214 00 00 83
1212 00 02 52
1211 00 00 67
1213 00 07 26
1148 00 00 20
1149 00 00 20
1151 00 00 20
1166 00 08 15
1165 00 07 97
1164 00 07 31
1162 00 04 79
1160 00 06 92
1161 00 00 20
1125 00 15 18
1119 00 04 90
1120 00 00 20
1118 00 03 23
1103 00 00 20
1117 00 00 20
1104 00 10 27
1105 00 05 15
1096 00 05 16
1091 00 02 92
1089 00 00 20
1090 00 02 86
1088 00 02 83
1086 00 05 47
3984 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1076 00 00 20
1075 00 04 45
1065 00 07 52
1056 00 00 31
1055 00 07 77
1054 00 03 64
1046 00 08 52
1050 00 01 40
1047 00 00 57
1049 00 06 22
1048 00 02 57
1024 00 03 07
1025 00 05 20
1023 00 12 89
1027 00 11 26
1026 00 00 20
941;केनालद्ध 00 00 20
1019 00 00 20
1030 ;केनालद्ध 00 01 15
हकम 1065 00 01 35
थाना नंबर-167 1066;केनालद्ध 00 00 96
1067 00 08 67
1068 00 06 26
1069 00 00 20
1059 00 01 10
1058 00 00 20
1037 00 02 15
1036 00 01 58
1038 00 11 16
1039 00 02 89
1040 00 12 36
428 00 01 21
436 00 00 20
427 00 00 20
429 00 05 74
435 00 00 20
433 00 06 00
434 00 05 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3985
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
329 00 02 77 332 00 03 96 331 00 00 20 362 00 00 24 361 00 00 83 333 00 04 42 334 00 00 20 335 00 01 62 336 00 01 68 337 00 01 31 360 00 00 47 358 00 00 20 359 00 00 20 338 00 01 49 339 00 01 63 341 00 00 20 342 00 00 20 343 00 00 20 344 00 00 20 340 00 03 98 277 00 00 20 278 00 00 20 345 00 03 96 346 00 00 23 389 00 00 20 276 00 10 72 272 00 07 59 273 00 09 34 271 00 12 94 243 00 00 50 270 00 03 68 269 00 00 85 268 00 21 48 248 00 00 59 249 00 05 65 250 00 02 55 59 00 00 20 251 00 02 423986 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
254 00 00 48
255 00 00 20
56 00 15 92
55 00 00 33
48 00 04 21
49 00 03 44
47 00 00 20
50 00 01 24
51 00 02 85
52 00 08 13
46 00 01 36
41 00 03 45
45 00 01 29
44 00 02 55
43 00 03 27
42 00 09 07
10 00 00 20
15 00 00 20
9 00 08 90
8 00 00 20
16 00 03 18
3 00 09 93
6 00 03 53
4 00 00 20
5 00 03 30
हंसराजपुर 1341 00 09 06
थाना नंबर-164 1342 00 09 85
1343 00 05 82
1344 00 22 13
1337 00 00 58
1345 00 17 95
1346 00 02 71
1325 00 21 75
1331 00 00 20
1328 00 07 66
1327 00 01 68
1323 00 00 20
1309 00 11 83
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3987
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1306 00 00 82 1305 00 03 43 1291 00 00 20 1304 00 04 57 1292 00 05 79 1302 00 00 20 1301 00 04 91 1297 00 03 89 1298 00 00 52 1300 00 03 65 862 00 00 20 1299 00 00 95 323;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 24 322;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 18 321;रास्ताद्ध 00 01 18 318 00 00 20 283 00 02 63 282 00 01 71 281 00 01 39 284 00 00 78 285 00 01 71 280 00 08 72 289 00 05 42 290 00 04 09 276 00 00 20 291 00 00 20 279 00 00 25 293 00 01 32 294 00 00 20 292 00 05 10 296 00 07 39 297 00 02 97 270 00 00 20 298 00 06 67 269 00 01 44 300 00 00 20 299 00 07 20 268 00 00 653988 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
265 00 01 70
207 00 10 42
208 00 03 44
206 00 10 85
203 00 01 19
205 00 01 80
204 00 01 27
202 00 01 79
201 00 00 20
राजापुर 1755 00 02 73
थाना नंबर-78 1812 00 01 33
1753 00 01 65
1752 00 00 24
1750 00 00 20
1749 00 00 20
1748 00 00 20
1742 00 02 53
1741 00 00 72
1740 00 00 58
1728 00 10 15
1729 00 02 83
1731 00 00 20
1730 00 05 52
1707 00 01 42
1708 00 02 95
1706 00 05 37
1705 00 00 70
1676-रास्ता 00 00 81
1675-रास्ता 00 00 93
1674-रास्ता 00 00 94
1667 00 07 36
1668 00 00 20
538 00 02 41
1666 00 03 83
541 00 01 78
542 00 02 11
1664 00 06 74
543 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3989
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1655 00 03 92 1654 00 01 45 1653 00 02 08 1652 00 00 73 1638 00 03 72 1637 00 00 43 1636 00 00 47 1639 00 03 04 1635 00 02 60 1631 00 04 13 1630 00 00 20 1629 00 00 20 1628 00 03 35 1625 00 02 33 1624 00 02 38 1623 00 01 66 1622 00 01 47 1621 00 01 67 1620 00 01 73 1619 00 00 94 1618 00 00 81 1615 00 01 82 1617 00 01 27 1616 00 01 57 1614 00 05 84 1613 00 01 41 1612 00 02 05 588-रास्ता 00 02 47 591 00 03 48 828 00 02 57 592 00 01 64 813 00 00 22 814 00 00 20 827 00 03 06 826 00 03 32 825 00 06 20 832 00 00 20 833 00 00 203990 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
841 00 06 96
1529 00 02 38
857 00 03 10
859 00 00 76
856 00 02 52
855 00 02 40
860 00 00 46
861 00 00 20
862 00 02 83
863 00 00 52
864 00 01 88
865 00 03 40
867 00 00 20
866 00 02 59
853 00 00 20
1521-कच्चा रास्ता 00 01 56
305 00 10 15
295 00 02 00
304 00 00 83
303 00 00 54
296 00 04 31
302 00 01 73
298 00 00 85
280 00 01 22
297 00 02 07
281/1804 00 00 80
281 00 00 93
286 00 00 98
285 00 00 20
287 00 02 64
291 00 04 89
290 00 01 08
288 00 04 22
273 00 00 20
274 00 00 20
289 00 01 27
268 00 00 31
269 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3991
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
257 00 05 01 258 00 00 20 256 00 03 27 255 00 00 20 259-नाला 00 01 10 153 00 02 97 152 00 00 20 154 00 14 86 155 00 00 20 160 00 00 20 150 00 00 20 149 00 00 20 161 00 00 54 162 00 00 75 163 00 01 01 165 00 01 45 164 00 02 33 142 00 01 51 141 00 02 59 140 00 06 94 139 00 02 61 138 00 00 20 136 00 08 27 135 00 03 18 133 00 01 96 132 00 01 57 877 00 10 85 945 00 03 85 943 00 02 67 942 00 06 01 941 00 13 29 940 00 00 36 939 00 00 20 931 00 19 56 930 00 07 46 923 00 00 20 917-नाला 00 07 37 959-नाला 00 06 963992 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
994 00 03 14
995 00 02 90
996 00 00 76
997 00 04 66
998 00 00 99
999 00 00 20
1008 00 09 77
1009 00 00 20
1007 00 01 55
1010 00 08 77
1011 00 04 93
16 00 17 56
17 00 04 75
15 00 15 79
14 00 00 20
13 00 06 65
12 00 03 38
11 00 00 64
9 00 00 20
अमदारही 1993 00 02 50
थाना नंबरं.-79 1994 00 00 20
1989 00 03 03
1988 00 04 40
1987 00 06 56
1984 00 03 50
1982 00 04 07
1981 00 06 61
[पफा. सं. आर-25011/21/2013-ओआर-I]
पवन वुफमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2013
S.O. 1538.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in Dist. Saran in the State of Bihar for 'Patna to Motihari and Baitalpur Pipeline' for the transportation of Petroleum Product;
And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Arun Kumar Jha B.A.S. & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited. (Pipelines Division) P.O. Dhelwan, Sipara, Dist. Patna (Bihar.) Pin - 800020.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3993SCHEDULE
Dist.: Saran
State : Bihar
Mouja / Village Survey/Block No. Sub-Div-No. Area
Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
DAUDPUR 1(Canal) 00 02 58
Thana Number :155 223 00 00 20
222 00 02 30
220 00 03 87
221 00 01 02
227 00 00 20
219 00 03 80
218 00 09 22
216 00 00 20
217 00 02 26
206 00 00 20
194 00 05 30
198 00 01 47
197 00 01 58
196 00 03 91
195 00 05 80
193 00 00 20
192 00 10 80
191 00 00 20
190 00 00 24
189 00 00 38
187(Field Channel) 00 03 52
383 00 04 89
389 00 00 20
384 00 04 75
385 00 06 16
388 00 13 20
387 00 00 20
435 00 00 20
436 00 05 90
437 00 10 75
438 00 00 20
449 00 04 71
448 00 09 77
447 00 03 62
453 00 00 20
445 00 04 23
3994 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
461 00 01 95
471 00 00 20
469 00 23 77
468 00 00 20
530 00 04 27
529 00 00 20
528 00 08 77
531 00 00 20
532 00 02 47
533 00 06 61
523 00 00 20
534 00 06 94
539 00 06 10
535 00 00 23
538 00 00 60
537 00 01 49
536 00 00 20
546 00 00 31
545 00 00 20
547 00 10 27
549 00 18 73
557 00 03 37
558 00 00 20
556 00 08 39
555 00 00 20
550 00 03 34
551 00 02 96
552 00 05 63
553 00 02 03
554 00 00 82
604 (Canal) 00 02 00
605 00 00 20
7 00 00 78
606 00 03 20
607 00 01 62
608 00 00 54
JAITPUR 2874 00 03 87
Thana Number :170 2875 00 06 38
2876 00 00 34
2873 (Field Channel) 00 01 23
2871 00 01 25
2870 00 03 17
2869 00 06 16
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3995
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
2865 00 02 30
2866 00 04 78
2850(Cart Track) 00 01 67
2851 00 00 20
2708 (Field Channel) 00 01 33
2712 00 00 20
2711 00 09 96
2709 00 00 40
2714 00 00 35
2715 00 00 20
2717 00 00 20
2710 00 02 28
2702 00 00 20
2720 00 01 34
2721 00 02 23
2722 00 00 20
2701 00 02 48
2700 00 05 14
2699 00 01 24
2698 00 06 21
2697 00 02 51
2727(Nala) 00 00 20
2695 00 00 20
2683 00 05 60
2696 00 12 90
2686 00 02 45
2694 00 00 50
2692 00 00 20
2687 00 03 13
2688 00 00 20
2689 00 03 09
2691 00 01 70
2690 00 01 34
2679 00 00 20
2736 00 00 48
2741 00 25 84
2678 00 02 62
2676 00 03 51
2675 00 05 12
2448(Road) 00 01 08
2400 00 08 04
2401 00 00 20
2402 00 00 20
3996 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
2437 00 00 20 2432 00 05 53 2431 00 02 74 2430 00 00 29 2442 00 12 22 2429 00 00 20 2427 00 01 97 2426 00 04 71 2425 00 03 24 2424 00 00 20 2423 00 06 31 2422 00 02 68 2420 00 00 20 2421 00 02 24 2416 00 00 51 2458 00 00 20 2459 00 03 50 2466 00 12 29 2467 00 01 99 2468 00 03 12 2469 00 02 26 2470 00 03 99 2471 00 01 55 2472 00 00 46 2473 00 00 20 2474 00 00 20 2391(Nala) 00 01 84 2215 00 00 40 2214 00 01 41 2213 00 02 28 2212 00 02 46 2211 00 09 04 2210 00 05 77 2209 00 06 04 2208 00 02 18 2207 00 01 75 2206 00 02 65 2205 00 02 20 2200 00 03 05 2203 00 01 36 2202 00 01 44 2201 00 05 58 2197 00 09 30[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3997 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
2193 00 05 57 2192 00 05 67 2191 00 05 93 2190 00 00 20 2189 00 00 20 2188 00 09 58 2187 00 08 66 2186 00 08 55 2184 00 07 71 2183 00 00 20 2185 00 05 16 2172 00 00 20 2174 00 01 50 2173 00 16 48 2170 00 00 25 2257(Nala) 00 00 96 1419 00 03 19 1420 00 01 70 1425 00 01 90 1424 00 07 88 1430 00 03 62 1423 00 00 36 1431 00 05 40 1432 00 06 41 1433 00 00 20 1440 00 05 99 1439 00 02 48 1435 00 00 34 1438 00 02 48 1437 00 07 81 1436 00 00 49 1450(Nala) 00 01 24 1449 00 01 63 407 00 14 13 1451(Nala) 00 00 36 406 00 02 28 404 00 15 75 403 00 04 02 434 00 00 20 435 00 03 46 402(Road) 00 01 31 400(Road) 00 01 04 401(Road) 00 01 423998 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 362 00 06 54
363 00 04 82
354 00 02 43
338 00 02 31
339 00 00 20
340 00 00 20
337 00 02 55
336 00 02 49
341 00 02 95
335 00 01 39
334 00 02 64
342 00 00 20
333 00 00 83
329 00 00 20
328 00 07 66
327 00 03 38
326 00 07 51
345(Road) 00 01 66
ENAETPUR 2035 00 02 01
Thana Number :156 2036 00 00 20
2034 00 00 20
2030 00 01 42
2031 00 04 41
2033 00 00 20
2032 00 01 86
2046 00 00 20
2029 00 00 39
2025 00 03 61
2024 00 05 24
2023 00 00 20
2018(Nala) 00 01 41
MANE NO 1608/3345 (Road) 00 01 72
Thana Number :169 1615 00 05 74
1611 00 00 20
1612 00 00 20
1614 00 04 61
1613 00 08 57
1604 00 02 23
1603 00 01 87
1602 00 02 09
1601 00 04 54
1599 00 05 02
1596 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 3999
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1591 00 00 51 1592 00 01 70 1584 00 08 07 1582 00 04 97 1583 00 00 20 1576 00 03 08 1575 00 00 20 1577 00 03 53 1573 00 03 34 1572 00 02 41 1578 00 00 20 1568 00 11 67 1563 00 00 20 1569 00 00 20 1558 00 04 14 1557 00 00 25 1559 00 00 20 1560 00 02 67 1561 00 02 36 1562 00 00 41 1550 00 11 41 1551 00 01 42 1548 00 00 52 1549 00 03 56 1547 00 03 59 1546 00 04 22 1545 00 03 85 1544 00 03 85 1538 00 15 39 1445 00 00 20 1446 00 00 20 1536 00 01 17 1537 00 00 47 1451 00 10 51 1423 00 00 20 1448 00 00 33 1449 00 06 33 1450 00 07 45 1437 00 01 80 1433 00 00 46 1434 00 08 86 1431 00 00 20 1435 00 02 004000 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
792 00 03 83
793 00 00 20
810 00 07 38
811 00 06 11
812 00 02 60
815 00 01 98
816 00 10 21
817 00 00 20
806 00 00 41
824 00 03 36
836 00 03 32
837 00 00 20
835 00 00 59
838 00 03 95
839 00 03 83
854 00 12 80
857 00 01 41
856 00 08 92
859 00 08 68
710 00 54 88
863 (Road) 00 02 82
866 (Road) 00 02 78
920 (Railway) 00 07 72
921(Railway) 00 02 16
1285 00 04 83
1229 00 01 10
1228 00 00 20
1230 00 06 22
1233 00 08 14
1277 00 00 20
1276 00 00 20
1234 00 09 75
1237 00 00 94
1235 00 03 78
1232 00 00 20
1236 00 01 62
1218 (Field Channel) 00 01 25
1214 00 00 83
1212 00 02 52
1211 00 00 67
1213 00 07 26
1148 00 00 20
1149 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4001
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1164 00 07 31
1162 00 04 79
1160 00 06 92
1161 00 00 20
1125 00 15 18
1119 00 04 90
1120 00 00 20
1118 00 03 23
1103 00 00 20
1117 00 00 20
1104 00 10 27
1105 00 05 15
1096 00 05 16
1091 00 02 92
1089 00 00 20
1090 00 02 86
1088 00 02 83
1086 00 05 47
1082 00 05 49
1080 00 04 50
1076 00 00 20
1075 00 04 45
1065 00 07 52
1056 00 00 31
1055 00 07 77
1054 00 03 64
1046 00 08 52
1050 00 01 40
1047 00 00 57
1049 00 06 22
1048 00 02 57
1024 00 03 07
1025 00 05 20
1023 00 12 89
1027 00 11 26
1026 00 00 20
941(Canal) 00 00 20
1019 00 00 20
1030 (Canal) 00 01 15
HAKAM 1065 00 01 35
Thana Number :167 1066(Canal) 00 00 96
1067 00 08 67
1068 00 06 26
4002 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1037 00 02 15 1036 00 01 58 1038 00 11 16 1039 00 02 89 1040 00 12 36 428 00 01 21 436 00 00 20 427 00 00 20 429 00 05 74 435 00 00 20 433 00 06 00 434 00 05 20 328 00 02 01 363 00 05 67 329 00 02 77 332 00 03 96 331 00 00 20 362 00 00 24 361 00 00 83 333 00 04 42 334 00 00 20 335 00 01 62 336 00 01 68 337 00 01 31 360 00 00 47 358 00 00 20 359 00 00 20 338 00 01 49 339 00 01 63 341 00 00 20 342 00 00 20 343 00 00 20 344 00 00 20 340 00 03 98 277 00 00 20 278 00 00 20 345 00 03 96 346 00 00 23 389 00 00 20 276 00 10 72 272 00 07 59 273 00 09 34 271 00 12 94[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4003 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
268 00 21 48
248 00 00 59
249 00 05 65
250 00 02 55
59 00 00 20
251 00 02 42
252 00 01 28
253 00 01 05
254 00 00 48
255 00 00 20
56 00 15 92
55 00 00 33
48 00 04 21
49 00 03 44
47 00 00 20
50 00 01 24
51 00 02 85
52 00 08 13
46 00 01 36
41 00 03 45
45 00 01 29
44 00 02 55
43 00 03 27
42 00 09 07
10 00 00 20
15 00 00 20
9 00 08 90
8 00 00 20
16 00 03 18
3 00 09 93
6 00 03 53
4 00 00 20
5 00 03 30
HANSRAJPUR Thana Number: 1341 00 09 06
164 1342 00 09 85
1343 00 05 82
1344 00 22 13
1337 00 00 58
1345 00 17 95
1346 00 02 71
1325 00 21 75
1331 00 00 20
1328 00 07 66
4004 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1308 00 01 19 1307 00 01 26 1306 00 00 82 1305 00 03 43 1291 00 00 20 1304 00 04 57 1292 00 05 79 1302 00 00 20 1301 00 04 91 1297 00 03 89 1298 00 00 52 1300 00 03 65 862 00 00 20 1299 00 00 95 323(Road) 00 01 24 322(Road) 00 01 18 321(Road) 00 01 18 318 00 00 20 283 00 02 63 282 00 01 71 281 00 01 39 284 00 00 78 285 00 01 71 280 00 08 72 289 00 05 42 290 00 04 09 276 00 00 20 291 00 00 20 279 00 00 25 293 00 01 32 294 00 00 20 292 00 05 10 296 00 07 39 297 00 02 97 270 00 00 20 298 00 06 67 269 00 01 44 300 00 00 20 299 00 07 20 268 00 00 65 267 00 00 82 266 00 01 26 265 00 01 70[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4005 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
203 00 01 19
205 00 01 80
204 00 01 27
202 00 01 79
201 00 00 20
RAJAPUR 1755 00 02 73
Thana Number :78 1812 00 01 33
1753 00 01 65
1752 00 00 24
1750 00 00 20
1749 00 00 20
1748 00 00 20
1742 00 02 53
1741 00 00 72
1740 00 00 58
1728 00 10 15
1729 00 02 83
1731 00 00 20
1730 00 05 52
1707 00 01 42
1708 00 02 95
1706 00 05 37
1705 00 00 70
1676-Road 00 00 81
1675-Road 00 00 93
1674-Road 00 00 94
1667 00 07 36
1668 00 00 20
538 00 02 41
1666 00 03 83
541 00 01 78
542 00 02 11
1664 00 06 74
543 00 00 20
548 00 00 20
549 00 00 20
1655 00 03 92
1654 00 01 45
1653 00 02 08
1652 00 00 73
1638 00 03 72
1637 00 00 43
1636 00 00 47
4006 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1630 00 00 20 1629 00 00 20 1628 00 03 35 1625 00 02 33 1624 00 02 38 1623 00 01 66 1622 00 01 47 1621 00 01 67 1620 00 01 73 1619 00 00 94 1618 00 00 81 1615 00 01 82 1617 00 01 27 1616 00 01 57 1614 00 05 84 1613 00 01 41 1612 00 02 05 588-Road 00 02 47 591 00 03 48 828 00 02 57 592 00 01 64 813 00 00 22 814 00 00 20 827 00 03 06 826 00 03 32 825 00 06 20 832 00 00 20 833 00 00 20 840 00 05 76 839 00 01 07 841 00 06 96 1529 00 02 38 857 00 03 10 859 00 00 76 856 00 02 52 855 00 02 40 860 00 00 46 861 00 00 20 862 00 02 83 863 00 00 52 864 00 01 88 865 00 03 40 867 00 00 20[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4007 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
305 00 10 15 295 00 02 00 304 00 00 83 303 00 00 54 296 00 04 31 302 00 01 73 298 00 00 85 280 00 01 22 297 00 02 07 281/1804 00 00 80 281 00 00 93 286 00 00 98 285 00 00 20 287 00 02 64 291 00 04 89 290 00 01 08 288 00 04 22 273 00 00 20 274 00 00 20 289 00 01 27 268 00 00 31 269 00 00 20 271 00 02 12 270 00 02 38 257 00 05 01 258 00 00 20 256 00 03 27 255 00 00 20 259-Nala 00 01 10 153 00 02 97 152 00 00 20 154 00 14 86 155 00 00 20 160 00 00 20 150 00 00 20 149 00 00 20 161 00 00 54 162 00 00 75 163 00 01 01 165 00 01 45 164 00 02 33 142 00 01 51 141 00 02 594008 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
135 00 03 18
133 00 01 96
132 00 01 57
877 00 10 85
945 00 03 85
943 00 02 67
942 00 06 01
941 00 13 29
940 00 00 36
939 00 00 20
931 00 19 56
930 00 07 46
923 00 00 20
917-Nala 00 07 37
959-Nala 00 06 96
46-Nala 00 07 00
993 00 00 87
994 00 03 14
995 00 02 90
996 00 00 76
997 00 04 66
998 00 00 99
999 00 00 20
1008 00 09 77
1009 00 00 20
1007 00 01 55
1010 00 08 77
1011 00 04 93
16 00 17 56
17 00 04 75
15 00 15 79
14 00 00 20
13 00 06 65
12 00 03 38
11 00 00 64
9 00 00 20
AMDARHI 1993 00 02 50
Thana Number :79 1994 00 00 20
1989 00 03 03
1988 00 04 40
1987 00 06 56
1984 00 03 50
[F. No. R-25011/21/2013-OR-I]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4009नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1539.—केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि पटना से मोतिहारी और बेतालपुर तक पेट्रोलियम पदार्थों के परिवहन हेतु जिला सिवान, राज्य बिहार में इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अध्सिूचना से संलग्न अनुसूचि में वणत है, उपयोग का अर्जन किया जाए ।
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ;भूमि में उपयोग के अध्किार का अर्जनद्ध अध्निियम, 1962 ;1962 का 50द्ध की धरा 3 की उपधरा;1द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अध्किार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है।
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितब( है, उस तारीख से जिसको, भारत के राजपत्रा में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधरण जनता को उपलब्ध् करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के अन्दर, भूमि के भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने हेतु उपयोग के अध्किार के अर्जन के लिए, श्री अरूण कुमार झा, बि.प्र.से. व सक्षम प्राध्किारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, ;पाइपलाइन डिवीजनद्ध पटना, पो.ओ. ढेलवा, सिपारा, जिला पटना, पिनः 800020, बिहार को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा।
अनुसूची
जिला : सिवान
राज्य : बिहार मौजा/ग्राम सर्वे/ब्लाक/सं. ;प्लोट सं.द्ध सब-डीव-सं. क्षेत्रापफल
हेक्टेयर आरे वर्ग मीटर 1
2 3 4 5 6 lgwyh
6335 00 00 59 Fkkuk uacj&366
6333 00 00 20
6334 00 13 90
5884 vsl-vsp- 00 02 71
6121 00 00 20
6122 00 10 15
6145 00 01 01
6123 00 07 35
6144 00 00 20
6143 00 02 07
6158 00 21 23
6160 00 01 03
6161 00 00 38
6170 00 02 01
6162 00 01 19
6157 00 01 40
6177 00 11 23
6178 00 00 20
6176 00 09 93
6175 00 04 75
6174 00 00 90 4010 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
lgwyh 6188 00 00 20
Fkkuk uacj&366 6173 00 03 40
6183 00 01 42
6186 00 02 07
6187 00 00 20
6185 00 05 67
6184 00 06 58
2142 00 00 20
6195 00 00 49
6193 00 00 20
2069 00 01 79
2068 00 00 20
2070 00 01 97
2071 00 00 64
2072 00 03 32
2067 00 00 20
2073 00 02 69
2074 00 03 08
2076 00 00 20
2075 00 05 01
2064 00 02 00
2078 00 01 30
2079 00 01 68
2080 00 10 10
2082 00 01 48
2085 00 03 11
2084 00 07 41
2083 00 15 31
2045 00 00 20
2046 00 00 20
1982 00 04 48
1983 00 00 20
1981 00 02 25
1980 00 01 85
1979 00 07 59
1977 00 00 37
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4011
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
lgwyh 1953 00 00 20
Fkkuk uacj&366 1955 00 10 37
1971 00 00 20
1972 00 00 20
1968 00 00 78
1956 00 04 58
1964 00 01 03
1967 00 03 26
1965 00 00 20
1966 00 01 44
13036860jkLrk 00 04 80
1927jkLrk 00 00 20
1304 00 07 78
1305 00 00 20
13086837 00 00 77
13086836 00 05 27
1309 00 04 99
1310 00 02 96
1311 00 09 53
1317 00 03 47
1318 00 06 43
1319 00 05 73
1290 00 21 38
1289 00 00 34
1288 00 07 47
1287 00 00 55
1286 00 05 67
1285 00 09 68
1284 00 03 08
1282 00 00 20
1283 00 00 93
gjhgalFkkuk uacj&362 6574 00 12 80
6573 00 00 20
Qthyiwj 1532 00 09 02
Fkkuk uacj&364 1531 00 01 91
1526 00 04 35
4012 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
Qthyiwj 1518 00 02 23
Fkkuk uacj&364 1517 00 03 25
1513 00 08 48
1514 00 03 25
1511 00 05 15
1515 00 00 56
1509 00 14 19
1510 00 00 20
1496 00 02 50
1508 00 07 04
1499 00 04 15
1498 00 05 93
1497 00 00 63
1493 00 05 72
1474 00 03 14
1475 00 00 20
1490 00 02 04
1489 00 03 06
1488 00 06 57
1479 00 24 39
1478 00 00 79
1480 00 00 20
1552 00 05 23
1467 00 00 55
1466 00 01 76
1417 00 02 97
1427 00 36 74
1424 00 00 20
1431 00 12 14
1433 00 07 64
1432 00 03 00
1434 00 07 99
1436 00 05 65
1435 00 10 61
1364 00 00 55
1363 00 03 27
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4013
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
Qthyiwj 1359 00 00 20
Fkkuk uacj&364 1353 00 00 27
1360 00 02 46
1354 00 09 48
1341 00 28 33
1339 00 01 10
1335 00 00 20
1336 00 03 60
1181Msu 00 02 62
c/kksuh 552 00 00 20
Fkkuk uacj- 365 551 00 04 17
549 00 06 46
550 00 09 73
546 00 00 20
545 00 00 20
544 00 14 43
543 00 00 62
531 00 01 29
[kkuiwj [kSjarh 2577 00 00 20
Fkkuk uacj&363 2576 00 11 33
2578 00 01 64
2575 00 07 87
2570 00 14 03
2569 00 11 27
2566 00 09 93
2565 00 07 78
2564 00 14 96
1280 00 00 20
1281 00 00 20
1298 00 05 21
1299 00 04 75
1302 00 01 09
1301 00 01 68
1296 00 00 20
1300 00 00 95
1310 00 04 20
1309 00 19 404014 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
[kkuiwj [kSjarh 1308 00 07 59
Fkkuk uacj&363 1313 00 12 73
1399 00 02 36
1355 00 06 58
1354 00 00 20
1356 00 00 63
1357 00 02 47
1393 00 00 20
1358 00 07 79
1359 00 04 13
1389 00 09 81
1388 00 05 59
1386 00 04 57
1387 00 00 20
1385 00 08 05
1368 00 00 20
1369 00 00 20
1384 00 11 69
1380 00 08 18
1379 00 01 18
1378 00 00 84
1467jkLrk 00 01 52
1488 00 04 85
1030 00 00 20
1489 00 02 62
1029 00 01 59
1023 00 03 28
1028 00 05 85
1027 00 04 51
1026 00 00 20
1025 00 00 20
1024 00 04 79
1020 00 01 09
1048 00 13 83
1019 00 01 57
1014 00 12 15
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4015
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
[kkuiwj [kSjarh 1013 00 05 20
Fkkuk uacj&363 996jkLrk 00 02 32
1012 00 02 77
1011 00 15 62
1000 dsuky 00 00 69
1010 00 03 84
1002 00 07 43
963 00 00 20
1001 00 00 72
1009 00 06 08
1008 00 00 20
1003 00 08 31
1004 00 03 59
962jkLrk 00 07 60
961 00 05 67
956 00 00 25
957 00 07 08
955 00 00 20
cYyh 1112 00 03 69
Fkkuk uacj&217 1113 00 00 20
1100 00 08 52
1101 00 00 20
1099 00 08 67
1082 00 07 89
1083 00 01 54
1081 00 17 73
1080 00 00 20
1079 00 00 20
999 00 00 20
997jkLrk 00 00 84
996jkLrk 00 04 67
995jkLrk 00 01 44
968 00 05 59
947 00 02 99
940 00 00 20
945 00 05 94
4016 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
cYyh 9401155 00 00 20
Fkkuk uacj&217 941 00 01 23
943 00 03 68
942 00 00 50
935 00 13 44
934 00 05 14
933 00 03 41
415jkLrk 00 01 68
416 00 00 20
399 00 00 20
385ukyk 00 01 85
932 00 00 20
418jkLrk 00 01 07
417 00 05 54
322 00 03 63
321 00 02 61
320 00 02 35
319 00 01 24
318 00 05 52
307 00 08 17
306 00 00 20
309 00 06 90
304 00 10 06
303jkLrk 00 02 40
302 00 06 63
301 00 04 29
300 00 01 22
151 00 01 70
152 00 02 85
154 00 01 64
153 00 05 06
155 00 04 90
156 00 00 20
142 00 04 33
141 00 11 68
145 00 05 30
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4017
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
96jkLrk 00 02 49
74 00 03 19
77 00 03 49
78 00 03 76
76 00 00 20
82 00 03 12
79 00 07 00
80 00 05 29
72 00 00 20
81 00 01 78
14 00 35 24
42 00 01 17
41 00 05 80
391115 00 02 04
39 00 04 01
38 00 00 20
40 00 00 97
37 00 11 54
14 00 01 05
36 00 18 33
3 00 00 23
ljsvk 909 00 02 22
Fkkuk uacj&218 904 00 08 38
905 00 02 70
906 00 02 41
907 00 03 14
908 00 02 32
897 00 01 65
898 00 11 15
891 00 02 96
8341334lUMh ukyk 00 05 78
flaxj ih 512 00 08 01
Fkkuk uacj&216 508 00 00 20
513 00 03 07
511 00 18 03
514 00 00 20
4018 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
516 00 02 07 517 00 00 20 525 00 10 98 524 00 05 28 527 00 00 20 521 00 02 63 523 00 08 71 529 00 00 70 530 00 08 82 522 00 00 20 403 00 04 31 402 00 10 22 399 00 00 20 401 00 04 79 400 00 05 82 391 00 00 20 395 00 01 06 396 00 00 20 394 00 06 53 393 00 03 34 319 00 23 52 313 00 01 48 312 00 00 20 382 00 00 36 383 00 00 20 320 00 09 04 321 00 01 46 267 00 00 20 322 00 05 29 323 00 00 29 266 00 00 66 263 00 10 72 263 00 04 38 258 00 00 20 262 00 01 89 259 00 00 20[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4019 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
260 00 00 20
255jkLrk 00 06 05
238 00 02 78
239 00 09 57
240 00 00 20
241 00 02 83
248 00 05 26
242 00 00 20
247 00 03 12
249 00 01 47
247 00 05 34
246 00 03 89
245 00 06 04
101 00 00 20
100 00 06 86
250 00 10 05
34 dPpk jkLrk 00 01 71
30 00 03 82
31 00 01 39
28ukyk 00 01 41
29ukyk 00 03 41
25 00 04 25
24 00 00 80
23 00 09 89
21 00 08 94
20 00 01 49
22 00 05 61
14 00 00 20
15 00 01 18
16 00 00 20
gluiwjok 730 00 07 58
Fkkuk uacj&302 718 00 06 25
729 00 00 20
717 00 00 20
719 00 10 04
728 00 00 20
4020 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
714 00 00 49
722 00 00 20
707 00 02 21
709 00 01 01
708 00 04 71
706 00 03 81
711 00 04 46
704 00 22 14
697 00 00 93
696 00 04 40
698 00 00 47
699 00 00 20
700 00 00 20
701 00 00 20
702 00 00 20
695 00 19 77
694 00 00 20
476 00 06 46
475 00 02 63
474 00 02 91
473 00 03 79
472 00 04 86
55 00 02 56
54 00 09 53
53 00 08 36
52 00 00 20
81 00 00 20
47 00 00 28
46 00 12 60
45 00 05 67
44 00 00 20
1 jkLrk 00 02 12
epduk 2185 00 03 07
Fkkuk uacj&214 2186 00 00 20
2184 00 00 94
2183 00 01 49
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4021
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
2180 00 00 20
2179 00 02 70
2177 00 08 03
2178 00 00 20
2161 00 02 46
2163 00 00 20
2164 00 06 14
2165 00 00 28
2160 00 02 67
2159 00 02 52
2158 00 01 45
2148 00 02 49
2147 00 02 04
2145 00 01 96
2143 00 00 20
2144 00 04 80
2135 00 00 20
2136 00 00 20
2137 00 03 57
2129 00 16 48
2128 00 17 35
1362 00 01 68
1363 00 03 45
1365 00 02 03
1366 00 02 09
1361 00 05 59
1360 00 10 40
1359 00 03 31
1357 00 03 84
1356 00 05 51
1355 00 02 20
1354 00 02 07
1318 00 02 40
1317 00 12 06
1306 00 11 21
1210 dPpk jkLrk 00 01 90
1305 00 17 88
1188 jkLrk 00 02 30
4022 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1187 00 00 91
1157 dPpk jkLrk 00 03 07
1152 00 07 10
1151 00 01 17
1153 00 05 70
1154 00 00 20
1150 00 02 11
1149 00 00 34
1148 00 00 20
1144 00 07 67
1143 00 05 67
1141 00 00 20
1119 00 01 17
1121 00 05 33
1142 00 00 30
1122 00 04 00
1123 00 02 07
1111 00 00 65
1124 00 12 03
1110 00 00 20
1109 00 00 20
1103 00 04 82
1104 00 04 50
1101 00 02 03
1105 00 08 87
1106 00 00 20
1100 00 00 20
idkSfy;k 102 00 00 20
Fkkuk uacj&301 101 00 08 33
100 00 00 20
99 00 03 68
109 00 00 64
98 00 01 89
97 00 02 03
96 00 03 32
110 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4023
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
93jkLrk 00 01 16
92 00 00 71
89 00 00 20
91 00 06 70
90 00 05 94
87 00 00 20
86 00 00 20
85 00 00 20
87797 00 01 12
djkguq 2370 00 08 30
Fkkuk uacj&155 2371 00 00 50
2369 00 05 21
2367 00 05 74
2366 00 12 15
2365 00 02 40
1611 00 01 92
1612 00 04 84
1613 00 02 68
1614 00 07 80
1610 00 00 20
1626 00 11 02
1623 00 00 37
1622 00 00 20
1621 00 00 20
1624 00 01 06
1632 00 00 20
1625 00 02 42
1627 00 00 20
1628 00 00 52
1631 00 00 86
1629 00 12 29
1630 00 00 20
1588 00 00 20
1589 00 00 20
1586 00 04 29
1585 00 08 00
4024 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1582 00 01 86 1581 00 00 32 1579 00 01 44 1457 00 00 35 1464 00 06 88 1578 00 00 20 1463 00 00 70 1465 00 06 89 1471 00 01 51 1466 00 00 20 1467 00 00 20 1470 00 10 20 1473 00 03 59 1474 00 00 56 1475 00 00 20 1497 00 06 61 1496 00 03 28 1487 00 00 46 1495 00 00 62 1494 00 00 20 1488 00 00 80 1490 00 03 02 1491 00 04 38 1493 00 09 63 1492 00 04 45 1365 00 00 37 1366 00 03 59 1368 00 00 20 1367 00 02 11 1360 00 13 07 975 00 01 48 976 00 00 20 978 00 02 92 979 00 08 96 984 00 02 14 983 00 02 09[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4025 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
981 00 03 42
980 00 01 25
989 00 03 35
990 00 11 60
1226 00 00 20
1197 00 03 40
1168 00 10 20
1195 00 03 19
1196 00 00 25
1194 00 06 75
1171 00 00 20
1172 00 00 83
1193 00 01 55
1173 00 06 05
1188 00 04 60
1174 00 00 36
1187 00 03 70
1177 00 00 32
1181 00 14 64
1182 00 03 22
1148 00 09 73
HkSlk [ky 1418 00 04 89
Fkkuk uacj&154 1417 00 01 09
1419 00 00 74
1416 00 01 49
1420 00 00 20
1415 00 01 92
1414 00 01 89
1421 00 00 20
1379 00 01 27
1413 00 01 18
1382 00 00 20
1381 00 00 83
1380 00 02 10
1377 00 00 42
1376 00 03 68
4026 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1357 00 05 56 1358 00 00 20 1373 00 00 20 1354 00 00 20 1344 00 04 05 1352 00 03 19 1353 00 00 20 1345 00 00 41 1351 00 01 58 1346 00 01 63 1347 00 03 98 1337 00 00 20 1336 00 01 74 1332 00 00 48 1334 00 04 80 1333 00 05 30 1322 00 00 20 1310 00 00 20 1321 00 04 02 1320 00 04 18 1319 00 02 87 1295 00 02 21 1816 00 00 20 1817 00 09 79 1820 00 00 20 1819 00 01 53 1818 00 08 78 975 00 00 20 973 00 07 90 974 00 08 50 969 00 06 22 970 00 00 20 967 00 00 20 968 00 03 74 996 00 00 20 997 00 01 95[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4027 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1001 00 06 19 1002 00 02 21 1000 00 04 49 1003 00 04 65 1004 00 00 78 853jkLrk 00 01 43 1005 00 04 02 1011 00 00 20 1006 00 01 88 1007 00 00 20 909 00 04 76 908 00 00 51 907 00 02 10 906 00 05 23 905 00 06 01 904 00 00 20 1044 00 01 21 903 00 01 42 1045 00 02 29 1046 00 02 60 1047 00 02 23 902 00 04 82 899 00 03 56 898 00 00 20 901 00 01 94 900 00 05 97 872 00 06 65 895 00 00 20 873 00 05 14 875 00 00 26 874 00 00 20 876 00 01 60 870 00 00 20 739 00 23 61 740 00 00 20
3196—M-13 Mss. 637 to 676
40284028 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
672 00 00 20 671 00 00 20 670 00 00 20 678 00 06 19 677 00 01 13 676 00 00 20 682 00 00 20 679 00 05 23 681 00 00 66 680 00 02 83 684 00 01 11 685 00 02 33 694 00 02 96 693 00 00 20 692 00 00 20 695 00 03 76 696 00 01 91 701 00 00 20 135 00 00 20 136 00 00 20 134 00 01 63 133 00 02 76 697 00 00 20 131 00 00 20 130 00 00 20 132 00 03 08 125 00 01 81 124 00 00 20 126 00 02 01 129 00 00 38 128 00 00 20 127 00 04 61 109 00 00 52 108 00 01 18 89 00 02 07 86 00 00 36[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4029 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
88 00 00 38 91 00 05 10 107 00 01 83 106 00 00 20 105 00 00 20 96 00 00 20 94 00 00 65 95 00 07 59 97 00 00 49 52 00 02 98 55 00 00 20 56 00 00 20 51 00 02 62 50 00 00 20 53 00 02 16 49 00 00 39 48 00 03 49 47 00 00 20 46 00 03 74 45 00 00 20 41 00 00 20 40 00 02 64 39 00 01 31 38 00 04 33 32 00 00 20 34 00 03 55 35 00 00 20 33 00 04 31 21 00 06 81 22 00 00 58 20 00 05 40 19 00 00 20 4 00 00 32 3 00 00 20
[पफा. सं. आर-25011/14/2013-ओआर-I]
पवन वुफमार, अवर सचिव4030 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 27th July, 2013
S.O. 1539.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in Dist. Siwan in the State of Bihar for 'Patna to Motihari and Baitalpur Pipeline' for the transportation of Petroleum Product;
And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Arun Kumar Jha B.A.S. & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited. (Pipelines Division) P.O. Dhelwan, Sipara, Dist. Patna (Bihar.) Pin – 800020.
SCHEDULE
Dist.: Siwan
State : Bihar
Mouja / Village Survey/BlockNo. Sub-Div-No. Area
Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
SAHULI 6335 00 00 59
Thana No-366 6333 00 00 20
6334 00 13 90
5884-SH 00 02 71
6121 00 00 20
6122 00 10 15
6145 00 01 01
6123 00 07 35
6144 00 00 20
6143 00 02 07
6158 00 21 23
6160 00 01 03
6161 00 00 38
6170 00 02 01
6162 00 01 19
6157 00 01 40
6177 00 11 23
6178 00 00 20
6176 00 09 93
6175 00 04 75
6174 00 00 90
6181 00 03 34
6182 00 03 58
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4031
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
6186 00 02 07 6187 00 00 20 6185 00 05 67 6184 00 06 58 2142 00 00 20 6195 00 00 49 6193 00 00 20 2069 00 01 79 2068 00 00 20 2070 00 01 97 2071 00 00 64 2072 00 03 32 2067 00 00 20 2073 00 02 69 2074 00 03 08 2076 00 00 20 2075 00 05 01 2064 00 02 00 2078 00 01 30 2079 00 01 68 2080 00 10 10 2082 00 01 48 2085 00 03 11 2084 00 07 41 2083 00 15 31 2045 00 00 20 2046 00 00 20 1982 00 04 48 1983 00 00 20 1981 00 02 25 1980 00 01 85 1979 00 07 59 1977 00 00 37 1978 00 04 85 1974 00 08 76 1953 00 00 20 1955 00 10 37 1971 00 00 20 1972 00 00 20 1968 00 00 784032 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1965 00 00 20
1966 00 01 44
1303/6860-road 00 04 80
1927-road 00 00 20
1304 00 07 78
1305 00 00 20
1308/6837 00 00 77
1308/6836 00 05 27
1309 00 04 99
1310 00 02 96
1311 00 09 53
1317 00 03 47
1318 00 06 43
1319 00 05 73
1290 00 21 38
1289 00 00 34
1288 00 07 47
1287 00 00 55
1286 00 05 67
1285 00 09 68
1284 00 03 08
1282 00 00 20
1283 00 00 93
HARIHANS 6574 00 12 80
Thana No.-362 6573 00 00 20
FAZILPUR 1532 00 09 02
Thana No.-364 1531 00 01 91
1526 00 04 35
1525 00 08 04
1519 00 09 44
1518 00 02 23
1517 00 03 25
1513 00 08 48
1514 00 03 25
1511 00 05 15
1515 00 00 56
1509 00 14 19
1510 00 00 20
1496 00 02 50
1508 00 07 04
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4033
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1493 00 05 72
1474 00 03 14
1475 00 00 20
1490 00 02 04
1489 00 03 06
1488 00 06 57
1479 00 24 39
1478 00 00 79
1480 00 00 20
1552 00 05 23
1467 00 00 55
1466 00 01 76
1417 00 02 97
1427 00 36 74
1424 00 00 20
1431 00 12 14
1433 00 07 64
1432 00 03 00
1434 00 07 99
1436 00 05 65
1435 00 10 61
1364 00 00 55
1363 00 03 27
1362 00 07 99
1361 00 06 78
1359 00 00 20
1353 00 00 27
1360 00 02 46
1354 00 09 48
1341 00 28 33
1339 00 01 10
1335 00 00 20
1336 00 03 60
1181-Drain 00 02 62
BADHONI 552 00 00 20
Thana No.-365 551 00 04 17
549 00 06 46
550 00 09 73
546 00 00 20
545 00 00 20
4034 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
KHANPUR KHAIRANTI Thana No.-363 2577 00 00 20
2576 00 11 33
2578 00 01 64
2575 00 07 87
2570 00 14 03
2569 00 11 27
2566 00 09 93
2565 00 07 78
2564 00 14 96
1280 00 00 20
1281 00 00 20
1298 00 05 21
1299 00 04 75
1302 00 01 09
1301 00 01 68
1296 00 00 20
1300 00 00 95
1310 00 04 20
1305 00 00 20
1309 00 19 40
1308 00 07 59
1313 00 12 73
1399 00 02 36
1355 00 06 58
1354 00 00 20
1356 00 00 63
1357 00 02 47
1393 00 00 20
1358 00 07 79
1359 00 04 13
1389 00 09 81
1388 00 05 59
1386 00 04 57
1387 00 00 20
1385 00 08 05
1368 00 00 20
1369 00 00 20
1384 00 11 69
1380 00 08 18
1379 00 01 18
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4035
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1030 00 00 20
1489 00 02 62
1029 00 01 59
1023 00 03 28
1028 00 05 85
1027 00 04 51
1026 00 00 20
1025 00 00 20
1024 00 04 79
1020 00 01 09
1048 00 13 83
1019 00 01 57
1014 00 12 15
1015 00 00 92
1018 00 00 87
1013 00 05 20
996-Road 00 02 32
1012 00 02 77
1011 00 15 62
1000-Canal 00 00 69
1010 00 03 84
1002 00 07 43
963 00 00 20
1001 00 00 72
1009 00 06 08
1008 00 00 20
1003 00 08 31
1004 00 03 59
962-Road 00 07 60
961 00 05 67
956 00 00 25
957 00 07 08
955 00 00 20
BALLI 1112 00 03 69
Thana No-217 1113 00 00 20
1100 00 08 52
1101 00 00 20
1099 00 08 67
1082 00 07 89
1083 00 01 54
4036 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
999 00 00 20 997(ROAD) 00 00 84 996(ROAD) 00 04 67 995(ROAD) 00 01 44 968 00 05 59 947 00 02 99 940 00 00 20 945 00 05 94 946 00 00 20 944 00 04 99 940/1155 00 00 20 941 00 01 23 943 00 03 68 942 00 00 50 935 00 13 44 934 00 05 14 933 00 03 41 415(ROAD) 00 01 68 416 00 00 20 399 00 00 20 385(NALA) 00 01 85 932 00 00 20 418(ROAD) 00 01 07 417 00 05 54 322 00 03 63 321 00 02 61 320 00 02 35 319 00 01 24 318 00 05 52 307 00 08 17 306 00 00 20 309 00 06 90 304 00 10 06 303(ROAD) 00 02 40 302 00 06 63 301 00 04 29 300 00 01 22 151 00 01 70 152 00 02 85 154 00 01 64[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4037 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
142 00 04 33
141 00 11 68
145 00 05 30
140 00 08 08
137 00 00 20
96(ROAD) 00 02 49
74 00 03 19
77 00 03 49
78 00 03 76
76 00 00 20
82 00 03 12
79 00 07 00
80 00 05 29
72 00 00 20
81 00 01 78
14 00 35 24
42 00 01 17
41 00 05 80
39/1115 00 02 04
39 00 04 01
38 00 00 20
40 00 00 97
37 00 11 54
14 00 01 05
36 00 18 33
3 00 00 23
SAREA 909 00 02 22
Thana No-218 904 00 08 38
905 00 02 70
906 00 02 41
907 00 03 14
908 00 02 32
897 00 01 65
898 00 11 15
891 00 02 96
834/1334 Sandi Nala 00 05 78
SINGAR PATTI 512 00 08 01
Thana No-216 508 00 00 20
513 00 03 07
511 00 18 03
4038 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
516 00 02 07 517 00 00 20 525 00 10 98 524 00 05 28 527 00 00 20 521 00 02 63 523 00 08 71 529 00 00 70 530 00 08 82 522 00 00 20 403 00 04 31 402 00 10 22 399 00 00 20 401 00 04 79 400 00 05 82 391 00 00 20 395 00 01 06 396 00 00 20 394 00 06 53 393 00 03 34 319 00 23 52 313 00 01 48 312 00 00 20 382 00 00 36 383 00 00 20 320 00 09 04 321 00 01 46 267 00 00 20 322 00 05 29 323 00 00 29 266 00 00 66 263 00 10 72 263 00 04 38 258 00 00 20 262 00 01 89 259 00 00 20 261 00 01 50 264 00 00 42 260 00 00 20 255(ROAD) 00 06 05[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4039 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
241 00 02 83
248 00 05 26
242 00 00 20
247 00 03 12
249 00 01 47
247 00 05 34
246 00 03 89
245 00 06 04
101 00 00 20
100 00 06 86
250 00 10 05
34 (CART TRACK) 00 01 71
30 00 03 82
31 00 01 39
28(NALA) 00 01 41
29(NALA) 00 03 41
25 00 04 25
24 00 00 80
23 00 09 89
21 00 08 94
20 00 01 49
22 00 05 61
14 00 00 20
15 00 01 18
16 00 00 20
HASANPURWA 730 00 07 58
Thana No-302 718 00 06 25
729 00 00 20
717 00 00 20
719 00 10 04
728 00 00 20
720 00 00 52
721 00 08 70
714 00 00 49
722 00 00 20
707 00 02 21
709 00 01 01
708 00 04 71
706 00 03 81
711 00 04 46
4040 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
698 00 00 47
699 00 00 20
700 00 00 20
701 00 00 20
702 00 00 20
695 00 19 77
694 00 00 20
476 00 06 46
475 00 02 63
474 00 02 91
473 00 03 79
472 00 04 86
55 00 02 56
54 00 09 53
53 00 08 36
52 00 00 20
81 00 00 20
47 00 00 28
46 00 12 60
45 00 05 67
44 00 00 20
1(ROAD) 00 02 12
MACHAKNA 2185 00 03 07
Thana No-214 2186 00 00 20
2184 00 00 94
2183 00 01 49
2182 00 03 77
2181 00 03 67
2180 00 00 20
2179 00 02 70
2177 00 08 03
2178 00 00 20
2161 00 02 46
2163 00 00 20
2164 00 06 14
2165 00 00 28
2160 00 02 67
2159 00 02 52
2158 00 01 45
2148 00 02 49
2147 00 02 04
2145 00 01 96
2143 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4041
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
2137 00 03 57
2129 00 16 48
2128 00 17 35
1362 00 01 68
1363 00 03 45
1365 00 02 03
1366 00 02 09
1361 00 05 59
1360 00 10 40
1359 00 03 31
1357 00 03 84
1356 00 05 51
1355 00 02 20
1354 00 02 07
1318 00 02 40
1317 00 12 06
1306 00 11 21
1210 (Cart Track) 00 01 90
1305 00 17 88
1188-road 00 02 30
1187 00 00 91
1157 (Cart Track) 00 03 07
1152 00 07 10
1151 00 01 17
1153 00 05 70
1154 00 00 20
1150 00 02 11
1149 00 00 34
1148 00 00 20
1144 00 07 67
1143 00 05 67
1141 00 00 20
1119 00 01 17
1121 00 05 33
1142 00 00 30
1122 00 04 00
1123 00 02 07
1111 00 00 65
1124 00 12 03
1110 00 00 20
1109 00 00 20
1103 00 04 82
1104 00 04 50
4042 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1100 00 00 20
PAKOULIYA 102 00 00 20
Thana No-301 101 00 08 33
100 00 00 20
99 00 03 68
109 00 00 64
98 00 01 89
97 00 02 03
96 00 03 32
110 00 00 20
95 00 05 96
94 00 00 20
93(ROAD) 00 01 16
92 00 00 71
89 00 00 20
91 00 06 70
90 00 05 94
87 00 00 20
86 00 00 20
85 00 00 20
87/797 00 01 12
KARAHANU 2370 00 08 30
Thana No-155 2371 00 00 50
2369 00 05 21
2367 00 05 74
2366 00 12 15
2365 00 02 40
1611 00 01 92
1612 00 04 84
1613 00 02 68
1614 00 07 80
1610 00 00 20
1626 00 11 02
1623 00 00 37
1622 00 00 20
1621 00 00 20
1624 00 01 06
1632 00 00 20
1625 00 02 42
1627 00 00 20
1628 00 00 52
1631 00 00 86
1629 00 12 29
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4043
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1586 00 04 29 1585 00 08 00 1584 00 02 24 1583 00 00 20 1582 00 01 86 1581 00 00 32 1579 00 01 44 1457 00 00 35 1464 00 06 88 1578 00 00 20 1463 00 00 70 1465 00 06 89 1471 00 01 51 1466 00 00 20 1467 00 00 20 1470 00 10 20 1473 00 03 59 1474 00 00 56 1475 00 00 20 1497 00 06 61 1496 00 03 28 1487 00 00 46 1495 00 00 62 1494 00 00 20 1488 00 00 80 1490 00 03 02 1491 00 04 38 1493 00 09 63 1492 00 04 45 1365 00 00 37 1366 00 03 59 1368 00 00 20 1367 00 02 11 1360 00 13 07 975 00 01 48 976 00 00 20 978 00 02 92 979 00 08 96 984 00 02 14 983 00 02 09 982 00 04 44 985 00 00 304044 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1226 00 00 20
1197 00 03 40
1168 00 10 20
1195 00 03 19
1196 00 00 25
1194 00 06 75
1171 00 00 20
1172 00 00 83
1193 00 01 55
1173 00 06 05
1188 00 04 60
1174 00 00 36
1187 00 03 70
1177 00 00 32
1181 00 14 64
1182 00 03 22
1148 00 09 73
BHAISA KHAL 1418 00 04 89
Thana No-154 1417 00 01 09
1419 00 00 74
1416 00 01 49
1420 00 00 20
1415 00 01 92
1414 00 01 89
1421 00 00 20
1379 00 01 27
1413 00 01 18
1382 00 00 20
1381 00 00 83
1380 00 02 10
1377 00 00 42
1376 00 03 68
1375 00 04 13
1356 00 00 20
1357 00 05 56
1358 00 00 20
1373 00 00 20
1354 00 00 20
1344 00 04 05
1352 00 03 19
1353 00 00 20
1345 00 00 41
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4045
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
1336 00 01 74 1332 00 00 48 1334 00 04 80 1333 00 05 30 1322 00 00 20 1310 00 00 20 1321 00 04 02 1320 00 04 18 1319 00 02 87 1295 00 02 21 1816 00 00 20 1817 00 09 79 1820 00 00 20 1819 00 01 53 1818 00 08 78 975 00 00 20 973 00 07 90 974 00 08 50 969 00 06 22 970 00 00 20 967 00 00 20 968 00 03 74 996 00 00 20 997 00 01 95 998 00 07 14 999 00 02 46 1001 00 06 19 1002 00 02 21 1000 00 04 49 1003 00 04 65 1004 00 00 78 853(ROAD) 00 01 43 1005 00 04 02 1011 00 00 20 1006 00 01 88 1007 00 00 20 909 00 04 76 908 00 00 51 907 00 02 10 906 00 05 23 905 00 06 01 904 00 00 20 1044 00 01 214046 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1047 00 02 23 902 00 04 82 899 00 03 56 898 00 00 20 901 00 01 94 900 00 05 97 872 00 06 65 895 00 00 20 873 00 05 14 875 00 00 26 874 00 00 20 876 00 01 60 870 00 00 20 739 00 23 61 740 00 00 20 674 00 01 44 673 00 01 19 672 00 00 20 671 00 00 20 670 00 00 20 678 00 06 19 677 00 01 13 676 00 00 20 682 00 00 20 679 00 05 23 681 00 00 66 680 00 02 83 684 00 01 11 685 00 02 33 694 00 02 96 693 00 00 20 692 00 00 20 695 00 03 76 696 00 01 91 701 00 00 20 135 00 00 20 136 00 00 20 134 00 01 63 133 00 02 76 697 00 00 20 131 00 00 20 130 00 00 20 132 00 03 08[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4047 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
129 00 00 38 128 00 00 20 127 00 04 61 109 00 00 52 108 00 01 18 89 00 02 07 86 00 00 36 90 00 04 29 87 00 00 20 88 00 00 38 91 00 05 10 107 00 01 83 106 00 00 20 105 00 00 20 96 00 00 20 94 00 00 65 95 00 07 59 97 00 00 49 52 00 02 98 55 00 00 20 56 00 00 20 51 00 02 62 50 00 00 20 53 00 02 16 49 00 00 39 48 00 03 49 47 00 00 20 46 00 03 74 45 00 00 20 41 00 00 20 40 00 02 64 39 00 01 31 38 00 04 33 32 00 00 20 34 00 03 55 35 00 00 20 33 00 04 31 21 00 06 81 22 00 00 58 20 00 05 40 19 00 00 20 4 00 00 32 3 00 00 20
[F. No. R-25011/14/2013-OR-I]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
4048 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2013
dk-vk- dk-vk- dk-vk- dk-vk- dk-vk- 1540.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd yksd fgr esa ;g vko";d gS fd iVuk ls eksfrgkjh vkSj csrkyiqj rd isVksfy;e inkFkksZa ds ifjogu gsrq ftyk xksikyxat] jkT; fcgkj esa bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs"ku fyfeVsM kjk ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,A vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, vko";d izrhr gksrk gS fd ml Hkwfe esa ftlds Hkhrj mDr ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkus dk izLrko gS vkSj tks bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS] mi;ksx dk vtZu fd;k tk,(
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1962 1962 dk 50 dh /kkjk 3 dh mi&/kkjk1 kjk iznk "kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/akdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk"k; dh ?kks'k.kk djrh gSA
dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks] Hkkjr ds jkti= esa ;Fkk izdkf"kr bl vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds vUnj] Hkwfe ds Hkhrj ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus gsrq mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds fy,] Jh v:.k dqekj k] fc-iz-ls- o lke izkf/kdkjh bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs"ku fyfeVsM] ikbiykbu fMohtu iVuk] iks-vks- syok] flikjk] ftyk iVuk] fiu % 800020] fcgkj dks fyf[kr :i eas vkksi Hkst ldsxkA
अनुसूची
जिला : गोपालगंज
राज्य : बिहार
मौजा/ग्राम सर्वे/ब्लाक/सं. ;प्लोट सं.द्ध सब-डीव-सं. क्षेत्रापफल
हेक्टेयर आरे वर्ग मीटर
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6) vtch uxj
1532
00 02 49 Fkkuk uacj&238
1632
00 07 14
1533
00 00 36
1631
00 00 20
1637
00 04 97
1638
00 05 15
1639
00 00 20
1640
00 07 11
1641
00 07 70
1642 jkLrk
00 06 14
793
00 02 95
794
00 12 59
795
00 00 15
796
00 00 20
797
00 00 20
782
00 11 42 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4049 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
vtch uxj 781 00 11 42
Fkkuk uacj&238—tkjh 780 00 08 58
770 00 06 86
771 00 00 20
769 00 08 24
695 00 05 42
694 00 03 56
693 00 04 71
696 00 00 20
689 00 04 69
688 00 05 23
687 00 10 33
686 00 09 35
682 00 13 37
683 00 00 20
663 00 10 78
662 00 01 52
661 00 00 20
chykjiqj 255 00 00 20
Fkkuk uacj&282 254 00 12 98
253 00 20 84
251 00 17 63
144 00 09 82
143 00 11 83
136 00 05 85
135 00 06 80
128 00 00 20
127 00 00 20
129 00 25 05
126 00 03 59
125 00 09 28
124 00 07 84
'kkeiqj 405 00 11 08
Fkkuk uacj&279 406 dPpk jkLrk 00 00 68
407 00 20 27
4050 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
'kkeiqj 389 00 00 20
Fkkuk uacj&279&tkjh 431 00 05 80
430 00 01 19
433 00 02 73
432 00 05 23
388 00 00 20
387 00 00 20
386 00 00 20
434 00 12 29
435 00 00 28
348 00 04 27
344 00 03 89
337 00 07 74
339 00 01 62
338 00 03 46
326 00 02 03
325 00 03 57
340 00 00 64
324 00 03 34
327 00 01 52
323 00 03 27
322 00 01 70
321 00 01 85
318 00 03 87
317 00 03 68
316 00 03 66
315 00 03 27
314 00 03 10
313 00 03 15
312 00 03 84
311 00 02 09
310 00 03 47
579 00 00 20
309 00 03 59
308 00 02 64
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4051
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
'kkeiqj 583 00 00 51
Fkkuk uacj&279&tkjh 580 00 00 20
306 00 03 50
584 00 01 39
302 00 02 01
585 00 02 84
301 00 00 75
588 00 02 07
589 00 02 36
590 00 02 11
297 00 00 20
591 00 03 08
296 00 02 22
295 00 02 28
294 00 02 06
293 00 00 20
292 00 02 92
94 00 04 93
93 00 05 35
92 00 04 40
88 00 03 80
87 00 04 68
86 00 06 78
698 00 00 20
708 00 00 20
85 00 03 48
64 00 04 87
63 00 03 10
709 00 00 80
721 00 02 76
722 00 02 52
723 00 04 72
61 00 00 28
729 00 05 68
58 00 00 20
4052 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
'kkeiqj 55 00 00 20
Fkkuk uacj&279&tkjh 54 00 00 20
730 00 05 62
731 00 05 22
732 00 00 20
745 00 05 21
746 00 05 60
743 00 00 20
747 00 11 27
748 00 06 45
751 00 00 47
750 00 01 07
749 00 01 15
7632126 dPpk jkLrk 00 01 46
cq?klh 2083 dPpk jkLrk 00 01 40
Fkkuk uacj&278 1985 00 06 20
2013 00 06 55
2012 00 16 43
2009 00 00 20
1988 00 07 15
2007 00 00 44
1995 00 07 21
1996 00 00 20
1994 00 05 57
1993 00 00 20
1992 00 00 20
1998 00 03 94
1997 00 13 69
1999 00 05 98
2004 00 02 45
2005 00 00 20
2000 00 01 69
2003 00 13 41
2002 00 09 45
2001 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4053
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
cq?klh 1632 00 02 96
Fkkuk uacj&278&tkjh 1681 00 03 78
1682 00 00 95
1683 00 00 20
1631 00 06 33
1627 00 08 99
1626 00 07 53
1625 00 00 20
1585 00 13 37
1584 00 02 64
1583 00 04 69
1581 00 11 00
1580 00 01 63
1579 00 01 07
1578 00 04 84
1526 00 08 73
1500 00 08 26
1499 00 08 76
1489 00 05 07
1488 00 00 64
1490 00 03 21
1491 00 00 20
1492 00 02 85
1487 00 15 52
1485 00 00 20
1486 00 00 20
1261 00 00 20
1212 00 02 29
1259 00 00 78
1260 dPpk jkLrk 00 01 21
1158 dPpk jkLrk 00 01 07
1232 00 14 66
1233 00 04 14
1234 00 03 49
1235 00 03 59
4054 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
cq?klh 1243 00 03 66
Fkkuk uacj&278&tkjh 1247 00 03 60
1246 00 05 81
1249 00 01 67
1250 00 01 30
1251 00 03 40
1252 00 03 20
1253 00 03 54
1254 00 03 41
1256 00 12 04
1258 00 04 04
660 00 04 04
659 00 03 76
658 00 02 67
656 00 02 39
655 00 00 20
654 00 02 72
653 00 02 57
613 00 05 60
623 00 06 08
622 00 00 20
621 00 00 20
627 00 03 10
626 00 02 26
607 00 01 13
631 00 03 35
632 00 01 61
633 00 07 01
634 00 06 58
635 00 00 20
603 00 00 20
604 00 00 20
581 jkLrk 00 01 43
569 00 00 20
567 00 01 64
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4055
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
cq?klh 560 00 08 08
Fkkuk uacj&278&tkjh 559 00 00 20
561 00 02 95
lh?kokyh;k 304 00 00 97
Fkkuk uacj&365 303 00 06 06
295 00 00 31
297 00 02 03
298 00 03 00
300 00 01 96
296 00 03 75
311 00 10 53
312 00 01 59
287 00 11 17
286 00 12 30
272 00 03 64
271 00 00 20
314 00 00 20
270 00 06 99
273 00 02 57
243 00 01 90
252 00 16 76
251 00 00 20
253 00 05 37
254 00 01 61
207 00 06 76
206 00 00 20
204 00 03 10
203 00 00 20
205 00 09 20
380 00 00 20
201 00 03 95
381 00 02 25
200 00 00 85
198 00 00 20
574 00 03 45
4056 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
lh?kokyh;k 577 00 02 03
Fkkuk uacj&365&tkjh 578 00 00 20
579 00 00 20
583 00 11 56
572 00 06 31
582 00 00 20
571 00 01 21
570 00 00 20
564 00 00 20
584 00 11 32
602 00 01 72
603 00 06 17
604 00 00 20
605 jkLrk 00 03 56
613 00 00 37
610 00 01 60
609 00 03 34
606 00 06 60
607 00 04 57
608 00 00 20
eaxksyiqj 1457 00 01 67
Fkkuk uacj&367 1458 00 12 64
1452 00 00 20
Hkkstiqjok 307 00 06 80
Fkkuk uacj&366 306 00 07 90
315 00 09 03
312 00 00 20
314 00 00 36
316 00 08 39
317 00 04 61
322 00 05 71
321 00 06 31
323 00 03 07
320 00 05 80
279 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4057
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
Hkkstiqjok 278 00 01 03
Fkkuk uacj&366&tkjh 325 00 09 32
277 00 03 91
326 00 00 44
276 00 07 27
275 00 00 20
265 dPpk jkLrk 00 03 92
261 00 05 99
262 00 05 67
260 00 00 67
257 00 00 39
258 00 04 92
226 00 15 13
256 00 00 20
225 00 00 20
227 00 06 43
229 00 08 23
231 00 07 99
228 00 00 20
232 00 08 32
239 00 03 97
238 00 00 98
241 00 05 01
373 00 00 20
374 00 01 34
379 00 06 63
387 00 16 77
394 00 03 23
397 00 00 20
393 00 04 20
395 00 00 20
421jkLrk 00 02 02
422 jkLrk 00 01 86
423 jkLrk 00 02 50
522 00 01 54
4058 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
Hkkstiqjok 524 00 01 92
Fkkuk uacj&366&tkjh 526 00 25 74
496 00 00 20
497 00 02 21
494 00 00 20
498 00 03 77
505 00 00 20
499 00 05 61
500 00 00 20
487 00 09 52
485 00 00 20
440 00 01 29
486 00 10 60
444 00 05 39
484 00 00 20
445 00 13 94
446 00 00 20
447 00 14 31
451 00 00 20
443 00 12 05
452 00 07 34
453 00 11 23
454 00 08 86
456 00 01 08
454549 00 01 84
458 00 10 22
459 00 02 08
462 00 01 33
460 00 08 71
Vsdusokl 484jkLrk 00 04 50
Fkkuk uacj&362 515 00 02 49
516 00 09 47
517 00 00 20
512 00 08 68
513 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4059
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
Vsdusokl 518 00 08 56
Fkkuk uacj&362&tkjh 519 00 03 81
520 00 01 62
521 00 05 09
522 00 00 20
568 00 00 29
559 00 03 14
560 00 00 20
558 00 00 61
556 00 04 19
557 00 04 53
974 jkLrk 00 01 12
764 jkLrk 00 01 19
975 jkLrk 00 00 95
768 00 00 47
778 00 05 86
777 00 01 58
772 00 00 20
769 00 18 18
766 00 00 20
767 00 01 28
dVs[kkl 323 00 01 73
Fkkuk uacj&396 317 00 13 57
316 00 01 23
312 00 11 33
315 00 00 20
314 00 00 20
313 00 00 20
310 00 00 20
311 00 01 46
306 00 14 09
305 00 00 20
16 00 07 42
298 00 01 29
296 00 00 20
4060 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
dVs[kkl 18 00 03 89
Fkkuk uacj&396 266 00 00 20
265 00 00 94
264 00 03 26
261 00 00 20
19 00 00 20
263 00 04 96
262 00 05 85
268 00 01 44
255 00 05 92
254 00 02 47
253 00 01 74
256 00 11 22
84 00 00 20
259 00 01 94
83 00 01 48
81 00 09 49
69 00 00 20
80 00 02 36
87 00 00 20
79 00 01 52
78 00 08 09
77 00 03 95
91 00 11 36
76 00 00 20
92 00 00 42
93 00 06 98
100 00 06 68
102 00 17 57
103 00 00 20
104 00 09 31
111816 00 02 22
egEeniqj 2549 jkLrk 00 03 13
Fkkuk uacj&370 2539 00 00 20
2538 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4061
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
egEeniqj 2548 00 00 57
Fkkuk uacj&370&tkjh 2546 00 08 25
2547 00 00 20
2545 00 03 98
2544 00 03 60
2542 00 01 13
2535 00 00 20
2543 00 01 36
2551 00 01 67
2552 00 00 20
2534 00 10 54
2554 00 02 52
2553 00 00 20
2526 00 01 15
2555 00 03 41
2556 00 00 20
2557 00 03 55
2559 00 00 20
2524 00 12 92
2558 00 00 28
2607 00 00 20
2606 00 01 46
2608 00 00 92
2605 00 04 30
2604 00 00 41
2609 00 00 20
2610 00 00 20
2612 00 05 96
2614 00 07 40
2615 00 01 63
2618 00 00 50
2617 00 07 94
2624 00 00 46
2619 00 00 20
2620 00 00 20
4062 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
egEeniqj 2621 00 00 20
Fkkuk uacj&370&tkjh 2735 00 00 20
2622 00 00 31
2626 00 05 68
2633 jkLrk 00 01 05
2732 00 14 71
2734 00 00 20
2729 00 00 20
2730 00 10 71
2728 00 01 88
2726 00 05 81
2727 00 07 92
2750 00 05 50
2749 00 08 53
2784 00 05 29
2751 00 03 19
2752 00 01 95
2753 00 00 64
2783 00 00 20
2754 00 03 52
2755 00 00 20
2780 00 00 20
2782 00 09 58
2781 00 00 72
2840 00 01 79
2841 00 07 54
2842 00 00 20
3213 dPpk jkLrk 00 01 35
2874 00 00 26
2876 00 00 20
2873 00 03 20
2872 00 04 72
2871 00 01 17
2869 00 00 99
2868 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4063
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
egEeniqj 2867 00 01 58
Fkkuk uacj&370&tkjh 2866 00 04 55
2864 00 01 39
2865 00 10 44
2861 00 03 34
3213 dPpk jkLrk 00 02 35
2858 00 00 20
2860 00 07 55
2859 00 00 20
2923 00 00 20
3317 dPpk jkLrk 00 01 05
3308 00 03 12
3307 00 02 97
3309 00 00 29
3305 00 05 29
3306 00 00 20
3304 00 02 15
3310 00 02 88
3311 00 00 20
3301 00 01 91
3297 00 00 20
3300 00 03 24
3299 00 00 20
3298 00 06 25
3290 00 05 75
3291 00 04 52
3289 00 03 26
3292 00 00 50
3280 00 00 20
3287 00 06 32
3283 00 00 20
3284 00 00 70
3286 00 08 40
3285 00 01 14
3334 00 10 88
4064 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
egEeniqj 3336 00 00 20
Fkkuk uacj&370&tkjh 3267 00 11 10
3266 00 00 20
3265 00 08 46
3375 00 02 08
3380 00 03 88
3381 00 00 20
3379 00 05 95
3377 00 01 09
3384 00 04 10
3385 00 04 59
3386 00 03 55
3387 00 10 74
3388 00 08 90
3390 00 00 20
3391 00 00 20
3389 00 04 75
ihijk 316 00 04 97
Fkkuk uacj&388 319 00 07 47
321 00 00 33
312 00 00 20
322 00 04 02
323 00 05 46
318 00 00 20
324 00 02 68
325 00 00 20
326 00 00 20
303&jkLrk 00 02 69
175 00 06 69
176 00 00 20
174 00 09 95
172&vsu-vsp-28 00 08 89
173&vsu-vsp-28 00 04 67
171 00 00 55
170 00 03 76
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4065
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
ihijk 164 00 03 87
Fkkuk uacj&388&tkjh 165 00 06 33
162 00 00 20
163 00 15 76
159 00 01 97
129 00 01 83
128 00 07 76
124 00 04 38
125 00 03 44
dk'kh Vsaxjkgh 47 00 00 20
Fkkuk uacj&371 46 00 01 82
38 00 07 39
39 00 00 20
37 00 05 40
36 00 04 70
34 00 02 26
28 00 02 85
29 00 05 29
30 00 01 25
31 00 04 89
32 00 01 43
5 00 04 84
10 00 06 97
6 00 00 26
11 00 00 20
9 00 00 51
8 00 05 26
7 00 02 15
12 00 00 20
13 00 14 89
xksikyiqj 791 00 11 32
Fkkuk uacj&389 783 00 11 22
779 00 00 20
780 00 09 47
782 00 00 20
4066 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
gjiqj Vsaxjkgh 2557 00 00 20
Fkkuk uacj&387 2555 00 01 30
2553 00 05 30
2554 00 00 20
2510 00 00 36
2512 00 00 20
2509 00 09 95
2508 00 01 10
2504 00 00 20
2505 00 04 12
2503 00 08 94
2496 00 14 82
2606 00 00 85
2607 00 02 49
2608 00 05 08
2609 00 04 42
2612 00 05 10
2613 00 02 34
2614 00 05 79
2611 00 04 65
2672 00 07 63
2673 00 00 20
2671 00 05 08
2670 00 11 55
2667 00 02 36
2669 00 00 20
2665 00 01 01
2666 00 04 93
2152 00 06 62
2170 00 14 49
2153 00 32 49
2159 00 11 72
490 00 00 20
489 00 04 21
492 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4067
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
gjiqj Vsaxjkgh 486 00 02 42
Fkkuk uacj&387&tkjh 497 00 03 12
483 00 00 20
498 00 03 26
501 00 01 17
502 00 00 20
482 00 00 20
481 00 03 66
480 00 04 92
470 00 02 86
479 00 00 20
472 00 05 01
473 00 02 80
476 00 00 20
474 00 01 76
471 00 00 20
475 00 15 83
453 00 00 20
602jkLrk 00 02 51
603jkLrk 00 00 20
601 00 05 88
604 00 07 61
608 00 01 01
609 00 00 20
605 00 00 66
606 00 01 66
607 00 03 55
612 00 05 93
611 00 02 97
610 00 02 56
628 00 02 01
626 00 07 75
627 00 00 20
636 00 06 82
637 00 04 16
4068 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
gjiqj Vsaxjkgh 648 00 00 20
Fkkuk uacj&387&tkjh 649 00 00 20
646 00 01 40
645 00 03 32
644 00 03 16
643 00 03 29
654 00 03 69
653 00 00 20
658 00 01 82
659 00 02 08
660 00 03 77
663 00 02 65
664 00 00 72
1754 00 03 33
1753 00 01 67
1743 00 04 77
1745 00 01 41
1741 00 01 01
2877 jkLrk 00 01 36
799 jkLrk 00 02 53
2879 jkLrk 00 02 18
1523 00 12 34
1526 00 00 20
1527 00 05 63
1522 00 05 89
1529 00 06 06
1530 00 03 71
1532 00 14 53
1533 00 02 61
1504 00 01 06
1501 00 09 96
1500 00 04 36
1499 00 01 21
1555 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4069
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
rsankliqj 601 00 09 61
Fkkuk uacj&464 599 00 03 04
598 00 01 38
597 00 04 99
551 00 04 92
454 00 00 20
552 00 05 09
593 00 00 20
553 00 02 16
554 00 03 68
555 00 00 65
587 00 03 85
586 00 00 69
574 00 04 34
575 00 08 82
585 00 00 20
582 00 05 06
576 00 01 19
573 00 00 20
577 00 05 24
578 00 00 28
500 dPpk jkLrk 00 01 37
424&xaMd unh 00 20 60
432&xaMd unh 00 03 79
433&xaMd unh 00 04 19
431&xaMd unh 00 00 20
434&xaMd unh 00 00 72
436&xaMd unh 00 05 88
437&xaMd unh 00 02 32
438&xaMd unh 00 00 22
439&xaMd unh 00 00 20
441&xaMd unh 00 00 20
442&xaMd unh 00 00 20
466&xaMd unh 00 09 33
[Qk- la- vkj&25011192013&vksvkj&I] iou dqekj] voj lfpo4070 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2013
S.O. 1540.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in Dist. Gopalgunj in the State of Bihar for 'Patna to Motihari and Baitalpur Pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product;
And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Arun Kumar Jha B.A.S. & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited. (Pipelines Division) P.O. Dhelwan, Sipara, Dist. Patna (Bihar.) Pin-800020.
