2333 GI/2018

(3549)

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 17]

ubZ fnYyh] vizSy 29—ebZ 5] 2018] 'kfuokj@oS'kk[k 9—oS'kk[k 15] 1940

No. 17]

NEW DELHI, APRIL 29—MAY 5, 2018, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 9—VAISAKHA 15, 1940

bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

राीय भारत प रवत न संथा

राीय भारत प रवत न संथा

राीय भारत प रवत न संथा

राीय भारत प रवत न संथा

नई दली, 1 मई, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 692

692

692

692.—रा ीय भारत परवतन संथा के गठन से संबंिधत दनांक 01/01/2015 के मंि$मंडल संकप सं.

511/2/1/2015-मंि$मंडल और आवासन और शहरी काय मं$ालय के दनांक 19/04/2018 के कायालय .ापन सं. 22011/4/2018-

पीओएल.III के तहत संसूिचत उ2रवत3 अनुमोदन के अनुसरण म8, नीित आयोग कायालय भवन को नीित भवन के 9प म8 नािमत कया

जाता है।

[एफ. डी-25015/19/2018-सामा:य IV]

अजय जोशी, अवर सिचव

NATIONAL INSTITUTION FOR TRANSFORMING INDIA

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2018

S.O. 692.—In pursuance of the Cabinet Resolution No. 511/2/1/2015-Cab. dated 01/01/2015 constituting the

National Institution for Transforming India and with the subsequent approval of Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs

conveyed vide their Office Memorandum No. 22011/4/2018-Pol.III dated 19/04/2018, the building that houses NITI

Aayog is named as NITI Bhawan.

[F. D-25015/19/2018-General.IV]

AJAY JOSHI, Under Secy.

3550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

उपभोा मामले, खा और साव जिनक िवतरण मं ालय

उपभोा मामले, खा और साव जिनक िवतरण मं ालय

उपभोा मामले, खा और साव जिनक िवतरण मं ालय

उपभोा मामले, खा और साव जिनक िवतरण मं ालय

(उपभोा मामले िवभाग)

(उपभोा मामले िवभाग)

(उपभोा मामले िवभाग)

(उपभोा मामले िवभाग)

(भारतीय मानक !यूरो

भारतीय मानक !यूरो

भारतीय मानक !यूरो

भारतीय मानक !यूरो)

नई द ली, 20 अ;ैल, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 693

693

693

693.—भारतीय मानक = यूरो (;माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम (4) के उपिविनयम (5) के अनुसरण म8 भारतीय

मानक = यूरो एत?ारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िजन लाइस8सB के िववरण नीचे अनुसूची म8 दए गए हC, वे  वीकृत कर दए गए हC:-

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

Fम

संG या

लाइस8स संG या

 वीकृत करने

कH ितिथ

लाइस8सधारी का नाम

व प2ा

भारतीय मानक

का शीषक

भा मा

भाग

अनु

वष

1.

एल-

9590007923

02.02.2018

मै0 ;दीप J वैलस 36,

1एफ/42, बी. पी., बस  टैN ड के

सामने, एन आई टी ,

िजला फरीदाबाद – 121001,

हरयाणा

 वण एवं  वण

िमOधातु

आभूषण/िश प

व तुP –

महीनता एवं

मुहरांकन

1417

-

-

2016

2.

एल-

9590008024

02.02.2018

मै0 ;दीप J वैलस 36,

1एफ/42, बी. पी., बस  टैN ड के

सामने, एन. आई. टी.,

िजला फरीदाबाद – 121001,

हरयाणा

चQदी एवं चQदी

िमOधातु

आभूषण/िश प

व तुP –

महीनता एवं

मुहरांकन

2112

-

-

2014

3.

एल-

9590008125

02.02.2018

मै0 Oी R याम J वैलस,

लाला मनीराम माSकट,

भगत Tसंह चौक के नज़दीक,

सोहना रोड,

ध9हेड़ा,

िजला रेवाड़ी – 123106,

हरयाणा

 वण एवं  वण

िमOधातु

आभूषण/िश प

व तुP –

महीनता एवं

मुहरांकन

1417

-

-

2016

4.

एल-

9590008226

02.02.2018

मै0 Oी R याम J वैलस,

लाला मनीराम माSकट,

भगत Tसंह चौक के नज़दीक,

सोहना रोड,

ध9हेड़ा,

िजला रेवाड़ी – 123106,

हरयाणा

चQदी एवं चQदी

िमOधातु

आभूषण/िश प

व तुP –

महीनता एवं

मुहरांकन

2112

-

-

2014

5.

एल-

9512399120

06.02.2018

मै0 द खाटू R याम कॉपरेटव

लेबर एN ड कं [\ शंस,

जटवास, डाकघर महै: ^गढ़,

िजला महै: ^गढ़ – 123029,

हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए पूव

ढिलत कंFHट = लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

6.

एल-

9512399221

06.02.2018

मै0 Oी कृ` णा टाइल एN ड

िबTडंग मैटीरयल,

गQव िमरज़ापुर, डाकघर बछौड़,

अटेली,

िजला महै: ^गढ़ – 123021,

खड़ंजे के िलए पूव

ढिलत कंFHट = लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3551

हरयाणा

7.

एल-

9512399322

06.02.2018

मै0 डीकेएम [ेTडंग कa पनी,

जुरहेरा रोड, तहसील पु: हाना,

िजला मेवात – 122508,

हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए पूव

ढिलत कंFHट = लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

8.

एल-

9512399625

16.02.2018

मै0 रहान टाइ स एण् ड बी.

एम. एस.,

ईद गे, गुमट रोड, नगीना,

िजला मेवात,

हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए पूव

ढिलत कंFHट = लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

9.

एल-

9512402115

16.02.2018

मै0 सूधीर पावर िलिमटड,

b लॉट नं0 92, सै\ टर - 8,

आईएमटी मनेसर,

िजला गुड़गQव - 122050,

हरयाणा

बाहय रंग तेल

इa मेसड िवतरण

[ांसफामर भाग 1

िमनरल तेल

िनिमिdत

1180

01

-

2014

10.

एल-

9590008319

16.02.2018

मै0 डी. एन. J वैलस,

शॉप नं0 186, स= ज़ी मN डी के

नज़दीक,

22 फHट रोड, संजय कालोनी,

सै\ टर - 23,

िजला फरीदाबाद – 121005,

हरयाणा

 वण एवं  वण

िमOधातु

आभूषण/िश प

व तुP –

महीनता एवं

मुहरांकन

1417

-

-

2016

11.

एल-

9590008420

16.02.2018

मै0 डी. एन. J वैलस,

शॉप नं0 186, स= ज़ी मN डी के

नज़दीक,

22 फHट रोड, संजय कालोनी,

सै\ टर 23,

िजला फरीदाबाद – 121005,

हरयाणा

चQदी एवं चQदी

िमOधातु

आभूषण/िश प

व तुP –

महीनता एवं

मुहरांकन

2112

-

-

2014

12.

एल-

9590008521

16.02.2018

मै0 सोनी J वैलस,

सुनारB वाली गली, रेलवे रोड,

िजला रोहतक,

हरयाणा

 वण एवं  वण

िमOधातु

आभूषण/िश प

व तुP –

महीनता एवं

मुहरांकन

1417

-

-

2016

13.

एल-

9512399726

19.02.2018

मै0 देव [ेTडंग कa पनी,

एनए, धरसून रोड,

नसीबपुर, नारनौल,

िजला महैन^गढ़ – 123001,

हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए पूव

ढिलत कंFHट = लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

14.