SCHEDULE
Dist.: Gopalgunj
State : Bihar
Mouja / Village Survey/BlockNo. Sub-Div- No. Area
Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
AJBI NAGAR 1532 00 02 49
Thana Number : 283 1632 00 07 14
1533 00 00 36
1631 00 00 20
1637 00 04 97
1638 00 05 15
1639 00 00 20
1640 00 07 11
1641 00 07 70
1642-ROAD 00 06 14
793 00 02 95
794 00 12 59
795 00 00 15
796 00 00 20
797 00 00 20
782 00 11 42
786 00 00 20
783 00 00 80
781 00 11 42
780 00 08 58
770 00 06 86
771 00 00 20
769 00 08 24
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4071
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
AJBI NAGAR 696 00 00 20
Thana Number : 283—Contd. 689 00 04 69
688 00 05 23
687 00 10 33
686 00 09 35
682 00 13 37
683 00 00 20
663 00 10 78
662 00 01 52
661 00 00 20
BILARPUR 255 00 00 20
Thana Number : 282 254 00 12 98
253 00 20 84
251 00 17 63
144 00 09 82
143 00 11 83
136 00 05 85
135 00 06 80
128 00 00 20
127 00 00 20
129 00 25 05
126 00 03 59
125 00 09 28
124 00 07 84
405 00 11 08
SHAMPUR 406
Thana Number : 279 (CART TRACK) 00 00 68
407 00 20 27
408 00 00 20
429/2114 00 03 31
389 00 00 20
431 00 05 80
430 00 01 19
433 00 02 73
432 00 05 23
388 00 00 20
387 00 00 20
386 00 00 20
434 00 12 29
435 00 00 28
348 00 04 27
344 00 03 89
337 00 07 74
4072 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
SHAMPUR 325 00 03 57
Thana Number : 279—Contd. 340 00 00 64
324 00 03 34
327 00 01 52
323 00 03 27
322 00 01 70
321 00 01 85
318 00 03 87
317 00 03 68
316 00 03 66
315 00 03 27
314 00 03 10
313 00 03 15
312 00 03 84
311 00 02 09
310 00 03 47
579 00 00 20
309 00 03 59
308 00 02 64
581 00 00 20
307 00 03 52
583 00 00 51
580 00 00 20
306 00 03 50
584 00 01 39
302 00 02 01
585 00 02 84
301 00 00 75
588 00 02 07
589 00 02 36
590 00 02 11
297 00 00 20
591 00 03 08
296 00 02 22
295 00 02 28
294 00 02 06
293 00 00 20
292 00 02 92
94 00 04 93
93 00 05 35
92 00 04 40
88 00 03 80
87 00 04 68
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4073
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
SHAMPUR 85 00 03 48
Thana Number :279—Contd. 64 00 04 87
63 00 03 10
709 00 00 80
721 00 02 76
722 00 02 52
723 00 04 72
61 00 00 28
729 00 05 68
58 00 00 20
57 00 00 20
56 00 00 20
55 00 00 20
54 00 00 20
730 00 05 62
731 00 05 22
732 00 00 20
745 00 05 21
746 00 05 60
743 00 00 20
747 00 11 27
748 00 06 45
751 00 00 47
750 00 01 07
749 00 01 15
763/2126
(CART TRACK) 00 01 46
2083
BUDHSI (CART TRACK) 00 01 40
Thana No. :- 278 1985 00 06 20
2013 00 06 55
2012 00 16 43
2009 00 00 20
1988 00 07 15
2007 00 00 44
1995 00 07 21
1996 00 00 20
1994 00 05 57
1993 00 00 20
1992 00 00 20
1998 00 03 94
1997 00 13 69
1999 00 05 98
4074 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
BUDHSI 2003 00 13 41
Thana No. :- 278—Contd. 2002 00 09 45
2001 00 00 20
1678 00 12 10
1677 00 00 20
1632 00 02 96
1681 00 03 78
1682 00 00 95
1683 00 00 20
1631 00 06 33
1627 00 08 99
1626 00 07 53
1625 00 00 20
1585 00 13 37
1584 00 02 64
1583 00 04 69
1581 00 11 00
1580 00 01 63
1579 00 01 07
1578 00 04 84
1526 00 08 73
1500 00 08 26
1499 00 08 76
1489 00 05 07
1488 00 00 64
1490 00 03 21
1491 00 00 20
1492 00 02 85
1487 00 15 52
1485 00 00 20
1486 00 00 20
1261 00 00 20
1212 00 02 29
1259 00 00 78
1260
(CART TRACK) 00 01 21
1158
(CART TRACK) 00 01 07
1232 00 14 66
1233 00 04 14
1234 00 03 49
1235 00 03 59
1238 00 08 26
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4075
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
BUDHSI 1249 00 01 67
Thana No. :- 278—Contd. 1250 00 01 30
1251 00 03 40
1252 00 03 20
1253 00 03 54
1254 00 03 41
1256 00 12 04
1258 00 04 04
660 00 04 04
659 00 03 76
658 00 02 67
656 00 02 39
655 00 00 20
654 00 02 72
653 00 02 57
613 00 05 60
623 00 06 08
622 00 00 20
621 00 00 20
627 00 03 10
626 00 02 26
607 00 01 13
631 00 03 35
632 00 01 61
633 00 07 01
634 00 06 58
635 00 00 20
603 00 00 20
604 00 00 20
581(ROAD) 00 01 43
569 00 00 20
567 00 01 64
568 00 02 68
563 00 00 79
562 00 01 79
560 00 08 08
559 00 00 20
561 00 02 95
SIDHWALIA 304 00 00 97
Thana Number :365 303 00 06 06
295 00 00 31
297 00 02 03
298 00 03 00
4076 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
SIDHWALIA 312 00 01 59
Thana Number :365—Contd. 287 00 11 17
286 00 12 30
272 00 03 64
271 00 00 20
314 00 00 20
270 00 06 99
273 00 02 57
243 00 01 90
252 00 16 76
251 00 00 20
253 00 05 37
254 00 01 61
207 00 06 76
206 00 00 20
204 00 03 10
203 00 00 20
205 00 09 20
380 00 00 20
201 00 03 95
381 00 02 25
200 00 00 85
198 00 00 20
574 00 03 45
576 00 08 35
575 00 00 20
577 00 02 03
578 00 00 20
579 00 00 20
583 00 11 56
572 00 06 31
582 00 00 20
571 00 01 21
570 00 00 20
564 00 00 20
584 00 11 32
602 00 01 72
603 00 06 17
604 00 00 20
605(ROAD) 00 03 56
613 00 00 37
610 00 01 60
609 00 03 34
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4077
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
MANGOLPUR 1457 00 01 67
Thana Number :367 1458 00 12 64
1452 00 00 20
BHOJPURWA 307 00 06 80
Thana Number :366 306 00 07 90
315 00 09 03
312 00 00 20
314 00 00 36
316 00 08 39
317 00 04 61
322 00 05 71
321 00 06 31
323 00 03 07
320 00 05 80
279 00 00 20
319 00 02 65
324 00 05 45
278 00 01 03
325 00 09 32
277 00 03 91
326 00 00 44
276 00 07 27
275 00 00 20
265 (Cart track) 00 03 92
261 00 05 99
262 00 05 67
260 00 00 67
257 00 00 39
258 00 04 92
226 00 15 13
256 00 00 20
225 00 00 20
227 00 06 43
229 00 08 23
231 00 07 99
228 00 00 20
232 00 08 32
239 00 03 97
238 00 00 98
241 00 05 01
373 00 00 20
374 00 01 34
379 00 06 63
4078 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
BHOJPURWA 393 00 04 20
Thana Number :366—Contd. 395 00 00 20
421(Road) 00 02 02
422 (Road) 00 01 86
423 (Road) 00 02 50
522 00 01 54
521 00 02 00
523 00 02 00
524 00 01 92
526 00 25 74
496 00 00 20
497 00 02 21
494 00 00 20
498 00 03 77
505 00 00 20
499 00 05 61
500 00 00 20
487 00 09 52
485 00 00 20
440 00 01 29
486 00 10 60
444 00 05 39
484 00 00 20
445 00 13 94
446 00 00 20
447 00 14 31
451 00 00 20
443 00 12 05
452 00 07 34
453 00 11 23
454 00 08 86
456 00 01 08
454/549 00 01 84
458 00 10 22
459 00 02 08
462 00 01 33
460 00 08 71
TEKNEWAS 484(ROAD) 00 04 50
Thana Number :362 515 00 02 49
516 00 09 47
517 00 00 20
512 00 08 68
513 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4079
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
TEKNEWAS 519 00 03 81
Thana Number :362—Contd. 520 00 01 62
521 00 05 09
522 00 00 20
568 00 00 29
559 00 03 14
560 00 00 20
558 00 00 61
556 00 04 19
557 00 04 53
974 (ROAD) 00 01 12
764 (ROAD) 00 01 19
975 (ROAD) 00 00 95
768 00 00 47
778 00 05 86
777 00 01 58
772 00 00 20
769 00 18 18
766 00 00 20
767 00 01 28
KATEAKHAS 323 00 01 73
Thana Number : 396 317 00 13 57
316 00 01 23
312 00 11 33
315 00 00 20
314 00 00 20
313 00 00 20
310 00 00 20
311 00 01 46
306 00 14 09
305 00 00 20
16 00 07 42
298 00 01 29
296 00 00 20
297 00 04 79
17 (Cart Track) 00 03 23
18 00 03 89
266 00 00 20
265 00 00 94
264 00 03 26
261 00 00 20
19 00 00 20
263 00 04 96
4080 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
KATEAKHAS 254 00 02 47
Thana Number :396—Contd. 253 00 01 74
256 00 11 22
84 00 00 20
259 00 01 94
83 00 01 48
81 00 09 49
69 00 00 20
80 00 02 36
87 00 00 20
79 00 01 52
78 00 08 09
77 00 03 95
91 00 11 36
76 00 00 20
92 00 00 42
93 00 06 98
100 00 06 68
102 00 17 57
103 00 00 20
104 00 09 31
111/816 00 02 22
MAHAMMADPUR 2549 (ROAD) 00 03 13
Thana Number :370 2539 00 00 20
2538 00 00 20
2540 00 01 87
2541 00 06 53
2548 00 00 57
2546 00 08 25
2547 00 00 20
2545 00 03 98
2544 00 03 60
2542 00 01 13
2535 00 00 20
2543 00 01 36
2551 00 01 67
2552 00 00 20
2534 00 10 54
2554 00 02 52
2553 00 00 20
2526 00 01 15
2555 00 03 41
2556 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4081
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
MAHAMMADPUR 2558 00 00 28
Thana Number :370 2607 00 00 20
2606 00 01 46
2608 00 00 92
2605 00 04 30
2604 00 00 41
2609 00 00 20
2610 00 00 20
2612 00 05 96
2614 00 07 40
2615 00 01 63
2618 00 00 50
2617 00 07 94
2624 00 00 46
2619 00 00 20
2620 00 00 20
2625 00 04 56
2623 00 05 46
2621 00 00 20
2735 00 00 20
2622 00 00 31
2626 00 05 68
2633 (ROAD) 00 01 05
2732 00 14 71
2734 00 00 20
2729 00 00 20
2730 00 10 71
2728 00 01 88
2726 00 05 81
2727 00 07 92
2750 00 05 50
2749 00 08 53
2784 00 05 29
2751 00 03 19
2752 00 01 95
2753 00 00 64
2783 00 00 20
2754 00 03 52
2755 00 00 20
2780 00 00 20
2782 00 09 58
2781 00 00 72
2840 00 01 79
4082 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
MAHAMMADPUR 2874 00 00 26
Thana Number :370 2876 00 00 20
2873 00 03 20
2872 00 04 72
2871 00 01 17
2869 00 00 99
2868 00 00 20
2870 00 05 00
2863 00 00 20
2867 00 01 58
2866 00 04 55
2864 00 01 39
2865 00 10 44
2861 00 03 34
3213 (CART TRACK) 00 02 35
2858 00 00 20
2860 00 07 55
2859 00 00 20
2923 00 00 20
3317 (CART TRACK) 00 01 05
3308 00 03 12
3307 00 02 97
3309 00 00 29
3305 00 05 29
3306 00 00 20
3304 00 02 15
3310 00 02 88
3311 00 00 20
3301 00 01 91
3297 00 00 20
3300 00 03 24
3299 00 00 20
3298 00 06 25
3290 00 05 75
3291 00 04 52
3289 00 03 26
3292 00 00 50
3280 00 00 20
3287 00 06 32
3283 00 00 20
3284 00 00 70
3286 00 08 40
3285 00 01 14
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4083
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
MAHAMMADPUR 3336 00 00 20
Thana Number :370—Contd. 3267 00 11 10
3266 00 00 20
3265 00 08 46
3375 00 02 08
3380 00 03 88
3381 00 00 20
3379 00 05 95
3377 00 01 09
3384 00 04 10
3385 00 04 59
3386 00 03 55
3387 00 10 74
3388 00 08 90
3390 00 00 20
3391 00 00 20
3389 00 04 75
PIPRA 316 00 04 97
Thana Number:388 319 00 07 47
321 00 00 33
312 00 00 20
322 00 04 02
323 00 05 46
318 00 00 20
324 00 02 68
325 00 00 20
326 00 00 20
303-Road 00 02 69
175 00 06 69
176 00 00 20
174 00 09 95
172-NH28 00 08 89
173-NH28 00 04 67
171 00 00 55
170 00 03 76
169 00 08 04
168 00 00 20
164 00 03 87
165 00 06 33
162 00 00 20
163 00 15 76
159 00 01 97
129 00 01 83
4084 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
KASI TENGRAHI Thana Number:371 47 00 00 20
46 00 01 82
38 00 07 39
39 00 00 20
37 00 05 40
36 00 04 70
34 00 02 26
28 00 02 85
29 00 05 29
30 00 01 25
31 00 04 89
32 00 01 43
5 00 04 84
10 00 06 97
6 00 00 26
11 00 00 20
9 00 00 51
8 00 05 26
7 00 02 15
12 00 00 20
13 00 14 89
GOPALPUR 791 00 11 32
Thana Number:389 783 00 11 22
779 00 00 20
780 00 09 47
782 00 00 20
781 00 02 33
777 00 00 20
HARPUR TENGRAHI 2557 00 00 20
Thana Number: 387 2555 00 01 30
2553 00 05 30
2554 00 00 20
2510 00 00 36
2512 00 00 20
2509 00 09 95
2508 00 01 10
2504 00 00 20
2505 00 04 12
2503 00 08 94
2496 00 14 82
2606 00 00 85
2607 00 02 49
2608 00 05 08
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4085
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
HARPUR TENGRAHI 2611 00 04 65
Thana Number:387—Contd. 2672 00 07 63
2673 00 00 20
2671 00 05 08
2670 00 11 55
2667 00 02 36
2669 00 00 20
2665 00 01 01
2666 00 04 93
2152 00 06 62
2170 00 14 49
2153 00 32 49
2159 00 11 72
490 00 00 20
489 00 04 21
492 00 00 20
487 00 01 97
488 00 03 54
486 00 02 42
497 00 03 12
483 00 00 20
498 00 03 26
501 00 01 17
502 00 00 20
482 00 00 20
481 00 03 66
480 00 04 92
470 00 02 86
479 00 00 20
472 00 05 01
473 00 02 80
476 00 00 20
474 00 01 76
471 00 00 20
475 00 15 83
453 00 00 20
602-Road 00 02 51
603-Road 00 00 20
601 00 05 88
604 00 07 61
608 00 01 01
609 00 00 20
605 00 00 66
4086 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
HARPUR TENGRAHI 611 00 02 97
Thana Number:387—Contd. 610 00 02 56
628 00 02 01
626 00 07 75
627 00 00 20
636 00 06 82
637 00 04 16
638 00 03 01
647 00 05 92
648 00 00 20
649 00 00 20
646 00 01 40
645 00 03 32
644 00 03 16
643 00 03 29
654 00 03 69
653 00 00 20
658 00 01 82
659 00 02 08
660 00 03 77
663 00 02 65
664 00 00 72
1754 00 03 33
1753 00 01 67
1743 00 04 77
1745 00 01 41
1741 00 01 01
2877-Road 00 01 36
799-Road 00 02 53
2879-Road 00 02 18
1523 00 12 34
1526 00 00 20
1527 00 05 63
1522 00 05 89
1529 00 06 06
1530 00 03 71
1532 00 14 53
1533 00 02 61
1504 00 01 06
1501 00 09 96
1500 00 04 36
1499 00 01 21
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4087
(1)
(2)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
TENDASPUR 601 00 09 61
Thana Number:464 599 00 03 04
598 00 01 38
597 00 04 99
551 00 04 92
454 00 00 20
552 00 05 09
593 00 00 20
553 00 02 16
554 00 03 68
555 00 00 65
587 00 03 85
586 00 00 69
574 00 04 34
575 00 08 82
585 00 00 20
582 00 05 06
576 00 01 19
573 00 00 20
577 00 05 24
578 00 00 28
500-Cart Track 00 01 37
424-Gandak River 00 20 60
432-Gandak River 00 03 79
433-Gandak River 00 04 19
431-Gandak River 00 00 20
434-Gandak River 00 00 72
436-Gandak River 00 05 88
437-Gandak River 00 02 32
438-Gandak River 00 00 22
439-Gandak River 00 00 20
441-Gandak River 00 00 20
442-Gandak River 00 00 20
466-Gandak River 00 09 33
[F. No. R-25011/19/2013-OR-I]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
4088 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Appearances :
श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्राालय
नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलाई, 2013
None. ... For the 1st Party-Management
None. ... For the 2nd Party-Union
ORDER
का.आ. 1541.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स राउरकेला स्टील प्लांट, सुन्दरगढ़ के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 76/2012द्ध प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-29011/21/2012-आई आर ;एमद्ध]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013
S.O. 1541.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the common award (Ref. No. 76/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Rourkela
Steel Plant, Sundargarh, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2013.
[ F. No. L- 29011/21/2012-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
Present :Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer, C.G..I.T.- Cum-Labour, Court, Bhubaneswar
Case taken up today. Both the parties are absent. The case is today fixed for filing of statement of claim by the 2nd Party-Union, but neither any person on behalf of the 2nd Party-Union turned up in the court nor filed any statement of claim, though the 2nd Party-Union was required to file the statement of claim within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the order of reference. This reference was received in this Tribunal on 16-8-2012. After waiting for expiry of the stipulated period, when no statement of claim was filed by the 2nd Party-Union, order for issuing notice to the 2nd Party-Union was passed on 29-10-2012 and notice was issued accordingly. But no statement of claim was filed by the date fixed. Thereafter on 26-12-2012 an application from the General Secretary of the 2nd Party-Union was received through post for grant of six weeks time to file the statement of claim. But even after lapse of more than six week's time, the 2nd Party- Union did not file any statement of claim or even took pains to come to the court to see what happended to its application and what order were passed in the case. However more time than prayed for was given to the 2nd Party-Union to file its statement of claim. Now nearly ten months time is going to expire from the date of receipt of this reference. Hence no further time can be given to the 2nd Party-Union to come and prosecute its case. It will be a wanton effort for this Tribunal to keep the case pending any more. There might be that the parties have entered into a settlement out of the court to resolve their dispute between themselves. Therefore it would be expedient to close the case and pass a no-dispute award.
2. Accordingly a no-dispute award is passed and the reference is answered on the above terms.
I.D. Case No. 76/2012
J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer Date of Passing Order-13th June, 2013 Between :
The Chief Executive Officer, SAIL,
Rourkela Steel Plant, At./PO. Rourkela, Dist. Sundargarh, (Orissa)-769 003.
...Ist Party Management
(And)
The General Secretary,
Rourkela Shramik Sangh, Shramik Mandir, Qrs. No. D-81, Sector-18, Rourkela-769 003.
. . .2nd Party-Union
नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1542.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स मेटलाइपफ इंडिया इंश्योरेंश लिमिटेड के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नं. 1, मुम्बई के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 13/2012द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-17012/37/2011-आई आर ;एमद्ध]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4089 New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013
S.O. 1542.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/ 2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, No. 1, Mumbai now as shown in the
Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd., and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02-07-2013.
[ F. No. L- 17012/37/2011-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
has not attended the Court today and he has not filed any statement of claim.
3. The first party has also not appeared inspite
of service of notice.
4. In the absence of any pleading or proof the action of the first party cannot be held to be illegal or unjustified.
5. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
Award is passed accordingly.
JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलाई, 2013
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-NO. 1
MUMBAI
Present :
JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer का. आ. 1543.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पानीपत रिपफाइनरी प्रोजेक्ट के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्यौगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 44/2004द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Reference No. CGIT-1/13 OF 2012
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
M/s. Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd.
And
Their workman (Shri Madhusudan Ayodhya Prasad Tiwari)
[पफा. सं. एल-30012/24/2004-आई आर ;एमद्ध]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013
Appearances :
For the first Party : Absent
For the workman : Absent
State : Maharashtra
Mumbai, dated the 3rd day of May, 2013
S.O. 1543.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the common award (Ref. No. 44/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Panipat Refinery Porject, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2013.
AWARD
[F. No. L- 30012/24/2004-IR(M)] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
1. This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri A.K. Rastogi, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D.44/2004 Registered on 30-11-2004
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Metlife Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai, in terminating the services of Shri Madhusudan Ayodhya Prasad Tiwari, Sales M a n a g e r w. e . f . 4-5-2 0 11 i s l e g a l a n d justified? What relief the worman is entitled to?" Sh. Narender S/o Sh. Om Prakash, Village Munak, Tehsil Charaunda, Haryana, Karnal ...Petitioner
Versus
The Executive Director, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Panipat Refinery Project, Baholi, Panipat. ...Respondent
APPEARANCES :
2. After service of notice the workman was present on 4-5-2012 and thereafter on 20-6-2012, 6-8-2012, 28-9-2012, 1-11-2012 6-12-2012, 7-2-2013 and on each date he sought time to file statement of claim. the workman failed to turn up on 4-4-2013 on which date he was given last chance to file statement of claim. He For the Workman Sh. Raj Kaushik, Adv.
For the Management Sh. S. Kaushal, Adv.
4090 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]AWARD
that he has no appointment letter, he was not registered
with the employment exchange, he had not seen any Passed on 15-5-2013
Central Government vide Notification No. L-30012/ 24/2004 -IR(M)) Dated 2/11/2004, by exercising its powers under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub section (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Oil Corporation Limited Panipat Refinery, in terminating the services of Sh. Narinder S/o Sh. Om Prakash, Helper Gr.-I w. e.f. 11-6-2001 is just and legal? If not to what relief the. workman is entitled to?" . .
As per claim statement workman had been appointed. as Helper Grade-I in Power and Utility Department and he had worked under control and supervision in Oil Refinery Bohli (Pantipat) from 1-12- 1999 to11-6-2001. Respondent refused work to him on 11-6-2001 without assigning any reason and notice and thus terminated his service illegally and wrongfully. The workman has completed more than 240 days service and the respondent has violated Section 25F of the Act. The workman has alleged the violation of Section 25N; O, G and H also of the Act. He has prayed for his reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages.
Claim was contested by the respondent. It was denied that workman was the employee of the respondent or he had worked under the supervision and control of the respondent. According to the respondent the workman had been engaged by Contractor who had been assigning for supervising his work. Contractor had deputed the workman to work and the workman worked under the control and supervision of the contractor. Contractor was his pay master and there is no question of terminating the service of the workman by the respondent.
A replication was filed by the workman to
reiterate his case.
In support of his case the workman examined himself and relied on copies of attendance-sheet marked (A & B). On behalf of management B.S. Sallan SHRM of the respondent was examined. After his statement the workman did not appear since 3-12-2007 A notice sent by registered post on 30-6-2010 returned with the postal endorsment hat he is not available on the given address' hence the case was ordered to proceed ex-parte against him on 3-9-2010.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management. The learned counsel for the management argued that the workman has pleaded to be an employee of the respondent but there is nothing to prove the relationship of employer and employee between the respondent and the workman. The alleged attendance sheet marked 'A & B' filed by the workman proves nothing. There is nothing to show that they are the copies of the record maintained by the respondent. From the statement of the workman it is clear advertisement of the post and he had not applied for the
job, he has not been issued any interview letter and neither
was he issued any termination order. It also clear from his
statement that no deduction of Provident Fund had been
made by the management and there is no proof that he
had been paid wages by the management. Thus there is
nothing to show that the workman was in the employment
of the bank and from the evidence of management witness
it is clear that the workman had been working with the
Contractor M/s. Prakash Construction of the respondent.
I agree that there is nothing, on record to show that
the workman was the employee of the respondent. I need
not to say that as the workman has alleged the relationship
of master and servant between the respondent and himself,
the burden was on him to prove the relationship and as he
has failed in proving the relationship he has no case. I
therefore hold that the workman was not in the employment
of respondent and there was no question or terminating
his services by the respondent. The reference is
accordingly answered against the workman. Hard copy
and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central
Government for further necessary action.
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1544.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स भंजा मिनरल्स प्रा. लिमिटेड, केन्झोर के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्यौगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 37/2004द्ध, को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-26012/6/2004-आई आर ;एमद्ध]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013
S.O. 1544.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the common award (Ref. No. 37/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubaneshwar now as shown in
the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd. Keonjhar, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2013.
[F. No. L- 26012/6/2004 IR(M)] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4091ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar
Industrial Dispute Case No. 37/2004
Date of Passing: Award -17th June. 2013
Between:
, The Managing Director, M/s, Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd.,
At. Park Street, PO. Keonjhar, Dist. Keonjhar, ( Orissa)
...1st Party-Management.
his boss. Suddenly he was refused employment on 17.4.2001 without any reason. He was told by the manager that there was no work for him and he would be called for as and when there would be availability of work. But the work was available and so many workers were working. Thus the refusal of employment to the 2nd Party-workman amounts to retrenchment. He was not served with any notice nor was paid wages for one month in lieu of notice. So provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act are attracted in his case. Therefore, his termination is illegal and he is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages.
(AND)
Their workman Shri Shri Rangadhar Patra, S/o. Nirakar Patra, At./PO. Khendra, Via. Jhumpura, Orissa, Keonjhar ...2nd Party- Workman.
Appearances :
Shri Sribatsa Mohap : For the 1st Party-
Auth. Representative Management
None : For the 2nd Party
Workman.
A WAR D
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-26012/6/2004-IR(M) dated 17-5-2004 has referred an industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd. and their workmen in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of the following matter :
3.The 1st Party-Management has alleged in his reply that the 2nd party-workman was working under the contractor who had taken contract for the work from the Management. So Shri Rangadhar Patra was not an employee of the Management. It has further been alleged that the 2nd Party-workman remained absent continuously from 17-4-2001 without any intimation to the Management's contractor. He suddenly came after more than six months and claimed payment of gratuity from the 1st Party- Management and then filed an application before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central) for the same. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Rourkela awarded an amount of Rs. 6000 as gratuity to the workman who subsequently challenged the order before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar where he admitted his retirement from service on 17-4-2001. After hearing both the parties the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar being the appellate authority passed order for payment of gratuity amounting to Rs. 14,220 along with 10% simple interest from 18-4-2001 to the workman. The Management being the principal employer had paid an amount of Rs. 22,705 on 23-2-2007 through bank draft which was received by the workman. In view of the above the claim of the workman is illegal and liable to be dismissed. The workman has not made the sub contractor as party to the case.
4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues
were framed :
ISSUES
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd., Inganijharan Iron & Mn. Mines At/P.O. Inganijharan, Via Joda, Dist. Keonjhar in terminating the services of Sh. Ranghadhar Patra, S/o Nirakar Patra, At/PO. Jhamopura, Dist. Keonjhar (Orissa) from 17-4-2001 without serving proper notice and also without complying the provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2.The 2nd Party-workman in his statement of claim has stated that he was engaged as semi-skilled worker by the 1 st Party-Management on 5.2.1985 and was placed to work in Inganijharan Iron Mines Area.He had worked under the 1st Party-Management for more than 16 years continuously without any break. During his tenure of service he was never served with any notice or called for any explanation for negligence or disobedience. He had discharged his normal duties to the best of satisfaction of 1. Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd., Inganijharan Iron & Mn. Mines, At/PO. Inganijharan, Via. Joda, Dist Keonjhar in terminating the services of Shri Rangadhar Patra, S/o. Nirakar Patra, At/PO. Jhamopura, Dist Keonjhar (Orissa) from 17.4.2001 without serving proper notice and also without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is justified?
2. Whether the 2nd Party-workman has worked for more than 240 days from the last preceding year of termination of his service?
4092 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]3. Whether the 2nd Party-workman is entitled to the benefits of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act?
4. If not, what relief is the workman entitled
to?
5. The 2nd Party-workman except on 6.7.2005 never appeared before this Tribunal Labour Court. He even sent his statement of claim through post on 8.5.2006. He was given every chance to appear and contest the case, but he never appeared as except on one date as stated above. Therefore, the case was ultimately set exparte against him on 16.1.2012.
Management has stated that the 2nd party-workman was a contract worker, and not a direct employee of the 1st Party-Management and this fact has been reiterated in the affidavit evidence of Shri Sribatsa Kumar Mohapatra, without admitting that he had worked under the 1st Party- Management since 5.2.1985. In any case these issues become insignificant or immaterial as the 2nd Party- workman has stated to have retired from service and in that case he is not entitled to the protection of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. These issues are decided accordingly against the 2nd Party-workman.
ISSUE NO. 4
6. The 1st Party-Management contested the case and filed sworn affidavit of Shri Sribatsa Kumar Mohapatra in evidence along with photostat copies of two documents.
10. In view of the findings recorded above under
Issues Nos. 1 to 3 the 2nd Party-workman is not entitled to any relief and his claim is liable to be dismissed.
FINDINGS
11. The reference is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 1
7. Since the burden to prove this issue lies on the 2nd Party workman and he has not discharged his burden, it cannot be believed against the pleadings of the 1st Party- Management that he was an employee of the 1st party- Management and he was terminated from service with effect from 17.4.2001 without taking re-course to the relevant provisions of law made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The 1st Party-Management has categorically stated in its pleadings that the 2nd Party-workman had admitted his retirement from service on 17.4.2001 before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar as is reflected in the order passed by him on 23.1.2007 copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-l to the affidavit of Shri Sribatsa Kumar Mohapatra. Therefore, it is very much doubtful that he was terminated from service by the 1st Party Management on 17.4.2001. Had the 2nd Party- workman retired on 17.4.2001 he cannot be said to have been terminated by the 1st Party Management and in that case retrenchment com~pensation under Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not required to be paid, Therefore the alleged action of the Management regarding termination of the 2nd Party-workman from service cannot be made a matter of dispute. This issue thus decided against the 2nd Party workman.
J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1545.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ओएनजीसी लिमिटेड, शिवसागर, असम के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, गोहाटी के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 3/2008द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-30015/8/2007-आई आर ;एमद्ध]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013
S.O. 1545.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the common Award (Ref.
No. 3/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ONGC Ltd., Sibsagar, Assam, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2013.
ISSUE NOS. 2 & 3
8. Since both the issues are co-related they are
taken up together for convenience sake.
[ F. No.-L30015/8/2007-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM
Present :
9. The burden to prove these issues also lies on the 2nd Party workman. But he has failed to adduce any documentary or oral evidence in support of his claim of having worked with the 1 st Party Management for more than 16 years or at least 240 days from the last preceding year of alleged termination of his service. The 2nd Party workman has not dared to come to the witness box to prove his allegations. On the other hand, the 1st Party- SHRI L. C. DEY. MA., LL.B., Presiding Officer, C.G..I.T.-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4093 In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :
The Management of O.N.G.C., Sibsagar, Assam.
Vrs.
Their Workmen represented by the Secretary, ONGC Field Party Contingent Workers' Association, Jorhat, Assam
Ref. Case No. 03 of 2008.
APPEARANCES
For the Management : Mr. P. K. Roy, Advocate.
Mr. S. K. Chakrabarty, Advocate. Mrs. A. Chakrabarty, Advocate.
For the Union : Mr. A. Dasgupta, Advocate.
Mr. S. Das, Advocate, Miss M. Das, Advocate.
Date of Award : 31-5-2013
AWARD
1. This Reference Case is initiated upon raising an Industrial Dispute between the ONGC Field Party Workers' Association, Jorhat and the management of ONGC Ltd., Sibsagar, which was referred by the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, vide their Order No. L-30015/8/2007-IR(M); Dated: 03-03-2008 u/s 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The Schedule of the Reference is as under:
the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dibrugarh and on failure to settle the dispute in the conciliation FOC report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the Government of India on 27-10-97. During the pendency of the conciliation proceeding the management issued formal Advertisement on 11.11.97 regarding engagement of contract labourer through some individual contractors in place of existing contingent workers. While the workers association filed a Writ Petition being Civil Rule No. 5744/97 in the Gauhati High Court on 11-12-97 with prayer for restraining the management from introducing contract labourer in place of the contingent workers by abolishing existing system, and the contingent works performed by the members of the workers Association shall be allowed to be continued as before and to quash the tender notice issued by the management on 11-11-97; and also for regularization of the members of the workers Association under Standing Order of the ONGC. Accordingly the Hon'ble Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court disposed of the Civil Rule No.5744/97 on 15-9-98 directing that the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi or the competent authority of the Central Government will pass order under sub section (5) of Section 12 of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 on the FOC Report dated 27-10-97.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demands of ONGC Field Party Contingent Workers Association, namely, (i) for restraining the management of ONGC from introducing contract labour for contingent work and to allow contingent work to be performed by the members of their Union (ii) Quashing the tender notice No. ER/MM/GSD/39/97-98 issued by the Dy. GM (MM), Exploration Business Group, ONGC, Sibsagar, Assam and (iii) to enforce the certified Standing Orders relating to regularization of 223 contingent workers, are just and legal? If so, what directions need to be issued and to what relief the 223 workmen are entitled to?"
2. After registration of this Reference case, the notices were served and both the parties namely, ONGC Field Party Contingent Workers Association (hereinafter called Workers' Associations) and the Management of ONGC Ltd., Sibsagar, Assam appeared and contested the proceeding by filing Claim Statement/Written Statement. The Workers Association raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) in the year 1996 claiming regularization of a little more than about 100 workers who completed the requisite period of service for regularization. While the ONGC Ltd. (hereinafter called the Management) resisted the claim of the workers before In the mean time on 28-10-98 the Central Government passed an order u/s 12(5) of the I.D. Act,1947 with their views that there was no reason for referring a case to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication due to the reason as under :
"The concerned workers are contingent/casual workers, hence, their claim to regularize their service is not valid."
Subsequently the workers Association preferred Writ Appeal being No. 352/98 which was dismissed with observation that since an order has now been passed declining the Reference, the only course open to the Applicant is to approach this Court in Writ Proceeding, and allowed the interim direction issued by the learned Single Judge at the time of disposal of the Writ Petition to continue to operate for a period of another 2 week from the date of passing of the order. Thereafter, the workers Association preferred another Writ Petition being No. Civil Rule No. 6771/98 before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court & the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition with direction to the Central Government to refer the claim of the members of the petitioners/Association to regularize/ conversion of their status as regular employees of the ONGC in accordance with the Standing Order in force.
On being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Rule No. 6771/ 98 the management of ONGC preferred an Appeal before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court vide Writ Appeal No.371/2005 against the judgment passed4094 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] by the learned Single Judge which was also disposed of holding that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the Management of ONGC preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment passed by the Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 371/05 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while issuing the SLP was pleased to stay operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 14- 11-06. In the mean time the Central Government in terms of the judgment and order dated 15-9-98 passed in Civil Rule No. 5744/97 made an order of this Reference vide order dated 3-3-2008. Thereafter the management of ONGC filed petition before the Apex Court stating that since the order so passed by the Government was an attempt to over reach jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in particular, the interim order dated 2-3-2007 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, prayed for staying operation of the order dated 14-11-06 passed by Hon'ble Gauhati High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order of the stay of the proceeding pending before this Tribunal and ultimately the SLP (Civil) No. 3278/07 was disposed of on 10-11-08 modifying and restricting the terms of Reference and directing this Tribunal to consider the cases of the workers who claimed to have completed 240 days of work within a period of 12 consecutive months in a year and also fulfilled the conditions of regularization.
The case of the workers Association, inter-alia is that the ONGC explore Oil and different kinds of Natural Gases from different parts of the Country, and for that purpose they collect some data called as seismic data under the surface of the earth in order to assess the quantity of natural gas and oil where available. This job is being performed by the employees called Geo Physical Field Party. The members of the present workers Association are called as Contingent Workers who require to assist the Field Party in exploration of their mobile exploration work which include laying of cables, Geo-phones and shot firing for exploration in order to collect seismic data. Some of them are engaged as Drivers, Clerks, General Store Keeper, Peon etc. This operation of collection of seismic data, is being carried throughout the year except rainy days and during the rainy days, the contingent workers are engaged in repairing and other relevant works including clerical and other allied works. It is mentioned that there are about 223 (mentioned in Annexure-B of the claim statement) contingent workers who are members of the present Association have been working continuously since 1994 under the Deputy General Manager (MM), ONGC, without any break till 1997. The Association further stated that the ONGC have a separate Standing Order to regulate the job of the contingent workers and casual workers which is called the Certified Standing Order for contingent employees of the ONGC. The Clause 2(1) of the Standing Order stipulates that the contingent workers are of two categories, namely (a) Temporary (b) Casual. Clause-2(ii) contemplates that a worker who has been on the roll of the Corporation and has not less than 180 days of attendance in any period of 12 consecutive months shall be temporary workman, and the workman who has put in not less than 240 days in any period of 12 consecutive month and have possessed minimum qualification prescribed by the Corporation may be considered for conversion as regular employee while Clause-2(iii) of the said Standing Order provides that the workman who is neither temporary nor regular shall be considered as casual workman; and that the member of the present workers Association working under the Corporation for a long spell of time have fulfilled the criteria laid down in the Standing Order for their regularization. The eligible workers have also approached the authority concerned for their regularization but their grievances remained unredressed. Despite having large number of vacant posts which are being filled up from the open market the contingent workers have not been regularized. Thereafter the workers Association preferred intervention of the Regional Labour Commissioner raising Industrial Dispute for regularization of the members of the Association. While the R.L.C(C) entrusted the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), who initiated the conciliation proceeding but it failed and ultimately FOC was submitted.
The workers Association also alleged that during the pendency of the process of regularization of contingent workers the ONGC resorted to an unfair labour practice by abolishing the contingent jobs performed through their existing employees and proposed to get it done through a Contractor. Such an act of the ONGC introducing contract labour system is noting but to deprive the contingent workers from their legitimate claim of regularization. Subsequently, the ONGC in order to abolish contingent system of employment informed the workmen not to attend their duties from the month of July,1997 onwards. Upon which the workers of the Association resorted to protest, strike and representation before different authorities but their dispute remain unsettled. In the mean time the Dy. General Manager (MM), ONGC published an advertisement in the Local English Daily namely, Eastern Clarion on 11- 11-97 calling for bid from the intending bidders to supply contract labourer to do the job performed by the members of the petitioner/Association and thereby the management of ONGC was found determine to abolish the system of contingent workers. The workers Association further submitted that they had accepted the temporary job with expectation to be regularized in terms of the Standing Order and the deviation from the provision of the said Standing Order by the ONGC Ltd. is violative of the Principle laid down in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and it is against the public policy.
The workers Association further stated that the job performed by the contingent workers were perennial in nature and they used to work continuously throughout the year while the management made some artificial break with a view to deprive the workers from regularisition of their services in terms of Standing Order; and in spite of[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4095 artificial break a large number of them have completed 240 days of continuous work within 12 consecutive month and they are eligible to be regularized. It is contended by the Association that the engagement of contract labourers against such perennial jobs removing the existing workers against the principle laid down in the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act,1970 and such illegal Act of the management to engage contract labour is liable to be rejected and the tender notice issued by the ONGC for engagement of contract labour is also liable to be quashed; and as the workers listed in Annexure-A after fulfilling the conditions of Certified Standing Order they are entitled to regularistation of their services. Hence, the workers Association prayed for quashing the introduction of Contract Labour system in place of contingent workers and to direct the management for regularisation the service of 223 number of contingent workers as mentioned in the Annexure-A with effect from July,1997 with all consequential benefit till the date of their resumption on duty.
3. The Management of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. submitted their written Statement stating inter-alia that the ONGC is a government owned Company engaged in the business of exploration of Crude Oil and Natural Gas in various parts of the Country and the ONGC is duty bound to comply with the Constitutional requirement under Article 16 of the Constitution of India before offering job/service to any person and disengage persons through contractors for performance of unskilled nature of jobs like carrying and laying of cables and other materials. With the liberalization and globalization of economy, there is shift in Government Policies in respect of exploration and production of oil and natural gas in India and after announcement of New Exploration License Policy by the Government of India. The ONGC along with other Private Companies Indian and Foreign are participating in Auction which is an open bidding process. Thus the ONGC have to compete in the open market with private and/or multinational companies to bid and win petroleum exploration license like any other bidder. Under the above circumstances the ONGC management can not make any recruitment and/or regularization in anticipation of success in any such future bidding process. After raising of the dispute by the Workers Association, due to development took place in the field of business of the ONGC, which is directly bearing in the development claimed by the Associations, management is not in a position to deploy the members of the workers Association as claimed by them, nor it has any sanctioned regular vacancies after 1999.
The management denied that all the workers given in list in Annexure-A are the members of the Associations and that all its members are contingent workers employed by the ONGC as alleged. It is also denied by the management that during off season, rainy days the contingent workers are engaged for repairing and other allied works including clerical and other works as alleged. It is stated by the ONGC that the seismic survey is conducted in selected fields which normally starts towards the end of November and ends before the end of May next year as the rain is the hindrance for seismic survey. It is also added that the contingent workers are engaged generally for laying cable, geophones and shifting materials from one place to another but denied that such contingent workers are engaged as Clerks, General Store Keeper or Peon or clerical or any other allied jobs and there services have never been required by the ONGC at any period beyond the field season. As such, none of the said contingent workers has ever completed 240 days in a year and the contingent workers can never be engaged permanently and or on regular basis because in the very next field season seismic survey may be conducted in some other fields and it may not be in the same locality, even may be in different State or far away from the field where such survey was undertaken last. It is also not possible for the ONGC to carry these contingent labourers from one State/ place to another. It is further averred that while engaging the contingent labourer their educational qualification or other eligibility is required for making any recruitment in the ONGC under their Recruitment Rule, has never been considered and the seismic survey is being conducted in primitive manner.
The ONGC mentioned that the workers Association had challenged the process of engaging Contractors by floating tender by filing Writ Petition in C.R. No. 5744 of 1997 but was unable to get any relief from the Hon'ble High Court. It is also denied that these workers have been working in the aforesaid job without any break till 1997 and that the attendance register for that behalf were maintained by the Party Chief in respect of Geophysical party. The ONGC again stated that the Certified Standing Order for contingent workers of the ONGC is always read with other relevant guideline and subject to the constitutional limitations and the Constitution being the Suprema Lex, shall prevail over all other statutes.
The management again pleaded that they had a policy of regularization during 1967 onwards when a guideline was given to consider cases of absorption of contingent workers where such are considered for engagement against regular posts, if available, and no extra post was created for their absorption; and that mere completing 240 days in 12 consecutive months was only one of the criteria, under the guidelines issued vide Circular No. 27(70)/87-IR dated 16.07.1991. Other criteria required to fulfill for regularization are laid down under Clause 4.2 of the above mentioned executive instruction of ONGC in this regard are:
(i) They have completed 240 working days service in the commission (now Corporation) in the 12 consecutive months;
4096 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)](ii) They are registered with the employment exchange;
(iii) They are held against regular post;
(iv) They posses the requisite qualification and experience etc. laid down in the ONGC (R & P) regulation;
(v) No extra post will be created for absorption of contingent workers and no relaxation in the qualification will be accorded;
(vi) Relaxation in age-limit upto 35 years for technical cadres and 30 years for non-technical cadres may be accorded.
The management again denied the allegation that they are indulging in unfair labour practice abolishing the contingent jobs performed through the existing employees and proposed to get it done through a contractor resulting in deprivation of large number of contingent workers from their claim of regularization. The management further denied the averments made in paras-ll, 12,13,14,16,17,18 and 19 of the claim statement filed by the Association. It is added by the management that the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court vide their judgment and order dated 12.3.98 in W.A. No.352 of 1998 dismissed the Appeal filed by the workers Association up-holding the Guwahati High Court's order passed in Civil Rule No.5744 of 1997, refusing to grant the interim relief sought for by the workers Association. It is further denied by the management that the Hon'ble High Court did not issue any specific direction for engagement of the contingent workers as alleged. Even otherwise, none of them can be regularized in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka-vs-Uma Devi and Ors. Reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. The management also said that the members of the workers Association who raised the dispute has no nexus and/or relationship even remotely, with the floating of the tenders.
The management denying the statements made in the Para-26 of the claim statements, stated that the workers Association while raising the dispute vide their letter dated 21.6.96 had claimed that there were little more than 100 workers who have completed requisite period of service, required for their regularization, but now the Association has annexed a list of 223 persons claiming their regularization and hence, the claim of the Association is un-genuine apart from being legal and not maintainable in law. The management of ONGC categorically denied that the concerned documents in connection with the service of the workers concerned, as alleged, are laying with the custody of the management and as such, the claim for calling the attendance register and the wage register for security and verification of the claim of the Association is wholly uncalled for, and it is the burden of the workers Association to prove their own case and they can not shift the burden in this manner. However, the plea of the workmen that the documents like Identity Card, Certificate issued by the Party Chief, etc. were lost by them is an attempt to make out the case in favour of the Association. Further the documents annexed by the Workers Association are marked as Annexure-N (Exhibit-N) does not show in any manner that any of the person named therein has completed 240 days of work within a period of 12 consecutive months in a year, and the gate passes always have a special validity dates and are issued for a different purpose such as collection of arrears, bonus etc. and the said documents can not form the basis of the claim for regularization of service. It is also mentioned that the said documents has annexed ( Exhibit-N) are on the face of it, tempered with, overwritten and as such, fabricated.
The management also denied the averment made in paragraphs-30,31 and 32. It is contended by the management that the claim of the person beyond the Annexure-N are only speculative and no legs to stand as the person named in Annexure-N did not ever work as contingent workers in the ONGC, their names have now been added to make a false claim for regularization. Under the above circumstances the management prayed for answering the order of Reference as modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in negative against the workers Association.
4. In order to assail the plea of the management made in the written statement the Association submitted Additional written statement and mentioned that the statements made in the written statement by the management are not supported by the materials on record. In the written statement the Association beside the list of the members of the Union, another list of workers/members of the Union enclosed as Annexure-M who have sufficient documents to prove that they have completed more than 240 days of work in a particular year such as, Sri Pinku Dutta, Pabitra Das and Rajani Gogoi who have completed 240 days but their names were not appeared in Annexure- M and although the workers were engaged as contingent workers but most of them have completed 240 days service in a particular year. The management, despite specific order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Rule No.5744/ 1997 deliberately engaged contract labour in place of contingent workers with a view to deprive the members of the Association. It is averred that the statement made in paragraphs-16 & 17 of the W.S. filed by the management are misleading, baseless and concocted as the workers mentioned in Annexure A are contingent workers directly employed by the ONGC and the members of the workers Association and most of the workers were recruited through local employment exchange or through interview of the Head Office considering their qualification and experience. The Association pleaded that Pay register will prove the facts regarding continuous engagement of the concerned workers and the management also paid bonus to almost all the workers besides other facilities including medical facilities; and the workers have been working[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4097 continuously for a long period as such, it become essential to introduce the Certified Standing Order to regularize the service of the workers. It is added that the jobs performed by the contingent workers are not unskilled in nature rather most of the jobs are skilled jobs for which license is required to be obtained from the appropriate authority and they have to perform some works under the roof during rainy season. The Association denied the contents of paragraphs-22,23,24,27,29,30,31,32,33 to 35 of the Written Statement of the management and mentioned that the management has been violating the provision of the Certified Standing Order in all respect in order to deprive the workers from their legitimate right/ benefit since the workers were working? against vacant post of contingent workers.
5. The Workers Association examined one witness while the management examined two witnesses. Both the parties have proved some documents in support of their testimony. I have heard argument from both the sides at length. Let me discuss the evidence adduced by both the sides.
Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dibrugarh initiated conciliation for settlement of the issue but it failed and this Reference was initiated. W.W.1 mentioned that during the course of conciliation the management adopted some unfair labour practices with a view to abolish contingent system of employments and to introduce contract labour system issued formal advertisement on 11.11.97 regarding engagement of contract labour through some contractors vide Exhibit-E. Such a practice of engagement of contract labourer by abolishing direct system of employment is against the public policy as the members of the workers Association accepted the temporary job with an expectation that their services would be regularized in terms of the Standing Order. Then the Association preferred a Writ Application of Civil Rule No.5744/97 before the Hon'ble High Court with prayer for restraining the management from introducing contract labour for the contingent works abolishing the existing system declaring the tender notice issued by the management as illegal and liable to be quashed and the members of the Association shall be allowed to continue as before. An interim order in this regard was also prayed for to the effect that further proceeding of the operation of the said tender notice may be stayed but the Hon'ble Single Judge admitted the petition declining to pass any interim stay order. Subsequently on 23.12.97 the management issued a corrigendum to the earlier tender notice published in Asian Age on 23.12.97 revising the date of submission of tender to 16.12.97 and opening the date of tender to 29.12.97 vide Exhibit-G. The aforesaid Civil Rule No. 5744/97 was disposed of on 15.9.98 by the Hon'ble High Court directing the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi or the competent authority of the Central Government to pass an order u/s 5 of Section 12 of Industrial Dispute Act on F.O.C. report submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dibrugarh within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of judgment along with copy of the Writ Petition from the workman Association; and also with direction that until further orders passed by the Central Government and until the dispute if referred is adjudicated under the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 the ONGC will as and when required and as far as practicable, employ the said workmen named in Annexure-A to the Writ Petition directly in accordance with the Rules and the law which are applicable vide Exhibit-H. But the management did not engage the said contingent workers and continued the engagement of contract labour in place of contingent workers. In the mean time the Central Government passed an order u/s 12(c) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 opining as :
Workmen witness No.1, Sri Jitumoni Borah, The Secretary, ONGC Field Party Contingent Workers Association, Jorhat stated that the workers listed in Annexure-A were engaged regularly for a long period continuously and they were termed as Contingent workers whose Attendance Registers were maintained by the party Chief of the respective Geophysical parties. The ONGC has a separate Standing Order to regulate the jobs of contingent workers and casual workers, which was framed under the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,1946, called as "Certified Standing Orders for contingent Employees of ONGC" (marked as Exhibit- B). The Clause-2(i) of the Standing Order stipulates that the contingent employees are of two categories, namely, Temporary & Casual. Clause-2(ii) contemplates that a workman who has been on the roll of the Corporation and has not less than 180 days of attendance in any period of 12 consecutive month shall be temporary workman, and 240 days in any period of 12 consecutive months and who possess the minimum qualification prescribed by the Corporation may be considered as regular employee. Clause-3(iii) of the said Standing Order provided that the workman who is neither temporary nor regular, shall be considered as casual workman. He mentioned that almost all the workers indicated in Annexure-A (Exhibit-N) have fulfilled the criteria laid down in the Standing Order for regularization and they have approached the concerned authority for regularization of the service of the concerned eligible workers but the management did not take any initiative towards any regularization, while the Association adopted some agitational programmers to impress upon the management to make an amicable settlement but the management instead of regularizing the services of contingent workers recruited some new persons from the open market while the Association raised Industrial Dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) and the
"The concerned workers are contingent/casual workers, hence their claim to regularize their service is not valid", vide Exhibit-I. While the Association preferred a Writ Appeal No. 352/98 before the Division Bench before the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court against the judgment of Single Judge and the Division Bench disposed of the said W.A. vide judgment (marked as Exhibit-K) holding that if4098 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] workers besides Certified Standing Order. The W.W.1 mentioned that the workers as listed in Annexure-A have fulfilled the conditions for regularization. The documents Exhibit-N series [ Exhibits-N(1) to N(109)] clearly proved that the workers have completed 240 days of work within a period of 12 consecutive months in a year and they were recruited through local employment exchange and as such, the workers involved in this case deserve regularization.
the appellants were aggrieved by the order of Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, declining to refer the dispute for regularization the only course open to the applicants to approach the Court by Writ Proceeding vide Exhibit-J. Upon this findings of the Hon'ble High Court the Association filed a Writ petition No. Civil Rule 6771/98 (Exhibit-K) and the Hon'ble High Court passed an order directing the Central Government to refer the claims of the Association for regularization/conversion of their status as regular employee of the ONGC in accordance with the Standing Order in force. Then the management preferred Writ Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in Civil Rule No.6771/98 and the said Writ Appeal being No.371/05 (Exhibit-L) was disposed of affirming the judgment of the Single Judge. Thereafter, the management preferred SLP (Exhibit-M) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the Writ Appeal No.371/05. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the said SLP vide order dated 10.11.08 (marked as Exhibit- M).
The workman witness No.1 further stated that the contingent workers were doing the works of perennial in nature and they used to work continuously throughout the year while the management in order to deprive the workers from regularistion made some artificial break but a large number of workers who have completed 240 days of continuous work within a period of 12 consecutive months to become eligible for regularization. When the contingent workers raised demand for regularistion of their service in terms of the Certified Standing Order through their Union, the management adopted the policy of engagement of contract labourer against the said contingent workers with a view to frustrate the genuine demand of the workers which is against the principle laid down in Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act,1970 and hence the tender notice issued by the management in this connection is liable to be quashed. Further contention of the workman witness No.1 is that the management and the workers are bound to abide by the Provision of Certified Standing Order and as the workers concerned listed in Annexure-A (Exhibit- N) have fulfilled the conditions of Certified Standing Order they are entitled to be regularized. It is pointed out that a section of workers have lost their documents like Identity Card, certificate issued by the management and some of the workers have documents to show that they have completed more than 240 days of work in a relevant year. The W.W.l has produced the list of 87 numbers of workers Vide Exhibit' A' who completed 240 days of work within the relevant period of 12 consecutive months as shown in Exhibits-N(1) to Exhibit-N(109).
During his cross-examination the workmen witness No.1 stated that neither he produced any document to show that other members of the Association entrusted him to conduct the case nor did he submit any document to show that he was Secretary of the Field Party Contingent Workers Association. He said that in Exhibit-A he had mentioned the names of the contingent workers who are the members of the Association but he has not submitted any paper to show that in fact they are the members of the Association. He admitted the fact that the Exhibit-N (17) the Certificate shows that the period of service rendered by Sri Pradip Borah w.e.f 1.11.95 to 30.6.96 whereas the same document annexed in Writ Petition being Civil Rule No.5744/97 (Exhibit-1) at page 35 shows the period of service rendered by Pradip Borah is 1.12.95 to 30.6.96 but he does not know who had done manipulation (Exhibit-N-17) just to show the working days as 240 days; Exhibit-N(1) (Proved in original) is his (WW.1) own certificate issued by the Party Chief of G.P.32, ONGC which shows that the period of service rendered by him w.ef. 8.11.94 to 6.7.95 but in the page 44 in Civil Rule No.5744/97 (Exhibit-1) his certificate shows the period from 20.12.93 to 5.5.94. However, he denied the suggestion tendered by the management that in the Exhibit-N-1 he had manipulated the dates as 8.11.94 to 6.7.95 instead of 22.11.93 to 16.5.94. The W.W.1 also mentioned that Exhibit-N(36) ( Proved in original) the letter shows that the Memo No.JRT/EBG/GP-32/C/Workers/93-94 dated 30.6.92 and the said certificate issued to Prafulla Saikia covers the period of his engagement as 2.11.91 to 30.6.92; at page No.27 in Civil Rule No.5744/97 (Exhibit-1) the certificate No. JRT/EBG/GP-32/C/Workers/93-94 dated 30.6.92 shows that Prafulla Saikia has worked from 22.11.93 to 16.5.94; Exhibit-N(36). But he denied that the Exhibit-N(36) was not submitted before the Hon'ble High Court and that in Exhibit-N(36) he had manipulated the date with effect from 2.11.91 to 30.6.92 instead of 22.11.93 to 16.5.94 and also the date 30.6.92 given by the party Chief in place of the date 16.5.94. He categorically denied that they have fabricated/tempered the dates mentioned in Exhibit-N(1) to Exhibits-N(109); and that all the workmen have completed 240 days. He further denied that they have produced all the documents containing Exhibit-N(l) to Exhibit-N(109) just to show that they had worked 240 days in a year. He again mentioned that he has not submitted any document to show that there are vacant post in ONGC, nor any document to show that his name was forwarded by the local The workmen witness No.1 further stated that the job relating to seismic survey and other connected job in which the contingent workers have been employed is part and parcel of day to day activity of ONGC which issued various Circulars and Directives in connection with the engagement, regularization and termination of contingent[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4099 employment exchange, nor any document showing educational qualification of the workers. He again denied the suggestion tendered by the management that some of the persons named in Exhibit-A as mentioned in his evidence on-Affidavit do not possess any working certificate and that the Party Chief had no authority to issue experience certificate as indicated in some of the documents marked as Exhibits- N(l) to N(109). He also denied that the temporary Identity Cards issued to the workers do not show the engagement in ONGC as contingent workers and that the statements made in para-25 and 26 in his evidence on Affidavit are false and also the documents submitted by him in this case are false just to show their entitlement of working of 240 days in ONGC.
6. Management Witness No.1, Sri Amit Kumar Khulbe, Chief Geophycist, Geophysical Service, ONGC Ltd. who was duly authorized by the management of ONGC to depose in this Reference Case, stated that originally a dispute was raised by the ONGC Filed Party Contingent Workers Association on 21.6.96 before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Guwahati claiming that there was little more than 100 workers who have completed requisite period of service vide Exhibit-2 while the ONGC management resisted the allegations on the ground, inter alia, that the workers at the relevant time were engaged on contingent basis, for works related to seismic survey, only during the field season, and that none of the contingent workers has ever worked for continuous 240 days in 12 consecutive month in a year. Subsequently FOC report was submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dibrugarh to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment. In the mean time the workers Association filed Writ Petition in Civil Rule No.5744/97 before the Hon'ble High Court claiming their regularistion as per provision of Certified Standing Order of the ONGC but the documents annexed in the said Writ Petition does not show that any of the member of the workers Association have ever completed 240 days work in a year, while the workers Association has now annexed the same set of documents in the instant case changing/ altering the period of service rendered by them in the said documents and the certified copy of the said Writ Petition in Civil Rule No.5744/97 has already been proved as Exhibit-l. According to the MW No.1, upon rejection of the Writ Petition by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 11.12.97 the workers Association preferred Writ Appeal being Writ Appeal No.16/97 and in the said Writ Appeal the workers Association has produced some documents but none of those documents shows that any of the member of the workers Association has completed 240 day in a year. He has produced the certified copy of Writ Appeal of 16 of 1997 as Exhibit-4. But the W.P. No. 5744 was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court without granting any relief with direction to the Government, Ministry of Labour, to pass order u/s 12(5) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 upon the FOC report dated 27.10.97 submitted by the ALC (C). Again the Workers Association on being dissatisfied preferred Writ Appeal being No. 352/ 98 before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court. In the mean time the Central Government passed an order dt. 28.10.98 u/s 12(5) of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 opining that there was no reason for referring the case to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication due to the reason:
"The concerned workers are contingent casual workers, hence their claim to regularize their service is not valid" .
The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court, on the other hand, dismissed the Writ Appeal No. 352/98 holding that if the Appellant was aggrieved by the order of the Government of India, declining to refer the dispute as aforesaid the only course open to them was to approach the Court in a Writ Proceeding. Then the workers Association filed Writ Petition being Civil Rule No.6771/98 before the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court seeking quashing of the order dated 28.10.98 of the Central Government and for direction to the Government of India to make Reference u/s 10 of the I.D. Act and also to direct the ONGC not to engage contractors to perform the work by the contingent work. On 30.3.05 the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition being Civil Rule No.6771/98 with direction to the Government of India to refer the claim of the workers Association for regularization. While the ONGC filed a Writ Appeal being Writ Appeal No.371/05 against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 30.3.05 but the said Writ Appeal was dismissed. Then the management preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court which was admitted staying the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 14.11.06 passed by the Hon'ble High Court. In the mean time the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India passed an order of Reference dated 15.9.98 and referred the dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal. On being approached by the Management the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order staying the operation of the order dated 14-11-06 the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court. Ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing the parties was pleased to pass an order on 10-11-08 modifying and restricting the terms of Reference;
-the case of those workers who claimed to have completed 240 days of work within a period of 12 consecutive months in a year and also fulfill the conditions for regularization their cases would be considered by Central Government Industrial Disputes, Tribunal Guwahati.
M. W-1 further stated that the seismic survey is conducted at different places from time to time, which starts towards the beginning of November and ends before the ends of June, next year which is called field season and during rainy season the survey work can not be done and the service of the workers have never been required by the ONGC at any period before the field season. Hence, none4100 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] contingent workers has worked 240 days in a year and the job performed by the said workers are unskilled job as well as the said workers were not engaged against any particular post or vacancy nor the contingent workers ever held any particular post and hence, the question of their regularistion does not arise since they were engaged in field season only and their service automatically ended during the field season. He also stated that the gate passes annexed by the workers Association are over written/ tempered with and as such fabricated.
Further contention of the management witness is that as per the guidelines issued by the Corporate HQRS dated 5-1-1987 and 3-9-1990 only General Manager or an Officer of Higher Rank authorized by the General Manager can issue service certificate while the party Chief is not an officer of higher rank and as such, he can not issue service certificate. In this regard he has proved the copy of Certified Standing Order of ONGC and the orders issued by Corporate HQRS dated 5-1-1987 and 3-9-1990 vide Exhibit-16, 16(1) and 16(2) respectively. He also added the jobs performed by the contingent workers are of non-perennial nature and there is no notification issued by the appropriate Government for abolition of contract labour in respect of the job done in relation to seismic work during the field season. He stated that the management, with a view to survive in the changed scenario, after introduction of the new Exploration Licensing Policy of the Government of India, having lost its monopoly, had to cut its surplus workforce by introducing Voluntary Retirement Scheme since 1999 and hence, there is no question of creating any post/vacancy for appointment/regularization of any of the members of the workers Association. He has proved the new Exploration Licensing Policy released by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, and the VRS vide Exhibit-17 and 18 respectively. Under the above circumstances the management witness No.1 mentioned that the prayer of the worker Association made in their claim statement are liable to be rejected; and the Reference as modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is liable to be answered in negative against the workers Association.
of the contingent workers of the Association has ever completed 240 days in a year and they were never engaged permanently or on regular basis due to the uncertainty that the seismic survey would be carried out and conducted in the same field in the same locality and may be in different field locality or may be in different State or far away from the field where survey were undertaken last and it would not have been possible for the Management to carry those contingent labourers from one state or place to another. It is also mentioned that while engaging the contingent labourers of the workers Association their educational qualification or other eligibility as required for making any recruitment in the ONGC as per recruitment Rules has never been considered, and as the mode of conducting seismic survey was done almost in a primitive manner unlike to that of Western Countries. Hence, the ONGC decided to improve the standard of quality and production introducing modern sophisticated machineries and improved mode of conducting the survey. In order to minimize the expenditure and to improve the quality of works the management floated the tenders and got the job done by the contractors resulting in increase in production along with quality and reduction of expenditure to a great extent. It is also contended by the management witness No.1 that the names of the workers given in Annexure-A to their Written Statement are not the members of the workers Association and they had not been working as contingent workers continuously since 1994 under the Dy. General Manager (MM), ONGC. He also said that it is not true that the workers had been working in the aforesaid job without any break till 1997, since the engagement of contingent workers are carried out by the field party for a particular field season and for specific period and fresh engagement, on need basis, is done for each field season. He further said that depending upon the period each worker works for a field season, workers are paid bonus against claim made by them and the record of operational report and the record pertaining to bonus paid to the concerned workers and it would show that none of the worker has completed 240 days in any year. In this regard he proved the filed party operational report submitted by the Party Chief, Geophysical PartyNo.10, Vide Exhibit-5 and Exhibit-5 (1) for the season1992-93 which shows that total number of field days for the field season is 180 days. It is also mentioned that the worker Gajan Hazarika named at Annexure-N(30) worked in party No.10 for field season 1992-93 but he did not work 240 days in a year. The management witness No.1 also added some reports of the field party operational report submitted by the Party Chief marked as Exhibit 6/6(1), Exhibit-7/7(1), Exhibit-8/8(1), Exhibit-9(1), Exhibit-10/10(1), Exhibit-12/12(1).
During the cross-examination, management witness no.1 stated that they used to engage contingent workers while performing the Geophysical survey and there is no time limit for exploration during the field season in the Geophysical survey and the period of work depends upon the volume of works. He also confirmed that Geophysical survey is started preferably in the month of November, during the dry period and it continues upto June approximately. He further stated that before starting the seismic survey they engage persons to perform preparatory works which require 10 to 15 days approximately and after completion of survey also it requires 10 to 15 days to wind up the infrastructural materials and these jobs are done by the contingent workers. He further said that the Identity The Management witness No.1 also proved the Bonus register of the Geophysical party No.10, Camp Kathigaon for the field season 1996-97 the Ex-gratia payment contingent Bill marked as Exhibit-14, Exhibit-15. The management witness No.1 also said that none of the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4101 Cards are issued by them to the contingent workers for the field season only. He categorically denied that the contingent workers were engaged prior to 15 days to start the job. He also said that Exhibit-l0 the operation report on Geophysical Party No.88 for the field season 1994-95 was submitted after completion of the work in the month of November,1995. But he did not know whether the works of G. P.88 was continued after 94-95 for another season 95-96. He added that the former contingent workers sometimes may be reengaged for another season on their approach along with other new workers. The management witness No.1 again mentioned that the party Chief is authorized to issue memorandum and the Exhibit N(l) and N(3); the Identity Cards were issued by their Organistion and the party Chief is the competent to issue the same. He also said that some of the memorandums issued from their office in prescribed format and signed by the party Chief who was duly authorized. But the Exhibits N(51), N(61), N(62), N(73), N(105) and N(109), the Certificates though appears to be issued by their Organistion but not in prescribed format and he can not authenticated these Certificates. He also denied the suggestion tendered by the Union that the Exhibit-5 to Exhibit-12 were prepared by them for the sake of this case; and that all the contingent workers completed 240 days in a year and as such, they are entitled to regularization. He also denied the suggestion advanced by the adverse party that the contingent workers were terminated only to introduce contract labour in their places and issuing tender notice Ext.ER/MM/GSD/39/97-98, and that the contingent workers were terminated illegally i.e. why they had invited the said tender.
7. The Management witness No.2, Shri Ram Chandra Mishra, the Chief Geo Physicist of ONGC, Boroda who was the party Chief w.e.f. May,1993 to December,1994. He categorically mentioned that the signature contained in Exhibit- N(l) was put by him but all the dates are manipulated, i.e. the date of issue of memorandum is shown as 6-7-95 whereas on 6-7-95 he was in Kolkata Office. He also stated that the date inserted in page 44 of the memorandum in Exhibit 1 is the correct date i.e. 5-5-1994, and the period of service shown in Annexure-N(l) of Exhibit-A with effect from 8-11-04 to 6-7-95 is manipulated, the correct period would be 20-12-93 to 5-5-94 as mentioned at page 44 of Exhibit-l ( Civil Rule No. 5744 of 1997). The period shown in Exhibit N(36) as 2-11-1991 to 30-6-1992 is not genuine and manipulated though the signature contained in Exhibit- N(36) appears to be his own but the date below his signature in Exhibit-N(36) is manipulated, the correct period of the memorandum should have been 22-11-93 to 16-5-94 as contained in the memorandum dated 16-5-94 (at page 27 of Exhibit-l). He also mentioned that the Annexure-B of Exhibit-l is a genuine document but the memorandum shown in the Exhibit N(36) reflecting 93-94 but the period of service has been manipulated as 2-11-91 to 30-6-92 because the documents printed for 93-94 the period of service 91-92 cannot be given. He also added that since he did not even joined in G.P.32 on 30-6-92 at Jorhat there is no question of issue the Certificate on that day i.e. 30-6-92 by him since he joined in G.P. No. 32 in November,1992. In his cross-examination he said that the printed memorandums are filled up by their Office Clerk and he signed the memorandums after verification, and they used to maintain Attendance Register for all the workers but he did not submit the Attendance Register. He again stated that the hand writing of the memorandum are not the hand writing of office clerk and so far he knew no clerk has done these manipulations. He also mentioned that as Party Chief he used to issue temporary Identity Card to the workers to facilitate to enter into the premises for duty. He denied the suggestion tendered by the Association that they used to engage contingent workers prior to one month of the establishment of the camp in the base area and that after completion of the works the contingent workers remained there for 15/20 days to wind up the miscellaneous works. He also categorically denied that the contingent workers worked for 240 days in a field season within a period of 12 consecutive months and that the entry of their duties for more than 240 days is reflected in Attendance Register which was not produced before the Court.
8. On careful scrutiny of the pleadings of both the parties along with the evidence on record as discussed above, it appears that initially the dispute was raised by the workers Association regarding regularization of a little more than 100 contingent workers and on failure of the conciliation the Conciliation Officer submitted FOC report and in the meantime the workers Association preferred Writ Petition being No.Civil Rule No.5744/97 (Exhibit-1) before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court for regularization of the services of the contingent workers and also for restraining the Management from engaging the contract labour to perform the job of the contingent workers but the Hon'ble High Court passed an order directing the Government of India to pass orders U/S 12(5) of I.D.Act, 1947 for granting any relief as prayed for. On being dissatisfied the workers Association preferred Writ Appeal in 352/98 which affirmed the decision of the Hon'ble Single Bench of the Hon'ble High Court passed in Civil Rule No. 5744/97. In the mean time the Government of India passed an order u/s 12 (5) of the I.D. Act,1947 opining as :
"the concerned workers are contingent/casual workers, hence, their claim to regularize their service is not valid"
Then the workers Association filed another Writ Petition being Ne. 6771/98 before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court seeking quashing of the order dated 28-10-98 passed by the Central Government and also for a direction to the Government of India to make a reference u/s 10 of the4102 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] burden to establish their plea. It is found admitted that the regularization of the workers is to be considered as per the provisions of the Certified Standing Order and the relevant Circulars/Orders issued by the ONGC Management from time to time.
I.D. Act. Accordingly the Hon'ble High Court allowed the Writ Petition in Civil Rule No.6771/98 with direction to the Government of India to refer the claim of the ONGC workers Association for regularisaton etc. In the mean time the Management of ONGC filed Writ Appeal No. 371/2005 against the judgment and order passed in the Civil Rule No.6771/98, but the said appeal was dismissed. While the Management of ONGC filed Special Leave Petition being No.3278/07 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order for issue of Notice staying the operation of the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court passed in Writ Appeal No.371/05. Meanwhile, the Government of India, Ministry of labour issued an order of reference in pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge, Gauhati High Court passed in Civil Rule No.5744/97 and referred the dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal (as per the Schedule mentioned above) but the said Reference case was stayed in view of the order dated 8-4-2008 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing the parties was pleased to pass an order dated 10-11-08 modifying and restricting the terms of reference as under:
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the parties agreed that the cases of those workers who claimed to have completed 240 days of work within a period of 12 consecutive months in a year and also fulfill the conditions for regularization their cases would be considered by Central Government Industrial Disputes, Tribunal Guwahati. The case of the petitioners ONGC is that none of the workers have completed 240 days in a year. This dispute shall be adjudicated by the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati. Since the matter is pending for quite sometime, we request the tribunal to decide the dispute between parties as expeditiously as possible in any event within six months from today. With these observations, the special leave petition is disposed of" .
10. Let me examine the documents marked as Exhibit-N series proved by the workers Association wherein the particulars of 87 numbers of workers have been given. The Exhibit-N(l) regarding engagement of workman Jitumoni Bora (W.W.l) & Exhibit-N(2) the Identity Card issued in the name of the workman, Jitumoni Bora, the Secretary, ONGC Field Party Contingent Workers Association, Jorhat, shows on the face of those documents some over writing and mark of erasing on the date/period of employment, the date of issue and the date of signature. In Exhibit-N(l) the number of Memorandum i.e. JRT/EBG/ GP-32/C/Workers/94-95 dated 6.7.95 has been shown as JRT/EBG/GP-32/C/Workers/93-94 Date 5.5.94 in the documents at page 44 of Exhibit-l, submitted before the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Rule No.5744/97( Exhibit-l) by the Workers Association. In the said document the period of engagement has been shown as 08.11.94 to 6.7.95 and the date of issue of the Memorandum has been shown as 06.7.95 while in page 44 of the Exhibit-l the period of engagement appears as 20.12.93 to 5.5.94 and the date of issue of the Memorandum as 5.5.94. In Exhibit-N(2), the validity period of issue of the temporary Identity Card has been shown as 20.11.95 to 17.7.96 while in the similar document at page-43 of Exhibit-l the period has been shown as 23.01.95 to 17.04.95 and the Field season as 1994-95. In Exhibit-N(2) the period 20.11.95 to 17.7.1996 appears to have been typed out later on and the entries against the field season 1994-95 has been disappeared. If we rely upon the documents of page-44 and 43 in Exhibit-I, it is clear that the concerned workman has not completed 240 days of work during 1993-94 whereas the period of engagement from 8.11.94 to 6.7.95 as shown in Exhibit-N(1), the workman appears to have completed 240 days but the said document is found to be tempered/fabricate on the face of it. As such, it cannot be admitted as it raised sufficient doubts in arriving at the decision regarding the period of working days in respect of the workman Sri Jitumoni Bora. Exhibit-N(3) & N(4) appears to be Identity Card in respect of Amulya Saikia issued by the Party Chief, GP-88 on 1.11.92 which was valid upto June 1993 and the Exhibit-N(4) was issued without giving any date for the field season 1994-95. In these documents there is no specific period of working days. If we accept the Exhibit-N(3) which was issued on 1.11.92 and the same was valid upto June,1993 the number of working days appears less than 240 days. However, no opinion can be formed on the Exhibit-N(4) as there is no mention of period of engagement. In the Certificate marked as Exhibit-N(5) regarding engagement of workman Nripen Lohan, it appears that the said printed certificate has been filled up in different hand writing with different ink and in place of the total number of days both in figure and in word 9. Thus it is clear that the issue before this Tribunal is to consider the case of those workers who have completed 240 days of work within a period of 12 consecutive months in a year and also fulfilled the conditions for regularization. To ascertain the period of works done by the contingent workers, this Tribunal has got no other alternative but to rely upon the documents produced by the workmen vide Exhibit-N series (i.e. Exhibit- N-l to Exhibits-N-109) and the documents relied upon by the workers Association in the Civil Rule No. 5744/97 preferred by them before the Hon'ble High Court which were submitted by the Management vide Exhibit-l series (in 82 pages). Although, the workers Association in their evidence mentioned that the Attendance Register of the contingent workers were maintained by the Management but the workers Association did not take any step for calling for the Attendance Register nor any other document from the custody of the Management in order to shift their[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4103 there appears some manipulation and fabrication with different hand writing as such, the said documents is liable to rejected. The Identity Cards issued in the name of the workmen Nripen Lahon marked as Exhibit-N(6), N(7), N(8) do not reflect the period of engagement and hence, no opinion can be drawn on these documents as to the period of the works rendered by the workman Nripen Lohan. The Exhibit-N(9), the Identity Card issued in the name of workman Kula Dutta shows the field season 1995-96 and nothing else, which was valid upto June 1996 and on the basis of this Identity Card it can not be opined that the workman has completed 240 days. Similarly in Exhibits- N(10), N(11), & N(12) the Identity Card in respect of Jiban Saikia and Promod Dutta there are the mention of season 1994-95, 1995-96 and valid upto June, 1992 respectively as such, no inference can be drawn as to the working period of the said workman.
period. Exhibit-N(28), N(29) are the Identity Cards in respect of the workman Abony Gogoi and Robin Neog where there is no mention of the working period. Exhibit-N(30) to Exhibit- N(32) are the Identity Cards in respect of the workmen Girin Baruah, Bidyut Baruah and Jayanta Kalita showing the validity of the issue of the Identity Card for the period 03.11.95 to 30.6.96, 01.11.95 to 30.6.95 and 03.12.94 to June,95 respectively but there appears to be some over writing/ manipulation in the dates mentioned above. These Identity Cards also do not specifically mentioned the period of working days and hence, these are not acceptable. Exhibit- N(33) , N(35), N(36), N(38) ,N(39) to N(40), N(44), N(49), N(66), N(71) are the memorandum issued in favour of the workmen Puneswar Borah, Prahlad Neog, Prafulla Saikia, Rabul Neog, Biman Saikia, Devon Prasad Baruah, Ajit Gohain, Ridip Borah, Ratul Sarmah and Mahendra Saikia respectively, but on scrutiny it is seen that the dates of working period are found tempered/ fabricated in all cases and hence, these documents can not be accepted. Exhibit N(34) is the Identity Card issued in favour of the workman Ajay Phukan but there is no mention of the working period. Exhibit-N(37), N(41) to No.(43), N(47), N(48), N(50), N(52), N(54) to N(59), N(63) to N(65), N(67) to N(70), N(74), N(75), N(77), N(79), N(80) to N(88), N(90), N(92), N(93), N(95) to N(102), N(107) and N(108) are the Identity Cards issued in favour of the workmen Romen Bora, Nirmal Neog, Ashok Bora, Dibeswar Chutia, Budheswar Dwora, Tankeswar Saikia, Rajen Bora, Pulin Dutta, Robin Borgohain, Romesh Gogoi, Bipul Bhuiya, Robi Borah, Rikeswar Kochari, Nipul Saikia, Suresh Bora, Bibhu Charan Dutta, Nayan Borah, Jitu Dutta, Romen Saikia, A. Kalita, Tapan Bora, Ranjit Bora, Anil Kochari, Bipul Dwara, Amulya Regon, Ridip Gogoi, Prabin Nagaria, Jyogeswar Mili, Gokul Mili, Dul Borah, Rajib Saikia, Ajit Dutta, Ranjit Kr. Saikia, Pranab Gogoi, Tapan Kakoti, Bipin Gogoi, Mridul Gogoi, Dulu Bhuiya, Pabitra Dutta, Sujadul, Puna Gogoi, Ranjit Rajkonwar, Makhon Neog, Pradip Bora, Nabajyoti Bora, Padma Bora, respectively. On examination of these documents it is found that in most of the Identity Cards the dates of validity are found tempered and fabricated on the face of those and in some of the documents the exact period of validity have also not been mentioned. In such a situation neither the aforesaid documents can be admitted nor any opinion be formed in respect of the period of working of the aforesaid workmen.
The Association has relied upon Exhibit-N(51) which a list of off season workers issued by the Party Chief of GP- 33 it does not reflect any working days. Exhibit-N(60), is a certificate issued in favour of the workman Prabin Ch. Borah but there is no mention of period of work. The Exhibit-N(61) is an experience certificate issued in the name of the workman Suren Chutia showing the date of working with effect from 9.11.84 to 15.7.85 but this certificate has been written in different hand writing with different ink also, as such, this certificate is also found doubtful. The Further in Exhibit-N(13), the certificate issued by the Party Chief of G. P-23 in the name of the workman Nogen Borah, it appears that there are some over writing/ manipulation in the date from 2.11.84 to 30.6.85 showing 240 days but this document can not be accepted due to doubts as to its genuinity so the workman Nogen Borah is not found to have established that he had completed 240 days of work. The Exhibit-N(14), the Identity Card issued in the name of Ratul Dutta for the period valid upto June,1996 and in the Exhibit-N(15), the Identity Card issued against the said Ratul Dutta on 1.7.96 but both the Identity Cards do not mention the period of employment. The Identity Card marked as Exhibit-N(16) issued in the name of Pradip Bora for the field season 1994-95 also does not contain any date of engagement. In Exhibit-N(17), the Memorandum issued in the name of workman Pradip Bora shows the period of engagement with effect from 1.11.1995 to 30.6.1996 while in page 35 of Exhibit-1 the date of engagement has been shown with effect from 1.12.95 to 30.6.96 thus both the Exhibit-N(17) and page 35 of Exhibit-1 are found not the same in respect of the date of engagement. Further in Exhibit-N(17) the date, 1.11.95 appears to have been fabricated/tempered as such, the document marked as Exhibit N(17) can not be accepted. Exhibits-N(18), N(19) are the Identity Cards in respect of the workman Amrit Kotoky and Torun Borah but these cards do not show any specific period of work moreover the dates of issue of these Identity Cards also appears to have been over written. The Exhibit-N(20) to Exhibit-N(22) are the Identity Cards in respect of the workmen Gajen Hazarika issued on 2.11.93. These Cards also do not reflect the period of work. Exhibit-N(23) appears to be the Identity Card in respect of workman Sushil Lahon but there is no mention of the period of service. The Exhibits-N(24) & N(25) are the Identity Cards in the name of workman Horeswar Boro but there is no mention of the period of working days. Exhibits- N(26) & N(27) are Identity Cards issued in favour of the workman Profullo Bora issued on 1.11.95 and 11.11.96 respectively but there is nothing to show as to the working4104 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Exhibit-N(62) is a certificate issued in favour of the workman Suren Chutia but the said certificate is found having without any office seal as such, this so called experience certificate cannot be accepted. Exhibit-N(72) is also a certificate issued by the Party Chief of GP-36 in favour of Tankeswar Saikia and this certificate also does not indicate any period of work. The Exhibit-N(73) a list of workers who were engaged during the off season in 1996 but there is no specific mention of period of engagement.
The Association has also exhibited the Affidavits marked as Exhibit-N(91) & N(94) sworn in by Sri Pranab Gogoi and Sri Thaneswar Gogoi stating that they are known as Bhogeswar Gogoi and Bepen Gogoi Respectively without having any relevancy with the list of workers as mentioned in the list appended with their claim statement & hence these two documents are also found of no help to the Association in connection with the calculation of working days. The workman Witness No.1, Sri Jitumoni Bora in his evidence clearly mentioned that altogether 87 numbers of workers have completed 240 days of work within the relevant period of consecutive 12 months but the supporting documents are found not at all acceptable and reliable as observed above. In his cross-examination he admitted that they have submitted a Writ Petition filed in Civil Rule No.5744/97 vide Exhibit-1 wherein Exhibit-1(1) is his signature. He also admitted the discrepancies made in some of the entries in regard to the working period mentioned in the documents annexed with Exhibit-1 and those proved by him vide Exhibit-N(l) to Exhibit-N(109). He categorically mentioned that he can not say who have manipulated the said documents marked as Exhibit-N(l) to Exhibit-N(109). Thus it is crystal clear that the documents proved by the Association vide Exhibit-N(91) to Exhibit- N(109) are found not acceptab1e in order to establish the plea in order to justify their claim that all the workmen have completed .240-days of service in 12 consecutive months on the strength of the documents marked as Exhibit-N series.
Exhibit-7 ( Proved in original) is Operational Report on 48 Fold CDP Seismic Survey for the field season 1992-93; Exhibit-8 ( proved in original), is the operational report on 48 Fold CDP seismic reflection survey for the field season 1993-94; Exhibit-9 (proved in original) the operational report on 48 fold CDP seismic Reflection Survey for the field season 1994-95; Exhibit-10 (proved in original), the operational report on 48 Fold CDP Reflection Survey for the field season 1994-95; Exhibit-11 (proved in original), the operational report on 48 Fold CDP Seismic Survey for the field season 1991-92; Exhibit-12 (proved in original) operational report on 48 Fold CDP Reflection Survey for the field season 1994-95. From the Exhibits-5 to Exhibits-12, it appears that the field season started on 4.11.92 and closed on 2.5.93; from 14.11.84 to 4.6.85; from 20.11.92 to 14.5.93; from 1.11.93 to 30.5.94; from 11.11.94 to 29.6.93; from 11.11.94 to 27.6.95; from 17.10.91 to 27.5.92 and from 11.11.94 to 28.6.95 respectively. He also stated that the gate passes are issued to the workers for various purposes and the same are issued to the outsiders and the gate passes annexed by the Association in the Written Statement are over written, tempered and as such fabricated. The Management witness No.2 Shri Ram Chandra Mishra categorically pointed out that he was posted as Party Chief in ONGC, Jorhat with effect from May,1993 to December, 1994 and was transferred to Kolkata office on 29.5.95 and hence the signature contained in Annexure N/1 of Exhibit-A is his own signatures but the dates are manipulated. He also said that the period of service in Anexure-N/l, N/36 are also manipulated. From the discussion of evidence of workman witness No.1 and Management witness No.1 & 2 as regards period of 240 days of work in 12 consecutive months in respect of the workmen as claimed by the Association it is revealed that the document marked as Exhibit-N(l) to Exhibit-N(109) which are the solitary supporting testimony relied upon by the workers Association are not admissible in law and even the testimony of the W.W.l is found not reliable. Moreover, all the documents marked as Exhibit N(l) to Exhibit-N(109) are found not genuine, trustworthy and free from doubts. On the other hand, the evidence of the Management witness is found untwisted unshaken rather supported by the documents relied upon by him.
11. Mr. S.Das, learned Advocate for the workmen submitted that the workmen have been working under the management of ONGC for long period and most of them have completed 240 days of work within 12 consecutive months but the management with a view to deprive the workmen to be regularized made some artificial breaks although they were engaged during the whole year and even they were allowed to work under roof in the rainy season. He also pointed out that the management simply denied the contention of the workers and they have suppressed the real fact for which they did not produce the Attendance Register and Pay Roll of the workers.
The Management Witness No.1 Sri Amit Kumar Khulbe in his deposition categorically stated that the seismic survey work is conducted in selected field which begins towards beginning of November and ends before the end of June next year; and none of the workers have completed 240 days in a year. He also denied that all the workers mentioned in the Annexure-A to the written statement submitted by the Association were not the workers of the said Association and most of them did not work as contingent worker in ONGC since 1994. In support of his contention the management witness No.1 has submitted the Field Report of CDP seismic Survey vide Exhibit-5 ( proved in original) for the field season 1992-93, Exhibit-6 ( proved in original) is the operational report on 24/48 Fold CDP Reflection Survey for the season 1984-85;
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4105Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Advocate for the Management, on the other hand, vehemently opposing the contention of Mr. S.Das, learned Advocate for the Association submitted that it is the onus on the part of the workmen to stand on their own leg in order to establish their pleadings; the Association neither called for the record nor did produce any authentic documents in support of their claims. Mr. Roy also submitted that the Association have not come with clean hand in order to secure equity since the documents submitted by them vide Exhibit-N series are all fabricated and tempered and as such, they are not entitled to any relief. In this context Mr. Roy cited the decisions held in Range Forest Officer-vrs-S.T.Hadimani reported in (2002) 3 SCC 25, wherein it was observed that where the workman's claim that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination was denied by the employer it is for the claimant to lead evidence to that effect; and that the workmen's affidavit was not sufficient evidence for that purpose. He also brought to my notice the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BSNL& Ors. vs-Mohesh Chand reported in(2008) 3 SCC 474 that the legal position reiterated that initial onus is on the \workman to prove that he worked for240 days in a year. Considering the evidence adduced by both the sides and having regard to the ratio of the cases cited by the learned Counsels I find no force in the argument of Mr. S. Das, learned Advocate for the Association.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in their order dated 10.11.08 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3278 of 2007 directed this Tribunal to consider the case of those workers who claimed to have completed 240 days of work within a period of 12 consecutive months and also fulfilled the conditions for regularization. It appears from the pleadings of both the sides that both the parties relied upon the Standing Order for contingent employees of the ONGC (proved by the workmen as Exhibit-B) regarding regularization of the workmen which was framed under the Provision of Industrial Employment (Standing order) Act,1946. Clause 2(ii) of the said Standing Order, provided that the workman who has been on the Roll of the Commission and has put in not less than 180 days of attendance in any period of 12 months shall be a temporary workman, provided that a temporary workman who has put not less than 240 days of work in any period of 12 consecutive months and who possess the minimum qualification prescribed by the Commission may be considered for conversion as regular employee. Clause- 2(i) of the Certified Standing Orders as aforesaid laid down the classification of workmen as the contingent employees shall hereafter be classified as temporary and casual while Sub-Clause-III of Clause-2 provided that the workman who is neither temporary nor regular shall be considered as casual workman. The Association also relied upon the Office order No. 103(98)/67-ENT dated 1.8.67 issued by the Assistant Director on behalf of the Director of Administration ONGC (Enclosed as Annexure-A series with the Additional Written Statement submitted by the Association) and No.27(70)/87-IR dated 16.7.1991 issued by the General Manager (Personnel), ONGC, wherein it has been stipulated that the contingent workers may be absorbed against the regular posts provided :
(a) They have completed 240 working days service in the
Commission in the 12 consecutive months;
(b) They are registered with the Employment Exchange;
(c) They are held against regular posts;
(d) They possess requisite qualifications and experience etc., laid down in the Recruitment Regulation of ONGC.
13. The Management in their W.S. as well as evidence on oath categorically stated that the contingent workers were appointed by them without considering their requisite qualification nor on being recommended by the local Employment Exchange; and the said contingent workers were engaged for doing some unskilled and non- perennial nature of work. The workman witness No.1 in his evidence mentioned that the work done by the workman was perennial in nature and they are having requisite qualification but there is nothing on record to show that the workmen were discharging the function of perennial in nature and there requisite qualification for the posts held by them. There is also no iota of evidence to show that the workmen were appointed against any regular vacancy and they were recommended by the local employment exchange. In course of argument Mr. P.K.Roy, learned Advocate for the Management submitted that the nature of work discharged by the members of the contingent workers Association are purely temporary and unskilled and they are also not engaged against any regular vacancy and they rendered services as casual employees for a particular period i.e. during the field season which starts from the month of November and closed on the first part of June and as such, they are not entitled to regularization as claimed. In support of his contention Mr. P.K.Roy, relied upon the case in Secretary, State of Karnataka and ors— vs- Umadevi(3) and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC. 1 wherein it was observed that while, directing the appointment, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent, the Courts are swayed by the fact that the person concerned has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time; such an argument fails when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution; merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant Rules. It is also mentioned by their Lordship that it is not as if the4106 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] person who accepted an engagement neither temporary nor casual in nature is not aware of the nature of his employment; he accepts the employment with open eyes. It was further observed in Umadevi's Case that Article 309 of the Constitution contemplated the drawing up of a procedure and Rules to regulate the recruitment and regulate the service conditions of appointees appointed to Public Services Post in connection with the affairs of the Union or in of the State; and the State being a Model Employer enacted the EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE (COMPULSORY NOTIFICATION OF VACANCY) ACT,1959 to ensure equal opportunity for employment seeker which place obligation on the employer to notify the vacancy that may arise in the various departments and those vacancies based on the procedure. Mr. Roy, learned Advocate for the management also relied upon the decision laid down in Official Liquidator -vrs- Dayanand and Ors published in (2008) 10 SCC 1.
14. The evidence on record shows that the contingent workers were engaged by the Management for the works to be done for field season i.e. for a particular period & they were not appointed against any regular vacancy notifying the Employment Exchange by the employer, nor they could fulfill the other conditions for regularization stipulated in the Certified Standing Order as well as the Office Order issued by the ONGC from time to time'as mentioned above. Further there is nothing on record to show that the qualification of the workers were examined by the management at the time of their engagement also there is no evidence to show that the contingent workers were appointed against regular vacancies.
15. During the course of the argument Mr. S.Das, learned Advocate for the Association took the plea that the Management in order to deprive the members of the contingent workers Association, indulge in unfair labour practice by adopting the Contract Labour System for doing the works done by the workers Association through the Contract labourers which is against the Principle of Law and hence the Management should be restrained from engaging the contract Labour and also to quash the Tender Notice No. ER/MM/GSD/39/97-98 issued by the Dy. General Manager (MM), Exploration Business Group, ONGC, Sibsagar. He also added that the Management of ONGC also followed the unfair Policy of giving some artificial/ frictional breaks besides arbitrary, in order to disentitled the workers from getting regularization. In this connection Mr. Das, learned Advocate cited the decision laid down in Division Forest Officer, Salooni, Chamba - VRS - Singh reported in (2013 (137) FLR 100 H.P that the State being welfare State could not indulge in unfair labour practice to give artificial/ frictional break besides arbitrary was also unreasonable and shortage of few days should have been condoned. Hence Mr. Das learned Advocate contended that the said tender Notice is liable to be set aside and the members of the Field Party Contingent Workers Association as mentioned in List marked as Exhibit-A are entitled to be regularized.
16. Mr. P.K Roy, vehemently objected to the submission of the learned Advocate for the Association stating that the Management in pursuance of the new Policy adopted by the Government regarding exploration of Oil and Natural Gas in the Country and with a view to resist in the competitive market, adopted different policies for minimizing their establishment expenditure and to earn profit by utilizing experts and skilled persons and also to engage sophisticated as well as modern technique of exploration followed the measures of restricting the creation of posts and also abolishing some of the posts by providing VRS Schemes; inviting for the Bids in the market for procuring the service of labour through contractor and as such there is no illegality on the part of the Management in issuing the tender notice. He also added that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court as well as the Apex Court in their Judgment passed in Civil Rule No. 5744/97, SLP(Civil) No.3278 of 2007 did not grant any relief of quashing the Tender Notice published by the Management as prayed for by the workmen; and hence this Tribunal can not consider this prayer of the workmen at this stage. Considering the above circumstances and the submission of learned Advocates for both the sides as well as having regard to the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Writ Petition being Civil Rule No. 5744/97, Writ Appeal No. 352/98 and SLP (Civil) No. 3278 of 2007, I find no scope to entertain the claim of the Association as regards quashing of the Tender Notice No. ER/MM/GSD/39/97- 98 issued by the Dy. General Manager (MM), Exploration Business Group, ONGC, Sibsagar.
17. In view of my finding as well as the discussion as above it can safely be held that the ONGC Field Party Contingent Workers Association has miserably failed to establish their claim that they have completed 240 days of work within 12 consecutive months, also they could not prove that they have fulfilled the other criterion for regularisition as contemplated in the Certified Standing Order of ONGC and Office orders/Memorandum issued by the ONGC from time to time. Accordingly, I find no hesitation to come to a conclusion that ONGC Field Party Contingent Workers Association have failed to establish their claim for regularisation and as such they are not entitled to any relief.
18. In the result, this Reference is answered in negtive against the ONGC Field Party Contingent Workers Association.
Send the Award to the Government of India as per
procedure.
Given under my han d and seal of this Court on this
31st day of May, 2013, at Guwahati.
L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4107
APPEARANCES:
नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलार्ई, 2013
For the Petitioner: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent: Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao,
Advocate
AWARD
का.आ. 1546.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एस. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संख्या 25/2008द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल- 22013/1/2013-आई आर;सी-II] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013
Petitioner, Sri Bhuddavaram Giridhar who has been working as a badli filler for the M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., filed this petition invoking Sec.2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking for declaring the impugned order No.MMR/PER/D/072/4269 dated 7-8-2005 issued by the first respondent as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently direction the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service duly granting all other consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.
2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
S.O. 1546.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (No. 25/2008) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 02-07-2013.
[ F. No. L-22013/1/2013-IR(C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 22nd day of May, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L. C. NO. 25/2008
Between :
Sri Bhuddavaram Giridhar, S/o Sampath Kumar, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No. G7, Ground Floor, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
. . .Petitioner
AND
1. The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri Adilabad District.
2. The Superintendent of Mines,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Kasipeta Mine, Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri. Adilabad District. . . . Respondents Petitioner was appointed as badli filler in 1999 and since then till the year 2002 he was regular to his duties. During the year 2003 his leg got fractured accidentally and further he suffered other family problems. A charge sheet dated 29-12-2004 was issued alleging that petitioner remained absent during the year 2003 which amounts to misconduct under company standing order 25.25. He submitted his explanation explaining his inability to perform his duties regularly during that year but without considering the same an enquiry was conducted with a predetermined notion. During that enquiry petitioner was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature. Basing on such lop sided enquiry the enquiry officer held the charges as proved. Basing on the erroneous findings of the enquiry officer show cause notice dated 17.4.2005 was issued to which petitioner submitted his reply. However, without considering the merits of the same he was dismissed from service, with effect from 18.8.2005 vide office order dated 7-8-2005. Petitioner could not attend to his duties regularly during the year 2003 only on account of his ill-health and other family problems. He submitted the same to his authorities time and again and also pleaded that he will attend the duty without absence in future, but the same were not considered. The action of the respondents in dismissing the petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice. The enquiry was not properly conducted. The procedure of enquiry was not explained to the petitioner. He was not offered the assistance of any defence assistant. Thus, he could not effectively participate in the enquiry and he could not mark the medical and other documents on his behalf to prove his ill health. Though he has shown all the prescriptions and other records pertaining to his continued ill health, none of them were marked by the enquiry officer. The submissions made by the petitioner were ignored on the pretext that he could not substantiate his claim with relevant4108 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] from 18-6-2003 to 20-10-2003. When he was being extended treatment at Colliery Hospital he should have continued treatment and there was no need for his to be absent from treatment. Hence, the period form 18-6-2003 to 20-10-2003 shall also be deemed as unauthorized absenteeism and it can not be accounted as sick period. The period from 17-4-2003 to 17-6-2003 was not treated as absenteeism and not included in the charge sheet. During the year 2003 petitioner has put in 10 musters only excluding the sick period and remained unauthorisedly on all other days which constitutes misconduct under respondent company's Standing Orders 25.25 which reads as.
"25.25: Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from
duty without sufficient cause. "
proof. As a result of the improper conduct of enquiry great prejudice is resulted to the petitioner. He was not given opportunity to produce his witnesses. The enquiry officer relied upon the evidence of irrelevant witnesses who got no personal knowledge of the charge alleged against the petitioner and the documents which were neither shown nor furnished to the petitioner either before or during the enquiry and which are also not establishing the charge alleged. No valid reasons are given for his findings by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer grossly erred in holding the charges as proved. The enquiry officer and the Disciplinary Authority proceeded with a preconceived notion as if petitioner accepted the charges alleged, which is not correct. The enquiry proceeding were not held in the language known to the petitioner. The findings of Disciplinary Authority are out side the scope of the charge sheet as such the impugned order of dismissal order dated 7-8-2005 is liable to be treated as bad in law. Petitioner is the sole bread winner of the family consisting of old aged ailing parents, grant parents, wife and children. As a result of petitioner's dismissal from service his family is rendered without any livelihood. Petitioner could not attend to his duties during the year 2003 only on account of his ill health and family problems. Even otherwise the punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh, excessive and disproportionate to the charges alleged. Petitioner has not gainfully employed elsewhere from the date of dismissal. Without admitting the charges alleged against the petitioner even if they are rightly held to be proved, petitioner craves indulgence of this court to modify the punishment to any other lesser punishment so as to survive himself and to look after the family. Hence the petition.
4. Respondents filed their counter with averments in brief
as follows:
Petitioner has not followed the proper procedure to entertain the industrial dispute, by straight away approaching the court without seeking for conciliation. The state amendment is not applicable to the Central Government undertakings. Petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 18-8-2005, whereas he raised the dispute in the year 2008 without explaining the reasons for delay. Thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed for want of maintainability, delay and latches. Petitioner was dismissed from service on proved charge of absenteeism after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. Petitioner was initially appointed as floating badli filler on 23-7-99 and continued to be so till the date of his dismissal. His contention that he was regular to the duties till the year 2002 is denied. His other contention that in the year 2003 he sustained fracture to his leg accidentally and suffered other family problems is also denied. During the course of enquiry petitioner submitted one OP ticket No.10508 from Area Hospital, Ramakrishanpur for the period from 17-4-2003 to 21-10-2003. Even during this period he remained absent at the hospital
Petitioner stated in his written statement that he suffered fracture to his leg in April, 2003, under gone treatment in area hospital Ramakarishnapur and in a private hospital and assured to be regular to duties. But, he did not submit any medical reports, prescription slips for the alleged treatment he has under gone. He failed to communicate his inability to attend duties to the unit level authorities or to the area level Management as he was supposed to do. He did not post any information at all. Further, if he ought not to have absented from area hospital, Ramakrishnapur. If he wants to be away from hospital, he should have obtained prior permission from hospital superintendent. Even after being declared fit for duty, he was not regular to duties. His attendance before the accident too is not satisfactory. In the year 2004 he put in just 43 musters. Thus, his contention that he was not regular to duties due to the fracture of the leg is not correct. Petitioner claims that though he explained the reason for his inability to attend duties, the merit of the same were not considered and that with a pre determined notion the enquiry was conducted are all incorrect. Petitioner was given every opportunity to defend his case, to submit witnesses and to record evidence in his support and to cross examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the Management, during the enquiry. His contention that it is a lop sided enquiry is incorrect. His further contention that he was dismissed from service without considering merits of his submissions is also incorrect. By giving full and fair opportunity to the petitioner, in compliance of the principles of natural justice, the enquiry was conducted and disciplinary action was taken against him. The petitioner's attendance to the duties, indicates that after issuance of charge sheet and even before issuance of the charge sheet, he was not regular to duties. Being a badli filler and an under ground employee he was expected to put in minimum 190 musters per year. But he failed to do so. For the absenteeism of the petitioner during the year 2002 he was issued with a charge sheet and a punishment of reversion to a lower stage by reducing to Special Piece Rate Allowance by 02 with effect from 1.10.2002 was imposed. Despite giving opportunity petitioner failed to correct himself, which[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4109 compelled the respondent to dismiss him from service. Since petitioner is being below 'C' grade 1st respondent is empowered to impose the penalty of dismissal against him and it does not require approval from higher authorities. Petitioner neither disputed the enquiry proceeding nor objected for the presentation of the pay sheet clerk during the course of enquiry. He did not cross examine the Management witnesses when opportunity was extended to him. The enquiry officer duly considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced on record and gave his reasoned finding. Petitioner failed to show as to why these findings are not valid. The contention that findings of the Disciplinary Authority are outside the scope of the charge is also not correct. If any of the employees of the respondent company whose work is inter linked and inseparable remained absent it will affect the production results. Thus, if anyone remains absent without prior leave or without any justified cause it prejudices the interests of the respondent company as it creates sudden void which at times is very difficult to fill up. There will be no proper planning and the already planned schedules suddenly get disturbed, if there is no prior notice. That is the reason the why respondent company is compelled to take serious action on the unauthorized absence. Petitioner has put in 033, 103, 003, and 043 and nil musters in 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004 and upto 31-7-2005 respectively when he was expected to put in minimum 190 musters in a calendar year. As such, respondent company was constrained to dismiss him from service. In view of the binding legal precedents governing this area also the respondent's action in this regard is justifiable. Petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. During the course of the present case proceedings, for petitioner a memo has been filed conceding the validity of domestic enquiry. Thereon the domestic enquiry has been held to be valid by virtue ofthe order dated 5-2-2010.
6. Ex.Wl and EX.Ml to M11 were marked with the
consent of the either party.
7. Heard the arguments of either party.
10. Thus, the thing which remained to be considered now on the pleadings of either party, is regarding, the validity of the proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority only. Accordingly, court heard either party, for the purpose of Sec.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, it is to be verified whether the punishment awarded to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority is proper, valid, justifiable and in proportion to the charge alleged and proved against him.
11. It is the contention of the petitioner that he could not attend to the duties during the year 2003 regularly as he suffered leg fracture accidentally during April, 2003 and was under treatment from Area Hospital and also in private hospitals. Apart from that he also prayed that he suffered from some family problems. As to his sustaining leg fracture and under going treatment in area hospital, is concerned evidently, the respondents are not seriously disputing. It is the contention of the respondents themselves that considering the fracture injury sustained by the petitioner, the sick period from 17.4.2003 to 17.6.2003 was not treated as absenteeism and was not included in charge sheet. That means, they are conscious of the fact that petitioner sustained fracture injury to his leg and was under prolonged treatment. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he suffered fracture injury and was required prolonged treatment is concerned it can be taken as an established fact.
12. According to the Petitioner he was taking treatment from private hospitals also. No doubt no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the same. But the fact remains that a fracture injury requires a very prolonged treatment and when a person suffers from a leg fracture, for him to be able to walk normally even, he will be needing substantial time. Thus, the absenteeism of the petitioner which followed his accidentally sustaining leg fracture injury is to be looked upon with due consideration.
8. The points for determination :
1. Whether the respondent's action in issuing the impugned order No.MMR/PER/D/072/4269 dated 7.8.2005 is legal and justified?
2. To what relief he is entitled?
9. Point No (1) : As already observed above, the petitioner conceded as to the validity of domestic enquiry which lead to the order of this court holding that the said domestic enquiry as valid. Thus, the voluminous pleading on the part of the petitioner disputing with the correctness of the procedure followed during the course of conducting of the domestic enquiry and the alleged prejudice occurred to him due to such alleged lapses, need not be considered. When once petitioner concedes that the domestic enquiry has been validly held, there is no need for reopening the said matter.
13. As can be seen the from the material on record, the enquiry report and other documents could not be served on the petitioner personally, as he was not available and after a publication was made in the news paper, he received the same and has given an explanation stating that due to fracture injury and consequent treatment in medical hospitals he could not attend to the duty regularly and promising that he would attend to duty regularly in future if he is given an opportunity. The Disciplinary Authority found that the said explanation is not satisfactory and further accepting the fmdings of the enquiry officer and taking that there are no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view in the matter, dismissed the petitioner from services with effect from 18-8-2005 by virtue of the order dated 7-8-2005 i.e., the impugned order.
14. As can be seen from the order of the Disciplinary Authority referred to above, the Disciplinary Authority has considered only the misconduct alleged in the charge sheet dated 29-12-2004 basing on which the enquiry has4110 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] been held against the petitioner for his unauthorized absence during the year 2003. Whereas respondents have pleaded about the various events of unauthorized absence on the part of the petitioner, which never formed part of the impugned disciplinary proceedings.
15. In the counter filed by the respondents a plea is put forth regarding the previous misconduct and awarding of punishment for the same to the petitioner. But no supporting documents were filed to prove the same. Further more, there is no reference of any such punishment in the above referred order of the Disciplinary Authority.
16. No opportunity has been given to the petitioner regarding the aggravated form of punishment, by assigning reasons for the same either, as his previous conduct which lead to imposition of earlier punishment or any such analogous aspects. Thus there has been no opportunity for the petitioner to verify the correctness of the reasons which lead to the aggravated form of the punishment imposed against him at any time prior to imposition of the same and to state his pleas regarding punishment to be imposed. Only in the counter filed before this court, respondents pleaded about the previous conduct of the petitioner, for the first time. Thus, it can not be taken as a justified conduct on the part of the respondents.
the year 2003. But, as it can not be said that his conduct is beyond re proof altogether owing to the fact that he failed to take prior permission/sanction of leave appropriate punishment is to be imposed against him.
19. In view of the fore gone discussion, it can safely be concluded that the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service by virtue of impugned order dated 7-8-2005 passed by the 1st respondent is not maintainable. But, as the conduct of the petitioner in remaining absent from duty for long duration without intimation/sanction of leave which would certainly resulted into prejudice to the interests of the respondent company, appropriate alternative punishment is to be imposed,by way of modifying the punishment of dismissal from service imposed againust him. On due consideration of the nature of the misconduct for which the punishment is awarded and the circumstances which the lead the Petitioner to commit such misconduct, one can see that the reasonable punishment to be awarded is stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect only.
This point is answered accordingly.
20. In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 7-8-2005 where under first respondent imposed the punishment, dismissing the petitioner from the services ofthe respondent company w.e.f. 18-8-2005 is hereby set aside. Instead, the petitioner is awarded with the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Petitioner shall be reinstated into service with immediate effect, but he shall not be entitled for any back wages. He is entitled for all other attendant benefits.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 22nd day of May, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined Witnesses examined for the
for the Petitioner Respondent
NIL NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex. Wl: Dismissal order dated 7-8-2005
Documents marked for the Respondent
17. When the documents produced on record are considered one can reasonably understand that considering the absenteeism of the petitioner during the year 2003 alone, he has been dismissed from service in spite of the fact that during the said year he suffered leg fracture and has under gone prolonged medical treatment. As per standing orders 25.25 ofthe respondent company, only when there is a habitual absence from duty that too without sufficient cause, it amounts to misconduct which attracts punishment. In the present case, there is prolonged absence from duty on the part of the petitioner. But it can not be said that it is totally without sufficient cause. During that period he suffered fracture to his leg accidentally and under gone prolonged medical treatment. But, the fact remains that he failed to intimate the concerned authorities, regarding his inability to attend to the duties. It can not be said that he was not in a position to pass on such information. His conduct, in remaining absent from duty without intimation and permission from the concerned authorities, certainly would have resulted into substantial prejudice to the interests of the respondent. Thus, petitioner is certainly liable for punishment but in the given circumstances, it shall not be dismissal from service.
18. The Standing Orders of the respondent company spell out several punishments for the misconducts. The last and gravest punishment provided for, is dismissal from service. Thus, only for the persons who are incorrigible in all respects, such is the punishment to be awarded, but not to the case like petitioner, who could make out some plausible reason for his remaining absent from duties during EX. Ml: Office copy of charge sheet dt. 29-l2-2004
EX. M2: Explanation of the Petitioner to the charge sheet.
EX. M3: Office copy of enquiry notice dt.18-l-2005
EX. M4: Enquiry proceedings dt.22-l-2005
EX. M5: Enquiry report dt. 2l-2-2005
EX. M6: Office copy of lr. No.MMR/PER/D/072/2130 dt.17-4-2005
EX. M7: Undelivered cover with ack. for EX.M6 dt.30-4-2005[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4111 EX. M8: News paper notification in Andhra Jyothi daily dt.5-7-2005
EX. M9: Acknowledgement dt.11-7-2005 for lr. No.MMR/ PER/D/ 072/2130 dt.17-4-2005
2. The Colliery Manager/Superintendent of Mines, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., 1K 1A Incline, Sreeramput Area. Adilabad district
. .. ..Respondents
APPEARANCES :
EX.Ml 0: Representation of the Petitioner.
EX. M11 : Dismissal order dated 7-8-2005.
नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलार्ई, 2013
For the Petitioner: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva
Reddy, Aavocates
For the Respondent: Sri M.V. Hanumanata Rao,
Advocate
AWARD
का.आ. 1547.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एस. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 70/2007द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल- 22013/1/2013-आई आर;सी-II)]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी This is a petition under Sec.2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 filed by the petitioner who worked as coal filler at IK incline of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited invoking seeking for declaring the impugned order No.SRP(P)/P(IR)/35A/2K/938 dated 30-5-2000 issued by first respondent as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same consequently directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into
2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013
S.O. 1547.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (70/2007) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02-07-2013
[ F. No. L-22013/1/2013-IR(C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI Presiding Officer
Dated the 29th day of May, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L. C. NO. 70/2007
Between :
Sri Rentala Murali, S/o Kamel, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No. G7, Ground Floor, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,
Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
.....Petitioner
AND
1. The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur(Projects) Area, Sreerampur, Adilabad District.
Petitioner was appointed as badli filler on 11-4-1987 and confirmed as coal filler. He has been regular to his duties till the year 1996. During the year 1997, as he suffered with typhoid fever for which respondent company put him in sick list from 20-8-1987 to 30-9-97 and also as his daughter suffered ill health during that year which required him to take her to various hospitals and also her being expired unfortunately, petitioner was compelled not to be regular to his duties. A charge sheet dated 30.-3-1998 was issued alleging that petitioner was irregular to his duties during the year 1997 which amounts to misconduct under company's Standing Orders No.25.25. He submitted his explanation on 4-4-1998 giving the reasons for his inability for attending the duties during the year 1997. Without considering merits of his submissions enquiry was conducted with a predetermined notion. During the enquiry he was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, enquiry officer held the charges as proved. Basing on such erroneous findings Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice dated 25-9-1998. Petitioner submitted his reply on 3-10-1998. Without considering merits of the same he was dismissed from service, vide the order dated 30-5-2000. The whole enquiry was conducted in a routine and mechanical manner with pre-determined intention to dismiss the petitioner from service. First respondent failed to apply his mind independently while passing the impugned order. Before commencement of the enquiry, the enquiry procedure was not explained to the petitioner and he was not offered the assistance of the defence assistant. As he was not aware of the enquiry procedure petitioner could not participate in the enquiry effectively. Though the petitioner has shown all the prescriptions and records which can substantiate his defence regarding his ill-health and the ill-health of his daughter, none of them were marked by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer ignored the submissions4112 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] prove the ill health of himself and his daughter. Petitioner attended the counseling on 27-8-1999 and assured the Management in wiring that hence forth he would work regularly but, even after the counseling he did not improve his attendance, he was quite irregular to his duties. The enquiry was conducted following the principles of natural justice. Petitioner fully participated in it. The enquiry procedure was duly explained to him. Petitioner has been given sufficient opportunity to produce his witnesses after explaining the procedure of the enquiry. Impugned order is a well reasoned order. Petitioner expressed that he got no objection to conduct the proceedings in English. All the documents which were relied upon during the enquiry were shown to the petitioner. Petitioner does not come within the guide lines of reinstatement of the workmen who were dismissed from service. Hence, he was not reinstated. Punishment of dismissal from service is neither harsh nor excessive nor disproportionate to the charges leveled in this case as per the settled law. First respondent is competent to issue the impugned order without approval of any other authority. Petitioner is to be put to strict proof that on account of his financial stringencies he could not file the petition earlier. Petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. During course of the present case proceedings petitioner got filed a memo conceding the validity of domestic enquiry held by the respondent company. There on by virtue of the order dated 29-1-2009 this court held the domestic enquiry held by the respondent is to be treated as valid.