एल-

9512400313

19.02.2018

मै0 करन िब डटैक,

लखी Tसंह नंगला रोड,

गQव जनौली,

िजला पलवल – 121102,

हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए पूव

ढिलत कंFHट = लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

15.

एल-

9512400919

22.02.2018

मै0 इको बैवरेिजस,

खसरा नं0 28/9,

जेपीएस रेज़ीडCसी से  टटा fआ,

पैकेजब: द पेय जल

(पैकेजब: द ;ाकृितक

14543

-

-

2004

3552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सै\ टर 8 के सामने, आईएमटी

मानेसर,

िजला गुड़गQव – 122050,

हरयाणा

िमनरल जल के

अलावा)

16.

एल-

9512401113

19.02.2018

मै0 अgवाल कंFHट,

गQव नवादा, आईएमटी

ब लभगढ़ के पीछे,

िजला फरीदाबाद –

121004, हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए पूव

ढिलत कंFHट = लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

17.

एल-

9512399827

20.02.2018

मै0 के. डी. [ेTडंग कa पनी,

वी. पी. ओ. रh ता कलां,

तहसील अटेली,

िजला महै: ^गढ़ – 123021,

हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए पूव

ढिलत कंFHट = लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

18.

एल-

9512399928

20.02.2018

मै0 सु: दर पाल िबTडंग

मैटीरयल एN ड वाटर

सपलायर, गQव पथेरा,

तहसील महै: ^गढ़,

िजला महै: ^गढ़ – 123034,

हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए पूव

ढिलत कंFHट = लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

19.

एल-

9512400515

20.02.2018

मै0 एसआईएफए [ेTडंग कं0,

1, चQदका, 140,

िजला मेवात – 122508,

हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए पूव

ढिलत कंFHट = लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

20.

एल-

9512400616

20.02.2018

मै0 िशव [ेTडंग कं0,

गQव गाहरा,

िजला महै: ^गढ़ – 123027,

हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए पूव

ढिलत कंFHट = लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

21.

एल-

9512400717

20.02.2018

मै0 Oी R याम टाइ स कa पनी,

दादरी सतनाली रोड,

एचपी पै[ोल पa प के नज़दीक,

कादमा, चरखी दादरी,

िजला िभवानी - 127308,

हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए पूव

ढिलत कंFHट = लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

22.

एल-

9512400212

21.02.2018

मै0 वीजेएन िबTडंग मैटीरयल

एN ड टाइल उiोग,

सन रोड के नज़दीक,

वीपीओ बोN ड कलां,

िजला िभवानी –

127025, हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए पूव

ढिलत कंFHट = लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

23.

एल-

9512400818

22.02.2018

मै0 यादव िबTडंग मैटीरयल

एN ड टाइल उiोग,

हाउTसंग बोड के सामने, राम

नगर,

खड़ंजे के िलए पूव

ढिलत कंFHट = लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3553

गली नं0 1, नसीबपुर,

नारनौल,

िजला महै: ^गढ़ – 123001,

हरयाणा

24.

एल-

9512401012

22.02.2018

मै0 महलावत िब डस,

सतनाली चौक के नज़दीक,

सतनाली रोड,

िजला महै: ^गढ़ – 123029,

हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए पूव

ढिलत कंFHट = लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

25.

एल-

9512401618

22.02.2018

मै0 Oी R याम जी िब डस,

सतनाली रोड, गQव िडकरोटा,

िजला महै: ^गढ़ - 123024,

हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए पूव

ढिलत कंFHट = लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

26.

एल-

9512400414

23.02.2018

मै0 यादव िबTडंग मैटीरयल

सपलाई एN ड आरबीएम पेवस

इ: टरलोक,

चQद नगर रोड, मेन हेलीमN डी

रोड,

फा9ख नगर,

िजला गुड़गQव – 122001,

हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए पूव

ढिलत कंFHट = लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

27.

एल-

9512401214

27.02.2018

मै0 जय Oी बालाजी इN ड [ीस,

वीपीओ-िसवानी ,

िजला िभवानी - 127046

हरयाणा

Tसंचाई उप कर -

T;ंकलर पाइप

भाग 1

पोलीइिथलीन पाइप

14151

01

-

1999

28.

एल-

9512401315

27.02.2018

मै0 जय Oी बालाजी इN ड [ीस,

वीपीओ-िसवानी ,

िजला िभवानी - 127046

हरयाणा

Tसंचाई उप कर -

T;ंकलर पाइप

भाग 2 सहज

संयोगी

पोलीइिथलीन पाइप

तथा फkटंl स

14151

02

-

2008

29.

एल-

9512401416

27.02.2018

मै0 एम के इN ड [ीस,

b लॉट नं0 218, राजीव

कालोनी,

समयपुर रोड,

ब लभगढ़,

िजला फरीदाबाद – 121004,

हरयाणा

िनमJ जनीय

पa पसेट

8034

-

-

2002

30.

एल-

9512402519

27.02.2018

मै0 आरएस फलाई एश िm\ स

उiोग,

वीपीओ लोहारी जटु, तहसील

भवानी खेड़ा,

िजला िभवानी - 127032,

हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए पूव

ढिलत कंFHट = लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

3554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

31.

एल-

9512400018

28.02.2018

मै0 िज: दल सैनीटेरीवेयर ;ा0

िल0.,

43 केएम माइल  टोन, वीपीओ

रोहद,

िजला झJ जर – 124501,

हरयाणा

पेय जल कH पूoत के

िलए असुघटयत पी

वी सी पाइप

4985

-

-

2000

32.

एल-

9512400111

28.02.2018

मै0 िज: दल सैनीटेरीवेयर ;ा0

िल0.,

43 केएम माइल  टोन, वीपीओ

रोहद,

िजला झJ जर – 124501,

हरयाणा

संवातन और वषा

जल संgहण के तं$

सिहत भवनB के

अ: दर व बाहर कH

िमटटी तथा

अपिश` ट िनरावेशन

तं$ के िलए

अनa यकृत

पोलीिवनाइल

\ लोराइड (पी वी

सी – यू) पाइप8

13592

-

-

2013

33.

एल-

9512401517

28.02.2018

मै0 धनखर इ: टर;ाइिसस,

सतनाली सुरजगढ़ रोड,

सतनाली,

िजला महै: ^गढ़ – 123024,

हरयाणा

खड़ंजे के िलए पूव

ढिलत कंFHट = लॉक

15658

-

-

2006

[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 11]

एस. के. वमा, वै.ािनक ई एवं ;मुख

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 20th April, 2018

S.O. 693.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of

which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licences

No.

CM/L-

Grant Date

Name & Address of the

Licensee

Title of the Standard

IS

No.

Part

Sec.

Year

1.

L-

9590007923

02.02.2018

M/s Pradeep Jewellers 36,

1F/42, B.P. Opp. Bus Stand,

N.I.T.,

Distt. Faridabad - 121001,

Haryana

Gold and Gold

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and

Marking

1417

-

-

2016

2.

L-

9590008024

02.02.2018

M/s Pradeep Jewellers 36,

1F/42, B.P. Opp. Bus Stand,

N.I.T.,

Distt. Faridabad - 121001,

Haryana

Silver and Silver

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and

Marking

2112

-

-

2014

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3555

3.

L-

9590008125

02.02.2018

M/s Shri Shyam Jewellers,

Lala Maniram Market,

Near Bhagat Singh Chowk,

Sohna Road,

Dharuhera,

Distt. Rewari - 123106,

Haryana

Gold and Gold

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and

Marking

1417

-

-

2016

4.

L-

9590008226

02.02.2018

M/s Shri Shyam Jewellers,

Lala Maniram Market,

Near Bhagat Singh Chowk,

Sohna Road,

Dharuhera,

Distt. Rewari - 123106,

Haryana

Silver and Silver

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and

Marking

2112

-

-

2014

5.

L-

9512399120

06.02.2018

M/s The Khatu Shyam

Cooperative Labour and

Constructions Society Ltd.,

Jatwas, P.O. Mahendragarh,

Distt. Mahendragarh -

123029,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

6.

L-

9512399221

06.02.2018

M/s Shri Krishna Tile &

Building Material,

Village Mirzapur, Post

Bachhod,

Ateli,

Distt. Mahendragarh -

123021,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

7.

L-

9512399322

06.02.2018

M/s DKM Trading

Company,

Jurhera Road, Tehsil

Punhana,

Punhana,

Distt. Mewat – 122508,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

8.

L-

9512399625

16.02.2018

M/s Rihan Tiles & B.M.S.,

NEAR EID GAYY,

GUMAT RAOD, NAGINA,

Mewat,

Distt. Mewat,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

9.

L-

9512402115

16.02.2018

M/s Sudhir Power Limited,

Plot No. 92, Sector-8,

IMT Manesar,

Distt. Gurgaon - 122050,

Haryana

Outdoor Type Oil

Immersed

Distribution

Transformers,

Part 1: Minerals Oil

Immersed

1180

01

-

2014

10.

L-

9590008319

16.02.2018

M/s D.N. Jewellers,

Shop No. 186, Near Sabji

Mandi, 22ft. Road, Sanjay

Colony,

Sector-23,

Distt. Faridabad - 121005,

Haryana

Gold and Gold

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and

Marking

1417

-

-

2016

11.

L-

9590008420

16.02.2018

M/s D.N. Jewellers,

Shop No. 186, Near Sabji

Mandi, 22ft. Road, Sanjay

Colony,

Sector-23,

Distt. Faridabad - 121005,

Haryana

Silver and Silver

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and

Marking

2112

-

-

2014

3556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.

L-

9590008521

16.02.2018

M/s Soni Jewellers,

Sunaron Wali Gali, Railway

Road,

Distt. Rohtak,

Haryana

Gold and Gold

Alloys

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and

Marking

1417

-

-

2016

13.

L-

9512399726

19.02.2018

M/s Dev Trading Company,

NA] Dharsoon Road,

Nasibpur, Narnaul,

Distt. Mahendragarh –

123001,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

14.

L-

9512400313

19.02.2018

M/s Karan Buildtech,

Lakhi Singh Nangla Road,

Village Janoli,

Distt. Pawal - 121102,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

15.

L-

9512400919

19.02.2018

M/s ECO Beverages,

Khasra No. 28/9,

Adjucent to JPS Residency,

Opp. Sector – 8, IMT

Manesar,

Distt. Gurgaon – 122050,

Haryana

Packaged Drinking

Water (Other Than

Packaged Natural

Mineral Water)

14543

-

-

2004

16.

L-

9512401113

19.02.2018

M/s Agarwal Concrete,

Village Nawada,

Behind IMT Ballabgarh,

Distt. Faridabad – 121004,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

17.

L-

9512399827

20.02.2018

M/s K.D. Trading Company,

V.P.O. Ratta Kalan,

Tehsil Ateli,

Distt. Mahendragarh -

123021,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

18.

L-

9512399928

20.02.2018

M/s Sunder Pal Building

Material & Water Supplier,

Village Pathera,

Tehsil Mahendragarh,

Distt. Mahendragarh –

123034,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

19.

L-

9512400515

20.02.2018

M/s SIFA Trading Co.,

1, Chanddaka, 140,

Distt. Mewat – 122508,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

20.

L-

9512400616

20.02.2018

M/s Shiv Trading Co.,

Village Gahra,

Distt. Mahendragarh –

123027,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

21.

L-

9512400717

20.02.2018

M/s Shree Shyam Tiles

Company,

Dadri Satnali Road,

Near HP Petrol Pump,

Kadma, Charkhi Dadri,

Distt. Bhiwani - 127308,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

22.

L-

9512400212

21.02.2018

M/s VJN Building Material

& Tile Udyog,

Near Sun Road,

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3557

VPO Baund Kalan,

Distt. Bhiwani - 127025,

Haryana

23.

L-

9512400818

22.02.2018

M/s Yadav Building Material

& Tile Udyog,

Opp. Housing Board, Ram

Nagar,

Gali No.1, Nasibpur,

Narnaul,

Distt. Mahendragarh –

123001,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

24.

L-

9512401012

22.02.2018

M/s Mahlawat Builders,

Near Satnali Chowk, Satnali

Road,

Distt. Mahendragarh –

123029,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

25.

L-

9512401618

22.02.2018

M/s Shree Shyam Ji Builders,

Satnali Road, Village

Digrota,

Distt. Mahendragarh-

123024,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

26.

L-

9512400414

23.02.2018

M/s Yadav Building Material

Supp. & RBM Pavers

Interlock,

Chand Nagar Road,

Main Hailimandi Road,

Farrukh Nagar,

Distt. Gurgaon – 122001,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

27.

L-

9512401214

27.02.2018

M/s Jai Shri Balaji Industries,

VPO-Siwani,

Distt. Bhiwani, - 127046

Haryana

Irrigation Equipment

– Sprinkler Pipes

Part 1 Polyethylene

Pipes

14151

01

-

1999

28.

L-

9512401315

27.02.2018

M/s Jai Shri Balaji Industries,

VPO-Siwani,

Distt. Bhiwani, - 127046

Haryana

Irrigation Equipment

– Sprinkler Pipes

Part 2 Quick

Coupled

Polyethylene Pipes

& Fittings

14151

02

-

2008

29.

L-

9512401416

27.02.2018

M/s M.K. Industries,

Plot No.218, Rajeev Colony,

Samaypur Road,

Ballabgarh,

Distt. Faridabad – 121004,

Haryana

Submersible

Pumpset

8034

-

-

2002

30.

L-

9512402519

27.02.2018

M/s RS Fly Ash Bricks

Udyog,

VPO Lohari Jatu, Teh

Bhiwani Khera,

Distt. Bhiwani - 127032,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

31.

L-

9512400018

28.02.2018

M/s Jindal Sanitaryware Pvt.

Ltd.,

43 KM Mile Stone, VPO

Rohad,

Distt. Jhajjar – 124501,

Haryana

Unplasticized PVC

Pipes for Potable

Water Supplies

4985

-

-

2000

3558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

32.

L-

9512400111

28.02.2018

M/s Jindal Sanitaryware Pvt.

Ltd.,

43 KM Mile Stone, VPO

Rohad,

Distt. Jhajjar – 124501,

Haryana

UPVC Pipes for Soil

and Waste Discharge

System Inside

Building including

Ventilation and

Rainwater System

13592

-

-

2013

33.

L-

9512401517

28.02.2018

M/s Dhankhar Enterprises,

Satnali Surajgarh Road,

Satnali,

Distt. Mahendragarh –

123024,

Haryana

Precast Concrete

Blocks for Paving

15658

-

-

2006

[No. CMD/13:11]

S. K. VERMA, Scientist E & Head

नई द ली, 20 अ;ैल, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 694

694

694

694.—भारतीय मानक = यूरो (;माणन) िविनयम, 1988 के िविनयम (5) के उपिविनयम (6) के अनुसरण म8 भारतीय

मानक = यूरो एत?ारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िनa न िववरण वाले लाइस8सB को उनके आगे दशायी गई तारीख से रद्द / थिगत कर दया

गया है :-

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

F.

सं.