5. Both the parties were heard u/s 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. EX.Wl and EX.Ml to M8 were marked with the consent of either parties.
6. The pointes raised for determination are :
made by the petitioner at the end of the enquiry on the pretext that petitioner could not substantiate his claim with relevant proofs. It all happened due to improper conduct of the enquiry and petitioner suffered great prejudice. Approval of competent authority was not obtained prior to passing the impugned order. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce the witnesses. Neither the findings of the enquiry officer nor the impugned order does give any reasons much less valid in nature. The enquiry officer and Disciplinary Authority proceeded with misconceived notion that petitioner admitted his guilt. The enquiry was not held in the language known to the petitioner. Petitioner was not supplied with any documents on which the enquiry officer placed his reliance. Even the said documents do not establish guilt of the petitioner. Subsequent to the issuance of the impugned order, Management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited conducted interviews for the workmen who were dismissed from service on account of absenteeism. In response petitioner also applied for the same and attended the interview. He pleaded that as a result of his dismissal from service, he and his family members are facing hardships and starvation. He also assured the Management that he would be regular to his duties, if he is given re-appointment. But he was not given re-appointment. He is the sole bread winner of his family consisting of aged mother, wife and two children. Since he was dismissed from service, his whole family rendered without any livelihood. Punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh, excessive and disproportionate to the charges alleged. Petitioner's inability to be regular to his duties during the year 1997 was only on account of his and his daughter's ill health and family troubles but not otherwise. On account of his financial stringencies he could not approach the court earlier. With great difficulty present petition is filed. Delay occurred due to that reason only.
1. Whether the impugned order No. dated is liable
to be set aside, if so on what grounds?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief?
3. Resoondent's filed a counter with averments in
brief as follows:
Petitioner approached the court directly without complying with the mandatory pre-requisite of the conciliation. There are delay and latches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the court. For these reasons petition ought to have been dismissed in limini. Petitioner's contention that he suffered with typhoid fever in the year 1997 is not correct. He is to be put to strict proof that in the year 1997 his daughter also suffered ill- health and he was to take her to various hospitals. No single document is filed to prove all these contentions. Since the explanation of the petitioner dated 4.4.98 to the charge sheet issued to him was not satisfactory, the enquiry was held. During the enquiry petitioner was given full and fair opportunity basing on the enquiry, the enquiry officer held the charges as proved. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 25-9-98 was issued to the petitioner. For it petitioner submitted his reply on 3-10-1998. Thereafter on duly considering the merits of the submissions made by the petitioner impugned order was passed. During the enquiry petitioner did not file even a single document to 3. To what relief?
7. Point (1) : It is an admitted fact that Petitioner absented himself from duty during the period mentioned in the charge sheet leveled against him. Ex.Ml is the charge sheet dated 30-3-1998, Ex.M2 is the representation given by the Petitioner in answer to Ex.Ml charge sheet, whereunder he categorically admitted regarding his absence from duty during the given period but he explained the reasons for his absence stating that during the year 1997 due to extreme unavoidable circumstances like his five years old daughter becoming seriously ill and hospitalized and after prolonged treatment her being expired on 7-1-1998. He said that the said child was admitted in the Area hospital, Bellampally and there itself she died and that as he was looking after his ailing child, who was so seriously ill, he could not attend to his duties regularly and further due to the mental shock suffered by him on account of demise of his child he himself suffered illness and was under medical treatment. He further stated that due to the distance which he was to cover to attend to[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4113 his duties after attending his ailing child at Bellampally hospital, he was unable to attend duties regularly. He categorically pleaded in Ex.M2 that the absence from duty on his part, was never intentional and that it was due to the circumstances mentioned above and promised that he would more carefully attend to his duties in future.
8. Inspite of the above referred representation made by the Petitioner, respondents have not got satisfied and a regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the Petitioner. Petitioner participated in the said enquiry, as can be seen from the Ex.M4 and M5 the enquiry report and enquiry proceedings respectively. As can be seen from Ex.M5 even during the enquiry, Petitioner admitted the factum of his being absent from duty on the dates mentioned in the charge sheet and gave an explanation that owning to the sickness of himself and his child and also due to the demise of his child, he could not attend duties regularly at that time. When he made the statement before the enquiry officer he was not subjected to any cross examination with this regard, which means that truth of these contentions is not being disputed with.
9. Thus, it is very much clear that owing to the sickness of himself as well as his daughter and also demise of his daughter who was so sick, Petitioner could not attend to the duties regularly on the dates mentioned in Ex.MI charge sheet. He reasonably explained in Ex.M2 that as he was attending to his ailing child who was under going treatment in Area Hospital, Bellampally and to attend to his duties from Bellampally he was to cover considerable distance and due to that reason also he could not attend to the duties at the relevant time. Inspite of all these reasons which were explained by the Petitioner and which were not being disputed with, the enquiry officer has given a finding in Ex. M4 report that Petitioner has been guilty of misconduct of habitual absence without sufficient reason. As can be seen from the contents of Ex.M4 the enquiry officer was conscious of the fact that during the relevant time Petitioner's daughter was seriously ailing and she expired after prolonged treatment. Inspite of it, and stressing on the fact that Petitioner pleaded guilty of his being absent from duties, the learned enquiry officer gave the finding that the guilt of the Petitioner for the charge levelled against him is proved. But the fact remains that there is sufficient and reasonable cause for the Petitioner not being able to attend to the duties at the relevant time. It can not be said that without there being any sufficient cause Petitioner absented himself from duty.
10. Inspite of it, the Disciplinary Authority evidently accepted the findings of the enquiry officer in total and proceeded further in the matter. Ex.M8 is the final order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. As can be seen from this document, a copy of said enquiry report was supplied to the Petitioner calling for his representation if any, regarding the findings contained in the enquiry report and in answer to the same Petitioner made representation dated 3.10.1998. The said representation is not filed before this court. As per Ex.M8, 'Disciplinary Authority found the contents of the said representation are not satisfactory but he did not give any reasons for his arriving at the such decision. He did not discuss the contents of the said representation in Ex.M8 order. He awarded the punishment of dismissal from service with immediate effect to the Petitioner, by virtue of Ex.M8 order.
11. There are several other punishments provided for, for the misconduct committed by the workmen of the respondent company in Standing Orders Clause No. 26 of the respondent company. Dismissal from service is the gravest punishment provided for. Therefore such punishment can be awarded only in extreme cases where gravest misconduct is alleged and proved. In the present case, Petitioner, for sufficient reason and under the extreme circumstances discussed above, could not attend to the duties regularly at the relevant time, which resulted into his being absent from duties on various dates mentioned in Ex.M1 charge sheet. The record does not disclose that Petitioner was habitual absentee from duties and disciplinary action was taken against his for any such previous misconduct. That means this is the first and only disciplinary action taken against the Petitioner and as a result of this disciplinary action itself Petitioner has been removed from service. Why the various circumstances explained by the Petitioner, as reasons for his inability to attend the duties at the relevant time, were not acceptable as sufficient cause for his absence from duties, either to the enquiry officer or to the Disciplinary Authority, is not explained any where on record. Both these officials ignored the said explanation totally. Whereas, the explanation given by the Petitioner is a sufficient cause for any body to be absent from duties. Sickness of self and serious sickness of his child which required his attendance and which ultimately resulted into her demise are certainly sufficient causes for a workman being absent from duties.
12. Learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon the principles laid down in the cases of State of UP and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and another reported in 1996(1) SCC 302 and North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation,. Vs. Ashappa. In support of his contention that absence from duty for a long time is misconduct of such nature which does not deserve leniency and which warrants the punishment of dismissal from service. As can be seen from both these cases, the workmen thereto have shown negligence and disinterestedness towards duties by being absent from duties long time without there being sufficient cause. Whereas in the present case Petitioner could give reasonable and sufficient causes for his absenteeism, as already discussed above. Therefore, the principles laid down in the above said legal precedents can not be made applicable to the facts of the present case.
13. Learned Counsel for the respondent further contended that Petitioner failed to produce death certificate pertaining to his child and also failed to produce any medical record to substantiate his contentions. But the fact remains as already discussed above, that when he made a statement during the enquiry to the effect that owing to the sickness and consequential4114 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] demise of his child and also his own sickness, he could not attend to the duties, he was not at all been subjected to any cross examination, which amounts to the Management's acceptance to the truth of his contentions. 14. In view of the fore gone discussion of the material on record, it can safely be held that Petitioner is not guilty of the charge under Standing Orders 25.25, thus, the order of dismissal from service passed against him by virtue of Ex.M8 order is liable to be set aside.
This point is answered accordingly.
Ex. M4: Enquiry report dt.19-9-98
Ex. M5: Enquiry proceeding dt. 29-8-98
Ex. M6: Notice dt. 25-9-98
Ex. M7: Representation of Petitioner 27-8-99
Ex. M8: Final Settlement notice dt.30-5-2000
नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलार्ई, 2013
15. Point No. (II) :
In view of the finding given in point No.(I) above, Petitioner is entitled for the relief of setting aside the impugned order, i.e., Ex.M8 order and he is entitled for reinstatement into service.
16. But the fact remains that Petitioner has not applied for any leave and has not intimated the concerned authorities about his inability to attend the duties before absenting himself from duties. It certainly would have caused inconvenience and hardship to the respondent company. For the period of his absence he would not have been paid any wages. That itself is not sufficient to remedy the inconvenience suffered by the respondent.
17. Considering the circumstances, though Petitioner will have to be ordered to be reinstated into service, as far as back wages are concerned, he will be entitled for 25% of the wages to which he would have been entitled to, if he has been continued in service only. He is entitled for continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. This point is answered accordingly. Result :
18. Point No. 3: In the result petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the first respondent No.SRP(P)/P(IR)/35. A/2K/938 dated 30-5-2000 dismissing the Petitioner from service is declared as illegal and arbitrary and is hereby set aside. Petitioner shall be reinstated in service forth with. He shall be entitled for 25% of the back wages for the period from the date of his dismissal from service till the date of publication of this order in official gazette. There after he is entitled for full wages. Respondent shall pay the wages accordingly. Petitioner is entitled for continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. Award passed accordingly. Transmit. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 29th day of May, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer का.आ. 1548.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एस. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संख्या 18/2012द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल- 22013/1/2013-आई आर;सी-II)] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013
S.O. 1548.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (18/2012) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 02-07-2013
[ F. No. L-22013/1/2013-IR(C-II)] B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer Dated the 17th day of May, 2013 Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 18/2012
Appendix of evidence
Between : Sri Md. Gouse Moinuddin, S/o M.A. Jabbar, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No.G-7, Ground floor, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp. Badruka Junior College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad ..............Petitioner AND 1. The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Srirampur, Adilabad District.
Witnesses examined Witnesses examined
for the Petitioner for the Respondent
NIL NIL
2. The Superintendent of Mines,
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex. Wl: Dismissal order dated 30-5-2000
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., SSRP 3 & 3A incline, Srirampur, Adilabad district
. . . .Respondents
Documents marked for the Respondent
APPEARANCES:
Ex. M1: Charge sheet dated 30-3-1998 For the Petitioner: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva
Ex. M2: Petitioner's explanation dated 4-4-1998 Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent: None
Ex. M3: Enquiry Notice to Petitioner dt.20-8-1998
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4115
A WARD
This is a petition filed under Sec.2 A (2) of the I D. Act, 1947 between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman Sri Md. Gouse Moinuddin and numbered in this Court as L.C.No. 18/2012 and notices were issued to the parties.
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (41/2010) as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 02-07-2013.
[ F. No. L-22013/1/2013-IR(C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
2. Petitioner has filed this petition against his dismissal from service by the Respondent vide order No.SRP/PER/13.008/893 dated 5-3-2010, without following the procedure and seeking for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT AT HYDERABAD
3. Case stands posted for filing of counter and
documents by Respondents.
PRESENT : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 7th day of May, 2013
Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 41/2010
Between :
4. At this stage, Petitioner has filed IA 58/2013 for advancement of main case from 18-5-2013 to 7-5-2013 and filed a memo seeking for permission to withdraw his case. 6. In pursuance of the order in IA No.58/2013 dated 7-5-2013, this case is advanced to 7-5-2013. In the memo filed by the Petitioner seeking for permission to withdraw the petition, Petitioner pleaded that the management was kind enough to offer employment to him subject to withdrawal of the present dispute and that he be permitted to withdraw the present dispute.
7. Notice given to Respondent. Heard both parties.
Petitioner is permitted to withdraw his case.
8. In the result, the case is dismissed as withdrawn.
Award is passed accordingly Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 7th day of May, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined Witnesses examined for the Petitioner for the Respondent Sri Anney Blessington,
S/o Sampath Kumar
C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,
Advocate, Flat No.G7, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,
Opp. Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
. . ..Petitioner
AND
1. The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam Area-I, Ramagundam. Karimnagar District.
2. The Colliery Manager/Superintendent of
Mines, M/s Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., GDK-2 & 2A incline, Karimnagar District. .. . .Respondents
APPEARANCES: F or the Petitioner: M/s. A. Sarojana
NIL NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
& K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलार्ई, 2013
For the Respondent: M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &
Vijayalaxmi Panguluri, Advocates
A W ARD
का.आ. 1549.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एस. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 41/2010द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल- 22013/1/2013-आई आर;सी-II)] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013
S.O. 1549.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central This is a petition filed by the Petitioner Sri Anne Blessington under Sec.2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 against the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D.No. 41/2010 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. Petitioner has filed this petition against his dismissal from service vide order No.RG.I/PER/S/46/6944 dated 24-l1-2008 by the Respondent, without allowing the procedure, seeking for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Respondent have filed counter statement as well as documents in support of their contentions.
3. Case stood posted for arguments on the validity of domestic enquiry. At this stage, the matter has been referred to Lok Adalath for amicable settlement.
4116 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Between :
4. While things stood so, Petitioner has filed memo seeking for permission to withdraw his case pleading that the management was kind enough to offer employment to him subject to withdrawal of the present dispute and that he be permitted to withdraw his case. In the given circumstances, the matter has been called to the regular file from Lok Adalath.
5. Notice given to Respondents. Heard both parties.
Petitioner is permitted to withdraw his case.
6. In the result, the case is dismissed as withdrawn.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 7th day of May, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer Sri Neelam Srinivas S/o Neelam Venkatrajam, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No.G7, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp. Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad ..Petitioner AND 1. The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramaguandam Area-IV, Ramagundam, Karimnagar district.
2. The Colliery Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., OCP-II, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar district . .. ..Respondents
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses Witnesses examined for the Petitioner for the Respondent
NIL NIL APPEARANCES: For the Petitioner: M/s. A. Sarojana, K. Vasudeva
Reddy & P. Basavaiah, Advocates
For the Respondent: Sri M. V. Hanumantha Rao, Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Advocate AWARD
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलार्ई, 2013
का.आ. 1550.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एस. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 39/2009द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल- 22013/1/2013-आई आर;सी-II)]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013
S.O. 1550.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (39/2009) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 02-07-2013
[ F. No. L-22013/1/2013-IR(C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer This is a petition filed by the Petitioner Sri Neelam Srinivas under Sec.2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 against the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D.No. 39/2009 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. Petitioner has filed this petition against his dismissal from service vide order No. RG4/PER/IR/049/708 dated 20/21-6-2004 by the Respondent without following the procedure seeking for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
3. Case stands posted for arguments under Sec. l1(A)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. At this stage, Petitioner has filed memo seeking for permission to withdraw his case pleading that the management was kind enough to offer employment to him subject to withdrawal of the present dispute and that he -be permitted to withdraw his case.
5. Notice given to Respondents. Heard both parties.
Petitioner is permitted to withdraw his case.
6. In the result, the case is dismissed as withdrawn.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 15th day of April, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined Witnesses examined for the Petitioner for the Respondent NIL ` NIL
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT AT HYDERABAD
Documents marked for the Petitioner
PRESENT : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
Dated the 15th day of April, 2013
NIL
Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 39/2009
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4117Appearances :
नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलाई, 2013
For the Petitioner : M/s. A. Sarojana, K. Vasudeva Reddy and P. Basavaiah, Advocates.
For the Respodent : Sri S.M. Subhani, Advocate.
AWARD
का.आ. 1551.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एस सी सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 94/2007द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22013/1/2013-आई आर ;सी-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013
S.O. 1551.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (Reference No. 94/2007) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2013.
[ F. No. L- 22013/1/2013-IR (C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer This is a petition filed by the Petitioner Sri Chuttakula Shyam Kumar, under Sec. 2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 against the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and numbered in this Court as L.C. I.D. No. 94/2007 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. Petitioner has filed this petition against his dismissal from service vide order No. K5/2001/5/1464 dated 27/29-3-2001 by the Respondent without following the procedure seeking for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Respondents have filed counter statement as well as documents in support of their contentions. On filing of memo conceding domestic enquiry as valid by the Petitioner, Departmental enquiry held legal and valid.
3. Case stands posted for arguments under Sec. 11(A)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. At this stage, Petitioner has filed memo seeking for permission to withdraw his case pleading that the management was kind enough to offer employment to him subject to withdrawal of the present dispute and that he be permitted to withdraw his case.
ANNEXURE
5. Notice given to Respondents. Heard both parties.
Petitioner is permitted to withdraw his case.
6. In the result, the case is dismissed as BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer Dated the 26th day of April, 2013
withdrawn. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 26th day of April, 2013.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L. C. No. 94/2007
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer Between :
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined Witnesses examined for for the Petitioner the Respondent
NIL NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Sri Chuttakula Shyam Sunder, S/o Venkata Rajam, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No. G7, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp. Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. ......Petitioner
AND
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
1. The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., KK-5 incline, Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District.
2. The Colliery Manager/Superintendent of Mines,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., KK-5 incline, Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District. .....Respondents
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1552.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एस सी सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार4118 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SHRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 84/2012द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22013/1/2013-आई आर ;सी-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013
S.O. 1552.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (Reference No. 84/2012) as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2013.
[ F. No. L- 22013/1/2013-IR (C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District, in terminating the service of Shri Kolipaka Anjaiah, Ex-Badli Filler, KK-2 inc., SCCL, Mandamarri Area with effect from 27-2-2001 is justified or not? To what relief he applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 84/2012 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. Notices were issued to both parties and the same were reported served. For Petitioner union Sri. K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate and for Respondent Sri P.A.V.V.S. Sarma have offered to file vakalat by th next date of hearing.
ANNEXURE
3. The case stands posted for appearance of parties to 5-8-2013. While things stood so, Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate filed Vakalat for the Petitioner together with petition i. e. IA No. 74/2013 invoking Sec. 36(4) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking permission to appear for the Petitioner. Further he filed I.A. No. 84/2013, seeking for advancement of the case to 27-5-2013 and filed a memo seeking for permission to withdraw the case. In the given circumstances, IA No. 74/2013 and IA No. 84/2013 are allowed. Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate is permitted to represent the Petitioner.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer, Dated the 27th day of April, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 84/2012
Between :
The President (Sri R. Kashi Ramulu), Telengana Trade Union Council, H. No. 3-5-247/3, Azmathpura, Karimnagar. ......Petitioner
AND
The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District-504231 .....Respondent 4. In pursuance of the order in IA No. 84/2013 dated 27-5-2013, this case is advanced to 27-5-2013. In the memo filed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, seeking for permission to withdraw the petition, Petitioner pleaded that the management was kind enough to offer employment to him subject to withdrawal of the present dispute and that he is to be permitted to withdraw the petition.
5. Notice given to Respondents. Heard both parties. Workman Sri Kolipaka Anjaiah is permitted to withdraw his case.
6. In the result, the case is dismissed as withdrawn.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 27th day of May, 2013.
Appearances :
For the Petitioner : M/s. A. Sarojana and K. Vasudeva M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondent : NIL
Witnesses examined Witnesses examined for for the Petitioner the Respondent
AWARD
NIL NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/156/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 7-11-2012 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is :
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलाई, 2013
SCHEDULE
''Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri का.आ.1553.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एस सी सी एल[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4119
AWARD
के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 16/2008द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22013/1/2013-आई आर ;सी-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013
S.O. 1553.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (Reference No. 16/2008) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2013.
[ F. No. L- 22013/1/2013-IR (C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer This is a petition filed by the Petitioner Sri Lingam Shankaraiah under Sec. 2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 against the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and numbered in this Court as L.C. I.D. No. 16/2008 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. Petitioner has filed this petition against his dismissal from service vide order No. P/MM/7/2/01/2334 dated 20-5-2001 by the Respondent without following the procedure, seeking for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Respondents have filed counter statement as well as documents in support of their contentions. On filing of memo conceding domestic enquiry as valid by the Petitioner, Departmental enquiry held legal and valid.
3. Case stands posted for arguments under Sec. 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. At this stage, the matter has been referred to Lok Adalath for amicable settlement.
ANNEXURE
4. While things stood so, Petitioner has filed memo seeking for permission to withdraw his case pleading that the management was kind enough to offer employment to him subject to withdrawal of the present dispute and that he be permitted to withdraw his case. In the given circumstances, the matter has been called to the regualr file from Lok Adalath.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
Present : SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer, Dated the 27th day of May, 2013
5. Notice given to Respondents. Heard both parties.
Petitioner is permitted to withdraw his case.
6. In the result, the case is dismissed as
withdrawn.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L. C. No. 16/2008
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Between :
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 27th day of May, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Sri Lingam Shankaraiah, S/o Lingaiah, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No. G7, Opp. Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. ......Petitioner
AND
1. The General Manager,
Witnesses examined Witnesses examined for for the Petitioner the Respondent
NIL NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District.
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
2. The Colliery Manager, KK-5A incline,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District. .....Respondents
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलाई, 2013
Appearances :
For the Petitioner : M/s. A. Sarojana, K. Vasudeva Reddy and P. Basavaiah, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Sri S.M. Subhani, Advocate. का.आ. 1554.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एस सी सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 98/2009द्ध4120 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SHRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22013/1/2013-आई आर ;सी-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013
S.O. 1554.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (Reference No. 98/2009) as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2013.
[ F. No. L- 22013/1/2013-IR (C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer Shankar and numbered in this Court as I.C. No. 98/2009 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. Petitioner has filed this petition against his dismissal from service by the Respondent vide order No. P/MM/7/2/00/1681 dated 16-4-2000 without following the procedure seeking for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
3. Respondent have filed counter statement.
4. Both parties have filed their respective documents and case stands posted for arguments on validity of domestic enquiry by Respondents.
5. At this stage, Petitioner has filed IA 56/2013 for advancement of main case from 1-7-2013 to 7-5-2013 and filed a memo seeking for permission to withdraw his case.
ANNEXURE
6. In pursuance of the order in IA No. 56/2013 dated 7-5-2013, this case is advanced to 7-5-2013. In the memo filed by the Petitioner seeking for permission to withdraw the petition, Petitioner pleaded that the management was kind enough to offer employment to him subject to withdrawal of the present dispute and that he be permitted to withdraw the present dispute.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
Present : SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer, Dated the 7th day of May, 2013
7. Notice given to Respondent. Heard both parties.
Petitioner is permitted to withdraw his case.
8. In the result, the case is dismissed as withdrawn.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L. C. No. 98/2009
Between :
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 7th day of May, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Sri I. Ravi Shankar, S/o I. Rayamallu, C/o Smt. A.Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No. G-7, Ground Floor, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp. Badruka Junior College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. ......Petitioner
AND
Witnesses examined Witnesses examined for for the Petitioner the Respondent
NIL NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
1. The General Manager,
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District.
2. The Superintendent of Mines,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., SMG-3 Incline, Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District. .....Respondents
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलाई, 2013
Appearances :
For the Petitioner : M/s. A. Sarojana and K. Vasudeva
Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent : Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao,
Advocate.
का.आ. 1555.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एस सी सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 1/2007द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
AWARD
This is a petition filed under Sec. 2A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman Sri I. Ravi [पफा. सं. एल-22013/1/2013-आई आर ;सी-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4121 New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013
Petitioner into service, duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendent benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as
follows :
S.O. 1555.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (1/2007) as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2013.
[ F. No. L- 22013/1/2013-IR (C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer Dated the 4th day of April, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L. C. No. 1/2007
Between :
Sri T. Krishna Murthy, S/o T.V. Narasiah, C/o Smt. A.Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No. G-7, Ground floor, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp. Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. ......Petitioner
AND
1. The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur, Adilabad District.
2. The Dy. General Manager,
RK-7, incline, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur, Adilabad District. .....Respondents
Appearances :
For the Petitioner : M/s. A. Sarojana, & K. Vasudeva
Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya
Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates.
AWARD
The Petitioner was appointed as badli filler on 15-5-2000 in first Respondent company on compassionate grounds and was posted to work in the office of 2nd Respondent. On 10-1-2003 a charge sheet was served on him alleging that he was absent from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause, which amount to misconduct under the company's Standing Order No. 25.25. The Petitioner has submitted explanation on 23-4-2004 explaining the reasons for his inability to perform duties during the said period. Without considering the same on merits an enquiry was conducted with a pre-determined notion. During that enquiry Petitioner was not given any opportunity. Basing on such lop-sided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved. Basing on such erroneous findings, the workman was dismissed from service, vide office order dated 19-7-2004. The workman has categorically prayed in his reply to the charge sheet as well as during the course of enquiry that due to ill-health and family problems he could not attend to the duties. He also prayed that he will attend duty without absence in future but, his submissions were not considered. The order dated 19-7-2004 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. The workman was not explained as to the procedure of the enquiry. He was not offered the assistance of any defence assistant. The Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority proceeded with pre conceived notion as if the workman has accepted the charges alleged against him, which is factually incorrect. Neither of them has considered the submission of the workman before arriving at a conclusion. The enquiry was conducted in the language not known to the workman and it was not explained to him in the language known to him. Having drafted the proceedings in English, the signatures of the workman were obtained. As per the instructions issued by the Respondent No.1 company the proceedings of the enquiry are to be conducted in the language known to the delinquent employee. The Enquiry Officer relied upon the evidence of the irrelevant witnesses who have no personal knowledge of the charge alleged against the Petitioner. Though enquiry officer relied upon several documents to substantiate the charges, none of those documents either shown or furnished to the Petitioner either before or during the course of enquiry. Even the documents marked do not establish the charge alleged against him. The enquiry was conducted in a routine and mechanical manner with a predetermined intention to somehow or the other, put the Petitioner to extreme hardship of dismissal from service. First Respondent has not applied his mind independently while issuing the impugned order of dismissal. Before Sri T. Krishna Murthy, who woked as badli filler at RK.-7 incline, Ramakrishnapur in the Respondent company (who will hereinafter be referred to as workman) has filed this petition against the Respondents seeking for declaring the proceeding No. SRP/PER/13.008/3530 dated 19-7-2004 issued by the Respondent No. 1 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same, consequently directing the 2nd Respondent i.e., The Dy. General Manager M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., RK-7 incline, to reinstate the4122 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SHRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] issuing the said order, approval of competent authority was not obtained. No opportunity was given to the workman to produce his witness. Neither the findings of the Enquiry Officer nor the interim order contained any reasons much less valid in nature. Further more, the punishment awarded is excessive and disproportionate to the charges alleged against him. The workman was appointed in the year 2000 on compassionate grounds. He is not highly literate and he is not aware of the procedural aspects and as such absenteeism occurred for some days during the year 2002. If the court comes to a conclusion that findings of the Enquiry Officer and Respondent No.1 are correct even then the workman craves indulgence of the court to modify the punishment to that of lesser punishment under Sec.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to enable the workman survive himself and also feed his family members.
3. The Respondents filed his counter statement with
averments in brief as follows :
As far as coal mines are concerned appropriate Government is Central Government. The proper procedure to entertain any industrial dispute is after the failure of conciliation which has not been done in the instant case. Straight away the Petitioner has approached this Tribunal and filed petition under Sec.2 A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is a state amendment is not applicable to the Respondent company as the appropriate Government is Central Government to which the State Amendment is not applicable. The workman herein is an unauthorized habitual absentee appointed as badli filler on 15-8-2000 and was working at RK.7 incline of Srirampur Area. He was irregular in attending to his duties. He had put in 78 musters in the year 2000 and 72 musters in the year 2001. He put in only 43 musters in the year 2002. Hence, he was issued with charge sheet dated 10-1-2003 for his habitual absence from duty without justified cause for the year 2002 which constitutes misconduct of under company's Standing Orders No.25.25. The workman submitted his explanation to the said charge sheet. As it was found to be unsatisfactory, enquiry was ordered. The workman has attended the said enquiry and fully participated in it. The Enquiry Officer has explained the workman regarding the procedure of the enquiry in the language known to the Petitioner. When he was given option to have any assistant in the enquiry, he declined to have such assistance. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the management and workman himself deposed on his behalf. The enquiry was conducted following the principles of natural justice. The workman was asked whether he wants to cross examine the management witnesses he declined to do so. Petitioner in his deposition stated that due to ill-health he could not attend to his duty regularly in the year 2002 and admitted that he was absent to duty. Further, he stated that he has taken treatment in private hospital for ill-health but he has not produced any documentary proof. After conclusion of the enquiry a report was submitted. Notice was issued to the workman on 19-12-2003 along with copy of enquiry report calling for his comments on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. He has submitted his representation, considering the same and also the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority opined that it is not a case to take lenient view and decided to terminate the services of the workman. Accordingly, he was dismissed from service by virtue of the proceeding dated 19-7-2004. The contention of the Petitioner that before issuing the impugned order of dismissal, without considering the merits of his submissions, the enquiry was conducted and disciplinary action was taken is all incorrect. His further contention that with pre- conceived notion the enquiry was conducted in a routine and mechanical manner is also incorrect. Petition is filed after lapse of three years since the date of impugned order and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
4. A memo has been filed by the Petitioner stating that he does not want to challenge the validity of domestic enquiry and in the light of the said memo this Tribunal has held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent is valid. Since, the validity of domestic enquiry has not been challenged by the workman, there is no need for going into merits and demerits of the said enquiry. Even, the evidence adduced on record need not be re-appraised except for the limited purpose of verifying whether the punishment awarded to the workman by the Respondent No.1 is in proportion to the charges levelled and established against him.
5. Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments filed by either party and the same are considered.
6. Points that arise for determination are:
(1) Whether the punishment awarded to the workman by virtue of impugned proceeding No. SRP/PER/13.008/3530 dated 19-7-2004 is disproportionate to the charges alleged and established against the workman?
(2) Whether the workman is entitled for relief of reinstatement into services and consequential benefits?
7. Point No. (l) : As per the record, by virtue of proceeding No.SRP/PER/13.008/3530 dated 19-7-2004, the final order has been passed by the first Respondent, dismissing the workman from service w.e.f. 19-7-2004. As can be seen from this proceeding, the enquiry report together with enquiry proceeding and also the representation of the workman dated 23-4-2004, all have been examined by the Disciplinary Authority and he found the representation of the workman not satisfactory. Further, since the charges levelled and proved against the workman being serious, he found fit the punishment of dismissal from service. It is further stated in this proceeding[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4123 that the Disciplinary Authority has gone through the workman's past record and found that there are no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view.
8. Whereas as can be seen from the charge sheet alleged against the workman, the allegations are that, in total Petitioner has absented himself from duty for 156 days in different spells during the year 2002 and it has been gathered that the Petitioner has been habitually late to duty or habitually absent from duty without sufficient cause. For this, the workman has given explanation stating that due to ill-health and family circumstances he could not attend the duty regularly. He further stated that since his health as well as family circumstances were set right, he will attend the duties regularly. Having not accepted the said explanation, the Departmental Enquiry was conducted. During this enquiry also the workman has categorically deposed while examining himself as defence witness, that he absented from duty without leave or permission from January, 2002 to September, 2002 due to ill-health.While he was under cross examination, he was asked whether he informed about the family planning operation of his wife to SOM, RK-7 incline. For that, he answered that he has not intimated. Further when he was questioned, as to, where he took treatment for his ill-health, he said that he took treatment in a private hospital and that he can not produce any evidence in support of the said version.
9. From the above evidence on record and the various explanations given by the workman, it can be seen that the workman has admittedly absented himself from duty during the year 2002 for substantial period and he has given reasons for the said absence as family problems like his wife undergoing family planning operation and his ill-health. But the fact remains that he has not obtained any leave or permission from his superiors before availing the leave. But he categorically pleaded, time and again, that if an opportunity has been given to him, he will attend to the duties regularly and mend his ways.
10. This is the first enquiry conducted against Petitioner, as can be seen from the record. If there is mention of any other past record of absenteeism, such as Petitioner has been habitually absent from duties previously which lead to the cause of action to launch enquiry and awarding any punishment previously, the action of the Respondent dismissing the Petitioner from service, stands justified. But, this is the very first Departmental enquiry conducted against the workman whereas the gravest punishment provided in the Standing Orders i.e., removal of service is awarded to him, inspite of his repeated requests that he will mend his ways and attend his duties regularly if an opportunity is accorded to him.
11. Considering the above discussed circumstances, and since, this is the first event of misconduct committed by the Petitioner, for it, the gravest punishment provided for, can not be taken as a proper punishment, especially since he is pleading that he will be very regular in attending duty in future if opportunity is accorded to him, it can safely be concluded that the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the charges levelled and proved against the workman. Further more, the aggravating circumstances if any which lead the Disciplinary Authority towards such a gravest punishment are not mentioned in the impugned proceeding dated 19-7-2004.
12. Considering the above discussion and material on record, it can safely be concluded that the punishment awarded to the Petitioner is disproportionate to the charges levelled and proved against him and therefore it is to be modified appropriately.
13. Point No. (II) : Consequent to the finding in point No.(I), the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service, but as the misconduct is proved against him, proper sentence is to be find out in the place of the removal from service, which is found to be grossly disproportionate to charges levelled and proved against him. Standing Order No.26 of the Respondent company provides for eight modes of punishment for misconduct. They are:
(a) Warning, reprimand, censure.
(b) Fine
(c) Suspension without wages for a period not
exceeding ten days
(d) Stoppage of increment without cumulative effect
(e) Stoppage of increment with cumulative effect
(f) Reversion to a lower stage or a lower grade in a
time scale
(g) Removal/discharge from service
(h) Dismissal from service.
Stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect provided in Standing Orders No. 26 Clause (d) is the proper punishment for the charge alleged and proved against the Petitioner workman, as it is the first event of misconduct on his part. In view of the fore gone discussion and material on record the Point No.(I) is answered accordingly.
14. In view of the fore gone discussion it can safely be held that punishment awarded to the workman is to be modified as follows: In the place of punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the workman by virtue of the proceedings No.SRP/PER/13.008/3530 dated 19-7-2004 he is to be awarded the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. Thus, he is to be ordered to be reinstated into service with immediate effect. But as far as back wages are concerned as he has not worked for the Respondent, he can not be asked to be paid the full wages. But, considering the fact that he was unable to attend the duties due to the impugned order of the Respondent company, but not voluntarily, he is entitled for compensation of atleast 25% of his wages from the date of his dismissal from service till the date of his reinstatement4124 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SHRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] which shall be not later than one month from the date of publication of the award. If there is any delay in reinstatement, one month after the publication of award, due to the inaction on the part of the Respondents, the Petitioner will be entitled to be paid the full wages by the Respondent. The Respondents are liable to pay full wages to the Petitioner workman for the period of said delay also. This point is answered accordingly.
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 11/2006) of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2013.
[ F. No. L- 22013/1/2013-IR (C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer Result :
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 26th day of April, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 11/2006
Between:
15. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceeding No.SRP/PER/13.008/3530 dated 19-7-2004, as far as award of punishment is concerned, is hereby modified from dismissal of service to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. The Petitioner shall be reinstated into service within one month after the date of publication of this award. He is entitled for back wages @25% of his regular wages, for the period from the date of his dismissal from service till the date of his reinstatement. If he is not reinstated into service, within the stipulated time of one month after the publication of the award, he is entitled for full wages from the date of'expiry of one month from the date of publication of award.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 4th day of April, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner NIL
Witnesses examined for the Respondent NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent Sri Janagam Shankaraiah, S/o Ellaiah, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No.G7, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp. Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. ... . . .Petitioner
AND
1. The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., RG-I Area, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.
2.The Colliery Manager/Superintendent of Mines, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., GDK-2 incline, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. . . . .Respondents
Appearances :
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलाई, 2013
For the Petitioner : Sri. K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent : Sri M. Shankar Narayan, Advocate
AWARD
का.आ. 1556.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एस सी सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 11/2006द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22013/1/2013-आई आर ;सी-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013
S.O. 1556.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central This is a petition filed by the Petitioner Sri Janagam Shankaraiah, under Sec.2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 against the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D.No. 11/2006 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. Petitioner has filed this petition against his dismissal from service vide order No. P.RG.I/32A/5465 dated 6-9-2001 by the Respondent without following the procedure, seeking for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Respondents have filed counter statement as well as documents in support of their contentions. On filing of memo conceding domestic enquiry as valid by the Petitioner, departmental enquiry held legal and valid.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4125ANNEXURE
3. Case stood posted for arguments under Sec. l1(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. At this stage, the matter has been referred to Lok Adalath for amicable settlement.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
Present :
Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 27th day of May, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. NO. 41/2009
4. While things stood so, Petitioner has filed memo seeking for permission to withdraw his case pleading that the management was kind enough to offer employment to him subject to withdrawal of the present dispute and that he be permitted to withdraw his case. In the given circumstances, the matter has been called to the regular file from Lok Adalath.
5. Notice given to Respondents. Heard both parties.
Between :
Petitioner is permitted to withdraw his case.
6. In the result, the case is dismissed as withdrawn.
Award is passed accordingly.
Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 26th day of April, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner NIL
Witnesses examined for the Respondent NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलाई, 2013
Sri Shamsher Ali,
S/o Shabbir Ali,
C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,
Advocate, Flat No. G 7,
Opp. Badruka Jr. College for Girls,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Ramagundram Area, Ramagundam,
Karimnagar District.
2. The Colliery Manager,
M/s Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
GDK-1 Incline, Godavarikhani,
Karimnagar Dist.
.....Respondents
Appearances :
For the Petitioner : M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva
Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Sri S.M. Subhani, Advocate.
AWARD
का.आ. 1557.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एससीसीएल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 41/2009द्ध प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/07/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22013/1/2013-आई आर ;सी-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013
S.O. 1557.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (41/2009) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02-07-2013.
[ F. No. L-22013/1/2013-IR (C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer 1. This is a petition filed by the Petitioner Sri Shamsher Ali under Sec. 2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 against the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 41/2009 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. Petitioner has filed this petition against his dismissal from service vide order No. RG.I/PER/S/46/08 dated 2.1.2005 by the Respondent without following the procedure seeking for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Respondents have filed counter statement as well as documents in support of their contentions.
3. Case stands posted for arguments on the point of validity of domestic enquiry. At this stage, the matter has been referred to Lok Adalath for amicable settlement.
4126 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SHRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
Present :
4. While things stood so, Petitioner has filed memo seeking for permission to withdraw his case pleading that the management was kind enough to offer employment to him subject to withdrawal of the present dispute and that he be permitted to withdraw his case. In the given circumstances, the matter has been called to the regular file from Lok Adalath.
5. Notice given to Respondents. Heard both parties.
Petitoner is permitted to withdraw his case.
6. In the result, the case is dismissed as withdrawn.
Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 26th day of April, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. NO. 46/2008
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Between :
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 27th day of May, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer Sri Embadi Ramesh,
S/o Narayana,
C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,
Advocate, Flat No. G 7,
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined Petitioner
for the Respondent
NIL NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलाई, 2013
Opp. Badruka Jr. College for Girls,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Bellampalli Division, Bellampally,
Adilabad District.
2. The Superintendent of Mines,
M/s Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Goleti-1 incline, Bellampally Division,
Bellampally, Adilabad Dist. .....Respondents
Appearances :
का.आ. 1558.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एससीसीएल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 46/2008द्ध प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/07/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22013/1/2013-आई आर ;सी-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013
For the Petitioner : M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva
Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao,
Advocate.
AWARD
S.O. 1558.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (46/2008) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and
their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02-07-2013.
[ F. No. L-22013/1/2013-IR (C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer 1. This is a petition filed by the Petitioner Sri Embadi Ramesh under Sec. 2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 against the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 46/2008 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. Petitioner has filed this petition against his dismissal from service vide order No. P.BPA/129/2964 dated 14.9.2000 by the Respondent without following the procedure seeking for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Respondents have filed counter statement as well as documents in support of their contentions. On filing of[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4127 memo conceding domestic enquiry as vild by the Petitioner, departmental enquiry held legal and valid.
3. Case stands posted for arguments under Sec. 11(A)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
which was received by the Central Government on 02-07-2013.
[ F. No. L- 17011/9/2010-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
4. At this stage, Petitioner has filed memo seeking for permission to withdraw his case pleading that the management was kind enough to offer employment to him subject to withdrawal of the present dispute and that he be permitted to withdraw his case.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
5. Notice given to Respondents. Heard both parties.
Present :
Petitoner is permitted to withdraw his case.
6. In the result, the case is dismissed as withdrawn.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 29th day of May, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. NO. 60/2011
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 26th day of April, 2013.
Between :
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer Sri A.V. Sagar,
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined Petitioner
for the Respondent
NIL NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई, 2013
S.R. No. 670001, S1,
Sapthagiri Enclave,
Rajeshwarinagar,
Kakinada-533003.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The Regional Manager (P & IR),
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
South Central Zonal Office,
Jeevan Bhagya, Saifabad,
Hyderabad-500063.
2. The Managar (P & IR),
DM LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi. .....Respondents
Appearances :
का.आ. 1559.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम हैदराबाद के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 60/2011द्ध प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02/07/2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-17011/9/2010-आई आर ;एमद्ध]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव For the Petitioner : M/s. L. Sripal Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Sri K.R.L. Sarma, Advocate.
AWARD
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013
S.O. 1559.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the common Award (Ref. No. 60/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-17011/9/2010-IR(M) dated 5.10.2011 referred the following dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Hyderabad, and their workman, ''Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rajahmundry imposing the punishment of dismissal and recovery of Rs. 9,14,896 on4128 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SHRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
Shri A. Vidya Sagar is justified? What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?''
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 60/2011 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
NO. CGIT/LC/R/274/97
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents. Petitioner called absent and there is no representation since long time. Inspite of giving fair opportunity, claim statement was not filed by the Petitioner and the matter is coming up since the year 2011. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner is not interested in the proceedings, petition is dismissed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.P A TLE
Shri Raghavendra Singh Bhadoriya, C/o B.S.Jadon Ki Chakki ke Pass Mohalla Jaganpura, Laghedi Dagar, Gwalior
........Workman
Versus
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 29th day of May, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined Petitioner
for the Respondent
NIL NIL
Asstt. Supdt. Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Archaeological Museum Gwalior Fort, Gwalior
........Management
AWARD
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1560.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार असिस्टेन्ट सुपरिनटेंडेन्ट आरकलोजिस्ट, ग्वालियर के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी./एल.सी./आर./274/97द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-42012/42/1997-आई आर ;डीयूद्ध]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013
S.O. 1560.—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/274/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of The Asstt. Superintendent Archaeologist, Gwalior and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 28-6-2013.
[ F. No. L- 42012/42/1997-IR (DU)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
Passed on this 10th day of April, 2013
1. As per letter dated 25-9-97 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-42012/ 42/97/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to :
" Whether the action of the management of Asstt. Supdt. Archaeological Survey of India in terminating Shri Raghavendra Singh Bhadoriya w.e.f. 4-12-96 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. 1st party submitted his statement of claim at Page 2/1 to 2/5. The case of 1st party workman is that he was appointed on daily wages on 25-5 94. He was assigned duty of watchman to watch and warn section of Archaeological Museum, Gwalior Fort, Gwalior. He was allowed to work till 7th June 1996. No appointment order was given to him as daily wagers were not given appointment orders by the department. That certificate was given to him on 8-1-96. That orally his services were terminated on 9-1-96 in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. That one month's notice was not issued, notice pay was not paid to him. Retrenchment compensation was not paid. Reasons for termination were not communicated. He submitted representation against termination but reply was not given. Conciliation proceeding under Section 2-A of I.D.Act initiated before ALC(C), Bhopal. The dispute has been referred.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 41293. 1st party workman submits that he had completed 240 days continuous service preceding his termination. That his termination is in violation of Section 25-H of I.D.Act. That list of retrenched employee was not supplied to him. Rule 77 of I. D. Act is violated. That juniors were returned in service in violation of Section 25-G. He prays for setting aside his termination with regularization in service with back wages.
legality of termination could not be decided. The matter was reopened on 2-9-05 on application filed by 1st paprty workman along with High Court order dated 24-8-05 in Writ Petition No. 191/03. In the said Writ Petition, Hon'ble High Court observed that in various cases, it has been held that the Archaeological survey of India and the Museum is an industry and the Industrial Dispute Act is applicable to the said establishment. Appeal No. 3637/97 decided on 2-5-97 which has been followed by this court in W.P.No. 1495/04 decided on 23-2 05. The matter was remanded back to this Tribunal for further decision. The award dated 9-6-03 was quashed.
7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below :
(i) Whether the action of the management of Asstt. Supdt. In Negative Archaeological Survey of India In terminating Shri Raghavendra Singh Bhadoriya w.e.f. 4-12-96 is justified?
(ii) If so, to what relief the 1st party workman is workman is entitled to? entitled to reinstatement
with 50 % back wages.
REASONS
4. IInd party management filed Written statement at Page 7/1 to 7/4. It is submitted by IInd party that 1st party workman was not appointed to any post in accordance with the rules. His appointment was on basis of need of work as he was appointed as temporary employee on daily wages. Certificate was obtained by 1st party. He was designated as per seniority of casual labours. He was disengaged for want of funds. 1st party workman had undertaken to work again. That the dispute is not tenable under I.D.Act. That IInd party Archaeological Museum is not an industry under I.D.Act. That the discontinuation of workman from 1-12-96 to 31-12-96 was justified as per rules. Notices were served on 1st party for such break. Other contentions of 1st party workman are denied. It is submitted that one months advance notice was issued on 31-10-96. The postal receipt is produced. However instead of waiting for one month and reporting on duty on 1-01-97, the conciliation proceedings were filed before ALC(C), Bhopal. The material facts were suppressed by the 1st party. In conciliation proceeding, 1st party insisted for permanent post. Consequently the dispute has been referred. It is emphasized that Archaeological Survey of India is not an industry. That 1st party is not entitled to the reliefs prayed by him.
5. 1st party filed rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/2. It is contended that the objections raised in the Written Statement by Ilnd party that 1st party was appointed as temporary employee as per need of work is denied. He submits that his termination from service is illegal for violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act.The settlement was made during conciliation proceeding and 1st party was reinstated on 22-7-96. However the terms of settlement were not complied by management. His services were terminated as per order dated 31-10-96. it is further submitted that Ilnd party sale tickets to visitors for entry in museums charging Rs.5 per ticket. That Ilnd party is an industry. The claim of 1st party be allowed for reinstatement with back wages.
6. The controversy between parties is whether the Ilnd party is an Industry has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.2229/2000. The award was passed after 1st party filed affidavit of evidence. He was not cross- examined and Ilnd party has not adduced evidence. My predecessor has passed award on 9-6-2003 holding that Archaeological Survey of India is not and Industry and 8. As discussed above, Hon'ble High Court has decided controversy about industry and held that the IInd party management Archaeological Survey of India is an Industry. Therefore it is necessary to decide whether the termination of services of 1st party is legal. After remand, 1st party workman has filed affidavit of his evidence on 23-5-06 at Page 27/1 to 27/3. He has stated on oath that he was engaged on daily wages from 25-5-94. He was discontinued from 8-1-96. In conciliation proceeding, settlement was arrived between parties. He was reinstated from 26-7-96. He was apprehending his discontinuation by IInd party. Therefore he had written letter to ALC(C), Bhopal dated 30-7-96. That IInd party had given letter dated 31-10-96 that his services would be discontinued from 1-12-96 to 31-12-96. However his services were orally terminated from 4-12-96. That he was not paid retrenchment compensation. He had completed 240 days service. His earlier affidavit filed at Page 11/1 to 11/3 covers his entire contention in his statement of claim that his services were terminated and one Mr. Ravi had been appointed as class-IV employee on daily wages. That termination of service is in violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Rules. Despite of repeated opportunities4130 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SHRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] given to the IInd party, 1st party workman was not cross- examined and order sheet dated 2-6-03 shows that though 1st party workman was present for cross-examination, Shri D.N. Jha, Asstt. Supdt. was present for IInd party. He refused to cross examine. He also declined to adduce any evidence in support of the contention of the management. Thus the evidence of 1st party remained unchallenged. IInd party not filed affidavit of evidence after remand of the matter. Despite repeated notices sent to IInd party from 2006, management failed to appear and cross-examine the witness and right to cross-examination by management was closed on 10-1-08. IInd party did not file any evidence after remand of the matter. It is surprised to say that the IInd party has not participated in the proceeding for reasons not known. The certificate produced by 1st party at page 3/3 shows that workman was continuously working from May 94 to 7-1-96 and thereafter as per settlement dated 22-7-96 till his oral termination on 4-12-96. The services of 1st party are terminated without paying retrenchment compensation. without displaying list of employees retrenched. As such IInd party management has committed violation of Section 25-H & G of I.D.Act.
9. Learned counsel for 1st party Mr. Upendra Singh in support of their claim relies on ratio held in case of Shri Anoop Sharma Versus Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana) reported in 2010(5) Supreme Court Cases 497. Their Lordship held:
''Non-compliance of clause (a), (b) of Sec-25-F renders retrenchment nullity burden lies on employer to lead tangible evidence as to compliance with clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25-F. Services of appellant workman terminated allegedly by offering compensation in lieu of notice period. Compliance with Section 25-F pleaded on ground that workman refused to receive compensation. Finding that compensation was sent after about three months of termination, Labour Court set aside termination for non- compliance with Section 25-F High Court reversing award in writ jurisdiction on ground that workman's initial engagement was not legal.
Their Lordship held High Court erred in interfering with award of Labour Court in absence of pleadings that initial engagement/appointment was illegal and when it did not find that the award was vitiated by apparent error of law. The employer failed to prove compliance with clause (a) and (b) of Section 25-Fdirecting reinstatement with back wages.''
In para-25 of the judgment their Lordship observed that the judgment of the constitution bench in State of Karnataka Versus Umadevi and other decisions in which this Court considered the right of casual, daily wage, temporary and adhoc employees to be regularized/ continued in service or paid salary in the regular timescale, appears to have unduly influenced the High Court's approach in dealing with the appellant's challenge to the award of the Labour court. In our view, none of those judgments has any bearing on the interpretation of Section 25-F of the Act and employer's obligation to comply with the conditions enumerated in that section.''
10. Shri Bhupendra singh arguing for 1st party relies on ratio held in case of Harjinder Singh versus Punjab State Warehousing Corporation in 2010(3) Supreme Court Cases 192. Their Lordship dealing with Section 25-G of I.D.Act held that
"Principle of 1st come last go needs to prove continuous service. Reiterated workman not required to prove he had worked for 240 days during twelve calendar months preceding termination, sufficient to plead and prove that while effecting retrenchment employer violated rule of "last come first go" without any tangible reason."
"Their Lordship restored award passed by labour Court for reinstatement with 50 % back wages. Their Lordship observed that there was no justification in entertaining new pleading raised by the corporation of for the first time before it regarding illegality of initial appointment."
The ratio in both the cases squarely applied to present case at hand. The services of workman were terminated in violation of Section 25 F, no retrenchment compensation was paid, one month notice was not issued, list of retrenched employees was not displayed. The Junior employee was retained in service. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 is Negative.
11. Point No.2 arises to what relief the workman is entitled. As per my finding in Point No.1, termination of services of workman is in violation of Section 25-G & H of the Act. The evidence of workman shows that he is unemployed. His evidence is not clear how he is maintaining his family without earning. Considering the facts of the case that 1st party workman was terminated from service in the year 1996, in my considered view, reinstatement of workman with 50 % back wages would be appropriate as held in 2010(3) Supreme Court Cases 192. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:
"(1) Action of the management of Asstt. Supdt. Archaeological Survey of India in terminating Shri Raghavendra Singh Bhadoriya w.e.f. 4-12-96 is illegal.
(2) IInd party is directed to reinstate 1st party workman Shri Raghvendra Singh Bhadoria with 50 % back wages."
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4131 नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ.1561.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार जनरल मैनेजर, आडिनेन्स पफैक्टरी के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/आर/116/96द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-14011/03/1995-आई आर ;डीयूद्ध]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013
S.O.1561.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Diputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/116/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of The General Manager, Ordnance Factory and Their workman which was received by the Central Government on 28-6-2013
[ F. No. L- 14011/03/1995-IR(DU)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
management of Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur is legal? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?"
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/116/96
SHRI R. B. P ATLE, Presiding Officer.
General Secretary, Labour Union, Ordnance Factory Khamaria, Khamaria, Jabalpur .....Workman/Union Versus
General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur .....Management 2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted his statement of claim at Page 11 to 17. The case of Ist party workman is that charge sheet was issued to him under Rule 14 of CCS Rules on the allegation for (i) threatening to ghao the residence of Chairman/Secretary of NGO Association, (ii) intimidation to employees (iii) participating on unauthorized relay hunger strike (iv) Unauthorised use of loud speaker etc. It is further contended that the workman denied the charges against him under his reply dated 4-11-91. After his reply, management revoked his suspension. He was permitted to resume duties. In reply, the workman explained the facts and circumstances of the alleged incident. He had admitted that he being the activist of the Ordnance Factory Labour Union, had made announcement in the pandal requesting all the employees to participate in the ongoing agitation called by the Union. The meeting held demanding legitimate demands of the employees. He had submitted that no disciplinary action was warranted as he has only exercised his legitimate rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The allegations against him were not proved. There was no evidence before management to hold charges proved against him. The punishment of withholding pay scale is excessive, illegal. He submits that order of punishment deserves to be set aside. The application filed by him was dismissed without proper consideration that the action of the management imposing punishment without opportunity for his defence is illegal. That Disciplinary Authority should have asked workman for inspection of documents and cross-examination of the witness of the management. The order of punishment is by way of victimization as he supports grievances of the employees being activist of the Union. On these ground, workman prays for setting aside the order of reduction in pay scale.
AWARD
Passed on this 3rd day of May, 2013
1. As per letter dated 24-4-96 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of ID Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-14011/ 3/95 IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
" Whether the reduction of pay scale of Ist party workman Vikramaditya from Rs.1380 to Rs.1200 by 3. IInd party management filed Written Statement at Page 21 to 24. It is submitted that the workman unauthorisedly installed pandal and stated making announcement to the effect that in case the NGO Staff did not boycott the overtime on 7-9-91 as per the call given by the union, a procession would be takenout from the said pandal, the place selected for a Hunger Strike. The procession was to proceed to the residence of the Secretary/ Chairman of the NGO's Association where they would demonstrate and gherao the said Secretary. It is submitted that loudspeaker was used by the workman though not permitted in the factory premises. The workman intimated co-employees and participated in unauthorized relay hunger strike on 7- 9-91. That charge sheet was issued to the Ist party workman on 2-9-91. The details of the articles of charges are given in para-3 of the Written Statement. That in reply filed by workman, he submitted suspension4132 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] should be revoked and a moderate and lenient view should be taken in the matter. He did not wish have an enquiry and if any misconduct was committed on his behalf, it was done as Union Leader. He prayed for leniency.
4. Disciplinary Authority considering the reply of workman come to the opinion that workman was guilty of alleged misconduct, lenient view was taken and punishment of reduction of pay from Rs.1380 per month to Rs.1200 was imposed on 31-1-92. It is further pleaded that in case enquiry is found violated, management retains right to prove misconduct before Tribunal. IInd party prays for rejection of the demand of the workman under reference.
5. My learned predecessor decided preliminary issue and held that the enquiry is vitiated as per order dated 29-9-99. Management was permitted to prove misconduct of the workman.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the misconduct alleged In Nagative
against workman is proved ?
(ii) Whether the reduction of pay In Nagative
scale of 1st party workman Vikramaditya from Rs.1380 to Rs.1200/- by management of Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur is legal ?
(iii) If so, to what relief the The punishment
workman is entitled to?" . of reduction of
pay of 1st party workman as per order dated 31-1-92 is set- aside.
per order dated 31-1-92 cannot be sustained. It deserves to be quashed and setaside. Accordingly I record my finding on Point No.2.
10. Point No.3- In view of finding on Point No.1 & 2, the order of punishment dated 31-1-92 imposed by management of IInd party is illegal and cannot be sustained. The order of punishment therefore deserves to be quashed. Ist party workman is therefore entitled to the relief prayed by him. Accordingly I record my finding on Point No.3.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)The action of IInd party management in imposing punishment of reduction of pay scale from Rs.1380 to Rs. 1200 as per order dated 31-1-92 is Illegal.
(2)The said order of punishment is set aside and management of IInd party is directed to pay the difference of emoluments to Ist party as the punishment of reduction of pay scale vide order dated 31-1-92 is set-aside.
The difference of amount of pay be paid to the Ist party workman in 4 weeks. In case of default, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of award till its realization.
12.Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ.1562.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार जनरल मैनेजर, आडिनेन्स पफैक्टरी के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/आर/190/93द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
REASONS
7. The punishment of reduction in pay scale from Rs.1380 to Rs.1200 is challenged. The enquiry is found vitiated by my learned predecessor as per order dated 29-9-99. Though the IInd party management was permitted to prove misconduct by adducing evidence, IInd party has failed to adduce any evidence to prove the alleged misconduct.
8. The evidence on affidavit was adduced by parties only on the preliminary issue whether enquiry is fair and properly conducted. The parties did not adduce any evidence after the enquiry was found vitiated. Therefore I record my finding on Issue No.1 in Negative.
9. Point No.2- As IInd party has failed to prove misconduct, the action of IInd party in reduction of pay as [पफा. सं. एल-14012/08/1992-आई आर ;डीयूद्ध]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013
S.O.1562.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Diputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/190/93) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of The General Manager, Ordnance Factory and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 28-6-2013.
[ F. No. L- 14012/08/1992-IR(DU)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4133ANNEXURE
6. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
NO. CGIT/LC/R/190/93
SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Offficer.
Shri Doodnath Singh, President, Ordnance Factory Khamaria Workers Union, Khamaria, Jabalpur ....Workman/Union नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई, 2013
Versus
General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur .....Management का.आ.1563.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार चीपफ जनरल मैनेजर, टेलिकाम, नागपुर के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/आर/91/96द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-40012/251/1994-आई आर ;डीयूद्ध]
AWARD
Passed on this 18th day of March, 2013
1. As per letter dated 20-9-93 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-14012/ 8/92-IR (DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur (MP) in imposing the penalty of stoppage of annual increment for two years on Shri Mahesh Prasad, T.No. S.O. 99/001329 vide their order dated 21-2-91 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?"
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013
S.O.1563.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dipute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/91/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of The Chief General Manager, Telecom, Nagpur and Their workman which was received by the Central Government on 28-6-2013.
[ F. No. L-40012/251/1994-IR(DU)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/91/96
2. After notice, Ist party/workman failed to submit statement of claim. Ist party is proceeded exparte on 16-2- 2006. IInd party submitted Written Statement at page 2/1 to 2/3. The claim of Ist party/workman is denied. It is submitted on 9-8-90, from 22.00 hours to 07.00 hours, Ist party workman was detailed on Durban duty but he was absent from duty. At about 23.15 hours, about 30 to 35 persons alongwith one Ajay Charles had entered the hospital in the factory and committed acts of violence. Notice was issued to Ist party for absence/negligence in duty as per Rule 16( 1) of Central Civil Service Rules. That minor penalty withholding one increment was imposed for misconduct committed by Ist party. That the Act of IInd party is legal.
SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Offficer.
Shri Gulchand Sahu, S/o Munnalal Sahu, Near Bagudhana Gopal Factory, Betul Gunj, Betul (MP) ....Workman
Versus
3. IInd party submitted affidavit of witness Shri B.B.Singh covering all the material contentions of Written Statement filed by IInd party. It is stated that for said misconduct of Ist party, punishment of withholding one increment is imposed.
The Chief General Manager, Telecom (RE) Project, 66, Bajajnagar, Nagpur ...Management
AWARD
4. Ist party/workman has not submitted statement of claim neither adduced any evidence. The demand under reference of Ist party therefore cannot be accepted.
5. In the result, award is passed as under:-
" The Act of IInd party imposing punishment of stoppage of annual increment of Ist party is just and legal." Passed on this 21st day of March 2013
1. As per letter dated 27-3-96 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under4134 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. (ii) If not, what relief the workman is Workman is not
L-40012/251/94-IR (DU). The dispute under reference entitled to?" entitled to any
relates to: relief prayed by
him.
REASONS
"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, Telecom (RE) Project, 66, Bajajnagar, Nagpur (MS) in stopping Shri Gulchand S/o Munnalal Sahu, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties, Ist party/workman submitted his statement of claim at Page 7/1 to 7/3. It is case of Ist party workman that he was employed by IInd party as casual labour from June 1987. He was continuously working till July1989 abruptly he was discontinued without following process of law. He further submits that he had completed 240 days working in 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment. That he had requested management to regularize his services and treat him as a permanent of the establishment but instead of considering his request, the management dispensed his services. He further submitted that in Conciliation proceeding before ALC, IInd party had admitted his working on its establishment. That Statement of claim filed by Ist party workman was misplaced and he filed fresh statement of claim. His contents that his services are discontinued in violation of Section 25-G, H of ID Act. He prayed for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
3. IInd party management filed Written Statement at page 8/1 to 8/3 of record. IInd party contents that applicant was not appointed as per rule. He was engaged only as a casual labour according to the need of the department. That Ist party left work at his own without intimation to the management. In June 89, Ist party workman worked for 18 days, thereafter he left the work. The breakup of working days of Ist party is given in Para-2 of the Written Statement. During July 87 to June 88, he had worked for 335 days, from July 88, he had worked for 335 days, from July 88 to Nov-88, to May 89, he was absent from work. It is submitted that the Ist party workman has not completed 240 days continuously during 12 calendar months from the date of termination. The Railway Electrification was not a running unit. Ist party himself left work. He is not terminated in violation of provisions of ID Act. IInd party prayed for rejection of his claim.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the action of the Chief
General Manager, Telecom (RE) In Affirmative
Project, 66, Bajajnagar, Nagpur
(MS) in stopping Shri Gulchand
S/o Munnalal Sahu, is legal and
justified?
5. Ist party/workman is challenging his discontinuation from service contending that he had completed 240 days continuous service preceding his retrenchment. That he was retrenched in violation of Section 25-F , G and H of I.D.Act. IInd party denied those contentions of the workman. The affidavit of evidence of workman is filed stating the facts that he had completed 240 days service preceding his retrenchment. That he was engaged by IInd party from May to June 1987 as casual labour. He was continuously working till July 1989. His attendance was entered in the muster roll. In his cross- examination, Ist party says he received contention upto Vth standard. He was working on daily wages, no written exam was held prior to his engagement. He had not received call from Employment Exchange. He had not received appointment letter. He was doing work of laying cable in the scheme. He had not read over the contents of affidavit but signed on it.
6. In his further cross-examination, workman says that from December 88 to May 89, he was discontinued from work but he himself have not left the work. He was working regularly. He denied sugestion that he had not completed 240 days during any calendar year. That he produced record about his working days.
7. That Ist party had produced copy of reply filed in conciliation proceeding Exhibit W -1. The said document also shows that in June 87 Ist party worked for 30 days, from July 87 to June 88, he had worked for 335 days, from July 88 to Nov-88, he worked for 127 days, from December 88 to May 89, he was not working, he had left the work. Document Exhibit W-2 shows his working days as July 88 to November 88 - 17 days and thereafter June - 1989- 18 days. It also corroborate the contention of the IInd party management.
8. The affidavit of evidence of management's witness Shri D.S. Thakur is filed covering the contentions taken in Written Statement filed by IInd party that the workman had left work without intimation from December 88 to May 1989. In June 1989 he worked for 18 days in July 88 to June 1989 he worked for 145 days. In his cross-examination, management witness says that he has stated about working days of the workman from the record available with him. The suggestion of Ist party that workman was denied that workman working 240 days. Evidence adduced by Ist party is not satisfactory to establish that he had worked for 240 days during 12 calendar months prior to his retrenchment. Therefore Ist party is not covered as[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4135 workman under Section 25 (b) of LD.Act. Consequently he is not entitled to protection under Section 25-F of ID.Act. There is no violation of Section 25-G of the ID.Act.
9. Counsel for IInd party Mr. Khare relies on -
Ratio held in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Versus Umadevi and others in 2006(4) supreme Court Cases 1. Their Lordship of the Apex Court held that Supreme Court and High Courts should not issue such directions unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme.
That casual labor donot have any right to regular or permanent public employment. Further temporary, contractual, casual, adhoc or daily wage public employment must be deemed to be accepted by the employee concerned fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it.
Next reliance is placed on-
नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ.1564.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार चीपफ जनरल मैनेजर, बी.एस.एन.एल. भोपाल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/आर/47/2006द्ध प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-40012/09/2006-आई आर ;डीयूद्ध]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013
S.O.1564.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Diputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/47/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of The Chief General Manager, BSNL, Bhopal and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 28-6-2013
[ F. No. L-40012/09/2006-IR(DU)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
" Ratio held in M.P.State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd and Another Versus S.C.Pandey in 2006(2) Supreme Court Cases 716. Their Lordship dealing with casual labour, daily wager held that a daily wager doesnot hold a post as he is not appointed in terms of the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder and therefore he doesnot derive any legal right."
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
Reliance is also placed on ratio held in 2007(III) MPWN 49. It is held by their Lordship that on completion of work for more than 240 days, it doesnot confer the right to regularization - it imposes certain obligation on employer at the time of termination of services.
Same view was taken by their Lordship in case of Batala Coop. sugar Mills Ltd. Versus Sowaran Singh reported in 2005(8) Supreme Court Cases 481 .
10. Considering the evidence on record, Ist party has failed to establish that he was working for 240 days during 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment. Therefore he is not entitled to protection under Section 25-F of LD.Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) Action of the management in stopping Shri Gulchand NO. CGIT/LC/R/47/2006
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. P ATLE
Shri Chandrashekhar Sharma, S/o Shri Babulal Sharma, R/o Krishnapuram Colony, Near Jhansi Tirdha, Shivpuri
....Workman
Versus
The Chief General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, MP circle, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (MP) .....Management
AWARD
S/o Munnalal Sahu, from work is legal and justified.
(2) 1st party/workman is not entitled to any relief as
prayed by him."
12. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer Passed on this 8th day of May, 2013
1. As per letter dated 8-8-2006 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of LD.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/9/2006- IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
4136 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Bhopal in terminating the service of Shri Chandrasekhar Sharma w.e.f. 1-6-2002 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim. The case of Ist party workman is that he was engaged as helper by IInd party management. He was paid Rs. 2300 per month. His services were illegally terminated from 1-6-2002. That juniors were continued in service. Provisions of Section 25-G, H of I. D. Act was not followed. That Section 25 (N) (O) of I.D. Act were violated. That he was not served one month's notice, pay in lieu of notice was not paid to him. Termination of his services is illegal. Ist party workman prays for setting aside order of his termination and submits for reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. IInd party management filed Written Statement. All the material contentions of Ist party are denied. That casual labours are engaged by IInd party as per exigency of work. That the labours are engaged through contractor. That since 1986, any body is not appointed. There is no question of termination of service of workman as he was not appointed by management. It is submitted that workman is not entitled to retrenchment compensation. They have not worked for 240 days in any of the calendar year. Violation of Section 25-G, H is denied, IInd party prays for rejection of claim of Ist party workman.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the Chief
General Manager, Bharat Sanchar In Affirmative
Nigam Ltd. Bhopal in terminating
the services of Shri Chandrasekhar
Sharma w.e.f. 1-6-2002 is justified?
(ii) If so, to what relief the workman Relief prayed
is entitled to?" by workman are rejected.
was not paid notice pay is not substantiated by evidence. IInd party filed affidavit of evidence of its evidence Shri Pramod Kumar Jain. The witness of the management has stated in affidavit that workman had not worked in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., no appointment letter was given to him. That the post is not vacant in the department. The evidence of management's witness remained unchallenged as Ist party workman remained absent and faild to cross-examine the witness. To sum up, workman has not adduced evidence, the evidence of management remained unchallenged. Ist party workman failed to establish that action taken by management of IInd party is illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
6. Point No. 2 - In view of my finding in Point No. 1, the workman is not entitled to relief prayed by him. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) Termination of Shri Chandrasekhar Sharma w.e.f. 1-6-2002 is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman are rejected.
8. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ.1565.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एपफ सी आई के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 1576/2009द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22011/66/2008-आई आर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013
REASONS
5. Ist party workman has not submitted any evidence in support of his claim. He has proceeded exparte on 2-3-12. The contentions of Ist party workman that he had completed 240 days continuous service during each of the year, that he was not paid retrenchment compensation, S.O.1565.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Diputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1576/ 2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and Their workmen, received by the Central Government on 3-7-2013.
[ F. No. L-22011/66/2008-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4137
ANNEXURE
conciliation proceedings after about 11 years. His claim for replenishment of damages demanded by him in the demand notice has not been satisfied.
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri A.K. Rastogi, Presiding Officer
Case No. I. D. 1576/2009
Registered on 13-2-2009
Sh. S .P. Sood, District Secetary, Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh, Food Corporation of India, Opposite Anaj Mandi, Sirhind Road, Pariala,
....Petitioner (ii) In Vigilance Case No.SGR-2547/96 dated 10-2-1997 though the Inquiry Officer has held the charges, of acceptance of BRL Rice having dehusk 15 per cent against permissible limit of 13 per cent and discoloured refraction as 3.6 per cent and 3.5 per cent in stack No.C/3/8 and N/4 respectively as against permissible limit of 3 per cent, not proved; yet, the disciplinary authority issued a Dissent Note and wrongly imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect w.e.f. 1-1-2000.
Versus
1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi.
2. The General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Punjab #34 to 38, Sector 31A, Chandigarh.
3. The Executive Director (North), Food Corporation to lndia, Plot No.2A, 2B, Sector 24, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida (U.P).
....Respondents (iii) In third case Vigilance Case No.SGR-2662/97 dated 5-10-1999 charges of acceptance of BRL Rice in respect of dehusk refraction in stack/contact No. 3/O/417= 250 bags, H/2/109 = 250 bags and F/8/306 = 250 bags and broken refractions in stack No.F/8/ 306 = 250 bags and E/5/305 = 250 bags framed against the workman are not tenable. The results arrived at RO lab have no veracity/sanctity. The margin of allowances to cover up the human error allowed in other cases was not given to workman.
APPEARANCES
For the workman Sh. M.G. Sharma AR.
For the Management Sh. N.K. Zakhmi Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on June 14, 2013
Central Government vide Order No. L-22011/66/2008- [IR(CM II), dated 9-2-2009 by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :—
''Whether the action of the management of FCI in imposing penalties on Sh. Shyam Lal Sharma in charge-sheet No.21(BTI 3044)/97/795; Vig. Case No. SGR 2547 and Vig. Case No. SGR 2662 is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?''
The case of the workman is that he was in the employment of the management since 1976. The management had punished him for the faults not committed by him viz. :
(i) In Vigilance Case No.BTI-3044 dated 20-4-1998 he was punished by stoppage of one increment w.e.f. 1-1-1999 on the charge of misrepresentation/ misleading the department.The action was however withdrawn by the management during the The workman has prayed that the misjudgment as well as disparity committed in his case be removed by affecting a replenishment of the damages of Rs.9,50,000 suffered by the workman due to social setbacks, promotion having been lost in between, physical harassment, mental agony, financial losses, no benefit earned by way of enhancement of educational qualifications during the transitory period, loss of stagnation increments and selection grade being TA-II since 1986 though now promoted as TA-I w.e.f. February 2009. The promotion of the workman from TA-II to TA-I was due in the panel of 2000 which may be granted in view of the workman being innocent.
Claim was contested by the management and the facts stated by the workman about the three charges mentioned in the reference had been admitted. With regard to Vigilance Case No.SGR 2662 it was further stated that the disciplinary authority has imposed penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 5-10-1999. According to the management the workman was not performing his duty with due diligence, devotion and honesty and the conduct of the workman reflected that he was involved in a number of vigilance cases for which he was awarded penalty and in some of the cases he was left with warnings.
Further, the management case regarding Vigilance Case No.(BTI-3044)/97/795 is that the penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and that too4138 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] withdrawn subsequently would not have caused loss to the tune of Rs.9,50,000 to the workman. The workman has failed to give the details as to how penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect has been worked out to such a huge amount. As per record total amount of Rs.1,950 has been recovered from the salary of the workman against penalty order dated 8-5-2008. Hence claim of the workman in this regard is totally vague and is not tenable in the eye of law. In this case he had been awarded punishment due to mistake of identity of some other Sham Lal TA-II and when this inadvertence came to the notice of the management the order of punishment was withdrawn.
According to management in all the vigilance cases except one the charges have been proved. There was no disparity as alleged by the workman and the claim of Rs.9,50,000 is baseless. In view of the facts of the case the workman is not entitled to promotion as prayed. The claim is therefore vague and deserves dismissal.
In support of his claim the workman examined himself while on behalf of the management Sh. Mohinder Singh, Assistant General Manager Vigilance was examined. Parties relied on certain documents also.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the evidence on record and the written arguments filed by them.
Under reference is the action of the management in imposing penalties on the workman in the following three cases—
1. Charge-sheet No.21 (BTI-3044)/97/795,
2. Vigilance Case No.SGR-2547
3. Vigilance Case No.SGR-2662
Admittedly in all the three cases minor punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect had been given. In the first case however it was found that the workman had been punished by inadvertence for another employee of the same name Shyam Lal and therefore the penalty was withdrawn. But this mistake was deducted after about ten years during the conciliation proceedings. Therefore admittedly in this case the penalty imposed was not legal and justified and the same stands withdrawn too. But the dispute is about the relief, the workman claims to be entitled on account of the wrong punishment in this case. It has been argued on behalf of workman that damages worth Rs.9,50,000 were caused to the workman by way of losing stagnation increment, selection grade, mental agony and because of the prolonged battle thrust upon the workman by the management in the said case and the same may be recovered from the salaries of the officials/officers concerned at Regional Office, Chandigarh/Zonal Office Noida/Head Quarter, New Delhi.
In this regard the management has argued that the workman has failed to give any cogent reason; cause, documents or any proof about having suffered loss of Rs.9,50,000 while the management has proved that no loss has been caused to the petitioner because as per record total amount of Rs.l,950 has been recovered from the salary of the workman against the penalty. During the cross- examination the workman himself has categorically stated that a stoppage of one increment resulted into a loss of Rs. l,950 towards the salary only.
I agree with the learned counsel for the management that there is no basis or justification for awarding damages as claimed by workman. Moreover I am of the view that only a relief of the ascertained amount may be awarded by the Tribunal and the general damages on account of ''social setbacks, promotion, having been lost in between, physical harassment, mental agony, financial losses, no benefit earned by way of enhancement of education and qualifications during the transitory period'' (as claimed in para 8 of claim statement), can be awarded by the Tribunal in an industrial dispute. The award of general damages is in the domain of a Civil Court. I am of the view that the workman is entitled to get back the amount of Rs.l,950 recovered from his salary, against penalty imposed in Charge-sheet No.21(BTI-3044)/97/795.
With regard to Vigilance Case No.SGR-2547 it has been argued on behalf of workman that though the Inquiry Officer had not found the workman guilty yet the disciplinary authority on the basis of his Dissent Note which had been contested by the workman imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect though in this case also the workman was not guilty since the rice samples had not been drawn in the presence of the workman and management-witness has admitted that superficially discoloured grains had been considered under discoloured head instead of under slightly damaged head. But the argument of the learned counsel for workman in this regard is against the record. The management- witness instead has stated that it is wrong to say that even superficiary discoloured grain had been considered as discoloured.
The learned counsel for the workman in this regard has also relied on the statement of Sh. Dungar Singh, CGAL, New Delhi Exhibit E3 given by him in some other case. But that being a statement of a living person cannot be considered in this case. Similarly Exhibit E 11 order of FCI, Regional Office, Punjab, Chandigarh relating to some other case cannot be considered in this case. It is true that management-witness in his cross examination was unable to tell the ground on which the disciplinary authority had disagreed with the Inquiry Officer but that cannot be a ground for rejecting the Dissenting Note. It is important to note that the said Dissenting Note was not filed by the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4139 parties and the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority in this case also was a stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect which is a minor punishment. under Rule 11 of CCS(CCA) Rules. Rule 15(2) provides
''The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiry authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence recorded is sufficient for the purpose.''
Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 15 provides—
''(iii) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on or any of the article of charges is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clause (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty.''
It is not the case of the workman that the disciplinary authority in his Dissenting Note has not given the reasons for dissent and has not recorded its findings on the charge. The workman in his statement during cross-examination has admitted to have received a show cause notice regarding the Dissent Note, and to have replied that notice. The learned counsel for management in this regard has also argued that from the affidavit of management-witness it is clear that during the year 1996 the workman had been assigned the job to accept the rice stocks strictly conforming to laid down specifications but he failed to do so. In June 2006 a squad had visited Sunam Centre with a view to adjudge the quality of rice stocks accepted by the workman and others and had drawn representative samples and on analysis the stocks of two samples accepted by the workman had been found BRL. Charge-sheet SGR- 2547 had been issued in this regard for major penalty. Inquiry Officer had exonerated the workman but the disciplinary authority issued a memorandum containing reasons of disagreement with the findings of Inquiry Officer and serve upon the workman. The defence reply tendered by the workman was found unsatisfactory and consequently he was imposed minor penalty.
I agree with the learned counsel for management that the punishment in this case cannot be said to be illegal and unjustified.
It is true, as the learned counsel for workman has argued that under Rule 15 of CCS(CCA) Rules, a period of three months has been provided for passing orders on inquiry report and the disciplinary authority in this case passed the penalty order after about two years but that cannot be a ground for holding the punishment order illegal.
Regarding third case Vigilance Case No. SGR-2662 it has been argued by learned counsel for workman that sampling was defective, the determination of the broken refraction of the rice was made wrongly, analysis was manual and to cover human error margin of allowance was acceded by the management and the analysis was not made properly. But the argument of workman in this regard is not acceptable in the absence of any expert evidence. The documents Exhibit E4, E8, E9, E13 to E15 cannot help the workman in this regard.
It has also been argued on behalf of workman that in SGR-2662 there were 62 consignments but only six pertained to the workman, and other officials or officers involved in rest of the 56 samples had been issued charge- sheet under major penalties and one Harjas Rai Sharma TA-II who was involved in 17 samples and had been heavily penalized by the disciplinary authority got his penalty modified by the Appellate/Reviewing Authority.While the appeal of the workman was rejected by the Appellate/Reviewing Authority. According to the workman he was not given equal treatment.
In this regard it is important that the charge-sheet with regard to other officials had not been filed in the case and it is not known as to what were the charges against them and whether their case was similar to that of workman. I agree with the learned counsel for management that the punishment in this case cannot be said to be illegal and unjustified. In Vigilance Case No.SGR-2662 the workman had been charge-sheeted under minor penalty and on receipt of his defence reply, which was considered unsatisfactory he was imposed again the penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. Punishment cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified.
From the above going discussion it is clear that there is nothing wrong and illegal in punishment awarded to workman in Vigilance Case No.SGR-2547 and Vigilance Case No.SGR-2662. The punishment awarded by management in charge-sheet No. 21(DTI-3044) 97/795 was admittedly wrong and has been withdrawn since then. Amount of Rs.l,950 recovered from the workman, if not already repaid to workman be paid to him. So far as the relief of promotion from 2000 is concerned it is clear from the statement of management-witness that the promotion of workman had been withheld on account of cases No. SGR 2527 and case No.SGR 2662. The workman is not entitled to the relief claimed in this regard and in this way he is not entitled to any other relief. The reference is accordingly answered. Hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government and copy of the award be sent to the District Judge Patiala for information and further necessary action.
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer4140 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1566.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स पी. जी. आई. के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 763/2005द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-42012/211/2003-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013
S.O. 1566.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 763/
2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of PGI and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 3-7-2013.
[ F. No. L- 42012/211/2003-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer section (2A) of the of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal :—
"Whether the action of the management of PGI, Chandigarh in removing Sh. Pawan Kumar, Ex- Safaiwala, from service w.e.f. 12.4.1997 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"
As per claim statement the workman was working as Safaiwala w.e.f. 11.1.1995 with the management. On 31.12.1996 he was arrested in connection of an FIR No.135 under Section 147, 149, 323, 452 and 380 of IPC. On account of his arrest in the said case the management terminated his services on 12.4.1997. The grievance of the workman is that the management did not conduct any departmental inquiry and without following the disciplinary action procedure terminated his services in a slip shod manner by holding a preliminary inquiry on the ground that he remained in the police custody for more than 48 hours and his conduct was unbecoming of an employee. He was not given any opportunity of defence. The workman however was subsequently acquitted on 6.9.2002 by the Court. According to him he is entitled to reinstatement w.e.f. 12.4.1997 i.e. the date of his termination.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present : Sri A. K. Rastogi, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 763/2005
Registered on 5-9-2005
Sh. Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Motha Singh House No. 1289, Phase I, Ram Darbar, UT, Chandigarh ......Petitioner The claim was contested by the management and it was stated that the workman was just a daily wager initially appointed for a . period of 89 days. As he had been arrested in the above mentioned criminal case and remained in police custody from 31.12.1996 to 3.1.1997, hence a preliminary inquiry was conducted giving full opportunity to present/defend his case. In the inquiry he had given his statement which was duly considered by the Inquiry Officer and since he had remained in the police custody for the period from 31.12.1996 to 3.1.1997 hence, his services were terminated. Management has further pleaded that the workman has been acquitted on account of benefit of doubt and therefore his conduct does not warrant his reinstatement. Further his appointment was not in consonance of the Recruitment Rules hence, otherwise also he has no legal right to claim employment.
Versus
The Director, PGI, Sector-12, Chandigarh .....Respondent
Appearances :
For the workman : Sh. Arun Batra, Advocate.
For the Management : Sh. N. K. Zakhmi, Advocate. In support of his case workman examined himself and filed a copy of termination order and of judgment of Criminal Court given in the criminal case. The documents have been marked as 'A' and 'B'. On behalf of the management P.C. Akela, Senior Administrative Officer of PGIMER examined himself and filed papers.Exhibit M2 to M8.
AWARD
Passed on 19th June, 2013
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/ 211/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 17-8-2004 by exercising tis powers under Section 10, Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub- I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. The facts of the case are not in dispute. As is clear from the termination order Exhibit M8 dated 12.7.1997 the services of the workman were terminated after preliminary inquiry on the ground that the workman had remained in police custody w.e.f. 31.12.1996 to 2.1.1997 and this conduct of the workman was unbecoming of an employee.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4141The argument of the learned counsel for workman is that the termination of the service is a major penalty and it can be inflicted only after a departmental inquiry conducted according to the principle of natural justice.· The workman should have been charge-sheeted and informed about the specific allegations along with proposed evidence against him, he must have been provided an opportunity to plead his case, the documents should have been made available to him and an opportunity of hearing should have been given to him. Preliminary inquiry is not a departmental inquiry and is simply a fact finding inquiry in which the participation of the workman was not necessary even.
The learned counsel for the management on the other hand argued that in the first place the workman was a daily wager initially appointed for a period of 89 days and no procedure had been followed in his appointment, therefore he has no right to claim employment with the management. Secondly in the inquiry he had been given opportunity to present his case before the Inquiry Officer and in his statement dated 21.3.1997 he had admitted that he could not inform his superiors on account of his ignorance of the rules in this regard. Therefore the termination order is according to law and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
It is true that workman had been appointed in a short term vacancy as a daily wager on contract through appointment letter Exhibit M2 but this appointment was only for 89 days. The workman continued in the employment of the management even after the period of 89 days mentioned in this letter. It is also true that there is nothing on record to show that' the workman had been employed as per Recruitment Rules. Hence it is clear that he has no right to the post but it does not mean that the management is at liberty to throw the workman on streets without following the procedure.
From the record it appears that instead of a charge- sheet containing detailed information about the allegations against him the workman had been handed over a Memo Exhibit M5 issued by the Inquiry Officer requiring the workman to attend his office on the given date and time to explain his position. In the letter mentioned subject is "regarding arrest of Sh. Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Motha Singh, Safaiwala PGI, Chandigarh." Neither the date of arrest nor the duration of custody nor the proposed evidence and nor the reference of the Rule violated by the workman is mentioned in the said memo.
Secondly, as is Clear from the termination order Exhibit M8 the services of the workman were terminated because he had remained under the police custody for more than 48 hours under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and his conduct was unbecoming of an employee. There is no reference of any rule or provision which declares the detention of a Government servant for more than 48 hours as unbecoming of a Government employee.
Here it is important to note that as per G.I., M.H.A. Letter No.39/59/54-Est.(A) dated 25th February, 1955 referred at page 10 in para 2 under 'GOVERNMENT OF INDIA'S DECISION' in Swami's Compilation of Conduct Rules it is the duty of a Government servant who may be arrested for any reason to intimate the fact of his arrest and the circumstances connected therewith to his official superior promptly even though he might have subsequently been released on bail. Failure on the part of any Government servant to so inform his official superior will be regarded as suppression of material information and will render him liable to disciplinary action on this ground alone, apart from the action that may be called for on the outcome of the police case against him.
It shows that merely detention in a criminal case is not sufficient to warrant any departmental action. It is the failure of the Government servant to inform his superiors about his detention which may invite disciplinary action against him. In this case the services of the workman has not been terminated on the ground that he did not inform his superiors about his detention. But his services were terminated simply on the ground of detention which in my opinion is not according to law.
I am therefore of the view that in the present case neither a proper departmental inquiry was conducted nor the order dated 12.4.1997 of the management of PGI, Chandigarh in removing the workman is according to law and justified. The order dated 12.4.1997, therefore is quashed and the workman is reinstated. The workman however will not be entitled to any back wages and continuous service in view of the fact that his appointment was not according to rules. The management of PGI is directed to reinstate the workman within one month after receiving the copy of the award. The reference is accordingly decided in favour of the workman. Hard and soft copy of the Award be sent to the Central Government and one copy of the Award be sent to the District Judge Chandigarh for information and further necessary action.
A. K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1567.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एपफ.सी. आई. के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 537/2005द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22012/233/1997-आईआर ;सी-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी4142 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013
S.O. 1567.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 537/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 3-7-2013.
[ F. No. L- 22012/233/1997-IR (C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer Management filed written statement and subsequently amended written statement. According to management workman was never employed in FCI as Pelladar hence, the question of termination from service does not arise. It was also denied that he was member of the Employees Provident Fund. According to management he may be under the EPF through his employer M/s Gurcharan Singh and Company who was the Handling Transport Contractor during the period from 20.3.1991 to 19.3.1993. It was also denied that the FCI paid any salary to the workman.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present : Sri A.K. Rastogi, Presiding Officer
In evidence workman examined himself while on behalf of management Mohinder Singh, Area Manager was examined. Workman had summoned attendance register from the management on which the management had replied that since the workman was not in his employment hence no record of his evidence was being maintained by the management.
Case No. 537/2005
Registered on 22.8.2005
Sh. Birbal Singh S/o Sh. Ishar Singh, Khamal Kalan, Tehsil Suman, Sangrur ......Applicant
Versus
Regional Manager, FCI, RO (PB), Sector 34, Chandigarh ....Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the Workman - Sh. R.P. Rana, Adv. For the Management - Sh. Santokh Singh, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 6.6.2013
Vide Order No. L-22012/233/97-IR(CM-II), dated 22.07.1998 the Central Government 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 (in short Act) has referred the aforesaid industrial disputes for adjudication to the Tribunal.
"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in terminating the services of Sh. Birbal Singh S/o Sh. Isher Singh, w.e.f. 01.11.1992 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date?"
As per claim statement the workman had been employed as Pelladar on 20.4.1985 and his services were terminated on 1.11.1992 without any notice, charge-sheet, inquiry and compensation. While terminating his services juniors were retained and after his termination new hands were also employed. He was a member of EPF. His termination is illegal and unjustified. He has prayed for his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. I need not to say that since the workman is alleging to be in the employment of the management hence, it was for him to prove the fact. He however has failed in proving the relationship of employer and employee between the management and himself. From his statement it is clear that he was not registered with the Employment Exchange and there was no notification in the newspapers for the vacancies. There is no appointment letter and there is no evidence that he was being paid by the management. He had filed a photocopy of an I. Card issued from FCI but said nothing in his statement about this document. The management witness in his statement denied that the workman had been employed by management or he was removed from the service by the management.
From the evidence on record it is clear that the workman has failed to prove his employment and termination by the management. No question of legality and justification of the termination from service of the workman by the management arise. The reference is answered against the workman. He is not entitled to any relief. Let soft copy and hard copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1568.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एपफ.सी. आई. के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण, मुंबई के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 1/2007द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22012/28/2002-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4143 New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013
S.O. 1568.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1/ 2007) of the National Tribunal, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 3-7- 2013.
[ F. No. L- 22012/28/2002-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer workmen and which has been challenged by the F.C.I. Workers Union by way of this complaint has already been placed in abeyance by the F.C.I. till the disposal of Ref. No. NTB-1 of 2003.
In view of the above the circular no. 16 of 2006 dt. 27.7.2006 will remain in abeyance till the decision in the decision in Ref. No. NTB-1 of 2003 and thereafter the FCI will issue fresh circular in accordance with the award in NTB-l of 2003.
The complaint stands disposed of as above .
JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई, 2013
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI
Present :
Justice G. S. Sarraf, Presiding Officer
COMPLAINT NO. NTB-1 OF 2007
(Arising out of Ref. No. NTB-1 of 2003) का.आ. 1569.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एसईसीएल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 46/2007द्ध प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Parties:
FCI Workers Union, Calcutta .....Complainant
V/s.
Food Corporation of India, New Delhi
..... Opposite Party [पफा. सं. एल-22012/30/2006-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013
Appearance :
For the Complainant : Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate
Mumbai, dated 30th day of May, 2013.
S.O. 1569.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 46/ 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the
AWARD
The complainant has filed this complaint under
Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final arguments heard.
Industrial Dispute between the management of Johilla Area of SECL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 3-7-2013.
[ F. No. L- 22012/30/2006-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR-COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/46/07
The applicant has filed this complaint with the prayer that the rate of payment of the wages applicable to the workmen immediately before the commencement of the proceedings under Ref. NO. NTB-1 of 2003 be restored and the circular no. 16 of 2006 dt. 27. 7 .2006 and letter No. IR(L)/3(6)/88- Vo1.III dt. 6.11.2006 be quashed and set aside.
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE
The President, Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS), PO Nowrozabad, Umaria (MP)
....Workman/Union
Versus
By circular no. 7/2007 dt. 9.10.2007 issued by the FCI the circular no.16 dt. 27. 7 .2006 referred to hereinabove has been kept in abeyance till the proceedings before the National Industrial Tribunal in the instant matter are closed and the Regional Offices have been directed to calculate and implement the respective ASOR percent applicable to DPS workers as per the Headquarters Circular no. l0/2006 dt 4.4.2006 till further orders.
It is thus clear that the circular no. 16 of 2006 dt. 27.7.2006 which changed the service conditions of the Chief General Manager, Johilla Area of SECL, PO Nowrozabad, Umaria (MP)
....Management4144 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed on this 6th day of June, 2013
1. As per letter dated 1-5-2007 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/30/2006-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to: '
" Whether the action of the management of SECL in non-payment of alleged deduction from salary and not to stop such deduction from salary is legal and justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. However workman failed to appear. Workman is proceeded exparte as per order dated 13-7-2011. IInd party filed Written Statement on 16-5-2012.
3. IInd party contends that it is not case of other party that any deduction is being made from the salary continuously. That there was no deduction as alleged by the workers. The workers voluntarily donated contributions for performing Ramlila followed by celebration of Durga Puja. The management formed Joint Consultative Committee(JCC) for discussion of all the issues arising at the colliery level. The representatives of Central Trade Unions are members of the said JCC. That Durga Puja are celebrated by the employees. The expenditure required to celebrate the Durga Puja/ Celebrating Ramlila is arranged through a committee being constituted with participation of Union representative as well as the management. That the meeting of Puja Committee was held on 19-9-04. The Committee unanimously decided to collect donations category-wise between Rs. 70 to Rs. 160. As per said decision, the donation were collected from employees with their consent. It is submitted that no other Union raised objection to those donation except representative of HMS Union. That as no objection was made by employees for refund of donation, the reference needs to be rejected.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below :—
not participated in the reference, Statement of claim is not filed, no evidence is adduced to substantiate their claim.
6. Management of IInd party filed Written Statement and affidavit of evidence contending that the 'donation for Durga Puja were collected as per the JCC meeting held on 19-9-2004. The evidence remained unchallenged. Documents are produced. As the Union failed to submit statement of claim and adduce evidence, action of the management cannot be said illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
7. In the result, the award is passed as under :—
"Action of the management of SECL in non-payment of alleged deduction from salary and not to stop such deduction from salary is legal. The relief prayed by 1st party Union is rejected."
8. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1570.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एसईसीएल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 84/2003द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22012/156/2002-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013
S.O. 1570.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 84/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Sohagpur Area of SECL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 3-7-2013.
[ F. No. L- 22012/156/2002-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
(i) Whether the action of the management of SECL non- payment of alleged deduction from salary and not to stop such deduction from salary is legal and justified? In Affirmative
(ii) If so, to what relief the Relief prayed by workman is entitled to?" workman are rejected.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRlBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
REASONS
NO. CGIT/LC/R/84/2003
5. Present reference relates to legality of collection of donation from salary. However the 1st party Union has Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. Patle[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4145 The Secretary, M.P.Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS), Sohagpur Area of SECL, PO Dhanpuri, Distt. Shahdol
....Workman/Union को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22012/10/2007-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
Versus
Chief General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, PO Dhanpuri, Distt. Shahdol (MP)
....Management New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013
S.O. 1571.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
AWARD
Passed on this 6th day of June, 2013 Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 51/ 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 3-7-2013.
[F. No. L- 22012/10/2007-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
1. As per letter dated 8-5-2003 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section 10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/156/2002-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to :
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/51/07
" Whether the demand of Shri Intezar Ali, Survey Mazdoor, Baiga OCM of SECL under Sohagpur Area (represented by M.P. Koyla Mazdoor Sabha) to regularize him as Typist/Clerk w.e.f. 22-9-94 alongwith payment of difference of wages is legal and justified? If so, to what relief the workman is entitled to?" Presiding Officer : SHRI R. B. PATLE
The General Secretary, Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), Vishwakarma Bhawan, Post Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara ...Workman/Union
Versus
Chief General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Kanhan Area, PO Dungaria, Chhindwara
...Management
AWARD
2. After notice, Ist party/workman submitted Statement of claim at page 2/1 to 2/3 contending that the workman was entitled for regularisation claimed by him. The IInd party management submitted Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/8 denying all material contentions of 1st party. The parties have adduced evidence. Today when the case is fixed for cross-examination of management's witness, the 1st party submitted application that he desires to withdraw the case. Workman is present and admits that he is not interested to prosecute his claim, therefore the claim needs to be disposed of.
3. In the result, award is passed as under :—
"Claim of 1st party/workman stands disposed of as withdrawn."
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1571.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यूसीएल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 51/2007द्ध Passed on this 10th day of June 2013
1. As per letter dated 26-6-2007 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/ l0/2007-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to :
"Whether the action of the management of M/s WCL in not correcting the date of initial appointment of Shri Ramakant Singh as 4-5-1980 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. 1st party workman failed to submit .his statement of claim. He is proceeded exparte on 13-7-2011. The management filed Written Statement on 19-12-2011. The management of IInd party submits that the workman along with other were engaged as casual labours4146 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] intermittently as and when required basis. The management decided to regularize those persons engaged as casuals as soon as regular vacancy of General Mazdoor arose. The eligibility of selection against regular vacancy is that one should be ex-casual and have put in attendance not less than 190/240 days.
3. It is further submitted that the Sub Area Manager, Nandan Colliery opposed for regularization to 202 casual workers into General Mazdoor Cat-I who had completed 190/240 days for underground and surface. That Ist party workman was regularized as General Mazdoor along with other labours whose name was appearing at Sl. No. 19 of list. He was regularized w.e.f. 6-2-82. The list was approved by General Manager, Kanhan Area on next day. The said claim of 1st party for correction of date of appointment as 7-9-1980 cannot be accepted. IInd party prayed for rejection of award.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and' determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below :—
(i) Whether the action of the In Affirmative
management of M/s WCL in not correcting the date of initial appointment of Shri Ramakant Singh as 4-5-1980 is legal and justified?
नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1572.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एसईसीएल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 33/2007द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22012/29/2006-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013
S.O. 1572.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/ 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Johilla Area of SECL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 3-7-2013.
[ F. No. L- 22012/29/2006-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
(ii) If so, to what relief the Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?" workman is rejected.
REASONS
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/33/07
Presiding Officer : SHRI R. B. PATLE
The President, Koyla Shramik Sabha (UTUC), Central Committee, Vindhya Colony, Umaria (MP)
...Workman/Union
Versus
5. Ist party is praying for correcting of date of regularization in General Mazdoor Category from 4-5-1980 as per the terms of reference. He failed to file his statement of claim. Ilnd party submitted Written Statement and contents that Ist party was regularized in General Mazdoor Category-I from 6-2-1982. The affidavit of evidence of management Mr. P. K. Tripathi also states that Ist party workman was regularized in General Mazdoor category from 6-2-84. The General Manager, Kanhan Area had approved said list on 7-2-82. Evidence of witness remained unchallenged. I find no reason to disbelieve his statement on oath. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
6. In the result, award is passed as under :—
Chief General Manager, Johilla Area of SECL, PO Nowrozabad, Umaria (MP)
...Management
AWARD
"(1) The action of the management of M/s WCL in not correcting the date of initial appointment of Shri Ramakant Singh as 4-5-1980 is legal and justified.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected."
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer Passed on this 16-5-2013
1. As per letter dated 28-02-2007 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/ 29/2006-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to :
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4147"Whether the action of the management of SECL in not providing employment to the dependent of Late Shri Chamroolal Yadav is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the dependent of the deceased workman entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party dependent failed to appear. She was proceeded exparte on 21-7- 2011.
3. Management filed Written Statement on 27-1-2012 "denying the claim of the depending for appointment on compassionate ground. IInd party submits that under Rule- 10 of I.D.Act, the parties raising dispute needs to file statement of claim with relevant documents. Ist party workman has not complied said provisions. Union did not filed any statement of claim. That the service conditions of Coal Mine Workers are covered by Standing Orders, NCWA, Circulars Instructions issued by management time to time etc. clause 9.3.2/9/4/0/9.5.0 deals with providing dependant employment in case a workman died during the course of employment. The application is required to be submitted within 5 years. That Ist party dependent had not submitted application within 5 years. Late Chamroolal Yadav was employed as loader, Token No. 377(P) died on 14-6-1985. The dependents did not approach to the management for employment. The dependent is getting family pension. Smt. Phoolbai, widow of deceased workman submitted application for employment in 1995. Her application could not be considered as highly belated. The purpose of providing employment to the dependent of Govt. servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else is to mitigate hardship. Such appointments are permissible on compassionate ground as per the rules. Management submits that as application is submitted after 10 years, It cannot be considered.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below :—
(i) Whether the action of the In Affirmative
management of SECL in not providing employment to the dependent of Late Shri Chamroolal Yadav is legal and justified?
(ii) If so, to what relief the Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?" dependence of
deceased workman is rejected.
Management of IInd party filed Written statement contending that the application for compassionate ground was submitted within 5 years, rather the application was submitted after 10 years. As per rules, application cannot be considered. Affidavit of management's witness I.G. Thulsidhara Kurup is filed covering most of the contention of the IInd party in Written Statement. His evidence remained unchallenged as the Ist party workman failed to cross-examine the said witness of the management. IInd party has produced copy of Implementation Instruction Annexure M-l. Clause 3.6 provides that :—
"Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependants of workmen who die while in service and who are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated as under.-
(i) In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependent would have the option to either accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 3000 per month of employment irrespective of her age.
(ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to causes other than mine accident and medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0 (NCWA- V), if the, female dependent is upto the age of 45 years, she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 2000/ per month or employment.
6. Document Annexure M-2 produced by
management Item No. 242.6 reads as under :—
" It was decided that the employment for dependent under the provision of 9.3.2 , 9.4.0 and 9.5.0 will be considered on routine basis and those cases which are older than 5 years or more shall be reopened for consideration on case to case basis.
In other words cases which are older than 5 years or more will not be considered and it can only be reopened if there is full justification for the same."
7. In present case, as per affidavit of management's witness dependent has not filed Statement of claim neither filed any evidence. The claim of Ist party dependent is not substantiated. For above reasons, I record my finding on Point No.1 in Affirmative.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:-
REASONS
5. The reference relates to denial of employment on compassionate ground to widow of Late Chamroolal. However the 1st party dependent has not submitted statement of claim. 1st party workman is proceeded exparte.
(i) Action of the IInd party management in not providing employment to the dependent of Late Shri Chamroolal Yadav is legal.
(ii) Relief claimed by dependent of deceased
workman is rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer4148 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1573.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एस ई सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 30/2010द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22012/60/2009-आई आर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013
S.O. 1573.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 30/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Rajendra-Navgaon Sub Area of SECL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 3-7-2013.
[ F. No. L- 22012/60/2009-IR (CM-II)]
B.M.PATNAIK, Desk Officer 2. Ist party Union is challenging removal/ discharge from service of workman Shri Khelawan in the dispute under reference. Even after issuing notices, the Union has not participated in the proceeding, no statement of claim is filed. 1st party is proceeded exparte on 5-12-2012.
3. IInd party management also not filed Written Statement. From conduct of the 1st party, it is clear that the parties are not pursuing or participating in the dispute.
4. In the result, award is passed as under :—
"Reference is disposed off as No Distpute
Award."
5. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई, 2013
ANNEXURE
का.आ. 1574.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 70/2008द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
[पफा. सं. एल-22012/20/2008-आई आर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी NO. CGIT/LC/R/30/2010 PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE
The President, Koyla Mazdoor. Sabha (HMS), Near G.M.Office, Dhanpuri, Shahdol ......Workman/Union New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013
Versus
Sub Area Manager, Rajendra Navgaon sub Area of SECL, PO Khairaha, Shahdol (MP) .......Management S.O. 1574.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 70/2008 of the Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of WCL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03-07-2013.
[ F. No. L- 22012/20/2008-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
AWARD
ANNEXURE
Passed on this 11th day of June 2013
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/70/08
Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. PATLE
1. As per letter dated 25-3-2010 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/60/2009-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of M/s SECL in imposing penalty of removal/discharge from service on Shri Khelawan S/o Shri Mangal w.e.f. 27-11-2006 is legal and justified? To what relief is the claimant workman entitled for ?" General Secretary, Sanyukta Koyala Mazdoor Sangh(AITUC), CRO Camp, Iklehra, Chhindwara ...Workman/Union
Versus
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4149Chief General Manager, WCL, Pench Area, PO Parasia, Chhindwara ...Management Shri Arif Khan w.e.f. 23-5-2007 by the management is legal ?
(ii) If so, to what relief the As per final order
AWARD
Passed on the 13th day of May, 2013 workman is entitled to ?"
REASONS
1. As per letter dated 9-6-2008 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/20/2008-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of M/s WCL in dismissing Shri Arif Khan w.e.f. 23-5-2007 is legal and justified? To what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. 1st party workmen despite of repeated notices issued to him did not turn up or file his statement of claim. 1st party was proceeded ex parte on 21-1-2011.
3. Management filed ex parte Written Statement on 12-5-2011. It is submitted that workman was working as Haulage Khalasi at Vishnupuri U/G Mine No. 1, he was habitual absentee from duty. He did not show interest in his work. Despite of it, management granted him several opportunities to improve his performance. 1st party workman was unauthorisely absent from July 2002. His whereabouts were not known. Chargesheet were issued to him under clause 24,26.30 of Standing Orders. The chargesheet was sent by registered post on address recorded in Form B register, Registered envelope was received back unserved. The Enquiry Officer was appointed. Shri R.K. Sinha, Sr. Personnel Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer, Mr. Yezdas Sr. Under Manager Vishnupuri was appointed as management representative. Despite of memo issued on 10-11-06, 16-12-06, 5-1-07, Ist party workman could not be served. Public notice was issued in Delhi Raj Express dated 1-2-07. The enquiry was conducted against 1st party workman. Enquiry Officer recorded finding and charges were proved. As per his unauthorized absence, services of 1st party workman were terminated as per order dated 21-05-07. IInd party submits that termination of 1st party workman after holding Departmental Enquiry is legal and prays for rejection of claim of 1st party workman.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below :—
(i) Whether the termination
of Ist party workman In Affirmative 5. Present reference is directed for adjudication of legality of termination of Ist party workman. No statement of claim has been filed by workman. IInd party filed Written Statement and contended that unauthorized absence of workman was proved in enquiry proceeding therefore services of Ist party workman are terminated. Affidavit of evidence of IInd party witness Shri R.S. Prasad is produced. He has stated most of the facts pleaded in Written Statement of IInd party. It is submitted that despite of repeated notices and memos, Ist party remained absent in the enquiry. From evidence in enquiry proceedings, charges of unauthrized absence against workman are proved. In pursuance of the report of the Enquiry Officer, services of Ist party workman are terminated from 23-5-07. The evidence of witness of IInd party gone unchallenged. Ist party workman failed to participate in the reference proceeding, failed to cross-examine the management's witness. He also not filed statement of claim. Considering the evidence on record, as services of Ist party workman are terminated for unauthorized absence proved in the Enquiry Proceeding, action of the IInd party is legal. Accordingly I record my finding on Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
6. In the result, award is passed as under :—
(1) Action of the IInd party management in terminating the services of 1st party workman Shri Arif Khan w.e.f. 23-5-2007 is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by 1st party workman is rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1575.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ए एस आई के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 183/2001द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल- 42012/70/2001-आई आर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी4150 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013
S.O. 1575.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 183/ 2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of Archaeological Survey of India, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03-07-2013.
[ F. No. L- 42012/70/2001-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/183/2001
Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. PATLE
Shri Shivraj Singh, S/o Pokhan Singh, C/o Mahesh Prasad Dubey, Postal Deptt. Chanderi, Guna ...Workman for regular appointment. However he was appointed on temporary basis from 21-2-95. After working for 544 days including holidays from 1-7-94 to 31-12-95, the services were terminated from 1-1-1996. It is submitted by workman that he was not paid retrenchment compensation, no notice was issued to him, salary in lieu of notice period was not paid to him. Shri Salim, Vijay, Pappu, Bhallavi, Rajesh and Prakash were engaged as watchman after his termination. He was not given opportunity for re-employment. That the junior workmen Vishram Singh, Indrapal and Salim working on daily wages were inducted into regular establishment. The Seniority list of daily wage workers was not published on notice board at the time of his termination. He submits that since his termination, he was required to borrow money from his friends and relatives. His family members are supporting for his basic necessity of life. He is not gainfully employed. It is submitted that termination of his service is in violation of Section 25- F of I.D. Act, Rule-77 of Central Rules, 1957. He prays for reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. IInd party managment failed to file Written
Statement. As such proceeded ex parte on 7-9-07.
Versus
Asstt. Superindendent, Archaeological Survey of India, Archaeological Museum, Singhpur Palace, P.O. Chanderi, Guna
..Management 4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below :—
(i) Whether the termination
AWARD
Passed on this 12th day of June, 2013
1. As per letter dated 27-11-2001 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-42012/70/2001-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
of the services of In Negative Shri Shivraj Singh S/o Pokhan Singh w.e.f. 1-1-1996 by the Asstt. Supdt. Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Chanderi is justified ?
(ii) If so, to what relief the As per final order
workman is entitled to ?"
REASONS
"Whether the action of the management of Asstt. Supdt. Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Chanderi in terminating the services of Shri Shivraj Singh S/o Pokhan Singh w.e.f. 1-1-1996 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at page 4/1 to 4/3. The case of Ist party workman is that he was initially engaged on 1-7-94 on daily wages against vacant post of watchman in regular establishment after continuously working for more than six months with the satisfaction of the management. His name was sponsored from Employment Exchange, selection process was undertaken, he was interviewed by the management on 20-2-95. He was found suitable 5. Workman is challenging termination of his services from 1-1-96. That his services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F, G & H. His juniors were retained in service. He was not given notice, no retrenchment compensation was paid. Pay in lieu of notice was not paid to him. All those facts are covered in affidavit of his evidence filed on 19-5-06. IInd party management of Archaeeological survey of India failed to participate in the proceeding. The evidence of workman gone unchallenged. I find no reason to disbelieve his evidence. The workman has produced zerox copies of documents with list dated 27-12-2010. However he has not rendered any of those documents in his affidavit of evidence.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4151ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/109/93
Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. PATLE
General Secretary, M.P.K.K.M.P (HMS), PO Junnardeo, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) ...Workman/
Union
Versus
6. A bunch of citation is submitted on behalf of workman. Ratio held in bunch of citation relates to what is Industry as held in AIR-1978-Supreme Court 548(1). As there is no denial by the IInd party, the issue doesnot arise. Therefore ratio held in all citations in bunch submitted on his behalf needs no detailed discussion. From unchallenged evidence of workman, it is clear that he had completed 240 days continuous service preceding his termination from 1-1-1996. His services are terminated without giving retrenchment compensation, not issuing notice or pay in salary in lieu of notice. The list of retrenched employees were not displayed on notice, junior employees were retained. Thus the termination of service of workman is illegal for violation of Sections 25-F, G & H of I.D.Act. I accordingly record my finding on Point No. 1.
7. In the result, award is passed as under :— Manager, WCL, Rakhikol Colliery, Kanhan Area, PO Rakhikol, Distt. Chhindeara (MP) ...Management
AWARD
(i) The action of the management of Asstt. Supdt. Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, chanderi in terminating the services of Shri Shivraj Singh S/o Pokhan Singh w.e.f. 1-1-1996 is illegal.
(ii) IInd party is directed to reinstate Shri Shivraj Singh, S/o Shri Pokhan Singh with 50% back wages.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1576.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डब्ल्यू सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 109/1993द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22012/44/1993-आई आर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013
S.O. 1576.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 109/ 1993) of the Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of WCL, and their workmen,
which was received by the Central Government on 03-07- 2013.
[ F. No. L- 22012/44/1993-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer Passed on this 13th day of June, 2013
1. As per letter dated 7-6-97 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/44/93-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the Manager, Rakhikol Colliery of WCL, Kanhan Area, PO Rakhikol Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in dismissing the services of Shri Bishram S/o Lotan, Casual Temp. D.P.R. w.e.f. 23-10-88 is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. After notice, state of claim is submitted by the Union at Pages 3. It is case of Union that workman Shri Bisram Adivasi Truck Loader was permanent worker, the work was of permanent nature. He was working since 20-3-84. His work was neat and clean. As and when management finds its manpower surplus, the Adivasi and Harijans are the first target due to illiteracy and poverty. That the management put tham for her work and usually not provided full scale in the month. That the services were verbally terminated from 23-10-88 illegally. It is prayed that workman be reinstated with back wages.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/4. IInd party submits that Bisram S/o Lotan was casual employee, had not completed 190/240 day attendance in any of the calendar year while in service4152 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] of Rakhikol colliery. The workman was continuously absent from duty from year 1987. For such absence without permission, without intimation from authorities, chargesheet was issued to him for unauthorized absence. Enquiry of unauthorized absence was proved beyond doubt. He was issued notice to appear and participate in the enquiry. However the workman failed to appear before enquiry officer. That the unauthorized absence from duty is proved misconduct. As per report of the Enquiry Officer for unauthorized absence from 1987 punishment of dismissal was imposed. The Ist party is not entitled to relief prayed by him.
4. Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at page 8/1 to 8/3. His earlier contentions are reiterated that services of workman are illegally terminated in violation of provision of I.D. Act. That he had completed 240 days continuous service during each of the year .
5. The enquiry was held valid as per order dated 1-4-2011. The following points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below :—
(i) Whether the charge of un- In Affirmative
authorized absence against workman is proved from evidence in the Enquiry proceeding.
(ii) Whether the punishment of In Affirmative
dismissal from service is just and proper ?
(iii) If so, to what relief the work- Relief prayed
man is entitled to?" by workman
is rejected.
reason to interfere in the punishment. For the above reason, I record my finding in Point No. 1, 2 in Affirmative.
7. In the result, award is passed as under :—
(i) The action of the Manager, Rakhikol Colliery of WCL, Kanhan Area, PO Rakhikol Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in dismissing the services of Shri Bishram S/o Lotan, Casual Temp. D.P.R. w.e.f. 23-10-88 is justified.
(ii) Relief prayed by Ist party workman is rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1577.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑपफ पटियाला के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय चंडीगढ़-1 के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 2/2008द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-12012/06/2008-आई आर ;बी-1द्ध]
सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 4th July, 2013
S.O. 1577.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 2/2008
REASONS
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Patiala, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 01-07-2013.
[ F. No. L- 12012/06/2008-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.P. SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIVUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID 2/2008.
6. As discussed above as per order dated 1-4-2011, the enquiry held against workman is found legal and proper. Workman has not adduced evidence on other issues. Record of enquiry Proceedings is produced by management with list at Page 16. The evidence in enquiry shows that workman was absent in the year 1987 without any intimation. At the time of argument, learned counsel for management Mr. Shashi argued that Coal Mine is essential industry. In absence of the employee without intimation affects the working of the mine. The unauthorized absence of workman is proved from evidence in enquiry. The workman had not participated in the enquiry. The misconduct is proved from evidence. No evidence is adduced about propriety of punishment of dismissal. I donot find Shri Dalel Singh Dahiya, House No.118, Behind Labour Office, Bishan Saroop Colony, Panipat.
... Workman
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4153Versus
pocketing the money, you tarnished the image of the bank. The details of these deposits are mentioned hereunder.
Sr. Date of Deposit Amount
(1) The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Zonal Office, SCO-7, Sector-5, Panchkula ( Haryana)
(2) The Assistant General Manager-II, State Bank
of Patiala, SCO 9-10, Sector-25, HUDA, Panipat.
1. 14-4-2004 4800.00
2. 16-7-2004 83000
3. 3-8-2004 200000
.....Management
4. 18-8-2004 4800
Appearances :
For the workman : Shri V. Sharma Advocate
For the management : Shri S. K. Gupta Advocate 5. 28-9-2004 60000
6. 14-10-2004 23000
7. 14-12-2004 4800
AWARD
Passed on 21-05-2013
Central Govt. vide letter No. L-12012/06/2008-IR (B-I) dated 11-4-2008 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Panipat Branch in imposing penalty of removal from service of Sri Dalel Singh Dahiya Ex-Head Cashier 'E' w.e.f 30-10-2005 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?"
2. The case of the workman as enumerated in claim statement is that he joined the management of State Bank of Patiala as Clerk-cum-Cashier, upgraded as Head Cashier Category-E in the year 2002 and posted at Safidon Branch of the bank. Suddenly he was placed under suspension by leveling the charge on various lapses allegedly committed by him during the posting at extension counter Municipal Committee Safidon Branch. He was served with charge- sheet which is as under :—
"While posted at Ext. Counter, Municipal Committee Safidon of Safidon Branch you are alleged to have committed certain acts of misconducts, which are prejudiced to the bank's interests, for which you are served upon the following charge sheet :—
Sh. Raj Singh Malik a customer of the Ext. Counter made the following deposits at cash counter handled by you at the Ext. counter Municipal Committee, Safidon. You have given the counter folio slips of these deposits to the Customer by putting bank's receipts stamps under your intitials and also made entries in his pass book, but you did not deposit the amount in the Saving Bank a/c No. 11900- 15247 (New a/c No. 55109779290) of Sh. Raj Singh Malik a customer maintaining saving bank a/c at the Ext. Counter, Municipal Committee Safidon. The said money was pocketed by you and defrauded the customer. Besides 8. 22-12-2004 120000
9. 17-7-2005 200000
10. 28-7-2005 5700
11. 21-6-2005 4800
12. 16-9-2005 5700
13. 16-9-2005 120000
14. 29-2-2004 32000
You were called upon to explain you position on 10-10-2005 for the above irregularities, but you did not submit the reply to the explanation despite you were allowed to pursue the record of the branch, as requested by you and you confirmed vide your acknowledgement dated nil having pursued the record on 31-10-2005.
Thus aforesaid acts amounts to Gross Misconduct in terms of Clause 5(j) of Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for workmen signed between Indian Banks Association and The workmen Unions at Mumbai on 10th April, 2002. You are advised to submit your reply to the aforesaid charge sheet within seven days from the date of receipt thereof failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say and the matter shall be proceeded with further."
3. Regular departmental proceedings were held. After conducting of the inquiry the workman was provided with the copy of the inquiry report and was served with show cause notice proposing the penalty of major punishment, i.e. removal from service with superannuation benefit. He was also granted personal hearing by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority. Appellate authority confirmed the punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefit. It is pleaded by the workman that appellate authority rejected the appeal of the workman by non- speaking order. It is pleaded by the workman that charge-4154 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] sheet served upon him was without any list of documents and list of witness and without any photocopy of the document. It is further pleaded that allegations have been levelled directly and in a pre-judged manner. He was not allowed opportunity to file the defence statement. It is further pleaded that findings of the Inquiry Officer are based upon a case of no evidence and material documents were considered by the Inquiry Officer behind the back of the workman. Findings of the Inquiry Officer are not only arbitrary and perverse but the same are result of distortion of fact for the purpose of misleading the disciplinary authority. It is a case of double jeopardy also. The findings are without any assessment of evidence on the record of inquiry. Crucial witnesses have not been examined and therefore punishment order is liable to be vitiated. It is further pleaded that order of removal from service is unreasoned, non-speaking, arbitrary and perverse. The copy of the proceedings recorded at the time of personal hearing was not provided to the workman. It is pleaded that the inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry against the principle of natural justice and against the well-settled principle of law. The workman was not provided with opportunity of defence during inquiry. It is prayed that inquiry may be vitiated and order passed on the basis of inquiry may be set aside and workman may be ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages.
4. The management filed written statement stating there in that while the workman was posted at Safidon Branch of the Bank a customer named Raj Singh Malik made various deposits at cash counter. The workmen, given the counter folio slips of the deposits'to the customer by putting bank receipt stamp under his signature in token of receipts of the amount and also made current entries in the passbook of the customer. But the workman did not deposit the amount in the Saving Bank Account of customer and pocketed and misappropriated the same as many as 14 entries of the various amounts have been given in the charge-sheet. When this misappropriation came to the notice of the bank, workman was issued charge-sheet but the workman preferred not to reply the same. Inquiry proceedings were initiated. The Bank conducted the inquiry in a fair and proper manner and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Disciplinary authority after going through the inquiry report and evidence on record inflicted the punishment of removal from service vide order dated 30-6-2006 on the workman. Thus the management adopted all fair and proper means to conduct the inquiry. He was afforded full and proper opportunity to give his defente and to prove his innocence. In view of the serious misconduct committed by the workman the punishment of removal from service was inflicted. It is also submitted by the management that in case this Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that inquiry has not been conducted in a fair and proper manner and at any stage the principle of natural justice has been violated during the inquiry proceeding. In that eventuality the management reserve its right to prove the charges before this Court. On merits also it is pleaded by the management that inquiry was conducted on various dates and the workman was given full opportunity to prove his innocence but the punishment was awarded after detailed and exhaustive inquiry. Therefore the workman is not entitled for any relief and the reference may be answere against the workman.
5. Replication was filed by the workman reiterating the same contents as made in the claim statement. Workman also placed on record his affidavit on the same pattern as that of the claim statement.
6. My learned predecessor heard the arguments on fairness of inquiry and vide order dated 22-7-2010 held as under :—
"Thus I am of the view that enquiry was held in a fair and proper manner. There has been no statutory lapse while conducting the enquiry and there has also been no violation of principle of natural justice while conducting the enquiry by the enquiry officer.
There is a difference in conducting any enquiry in a fair and proper manner and the decision making of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. There may be cases where enquiry might have been conducted in a fair and proper manner but the decision making i.e.; proving of the charge by enquiry officer, may suffer with some perversity. The enquiry officer might have taken into consideration the evidence which was not on record or has not considered the evidence which was not on record. There may be the possibility of perversity in holding the charge proved. For all these circumstances, it is mandatory to afforded the opportunities to both of the parties on the issue of perversity in decision making and on quantum of punishment. Thus, both of the parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence on the following issues :—
(1) The perversity in decision making of the enquiry
officer and the disciplinary authority, if any?
(2) The quantum of punishment.
Both of the parties are afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence on the abovementioned issues on 10-8-2010. Parties be informed."
7. Now the limited question before this Tribunal is whether there is any perversity in decision making of the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority and on quantum of punishment. Learned counsel for the workman during arguments submitted that the inquiry officer has not called the complainant to prove the charges of pocketing the money and misappropriating of the amount as mentioned in the charge sheet. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that as the complainant was not called therefore the workman was greatly prejudiced by not calling the complainant before the Inquiry[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4155 Officer and he was also not subjected to cross-examination by the workman on the charges. Learned counsel for the workman also submitted that as crucial witness was not examined therefore it is a fit case where the punishment of removal which is harsh punishment cannot be imposed on the workman. In support of his contention he has also relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court 1999 (1) SCT 303 Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and 2005 (3) SCT 407 P.Erajan, lnspector of Police Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police,Trunelveli Range, a judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court to support his contentions. It is prayed by the learned counsel for the workman that as original complaint was not brought on record and crucial witness was not produced, therefore, it is a fit case where the punishment of removal from service can be substituted. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the workman on quantum of punishment that removal from service is harsh punishment and as the charges were not proved complainant was not produced for cross- examination by the workman, therefore, the punishment of removal from service is very harsh and the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages and other service benefits.
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the management submitted that the limited question before this Tribunal is to see any perversity in decision making of the Inquiry Officer and disciplinary authority and quantum of punishment as per order dated 22-7-2010. From the inquiry proceeding, not even a single instance has been quoted by the workman that the Inquiry Officer has not afforded opportunity to the workman. From the inquiry preceding it is revealed that the workman was given opportunity of defence and he was allowed to file reply to the charge sheet but workman chose not to file the reply to the charge sheet. Inquiry Officer was appointed with due knowledge of the workman. Prosecution witnesses were examined wherein the workman was allowed to cross- examine the witnesses of the management. The workman was also allowed to lead his defence during inquiry and, there is not a single instance to show that the Inquiry Officer was biased. The inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and he was allowed full opportunity of defence Similarly the disciplinary authority before inflicting the punishment given show cause notice also given the personal hearing to the workman and after completing all the formalities of principle of natural justice inflicted the punishment of removal from service which is not a swear one. Banking institution runs on the faith of the public and the workman was served with charge sheet as many as for pocketing the money 14 times deposited by the customer of the bank. He misappropriated the amount as proved from the inquiry of eight transactions which is a very serious offence and the punishment of removal from the service is very lesser punishment. Rather the workman was to be given strict punishment of dismissal from service so that other employees may not indulge in such practice. The name of the institution was badly affected by the act and conduct of the workman and the workman is not entitled for any relief whatsoever. The learned counsel for the management also relied on the case laws 2006 (3) SLR 184 State Bank of India an another Vs. Bela Bagchi and others, AIR 2000 SC 3028 State Bank of India Vs. Tarun Kumar Banerjee, 2009 (4) RSJ SC 444 UP State Road Tansport Corporation Vs. Nanhe Lal Kushwaha, 1997 RSJ 692( Punjab & Haryana) State of Punjab Vs. Nazar Singh and another 1997(3) RSJ 369 SC Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Kaka Singh, 2005(4) RSJ 636 (S.C.) V. Ramana Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. and others and 2007(3) RSJ page I.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the case law submitted by both the parties.
10. On 22-7-2010, the then presiding officer framed the following Issues :
(1) The perversity in decision making of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority, if any?
(2) The quantum of punishment.
11. From the perusal of the enquiry report it is clear that enquiry officer found that the charges are partly proved. Enquiry Officer while giving his findings clearly mentioned that the charges to the extent marked as Ex.P- 6(1). Ex. P-7(1), Ex. P-8(1), Ex. P-9(1), Ex. P-l0(1), Ex. P-ll (1), Ex. P-12 (1), Ex. P-13 (1), Ex. P-14 (1), Ex. P-15(1), Ex. P-16 (1), Ex. P-17 (1), Ex. P-18 (1) were issued by the EPA as during the enquiry the workman never denied having done so. It is also proved that workman made the entries in his own hand in the pass book of Shri Raj Singh Malik. Enquiry Officer also observed that the charges not proved to the extent that the entries dated 29-2-2004 for Rs. 32000/- and workman is nothing to do with it being computerized entry. The entry dated 17-7-2005 for Rs. Two lakhs is concerned being Sunday which may not be a working day in the normal course and BPO has not produced any evidence to prove that it was a working day. The entry dated 14-4-2004, 18-8-2004, 14-12-2004 and 21-6-2005 for Rs. 4800/- each entry dated 28-7-2005 and 16-9-2005 for Rs. 5700 each represent the cheques deposited by the complainant and these are likely to be deposited after collection. Thus from the perusal of the enquiry report, it is clear that enquiry officer was not biased against the workman nor any perversity occasioned.
12. It is pertinent to mention here that workman himself examined as WWl and in cross-examination workman stated that he cross-examined the witnesses of the bank in departmental enquiry and enquiry officer given him the opportunity of defence but he choose not to adduce any defence evidence in enquiry. After supplying of the copy of the enquiry report, disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority provided him personal hearing. Thus4156 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the Chief General Manager, MTNL and their workman, which was received by the Central Goverment on 26-06-2013.