लाइस8स सं

सी एम/

एल-

लाइस8सधारी का नाम व पता

लाइस8स के अंतगत वतु/ ;Fम सaबq भारतीय

मानक का शीषक

रr होने कH

ितिथ

- शू:य -

[सं. सीएमडी/13:13]

एस. के. वमा, वै.ािनक ई एवं ;मुख

New Delhi, the 20th April, 2018

S.O. 694.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of

which are given below have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licence No.

CM/L-

Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/ Process with relevant

Indian Standard covered by the

licence cancelled/ suspension

Date of

Cancellation

- NIL -

[No. CMD/13:13]

S. K. VERMA, Scientist E & Head

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3559

युवा काय $म और खेल मं ालय

युवा काय $म और खेल मं ालय

युवा काय $म और खेल मं ालय

युवा काय $म और खेल मं ालय

नई द ली, 25 अ;ैल, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 695

695

695

695.—के: ^ीय सरकार एतदsारा राजभाषा (संघ के शासकHय ;योजनB के िलए ;योग) िनयम 1976 के िनयम 10 के

उप िनयम (4) के अनुसरण म8 युवा कायFम और खेल मं$ालय के  वायh तशासी कायालय भारतीय

भारतीय

भारतीय

भारतीय खेल %ािधकरण %िश(ण क)*

खेल %ािधकरण %िश(ण क)*

खेल %ािधकरण %िश(ण क)*

खेल %ािधकरण %िश(ण क)*, बरेली

बरेली

बरेली

बरेली

िजसके 80% से अिधक कमचारीवृंद ने Tहंदी का कायसाधक .ान ;ाb त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है।

[िम.सं. ई-11011/2/2008-िह.ए.]

एस. एल. मीना, उप सिचव

MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2018

S.O. 695.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of Official Language (use for official purpose of the Union)

Rule 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies Sporth Authority of India Training Centre, Bareilly an

Autonomous office of Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, whereof more then 80% staff have acquired working

knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11011/2/2008-H.U.]

S. L. MEENA, Dy. Secy.

iSVªksfy;e ,oa izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vizSy] 2018

dk-vk- 696.—dsUæh; ljdkj us iSVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu½

vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls bles blds i'pkr~ mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds

v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e ,oa xSl eU=ky; dh vf/klwpuk laŒ dkŒ vkŒ 1552¼v½ rkjh[k

19@04@2016 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= laŒ 998 rkjh[k 27@04@2016 dks çdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh ] }kjk ml vf/klwpuk

esa layXu vuqlwph es fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa dsjy jkT; eas Hkkjr iSVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM dh dksfPp fjQkujh ls

lsye rd æfor iSVªksfy;e xSl ds ifjogu ds fy, dksfPp dks;EcVwj lsye ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds ek/;e ls

dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM }kjk ,d ikbiykbu fcNkus ds ç;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu ds

vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh(

vkSj mä jkti= dh vf/klwpuk dh çfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 16@07@2016 ls 09@08@2016 ds chp miyC/k

djk nh xbZ Fkh(

vkSj l{ke çkf/kdkjh us] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu ] dsaæh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns

nh gS(

vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj us ] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~] vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij dh mä Hkwfe

ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS ]mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS(

vr% vc dsanh; ljdkj] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g

?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe eas ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk

vtZu fd;k tkrk gS(

vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e fd /kkjk 6 fd mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k

nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe es mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds çdk'ku fd rkjh[k dks dsaæh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus fd ctk,]

lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä ] dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM eas fufgr gksxkA

3560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqlwph

jkT;: dsjy

ftyk: f='kqj rkyqd: pyDdqVh

uke xzke

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,fj;k

oxZehVj

dYywj Fksdqeqjh ¼[kaM la 50½

310@1

0

00

07

310@2

0

20

55

310@3

0

01

45

311@2

0

09

50

312@1

0

02

01

318

0

06

55

320@1

0

01

50

320@2

0

03

26

323

0

00

34

341@2

0

08

88

342@2

0

06

17

344@2

0

21

71

347@3

0

12

26

349@2

0

01

37

349@4

0

08

91

349@5

0

03

66

352@2

0

05

80

363@1

0

09

08

459@1

0

00

48

459@3

0

09

03

463@3

0

19

77

466

0

02

00

467@1

0

17

60

505@1

0

06

89

506@1

0

00

04

506@3

0

00

19

506@5

0

01

11

506@6

0

01

74

508@1

0

04

25

508@2

0

03

70

508@4

0

00

61

511@1

0

07

24

512@1

0

00

10

512@3

0

03

35

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3561

514@2

0

06

17

534@4

0

17

85

534@6

0

23

53

534@7

0

07

09

535

0

02

41

539@1

0

07

93

542@1

0

05

25

542@2

0

01

75

563@2

0

02

91

dYywj oMkdqeqjh ¼[kaM la 47 ½

1192

0

03

85

1193

0

03

80

1194

0

04

16

[फा. सं. आर-12031/196/2017-ओआर-I/ई-19746]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2018

S.O. 696.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas SO No. 1552 (E), dated 19.04.2016 published in Govt. of India Gazette No. 998 dated 27.04.2016 issued under

sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the Land) Act,

1962 (Central Act 50 of 1962) (herein after referred to as said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to

acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying

pipeline for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Kochi Refinery of Bharat Petroleum Corporation

Limited in the State of Kerala to Salem in the State of Tamilnadu.

AND, Whereas, the copies of the said Gazette notifications have been made available to the public between

16.07.2016 to 09.08.2016.

AND, Whereas, the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub section (1) of section 6 of the said Act has

submitted his report to the Central Government.

AND, Whereas, the Central Government, after considering the said report, is satisfied that the Right of User in

the said land specified in the schedule appended should be acquired.

Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby declared that the Right of User in the Land specified in the schedule appended to this

notification are hereby acquired.

AND, further, in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (4) of the section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said lands shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government

vest free from all encumbrances in the Kochi – Salem Pipeline Private Limited.

SCHEDULE

STATE : KERALA DISTRICT : THRISSUR TALUK : CHALAKUDY

VILLAGE

SURVEY NUMBERS

AREA

HECTARES

ARES

SQ MTRS

KALLUR THEKKUMMURY

310/1

0

00

07

BLOCK. NO. 50

310/2

0

20

55

310/3

0

01

45

311/2

0

09

50

3562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

312/1

0

02

01

318

0

06

55

320/1

0

01

50

320/2

0

03

26

323

0

00

34

341/2

0

08

88

342/2

0

06

17

344/2

0

21

71

347/3

0

12

26

349/2

0

01

37

349/4

0

08

91

349/5

0

03

66

352/2

0

05

80

363/1

0

09

08

459/1

0

00

48

459/3

0

09

03

463/3

0

19

77

466

0

02

00

467/1

0

17

60

505/1

0

06

89

506/1

0

00

04

506/3

0

00

19

506/5

0

01

11

506/6

0

01

74

508/1

0

04

25

508/2

0

03

70

508/4

0

00

61

511/1

0

07

24

512/1

0

00

10

512/3

0

03

35

514/2

0

06

17

534/4

0

17

85

534/6

0

23

53

534/7

0

07

09

535

0

02

41

539/1

0

07

93

542/1

0

05

25

542/2

0

01

75

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3563

563/2

0

02

91

KALLUR VADAKKUMMURY

1192

0

03

85

BLOCK. NO. 47

1193

0

03

80

1194

0

04

16

[F. No. R-12031/196/2017-OR-I/E-19746]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 26 अ;ैल, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 697

697

697

697.—भारत सरकार ने पे[ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन) अिधिनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम8 इसके पwात उx अिधिनयम कहा गया है) कH धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी कH गई, भारत