[ F. No. L-42025/07/2013-IR(DU)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
the workman failed to point out any perversity in decision making by the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and appellate authority. The case laws cited by the learned counsel for the workman have no application in fact and circumstances of the case. In fact, one of the case law cited by the learned counsel for the management i.e. 2006 (3) SLR 184 State Bank of India an another Vs. Bela Bagchi and others apply to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand being similar facts and circumstances in which the punishment of dismissal from service was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX,
DELHI
I.D. NO. 38/2013
13. Thus it is held that there is no perversity at any stage committed by the authorities of the bank and the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner adhering to the settled principles of natural justice.
The Chief General Manager, MTNL, Khurshid Lal Bhawan, New Delhi-110050. ......Applicant Management
Versus
The General Secretary, MTNL Mazdoor Sangh, D-14, Telegraph Square Doctors Lane, Gole Market New Delhi-110001 .......Respondent Union
AWARD
14. As regards quantum of punishment is concerned, in view of the proved charges of misconduct of misappropriation, the workman pocketed the money of a customer and tarnished the image of the bank. The bank lost confidence in him. Moreover the punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits is commensurate with the proved misconduct of the workman and no interference is called for in the punishment by this Tribunal. 15. In view of the discussion above, it is held that the action of the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Panipat Branch in imposing the penalty of removal from service of Shri Dalel Singh Dahiya Ex-Head Cashier 'E' w.e.f. 30-10-2005 is just, fair and legal and the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. A soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for publication. Chandigarh. 21-05-2013
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1578.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार चीपफ जनरल मैनेजर, एम.टी.एन.एल. के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण नं. 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 38/2013द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-6-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-42025/07/2013-आईआर;डीयूद्ध]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 4th July, 2013
S.O. 1578.—In pursaunce of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi (Filed under Section 33-A in the matter of Complaint arising out of Ref. No. 38/2013) as shown in the Pursuant to its decision to set up Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (in short the Nigam), a Public Sector Corporation, Department of Telecommunications (DOT), Ministry of Communications, Government of India, vide order dated 18-03-1996 directed that on commencement of operations of the Nigam with effect from 01-04-1986, the staff of Delhi and Bombay telephone districts working within the jurisdiction of Union Territory of Delhi and Bombay, New Bombay and Thane Municipal areas will be deemed to be transferred on deputation to the Nigam on the existing terms and conditions without any deputation allowance for a maximum period of five years and would be manned by terms and conditions applicable to them prior to formation of the Nigam. All employees of DOT (Group C & D) on deemed deputation with Nigam were given an option to either to opt for service of the Nigam or revert back to their parent cadre. Employees who opted for service of the Nigam were absorbed from 01-11-1998 onwards. Rules and regulations for service conditions applicable to the employees of the Nigam were made applicable to such employees.
2. While working for DOT, the employees used to contribute towards CGHS and avail medical facilities from CGHS dispensary as well as empanelled hospitals in cashless mode. The Nigam introduce Indoor Medical Scheme through M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance in pursuance of settlement arrived at with majority union MTNL Delhi and Mumbai, during the course of conciliation[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4157 proceedings. The said scheme was continued for 5-6 months. Later on the insurance company backed out after paying back the premium for the balance period.
3. Health Insurance Scheme was then handed over by the Nigam to United India Assurance Company, and a sum of Rs. 45 crore was released to the Insurance Company. The said action was taken by the Nigam by taking a unilateral decision. Aggrieved by the said act, the MTNL Staff Union (Class III and IV) (in short the union) raised a demand for reverting back to the existing indoor facilities. Since the demand was not acceded to, an industrial dispute was raised by the union before the Conciliation Officer. Since the Nigam contested the claim, conciliation proceedings ended into a 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-40011/14/2011-IR(DU), New Delhi dated 8-5-2012, with following terms :
"Whether the action of the management of MTNL, New Delhi in extending the medical facilities to its employees through an insurance company instead of continuing with the existing indoor facilities is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the employees of MTNL are entitled to?
4. Claim statement was filed by the union pleading that the Nigam attempted to wriggle out of the on going medical policy formulated on the strength of wage agreement dated 11-05-2010, without deliberating with the union and purchased Health Insurance policies from the United India Assurance Company for non-executive employees of the Nigam. It was claimed that the act of the Nigam in not taking the union into confidence tantamounts to breach of memorandum of settlement dated 11-05-2010.
5. Claim was demurred by the Nigam pleading that the claim is not maintainable as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain it, since the claimant is asking for recalling/quashing of circular No. MR/Circular/2008-09/ 35 dated 15-03-2011, vide which circular No. MTNL/Co/ Pers.med.ins.we 2011/ 622 dated 09-03-2011 was implemented and circulated after consultation with the union, in the meeting held on 20-02-2011. The Nigam is under an obligation to work out indoor medical facility through insurance, which intention was reiterated in the wage agreement singned by Delhi and Mumbai unit of the union and the management,during the course of conciliation proceedings. There was no stay against the Nigam for handing over health insurance scheme to M/s. United India Assurance Company Ltd. and releasing of Rs. 45 crore to the insurance company. the CGHS scheme was available to the employees till the insurance scheme was not launched.
6. During pendency of adjudication process, an application was moved by the Nigam, under section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) detailing therein that it has launched a scheme dated 10-03-2011 in comformity with the wage agreement dated 11-05-2010. Existing two years period, as per the said insurance policy, is going to expire on 10-03-2012. Nigam wants approval of their action of implementation of Health Insurance Policy for 11-03-2012 and onwards under section 33(1) of the said Act. The application so moved, was registered as an industrial dispute.
7. Section 33 of the Act bars alteration in conditions of service "prejudicial to the workman concerned in the dispute and punishment of discharge of dismissal when either is connected with pendentelite industrial dispute "save with the permission of the authorities before which the proceedings is pending" or where the discharge of dismissal is for any misconduct not connected with the pendentelite industrial dispute without the "approval of such authority".
Prohibition contained in Section 33 of the Act is two fold. On one hand, they are designed to protect the workman concerned during the course of industrial conciliation, arbitration and adjudication, against employers's harassment and victimization, on account of their having raised the industrial dispute or their continuing the pending proceedings and on the other., they seek to maintain status quo by prescribing management conduct which may give rise to "fresh dispute" which further exacerbate the already strained relations betweer I employer and the workman. Where industrial disputes are pendentelite before an authority mentioned in the section, it was thought necessary that such disputes should be conciliated or adjudicated upon by the authority in a peaceful atmosphere, undisturbed by any subsequent causes for bitterness or unpleasantness. To achieve this object, a ban has been imposed upon the employer exercising his common law, statutory or contractual right to terminate the services of his employees according to contract or the provisions of law governing such service. The ordinary right of the employer to alter the terms of his employees' services to their prejudice or to terminate their services under the general law governing contract of employment, has been banned subject to certain conditions. This ban, therefore, is designed to restrict the interference of the general rights and liabilities of the parties under the ordinary law within the limits truly necessary for accomplishing the object of those provisions. Anxiety to know about ban on the right of the employer, persuades me to reproduce the provisions of section 33 of the Act thus:
"33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings. -( 1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before an arbitrator or a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall.—
(a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen4158 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or
(b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workman concerned in such dispute.
Save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending.
(2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute or, where there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman
(a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the conditions of service applicable to that workman immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or
(b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, that workman:
Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (2), no employer shall, during the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, take any action against any protected workman concerned in such dispute
(a) by altering, to the prejudice of such protected workman, the conditions of service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or (b) by discharging or punishing, whether any dismissal or otherwise, such protected workman,
save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a "protected workman", in relation to an establishment, means a workman who, being a member of the executive or other office bearer of a registered trade union connected with the establishment, is recognized as such in accordance with rules made in this behalf.
providing for the distribution of such protected workmen among various trade unions, if any, connected with the establishment and the manner in which the workmen may be chosen and recognized as protected workmen.
(5) Where an employer makes an application to a conciliation officer, Board, an arbitrator, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under the proviso to sub-section (2) for approval of the action taken by him, the authority concerned shall, without delay, hear such application and pass, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application, such order in relation thereto as it deems fit.
Provided that where any such authority considers it necessary or expedient so to do, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as it may think fit.
Provided further that no proceedings before any such authority shall lapse merely on the ground that any period specified in this sub section had expired without such proceedings being completed.
8. As noted above sub-sections (1) and (2) are designed for different purposes since sub-section (1) applies to the proposition when the employer wants to alter service conditions of the workman to his prejudice in regard to any matter connected with the dispute or for any misconduct connected with the dispute, in that situation he is obliged to seek prior permission in writing of the authority before whom the dispute is pending and in a case where the employer wants to alter service conditions of a workman in regard to a matter not connected with the dispute or for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, in that situation he is obliged to seek approval of the order under sub-section (2) of the aforesaid section. When an employer violates the provisions of sub section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 33 of the Act, an instant remedy is provided to the workman by the provisions of section 33A of the Act. In other words, where an employer has contravened the provisions of section 33, the aggrieved workman has been given the' option to make a complaint in writing, to the authority before which an industrial dispute is pending, with which the aggrieved workman is concerned. The complaint of such contravention can be made not to the adjudicating authorities, but to the conciliatory authority also. If a complaint is made to a conciliatory authority, viz. a Conciliation Officer or a Board of Conciliation, clause (a) of section 33 A of the act authorizes a Conciliation Officer or the Board to take such complaint into account in bringing about a settlement of the complained dispute. The Conciliation Officer or the Board is not empowered to adjudicate upon the dispute, which is the area of adjudicatory authorities. When a complaint is made to adjudicatory authority viz. Arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, it will adjudicate upon the dispute as if it is a dispute referred to or pending before it.
(4) In every establishment, the number of workmen to be recognized as protected workmen for the purposes of sub-section (3) shall be one per cent of the total number of workmen employed therein subject to a minimum number of five protected workmen and a maximum number of one hundred protected workmen and for the aforesaid purpose, the appropriate Government may make rules[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4159
9. The application was withdrawn by the Nigam the already pending industrial dispute. The
claiming that there was no dispute for renewal of insurance protection afforded to a workman under the said
scheme with effect from 10-03-2013 with majority union provision cannot be taken away. If it is to be held
namely, MTNL Delhi Mazdoor Sangh. that an order of discharge or dismissal passed by
10. What is the effect of non-moving an application the employer without complying with the
for approval? Such proposition was taken note of by the requirements of the said proviso is not void or
Apex Court in Jaipur Zila Sehkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank (AIR inoperative, the employer may with impunity
2002 S.C. 643) wherein it was held that it would be clear discharge or dismiss a workman.
case of contravention of the proviso to section 33(2)(b) of 11. The Apex Court dealt with the situation of the
the Act. It would be expedient to reproduce the law laid in withdrawal of such approval application or not making an
the above precedent, which are extracted thus: application in the following manner:
''The proviso to Section 33(2)(b) as can be seen ''The view that when no application is made or the
from its very unambiguous and clear language, is one made is withdrawn, there is no order of refusal
mandatory. This apart from the object of Section 33 of such application on merit and as such the order
and in the context of the proviso to Section 33(2)(b), of dismissal or discharge does not become void or
it is obvious that the conditions contained in the inoperative unless such an order is set aside under
said proviso are to be essentially complied with. Section 33A, cannot be accepted. In our view, not
Further any employer who contravenes the making an application under Section 33(2) (b)
provisions of Section 33 invites a punishment under seeking approval or withdrawing an application
S. 31 (1) with imprisonment for a term which may once made before any order is made thereon, is a
extend to six months or with fine which may extend clear case of contravention of the proviso to Section
to Rs.1000 or with both. This penal provision is again 33(2)(b). An employer who does not make an
a pointer of the mandatory nature of the proviso to application under Section 33(2)(b) or withdraws that
comply with the conditions stated therein. To put it one made, cannot be rewarded by relieving him of
in other way, the said conditions being mandatory, the statutory obligation created on him to make such
are to be satisfied if an order of discharge or dismissal an application. If it is so done, he will be happier or
passed under Section 33(2)(b) is to be operative, if more comfortable than an employer who obeys the
an employer desires to take benefit of the said command of law and makes an application inviting
provision for passing an order of discharge or scrutiny of the authority in the matter of granting
dismissal of an employee, he has also to take the approval of the action taken by him. Adherence to
burden of discharging the statutory obligation and obedience of law should be obvious and
placed on him in the said proviso. Taking a contrary necessary in a system governed by rule of law. An
view that an order of discharge or dismissal passed employer by design can avoid to make an application
by an employer in contravention of the mandatory after dismissing or discharging an employee or file it
conditions contained in the proviso does not render and withdraw before any order is passed on it, on its
such an order inoperative or void, defeats the very merits, to take a position that such order is not
purpose of the proviso and it becomes meaningless. inoperative or till it is set aside under Section 33A
It is well settled rule of interpretation that no part of notwithstanding the contravention of Section
statute shall be construed as unnecessary or 33(2)(b) proviso, driving the employee to have
superfluous. The proviso cannot be diluted or recourse to one or more proceeding by making a
disobeyed by an employer. He cannot disobey the complaint under Section 33A or to raise another
mandatory provision and then say that the order of industrial dispute or to make a complaint under
discharge or dismissal made in contravention of Section 31(1). Such an approach destroys the
Section 33(2)(b) is not void or in-perative. He cannot protection specifically and expressly given to an
be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. employee under the said proviso as against possible
The interpretation of statute must be such that it victimization, unfair labour practice or harassment
should advance the legislative intent and serve the because of pendency of industrial dispute so that
purpose for which it is made rather than to frustrate an employee can be saved from hardship of
it. The proviso to Section 33(2)(b) affords protection unemployment.
to a workman to safeguard his interest and it is a 12. In view of above legal proposition it is announced
shield against victimization and unfair labour that the Nigam would be faced with the consequences of
practice by the employer during the pendency of withdrawal of the application, referred above, in case
industrial dispute when the relationship between provisions of section 33 of the Act is violated by it. An
them are already strained. An employer cannot be award is accordingly passed. It be sent to the appropriate
permitted to use the provision of Section 33(2)(b) to Government for publication.
ease out a workman without complying with the
Dated : 21-3-2013
conditions contained in the said proviso for any
alleged misconduct said to be unconnected with
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer4160 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1579.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण पूर्व रेलवे के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 54/98द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-06-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-41012/148/97-आई आर ;बी-Iद्ध]
सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2013
S. O. 1579.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of S. E. Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27-06-2013.
[ F. No. L-41012/148/97-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer 2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. 1st party workman submitted his statement of claim. The case of 1st party workman is that he was
appointed as Bunglow Peon w.e.f. 27-4-95. His services were terminated from10-11-95. His work was satisfactory. There was no complaint about him. His services were terminated without notice. He had continuously worked for more than 240 days without any break. Termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-F, G, H & N of I.D.
Act. The termination of service is illegal. On such contention workman prays for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. IInd party management filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. It is not disputed that applicant workman was appointed from 28-4-95 as Bunglow Peon. After retirement of Shri S.V.L.N.Chari i.e. after 6 months, 12 days of service, his services were terminated from 10-11-95 as officer to whom he was attached has
ANNEXURE
retired on 31-10-95. That as per policy letter dated 31-5-95, the substitute/casual Bunglow peon not completed one year service. His services are required to be terminated. In pursuance of said policy decision, the services of 1st party workman were terminated. All other allegation of workman are denied. It is denied that workman has completed 240
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/54/98
Presiding Officer : SHRI R. B. PATLE Shri N.Vasu, Wagon Repairing Shop, S.E. Rly., W.R.S. Colony, Raipur ... Workman Versus
Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer (Admn.), S.E. Rly., Bilaspur ... Management days continuous service. It is denied that the termination of 1st party workman is in violation of Section 25-F, G, H & N of I.D. Act. He has prayed that relief prayed by workman be rejected.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below :—
(i) Whether the termination of In Affirmative services of 1st party workman Shri N. Vasu, Ex Peon with effect from 10-11 95 is legal?
AWARD
Passed on this 14th day of May, 2013 (ii) If so, to what relief the Relief prayed by workman is entitled to?" workman isrejected.
REASONS
1. As per letter dated 9-3-98 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-41012/
148/97-IR (B-I). The dispute under reference relates to :
''Whether the action of the management of Senior Divisional Personnel Officer (Admn.) Bilaspur, South
Eastern Railway, in relation to their Wagon Repairing Workshop in terminating the services of Shri N.Vasu, Ex-Peon with effect from 10-11-95 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?''
5. Though 1st party workman in his statement of claim submits that he has completed 240 days continuous service, he has not adduced any evidence.
6. Management's witness filed affidavit of evidence covering all the points in Written Statement filed by the IInd party/management. The witness of the management is not cross-examined as the workman remained absent. The evidence of management's witness remained unchallenged. The witness of the management has stated
that 1st party workman was working only for 6 months 12 days. He was not working continuously for 240 days. In[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4161 view of unchallenged evidence of management's witness, the workman is not covered under Section 25(b) of I.D.Act. The provisions. The workman is not entitled to protection
of Section 25-F, G, H & N of I.D.Act. Therefore action of management in terminating the services cannot be said. illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
7. In the result, award is passed as under :—
Telengana Trade Union Council, H.No.3-5-247/3, Azmathpura, Karimnagar Dist., Karimnagar. . . . .Petitioner
AND
The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bhupalapally Area, Bhupalapally, Warangal Dist.-506169. . . . .Respondent
Appearances:
(1) Action of the IInd party management in terminating the services of Shri N. Vasu, Ex.-Peon with effect from 10-11-95 is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer For the Petitioner : M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy,
Advocates
For the Respondent : None
AWARD
नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई, 2013
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-220l2/l0/2013 IR(CM-II) dated 3-4-2013 referred the following dispute under Section l0(l)(d) of the I,D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
का.आ. 1580.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एस सी सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 46/2013द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22012/10/2013-आई आर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2013
S.O. 1580.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 46/2013) of the Central Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2013.
[ F. No. L- 22012/10/2013-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer "Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bhupalapalli Area, Warangal Dist., in terminating the services of Sri APCH Venkateshwar Rao, Ex-Coal Filler, KTK-1 incline, SCCo. Ltd., Bhupalpalli Area, Warangal Distt., with effect from 26-8-2009 is justified or not?
To what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 46/2013 and notices are yet to be issued to the parties concerned.
ANNEXURE
2. The case is posted for appearance of parties to 13-6-2013. While things stood so, Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate filed Vakalat for the Petitioner together with a petition i.e., I.A No.76/2013 invoking Sec. 36(4) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking for permission to appear for the Petitioner. Further he filed I. A. No. 78/2013 seeking for advancement of the case to 28-5-2013 and filed a memo seeking for permission to withdraw the case. In the given circumstances, IA No.76/2013 and IA No.78/2013 are allowed. Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate is permitted to represent the Petitioner.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 28th day of May, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 46/2013
Between:
The President, (Sri R. Kashiramulu),
3. In pursuance of the order in IA No.78/2013 dated 28-5-2013, this case is advanced to 28-5-2013. In the memo filed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, seeking for permission to withdraw the petition, Petitioner pleaded that the management was kind enough to offer employment to him subject to withdrawal of the present dispute and that he is to be permitted to withdraw the petition. Notice given to other side. Heard both parties. Petitioner is permitted to withdraw his case. In the result, the case is dismissed as withdrawn.
4162 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 28th day of May, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer AND The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bhupalapally Area, Bhupalapally, Warangal Dist.-506169. . ...Respondent
Appearances :
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner NIL
Witnesses examined for the Respondent NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner For the Petitioner : M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy,
Advocates
For the Respondent : None
AWARD
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई, 2013
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/5/2013 IR(CM-II) dated 3-4-2013 referred the following dispute under Section l0(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
का.आ. 1581.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एस सी सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 45/2013द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22012/5/2013-आई आर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2013
S.O. 1581.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 45/2013) of the Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.Singareni
Collieries Co. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2013.
[ F. No. L- 22012/5/2013-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer ''Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bhupalapalli Area, Warangal Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Chenigarapu Venu @Shenigarapu Venu, Ex-Badli Filler, KTK-6 incline, Bhupalpalli Area, Warangal Distt., with effect from 13-10-2008 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?''
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.45/2013 and notices are yet to be issued to the parties concerned.
2. The case is posted for appearance of parties to 13-6-2013. While things stood so, Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate filed Vakalat for the Petitioner together with a petition i.e., IA No.77/2013 invoking Sec.36(4) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking for permission to appear for the Petitioner. Further he filed I.A.No.75/2013, seeking for advancement of the case to 28-5-2013 and filed a memo seeking for permission to withdraw the case. In the given circumstances, IA No.77/2013 and IA No.75/2013 are allowed. Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate is pennitted to represent the Petitioner.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 28th day of May, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 45/2013
Between: The President, (Sri R. Kashiramulu), Telengana Trade Union Council, H.No.3-5-247/3, Azmathpura, Karimnagar Dist., Karimnagar. .. ..Petitioner 3. In pursuance of the order in IA No. 75/2013 dated 28-5-2013, this case is advanced to 28-5-2013. In the memo filed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, seeking for permission to withdraw the petition, Petitioner pleaded that the management was kind enough to offer employment to him subject to withdrawal of the present dispute and that he is to be permitted to withdraw the petition. Notice given to other side. Heard both parties. Petitioner is permitted to withdraw his case. In the result, the case is dismissed as withdrawn.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 28th day of May, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4163
Appendix of evidence
Appearances :
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner NIL
Witnesses examined for the Respondent NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner For the Petitioner : M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent : None
AWARD
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई, 2013
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-22012/8/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 28-3-2012 referred the following dispute under Section 10(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman represented by the General Secretary, Singareni Miners & Engg. Workers Union (HMS). The reference is,
SCHEDULE
का.आ. 1582.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एस सी सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 12/2012द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/8/2012-आई आर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2013
S.O. 1582.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 12/2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 5-7-2013.
[ No. L- 22012/8/2012-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer ''Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bhupalapalli Area, in terminating the services of Sri Bejjanki Mahender, Ex Coal Filler, KTK-2 Incline, Bhupalapalli Area with effect from 5-9-2007 is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 12/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. The case stands for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner to 15-5-2013. Petitioner filed IA No. 38/2013 on 15-4-2013 seeking for advancement of the case to 15.4.2013 and filed a memo seeking for permission to withdraw the case.
ANNEXURE
3. In pursuance of the order in IA No.38/2013 dated 26-4-2013, this case is advanced to 26-4-2013. In the memo filed by the Petitioner seeking for permission to withdraw the case, Petitioner pleaded that the management was kind enough to offer employment to him subject to withdrawal of the present dispute and that he be permitted to withdraw the petition.
4. Notice given to Respondent. Heard both parties.
Petitioner is permitted to withdraw his case.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
Present : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 26th April, 2013
5. In the result, the case is dismissed as withdrawn.
Award is passed accordingly.
Transmit.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 12/2012
Between:
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 26th day of April, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
The General Secretary (Riaz Ahmed), Singareni Miners & Engg. Workers Union (HMS) Qtr. No.C-34, Sector-I, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar(AP) - 505209. ...Petitioner/Union
AND The Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bhupalapally Area, Bhupalapally, Adilabad Dist.-504303. . . . .Respondent Witnesses examined for the Petitioner NIL
Witnesses examined for the Respondent NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL4164 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances :
नई दिल्ली, 8 जुलाई, 2013
None For the 1st Party-Managements.
None For the 2nd Party Workman.
ORDER
का.आ. 1583.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स स्मेल्टर प्लान्ट नालको अनुगुल उडीसा के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 2/2013द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-43012/2/2012-आई आर ;एमद्ध]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2013
S.O. 1583.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the common Award (Ref. No. 2/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of Smelter Plant, NALCO, Angul, Odisha and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-7-2013.
[F. No. L- 43012/2/2012-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
Case taken up. None is present for the 1st Party- Management. The 2nd Party-workman is present is person and moves a petition for withdrawal of the case. The 1st Party-Management has not put in appearance as yet.
2. It has been stated in the withdrawal application that the matter of reinstatement in service has almost been settled by the National Commissioner of Scheduled Caste, but the Management has imposed a condition that first the workman should withdraw the case pending in the CGIT, Bhubaneswar. Accordingly this withdrawal petition has been moved.
3. Since the 2nd party-workman is voluntarily withdrawing his case before this Tribunal there is no impediment in allowing his petition. He is accordingly permitted to withdraw the case and a no dispute award is passed in the case.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 8 जुलाई, 2013
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BHUBANESWAR
का.आ. 1584.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एच डी एपफ सी स्टेन्डर लाइपफ इन्स्योरेंश क. लिमिटेड रायपुर के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 28/2007द्ध प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Present :
Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer, C.G..I.T.-Cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
[पफा. सं. एल-17012/20/2006-आई आर ;एमद्ध]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
Industrial Dispute Case No. 2/2013
Date of Passing order 28th May, 2013 New Delhi, the 8th July, 2013
Between :
The General Manager, Smelter Plant, NALCO, P.O. & Dist. Angul, (Odisha)
.....1st Party Management S.O. 1584.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the common Award (Ref. No. 28/2007) of the Central Government Industrial
(And)
Shri Mohan Behera, Qr. No. A/229, NALCO Nagar, PO. Nalco Nagar, Dist. Angul-759145
.....2nd Party-Workman Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Raipur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2013.
[F. No. L- 17012/20/2006-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4165ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/28/07
Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. Patle
Smt. Dolly Ghoshal, W/o Shri Amit Ghoshal, B/11, Maruthi Residency, Amlidhi, Raipur (CG)- 492001 ....Workman
Versus
The Chief Executive Officer, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co.Ltd., IInd Floor, A Wing, Trade Star Building, Junction of Kondfivita & MV Road, Andheri Kurla Road, East Mumbai
The Resident Manager, HDFC Standard Insurance Co.Ltd., 1st Floor, Vanijya Bhawan, Devendarnagar Road, Sainagar, Raipur ....Management she was indulged in misappropriation of money. Her explanation was called on 4-1-06. The reply was received on 9-1-06. The management had investigated the allegations and found Miss Dolly Ghoshal has indulged in acts of dishonesty and gross violation in connection with employer's business and therefore she was dismissed from services of the company. However 1st party Dolly had requested for relieving letter by company. Her request was accepted and she was given a relieving letter inspite of being dismissed on humanitarian ground. That Miss Dolly Ghoshal tried to create undue pressure on the management making false allegations. IInd party management prays for rejection of the demands under reference.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below :—
(i) Whether Smt. Dolly Ghoshal, In Affirmative
Officer Operation, HDFC Standard Insurance Co.Ltd. is a workman under Section 2(S) of I.D. Act and reference is tenable.
(ii) Whether the action of the In Affirmative
AWARD
Passed on this 7th day of June, 2013 1. As per letter dated 13-2-2007 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-17012/ 20/2006-IR(M) . The dispute under reference relates to:
management of HDFC Standard insurance Co. Ltd in dismissing Smt. Dolly Ghoshal, Officer Operation from her services is legal?
(iii) If not, what relief the workman Relief prayed
is entitled to?" by workman
is rejected.
REASONS
"1. Whether Smt. Dolly Ghoshal, Officer Operation, HDFC Standard Insurance Co.Ltd. is a workman by the nature of job performed by her and if so,
2. Whether the action of the management of HDFC Standard insurance Co. Ltd in dismissing Smt. Dolly Ghoshal, Officer Operation from her services without following the principles of natural justice and not conducting a domestic enquiry into the allegations is justified? If not, to what relief she is entitled?"
2. After receiving, reference, notices were issued to the parties. 1st party workman despite of notice, failed to submit Statement of Claim. Exparte order is passed against workman on 17-3-2011. 3. The IInd party management submitted Written Statement on 8-7 2010. It is submitted by management that it is engaged in Insurance Business. 1st party Dolly Ghoshal was employed as Officer (Operations) and the reference is not tenable as Smt. Dolly Ghoshal was appointed in Company as Officer Operation. The job profile of the officer operation are shown in the Written Statement filed by the management. She was appointed on salary of Rs. 9025 Therefore she is not workman under Section 2(S) of I.D.Act. It is further submitted that workman was working with the management of Ilnd party and it was found that 5. Though dismissal from service is challenged by 1st party, she has failed to submit statement of claim or adduced evidence. 1st party is proceeded exparte. IInd party in its Written Statement has contended that Dolly Ghoshal is not covered as workman under Section 2( s) of I.D.Act. The job profile of Dolly Ghoshal are given in para-3 of the Written Statement. The duties includes Scrutiny of Life Insurance Proposal form, processing the proposal form if deemed fit, accept cash DD and cheque from customers against proposal form, Maintaining the DSR and Score Card, agency related work, Petty Cash related work etc. The job profile of Miss Dolly Ghoshal would not be taken out as workman defined under Section 2(s) of I.D.Act. For above reasons, I hold that Miss Dolly Ghoshal is covered as workman and reference is tenable. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
6. Point No.2—1st party workman is challenging dismissal from service. However she has not filed statement of claim, she has not adduced any evidence, evidence adduced by management's witness Neeraj pandey show that Miss Dolly Ghoshal was involved in act of misappropriation of some amount, notice was given to her,4166 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] M/s Eastern Minerals Trading Agency, Kuteshwar Stone Mines, Gortalai (Barhi), Katni, Distt. Jabalpur ....Management
AWARD
reply was received and the allegation were inquired into. The evidence of the management's witness remained unchallenged as 1st party did not cross-examined said witness. Thus there is absolutely no pleadings or evidence on behalf of 1st party to establish that dismissal of Miss Dolly Ghoshal is illegal. Therefore the action of the management of Ilnd party management cannot be said illegal. For above reasons, I record my answer in Affirmative.
7. In the result, award is passed as under :—
(1) 1st party Miss Dolly Ghoshal is a workman. Action of the dismissal of Miss Dolly Ghoshal by management of IInd party is legal.
(2) Reliefs prayed by 1st party Miss Dolly Ghoshal are
rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 8 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1585.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स इस्टर्न मिनरल्स टे्रडग एजेन्सी, जबलपुर के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 93/2007द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-29011/12/1997-आई आर ;एमद्ध]
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 8th July, 2013
S.O. 1585.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the common award (Ref.
No. 93/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Eastern Minerals Trading Agency, Jabalpur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2013.
[No. L- 29011/12/1997-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
Passed on this 6th day of June, 2013
1. As per letter dated 14-9-07 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-29011/ 12/1997-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:
" Whether the issues raised by Ispapt Khadan Janata Mazdoor Union in their charger of demands on following items viz:
(i) Non-maintenance of record of 60 employees.
(ii) Dust Allowance of Rs.15 per month,
(iii) Maintenance of overtime records by the
management,
(iv) Grant of Medical Facilities to the employees and
(v) Cancellation of transfer of the 24 workman to Asansol
headquarters are just and legal?
If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"
2. 1st party Union is challenging 5 demands in the dispute under reference. Even after issuing notices, the Union has not participated in the proceeding, no statement of claim is filed. 1st party is proceeded exparte on 11-5-2011.
3. IInd party management also not filed Written Statement. From conduct of the 1st party, it is clear that the parties are not pursuing or participating in the dispute.
4. In the result, award is passed as under:—
"Reference is disposed off as No Dispute Award."
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 8 जुलाई, 2013
ANNEXURE
का.आ. 1586.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डायमण्ड सीमेंट्स विरलापुर, जबलपुर के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 235/1998द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2.7.2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
[सं. एल-29012/99/1998-आई आर ;एमद्ध]
No. CGIT/LC/R/93/07
जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. Patle
The President, Ispat Khadan Janta Mazdoor Union, 20, Savarkar Ward, New Basti, Distt. Jabalpur
....Workman New Delhi, the 8th July, 2013
Versus
S.O. 1586.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the common award (Ref. No. 235/1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4167 Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Diamond Cement, Birlapur, Jabalpur, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-7-2013.
[No. L- 29012/99/1998-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
in India depending upon the exigencies of work. That the services of workman are covered by standing orders, Rules and Regulations in force from time to time with regard to work, attendance, conduct and discipline. That IInd party runs Cement Factories at different places. One in Ammasandra, Distt. Tumkur in Karnataka State, another at Narsingarh, District, Damoh in Madhya Pradesh and the third at Madora, Jhansi in Uttar Pradesh.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/235/98
Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. Patle
The Vice President, Khadan Mazdoor Union, Head Office, Shram Sadhna, West Land, Ordanance Factory, Katni, Jabalpur
....Workman/Union
Versus
The President, M/s. Diamond Cement, Birlapur, PO Narsingarh, Damoh, Jabalpur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 11th day of April, 2013
As per letter dated 28-10-98 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-290 12/99/98-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Diamond Cements in transferring Shri G Paramanandam to the unit at Ammasandra in Karnataka and subsequent termination of his services by Ammasandra Unit of Diamond Cements Ltd is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. 1st party workman did not file his statement of claim. The reference proceeded exparte against workman on 16-12-2005.
3. Management filed exparte Written Statement. IInd party management contented that statement of claim as per Rule 10(B) of I.D.Act is not filed by 1st party workman. Exparte order has been passed. The management was directed to file Written Statement. That 1st party workman was appointed as worker in 1982. As per clause-6 of appointment order, services of 1st party workman are transferable to any establishment of the company anywhere 4. That after appointment of 1st party, his performance was not satisfactory. Letter No. 6497 dated 4-6-84 was received about his careless performance. Another letter No. 613 dated 27-8-84 was issued for the act subversive of discipline. 3rd letter No. 2722 dated 24 4-85 was issued against refusal to obey the lawful orders of his superiors. During next 9 years, there was no grievance of his duties and 1st party workman was transferred for administrative exigencies as per order dated 30-12-94 to Ammasandra Unit. He was relieved on 10-1-95. However workman did not join new place of his posting. The management cannot be called upon to pay wages by keeping him simple idle. His services needs to be utilized wherever required and the workman did not report to the place of his transfer. Chief Personal Manager vide D.O .Letter No. 20552 dated 21-2-95 are Sr. Manager IR, whether the transfer order dated 30-12-94 is alive. Reply was received to said letter as per letter dated 1-3-95 that the transfer of Mr. G.Parmanandam was alive. He was relieved on 10-1-95. Chief Personal Manager has also written letter on 11-3-95 passing orders that in view of this voluntarily left and abandoned the company's service, his services were terminated from 11-3-95. That the transfer has not changed his nature of job or service condition, pay scale, status etc. the workman failed to report to duty to the place he was transferred.
5. The workman fully aggrieved filed proceeding before the ALC(C), Jabalpur and reference has been made. It is submitted that transfer is the administrative prerogative of the management. Writ Petition No. 3895/95 was filed by the workman at High Court at Jabalpur. The said petition was dismissed on 26-2-96 only with the direction to the management to allow the wards of the workman to retain the residential quarter till the examinations were over. That the examination of his children was over by 27-3-96. However the quarter was not vacated as per directions of the Hon'ble High Court. The management has no option but to file a Civil Suit before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Damoh under Section 630 of the Companies Act for vacation of the quarters. That in 1999, workman approached the management for full and final settlement of his account.Accordingly his PF and pension fund accumulation were released as per letter No. 2411 dated 21-7-99. That workman is paid Rs.24548 vide cheque No. 731044 dated 8-9-99 towards gratuity. The services of the 1st party workman are terminated as he voluntarily left his service. On such contentions, IInd party prayed for rejection of the relief prayed by the workman.
4168 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
management of M/s In Affirmative Diamond Cements in transferring Shri G. Paramanandam to the unit at Ammasandra in Kamataka and subsequent termination of his services by Ammasandra Unit of Diamond Cements Ltd is justified?
(ii) If so, to what relief the Reliefs prayed by workman is entitled to?" workman are
rejected.
कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 84/2005द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/190/2004-आई आर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1587.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 84/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Bureau of Mines, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-7-2013.
REASONS
[No. L- 42012/190/2004-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
अनुबन्ध्
केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,
जयपुर
7. 1st party workman challenged order of his transfer dated 30-12-94 to Ammasandra Unit in Karnataka and termination of services dated 11-3-95. 1st party workman had not submitted his statement of claim. The management filed Written Statement contending that the services of workman are transferable to the units anywhere in India as per clause-6 in the Appointment Order. Copy of the appointment order is produced on record as Annexure M-l. That workman did not join to the place of his transfer despite he was relieved. Consequently his services were terminated. The evidence of management's witness Shri R.S.Shekawat remained unchallenged. The services of the workman are terminated as voluntarily abandoned his services. That the 1st party workman had approached to the Hon'ble High Court and he was paid amount of gratuity in the year 1999. In view of unchallenged evidence on the above point, the action of IInd party management cannot be said illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
8. In the result, award is passed as under;—
(1) The action of theIInd party management in transferring the 1st party workman Shri G. Paramanandam to the unit at Ammasandra in Karnataka and subsequent termination of his services by Ammasandra Unit of Diamond Cements Ltd. is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman are rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1587.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स इण्डियन ब्यूरो ऑपफ माइन्स के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके सी.जी.आई.टी.प्रकरण सं. 84/2005
श्री एन.के. पुरोहित, पीठासीन अध्किारी
रेपफरेन्स नं. एल-42012/190/2004-IR(CM-II) दिनांक 2-8-2005
Sh. Durgalal S/o Sukhalal, Back Side of R.C. Church, Opp. Dev Narain Mandir, Flat No. 106, Parvatpura, Ajmer (Rajasthan)
V/s.
The Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, B-9, Tie. B.M. Colony, Balupura Road, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer (Rajasthan)
प्रार्थी की तरपफ से ः श्री आर.सी.जैन
अप्रार्थी की तरपफ से ः श्री कुणाल रावत
ः पंचाट :
दिनांक 8-3-2013
1. केन्द्रीय सरकार के द्वारा निम्न विवाद औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 की धरा 10 की उप-धरा के खण्ड ;घद्ध के प्रावधनों के अन्तर्गत उक्त आदेश दिनांक 2-8-2005 के द्वारा न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु प्रेषित किया गया था :
''क्या खान नियंत्राक, भारतीय खान ब्यूरो बी-9, टाई.बी.एम. कॉलोनी, बालूपुर रोड, आर्दश नगर, अजमेर के द्वारा अपने कर्मकार श्री दुर्गालाल पुत्रा श्री खुशालाल को दिनांक 22-12-97 से सेवा से बर्खास्त करना उचित एवं वैध् है? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार अपने[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4169 नियोजक से किस राहत को पाने का अध्किारी है ?''
2. स्टेटमैन्ट ऑपफ क्लेम में प्रार्थी के अभिवचन है कि वर्ष 1990-91 में 6 माह तक दैनिक वेतन भोगी अकुशल कर्मचारी के रूप में अप्रार्थी उत्तरांचल कार्यालय, अजमेर, में चौकीदार के पद पर पदस्थापित एवं सेवारत रहा है। इसके अतिरिक्त वर्ष 1996 से 98 में अयस्क प्रसाध्न प्रयोगशाला, अजमेर में भण्डार शाखा में चौकीदार के पद पर कार्यरत रहा है। प्रार्थी ने वर्ष 1990-99 की अवध् िमें एक वर्ष में 240 दिन से अध्कि दिन कार्य किया है, लेकिन अप्रार्थी द्वारा औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम की धरा 25 F के आदेशात्मक प्रावधनों की पालना किए बिना उसे सेवा से हटा दिया गया। प्रार्थी के यह भी अभिवचन है कि उसे सेवा से हटाए जाने के बाद दिनांक 20-12-2000 को वह ''पफील्ड अर्दली'' के पद के लिए साक्षात्कार के लिए उपस्थित हुआ, लेकिन उसे अवसर न देकर अप्रार्थी विभाग के दूसरे व्यक्ति को सेवा में रख लिया। इस प्रकार अप्रार्थी ने औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम की धरा 25 H का भी उल्लंघन किया है। प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 12.12.97 को उसे सेवा से बर्खास्त किए जाने के आदेश को अवैध् घोषित कर सेवा में पुनः बहाल करने तथा उक्त दिवस से बकाया वेतन मय अन्य लाभ दिलवाने हेतु प्रार्थना की है।
3. अप्रार्थी के जवाब में प्राक्कथन है कि प्रार्थी ने कभी भी चौकीदार के पद पर कार्य नहीं किया, इसलिए उसे सेवा से हटाने का सवाल ही नहीं उठता। अप्रार्थी ने इन तथ्यों को भी इंकार किया है कि प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी के यहा 240 दिन से अध्कि कार्य किया है तथा अप्रार्थी के यहां नियोजित कर्मचारी रहा है। अप्रार्थी के यह भी प्राक्कथन है कि धरा 25(F) एवं (H) का कोई उल्लंघन नहीं हुआ है, इसलिए स्टेटमैंट ऑपफ क्लेम निरस्त किये जाने योग्य है।
4. प्रार्थी ने अपने पक्ष कथन के समर्थन में स्वयं का शपथ-पत्रा प्रस्तुत किया है तथा अन्य साक्षीगण श्री एस.पी. कुकरेती एवं श्री देवानन्द वर्मा के शपथ-पत्रा प्रस्तुत किये है। प्रार्थी की साक्ष्य के खण्डन में अप्रार्थी ने श्री केदार सिंह यादव वरिष्ठ सहायक, खान नियंत्राक का शपथ-पत्रा प्रस्तुत किया गया है तथा प्रार्थी के कार्य दिवसों संदर्भ में, कार्य दिवसों का विवरण, मस्टर रोल एवं स्वीकृती आदेश व बिल वाउचर की पफोटो-प्रतियां प्रस्तुत की गई है।
5. दिनांक 20-12-2005 को निम्न विचारणीय बिन्दुओं की
संरचना की गई।
I. Whether the disputant has worked as chowkidar in between the period from 1990 to 1999 as shown at para 3 of the claim statement and had completed 240 days of work in calendar year prior to his temination, whose service was terminated in contravention of Section 25-F of the Act?
II. Whether after the temination of workman's service the fresh appointments were made in violation of Section 25-H of the Act?
III. Relief, if any
6. औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम 1947 की धरा 25F के प्रावधानों के अनुसार जब किसी उद्योग में नियोजित किसी श्रमिक की, जो नियोजक के अध्ीन कम से कम एक वर्ष के लिए निरन्तर सेवा में रह चुका है, छंटनी तब ही की जा सकती है जब उपखण्ड ;कद्ध के अन्तर्गत लिखित सूचना दे दी गई हो या सूचना के बदले में सूचना की कालावध् िके लिए मजदूरी दे दी गई हो तथा उपखण्ड ;खद्ध में बताए अनुसार प्रतिकर दे दिया गया हो ।
7. अध्निियम की धरा 25 (B) में निरन्तर सेवा को परिभाषित किया गया है। जिसके उपखण्ड 1 के अनुसार श्रमिक एक वर्ष की कालावध् िमें अविच्छिन्न सेवा में रहे हों या उपखण्ड ;2द्ध के अनुसार यदि उसने उस तारीख से, जिसकी प्रति निर्देश से गणना की जानी है, पूर्व के बारह कैलेण्डर मास की कालावध् िके दौरान कम से कम 240 दिन वास्तव में काम किया हो।
8. अध्निियम की धरा 25 F के प्रावधनों को आकर्षित करने के लिए यह सि( करने का प्रारंभिक भार प्रार्थी पर था कि उसे दिनांक 22-12-97 को सेवा से बर्खास्त किया गया तथा वह वर्ष 1990 से 99 की अवध् िमें एक वर्ष की कालवध् िमें अविच्छिन्न सेवा में रहा है या उसने सेवा से बर्खास्त की तिथि से पूर्ववर्ती 12 माह की अवध् िमें 240 दिन कार्य किया है।
9. प्रार्थी के अभिवचनों एवं साक्ष्य में प्रस्तुत शपथ-पत्रा के अनुसार उसने वर्ष 1990 से वर्ष 1999 की अवध् िमें एक वर्ष 240 दिन से अध्कि कार्य किया तथा उसके निम्न कार्य दिवस थेः-
वर्ष माह कार्य दिवस 1990-91 विविध् माह 6 माह 1996 अक्तूबर 15 दिन नवम्बर 29 दिन दिसम्बर 26 दिन 1997 जनवरी 26 दिन पफरवरी 25 दिन मार्च 25 दिन अप्रैल 27 दिन मई 15 दिन
जून 16 दिन जुलाई 24 दिन अगस्त 21 दिन सितम्बर 24 दिन अक्तूबर 29 दिन नवम्बर 19 दिन
दिसम्बर 22 दिन
बिन्दु सं. 1
10. प्रार्थी द्वारा वर्ष 1990 से 1999 की कालावध् िमें जो कार्य दिवस बताये गये है। उसके अनुसार वर्ष 1990-91 में 6 माह ही कार्य किया तथा वर्ष 1992 से 1995 में उसके कोई कार्यरत दिवस नहीं हैं । वर्ष 1996 में सिपर्फ अक्तूबर से दिसम्बर की अवध् िमें कुल 70 दिन कार्य करना बताया है तथा वर्ष 1997 में कुल 273 कार्य दिवस दर्शाये हैं। प्रार्थी द्वारा बताये गये उक्त कार्य दिवसों से ही यह स्पष्ट है कि4170 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] स्वीकृत रूप से वह धरा 25 (B) (1) के प्रावधनों के अनुसार किसी भी वर्ष अविच्छिन्न सेवा में नहीं रहा।
11. अतः विचारणीय प्रश्न यह रह जाता है कि क्या प्रार्थी अध्निियम की धरा 25 (B) (2) के प्रावधनों के अन्तर्गत एक वर्ष 'निरन्तर सेवा' में रहा है। इसके लिए प्रार्थी को सेवा से हटाने की तिथि तथा उक्त तिथि के पूर्ववर्ती 12 माह की अवध् िमें प्रार्थी के कार्य-दिवस प्रासंगिक है।
12. प्रार्थी के कथानुसार उसे दिनांक 22-12-97 को सेवा से हटाया गया था तथा वर्ष 1997 में उसने कुल 273 दिवस कार्य किया है जबकि अप्रार्थी साक्षी का कथन है कि प्रार्थी ने कभी-भी लगातार 240 दिन कार्य नहीं किया। उसका यह भी कथन है कि अप्रार्थी के अजमेर में तीन कार्यालय स्थित हैं उनके रिकार्ड के अनुसार है वर्ष 1990 से 1999 के मध्य दो अलग-अलग श्रमिकों ने कार्य किया है जिनके नाम श्री दुर्गालाल पुत्रा श्री सुखालाल एवं श्री दुर्गालाल पुत्रा श्री सुखाराम है जिनके कार्य दिवस क्रमशः संलग्न परिशिष्ट I एवं परिशिष्ट II में दर्शाये गये हैं । अप्रार्थी साक्षी का कथन है कि परिशिष्ट I में बताये अनुसार उसके वर्ष 1997 में 192 कार्य दिवस ही थे। प्रतिपरीक्षा में उसने नवम्बर में मस्टर-रोल के अनुसार 24 दिन कार्य दिवस और बताये हैं, उन्हें जोड़ने पर वर्ष 1997 में प्रार्थी के 216 कार्य दिवस हो जाते हैं।
13. विद्वान प्रतिनिध् िप्रार्थी का तर्क है कि कुछ दस्तावेजात में प्रार्थी के पिता का नाम अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी को मिलने वाले लाभों से वंचित करने के उद्देश्य से श्री सुखलाल की जगह श्री सुखराम अंकित कर दिया है। परिशिष्ट II में श्री दुर्गालाल पुत्रा श्री सुखाराम के जो कार्य दिवस बताये हैं वह भी प्रार्थी के ही कार्य दिवस हैं। उनका यह भी तर्क है अप्रार्थी के द्वारा जिन वाउचरस के आधर पर कार्य दिवस दर्शाये गये हैं, उनमें श्री दुर्गालाल पुत्रा श्री सुखालाल व श्री दुर्गालाल पुत्रा श्री सुखाराम के हस्ताक्षरों में समानता है जो दर्शाती है कि जो कार्य-दिवस परिशिष्ट 2 में बताये हैं वह भी प्रार्थी के ही है। इस प्रकार परिशिष्ट I एवं परिशिष्ट II में वर्ष 1997 के कुल कार्य दिवसों से स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी ने वर्ष 1997 में 240 दिन से अध्कि दिन कार्य किया है इसलिये प्रार्थी को धरा 25 (F) के आज्ञापक प्रावधनों की पालना किये बिना हटाने का कृत्य अवैध् व अनुचित है।
14. उक्त तर्कों के विरोध् में विद्वान प्रतिनिध् िअप्रार्थी का तर्क है कि रिकार्ड के अनुसार श्री दुर्गालाल पुत्रा श्री सुखालाल एवं श्री दुर्गालाल पुत्रा श्री सुखालाल दो अलग-2 श्रमिकगण थे तथा मस्टर-रोल व भुगतान वाउचर के अनुसार परिशिष्ट 1 में बताये कार्य दिवस पर ही प्रार्थी ने कार्य किया था । प्रार्थी ने वर्ष 1997 में कुल 192 दिन ही कार्य किया है । अतः यह माना भी जावे कि दिनांक 22-12-97 को सेवा से पृथक किया गया था तो उससे पूर्ववर्ती 12 माह में 140 दिन कार्य दिवस नहीं होते । प्रार्थी ने उक्त अवध् िमें 140 दिन कार्य के सम्बन्ध् में कोई प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं की है तथा इस तथ्य को प्रतिपरीक्षा में स्वीकार भी किया है कि अप्रार्थी के यहां कार्य करने बाबत कोई सबूत पेश नहीं किया है । अतः धरा 25;Fद्ध के प्रावधन प्रार्थी के मामले में लागू नहीं होेते ।
15. मैनें उक्त तर्कों पर मनन किया तथा उनको दृष्टिगत
हुए प्रासंगिक दस्तावेजात का अवलोकन किया ।
16. प्रार्थी के कथनानुसार वर्ष 1997 में 273 दिन कार्य किया है । प्रतिपरीक्षा में कहा है दिनांक 1-11-1996 से दिनांक 22-12-97 तक कार्य किया था । प्रार्थी के साक्षीगण श्री एस.पी.कुकरेजी एवं श्री देवानन्द वर्मा ने वर्ष 1990 तक प्रार्थी का अप्रार्थी के यहां कार्यरत होना तो कहा है लेकिन किस माह में कितने दिन कार्य किया यह नहीं बताया है । प्रार्थी ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में माना है कि उसने अप्रार्थी के यहां काम करने का सबूत पेश नहीं किया है ।
17. यद्यपि अप्रार्थी के जवाब में प्राक्कथन है कि प्रार्थी के कभी काम नहीं किया लेकिन अप्रार्थी साक्षी श्री केदार सह यादव ने अपने कथन में यह माना है कि प्रार्थी को अस्थाई अंशकालीन एवं आकस्मिक कार्य हेतु आवश्यकता होने पर रखा जाता था । अपने कथन में यह माना है कि प्रार्थी के वर्ष 1997 में शपथ-पत्रा के साथ संलग्न परिशिष्ट में बताये निम्न कार्य-दिवस थे :-
वर्ष 1997 पफरवरी 25 दिन मार्च 25 दिन अप्रैल 25 दिन
मई 15 दिन जून 14 दिन जुलाई 24 दिन अगस्त 21 दिन अक्टूबर 24 दिन नवम्बर 24 दिन दिसम्बर 19 दिन
कुल 192 दिवस
18. अप्रार्थी द्वारा वर्ष 1997 प्रार्थी के कार्य-दिवसों का जो विवरण प्रदर्श 1 में बताया गया है उसके अनुसार माह जनवरी, सितम्बर एवं नवम्बर में प्रार्थी के कोई कार्य-दिवस नहीं थे । नवम्बर के कार्य-दिवसों का जो विवरण दिया है पर उसके आगे कार्य-दिवसों की जो अवध् िअंकित की है उससे स्पष्ट है कि वह कार्य दिवस दिसम्बर के हैं । श्री दुर्गालाल पुत्रा श्री सुखालाल के वर्ष 1997 के कार्य-दिवसों का विवरण परिशिष्ट II में दर्शाया गया है । उसके अनुसार जनवरी, 97 मे उसके 26 कार्य दिवस हैं तथा सितम्बर में 29 कार्य दिवस थे । इसके अनुसार वर्ष 1997 के दो माह में श्री दुर्गालाल पुत्रा श्री सुखाराम के कार्य दिवस बताये है तथा शेष 10 में श्री दुर्गालाल पुत्रा श्री सुखालाल के कार्य दिवस बताये हैं ।
19. जिस रिकार्ड के आधर पर उक्त परिशिष्ट I एवं II में कार्य दिवस दर्शाये हैं, उन्हें अप्रार्थी द्वारा पेश किया गया है । अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत मस्टर-रोल, स्वीकृति आदेश एवं बिलों के अवलोकन से यह प्रकट होता है कि जो पता प्रार्थी का अंकित किया है वही पता कुछ मस्टर-रोल में श्री दुर्गालाल पुत्रा श्री सुखाराम का भी अंकित किया है । इसके अलावा Ex-W2 एवं Ex- W2 पर क्रमशः दुर्गालाल पुत्रा श्री सुखालाल एवं दुर्गालाल पुत्रा श्री सुखाराम के हस्ताक्षरों में[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4171 समानता के सन्दर्भ में अप्राथी्र साक्षी से प्रतिेपरीक्षा में पूछने पर कहा है कि वह यह नहीं कह सकता कि यह एक ही व्यक्ति द्वारा किये गये है या नहीं । उक्त साक्षी ने यह माना है कि उक्त दोेंनो व्यक्तियों ने एक साथ कार्य नहीं किया । उसने सिपर्फ रिकार्ड के आधर पर बताया है कि रेकार्ड श्री दुर्गाीलाल पुत्रा श्री सुखालाल एवं दुर्गालाल पुत्रा श्री सुखाराम के सम्बन्ध् में है । दुर्गालाल पुत्रा श्री सुखालाल एवं दुर्गालाल पुत्रा श्री सुखाराम के हस्ताक्षर वाले जो प्रलेख पेश किये हैं उनके अवलोकन से भी इनके हस्ताक्षरों में समानता प्रतीत होती है । अतः प्रार्थी प्रतिनिध् ि के इस तर्क में तो सार प्रतीत होता है कि परिशिष्ट I एवं II में जो कार्य दिवस बताये गये हैं वह प्रार्थी के ही कार्य दिवस है ।
20. अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत परिशिष्ट I एवं II में वर्ष 1997 में जो कार्य-दिवस बताये गये हैं उन्हें जोड़ने पर कार्य -दिवस तो 240 दिन से अध्कि हो जाते है, लेकिन यह कार्य-दिवस तब ही प्रासंगिक हैं जब प्रार्थी यह सि( करने में सपफल रहता है कि दिनांक 22-12-97 को उसे सेवा से हटाया गया था ।
21. प्रार्थी के स्टेटमैन्ट ऑपफ क्लेम में अभिवचन है कि उसे सेवा से अप्रार्थी ने दिनांक 22-12-97 को हटा दिया लेकिन स्टेटमैन्ट ऑपफ क्लेम में यह भी अभिवचन है कि प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी के अध्ीन वर्ष 1990 से 1999 तक नियोजन में रहा तथा उस अवध् िमें एक वर्ष में 240 दिन से अध्कि सेवा कार्य में रहते हुए पूरे किये । प्रार्थी ने स्टेटमैन्ट के पैरा 4 में स्पष्ट रूप से कहा है कि वर्ष 1998 से 1999 में कार्यरत रहा जिसका रेकार्ड अप्रार्थी के पास है । प्रार्थी ने अपने शपथ-पत्रा में भी उक्त अभिवचनों को दोहराते हुए वर्ष 1998 एवं 1999 में भी कार्यरत रहना बताया है । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी के अभिवचनों एवं साक्ष्य में इस महत्वपूर्ण बिन्दु पर विरोधभास है कि उसने वर्ष 1999 तक कार्य किया था या दिनांक 22-12-97 तक, यदि वह वर्ष 1998 व वर्ष 1999 में भी अप्रार्थी के यहां कार्यरत था तो उसे दिनांक 22-12-97 को कार्य से हटाने वाली बात सही नहीं हो सकती ।
ने जो रेकार्ड वर्ष 1998 व 1999 की अवध् िका पेश किया है उससे भी इस तथ्य की पुष्टि होती है कि वर्ष 1998 एवं 1999 में भी प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी के नियोजन में कार्यरत रहा है । प्रार्थी का यह केस नहीं है कि दिनांक 22-12-97 को सेवा से हटाने के बाद पुनः वर्ष 1998 में सेवा में रख लिया था । प्रार्थी तो यह कह कर आया है कि उसे दिनांक 22-12-97 को सेवा से हटाने के बाद अप्रार्थी ने पुनः सेवा में लेने का अवसर प्रदान नहीं किया । रेकार्ड के अनुसार प्रार्थी दिनांक 30-12-97 तक कार्यरत था तथा उसके बाद वर्ष 1998 एवं 1999 में भी पूर्व में उल्लेखित महीनों में अप्रार्थी के यहां कार्यरत था ।
24. अतः प्रार्थी यह साबित करने में ही असपफल रहा है कि उसे दिनांक 22-12-97 को सेवा से हटा गया था । इसलिए वर्ष 1997 में प्रार्थी 240 दिन से अध्कि कार्यरत रहा है तो भी धरा 25 B;iiद्ध के अन्तर्गत उसको एक वर्ष की 'निरन्तर सेवा' नहीं माना जा सकता क्योंकि कथित तिथि 22-12-97 को प्रार्थी को सेवा से हटाना ही साबित नहीं हो सका है । अतः यह बिन्दु प्रार्थी के विरफ( तय किया जाता है । बिन्दु सं. 2
25. प्रार्थी का कथन है कि उसे सेवा से हटाने के पश्चात्् अप्रार्थी ने धरा 25 ;Hद्ध की अवहेलना करते हुए 'पफील्ड़ अर्दली' के पद पर किसी अन्य को रख लिया । धरा 25 H के प्रावधन तब ही लागू होते हैं जब किसी कर्मचारी की छंटनी की गई है प्रार्थी यह साबित करने में ही असपफल रहा है कि उसकी छंटनी कथित तिथि 22-12-97 को की गई थी । इसके अलावा अप्रार्थी को कथन है कि 'पफील्ड अर्दली' के पद पर उसे अवसर न देकर अन्य का सेवा में रख लिया । प्रार्थी ने स्वयं यह कहा है कि उसे साक्षात्कार हेतु बुलाया गया था । उसके अलावा जिस पद पर नियुक्ति दिया जाना बताया है वह पद ही प्रार्थी जिस पद पर कार्यरत था उससे भिन्न है । जहां साक्षात्कार के आधर पर प्रार्थी को भी अवसर देते हुए अन्य की नियुक्ति की गई हो, वहां धरा 25 H के प्रावधन लागू नहीं होते । अतः प्रार्थी यह साबित करने में असपफल रहा है कि अध्निियम की धरा 25 H के प्रावधन का उल्लघंन करते हुए किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को नियुक्ति दी गई है, अतः यह बिन्दु भी प्रार्थी के विरु( तय किया जाता है ।
बिन्दु सं. 3
22. अप्रार्थी ने जो रेकार्ड प्रस्तुत किया है उसमें परिशिष्ट I में प्रार्थी के दिसम्बर 1997 में दिनांक 12-12-97 से दिनांक 30-12-97 कुल 19 कार्य-दिवस बताये हैं । अप्रार्थी साक्षी ने भी प्र्रतिपरीक्षा कहा है कि प्रार्थी ने रेकार्ड के आधर पर दिनांक 12-12-97 से 30-12-97 तक कार्य किया था । उसके अलावा परिशिष्ट I में रेकार्ड के आधर पर वर्ष 1998 में जनवरी, पफरवरी, अप्रैल व जून में क्रमशः 10, 12,14, 10 कार्य दिवस होने दर्शाये हैं । उसी प्रकार वर्ष 1999 में पफरवरी एवं मार्च में क्रमशः 5 एवं 7 कार्य-दिवस होने दर्शाये हैं । परिशिष्ट II में दुर्गालाल पुत्रा श्री सुखाराम के वर्ष 1998 के माह पफरवरी में 8 कार्य-दिवस एवं वर्ष 1999 में पफरवरी, अप्रैल, मई एवं जून में क्रमशः 10, 3, 20, 9 कार्य-दिवस दर्शाये हैं । परिशिष्ट I व II में जो कार्य-दिवस वर्ष 1998 व 1999 में दर्शाये हैं उन्हें प्रार्थी के ही कार्य-दिवस माना जावे तो प्रार्थी ने वर्ष 1998 के माह जनवरी, पफरवरी, मार्च, अप्रैल, जून में क्रमशः 10, 16, 8, 14, 10 दिन कार्य किया था तथा वर्ष 1999 में पफरवरी, मार्च, अप्रैल, मई, जून में क्रमशः 15, 17, 3, 20, 9 दिन कार्य किया था ।
23. प्रार्थी द्वारा यह स्वीकृत तथ्य है कि वर्ष 1998 एवं 1999 में भी वह कार्यरत रहा था जिसका रिकार्ड अप्रार्थी के पास है । अप्रार्थी 26. चूंकि प्रार्थी यह साबित करने में असपफल रहा है कि अप्रार्थी ने अध्निियम की धरा 25 का उल्लंघन करते हुए उसे दिनांक 22-12-97 को सेवा से पृथक कर दिया तथा उसके बाद नियोजन का अवसर दिए बिना किसी अन्य को धरा 25 H के प्रावधनों का उल्लंघन करते हुए नियुक्ति दे दी गई, इसलिए प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अध्किारी नहीं है ।
27. उपरोक्त विवेचन के अनुसार यह प्रमाणित नहीं है कि अप्रार्थी खान नियंत्राक भारतीय खान ब्यूरो, अजमेर द्वारा प्रार्थी कर्मकार श्री दुर्गालाल को दिनांक 22-2-97 को अवैध् एवं अनुचित रूप से सेवा में बर्खास्त किया गया था । परिणामस्वरूप, प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अध्किारी नहीं है । न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु प्रेषित निर्देश का उत्तर उक्त प्रकार दिया जाता है । पंचाट तदनुसार पारित किया जाता है ।
एन. के. पुरोहित, पीठासीन अध्किारी4172 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1588.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ए एस आई के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय जयपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 59/2005द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-42012/128/2004-आई आर ;सी एम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1588.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 59/2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of archeological Survey of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
10-07-2013.
[ F. No. L- 42012/128/2004-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication :—
"Whether the action of the management of Archeological Survey of India, Jaipur in terminating the services of Shri Umed Singh w.e.f. 21-9-1998 is legal & justified? If not, to what relief workman is entitled and from which date?
2. The workman in his claim statement has pleaded that he had worked as class IV employee under the non-applicant during period April, 97 to 20-9-98. He has further pleaded that despite he had worked continuously for 467 days' during said period his services has been terminated on 21-9-98 without assigning any reason in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D.Act. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
3. In reply, while denying the claim of the workman, the non-applicant has contended that non-applicant establishment is not an 'industry' as defined under Section 2-J of the Act. It has further been contended that the workman was engaged as Beldar for temporary & casual nature of work for repairing work of the Jagat Siromani Temple. The workman was not employed against any post & no appointment letter was given to him. It has also been contended that the services of the workman were not terminated by the non-applicant &, he had left the job for better employment. Apart that, the work for which he was engaged had been completed, therefore, the claim of the workman be rejected.
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer.
4. Following points for determination were
framed :—
I.D. 59/2005
Reference No. L-42012/128/2004-(IR(CM-II)
dated : 24.5.2005
Sh. Umed Singh S/o Shri Hanuman Singh Rao, R/o Post Udaipurvati, Jhunjhunu.