सरकार के पे[ोिलयम और ;ाकृितक गैस मं$ालय कH अिधसूचना का.आ. 2497(ई) तारीख 20.07.2016 िजसका ;काशन भारत के

राजप$ संGया 1843 भाग II, खNड 3, उप खNड (II) तारीख 22.07.2016 म8 कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना म8 संलz अनुसूची म8

िविनSद{ ओडीशा राJय के तहसील: महाकालपरा िजला:के:^पाड़ा कH भूिम म8, ओडीशा राJय म8 पारादीप से पिwम बंगाल राJय म8

दुगापुर तक पे[ोिलयम उhपादB के परवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप}रेशन िलिमटेड के sारा Fयाि:वत कए जा रहे “पारादीप-

हदीआ-दुगापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन परयोजना” के संबंध म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ;योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन

करने के िलए अपने आशय कH घोषणा कH थी:

और उx राजप$ अिधसूचना कH ;ितयाँ जनता को उपल=ध करा दी गई थ€।और उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1)

के अनुसरण म8 सम ;ािधकारी न8 भारत सरकार को अपनी रपोट दे दी है।

और के:^ीय सरकार ने उx रपोट पर िवचार करने के पwात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उx भूिम पाइपलाइन िबछाने

के िलए अपेित है, उसम8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने का िविन`चय कया है:

अतः अब, भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए एतद् sारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलz अनुसूिच म8 िविनSद{ भूिम म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अoजत कया

जाए:

और भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (4) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए, यह िनद}श देती है क

उx भूिम म8 उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के ;काशन कH तारीख से के:^ीय सरकार म8 िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी िबलंगमB से मुx

होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप}रेशन िलिमटेड म8 िनिहत होगा।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला : क8^पाड़ा

राJय : ओिडशा

Fम सं

तहसील का नाम

मौजा का नाम

खसरा नं

े$फल

हे\टेयर

एयर

वग मीटर

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

महाकलपारा

अखाडासाली - 77

85

00

04

45

486

00

06

10

125

00

16

20

134

00

04

10

472

00

10

95

471

00

02

05

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/9/2018-ओआर-I/ई-24540]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

3564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2018

S.O. 697.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India No.1843 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 22.07.2016 vide S.O. Number

2497(E) dated 20.07.16 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition

of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Indian Government

declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Mahakalpara District Balasore in Odisha State,

specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of

petroleum products from Paradip in the State of Odisha to Haldia in the State of West-Bangal by the Indian Oil

Corporation Limited for implementing the "Paradip–Haldia-Durgapur LPG Pipeline Project".

And whereas the copies of the Gazette were made available to the public. And whereas the Competent

Authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of Indian Government.

And whereas, the Indian Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is

required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Indian

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline; And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section

6 of the said Act, the Indian Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline

shall, instead of vesting in the Indian Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil

Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

District : Kandrapara

State : Odisha

S.No

Name of Thesil

Name of Mouza

Khasra No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sqm

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

Mahaklpara

Akhadasali - 77

85

00

04

45

486

00

06

10

125

00

16

20

134

00

04

10

472

00

10

95

471

00

02

05

[F. No. R-11025(11)/9/2018-OR-I/E-24540]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 26 अ;ैल, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 698

698

698

698.—भारत सरकार ने पे[ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन) अिधिनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम8 इसके पwात उx अिधिनयम कहा गया है) कH धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी कH गई, भारत

सरकार के पे[ोिलयम और ;ाकृितक गैस मं$ालय कH अिधसूचना का.आ. 3287(ई) तारीख 03.12.2015 िजसका ;काशन भारत के

राजप$ संGया 2605 भाग II, खNड 3, उप खNड (ii) तारीख 07.12.2015 म8 कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना म8 संलz अनुसूची म8

िविनSद{ ओडीशा राJय के तहसील:बालासोर िजला:बालासोर कH भूिम म8, ओडीशा राJय म8 पारादीप से पिwमबंगाल राJय म8

दुगापुरतक पे[ोिलयम उhपादB के परवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कापƒरेशन िलिमटेड के sारा Fयाि:वत कए जा रहे “पारादीप-

हदीआ-दुगापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन परयोजना” के संबंध म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ;योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन

करने के िलए अपने आशय कH घोषणा कH थी:

और उx राजप$ अिधसूचना कH ;ितयाँ जनता को उपल=ध करा दी गई थ€।और उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1)

के अनुसरण म8 सम ;ािधकारी न8 भारत सरकार को अपनी रपोट दे दी है।

और के:^ीय सरकार ने उx रपोट पर िवचार करने के पwात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उx भूिम पाइपलाइन िबछाने

के िलए अपेित है, उसम8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने का िविनR चय कया है:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3565

अतः अब, भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए एतद् sारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलz अनुसूिच म8 िविनSद{ भूिम म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अoजत कया

जाए:

और भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (4) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए, यह िनद}श देती है क

उx भूिम म8 उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के ;काशन कH तारीख से के:^ीय सरकार म8 िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी िबलंगमB से मुx

होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कापƒरेशन िलिमटेड म8 िनिहत होगा।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला : बालासोर

राJय : ओिडशा

Fम सं

तहसील का नाम

मौजा का नाम

खसरा नं

े$फल

हे\टेयर

एयर

वग मीटर

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

बालासोर

िहिडगा„ -142

282

00

06

40

283

00

13

40

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/9/2018-ओआर-I/ई-24540]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2018

S.O. 698.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India No. 2605 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 07.12.2015 vide S.O.

Number 3287(E) dated 03.12.2015 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Indian

Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Balasore District Balasore in

Odisha State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the

transportation of petroleum products from Paradip in the State of Odisha to Haldia in the State of West-Bangal by the

Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Paradip–Haldia-Durgapur LPG Pipeline Project".

And whereas the copies of the Gazette were made available to the public. And whereas the Competent

Authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of Indian Government.

And whereas, the Indian Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is

required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Indian

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline; And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section

6 of the said Act, the Indian Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline

shall, instead of vesting in the Indian Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil

Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

District : Balasore

State : odisha

S.No.

Name of Thesil

Name of Mouza

Khasra No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sqm

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

Balasore

Hidigaon-142

282

00

06

40

283

00

13

40

[F. No. R-11025(11)/9/2018-OR-I/E-24540]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

3566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दली, 26 अ;ैल, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 699

699

699

699.—भारत सरकार ने पे[ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन) अिधिनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम8 इसके पwात उx अिधिनयम कहा गया है) कH धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी कH गई, भारत

सरकार के पे[ोिलयम और ;ाकृितक गैस मं$ालय कH अिधसूचना का.आ. 2496(ई) तारीख 20.07.2016 िजसका ;काशन भारत के

राजप$ संGया 1843, भाग II, खNड 3, उप खNड (ii) तारीख 22.07.2016 म8 कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना म8 संलz अनुसूची म8

िविनSद{ ओडीशा राJय के तहसील: कुजंग िजला: जगतTसंगपुरकH भूिम म8, ओडीशा राJय म8 पारादीप से पिwमबंगाल राJय म8 दुगापुर

तक पे[ोिलयम उhपादB के परवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कापƒरेशन िलिमटेड के sारा Fयाि:वत कए जा रहे “पारादीप-हदीआ-

दुगापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन परयोजना” के संबंध म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ;योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने के

िलए अपने आशय कH घोषणा कH थी:

और उx राजप$ अिधसूचना कH ;ितयाँ जनता को उपल=ध करा दी गई थ€। और उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1)

के अनुसरण म8 सम ;ािधकारी ने भारत सरकार को अपनी रपोट दे दी है।

और के:^ीय सरकार ने उx रपोट पर िवचार करने के पwात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उx भूिम पाइपलाइन िबछाने

के िलए अपेित है, उसम8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने का िविनR चय कया है:

अतः अब, भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए एतद् sारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलz अनुसूिच म8 िविनSद{ भूिम म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अoजत कया

जाए:

और भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (4) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए, यह िनद}श देती है क

उx भूिम म8 उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के ;काशन कH तारीख से के:^ीय सरकार म8 िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी िबलंगमB से मुx

होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कापƒरेशन िलिमटेड म8 िनिहत होगा।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला : जगतTसंगपुर

राJय : ओिडशा

Fम सं

तहसील का नाम

मौजा का नाम

खसरा नं

े$फल

हे\टेयर

एयर

वग मीटर

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.0

कुजंग

नुआगढ़ - 255

140

00

04

75

139

00

04

75

138

00

04

75

137

00

02

05

125

00

08

10

124

00

17

80

119

00

02

65

118

00

04

90

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/9/2018-ओआर-I/ई-24540]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2018

S.O. 699.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India No.1843 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 22.07.2016 vide S.O. Number

2496(E) dated 20.07.2016 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Indian

Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Kujang District Jagatsingpur in

Odisha State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3567

transportation of petroleum products from Paradip in the State of Odisha to Haldia in the State of West-Bangal by the

Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Paradip–Haldia-Durgapur LPG Pipeline Project".

And whereas the copies of the Gazette were made available to the public. And whereas the Competent

Authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of Indian Government.

And whereas, the Indian Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is

required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Indian

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline; And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section

6 of the said Act, the Indian Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline

shall, instead of vesting in the Indian Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil

Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

District : Jagatsinghpur

State : Odisha

S.No

Name of Thesil

Name of Mouza

Khasra No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sqm

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.0

Kujang

Nuagarh - 255

140

00

04

75

139

00

04

75

138

00

04

75

137

00

02

05

125

00

08

10

124

00

17

80

119

00

02

65

118

00

04

90

[F. No. R-11025(11)/9/2018-OR-I/E-24540]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 26 अ;ैल, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 700

700

700

700.—भारत सरकार ने पे[ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन) अिधिनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम8 इसके पwात उx अिधिनयम कहा गया है) कH धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी कH गई, भारत

सरकार के पे[ोिलयम और ;ाकृितक गैस मं$ालय कH अिधसूचना का.आ. 534(ई) तारीख 15.02.2017 िजसका ;काशन भारत के

राजप$ संGया 478 भाग II, खNड 3, उप खNड (ii) तारीख 20.02.2017 म8 कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना म8 संलz अनुसूची म8

िविनSद{ ओडीशा राJय के तहसील:बालासोर िजला:बालासोर कH भूिम म8, ओडीशा राJय म8 पारादीप से पिwमबंगाल राJय म8

दुगापुरतक पे[ोिलयम उhपादB के परवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कापƒरेशन िलिमटेड के sारा Fयाि:वत कए जा रहे “पारादीप-

हदीआ-दुगापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन परयोजना” के संबंध म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ;योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन

करने के िलए अपने आशय कH घोषणा कH थी:

और उx राजप$ अिधसूचना कH ;ितयाँ जनता को उपल=ध करा दी गई थ€।और उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1)

के अनुसरण म8 सम ;ािधकारी न8 भारत सरकार को अपनी रपोट दे दी है।

और के:^ीय सरकार ने उx रपोट पर िवचार करने के पwात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उx भूिम पाइपलाइन िबछाने

के िलए अपेित है, उसम8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने का िविनR चय कया है:

3568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अतः अब, भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए एत?ारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलz अनुसूिच म8 िविनSद{ भूिम म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अoजत कया

जाए:

और भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (4) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए, यह िनद}श देती है क

उx भूिम म8 उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के ;काशन कH तारीख से के:^ीय सरकार म8 िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी िबलंगमB से मुx

होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कापƒरेशन िलिमटेड म8 िनिहत होगा।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला : बालासोर

राJय : ओिडशा

Fम सं

तहसील का नाम

मौजा का नाम

खसरा नं

े$फल

हे\टेयर

एयर

वग मीटर

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.0

बालासोर

पदमपुर - 266

513

00

03

20

503

00

01

30

502

00

02

90

504

00

08

90

467

00

00

80

468

00

02

50

469

00

04

10

501

00

01

30

500

00

02

10

474

00

02

30

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/9/2018-ओआर-I/ई-24540]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2018

S.O. 700.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India No 478 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 20.02.2017 vide S.O. Number

534(E) dated 15.02.2017 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Indian

Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Balasore District Balasore in

Odisha State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the

transportation of petroleum products from Paradip in the State of Odisha to Haldia in the State of West-Bangal by the

Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Paradip–Haldia-Durgapur LPG Pipeline Project".

And whereas the copies of the Gazette were made available to the public. And whereas the Competent

Authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of Indian Government.

And whereas, the Indian Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is

required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Indian

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline; And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section

6 of the said Act, the Indian Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline

shall, instead of vesting in the Indian Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil

Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3569

SCHEDULE

District : Balasore

State : Odisha

S.No

Name of Thesil

Name of Mouza

Khasra No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sqm

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.0

Balasore

Padampur - 266

513

00

03

20

503

00

01

30

502

00

02

90

504

00

08

90

467

00

00

80

468

00

2

50

469

00

4

10

501

00

1

30

500

00

2

10

474

00

2

30

[F. No. R-11025(11)/9/2018-OR-I/E-24540]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 26 अ;ैल, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 701

701

701

701.—भारत सरकार ने पे[ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन) अिधिनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम8 इसके पwात उx अिधिनयम कहा गया है) कH धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी कH गई, भारत

सरकार के पे[ोिलयम और ;ाकृितक गैस मं$ालय कH अिधसूचना का.आ. 3288(ई) तारीख 03.12.2015 िजसका ;काशन भारत के

राजप$ संGया 2605 भाग II, खNड 3, उप खNड (ii) तारीख 07.12.2015 म8 कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना म8 संलz अनुसूची म8

िविनSद{ ओडीशा राJय के तहसील: बाहनागा िजला: बालासोर कH भूिम म8, ओडीशा राJय म8 पारादीप से पिwमबंगाल राJय म8 दुगापुर

तक पे[ोिलयम उhपादB के परवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कापƒरेशन िलिमटेड के sारा Fयाि:वत कए जा रहे “पारादीप-हदीआ-

दुगापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन परयोजना” के संबंध म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ;योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने के

िलए अपने आशय कH घोषणा कH थी:

और उx राजप$ अिधसूचना कH ;ितयाँ जनता को उपल=ध करा दी गई थ€ और उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1)

के अनुसरण म8 सम ;ािधकारी न8 भारत सरकार को अपनी रपोट दे दी है।

और के:^ीय सरकार ने उx रपोट पर िवचार करने के पwात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उx भूिम पाइपलाइन िबछाने

के िलए अपेित है, उसम8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने का िविनR चय कया है:

अतः अब, भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए एत?ारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलz अनुसूिच म8 िविनSद{ भूिम म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अoजत कया

जाए:

और भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (4) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए, यह िनद}श देती है क

उx भूिम म8 उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के ;काशन कH तारीख से के:^ीय सरकार म8 िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी िबलंगमB से मुx

होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कापƒरेशन िलिमटेड म8 िनिहत होगा।

3570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला : बालासोर

राJय : ओिडशा

Fम सं.