V/s
The Superintendent Archaeologist Archeological Survey of India, 70/133-140, Patel Marg, Mansoravar, Jaipur.
i. Whether the workman had continuously worked from April, 97 to 20.9.98 under the employment of the non applicant establishment whose service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the I.D. Act.
ii. Relief, if any.
5. In evidence, the workman has filed his affidavit in support of his case. In rebuttal, the non-applicant has filed the counter affidavit Prithviraj Singh, Superintendent, Archeology, Jaipur region.
Present
For the applicant : Ex-party,
For the non-applicant : Sh. T. P. Sharma, 6. At the stage of final argument, none appeared on behalf of the applicant, therefore, ex-party proceedings were drawn against the workman.
7. The ld. Representative on behalf of the non-
applicant has submitted his written submissions.
AWARD
29-4-2013
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred 8. The non-applicant in its reply has raised preliminary objection that non-applicant Department is not an 'industry' u/s 2-J of the I.D.Act but no point for determination has been framed in this regard.
9. It has been contended on behalf of the non- applicant that non-applicant Department does not come[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4173 under the purview of definition of an 'industry' u/s 2-J of the I.D. Act in view of the nature of work of the Department. He has further contended that non-applicant Department is not doing any commercial activitiesand it is not functioning for profit. He has also contended that in view of the office memorandum of the Under Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Tourism No. 15-10/2001 Estt. Dated 15-9-2000, the non-applicant Department is not an 'industry'.
10. As per definition of 'industry' under section 2-J of the I.D. Act any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture, or calling of employers is an 'industry' and it includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen.
11. The definition of industry was dealt with by a constitutional bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply case wherein the criteria for determining the activity of an establishment as an 'industry' was laid down. It has been held that where there is (i) Systematic activity (ii) Organized by Co-operation between employer & employee (iii) for the production or distribution of goods & services calculated to satisfy human wants & wishes (not spiritual or religious but including of material things). Prime facie, there is an industry in the enterprise. Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that absence of profit motive & objective is irrelevant. The true focus is functional & decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the employer employee relation.
12. In the present case, the office memorandum dated 15-9-2003 on the basis of which it has been contended that non applicant Department is not an 'industry' has not peen brought on record. The management witness has stated that the non-applicant Department is not doing any commercial activities & the Department is functioning without any profit motive & in view of the nature of work it is not an 'industry'. But it is well settled that the absence of profit motive or gainful object is irrelevant in this regard. The decisive test is the nature of the activity. The nature of work which has been stated by the management witness is not such on the basis of which it can be said that the non-applicant Department is exercising any sovereign function. The work of the non-applicant Department is not of such a nature which cannot be assigned to private bodies. The non-applicant Department fulfills the criteria laid down in the Banglore Water Supply case and it cannot be exempted from the scope of section 2-J. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the non-applicant in this regard is not tenable.
14. The expression "continuous period" occur in section 25-F has been defined in section 25-B of the I.D. Act. Under sub section (1) of the section 25-B, if a workman has put in uninterrupted service of establishment including the service which may be interrupted on account of sickness, authorize leave, accident, a strike which is not illegal, a lock out or secession of work that is not due to any fault on the part of the workman shall be said to be continuous service for one year i.e. 12 months in respect of number of days he has actually worked with interrupted service permissible under sub section (1) of section 25-B.
15. Sub section 2 of section 25-B of the LD. Act says that even if a workman has not been in continuous service for a period of one year as envisaged under sub-section (1) of 25-B of LD.Act, he shall be deemed to have been in such continuous service for a eriod of one year if he has actually worked under the employer for 240 days in preceding period of twelve months from the date of his termination. The said sub-section provides for a fiction to treat a workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year.
16. In . the background of the legal provisions set forth above, factual scenario in the present case is to be examined.
17. The initial burden was on the workman to prove that he had remained under the employment of the non- applicant as a workman for a continuous period of at least one year as envisaged u/s 25-F of the I.D.Act therefore, his termination without notice or compensation in lieu of notice was in violation of the said section.
18. It is not the case of the workman that he had worked uninterruptedly for a period of one year as envisaged under section 25-B(1) of the I.D.Act, therefore, the question survives for consideration is whether the workman had worked for at least 240 days during preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination.
19. The workman in his affidavit has deposed that his services were terminated on 21-9-98, therefore, the period of preceding 12 months from the date of his termination is only relevant. Thus, it is to be seen whether the workman had worked for at least 240 days during period 21-9-97 to 20-09-98.
20. The workman has stated that despite he had continuously worked for 467 days during period April, 97 to Sep.98, his service was terminated on 21.9.98 in contravention of the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D.Act.
Point No.1
13. To attract the provision of Section 25-F of I.D. Act one of the conditions required is that the workman is employed in any industry for a continuous period which would not be less than one year.
21. In rebuttal, the management witness Sh. Prithviraj Singh has stated that the workman was engaged temporarily for casual nature work for repairing work of temple. He was employed on 2.4.97 as daily wager unskilled4174 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Beldar. He has further stated that no appointment letter was given to the workman. He has also stated that the work for which the workman was engaged had been completed. He has further stated that services of the workman were not terminated rather he himself had left the job for better employment.
22. Vide order dated 29.3.06 directions were given to the non-applicant Department to produce the muster rolls of the period from April, 97 to 20.9.98. In compliance of the said directions, the photocopies of attendance and payment register for the period 2.4.97 to 31.8.98 have been produced.
23. The number of actual working days during period of preceding 12 months from the date of termination i.e. from 21-9-97 to 20-9-98 stated by the workman in his affidavit and number of working days during said period as per record produced by the non-applicant are as below:
Month & Year As per As per Payment statement payment @ 40/p. day of the register of workman Management
Sep, 97 26 25 1200
Oct, 97 27 27 1200
Nov, 97 26 26 1040
Dec, 97 27 26 1040
Jan, 98 27 27 1080
Feb, 98 24 24 960
March, 98 27 26 1040
April, 98 26 27 1080
May, 98 27 27 1080
June, 98 26 25 1000
July, 98 27 27 1080
Aug, 98 27 25 1000
Sep, 98 20 16 640
24. Thus, the statement of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days during preceding 12 months from the date of termination finds support from the record produced by the non-applicant. Admittedly, no notice, notice pay or compensation was paid to the workman in compliance of the provisions of the Section 25-F of the ID. Act, therefore, termination of the workman being in violation of provisions of Section 25-F is illegal.
I.D. Act is illegal, it is to be seen what relief the workman is entitled to.
26. This legal position is not in dispute that in case of non compliance of section 25-F the workman can be reinstated with other consequential reliefs.
27. Earlier in cases of termination in violation of section 25-F reinstatement of the workman with full back wages used to be automatically granted, but keeping in view several other factors, a change in the said trend is now found in the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In a large number of decisions in the matter of grant of relief of the kind, Hon'ble Apex Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee.
28. In recent decision (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 545 Jagbir Singh V/s Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board after considering the earlier decisions referred to therein on the point should an order of reinstatement automatically follows in a case of violation of Section 25-F of the I.D.Act Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that :
"It would be, thus seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. "
29. Continuing this line of approach in decision (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 376 Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :
Point No. II
25. Since, point no.1 has been decided against the non applicant and it has been concluded that termination of the workman being in violation of Section 25-F of the "While the earlier view of the Court was that if an order of termination was found to be illegal, normally the relief to be granted would be reinstatement with full back wages. However, with the passage of time it came to be realized that an industry should not be compelled to pay to the workman for the period during which he apparently contributed little or nothing at all. The relief to be granted is discretionary and not automatic. A person is not entitled to get something only because it would be lawful .to do so. The changes brought out by the subsequent decisions of the Supreme court probably having regard to the changes in the policy decisions of the Government in the wake of prevailing market economy, globalization, privatization and outsourcing was evident. Hence now there is no[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4175 such principle that for an illegal termination of service the normal rule is reinstatement with back wages, and instead the Labour court can award compensation."
and their workmen received by the Central Government n o 10-07-2013.
[No. L- 22012/26/2001-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
PRESENT :
Sri Jyanta Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer
Reference No. 28 of 2001
"There has been a shift in the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court and now there is no hard and-fast principle that on the termination of service being found to be illegal reinstatement with back wages is to be awarded. Compensation can be awarded instead, at the discretion of the Labour Court, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case." 30. In present matter, the workman has worked as daily weger Beldar and he was getting Rs 40 per day as wages. He was not holding any regular post. Keeping in view the nature of job and nature of employment, the delay in raising dispute, the laps of time after termination of the services, the total length of service rendered by the claimant and having regard the entire facts and circumstances of the case, instead of reinstating him the interest of justice will be sub served by paying compensation to the workman instead and in lieu of relief of reinstatement in service.
PARTIES :
The management of Victoria West Colliery of. M/s. ECL, Burdwan.
Vs.
The Jt. Secy., JCMC Asansol, Burdwan (W.B.)
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management : P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate
For the Union (Workman) : None
Industry : COAL State : WEST BENGAL
Dated 15-05-2013
AWARD
31. Accordingly, the reference is answered in affirmative in favour of the workman and it is held that the action of the management in termination of the services of the workman being in violation of section 25-F of the Act is illegal and unjustified. Therefore, the non-applicant is directed to pay compensation to the workman worth Rs. 25000/-( Twenty Five Thousand Only) instead and in lieu of his reinstatement of service. The payment shall be made within eight weeks from the date of publication of the award failing which it shall carry interest @ 8% per annum.
32. Award as above.
N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/26/2001-IR (CM-II) dated 30-08-2001 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
का.आ. 1589.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी सी सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 28/2001द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/26/2001-आई आर ;सी एम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1589.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 28/2001) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Victoria West Colliery, "Whether the action of the management of Victoria West Colliery of BCCL in deducting the wages for 8 days in respect of Shri Mustaqeen Mia No. 2 and other Trammers (list enclosed) for participation in strike on 15-07-1999 is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?"
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/26/ 2001-IR (CM-II) dated 30-08-2001 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 28 of 2001 was registered on 24-09-2001 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the4176 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reference No. 122 of 2005
PARTIES :
date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
The management of Kunustoria Colliery of. M/s. ECL, Burdwan (WB)
Vs.
Sri Rakesh Kumar, Gen. Secretary, KMC, Asansol (W.B.)
REPRESENTATIVES :
On perusal of the case record, it has found that the workman is neither appearing nor taking any step since 2006. Several opportunities were given but of no effect. It seems that the workman is now not interested to proceed with the case any further. Since the workman is not interested to proceed with the case, the case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute" award is hereby passed.
For the Management : Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate
ORDER
For the Union (Workman) : Sri Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Representative
Industry : COAL State : WEST BENGAL
Dated 03-06-2013
SETTLEMENT AWARD IN LOK ADALA T
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as "No Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer HELD ON 03-06-13 AT KUNUSTORIA GUEST HOUSE
नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section( I) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-220 12/380/2004-I.R.(CM-II) dated 07.09.05 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
का.आ. 1590.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ई सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, असनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 122/2005द्धको प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/380/2004 आई आर ;सी एम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1590.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 122/
2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, and their workmen received by the Central Government on 10-7-2013.
[ No. L- 22012/380/2004-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer ''Whether the action of the management of Kunustoria Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sh. Lakhan Kora, U.G. Loader from service w.e.f. 31.7/2.8.2003 is legal and justified'! If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ''
ANNEXURE
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/ 380/2004-I.R.(CM-ll) dated 7-9-05 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 122 of 2005 was registered on 23-09-2005 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : SRI JYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding
Officer.
On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is resolved in the Lok Adalat. The form 'H' containing the terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4177 both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed accordingly.
For the union (Workman) : Shri H. L. Soni,
Ld. Representative
INDUSTRY: COAL STATE: WEST BENGAL
ORDER
Dated - 14-03-13
AWARD
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as per above discussion. Form 'H' containing terms and conditions does form as an integral part of the Award. Send the copies of the award to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/ 453/99-IR(C-II) dated 05-02-2001 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
का.आ. 1591.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ई सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय असनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 05/2001द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22012/453/1999-आई आर ;सी एम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1591.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/ 2001) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of Kunustorial Colliery, M/s. E.C. Limited, and their workmen received by the Central Government on 10-07-2013.
[ F. No. L- 22012/453/1999-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer ''Whether the action of the management of Kunustorial Colliery under ECL, P.O. Toposi, Dist. Burdwan denying offer of employment to the dependent of Kujrath Khan, Ex-Tyndel is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?''
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/ 453/99 IR(C-II) dated 05-02-2001 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 05 of 2001 was registered on 15.02.2001 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : SRI JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding
Officer.
Reference No. 05 of 2001
PARTIES : The management of Kunustorial Colliery of M/s. ECL, Burdwan
Vs.
The Gen. Secy., KMC, Asansol (WB)
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Management : Shri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate It is an admitted fact that Kujrath Khan was an Ex Tyndel in Kunustorial Colliery under ECL, P.O. Toposi, Dist. - Burdwan. It is also an admitted fact that the Services of the workman were terminated on the medical ground with effect from 07-03-1990 on the basis of the repost of Medical Board constituted by the Management, dated 21-01-1990. After dismissal the management advised Kujrath Khan to submit application with documental evidence for employment of his dependant son. It further appears from the record that the matter of employment of Jainul Khan, S/o. Kujrath Khan was taken up by the Management vide Reference No. A. KNT/P & IA/R/1105 dated 23-04-1990 by personal Manager of Kunustoria Area, and accordingly notices were issued to Jainul Khan, S/o. Kujrath Khan (SI. No. 16) along with other employee. It has been submitted on behalf of the employer nor he had submitted all the documents before the Management for the employment of Jainul Khan, the dependant son for employment in place of the workman Kujrath Khan, and the same was scrutanised screened on Area Level on 30-04-1990 and Jainul Khan was medically examined (pre- employment) and found fit for employment, and the employment proposal was sent to Head-Quarter by the4178 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Area Office under their Letter No. A/KNT/P & IR/NS/17/ 7607 dated 17-09-1990 followed by the reminder but unfortunately the employment file was lost in transit by the Management.
[सं. एल-22012/32/2012-आई आर ;सी एम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1592.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/ 2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of J. K. Nagar Colliery, M/s. E.C. Limited, and their workmen received by the Central Government on 10-07-2013.
[ No. L- 22012/32/2012-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
On perusal of the record I find that it is true that the original employment file of Kujrath Khan was processed by the Area and the said HQs, but subsequently the original file lost during transit (Ref. No. ECL/CMD/C-6E/96/20/96 dated 29-01-96, issued from C.M.D. Office, Sanctoria, ECL. It further appears that even after several reminders no action has been taken by the Management for not complying the order against the concerning officer for lost of the employment file and about 17 years passed and the dependant son has not got employment till yet. Really it is great slackness of the part of Management for not providing job to the son of the Ex-employee, Kujrath Khan, and he has to knock the door of justice. The action of the Management is no doubt against the "Natural justice specially when the son of Kujrath Khan was found medically fit for employment I find that the Management also did not bother to furnish the documents and produce the same before this Tribunal.
PRESENT : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer.
Reference No. 19 of 2012
Thus I find that the action of the Management of Kunustorial Colliery, under ECL, P.O.- Toposi, Dist- Burdwan denying offer of employment to Jainul Khan, dependant son of Kujrath Khan, is totally arbitrarily and is against the provision of law and is unjustified. So, in my opinion the action taken by the Management is hereby set aside.
PARTIES :The management of J. K. Nagar Colliery Satgram Area of M/s. ECL, Burdwan
Vs.
Sri D. K. Routh, Branch Jt. Secy.,CMC (HMS), Asansol Burdwan (WB).
REPRESENTATIVES :
Management is advised to give employment to Jainul
Khan dependant son of Kujrath Khan within three months For the Management : Sri P. K. Goswami,
from the date of Notification after complying all the Ld. Advocate
formalities. For the Union (Workman) : None
ORDER
Industry : COAL State :WEST BENGAL
Dated 25-04-2013
AWARD
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the I ndustrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/32/2012-I.R.(CM-II) dated 19-04-2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
का.आ. 1592.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ई सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय असनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 19/2012द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
''Whether the action of the management of J. K. Nagar Colliery of M/s. ECL in not payment HRA @ 10% of Basic Pay to Sri Tohir Ahamad is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled? ''[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4179
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer.
Reference No. 33 of 1998
PARTIES : The management of Madhujore Colliery, M/s. ECL, Burdwan
Vs.
The Gen. Secy., KMC, Asansol Burdwan (WB)
REPRESENTATIVES :
Having received the Order of Letter No.L-22012/32/ 2012-I.R.(CM-ll) dated 19-04-2012 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute. a reference case No. 19 of 2012 was registered on 8-05-12 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by.the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
For the Management : None
For the Union (Workman) : Sri Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Representative
Industry : COAL State :WEST BENGAL
Dated 14-05-2013
AWARD
On perusal of the case record. it has been found that Sri D. K. Routh, Branch Jt. Secretary of the Union, submits that the workman is not interested to proceed with the case and further prayed for the closure of the case. Since the workman is not interested to proceed with the case, the case is closed and accordingly an order ''No Dispute'' award is hereby passed.
ORDER
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the I ndustrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/328/97-I.R.(CM-II) dated 23-07-1998 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as ''No Dispute'' existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful and information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1593.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ई सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय असनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 33/1998द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/328/1997-आई आर ;सी एम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1593.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 33/ 1998) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Madhujore
Colliery, M/s. E.C. Limited, and their workmen received by the Central Government on 10-07-2013.
[No. L- 22012/328/1997-IR (CM-II)] ''Whether the action of the management of Madhujore Colliery of M/s. ECL in not regularising the services of Sh. Murtja Ali, Shadat Mia, Bhola Shaw and R. K. Singh as security Guards is legal and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled? ''
Having received the Order of Letter No.L-22012/328/ 97-I.R.(CM-ll) dated 23-07-1998 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute. a reference case No. 33 of 1998 was registered on 10-08-1998 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
On perusal of the case record. it has been found that Sri Rakesh Kumar, General Secretary of the Union, submits that the workman are not interested to proceed with the case and further prayed for the closure of the case. Since the workman are not interested to proceed with the case, the case is closed and accordingly an order ''No Dispute'' award is hereby passed.
ORDER
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as ''No Dispute'' existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer4180 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1594.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ईसीएल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 37/2000द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/330/1999-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1594.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Khandra Colliery, M/s. E.C. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-7-2013.
[No. L- 22012/330/1999-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer Dutta, Mining Trainee as Magazine Issue Clerk, since 6-05-1995 and not paying the differential wages is legal and j ustified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/ 330/99-IR (CM-II) dated 07.03.2000 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 37 of 2000 was registered on 18.04.2000 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
On perusal of the case record, it has found that the Union is neither appearing nor taking any step since 2008. It seems that the workman is now not interested to proceed with the case any further. The case is also too old of the year 2000. Since the workman is not interested to proceed with the case, the case is closed and accordingly an order of ''No Dispute'' award is hereby passed.
ORDER
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present : SRI JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, PRESIDING OFFICER, Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as "No Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO. 37 OF 2000
Parties : The management of Khandra Colliery
of M/s. ECL, Burdwan
VS.
The Gen. Secy., UCMU(INTUC), Ukhra, Burdwan ((W.B.)
नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
Representatives :
For the Management : Sh. P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate.
For the Union (Workman) : None
Industry : Coal State : West Bengal
Dated : 21-5-2013
का.आ. 1595.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ईसीएल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 40/2006द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/242/2005-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/ 330/99-IR(CM-II) dated 07-03-2000 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1595.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Khandra Colliery of M/s. ECL in not regularising Sh. Swapan Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of North Searsole Colliery of M/s. E.C. L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-7-2013.
[No. L- 22012/242/2005-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4181
ORDER
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present : SRI JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, PRESIDING OFFICER,
REFERENCE NO. 40 OF 2006
Parties : The management of North Searsole
Colliery of M/s. ECL, Burdwan (WB)
Vs.
Sri S.K. Pandey, Gen. Secy., KMC, Asansol (WB)
Let an "Award" be and same is passed as per above discussion. Form 'H' containing terms and conditions does form as an integral part of the Award. Send the copies of the award to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
Representatives :
For the Management : Sh. P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate.
For the Union (Workman) : Sri S. K. Pandey,
Ld. Representative
Industry : Coal State : West Bengal
Dated : 3-6-2013
का.आ. 1596.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ईसीएल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 80/2000द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/42/2000-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी SETTLEMENT AWARD IN LOK ADALAT HELD ON 03-06-13 AT KUNUSTORIA GUEST HOUSE In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- sectiont (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section l0 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947) Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No. L-22012/ 242/2005-I.R.(CM-II) dated 2-08-2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
SCHEDULE
S.O. 1596.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 80/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Ghanshyampur Colliery, M/s. E.C. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-7-2013.
[No. L- 22012/42/2005-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
"Whether the action of the management of North Searsole Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in dismissing Sh. Sukhlal Majhi, U.G. Loader from service w.e.f. 8-04-2002 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present : SRI JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, PRESIDING OFFICER,
REFERENCE NO. 80 OF 2000
Parties : The management of Ghanshyampur
Colliery of M/s. ECL, Burdwan
Vs.
The Jt. Gen. Secy., CMU, Ukhra, Burdwan (WB)
Representatives :
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/ 242/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 2-8-2006 of the above said reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 40 of 2006 was registered on 14-8-2006 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Form 'H' containing the terms of agreement of this settlement to be executed by both the parties in due course. Award is passed and signed accordingly.
For the Management : Sh. P. K. Goswami,
Ld. Advocate.
For the union (Workman) : None
Industry : Coal State : West Bengal
Dated : 29-5-20134182 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section(l) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/ 42/2000-IR(CM-II) dated 21.08.2000 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1597.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Dalurband
SCHEDULE
Colliery, M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-7-2013.
[No. L- 22012/137/2003-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
"Whether the action of the management of Ghanshyampur Colliery of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sh. Ramani Bhuia, Underground Loader from services is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present : SRI JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer,
Reference No. 18 of 2004
Parties : The management of Dalurband Colliery of M/s. ECL, Burdwan
Vs.
The Gen.Secy., KMC, Asansol, Burdwan (WB)
Representatives :
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/42/ 2000-IR(CM-II) dated 21.08.2000 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 80 of 2000 was registered on 06.09.2000 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
For the Management : Sh. P. K. Das,
Ld. Advocates.
For the Union (Workman) : Sri S. K. Pandey,
Ld. Representative
Industry : Coal State : West Bengal
Dated : 17-4-2013
AWARD
On perusal of the case record, it has found that the workman is neither appearing nor taking any step since 15.01.2008. It seems that the workman is now not interested to proceed with the case any further. The case is also too old - of the year 2000. Since the workman is not interested to proceed with the case, the case is closed and accordingly an order of "No Dispute" award is hereby passed.
ORDER
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as "No Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/ 137/2003-IR.(CM-II) dated 25.02.2004 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ.1597.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ईसीएल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 18/2004द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल 22012/137/2003-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी "Whether the action of the management of Dalurband Colliery under Pandaveshwar Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sri Lachman Bhuiya, U.G. Loader from service vide letter no. DC/589 dated 18/20.5.99 is legal and justified? lf not, to what relief he is entitled to?"
(1) Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/ 137/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 25.02.2004 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 18 of 2004 was regitered on 22.03.04 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4183 the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Sri P. K. Das, Advocate and Sri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary of the union appeared in the Court to represent the management and the Union respectively. The written statement on behalf of both the parties were filed in support of their respective claims.
(2) In brief compass the case of the union as set forth in its written statement is that Sh. Lachman Bhuiya was the permanent employee of the company as Under Ground Loader at Dalurband Colliery, Pandaveshwar Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The main case of the union is that he absented from his duty w.e.f. 18-12-98 and that due to sickness and being declared fit the workman reported to the management but he was not allowed to resume his duty. The workman was simply informed that his service have been terminated. It is also the case of the union that in spite of the fact that the workman kept informed to the management about his sickness even then he was charge sheeted for alleged unauthorized absence from duty. The workman was not served with the copy of the charge sheet, notice of enquiry etc. as such the principles of natural justice was denied to him and the dismissal of the workman concerned from the service of the company is illegal and unjustified. A relief for his reinstatement in his service with all consequential benefits arising there from with effect from the date of his dismissal has been sought for.
(3) On the other hand the defence case of the management as per the averments of the pleadings in short is that Lachman Bhuiya of Dalurband Colliery had absented from his duties since 18-12-98 without any permission or even information to the competent authority. The further case of the management is that the workman concerned had not been very regular in attending his duties to inspire confidence of the management for which the employer issued to him the charge sheet dated 8-1-99 for habitual absenteeism but Sh. Bhuiya did not give any reply to the said charge sheet. Subsequently an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the domestic enquiry.
(4) It is also the defence case of the management that three notices had been served fixing different date at regular interval to the home address of the workman but no response was received and ultimately ex-parte enquiry was conducted, so the enquiry proceeding should be deemed to be conducted in compliance of the natural justice. The enquiry officer is claimed to have hold the workman guilty for the charges established and on that account having considered the gravit of the charges and the misconduct the workman was dismissed from his service on 18-5-99. The management has claimed the dismissal order of the workman to be fair and proper and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
(5) Earlier the Presiding Officer Md. Sarfaraz Khan has passed "Award" dated 18-7-2007 by which the Learned Presiding Officer has been pleased to uphold the punishment against the workman Lachman Bhuiya by Award dated 18-7-2007.
(6) The workman has filed one writ (W.P. 663 of 2008) before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta. The Hon'ble Court by its judgement dated 14th June, 2010 have been pleased to set aside the part of the order regarding punishment with a direction to this Tribunal to pass a reasoned order regarding the punishment after taking into account the principle as started to this duration. On perusal of the order of his Hon'ble Court in the above mention writ (W.P. 663 of 2008) passed on 14th June 2010, I find that the Hon'ble Court have been pleased to observe :—
"I am not satisfied with the finding regarding punishment. In 1996 there is absence of 69 days, in 1997 of 50 days and in 1998 of 20 days. Punishment should be proportionate to the guilt. It should never be excessive. It ought not to be such as would sound unreasonable. After all, there is the question of employment of a workman who is earning income from that employment of a workman who is earning income from that employment and maintaining his family. Dismissal from employment is bound to create great financial hardship to him and his family. In some cases, this hardship becomes permanent because of unavailability of alternative employment". (7) On behalf of the union on decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012 (135) F.L.R. 743 [Civil Appeal No. 4221 of 2011 — Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Limited & another Vrs. Jai Raj Singh Chouhan] has been filed, and from perusal of the present ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I find that the Hon'ble Apex Court has also of the view that on the ground of remaining absent beyond the period of Leave - dismissal from service is not proper and against the "Natural Justice". (8) Hence considering the observable made by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta, referred above, and keep in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that not only on the ground of above absent for same period (69 days in 1996, 50 days in 1997 and 20 days in 1998) the Management should not throw the employee on the street for purpose of begging with his all family members by dismissing him from service, and it seems to be against the principle of "Natural Justice". But the negligence on the past of workman shows that it caused hamper in production work for which the workman is liable for some punishment.
(9) Accordingly the action of the Management of Dalurband Colliery under Pandeveswar Area of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sri Lachman Bhuiya, U.G. Loader from service vide Letter No. DC/589 dated 18/20-5-99 is in my opinion is not legal and justified, and the order of dismissal passed4184 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Dated : 16-5-2013
AWARD
by the Management is hereby set aside. The Management is directed to reinstate the workman Dular Chand Bhuiya, U.G. Loader from the date of dismissal 18/20-5-99 with stoppage of two increment and withheld of 50% back wages, and of accordingly "Award" be issued.
ORDER
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/ 70/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 18.5.2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per above. Send the copies of the "Award" to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for information and needful.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1598.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ईसीएल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, असनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 28/2012द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/70/2012-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1598.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28/ 2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of J. K. Nagar
Colliery Satgram Area, M/s. E.C. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-7-2013.
"Whether the action of the management of J. K. Nagar Colliery of M/s. ECL. in not payment HRA @ 10% of Basic Pay to Sri Ramachandra Ram Dusadh is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/70/ 2012-IR (CM-II) dated 18.05.2012 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 28 of 2012 was registered on 25.06.2012 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements alongwith the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
On perusal of the case record, it has been found that Sri D. K. Routh, Branch Jt. Secretary of the Union, submits that the workman is now not interested to proceed with the case and further prayed for the closure of the case. Since the workman is not interested to proceed with the case, the case is closed and accordingly an order of "No Dispute" award is hereby passed.
ORDER
[No. L- 22012/70/2012-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as "No Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
Present : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
Reference No. 28 of 2012
Parties : The management of J. K. Nagar
Colliery, Satgram Area of M/s. ECL, Burdwan
Vs.
Sri D. K. Routh, Branch Jt. Secy., CMC(HMS), Asansol, Burdwan (WB)
Representatives :
For the Management : None
For the Union (Workman) : None
Industry : Coal State : West Bengal का.आ. 1599.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ईसीएल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 38/2003द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/300/2002-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4185 New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1599.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 38/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-7-2013.
[No. L- 22012/300/2002-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
ANNEXURE
It appears from the Enquiry Report as well as record that the workman Lala Bouri, Underground Loader was dismissed from service due to unauthorized absent only for Five months i.e. from 02.09.99 to 16.02.2000. It appears from the Enquiry Report that on 02.09.99 the workman Lala Bouri felt chest pain and he rushed to Sub-Divisional Hospital, Asansol, for treatment. The Enquiry Officer discarded the plea of workman on the ground that he did not approach the ECL Doctor for treatment nor inform the Management regarding such illness. It appears from the record that the workman Lala Bouri was also treated by the doctor of Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi- Photocopy of Discharge Certificate filed.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer
Reference No. 38 of 2003
Parties : The management of Chapuikhas
Colliery of M/s. ECL, Burdwan
Vs.
The Gen.Secy., KMC, Asansol (WB)
Representatives :
For the Management : Sh. P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate.
For the Union (Workman) : Sri S. K. Pandey,
Ld. Representative
Industry : Coal State : West Bengal
Dated : 15-03-2013
Since the workman Lala Bouri absented from duty only for Five months due to his illness, so in my opinion the action of the Management against Lala Bouri is very harsh, because it appears that he was ill at that time. The only fault of the workman is that he did not go to ECL Hospital for treatment and did not inform the Management regarding his illness in time. But only on this ground the Management should not award death penalty to the workman by dismissing him from service and throw all the family members on street for begging which is against the provision of "Natural Justice".
Hence the action of the Management of Chapuikhas Colliery in dismissing Lala Bouri, Underground Loader from service is, in my opinion, totally illegal and unjustified.
AWARD
Accordingly the Order of dismissal is hereby set aside. The Management is directed to allow the workman Lala Bouri to join in the service with 75 percentage of back wages within three months from the date of Notification.
ORDER
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/ 300/2002-IR(CM-II) dated 16.10.2003 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Chapuikhas in dismissing Sri Lala Bouri, Underground Loader from service is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/ 300/2002-IR(CM-II) dated 16.10.2003 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 38 of 2003 was registered on 04.11.2003 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1600.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ईसीएल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 44/2006द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/244/2005-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी4186 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1600.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of North
Searsole Colliery of M/s. E.C. L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-7-2013.
[No. L- 22012/244/2005-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present : SRI JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer,
Reference No. 44 of 2006
Parties : The management of North Searsole
Colliery of M/s. ECL, Burdwan
Vs.
The Org. Secy., CRMS (BMM), Burdwan (WB)
Representatives :
For the Management : Sh. P. K. Goswami,
Ld. Advocate.
For the Union (Workman) : Sri M. K. Bandopadhaya,
Ld. Representative
Industry : Coal State : West Bengal
Dated : 07-05-2013
It is an admitted fact that the workman remained absent from his duty from 26.08.2001 to 25.02.2001 and he did not inform the Management about this absence (Para 3 and 4 of affidavit). Regarding treatment the workman produce a photocopy of Medical Certificate granted by one Dr. S.K. Mukherjee, a private homeopathic doctor, from which it appears that the workman was suffering from Mental depression. The workman never treated himself by any Colliery Central Hospital where there are sufficient amenities and there are number of experienced Doctors. Moreover, the Dr. S.K. Mukherjee also did not turn up for evidence to support the fact that he treated the workman as well as to prove the Medical Certificate granted by him. So in my opinion much reliance cannot be given on this very Medical Certificate. It further appears from the record that on 25.02.2001 after found him find long absent without any information, he (workman) was charge-sheeted under Ref. ECL/NS/P&I R/3478 dated 25.02.2001, and as because the workman did not appear to face the enquiry even after notice, as exparte enquiry was held and he was found guilty as per charge-sheet and accordingly his service was terminated on 01.07.2001. I am surprised to see that the workman did not take any action soon after his dismissal and remain idle for more than three years, and all of a sudden the Union raised the dispute on 10.11.2004. No cogent reason has been assigned by the Union regarding such delay in raising the dispute. Moreover, I find that the workman in his affidavit (examination-in-chief) has also not stated about any cogent reason for not taking any steps soon after the knowledge of dismissal rather slept for more than three years.
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/ 244/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 02.08.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
Further from the cross-examination of the workman (Para 13, dt. 09.09.2001) I find that the workman has already come his age of superannuation in the month of April, 2010.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of North Searsole Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. E. C. Ltd. in dismissing Sri Ramdaras Harijan, U.G. Loader w.e.f. 10.07.2001 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"
Considering the whole fact circumstances of the case as well as the evidence of the workman and the document filed on his behalf, keeping in view the long delay (more than three years) in raising the dispute, I am of the opinion that the workman has failed to prove his claim before this Tribunal beyond all shadows of reasonable doubts. And in my opinion the workman Ramdaras Harijan is not entitled to get any relief as prayed. However, the workman is entitled to get his dues which he would be entitled after normal superannuation, to save his family members from starvation keeping in view the provision of "Natural Justice."
ORDER
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/ 244/2005-IR (CM-II) dated 02.08.2006 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 44 of 2006 was registered on 14.08.2006 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4187 नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
L-22012/335/2004-IR (CM-II) dated 4-8-2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
का.आ. 1601.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ई सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 92/2005द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/335/2004-आई आर ;सी एम-2द्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1601.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 92/ 2005) of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-07-2013.
[ No. L- 22012/335/2004-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer "Whether the action of the management of ECL in denying employment in respect of Shri Gurucharan Prasad Koiri, dependant son of Late Kashi Prasad Koiri of Kuardih Colliery is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief Shri Gurucharan Prasad Koiri is entitled ?"
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/ 335/2004-IR (CM-II) dated 4-8-2005 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 92 of 2005 was registered on 17-8-2005 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT :
SRI JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer.
On perusal of the case record, it has found that the workman is neither appearing nor taking any step since 5-3-2012. Several opportunities were given but of no effect. It seems that the workman is now not interested to proceed with the case any further. Since the workman is not interested to proceed with the case, the case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute" award is hereby passed.
Reference No. 92 of 2005
ORDER
PARTIES :
The management of Kuardih Colliery of M/s. ECL, Burdwan.
Vs.
The Org. Secy., CRMS, Bidhanbag, Burdwan (W.B.) Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as "No Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management : None.
For the Union (Workman) : None.
Industry : Coal State : West Bengal
Dated 28-05-2013
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. का.आ. 1602.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ई सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 71/2006द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/296/2005-आई आर ;सी एम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी4188 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1602.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/ 2006) of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfileds Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-07-2013.
[No. L- 22012/296/2005-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012296/ 2005-IR (CM-II) dated 6-10-2006 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 71 of 2006 was registered on 31-10-2006 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said or er notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT :
SRI JYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer.
Reference No. 71 of 2006
PARTIES :
The management of Kunardihi B. Colliery of M/s. ECL, Burdwan.
Vs.
The Org. Secy., CRMS (BMM), Burdwan (W.B.)
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management : Shri P. K. Goswami,
Ld. Advocate.
For the Union (Workman) : Shri M. K. Bandopadhaya, Ld. Representative.
Industry : Coal State : West Bengal
Dated 20-05-2013
From perusal of the written statement of the Management dated 16-1-2002 (Para 2) I find that it is an admitted fact that Basu Bhuiya (deceased) was an employee of Kumardihi ''B'' Colliery having U.M. No. 616592 has been suffering from incurable disease and he got admitted at Central hospital Kalla on 2-3-1998 for treatment but he could not survive and died on 15-3-1998. Photocopy of Medical treatment as well as Death Certificate granted by Central Hospital Kalla, Asansol and ECL are filed on behalf of the claimant (dependant). Further from the photocopy of the order of Chief General Manager, Bankola Area under ECL dated 23-8-1997 Ref. No. BA/PD/ Dis/98/906, it is apparently clear that the Management has dismissed the deceased Basu Bhuiya on 17-3-1998 that is after his death. Further I find that the Management to save their skin put the date ''13'' befre ''17'' to avoid any claim of the dependant deceased which, any my opinion, is not fair and against the ''Natural Justice''. In my opinion Jago Bhuiya the son of the Late Basu Bhuiya has every right to claim for job on compassionate ground due to death of his father Basu Bhuiya.
AWARD
Accordingly in my opinion the action of the Managemen of Kumardihi 'B' Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. ECL in denying employment to Jago Bhuiya the dependant of Late Basu Bhuiya is illegal and unjustified, and accordingly the same is set aside. The Management is directed to give employment to Jago Bhuiya dependant of Late Basu Bhuiya within two months from the date of receipt of the Award.
ORDER
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/296/2005-IR (CM-II) dated 6-10-2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Kumardihi 'B' Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfilds Limited in denying employment to the dependant of Late Basu Bhuiya, Underground Loader is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the depandent of the deceased workman is entitled ?"
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1603.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ई सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संबं( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4189
SCHEDULE
अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 29/2002द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22012/339/2001-आई आर ;सी एम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1603.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 29/2002) of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bejdih Colliery, M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-07-2013.
[ F. No. L- 22012/339/2001-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer "Whether the action of the management of Bejdih Colliery under Sodapur Area of M/s. EC Ltd. in dismissing Shri Sadhu Paswan, U.G. Loader from service w.e.f. 1-6-1996 is justified ? If not to what relief is the workman entitled ?"
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/ 339/2001-IR (CM-II) dated 14-08-2002 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 29 of 2002 was registered on 10-9-2002 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT :
Sri Jyanta Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer.
On perusal of the case record, it has found that the workman is neither appearing nor taking any step since 2007. It seems that the workman is now not interested to proceed with the case any further. Several opportunities were given but of no effect. Since the workman is not interested to proceed with the case, the case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute" award is hereby passed.
ORDER
Reference No. 29 of 2002
PARTIES :
The management of Bejdih Colliery of. M/s. ECL, Burdwan.
Vs.
Shri Jawahar Singh, Vice President, CMU (INTUC), Asansol (WB).
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as "No Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management : Shri P. K. Goswami,
Ld. Advocate.
For the Union (Workman) : None
Industry : COAL State : West Bengal
Dated 14-05-2013
का.आ. 1604.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ई सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 17/2012द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22012/30/2012-आई आर ;सी एम-IIद्ध]
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/339/2001-IR (CM-II) dated 14-8-2002 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1604.—In pursuanceof Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 17/2012) of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,4190 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. J. K. Nagar Colliery, M/s. E.C. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-07-2013.
[ F. No. L- 22012/30/2012-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT :
On perusal of the case record, it has found that Sri D. K. Routh, Branch Jt. Secretary of the Union, submits that the workman is not interested to proceed with the case and further prayed for the closure of the case. Since the workman is not interested to proceed with the case, the case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute" award is hereby passed.
ORDER
Sri Jyanta Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer.
Reference No. 17 of 2012
PARTIES :
The management of J. K. Nagar Colliery, Satgram Area of M/s. ECL, Burdwan.
Vs.
Sri D. K. Routh, Branch Jt. Secy., CMC (HMS), Anansol, Burdwan (W.B.)
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as "No Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management : P. K. Goswami, Ld.
Advocate.
For the Union (Workman) : None
Industry : COAL State : West Bengal
Dated 25-4-2013
का.आ. 1605.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ई सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 18/2012द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-22012/25/2012-आई आर ;सी एम-IIद्ध]
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/30/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 19-4-2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of J. K. Nagar Colliery of M/s. ECL in not payment HRA @ 10% of Basic Pay to Sri Samsuddin Mia is fair and Justifed ? To what relief the concerned workman is is entitled to ?"
S.O. 1605.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 18/2012) of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. J. K. Nagar Colliery, M/s. E.C. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-07-2013.
[ F. No. L- 22012/25/2012-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT :
Sri Jyanta Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer.
Reference No. 18 of 2012
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/30/ 2012-IR (CM-II) dated 19-4-2012 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 17 of 2012 was registered on 8-5-2012 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4191
PARTIES :
ORDER
The management of J. K. Nagar Colliery, Satgram Area of M/s. ECL, Burdwan.
Vs.
Sri D. K. Routh, Branch Jt. Secy., CMC (HMS), Anansol, Burdwan (W.B.)
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as "No
Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management : Sri P. K. Goswami,
Ld. Advocate.
For the Union (Workman) : None
Industry : Coal State : West Bengal
Dated 25-4-2013
नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/25/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 19-4-2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
का.आ. 1606.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ई सी एल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 27/2009द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/44/2009-आई आर ;सी एम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1606.—In exercise of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of J. K. Nagar Colliery of M/s. ECL in not payment HRA @ 10% of Basic Pay to Sri Sheopujan Thakur is while he was working at the J. K. Nagar Colliery, Raniganj is fair and justified ? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"
2009 of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Anansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Pandaveshwar Area
of M/s. EC L, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 10-07-2013.
[ No. L- 22012/44/2009-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT :
SRI JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer.
Reference No. 27 of 2009
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/25/ 2012-IR (CM-II) dated 19-4-2012 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 18 of 2012 was registered on 8-5-2012 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
PARTIES :
On perusal of the case record, it has been found that Sri D. K. Routh, Branch Jt. Secretary of the Union, submits that the workman is not interested to proceed with the case and further prayed for the closure of the case. Since the workman is not interested to proceed with the case, the case is closed and accordingly an order of "No Dispute" award is hereby passed.
The management of Pandaveshwar Area of
M/s. ECL, Burdwan.
Vs.
The General Secy., UCMU, Khandra, Burdwan
(W.B.)4192 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management : Sri P. K. Goswami,
Ld. Advocate.
For the Union (Workman) : G. P. Mal, Ld.
Advocate.
Industry : Coal State : West Bengal
Dated 7-5-2013
नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1607.— औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एपफ सी आई के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 87/2005द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-07-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/44/2009-IR (CM-II) dated 10-11-2009 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
[सं. एल-22012/158/2004-आई आर ;सी एम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1607.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 87/
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. ECL, in not providing employment to Shri Kuntial Mukherjee, the dependant son of the deceased workman Shri Bimalendu Mukherjee is legal and justifed ? To what relief is the claimant entitled for ?''
2005) of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of Food
Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 10-07-2013.
[No. L- 22012/158/2004-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
IRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
PRESENT :
SRI A. K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 87/2005
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/44/ 2009-IR (CM-II) dated 10-11-2009 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 27 of 2009 was registered on 30-11-2009 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
Registered on 19-4-2005
On perusal of the case record, it has found that Sri G. P. Mal, Ld. Advocate for the workman, files an affidavit of Smt. Mina Rani Mukherjee, member of Sri Kuntial Mukherjee praying for dismissing the case. Since the workman wants to withdraw the case, the case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute" award is hereby passed.
Sh. Mangej Singh, S/o Sh. Manga Ram, Gali No. 9,
Samad Road, Near Govt. Primary School, Sunam.
. . . Petitioner
Versus
Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India,
Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. . . . Respondents
ORDER
APPEARANCES :
Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as "No Dispute" existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for needful information. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer For the workman : Sh. Sarabjit A. R.
For the Management : Sh. Santokh Singh,
Advocate.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4193AWARD
Passed on 11-4-2013
Central, Government vide Notification No. L-22012/ 158/2004-IR (CM-II) dated 30-3-2005, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal :—
"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Chandigarh in terminating the
services of Sh. Mangej , Singh, Watchman/Chowkidar is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?'' '
According to the claim statement the workman had worked with FCI as Chowkidar from 15-5-1979 to 31-3-1980
continuously. But his services were terminated on 1-4-1980 without any notice, inquiry, charge sheet or compensation. It has also been alleged that ,the juniors of the workman are still in service and new hands had been employed after his termination. He claimed his reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
Claim was contested by the management., It was denied that the workman ever worked in FCI and he was the appointee of the management. And since he was not an employee of the management hence, ,the question of termination of his service by the management does not
arise and nor does arise the question of retaining the juniors or employing fresh hands. According to the management the claim is frivolous and deserves to be dismissed.
In evidence the workman fiied his affidavit and gave his statement. He also filed photocopies of two documents
marked 'A' and 'B'. While on behalf of the management affidavit was filed by Mahender Singh, Area Manager who gave his statement also.
It may be mentioned that on the application of the workman for summoning the record he had been directed
to assist the management in locating the record vide order dated 14-3-2006. Consequently he had searched for the record in presence of the official of the management but the record could not be traced out and the workman certified this fact under his hand. The fact is mentioned in order dated 2-5-2006. The workman however had been given the
liberty to prove his case by any other mode including secondary evidence. Consequently he filed photocopies marked as 'A' and 'B'.
None appeared for workman for arguing, the. case despite several opportunities given to him for the purpose. I therefore heard the learned counsel for the management and perused the eyidence on record.
The photocopy Mark 'A' filed by the workman purports to be a letter written by Assistant District Manager Sangrur verifying. the attendance of workers. In this letter workman has been shown to have worked for 108 days in the year 1979 to 1980. Mark 'B' is a list regarding Bonus in which the name of the workman appears at serial No.19. The management suggested to the workman during his cross-examination that they are forged documents. The management-witness could not comment on these documents in the absence of originals. The workman has not stated from where and how he got the photocopies. He did not produce the person. who had supplied the copies. The genuineness of 'A' and 'B' therefore cannot be accepted.
The learned counsel for the management argued that it is clear from the statement of the workman that he neither possessed the appointment letter no rtermination order. As per his statement he had not been issued any salary slip also and there is nothing in his evidence to show that he had been appointed by the management or he was in the employment of the management.
It may be noted that even if the document Mark 'A' relied on by the workman are believed then he only worked for 108 days during 1979-1980 the alleged period of his employment. Therefore in no way he is entitled to the protection of Section 25F of the Act.
The workman has further failed to prove that while terminating his services persons junior to him were retained or any new hand was employed by the management after his termination.
Thus there is no reliable evidence to prove that the workman was in the employment of the management and. his services were terminated by the management. However even if the document Mark 'A' relied on by him is considered no case of protection of Section 25F is made out. Violation of Section 25G and 25H of the Act also is not proved. It is therefore held that the workman was not in the employment and his services were not'terminated by the management and secondly even if for arguments sake his employment with the management and termination of his services is accepted then there is no illegality in the alleged termination. Workman is not entitled to any relief. Reference ,is decided against the workman. Let two copies of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer4194 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
II Party : Sh. M. M. Cariappa
Advocate for II Party No. 1
Sh. Prakash Rao K. Advocate for II Party No. 2
AWARD
का.आ. 1608.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एच एम टी के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 38/2002द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-7-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-42012/183/2001-आई आर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी 1.The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L 42012/183/2001- IR(CM-II) dated 16.07.2002 for adjudication on the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1608.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Diputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Hindustan Machine Tools Limited and their workmen received by the Central Government on 10-7-2013.
[F. No. L- 42012/183/2001-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer ''Whether Sh. S. Kumar, former contract workman under M/s. B.M. Enterprises is justified in claiming regular alternative employment under the Management of M/s. HMT Limited in view of his amputation of the arm due to accident while on duty? If so, to what relief he is entitled to?''
ANNEXURE
2. On receipt of the reference to registering it in C R 38/2002, when the notices were issued to I Party and II Party No.1 and 2 all entered their appearances through their respective advocates and the I party filed his claim statement on 13-09-2002 and II party No.1 filed its counter statement on 06-1-2003, whereas II Party No. 2 did not file counter statement.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
Dated : 4th April, 2013
Present : Shri S. N. NA V ALGUND, Presiding Officer
C. R. No. 38/2002
I Party
Sh. S. Kumar, P P No. 1224, BSA Road, Periyarnagar, Bangalore - 560005.
II Party
1. The Chairman and Managing Director, HMT Limited, HMT Bhavan, No. 59, Bellary Road. Bangalore - 560032.
2. M/s. B. M. Enterprises, No. 22. Vijayanagar Colony, Behind Tin Factory, Dooravaninagar. Bangalore - 560 014.
Appearances
I Party : Sh. K. V. Sathyesh Simha, Advocate 3. The I party in his claim state contended that II Party No. 1 is a Public Sector Undertaking having its Units all over India carrying different types of manufacturing activities with its Head Office at Bangalore and that he has been working as a Helper in its Printing Centre at Bangalore since 1984 assisting in the work of Printing/ Binding, cutting which are perennial in nature but the II Party No.1 to shirk its responsibility of providing privileges and other monetary benefits as per law shown him to be working under different contractors namely M/s. Kapila Enterprises from 1984 to 1989, M/s. J P Enterprises from 1989 to 1994 and M/s. B M Enterprises from 1994 to 1999 and the said system being sham cooked up for exploiting the work force and that he is the employee of the II Party No. 1/HMT Limited itself. It is further alleged that while he was working in the Printing Press on 13-8-1997 and was adjusting the Letter Heads on the cutting machine, the cutting blade of the machine suddenly came down on his left wrist and chopped it off and it was due to the fault in cutting machine and that portion came to be amputed and his hospitalization and medical expenses were borne by the II Party No.1 and after his recovery he was taken in service but from 02-4-1999 abruptly terminated his services without giving any notice of whatsoever and another workman has been replaced and he who belongs to Adi Dravida Community/ Schedule Caste being the only bread winner of the family comprising of Wife, Children and his[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4195 during discharge of his work his left hand caught in the cutting machine and came to be amputed as such he is entitle to continue in service till he attained the age of superannuation. Interalia, the learned advocate appearing for the II party No.1 urged that there being no IOTA of evidence to demonstrate that I party was engaged directly by the II party No.1 and on the other hand his own documentary evidence suggest that he was working through different contract agencies and even as per the schedule of the reference as well he being described as contract workman under M/s. B M Enterprises further asking to adjudicate whether he is justified in claiming regular alternative employment under M/s. HMT Limited/ II Party No.1 in view of the amputation of arm while on duty, there is no scope to consider that he is the actual employee of II party No. 1 and his entitlement of continuing in service till attaining the age of superannuation.
aged Mother being unable to get any alternative employment the II Party No.1 be directed to reinstate him into service. He also stated in Para 7 of the claim statement that while referring the dispute the government erroneously referred him as contract workman and that he is in fact the workman under II Party No.1. Interalia, the II Party No.1 in its Counter Statement while contending that Sh.S. Kumar/ l Party workman was in the employment of the Contractor M/s. B M Enterprises and met with an accident due to his negligence and not by fault in cutting machine and on Humanitarian ground he was immediately taken to M/s. Ramaiah Hospital, one of the best hospital in Bangalore where the Doctors conducted operation and amputed the wrist of the I party due to gangrene and though he was covered under ESI special treatment was provided to him spending Rs. 20,000.00 and besides the best Medical Treatment an amount of Rs. 50,000 was collected as donation from HMT Employees and was deposited in the name of the I Party as fixed deposit to enable him to collect the interest. Thus, it is contended as there exist no relationship of Employer and Employee between II party and I Party there is no Industrial Dispute between them. It is further contended the contract was given to M/s. B M Enterprises/II Party No.2 to run its printing centre for a period of one year from 01-4-1998 to 31-3-1999 and under that contractor I Party was working as contract employee and on lapse of the contract period it was terminated by giving one months' notice period as per the contract agreement vide their Letter No. GMM(IMG)/PDC/46/98-99 dated 01-3-1999 since there was no requirement of the said job. It is also further contended as II Party No.1 is passing through a very critical situation and is in the process of downsizing the man power to make the company viable they are not in a position to provide employment to the I Party.
4. With the above pleadings when the matter came to be posted for evidence, the learned advocate appearing for the I party while filing the affidavit of I party reiterating the claim statement examining him on oath as WW 1 got exhibited 16 documents Ex W-1 to Ex W-16 the detailed description of which are narrated in the annexure and also by filing an affidavit of one V Chandrashekar, Retired Employee of the HMT examined him on oath as WW 2. Interalia, the learned advocate appearing for II party No.1 while filing the affidavits of N Jayavelu, Manager, CRB Division, HMT Machine Tools Limited, Bangalore and V Mohan, Clerk-cum-Typist examined them as MW 1 and MW 2 respectively and in the evidence of MW2 got exhibited six documents as Ex M-1 to Ex M-6 the detailed description of which are narrated in the annexure.
6. At the outset, I may say without any hesitation since the schedule for adjudication is as to Whether Sh. S Kumar former contract workman under M/s. B M Enterprises is justified in claiming regular alternative employment under the management of M/s. HMT Limited in view of the amputation of the arm due to accident while on duty, the attempt made by the I party through his claim statement, evidence and the arguments to treat him as the actual employee engaged by the II party No.1 and to direct the II party No, 1 to continue his service till he attain the age of superannuation is a futile attempt being outside the perview of the reference. Since the reference is whether the I party workman under M/s, B M Enterprises is justified in claiming alternative employment under II party No.1 due to loss of arm in accident while on duty, there being no dispute he having suffered amputation of the left wrist while on duty in the printing centre belonging the II Party No. 1 it was for the I party to justify the claim of regular alternative employment under the II Party No.1, but instead of making any effort in that regard as already adverted to by me above he tried to make out a case that he is actually under the employment of II Party No.1 and he has been arbitrarily terminated and he be allowed to continue in service till attaining the age of superannuation which is altogether outside the scope of this reference. The I party neither in his claim statement, nor in his evidence brought on record to convince me or to justify that he is entitled for regular alternative employment under II Party No.1. Even his learned advocate failed to bring to my notice any provision under such circumstance the Principle Employer is required to provide employment to contractor workman. If at all the I Party was not satisfied with the schedule of the reference referring him as contract workman under M/s. B M Enterprises and his claim is for regular alternative employment under the management of M/s. HMT Limited in view of the amputation of his arm in the accident, he ought to have made a representation to the Ministry/ Referring authority to correct the schedule of the reference 5. After close of the evidence of both sides when the matter was posted for arguments, the learned advocate appearing for the I party urged that I party workman was not a contract worker at all and he worked in the Printing Centre run by the II party No.1 for about 20 years and4196 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
by way of corrigendum as expected by him. In the absence Ex.W-8 - Reply of Second Party No. I dated 25-01-1999
of the I party getting any modification or corrigendum to to I Party to his representation dated
the schedule of the reference there is no scope in this 24-08-1998
reference to consider him as the actual workman of II party Ex. W-9 - Reply of Second Party No. I dated 07-06-2000
No.1 and to give him a relief of continuing in service till he to I Party to his representation dated
attains the age of superannuation as claimed by him. Under 19-02-2000
the circumstances, I arrive at conclusion the I party who
Ex. W-10- Reply of Second Party No.1 dated 23.01.2001
was former contract workman under M/s. B M Enterprises
to ALC Notice dated 08-01-2001
failed to justify his claim of Regular Alternative Employment
Ex. W-11- Copy of the petition U/s 10(1)(C) of ID Act
under the management of M/s. HMT Limited/II party No.1
filed before Chief Labour Commissioner
and that he is not entitle for any relief. In the result, I pass
the following Order: Ex.W-12- Notice dated 29-12-2000 issued by Assistant
Labour Commissioner to Second Parties
ORDER
Ex. W-13 - Reply to the Notice. issued by HMT Ltd.,
The reference is rejected holding that Sh. S Kumar, former dated 14-05-2001 to Assistant Labour
contract workman under M/s. B M Enterprises failed to Commissioner
justify his claim of Regular Alternative Employment under Ex. W-14- Report of Conciliation passed by Regional
the management of M/s. HMT Limted in view of the Labour Commissioner, Bangalore
amputation of the arm due to accident while on duty and
Ex. W-15- Book on Dr. S M Patil Biography
that he is not entitle for any relief.
Ex. W-16- Literature including some stationery, calendar
(Dictated to UDC, transcribed by him, corrected and signed
Series etc., printed at Printing Section
by me on 4th April 2013)
Witness examined on behalf of II Party
S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer MW1- Sh. N Jayavelu, Manager. CRB Division, HMT
Machine Tools Limited, Bangalore
MW2 Sh. V Mohan, Deputy Manager (Admn).
ANNEXURE - I
Documents Exhibited for II Party :
Witness examined on behalf of I Party
Ex. M-1 Copy of Delivery Voucher No. MAN
WW1- Sh. S Kumar, I Party Workman (ADM)MTBO 1/05-06 dated 21-03-2006
WW2 - Sh. V Chandrashekar, Retired HMT Employee Ex. M - 2 Copy of Delivery Voucher No. MAN
Documents exhibited by I Party :
Ex. W-1- Identity Card issued to I Party by contractor
M/s. Kapilan Enterprises
Ex. W - 2- 2 ESI Cards issued by Contractor M/s. David
Business Services dated 1-5-1992
Ex. W - 3 - PF Slip for 1995-96 vide A/c No. KN/15471/31
issued by M/s. David Business Services
Ex. W -4 - Certificate issued by the contractor M/s. David Business Services dated 30-09-99 certifying I Party workman having worked with them as Helper under Contract at various office from 1990 to 1995.
Ex. W - 5- Application of the 1 Party under the pension scheme of PFO, countersigned by M/s. David Business Services dated 2-7-1998
Ex. W-6 - Certificate issued by M/s. B M Enterprises dated 25-09-2000 certifying I party having worked under them as Helper in HMT Printing Centre from 01-06-1995 to 31-03-1999
Ex. W-7 - Copy of claim form under ESI signed and submitted by M/s. B M Enterprises for accident dated 14-8-1997
(ADM)MTB/02/05-06 dated 21-03-2006
Ex. M - 3 Copy of Delivery Voucher No. MAN
(ADM)MTB/03/05-06 dated 21-03-2006
Ex. M - 4 Copy of Letter No. MHTl/V/Printing/Sales dated April 6, 2006 of HMT Machine Tools Limited. Kalamassery addressed to HMT Machine Tools Limited, Bangalore.
Ex. M - 5 Letter of Authorisation dated 15-7-2010.
Ex. M - 6 Copy of letter addressed by II Party No. 1 to II party No. 2 dated 01.03.1999
नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1609.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.सी.आई. सी.आई. बैंक लि. के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 122/2005द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-6-2013 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[पफा. सं. एल-12012/36/2005-आई आर ;बी-Iद्ध]
सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अध्किारी[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4197 New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013
S.O. 1609.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Diputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 122/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of ICICI Bank Ltd. and their workman, received by the Central Government on 20-6-2013.
[No. L- 12012/36/2005-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
अनुबंध्
केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,
जयपुर
सी.जी.आई.टी. प्रकरण सं. 122/2005
श्री एन. के. पुरोहित, पीठासीन अध्किारी
रेपफरेन्स नं.-एल-12012/36/2005-IR(B-I) दिनांक 21-10-2005
Sh. Harsukh Lal Kuhmar, S/o Dhukanlal Kuhmar 21/454, Chopsani Housing Board, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
v/s
1. Chieg Executive Officer, I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited, I.C.I.C.I. Bank Towers Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051
2. The General Manager (Operation), I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited, C-3, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. A.G. M.,I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited, Jal Jog Circle Residency Road, Jodhpur.
4. Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited, Gandhi Chauk, Barmer. (After merger I.C.I.C.I. Bank has been Substituded in place of the Bank of Raj. Ltd., Jaipur)
प्रार्थी की तरपफ से : श्री सुरेश कश्यप अप्रार्थी की तरपफ से : श्री आलौक पफतेहपुरिया 2. संक्षिप्त में तथ्य इस प्रकार है कि प्रार्थी हरसुखलाल क्लर्क- कम-कैशियर को अप्रार्थी बैंक ऑपफ राजस्थान के बाड़मेर ब्रान्च में कार्यरत रहते हुए दिनांक 19-4-1996 को आरोप-पत्रा दिया गया जिसका जवाब उसके द्वारा दिनांक 2-5-1996 को प्रस्तुत किया गया । जिससे सन्तुष्ट न होने पर बैंक प्रबंध्न ने दिनांक 7-2-1997 के आदेश द्वारा श्री नन्द किशोर त्रिापाठी को जांच अध्किारी नियुक्त किया । बाद में दिनांक 14-3-2001 को श्री देवीसिंह राजपुरोहित को जांच अध्किारी बनाया गया जिन्होंने मामले में जांच कार्यवाही सम्पादित कर अपनी जांच रिपोर्ट अनुशासनात्मक प्राध्किारी को दिनांक 26-10-2002 प्रस्तुत की जिसमें प्रार्थी के विरु( लगाये गये कुल दस आरोपों में से आरोप सं. 1 से 5 व 8 को प्रमाणित पाया तथा आरोप संख्या 6, 7, 9, व 10 को अप्रमाणित पाया । इस प्रकार जांच अधिकारी ने प्रार्थी को द्विपक्षीय समझौता के पैरा संख्या 19-5-C, E, G, J तथा पैरा संख्या 19-7, J, K में वर्णित घोर अवचार व लघु अवचार का दोषी पाया ।
3. जांच अध्किारी के उक्त निष्कर्ष के आधर पर अनुशासनिक प्राध्किारी ने आदेश दिनांक 25-11-2003 द्वारा प्रार्थी पर अविलम्ब बिना सूचना के बैंक की सेवा से बर्खास्त करने का दण्ड आरोपित किया । आदेश के विरु( विभागीय अपीलीय प्राध्किारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत अपील में अनुशासनिक प्राध्किारी द्वारा प्रार्थी पर आरोपित दण्ड को संशोध्ति करते हुए प्रार्थी को सेवा परिलाभों को देते हुए सेवा से हटाये जाने के दण्ड से दण्डित किया ।
4. प्राथी द्वारा समझौता अध्किारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत विवाद में वार्ता विपफल रहने पर उक्त विवाद को दिनांक 21-10-2005 को केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु निर्देश ;Referenceद्ध किया गया ।
: पंचाट :
दिनांक : 10-4-2013
1. केन्द्रीय सरकार के द्वारा निम्न विवाद औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 की धरा 10 की उपधरा के खण्ड ;घद्ध के प्रावधनों के अन्तर्गत उक्त आदेश के द्वारा न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु प्रेषित किया गया था ।
क्या महाप्रबंध्क ;आपरेशनद्ध अपीलेट प्राध्किारी दी बैंक आपफ राजस्थान लि., केन्द्रीय कार्यालय जयपुर के द्वारा अपने कर्मकार श्री हरसुखलाल कुम्हार पुत्रा श्री ध्ुकन लाल कुम्हार क्लर्क-कम- कैशियर-कम गौदाम कीपर को आदेश दिनांक 6-4-2004 के तहत सेवा से डिस्चार्ज करना न्यायोचित एवं विध् िसम्मत है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार अपने नियोजक से किस राहत को पाने का अध्किारी है?