तहसील का नाम

मौजा का नाम

खसरा नं

े$फल

हे\टेयर

एयर

वग मीटर

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.0

बाहानगा

क:हेईआगलपुर - 89

852

00

00

80

860

00

09

90

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/9/2018-ओआर-I/ई-24540]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2018

S.O. 701.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India No. 2605 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 07.12.2015 vide S.O.

Number 3288(E) dated 03.12.2015 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Indian

Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Bahanaga District Balasore in

Odisha State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the

transportation of petroleum products from Paradip in the State of Odisha to Haldia in the State of West-Bangal by the

Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Paradip–Haldia-Durgapur LPG Pipeline Project".

And whereas the copies of the Gazette were made available to the public. And whereas the Competent

Authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of Indian Government.

And whereas, the Indian Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is

required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Indian

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline; And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section

6 of the said Act, the Indian Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline

shall, instead of vesting in the Indian Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil

Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

District : Balasore

State : odisha

S.No.

Name of Thesil

Name of Mouza

Khasra No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sqm

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.0

Bahanaga

Kanheiogalpur - 89

852

00

00

80

860

00

09

90

[F. No. R-11025(11)/9/2018-OR-I/E-24540]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 26 अ;ैल, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 702

702

702

702.—भारत सरकार ने पे[ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन) अिधिनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम8 इसके पwात उx अिधिनयम कहा गया है) कH धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी कH गई, भारत

सरकार के पे[ोिलयम और ;ाकृितक गैस मं$ालय कH अिधसूचना का.आ. 533(ई) तारीख 15.02.2017 िजसका ;काशन भारत के

राजप$ संGया 43 भाग II, खNड 3, उप खNड (ii) तारीख 20.02.2017 म8 कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना म8 संलz अनुसूची म8 िविनSद{

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3571

ओडीशा राJय के तहसील:रेमूना िजला:बालासोर कH भूिम म8, ओडीशा राJय म8 पारादीप से पिwम बंगाल राJय म8 दुगापुर तक

पे[ोिलयम उhपादB के परवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कापƒरेशन िलिमटेड के sारा Fयाि:वत कए जा रहे “पारादीप-हदीआ- दुगापुर

एलपीजी पाइपलाइन परयोजना” के संबंध म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ;योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने के िलए अपने

आशय कH घोषणा कH थी:

और उx राजप$ अिधसूचना कH ;ितयाँ जनता को उपल=ध करा दी गई थ€।और उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1)

के अनुसरण म8 सम ;ािधकारी न8 भारत सरकार को अपनी रपोट दे दी है।

और के:^ीय सरकार ने उx रपोट पर िवचार करने के पwात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उx भूिम पाइपलाइन िबछाने

के िलए अपेित है, उसम8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने का िविनR चय कया है:

अतः अब, भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए एत?ारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलz अनुसूिच म8 िविनSद{ भूिम म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अoजत कया

जाए:

और भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (4) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए, यह िनद}श देती है क

उx भूिम म8 उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के ;काशन कH तारीख से के:^ीय सरकार म8 िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी िबलंगमB से मुx

होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कापƒरेशन िलिमटेड म8 िनिहत होगा।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला : बालासोर

राJय : ओिडशा

Fम सं.

तहसील का नाम

मौजा का नाम

खसरा नं

े$फल

हे\टेयर

एयर

वग मीटर

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.0

रेमूना

मेघडaब9 - 172

43

00

01

14

43/728

00

02

84

43/729

00

00

81

43/730

00

00

81

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/9/2018-ओआर-I/ई-24540]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2018

S.O. 702.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India No 43 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 20.02.2017 vide S.O. Number

533(E) dated 15.02.2017 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Indian

Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Remuna District Balasore in

Odisha State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the

transportation of petroleum products from Paradip in the State of Odisha to Haldia in the State of West-Bangal by the

Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Paradip–Haldia-Durgapur LPG Pipeline Project".

And whereas the copies of the Gazette were made available to the public. And whereas the Competent

Authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of Indian Government.

And whereas, the Indian Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is

required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Indian

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline; And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section

6 of the said Act, the Indian Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline

shall, instead of vesting in the Indian Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil

Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

3572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

District : Balasore

State : Odisha

S.No.

Name of Thesil

Name of Mouza

Khasra No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sqm

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.0

Remuna

Meghadambaru-172

43

00

01

14

43/728

00

02

84

43/729

00

00

81

43/730

00

00

81

[F. No. R-11025(11)/9/2018-OR-I/E-24540]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 26 अ;ैल, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 703

703

703

703.—भारत सरकार ने पे[ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन) अिधिनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम8 इसके पwात उx अिधिनयम कहा गया है) कH धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी कH गई, भारत

सरकार के पे[ोिलयम और ;ाकृितक गैस मं$ालय कH अिधसूचना का.आ. 2516 तारीख 26.10.2017 िजसका ;काशन भारत के

राजप$ संGया 43 भाग II, खNड 3, उप खNड (ii) तारीख 28.10.2017 म8 कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना म8 संलz अनुसूची म8 िविनSद{

ओडीशा राJय के तहसील:बालासोर िजला: बालासोर कH भूिम म8, ओडीशा राJय म8 पारादीप से पिwम बंगाल राJय म8 दुगापुरतक

पे[ोिलयम उhपादB के परवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कापƒरेशन िलिमटेड के sारा Fयाि:वत कए जा रहे “पारादीप-हदीआ-दुगापुर

एलपीजी पाइपलाइन परयोजना” के संबंध म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ;योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने के िलए अपने

आशय कH घोषणा कH थी:

और उx राजप$ अिधसूचना कH ;ितयाँ जनता को उपल=ध करा दी गई थ€। और उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1)

के अनुसरण म8 सम ;ािधकारी ने भारत सरकार को अपनी रपोट दे दी है।

और के:^ीय सरकार ने उx रपोट पर िवचार करने के पwात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उx भूिम पाइपलाइन िबछाने

के िलए अपेित है, उसम8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने का िविनR चय कया है:

अतः अब, भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए एत?ारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलz अनुसूिच म8 िविनSद{ भूिम म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अoजत कया

जाए:

और भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (4) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए, यह िनद}श देती है क

उx भूिम म8 उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के ;काशन कH तारीख से के:^ीय सरकार म8 िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी िबलंगमB से मुx

होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कापƒरेशन िलिमटेड म8 िनिहत होगा।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला : बालासोर

राJय : ओिडशा

Fम सं.

तहसील का नाम

मौजा का नाम

खसरा नं

े$फल

हे\टेयर

एयर

वग मीटर

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.0

बालासोर

बांगरा - 199

803

00

05

05

2.0

बालासोर

कोकƒरा - 198

373

00

08

10

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/9/2018-ओआर-I/ई-24540]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3573

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2018

S.O. 703.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India No. 43 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 28.10.2017 vide S.O. Number

2516 dated 26.10.2017 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition

of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Indian Government

declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Balasore District Balasore in Odisha State,

specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of

petroleum products from Paradip in the State of Odisha to Haldia in the State of West-Bangal by the Indian Oil

Corporation Limited for implementing the "Paradip–Haldia-Durgapur LPG Pipeline Project".

And whereas the copies of the Gazette were made available to the public. And whereas the Competent

Authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of Indian Government.

And whereas, the Indian Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is

required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein; Now, therefore, in exercise of the

powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Indian Government hereby declares that the right

of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Indian

Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the

Indian Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all

encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

District : Balasore

State : Odisha

S.No.