5. प्रार्थी ने क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट में अभिकथित किया है कि उसे अपने बचाव हेतु पर्याप्त मौका नहीं दिया, आवश्यक दस्तावेज उपलब्ध् नहीं कराये एवं साक्षीगण से प्रतिपरीक्षा का पर्याप्त अवसर नहीं दिया इसलिए जांच नैसर्गिक न्याय के सि(ांतों की अवहेलना के कारण ट्टजु नहीं थी । प्रार्थी ने यह भी अभिकथित किया है कि जांच अध्किारी ने जिन आरोपों को सि( पाया है, उनके सम्बन्ध् में जांच अध्किारी के निष्कर्ष त्राुटिपूर्ण ;perveseद्ध है, क्योकि जांच के दौरान अभिलेख पर आई मौखिक व प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य से प्रार्थी के विरु( कोई आरोप नहीं बनता ।
6. प्रार्थी के यह भी अभिकथित किया है कि उसके द्वारा प्रस्तुत लिखित बहस पर विचार किये बिना ही अपीलीय प्राध्किारी ने जांच अध्किारी व अनुशासनिक प्राध्किारी के निष्कर्ष से सहमति जताते हुए अनुशासनिक प्राध्किारी द्वारा प्रार्थी पर आरोपित दण्ड को संशोध्ति करते हुए सेवा परिलाभों को देते हुए सेवा से हटाये जाने के दण्ड से दण्डित किया है । प्रार्थी के विरु( जो आरोप लगे हैं वे लघु प्रकृति के है जिसके लिए सेवा मुक्ति जैसा कठोर दण्ड नहीं दिया जा सकता।
7. प्रार्थी ने प्रार्थना की है कि विवादित आदेश द्वारा प्रार्थी को सेवा मुक्त किये जाने के अप्रार्थी के कृत्य को अनुचित एवं अवैध्4198 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] घोषित किया जावे तथा उसे पूरे वेतन व हित लाभों के साथ सेवा में बहाल किया जावे ।
8. जवाब में अप्रार्थी के प्राक्कथन है कि जांच अध्किारी ने जांच नैसर्गिक न्याय के सि(ान्तों की पालना करते हुए एवं आरोपित पक्ष को उसके बचाव का समुचित अवसर दिया जाकर सम्पादित की है, जो उचित एवं वैध् है । जांच अध्किारी ने जांच पत्राावली पर आए सभी तथ्यों पर विचार करने के पश्चात् अपना निष्कर्ष निकाला है व जांच अध्किारी ने अपनी जांच रिपोर्ट में प्रार्थी पर लगाये गये दस आरोपों में से सिपर्फ छह आरोप जोकि क्रमशः 1 से 5 व आरोप संख्या 8 है, प्रार्थी पर सि( पाए हैं और शेष आरोप सि( नहीं पाए हैं इसी से स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी के अभिकथन गलत हैं ।
9. अप्रार्थी के यह भी प्राक्कथन है कि प्रार्थी के द्वारा शाखा प्रबंध्क के विरु( अशोभनीय और अपमानजनक भाषा का प्रयोग किया गया था । बैंक जैसे वित्तीय संस्थानों में इस प्रकार की कार्यवाही किया जाना गम्भीर दुराचरण है । इसलिए सि( हुए आरोपों के अनुपात में प्रार्थी को जो दण्ड दिया गया है वह उचित एवं वैध् है । अनुशासनिक प्राध्किारी ने प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत आरोप-पत्रा के जवाब, जांच पत्राावली, प्रस्तावित दण्ड के पत्रा के दिनांक 27-1-2003 के सन्दर्भ में जवाब एवं लिखित बहस पर विचार करने के बाद एवं प्रार्थी को व्यक्तिगत सुनवाई का अवसर देते हुए प्रार्थी को सेवा से बर्खास्त का दण्ड दिया था । अपीलीय प्राध्किारी ने भी प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत तथ्यों एवं उपलब्ध् रिकार्ड के आधर पर प्रार्थी को दिये गये दण्ड में संशोध्न करते हुए उसे सेवानिवृत्ति का लाभ देते हुए सेवा-मुक्त के दण्ड से दण्डित किया गया है ।
10. जांच की ट्टजुता ;fairnessद्ध के प्रारम्भिक बिन्दु पर
दिनांक 25-11-2010 को निम्न आदेश पारित किया गया ।
''It is held that there was no denial of fairplay to the workman and the domestic enquiry against him is found to be fair and proper".
11. जॉच को उक्त आदेश द्वारा ट्टजु पाया गया इसलिए मामले के गुणावगुण पर सुना गया । पत्राावली का अवलोकन किया ।
12. विचारणीय प्रश्न यह है कि क्या जांच अध्किारी के निष्कर्ष त्राुटिपूर्ण हैं यदि इसका उत्तर नकारात्मक आता है उस स्थिति में इस प्रश्न पर विचार करना होगा कि क्या अध्रिोपित दण्ड सि( हुए आरोपों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए कठोर एवं अनुपातिक है ?
13. प्रार्थी को कुल 10 आरोपों के लिए आरोप पत्रा दिया गया था । उनमें से आरोप सं. 1 से 5 व 8 को ही प्रमाणित पाया है । इसलिए वर्तमान मामले में वे ही प्रासंगिक हैं । जिन आरोपों को प्रमाणित पाया है वे निम्न हैं :-
- GROSS MISCONDUCT as defined in Para 19.5 (e) of first Bipartite Settlement dated 19-1-1966.
(3) Failing to show proper consideration, courtesy and attention towards officers, customers and other employees of the Bank and unseemly and unsatisfactory behavior while on duty - MINOR MISCONDUCT as defined in Para 19.7 U) of the first Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966.
(4) Marked disregard for ordinary requirements of decency
MINOR MISCONDUCT as defined in Para 19.7 (k) of the First Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966.
(5) Willfull slowing down in the performance of Bank's work GROSS MISCONDUCT as defined in Para 19.5 (g) of first Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966.
(6) Doing an act prejudicial to the interest (reputation and financial interest) of the Bank - GROSS MISCONDUCT as defined in Para 19.5 (j) of the first Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966.
'IMPUTATION OF CHARGES
(A)(i) On 27th February, 1996 when you were working as Receipt Cashier at about 11.50 A.M. The Representative of "SAHARA INDIA", a very valuable customer. of the branch came to your Cash Receipt Counter for cash deposition but you refused to accept his cash receipt. In view of your refusal to accept his cash, he was left with no option but to approach Branch Manager. You have accepted his cash only on receipt of written instructions given by Branch Manager "Please Accept" on his ''Pay- In Slip.''
ARTICLES OF CHARGES
(1) Riotous and Disorderly and indecent behavior on the premises, of the Bank - GROSS MISCONDUCT as defined in Para 19.5 (c) of the first Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966.
(2) Willful insubordination and disobedience of any lawful and reasonable orders of the Branch Manager (A)(ii) Shortly thereafter at about 12.50 P.M. on the same day the representative of "Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation", Shri Jagdish approached you for cash deposition. Instead of accepting the cash of RSRTC, you again refused to accept the cash from this valuable customer also and advised him to approach Branch Manager. Consequently, Shri Jagdish also approached the Branch Manager for the same problem of the non acceptance of cash by you. At this juncture, the Branch Manager had no other option but to instruct you in writing to "please accept the cash" on the "Pay-In-Slip" of RSRTC but instead of complying with the aforesaid resonable and lawful orders of the Brach Manager, you refuese to accept the cash from representative of RSRTC.
(A)(iii) Having refused to accept cash from representative of RSRTC, in blatant disregard of written instruction of the Branch Manager, you did not stop at that. Agitated and provoked at the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4199 aforementioned written instructions, you entered cabin of the Branch Manager and started addressing him in highly derogatory, abusive and insulting language. Your unsolicited and unwarranted address to the Branch Manager at this juncture is quoted verbatim as under:
''तुम्हारे बाप का नौकर समझ रखा है क्या? जो बार-बार आदेश दे रहे हो । तुम अपने को तीस मार खां समझ रहे हो, मैने तो अच्छे-अच्छे मैनेजरों वा आर. एम. तक को नाक रगडवाई है । वे ग्राहक क्या तुम्हारे बाप लगते हैं ? साथ ही ध्मकी भरे शब्दों का प्रयोग करते हुए कहा कि यदि हिम्मत है तो रोडवेज का कैश गिनवा कर देख लो।'' और भी कापफी गाली-गलोच वाले शब्दों का प्रयोग किया, जिसे शालीनता के नाते मैनेजर साहब ने लिखना उचित नहीं समझा ।
A number of valuable customers of the Bank present in the Branch witnessed the unseemly, unruly, dis- orderly and riotous scene created by you. Needless to say, this caused grave damage and slur on the
Bank's image and reputation.
14. जांच अध्किारी द्वारा निम्न विचारणीय बिन्दु अवधरित
किए गये :-
अ ;iद्ध क्या दिनांक 27-2-1996 को केश -काउन्टर पर कार्य करते हुए प्रार्थी ने सहारा इण्डिया के प्रतिनिध् िको सहारा इण्डिया का कैश जमा करने से पहले मना किया तथा बाद में प्रबंध्क के द्वारा जमा पर्ची पर 'Please except' के निर्देश के बाद जमा स्वीकार की गयी?
अ (ii) क्या दिनांक 27-2-1996 को केश काउन्टर पर कार्य करते हुए प्रार्थी ने लगभग 12.50pm पर रोडवेज के कैशिअर श्री जगदीश से प्रबंध्क द्वारा जमा पर्ची पर ''Harsukh ji please ac- cept 12.50 noon'' के लिखित निर्देश के बाद भी केश जमा हेतु स्वीकार नहीं किया गया ।
अ (iii) क्या शाखा प्रबंध्क के लिखित निर्देशों की अवज्ञा कर, रोडवेज के केश को स्वीकार न करके प्रार्थी ने क्रोध्ति होकर उक्त दिनांक को शाखा प्रबंध्क के कैबिन में जाकर प्रबंध्क से असभ्यतापूर्वक, अपमानजनक व उत्तेजित भाषा में गाली-गलौच किया और इस तरह के व्यवहार से बैंक के ग्राहक के सामने बैंक की प्रतिष्ठा को आघात लगा?
15. जांच अध्किारी ने साक्षीगण श्री पुरुषोत्तम दास सिंघल (Mw-4) शाखा प्रबंध्क श्री जगदीश सोनी रोकड़िया, सहारा इण्डिया (Mw-1) की मौखिक साक्ष्य एवं सहारा इण्डिया की जमा पर्ची (MEx-2) के आधर पर बिन्दु संख्या अ (i), का तथा साक्षीगण श्री जगदीश कुमार गहलोत कैशिअर रोडवेज (MW-4) श्री पुरफषोत्तम दास सिंघल शाखा प्रबंध्क MW-5 श्री विजय सिंह मकवाना उप-प्रबंध्क शाखा की मौखिक साक्ष्य एवं जमा पर्ची MEx-3 के आधर पर बिन्दु सं. अ (ii) का उत्तर सकारात्मक पाया। इसी प्रकार साक्षीगण श्री पुरफषोत्तम दास सिंघल शाखा प्रबंध्क MW4 श्री विजय सिंह मकवाना MW-3 श्री डूगरमल रोकड़िया, आदर्श शिक्षण समिति MW-13 श्री चैनसिंह सेवानिवृत्त शाखा प्रबंध्क MW7 श्री श्यामसुन्दर झालाणी विशेष सहायक, शाखा की मौखिक साक्ष्य एवं प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य प्रदर्श MEx 5 शिकायत बाबत दुराचरण एवं अशोभनीय व्यवहार एवं आदर्श शिक्षण समिति, बाड़मेर के कैशियर द्वारा शाखा प्रबंध्क बाड़मेर को लिखे पत्रा MEx-6 के आधर पर बिन्दु सं. अ (iii) का उत्तर भी सकारात्मक होना पाया।
16. जांच अध्किारी ने अपनी जांच रिपोर्ट में आरोप सं. 1 व 4 को विचारणीय बिन्दु अ (iii) तथा अन्य प्रमाणित आरोपों को विचारणीय बिन्दु अ (ii) व (iii) के निष्कर्षों के आधर पर प्रमाणित पाया है।
17. विद्वान प्रतिनिध् िप्रार्थी ने जांच अध्किारी द्वारा प्रमाणित पाये गये आरोपों के सम्बंध् में निकाले गये निष्कर्षों को त्राुटिपूर्ण बताते हुए तर्क प्रस्तुत किये है कि प्रार्थी को ज्ञापन दिनांक 27-2-1998 DEx-1 कथित दुव्र्यवहार के सम्बंध् में स्पष्टीकरण देने हेतु दिया गया था। उसमें सिपर्फ R.S.R.T.C. के रोकड़िया से नकद राशि जमा न करने का ही अभिकथन था। सहारा इण्डिया के प्रतिनिध् िसे ध्नराशि जमा न करने का कोई उल्लेख नहीं था लेकिन दिनांक 28-2-1996 को सहायक महाप्रबंध्क, क्षेत्राीय कार्यालय, जोध्पुर को प्रबंध्क के द्वारा कथित दुव्र्यवहार के सम्बंध् में जो सूचना DEx-2 प्रेषित की गई उसमें सहारा इण्डिया के प्रतिनिध् िसे भी दिनांक 27-2-1996 को 11.50 बजे नकद राशि जमा न करने का अभिकथन जोड़ दिया गया। इसके अलावा प्रार्थी के विरू( नकद राशि जमा न करने के सम्बंध् में कोई लिखित शिकायत नहीं थी। सहारा इण्डिया के सेक्टर मैनेजर श्री जीवराज सिंह द्वारा क्षेत्रिाय कार्यालय, जोध्पुर को प्रेषित पत्रा दिनांक 4-4-1998 में बैंक प्रबंध्क श्री पुरफषोत्तम दास सिंघल एवं अध्किारी श्री महेश शर्मा द्वारा प्रार्थी के विरू( शिकायत हेतु दबाव डालने का उल्लेख किया था। R.S.R.T.C.के रोकड़िया श्री जगदीश कुमार गहलोत ने भी जांच के दौरान प्रस्तुत अपने शपथ-पत्रा में कहा था कि दिनांक 27-2-1996 को उसकी मौजूदगी में किसी के साथ गाली-गलौच व अभद्र व्यवहार नहीं हुआ। लेकिन इन तथ्यों पर जांच अध्किारी द्वारा विचार नहीं किया गया। विद्वान प्रतिनिध् िका यह भी तर्क है कि अभियोजन पक्ष के द्वारा प्रस्तुत 11 साक्षीगण में से 7 साक्षीगण ने प्रबंध्क के साथ कथित अशिष्ट व्यवहार व अशिष्ट भाषा के प्रयोग का कथन नहीं किया है। जिन साक्षीगण के कथन हैं उनमें विरोधभास व असंगताएं हैं। श्री श्यामसुन्दर झालाणी का कथन है कि कैबिन से अस्पष्ट आवाजें आ रही थी तथा उसके द्वारा सुनी अस्पष्ट आवाज की जानकारी श्री चैनसिंह को दी तथा श्री चैनसिंह का कथन इसी आधर पर है। इस प्रकार उक्त दोनों साक्षीगण की साक्ष्य से आरोप साबित नहीं होते। विद्वान प्रतिनिध् ि प्रार्थी का तर्क है कि साक्षीगण श्री पुरफषोत्तम दास सिंघल शाखा प्रबंध्क व श्री विजय सिंह मकवाना, उप प्रबंध्क की साक्ष्य में तात्विक बिन्दुओं पर विरोधभास है व इनकी साक्ष्य का विवेचन करने पर आरोप प्रमाणित नहीं होते। विद्वान प्रतिनिध् िका यह भी तर्क है कि साक्ष्य में यह तथ्य आये है कि प्रार्थी 12.30 से 1.15 बजे तक अपनी सीट पर ही नहीं था। साक्षी श्री जगदीश गहलोत के कथन से भी प्रगट होता है कि 12.30 P.M पर शाखा प्रबंध्क के साथ अभद्र व्यवहार की कथित घटना के समय प्रार्थी वहां मौजूद नहीं था। लेकिन जांच अध्किारी ने इन तथ्यों पर भी विचार नहीं किया है। केवल साक्षीगणों के बयानों तथा पक्षकारों के4200 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] तर्कों का जांच रिपोर्ट में विवरण दिया है । जांच अध्किारी ने दोनों पक्षों की साक्ष्य का तुलनात्मक विवेचन नहीं किया है और न ही आरोप प्रमाणित मानने के कोई कारण दर्शाये हैं। इसके अलावा प्रतिपरीक्षा की साक्ष्य का भी सही विवेचन नहीं किया है। इसलिए प्रमाणित माने गये आरोपों के निष्कर्ष त्राूटिपूर्ण हैं।
18. उक्त तर्कों के विरोध् में विद्वान प्रतिनिध् िअप्रार्थी का तर्क है कि प्रार्थी के द्वारा आरोप पत्रा का जवाब प्रस्तुत किया है उसके तथ्यों में विरोधभास है एवं उसमें प्रार्थी की यह स्पष्ट स्वीकारोक्ति है कि शाखा प्रबंध्क ने आरोपित प्रार्थी को सहारा इण्डिया का केश जमा करने के लिए आदेश दिया था। उनका यह भी तर्क है कि उस दिन प्रार्थी के पास कार्य अध्कि होने की बात भी सही नहीं है। प्रार्थी ने स्वयं ने दिनांक 27-2-1996 की कैशिअर रिसीट-बुक पेश की है जिसके अनुसार उसके द्वारा कुल 12 जमायें लगभग 4.85 लाख की जमा की गई है व अन्तिम जमा सहारा इण्डिया की है। जबकि दूसरे कैशिअर की 9.47 लाख की 33 जमाये हैं। अतः स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी के पास कार्य अध्कि नहीं था। जमा पर्चीया Ex-M-II & Ex-M-III से भी इस बात की पुष्टि होती है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा जमा करने से इंकार करने पर जमा करने हेतु प्रबंध्क को निर्देश देने पड़े।
19. विद्वान प्रतिनिध् िअप्रार्थी का यह भी तर्क है कि प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 27-2-1996 को R.S.R.T.C के प्रतिनिध् िके जमा कैश न करने के सम्बंध्ति आरोप के संदर्भ में जवाब में कहा है कि R.S.R.T.C. के प्रतिनिध् िके आने से पूर्व दो बैंक ग्राहक सहारा इण्डिया व भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम की ध्नराशि लेना शेष था व समय समाप्त होने वाला था तथा उसके द्वारा शाखा प्रबंध्क को यह स्पष्ट करने पर भी कि नोट गिनने के लिए अध्कि समय नहीं है, शाखा प्रबंध्क ने दूसरी व्यवस्था की थी। इससे स्पष्ट है कि शाखा प्रबंध्क ने निर्देश दिये थे व निर्देश देने के बाद शाखा प्रबंध्क के कैबिन में गया था। इसके अलावा कैशिअर रिसीप्ट बुक (Ex-d-5) में R.S.R.T.C. की राशि जमा नहीं है व वह राशि दूसरे कैरिअर के रजिस्टर में जमा है। इससे यह भी स्पष्ट है कि प्राथी्र ने शाखा प्रबंध्क के निर्देशों के बावजूद R.S.T.C. की राशि जमा नहीं की थी। तथ्यों व परिस्थितियों से यह सि( है कि सहारा इण्डिया की राशि एवं R.S.T.C. की राशि जमा करने से इंकार करने पर प्रार्थी को लिखित निर्देश दिये गये तथा निर्देशों के बावजूद R.S.R.T.C. की राशि जमा नहीं की तथा शाखा प्रबंध्क के कैबिन में जाकर राशि जमा करने से असमर्थता व्यक्त की तथा दुव्र्यवहार किया। अतः आरोप संख्या 1 से 5 व आरोप संख्या 8 के लिए प्रार्थी को दुराचरण की दोषी पाने के सम्बंध् में जांच अध्किारी द्वारा जो निष्कर्ष निकाले गये हैं वह सही है व उपलब्ध् तथ्यों एवं साक्ष्य के आधर पर उक्त आरोपों को सि( मानने में जांच अध्किारी ने कोई त्राुटि नहीं की है।
20. मैंने उक्त तर्कों पर मनन किया तथा उनको दृष्टिगत रखते
हुए जांच प्रत्राावली का ध्यानपूर्वक अवलोकन किया।
21. श्री पुरुषोत्तम दास सिंघल शाखा प्रबंध्क ने अपने कथन में कहा है कि दिनांक 27-2-1996 को सहारा इण्डिया के प्रतिनिध्ि श्री जगदीश सोनी ने आकर बताया कि प्रार्थी ने नकद राशि जमा करने से इंकार कर दिया तब MEx-2 जमा पर्ची पर 'Please Accept' लिखकर उसे निर्देशित किया। सहारा इण्डिया के प्रतिनिध् िMw-1 श्री जगदीश सोनी ने भी इस तथ्य की पुष्टि की है कि 11-11.30 बजे वह नकद राशि जमा करने हेतु गया था तथा प्रार्थी द्वारा मना करने पर प्रबंध्क से मिला था। जमा पर्ची MEx-2 से भी उक्त कथनों की पुष्टि होती है। स्वयं प्रार्थी ने जांच अध्किारी के समक्ष दिए अपने कथन में कहा है कि दिनांक 27-2-1996 को जब सहारा इण्डिया का प्रतिनिध्ि उसके पास रकम जमा कराने पहली बार आया तब उसने यह कहा था कि ग्राहक अध्कि हैं व रकम भी अध्कि जमा कराई जा रही है इसलिए पहले राशि जमा होना संभव नहीं है उसके बाद वह 'क्लीयरिंग हाउस' चला गया था तथा वहां से वापस लौटा तब सहारा इण्डिया का प्रतिनिध् िव्यवस्थापक के आदेश लेकर रकम जमा करने के लिए पहले से बैठा था। प्रार्थी के कथन से भी प्रबंध्क श्री पुरुषोत्तम दास सिंघल के कथन की इस सीमा तक पुष्टि होती है कि सहारा इण्डिया का प्रतिनिध् िश्री जगदीश सोनी नकद राशि जमा कराने हेतु प्राथी के पास गया था व उसका कैश उस समय जमा नहीं किया गया तथा व्यवस्थापक के द्वारा जमा करने हेतु निर्देश दिए गये थे। क्लीयरिंग हाउस से वापस आने के बाद सहारा इण्डिया का कैश प्रार्थी ने जमा किया।
22. य(पि दिनांक 27-2-1996 को प्रार्थी द्वारा आदेशों की अवहेलना करने व प्रबंध्क के साथ दुव्र्यवहार करने के सम्बंध् में स्पष्टीकरण देने हेतु प्रार्थी को प्रेषित ज्ञापन DEx-1 में सहारा इण्डिया के प्रबंध्क सेे नकद जमा स्वीकार न करने का स्पष्ट उल्लेख नहीं आया है लेकिन ये तथ्य अंकित है कि उस दिन 11.50 से ही प्रार्थी ने ग्राहकों से नकद जमा स्वीकार करने के लिए इंकार करना प्रारंभ कर दिया तथा ग्राहकों द्वारा प्रबंध्क से सम्पर्क करने पर जमा स्वीकार करने हेतु प्रार्थी को निर्देशित किया गया। अतः विद्वान प्रतिनिध् िप्रार्थी के इस तर्क में सार प्रतीत नहीं होता कि ज्ञापन DEx-1 दिनांक 27-2-1996 में सहारा इण्डिया से नकद राशि जमा न करने का स्पष्ट उल्लेख नहीं है, इसलिए सहारा इण्डिया की राशि जमा न करने की कहानी मनगंढ़त है जिसे बाद में दिनांक 27-2-1996 को सहायक प्रबंध्क क्षेत्राीय कार्यालय को प्रेषित सूचना DEx-2 में जोड़ा गया है।
23. आरोप पत्रा के जवाब दिनांक 2-5-1996 में प्रार्थी ने कहा है कि सहारा इण्डिया का प्रतिनिध् िरकम जमा कराने हेतु आया उसी समय रकम प्राप्त कर रसीद दे दी थी। उक्त कथनानुसार प्रार्थी 11.30 पर सहारा इण्डिया के प्रतिनिध् िको रकम जमा करने से मना नहीं किया। जबकि उक्त जवाब में ही आगे लिखा है कि शाखा कार्यालय में करीब 1.15 बजे पर जब पहुंचा तो R.S.R.T.C. से पूर्व आने वाले ग्राहक सहारा इण्डिया तथा भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम खड़े थे जिसके लिए पूर्व आदेश शाखा प्रबंध्क ने दिए थे। इसमें यह स्पष्ट स्वीकारोक्ति है कि शाखा प्रबंध्क ने कैश जमा करने के लिए निदेश दिया था। कैश जमा करने हेतु निर्देश से ही यह प्रगट होता है कि प्रार्थी के द्वारा कैश जमा न करने पर यह निर्देश देने की आवश्यकता हुई।
24. प्रार्थी यह कहकर आया है कि ग्राहक अध्कि होने के कारण सहारा इण्डिया की रकम पहले जमा करना संभव नहीं था। प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 27-2-1996 को कैशिअर रिसीट बुक दिनांक 27-2-1996 को जो उसकी स्वयं की है, पेश की है, और एक अन्य[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4201 कैश बुक भी पेश की है। प्रार्थी के द्वारा कुल बारह जमाएं स्वीकार की गई है। जिसकी कुल राशि 4.85 लाख रुपये के लगभग है अंतिम जमा सहारा इण्डिया की है। जिसके सम्बंध् में जवाब में कहा है कि सहारा इण्डिया की राशि आते ही ले ली थी। इसके अलावा दूसरे कैशिअर की रिसीट बुक में बत्तीस जमाएं लगभग 9.47 लाख की हैं। ऐसी स्थिति में विद्वान प्रतिनिध् िअप्रार्थी के इस तर्क में सार प्रतीत होता है कि प्रार्थी के पास कार्य अध्कि होने की बात विश्वसनीय प्रतीत नहीं होती।
25. अतः अभिलेख पर उपलब्ध् उपरोक्त मौखिक, प्रलेखिय एवं पारिस्थितिजन्य साक्ष्य के आधर पर यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कि जांच अध्किारी ने यह निष्कर्ष निकालने में त्राुटि की है कि सहारा इण्डिया के प्रतिनिध् िकी नगद राशि जमा करने से प्रार्थी ने इंकार किया इसलिए प्रबंध्क को राशि जमा करने के लिए निर्देश देने पड़े।
26. दिनांक 27-2-1996 को ही R.S.R.T.C. के प्रतिनिध् िका कैश जमा करने से इंकार करने के संबंध् में श्री पुरफषोत्तम दास सिंघल शाखा प्रबंध्क का कथन है कि उस दिन R.S.R.T.C के रोकड़िया श्री जगदीश गहलोत ने आकर बताया कि प्रार्थी नकद राशि जमा नहीं कर रहा है। इस पर उसने जमा पर्ची पर 'Harsukh ji please accept 12.50 Noon' लिखकर राशि जमा करने हेतु निर्देश दिया था। उक्त कथन की पुष्टि रोकड़िया R.S.R.T.C. श्री जगदीश गहलोत MW-2 के कथन एवं उसके द्वारा प्रस्तुत शिकायत एवं जमा पर्ची MEx-3 से होती है। इसके अलावा कैशिअर रिसीट बुक से यह भी जाहिर होता है कि R.S.R.T.C. की राशि प्रार्थी ने जमा नहीं की थी तथा कार्यवाहक मुख्य रोकड़िया के द्वारा राशि जमा की गई थी। उपरोक्त साक्ष्य के आधर पर जांच अध्किारी का यह निष्कर्ष भी त्राुटिपूर्ण प्रतीत नहीं होता कि प्रार्थी के द्वारा R.S.R.T.C. की राशि जमा करने से इंकार किया तथा शाखा प्रबंध्क के निर्देश के बावजूद R.S.R.T.C. की राशि जमा नहीं की गई।
27. श्री पुरुषोत्तम दास सिंघल MW-4 ने अपने कथन में कहा है कि रोडवेज के कैशिअर ने जब कैश जमा न होने की बात कही तब उसके द्वारा जमा पर्ची पर प्रार्थी को निर्देश दिये गये थे। उक्त पर्ची लेकर जब रोडवेज का कैशिअर प्रार्थी के पास गया तो प्रार्थी उसके कैबिन में आया व गाली-गलौच शुरू कर दिया।
28. प्रार्थी द्वारा शाखा प्रबंध्क के कैबिन में जाकर उत्तेजित होकर अपमानजनक भाषा में दुव्र्यवहार करने के आरोप के संदर्भ में श्री पुरुषोत्तम दास सिंघल शाखा प्रबंध्क के कथन की पुष्टि श्री विजय सिंह मकवाना, उप-प्रबंध्क ने भी की है। इस सम्बंध् में दिनांक 27-2-1996 को शाखा में उपस्थित श्री विजय सिंह मकवाना उप-प्रबंधक व श्री महेश चन्द्र गर्ग अध्किारी ने संयुक्त हस्ताक्षरित पत्रा MEx-5 महासचिव, दी बैंक ऑपफ राजस्थान एसोसिएशन, जयपुर को प्रेषित किया था। जिसकी प्रति क्षेत्राीय कार्यालय, जोध्पुर को भी प्रेषित की थी उक्त पत्रा में प्रार्थी के द्वारा किये गये दुव्र्यवहार के बारे में लिखा गया था।
29. उपरोक्त साक्ष्य के अलावा प्रबंध्न में श्री श्यामसुन्दर झालाणी MW-7 श्री चैनसिंह MW-13 एवं श्री डूंगरमल MW-3 की भी साक्ष्य करवाई है। श्री श्यामसुन्दर झालाणी ने कथन में कहा है कि प्रार्थी व प्रबंध्क के बीच गर्मजोशी के साथ वार्तालाप हो रहा था व बाहर अस्पष्ट आवाजें आ रही थी व गवाह श्री डूंगरमल MW-3 ने भी उक्त बात कही है। गवाह श्री चैन सिंह MW-13 ने कथन किया है कि उसे श्री श्यामसुन्दर झालाणी ने बताया कि व्यवस्थापक के कैबिन से शोर-शराबे की आवाजें आ रही हैं। तब उसने हरसुख को बाहर बुलाया व पूछा तो बताया कि कैश लेकर गिनने को झगड़ा है।
30. जांच अध्किारी के द्वारा बचाव पक्ष के द्वारा प्रस्तुत तर्कों पर मनन करने के बाद एवं प्रबंध्क की साक्ष्य का विवेचन करने के बाद प्रबंध्न द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रलेख MEx-5, MEx-6 एवं मौखिक साक्ष्य के आधर पर ही यह निष्कर्ष निकाला है कि प्रार्थी शाखा प्रबंध्क के कैबिन में गया व अमानजनक एवं उत्तेजित भाषा में गाली-गलौच की।
31. प्रार्थी ने अपने जवाब में कहा है कि आरोपों में यह कहीं भी स्पष्ट नहीं है कि शाखा प्रबंध्क के द्वारा निर्देश दिए जा चुके थे तो उनके कमरे में जाने का प्रश्न क्यों उत्पन्न हुआ लेकिन जवाब में यह भी कहा है कि शाखा प्रबंध्क को उसके द्वारा यह स्पष्ट किया गया कि R.S.R.T.C. के प्रतिनिध् िके आने से पूर्व दो बैंक ग्राहक की राशि लेना शेष था और बैंक समय 2 बजे समाप्त होने वाला था, व नोट गिनने के लिए अध्कि समय नहीं है। जवाब में यह भी माना है कि प्रबंध्क द्वारा दूसरी व्यवस्था की गई। जांच अध्किारी के समक्ष जिरह में भी यह स्वीकार किया है कि व्यवस्थापक द्वारा श्री जगदीश रोकड़िया R.S.R.T.C. की राशि जमा करने हेतु निर्देश के सम्बंध् में उसने व्यवस्थापक को जाकर अपनी स्थिति स्पष्ट की थी। अपशब्दों का प्रयोग नहीं किया। इससे यह स्पष्ट है कि शाखा प्रबंध्क द्वारा उसे निर्देश दिए गए व उसके बाद शाखा प्रबंध्क के कैबिन में गया। अभिलेख पर आए तथ्यों से यह भी स्पष्ट है कि निर्देश के बावजूद राशि जमा नहीं की थी व अन्य कैशीयर के द्वारा राशि जमा की गई। प्रार्थी ने कैबिन में जाकर स्वयं के कथनानुसार असमर्थता व्यक्त की थी। उक्त परिस्थितियों में जांच अध्किारी के द्वारा जो निष्कर्ष निकाले गये हैं उन्हें त्राुटिपूर्ण नहीं कहा जा सकता।
32. यह सुनिश्चित विध् िहै कि जहां जांच को उचित व )जु पाया गया हो व जांच अध्किारी ने उपलब्ध् साक्ष्य के आधर पर निष्कर्ष निकाले हाें न्यायाध्किरण को अपीलीय न्यायालय की तरह साक्ष्य का पुनः विश्लेषण व विवेचन करते हुए स्वयं के उससे भिन्न निष्कर्ष निकालने का क्षेत्रााध्किार नहीं है। जांच अध्किारी के निष्कर्षों के संदर्भ में उस स्थिति में हस्तक्षेप किया जा सकता है जब निष्कर्ष त्राुटिपूर्ण हो।
33. यह भी सुनिश्चित विध् िहै कि निष्कर्ष को त्राुटिपूर्ण तभी कहा जा सकता है जब निष्कर्ष किसी साक्ष्य पर आधरित नहीं है, या युक्तियुक्त रूप से जांच से संबंध्ति उपलब्ध् सामग्री के आधर पर जांच अध्किारी द्वारा निकाले गये निष्कर्षों पर पहुंचने के लिए कोई आधर नहीं है तथा निष्कर्ष Extraneous consideration के आधर पर निकाले गये हैं या जो निष्कर्ष निकाले गये हैं वो पूर्णतया अविश्वसनीय साक्ष्य के आधर पर हैं। यदि अभिलेख पर कुछ साक्ष्य हैं जो स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य हो तो उसके आधर पर निकाले निष्कर्षों को त्राुटिपूर्ण नहीं कहा जा सकता। साक्ष्य की अपर्याप्ता के आधर पर भी निष्कर्ष को त्राुटिपूर्ण नहीं माना जा सकता।
4202 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]34. वर्तमान मामले में जांच को ट्टजु एवं उचित पाया गया है तथा जांच अध्किारी द्वारा जो निष्कर्ष निकाले गये हैं वह अभिलेख पर उपलब्ध् साक्ष्य के आधर पर निकाले हैं तथा साक्ष्य का विवेचन व विश्लेषण भी किया है । इसलिए यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कि निष्कर्ष साक्ष्य पर आधरित नहीं है या निकाले गये निष्कर्षों पर पहुंचने के लिए कोई आधर ही नहीं था । यदि उपलब्ध् साक्ष्य के आधर पर भिन्न निष्कर्ष सम्भव भी हो तो इस आधर पर जांच अध्किारी द्वारा निकाले गये निष्कर्षों से असहमत होते हुए भिन्न निष्कर्ष नहीं निकाले जा सकते । मौखिक एवं परिस्थितजन्य साक्ष्य के आधर पर अध्सिभाव्यता की प्रबलता को देखा जाना था । आरोपों को सन्देह से पूरे साबित करना अपेक्षित नहीं था । साक्ष्य में कुछ बिन्दुओं पर विरोधभास या असंगतताओं या कुछ साक्षीगण की साक्ष्य की विश्वसनीयता सन्देहपूर्व होने के आधर पर शेष साक्ष्य को अस्वीकार नहीं किया जा सकता । इसलिए अपीलीय न्यायालय की राह साक्ष्य का पुनः विवेचन व विश्लेषण करते हुए वर्तमान मामले में जांच अध्किारी द्वारा निकाले गये निष्कर्षों से भिन्न निष्कर्ष निकालने का अध्किार इस न्यायाध्किरण को नहीं है । जांच अध्किारी के द्वारा उपलब्ध् साक्ष्य के आधर निकाले गये निष्कर्षों के सम्बन्ध् में अध्किरण यह कहते हुए भिन्न निष्कर्ष नहीं निकाल सकता कि उपलब्ध् साक्ष्य के आधर पर अन्य निष्कर्ष निकाला जाना भी सम्भव है ।
35. उपरोक्त विवेचन के अनुसार जांच अध्किारी द्वारा प्रमाणित पाये गये आरोपोें के सन्दर्भ में निकाले गये निष्कर्षों को त्राुटिपूर्ण नहीं पाया जा सकता ।
36. विद्वान प्रतिनिध् िप्रार्थी का तर्क है कि अपीलीय प्राध्किारी ने प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत लिखित बहस में उठाये गये बिन्दुओं पर विचार किये बिना ही जांच अध्किारी व अनुशासनिक प्राध्किारी के निष्कर्षों से सहमती जताते हुए आरोपों को प्रमाणित मान लिया अपीलीय प्राध्किारी द्वारा इन तथ्यों पर भी विचार नहीं किया कि प्रार्थी के विरु( समस्त कार्यवाही जल्दबाजी में की गई तथा प्रबन्ध्क ने द्वेषता के कारण मनगढ़त आरोप लगाए हैं तथा सहारा इण्डिया के प्रतिनिध् ि पर शिकायत लिखने हेतु अनुचित दबाव डाला गया । इसलिये अपीलीय प्राध्किारी के निष्कर्ष विध् िसम्मत नहीं है ।
37. विद्वान प्रतिनिध् िअप्रार्थी का कहना है कि अपीलीय प्राध्किारी ने प्रार्थी को सुनवाई का पर्याप्त अवसर देने एवं पत्राावली पर उपलब्ध् सभी तथ्यों पर गहन विचार करने के बाद जांच अध्किारी के निष्कर्षों से सहमती जताई है ।
38. उक्त तर्कों पर मनन किया अपीलीय प्राध्किारी के आदेश के अवलोकन से प्रगट होता है कि उसके द्वारा प्रार्थी के द्वारा प्रस्तुत लिखित बहस एवं उपलब्ध् मौखिक एवं प्रलेखिय साक्ष्य पर विचार करने एवं साक्ष्य का विवेचन करने के बाद ही आदेश पारित किया है । आदेश में प्रार्थी द्वारा दिनांक 31-3-2004 के दो पत्राों के जरिये जो लिखित बहस प्रस्तुत की गई उस पर विचार करने के तथ्य में उल्लेख है । आदेश के अवलोकन से प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी को व्यक्तिगत रूप से सुनवाई का अवसर दिया है तथा प्रार्थी के द्वारा जिन मुख्य बिन्दुओें को लिखित बहस में उठाया गया उन पर विचार करते हुए साक्ष्य का विवेचन कर विस्तृत आदेश पारित किया है । साक्षीगण लोकेश माथुर Mw-8 एवं गौतम चन्द्र मेहता Mw-9 की साक्ष्य का विवेचन करते हुए साक्ष्य को विश्वसनीय नहीं माना है तथा समस्त तथ्यों पर समग्र रूप से विचार करते हुए अनुशासनिक प्राध्किारी द्वारा दिए गये दण्ड में संशोध्न करते हुए सेवानिवृत्ति का लाभ देते हुए सेवा मुक्त के दण्ड से दण्डित किया है । इसलिए इस सम्बन्ध् में विद्वान प्रतिनिध् ि द्वारा प्रस्तुत तर्क स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है
39. दिनांक 25-11-2010 के आदेश द्वारा प्रार्थी के विरु( जॉच को ट्टजु ;fairद्ध व उचित पाया है तथा जांच अध्किारी द्वारा जांच के आधर पर जो निष्कर्ष निकाले गये हैं उन्हें भी त्राुटिपूर्ण होना नहीं पाया गया है, इसलिए विचारणीय प्रश्न यह रह जाता है कि क्या आरोपों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए अध्रिोपित दण्ड कठोर व अननुपातिक है ।
40. विद्वान प्रतिनिध् िप्रार्थी का कहना है अपीलीय प्राध्किारी ने अनुशासनिक अध्किारी द्वारा आरोपित किए गए बर्खास्तगी के दण्डादेश को यद्यपि कम करके नवीनीकृत किया है और प्रार्थी को सेवानिवृत्ति परिलाभ दिलाए गए हैं लेकिन प्रार्थी के विरु( ऐसे गम्भीर दुराचरण का मामला नहीं है जिसके कारण बैंक को अपूर्तनीय या मौद्रिक क्षति हुई हो । प्रार्थी लगभग 16 वर्षों से बैंक सेवा में या लगभग इतनी ही अवध् िसेवा में शेष थी । पूर्व में किसी दुराचरण के मामले में दोषी मानने का मामला भी नहीं था, इसलिये सेवा से हटाए जाने का दण्ड ़आरोपित किया जाना न्याय सम्मत नहीं कहा जा सकता । अपने तर्कों के समर्थन में ;2010द्ध 2 SCC Page 236, ;2009द्ध ;1द्ध RLW 1312(Raj.). (1998) (II) LLJ, 923 (Kerala), 1994 (I) LLJ 586 (J &K), 1983, (I) SLR, 628, 1983 FLR (62) 100 (SC), 1984 FLR (64) 433 (SC), 1996 (I) LLN 14 (SC), 1997 (I) LLN 69 (SC), 2005 (100) FLR 1218 (SC) के दृष्टान्तों को प्रस्तुत किया है ।
41. उक्त तर्कों के विरोध् में विद्वान प्रतिनिध् िअप्रार्थी का तर्क है कि प्रार्थी को दिया गया सेवामुक्ति का दण्ड उचित एवं वैध् है तथा प्रार्थी के विरु( आरोपों की गम्भीरता के अनुपात में है । उनका यह भी कहना है कि बैंक जैसे वित्तीय संस्थान में ग्राहकों की जमाये स्वीकार नहीं करना शाखा प्रबंध्क के निर्देशों के बाद भी ग्राहकों की राशि जमा नहीं करना तथा प्रबंध्क के साथ दुव्र्यवहार गम्भीर दुराचरण है । इसलिए ऐसे मामले में आरोपित दण्ड में कोई हस्तक्षेप करने का कोई उचित आधर नहीं है । इस सम्बन्ध् में उन्होंने 1996, LLR, 1129 (SC), 2006 LLR, 252 (SC), 2005 LLR, 360, (SC), 2006 LLR, 415 (Kerala), 2011 LLR, 934 (Karnataka), 2006 LLR, 296 (SC) 2005 LLR, 878 (Kerala) के दृष्टान्तों को प्रस्तुत किया है।
42. मैंने उक्त तर्कों एवं प्रस्तुत दृष्टान्तों में प्रतिपादित सि(ान्तों
पर मनन किया ।
43. यह कानूनी स्थिति विवादित नहीं है कि औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम की 1947 की धरा 11-A के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों के अन्तर्गत जहां किसी श्रमिक की सेवान्मुक्ति या पदच्युति के सम्बन्ध् में कोई मामला हो तो न्यायनिर्णयन की कार्यवाहियों के अनुक्रम में[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4203 अध्किरण के यह समाधन होने पर की सेवान्मुक्ति या पदच्युति का आदेश न्यायोचित नहीं है, वहां वह अपने अध्नििर्णय द्वारा ऐसे आदेश को अपास्त कर ऐसे दण्ड के बदले न्यूनतर दण्ड दे सकता है, जैसे कि मामले की परिस्थिति में अपेक्षित हो ।
44. दोनों पक्ष के विद्वान प्रतिनिध्गिण ने अपने तर्कों के समर्थन में 1996, LLR, 1129 (SC) एवं 2005 LLR 360 (SC), न्यायदृष्टान्तों को पेश किया है ।
45. 1996 में, LLR 1129 (SC) NEW SHORROK MILLS V/s. MAHESHBHAI T. RAO के मामले में बदली श्रमिक ने उपप्रबन्ध्क के कमरे में जाकर गालियो दी तथा ध्मकी दी की मिल के अध्किारी मिलके बाहर सुरक्षित नहीं रहेंगे । यदि चार-पांच अधिकारियों की हत्या के लिए उसे जेेल जाना पडे़ तो भी वह परवाह नहीं करता । उसे सेवा से उन्मोचित करने के दण्ड से दण्ड़ित किया गया था, लेकिन उक्त श्रमिक को पूर्व में भी कई बार ऐसे दुराचरण के मामले में दण्ड़ित किया गया था । उक्त परिस्थितियों में माननीय सर्वोत्तम न्यायालय ने उन्मोचित करने के दण्ड़ को अननुपातिक नहीं माना । इसी प्रकार 2005 LLR 360 ;SCद्धMAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. V/s. N.B. NARAVADE, etc.में श्रमिक पर भद्दी भाषा में उच्च अध्किारियों को गाली-गलौच करने का मामला था लेकिन उक्त मामले में भी श्रमिक को पूर्व में एक से अध्कि बार चार्जशीट दी गई थी तथा उनमें से एक श्रमिक पर पाइप से अपने साथी पर हमला कर गम्भीर चोट पहुंचाने का आरोप था इसलिए, माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने उसके समस्त आचरण को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए सेवा से बर्खास्तगी के दण्ड को अनुपातिक नहीं माना ।
46. 2011 LLR 934 Karnatka State Road Transport Corporation, V/s. P. Selvaraj. के मामले में अपचारी पर उच्च अध्किारियों से अभद्र गाली-गलौच करने, दुव्र्यवहार करने व उन पर हमला करने व कॉर्पोरेशन की सम्पत्ति को नुकसान पहुंचाने के आरोप थे व इससे पूर्व भी छः दुराचरण के मामलों में उसको लघु दण्ड़ से दण्ड़ित किया गया था । उक्त परिस्थितियों में उपचारी को नौकरी से बर्खास्त करने के दण्ड को उचित माना । 2006 LLR 415 (Kerala)South Indian Bank V/s. V.G. Krishan Kumar & Another में ब्रान्च मैनेजर के साथ गाली-गलौच करने का आरोप साबित पाया गया था तथा पूर्व में भी इस तरह का दुव्र्यवहार करने का आरोप था ।
47. उपरोक्त प्रकरणों में सम्बन्ध्ति अपचारीगण का पूर्व आचरण भी खराब रहा था तथा पूर्व में भी दुराचरण के मामले उनके विरु( थे । पर वर्तमान मामले में प्रार्थी के पूर्व आचरण खराब रहने या पूर्व में किसी प्रकार का दुव्र्यवहार करने का कोई तथ्य अभिलेख पर नहीं आया है । अतः वर्तमान मामले के तथ्य उपरोक्त दृष्टान्तों के तथ्यों से भिन्न है । इसी प्रकार दृष्टान्त 2006 LLR 252, कर्नाटका बैंक बनाम ए. एल. मोहन राव के मामले के ट्टण जिसे दिया जाना था, उसे ट्टण न देकर किसी अन्य को पफर्जी ट्टण देने हेतु षड़यन्त्रा करने का मामला था । 2006 LLR 296 L.K. Verma V/s. HMT Ltd. के मामले में भद््दी गालियां देने के अलावा एक ही अवध् ि में ंदो भिन्न-भिन्न जगह कानपुर एवं रायबरेली में क्रमशः डिप्लोमा कोर्स करने तथा इण्डियन टेलीपफोन इण्ड््स्टीज में काम करने व एक ही समय में इलाहाबाद में शपथ-पत्रा औथ-कमीश्नर के समक्ष तस्दीक करवाने व कारखाने मेंं उपस्थिति दिखाने के आरोप भी थे । इसलिए मामलों में सेवा से हटाने के दण्ड को अननुपातिक माना । अतः इनके तथ्य भी वर्तमान मामले से भिन्न हैं ।
48. 2005 LLN ;3द्ध 238 ;गुजरातद्ध में आदतन सह-श्रमिकों एवं उच्च अध्किारियों के साथ दुव्र्यवहार करने व गाली-गलोच करने के मामले में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय ने प्रतिपादित किया कि सुधरने का अवसर उसी परिस्थितियों में दिया जा सकता है कि जब दुव्र्यवहार का पहला मामला हो । आदतन दुव्र्यवहार करने के साथ कोई नरमी नहीं बरती जा सकती । उक्त न्याय दृृष्टान्त से विद्वान प्रतिनिध् िप्रार्थी के इस तर्क को समर्थन मिलता है, कि जहां पूर्व आचरण अच्छा रहा हो तथा अपचारी पर दुव्र्यवहार करने का कोई पहला मामला हो तो दण्ड देने के मामले में उदारता बरती जा सकती है ।
49. 1994 F.J.R. (64) 442 (S.C.) VED PRAKASH GUPTA V/s. DELTON CABLE INDIA PRIVATE LTD. के मामले में अपचारी पर निम्न आरोप था :-
''That on 1-8-1979 as per instructions of IMI department, one Mr. Hira Lal, the worker of IMI department, was sent to the gate office in-connection with a challan of a water pump. As the worker, i. e. said Mr. Hira Lal, did not come back to IMI department for quite some time, Mr. S.K. Bagga, Junior Engineer of IMI department personally went to the gate office. He (S.K. Bagga) apprised Mr. Deep Chand, Senior Security Officer, of the irresponsible manner in which you delivered the challan to the person of M/s. Gurumukh Dass instead of to IMI department. When Mr. Deep Chand further verified this fact from you, you showed ignorance and demanded to know the name of the person who had said so. When informed that it was Durg Singh you without any rhyme or reason or provocation abused Shri Durg Singh in a filthy manner saying (translated in English as -I fuck the mother of Durg Singh; bring him). You were advised that being a responsible employee and that too belonging to the security department, you should not abuse any employee but you continued in hot temper and demanded Mr. Durg Singh to be called in the gate office. When Shri Durg Singh was brought and in your presence he once again confirmed and reiterated that you had given the challan to the person of M/s. Gurumukh Dass, you lost all your senses and started abusing Shri S.K. Bagga left and right in as filthy derogatory and abusive manner. You said (translated in English as-you should try hard to your gandh; you cannot do anything wrong to meet you may go to Ram Kumar or you may go to Vijay Kumar).
4204 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]50. उक्त मामले में उक्त आरोप के सन्दर्भ में दण्ड़ के सम्बन्ध् में विचार करते हुए माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने यह अभिनिर्धरित किया है किः—
''There is nothing on record to show that any previous adverse remark against the appellant had been taken into consideration by the management for awarding the extreme penalty of dismissal from service to the appellant even if he had in fact abused in filthy language Durg Singh and S.K. Bagga. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the punishment awarded to the appellant is shockingly disproportionate regard being had to the charge framed against him. We are also of the opinion that no responsible employer would ever impose in like circumstances the punishment of dismissal to the employee and that victimization or unfair labour practice could well be inferred from the conduct of the management in awarding the extreme punishment of dismissal for a flimsy charge of abuse of some worker or officer of the management by the appellant within the premises of the factory. We, therefore, hold that the termination of the appellant's service is invalid and unsustainable in law."
51. 1996 (1) LLN 14 Ram Kishan V/s. Union of India and Others में पुलिस के सिपाही द्वारा उच्च अध्किारी को गाली देने का मामला था । दण्ड की अननुपातिकता पर विचार करते हुए माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने यह अभिनिर्धरित किया है किः-
''When abusive language in used by any body against a superior, it must be understood in the environment in which that person is situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that led to the use of the abusive language. No straight-jacket formula could be evolved in adjudging whether the abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant dismissal from service, Each case has to be considered on its own facts."
''What was the nature of the abusive language used by the appellant was not stated. On the facts of this case held that dismissal from service is harsh and disproportionate to gravity of charge. Imposition of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect would be appropriate punishment."
52. 1983 FLR (62) 100 (SC) रमाकान्त मिश्रा बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य के मामले में वेतन में अनुपस्थिति व विलम्ब से उपस्थित होने के सम्बन्ध् में कटौती करने से नाराज होकर अपचारी ने उच्च अध्किारी को निम्न अभद्र शब्द कहे थे :-
''Are other persons your father ? I will make you forget your high handeness either here or somewhere else. An Officer of yesterday's making discloses power consciousness"
53. माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने उक्त आरोप के लिए सेवा से बर्खास्तगी के आदेश को उचित नहीं मानते हुए अभिनिर्धरित किया है किः-
''Appellant was Secretary of the workmen's Union. The respondent-management has not shown that there was any blameworthy conduct of the appellant during the period of 14 years service he rendered prior to the date of misconduct and the misconduct consists of language indiscreet, improper of disclosing a threatening posture. When it is said that language discloses a threatening posture it is the subjective conclusion of the person who hears the language because voice modulation of each person in the society differs and indiscreet, improper, abusive language may show lack of culture but merely the use of such language on one occasion unconnected with any subsequent positive action and not preceded by any blameworthy conduct cannot permit an extreme penalty of dismissal from service. Therefore, we are satisfied that the order of dismissal was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and the Court must interfere."
54. अध्निियम की धरा 11-A के अन्तर्गत उन्मोचन या हटाये जाने के स्थान पर कम दण्ड अध्रिोपित करने की शक्ति अध्किरण को प्रदत्त की गई है । यह सही है कि अनुशासनात्मक प्राध्किारी द्वारा अध्रिोपित किए गये दण्ड के साथ हस्तक्षेप करने की यह शक्ति सीमित हेै । यह भी सही है कि दण्ड को असंगत होना या अन्य कोई अल्पीकरण परिस्थिति या कर्मकार का पूर्व आचरण जैसे कारणों के अभाव में केवल सहानुभूति के आधर पर उक्त प्रदत्त शक्ति का प्रयोग करना अपेक्षित नहीं है । लेकिन जहाँ सेवा से उन्मोचित से अध्रिोपित दण्ड आरोपों को देखते हुए दण्ड कठोर व अनुपातिक हो तो माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के उक्त न्यायदृष्टान्तों में प्रतिपादित सि(ान्तों के अनुसार उसे कम दण्ड़ में परिवतत किया जा सकता है ।
55. वर्तमान मामले में प्रार्थी पर आरोप था कि उसने सहारा इण्ड़िया के प्रतिनिध् िसे नकद राशि प्राप्त कर जमा करने से इन्कार किया तथा मैनेजर के निर्देश दिये जाने के बाद उस राशि को जमा किया । उस पर यह भी आरोप था कि उसने R.S.R.T.C. के प्रतिनिध् िसे भी नकद राशि प्राप्त कर जमा करने की बजाय उसे ब्रान्च मैनेजर से सम्पर्क करने के लिए कहा । वह उसके द्वारा निर्देश देने के बाद भी राशि को जमा नहीं किया गया तथा लिखित निर्देश दिेए जाने से उत्तेजित होकर ब्रान्च मैनेजर के साथ गाली-गलौच वाले शब्दों का प्रयोग किया । आरोप में यह नहीं बताया गया है कि किन गाली-गलौच वाले शब्दों का प्रयोग किया गया । इसके अलावा प्रार्थी की लम्बी सेवा अवध् िके दौरान पूर्व में उसके द्वारा दुव्र्यवहार करने के कोई तथ्य अभिलेख पर नहीं आए हैं । प्रार्थी पर किसी राशि का दुवनियोग करने या अप्रार्थी को धेखा कारित करने का मामला नहीं है । अतः वर्तमान मामले में प्रार्थी पर जो आरोप साबित पाये गये हैं उनको[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 3, 2013/श्रावण 12, 1935 4205 दृष्टिगत रखते हुए प्रार्थी को सेवा में उन्मोचित करने का दण्ड़ कठोर व अनुपातिक होना प्रतीत होता है ।
56. प्रार्थी को जिन आरोपों के लिए दोषसि( पाया है उनको देखते हुए उस पर अध्रिोपित सेवा से उन्मुक्त करने का दण्ड कठोर एवं अननुपातिक है तथा प्रार्थी का पूर्व सेवा रेकार्ड बेदाग नहीं रहा या पूर्व आचरण खराब रहा हो ऐसा भी कोई अभिकथन प्रार्थी के विरु( नहीं है, इसलिए समस्त तथ्यों पर समग्र रूप से विचार करते हुए प्रार्थी को सेवा से उन्मोचित करने के अध्रिोपित दण्ड को अपास्त कर बिना बकाया वेतन से सेवा में बहाल करते हुए तीन वाषक-वृ(ि संचयी प्रभाव से रोकने का दण्ड दिया जाना न्यायोचित होगा ।
57. तदनुसार, यह तय किया जाता है कि प्रार्थी को सेवा से 'डिस्चार्ज' करने का दण्ड कठोर व अननुपातिक होने के कारण आदेश दिनांक 6-4-2004 द्वारा अध्रिोपित दण्ड़ न्यायोचित नहीं है । उक्त आदेश में अध्रिोपित दण्ड को अपास्त कर प्रार्थी पर उसे देय तीन वाषक वेतन वृ(ियाँ संचयी प्रभाव से रोकने का दण्ड़ अध्रिोपित किया जाता है । प्रार्थी सेवा में निरन्तरता के साथ पुनः बहाल होने का अध्किारी है । तथापि, प्रार्थी बकाया वेतन की राशि प्राप्त करने का अध्किारी नहीं होगा । न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु प्रेषित निर्देश ;रेपफरेन्सद्धका उत्तर उक्त प्रकार दिया जाता है । पंचाट तदानुसार पारित किया जाता है ।
59. पंचाट की प्रतिलिपि केन्द्रीय सरकार को औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 की धरा 17;1द्ध के अन्तर्गत प्रकाशनार्थ प्रेषित की जावे ।
एन. के. पुरोहित, पीठासीन अध्किारी
नई दिल्ली, 16 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1610.—केन्द्र सरकार, सूचना का अध्किार अध्निियम, 2005 ;2005 की संख्या 22द्ध की धरा 2 ;गद्ध के साथ पठित धरा 5;1द्ध के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और दिनांक 11 जनवरी, 2011 की समसंख्यक अध्सिूचना का अध्क्रिमण करते हुए श्रम और रोजगार मंत्राालय में श्री चानन राम, निदेशक, श्रम और रोजगार मंत्राालय को इस मंत्राालय और इस मंत्राालय के संरक्षण के अध्ीन संब( कार्यालयों/स्वायत संगठनों के संबंध् में नोडल अध्किारी के रूप में नामोदिष्ट करती है और वह इस मंत्राालय के संरक्षण के अध्ीन जन प्राध्किारियों द्वारा की गई सभी कार्रवाइयों का समन्वयन भी करेंगे तथा उक्त अध्निियम के प्रयोजनार्थ कार्य कर रहे केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अध्किारियों ;सीपीआईओद्ध तथा सहायक केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अध्किारियों ;सीपीआईओद्ध को नामोदिष्ट करने के बारे में श्रम और रोजगार मंत्राालय के अंतर्गत जन प्राधिकारियों द्वारा की गई कार्रवाइयों का समन्वय भी करेंगे ।
2. नोडल अध्किारी के साथ आरटीआई और विध्कि प्रकोष्ठ, सूचना का अध्किार अध्निियम, 2005 के अन्तर्गत सभी केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अध्किारियों की तरपफ से अनुरोधें को प्राप्त करने हेतु प्राध्किारियों के साथ केन्द्रीय बिन्दु होंगे तथा उन्हें संबंध्ति जन सूचना अध्किारी को अग्रेषित करेेंेगे । श्रम और रोजगार मंत्राालय ;मुख्य सचिवालयद्ध से संबंध्ति सूचना प्राप्त करने हेतु अनुरोध् धरा 6 की उप-धरा ;1द्ध के अंतर्गत उचित रसीद के माध्यम से नकद अथवा वेतन एवं लेखा अध्किारी ;मुख्य सचिवालयद्ध श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्राालय को देय डिमांड ड्राफ्रट अथवा बैंकर्स चैक अथवा भारतीय पोस्टल आर्डर द्वारा दस ;10द्ध रुपये के आवेदन शुल्क के साथ भेजे जाएं ।
3. डॉ. अनूप चन्द पाण्डे, संयुक्त सचिव, भारत सरकार अगले आदेशों तक श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्राालय के संबंध् में सूचना का अध्किार अध्निियम, 2005 की धरा 19;1द्ध के प्रयोजनार्थ वरिष्ठ अध्किारी रहेंगे ।
4. यह सचिव, श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्राालय के अनुमोदन से जारी
किया जाता है ।
[सं. जैड-20025/18/2005-प्रशा. I]
पवन कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 16th July, 2013
S.O. 1610.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5(1) read with Section 2(C) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (No. 22 of 2005) and in supersession of Notification of even number date 11th January 2011, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour and Employment designate Shri Chanan Ram, Director, Ministry of Labour and Employment as Nodal Officer for the purpose of Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect to this Ministry and Attached offices/Autonomous organizations under the aegis of this Ministry and will also co-ordinate all actions taken up by the public authorites under the aegis of this Ministry and will also coordinate all actions taken up by the public authorities under the Ministry of Labour and Employment regarding designating the CPIOs and ACP IOs for carring out the purpose of the said act.
2. RTI & Legal cell along with Nodal Officer will be the Central point with the authority to receive the requests under the RTI Act, 2005 on behalf of all CPIOs and forward the same to the cocerned CPIO. A request for obtaining information pertaining to Ministry of Labour and Employment (Main Sectt.) under section (1) of section 6 shall be accompanied by an application fee of Rupees ten (10) by way of cash through proper receipt or by Demand Draft of Bankers Cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to PAO (MS), Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shram Shakti, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001.
3. Dr. Anoop Chander Pandey, Joint Secretary to the Government of India shall continue to be Senior Officer for the purpose of section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to Ministry of Labour and
Employment till further orders.
4. This has the approval of Secretary, Ministry of
Labour and Employment.
[No. Z-20025/18/2005-Adm.I]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
4206 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 3, 2013/SRAVANA 12, 1935 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]नई दिल्ली, 23 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1611.—राष्ट्रपति, सुश्री के. पी. प्रसन्ना कुमारी, को 17-7-2013 ;पूर्वाह्नद्ध से केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक न्यायाध्किरण-सह श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई, के पीठासीन अध्किारी के रूप में 11-09-2017 तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, नियुक्त करते हैं ।
[सं. ए-11016/2/2012-सीएलएस-II]
राजेश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2013
S.O. 1611.—The President is pleased to appoint Ms. K. P. Prasanna Kumari as Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai w.e.f. 17-07-2013 (F.N.) for a period upto 11-09-2017 or until further orders, which is earlier.
[No. A-11016/2/2012-CLS-II]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 26 जुलाई, 2013
का.आ. 1612.—जबकि मैसर्स इंडियन एक्सप्लोसिव्स लि. [कोड संख्या डब्ल्यू बी/8217 के अंतर्गत एसआरओ हावडा में] ;एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदभतद्ध ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निध्ि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध् अध्निियम, 1962 ;1962 का 19द्ध ;एतदुपरान्त अध्निियम के रूप में संदभतद्ध की धरा 17 की उप-धरा ;1द्ध के खण्ड ;कद्ध के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन किया है ।
2. और जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार के विचार में, अंशदान की दरों के संबंध् में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निध् ि नियम उक्त अध्निियम की धरा 6 में विनिदष्ट नियमों की तुलना में कर्मचारियों के लिए कम उपयुक्त नहीं हैं और कर्मचारी उक्त अध्निियम अथवा कर्मचारी भविष्य निध् ियोजना, 1952 ;एतदुपरांत योजना के रूप में संदभतद्धके अंतर्गत सदृश स्वरूप के किसी अन्य प्रतिष्ठान में कर्मचारियों के संबंध् में दी जाने वाली अन्य भविष्य निध् िप्रसुविधओं का भी लाभ उठा रहे हैं ।
3. अतः केन्द्रीय सरकार, अब उक्त अध्निियम की धरा 17 की उप-धरा ;1द्ध के खण्ड ;कद्ध द््वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए इस संबंध् में समय-समय पर विनिदष्ट शर्तों के अध्यध्ीन, उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को 1-5-1962 से अगली अध्सिूचना तक उक्त योजना के सभी उपबंधें के प्रभाव से छूट प्रदान करती है ।
[सं. एस-35015/16/2013-एसएस-II]
सुभाष कुुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2013
S.O. 1612.—Whereas M/s. Indian Explosives Ltd. [under Code No. WB/8217 in SRO, Howrah] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952 ) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other establishment of similar character.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard from time to time, the Central Government, hereby exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01-05-1962 until further notification.
[No. S-35015/16/2013-SS-II]
SUBHASH KUMAR, Under Secy.
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.