Name of Thesil

Name of Mouza

Khasra No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sqm

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.0

Balasore

Bangra - 199

803

00

05

05

2.0

Balasore

Korkora - 198

373

00

08

10

[F. No. R-11025(11)/9/2018-OR-I/E-24540]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 26 अ;ैल, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 704

704

704

704.—भारत सरकार ने पे[ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन) अिधिनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम8 इसके पwात उx अिधिनयम कहा गया है) कH धारा 3 कH उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी कH गई,

भारत सरकार के पे[ोिलयम और ;ाकृितक गैस मं$ालय कH अिधसूचना का.आ. 2498(ई) तारीख 20.07.2016 िजसका ;काशन भारत

के राजप$ संGया 1843 भाग II, खNड 3, उप-खNड (ii) तारीख 22.07.2016 म8 कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना म8 संलz अनुसूची म8

िविनSद{ ओडीशा राJय के तहसील:बाहनागा िजला:बालासोर कH भूिम म8, ओडीशा राJय म8 पारादीप से पिwम बंगाल राJय म8 दुगापुर

तक पे[ोिलयम उhपादB के परवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपƒरेशन िलिमटेड के sारा Fयाि:वत कए जा रहे “पारादीप-हदीया-

दुगापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन परयोजना” के संबंध म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ;योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने के

िलए अपने आशय कH घोषणा कH थी:

और उx राजप$ अिधसूचना कH ;ितयाँ जनता को उपल=ध करा दी गई थ€। और उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1)

के अनुसरण म8 सम ;ािधकारी ने भारत सरकार को अपनी रपोट दे दी है।

और के:^ीय सरकार ने उx रपोट पर िवचार करने के पwात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उx भूिम पाइपलाइन िबछाने

के िलए अपेित है, उसम8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने का िविनR चय कया है:

3574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अतः अब, भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए एतद् sारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलz अनुसूिच म8 िविनSद{ भूिम म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अoजत कया

जाए:

और भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (4) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए, यह िनद}श देती है क

उx भूिम म8 उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के ;काशन कH तारीख से के:^ीय सरकार म8 िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी िबलंगमB से मुx

होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपƒरेशन िलिमटेड म8 िनिहत होगा।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला : बालासोर

राJय : ओिडशा

Fम सं

तहसील का नाम

मौजा का नाम

खसरा नं

े$फल

हे\टेयर

एयर

वग मीटर

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.0

बाहानगा

करंजिब:दा -86

297

00

11

20

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/9/2018-ओआर-I/ई-24540]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2018

S.O. 704.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India No.1843 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 22.07.2016 vide S.O. Number

2498(E) dated 20.07.16 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition

of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Indian Government

declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Bahanaga District Balasore in Odisha State,

specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of

petroleum products from Paradip in the State of Odisha to Haldia in the State of West-Bangal by the Indian Oil

Corporation Limited for implementing the "Paradip–Haldia-Durgapur LPG Pipeline Project".

And whereas the copies of the Gazette were made available to the public. And whereas the Competent

Authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of Indian Government.

And whereas, the Indian Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is

required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Indian

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline; And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section

6 of the said Act, the Indian Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline

shall, instead of vesting in the Indian Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in Indian Oil

Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

District : Balasore

State : Odisha

S.No.

Name of Thesil

Name of Mouza

Khasra No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sqm

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.0

Bahanaga

Karanjabindha -86

297

00

11

20

[F. No. R-11025(11)/9/2018-OR-I/E-24540]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3575

नई दली, 26 अ;ैल, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 705

705

705

705.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd mM+hlk jkT; esa ikjknhi ¼mM+hlk½ ls

nqxkZiqj ¼if'pe caxky½ rd ok;k gfYn;k ,yihth ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds }kjk ,d

ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,(

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh Hkwfe esa tks

bl ls mikc} vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS vkSj ftlesa mDr ikbiykbu fcNk,s tkus dk izLrko gS] mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj 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 iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ml Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj

dk vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS(

dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks bl vf/klwpuk ls ;qDr Hkkjr ds

jkti= dh izfr;kWa lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus

ds fy, mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds lEcU/k esa Jh fc'kuq eksgu Hkaktk] l{ke izkf/kdkjh] bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku

fyfeVsM] bafM;u vkW;y gkmflax dkEiysDl] ckyklksj - 756 001] ¼mM+hlk½ dks fyf[kr :Ik esa vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/9/2018-ओआर-I/ई-24540]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

rglhy % कुजंग ftyk % जगतTसंहपुर jkT; % mM+hlk

Øe

la-

ekStk dk uke

[kljk la-

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZ ehVj

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

mn;oV - 34

1146

00

02

45

1149

00

01

65

2

ikjknhixM -31

1381

00

00

40

1382

00

00

40

1383

00

00

40

1387

00

00

81

1388

00

01

20

1391

00

08

10

1409

00

07

30

1410

00

02

65

1422

00

02

02

1423

00

03

85

1424

00

04

85

1425

00

04

05

1426

00

04

25

3576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2018

S.O. 705.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the

transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal) Via Haldia a pipeline

should be laid in State of Odisha by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary

to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the

Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby

declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on

which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in

writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Bishnu Mohan

Bhanja, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indian Oil Housing Complex, Balasore – 756 001,

Odisha.

SCHEDULE

[F. No. R-11025(11)/9/2018-OR-I/E-24540]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

Tahasil :Kujang District : Jagatsinghpur State : Odisha

Sl. No.

Name of the Mouza

Khasra No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square meter

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

Udayabat-34

1146

00

02

45

1149

00

01

65

2

Paradipgarh-31

1381

00

00

40

1382

00

00

40

1383

00

00

40

1387

00

00

81

1388

00

01

20

1391

00

08

10

1409

00

07

30

1410

00

02

65

1422

00

02

02

1423

00

03

85

1424

00

04

85

1425

00

04

05

1426

00

04

25

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3577

नई दली, 26 अ;ैल, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 706

706

706

706.—भारत सरकार ने पे[ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन) अिधिनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम8 इसके पwात उx अिधिनयम कहा गया है) कH धारा 3 कH उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी कH गई,

भारत सरकार के पे[ोिलयम और ;ाकृितक गैस मं$ालय कH अिधसूचना का.आ. 532(ई) तारीख 15.02.2017 िजसका ;काशन भारत

के राजप$ संGया 478 भाग II, खNड 3, उप-खNड (II) तारीख 20.02.2017 म8 कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना म8 संलz अनुसूची म8

िविनSद{ ओडीशा राJय के तहसील: बिलआपाल िजला:बालासोर कH भूिम म8, ओडीशा राJय म8 पारादीप से पिwम बंगाल राJय म8

दुगापुर तक पे[ोिलयम उhपादB के परवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपƒरेशन िलिमटेड के sारा Fयाि:वत कए जा रहे “पारादीप-

हदीआ-दुगापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन परयोजना” के संबंध म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ;योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन

करने के िलए अपने आशय कH घोषणा कH थी:

और उx राजप$ अिधसूचना कH ;ितयाँ जनता को उपल=ध करा दी गई थ€। और उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1)

के अनुसरण म8 सम ;ािधकारी न8 भारत सरकार को अपनी रपोट दे दी है।

और के:^ीय सरकार ने उx रपोट पर िवचार करने के पwात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उx भूिम पाइपलाइन िबछाने

के िलए अपेित है, उसम8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने का िविनR चय कया है:

अतः अब, भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए एत?ारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलz अनुसूिच म8 िविनSद{ भूिम म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अoजत कया

जाए:

और भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (4) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए, यह िनद}श देती है क

उx भूिम म8 उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के ;काशन कH तारीख से के:^ीय सरकार म8 िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी िबलंगमB से मुx

होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपƒरेशन िलिमटेड म8 िनिहत होगा।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला : बालासोर

राJय : ओिडशा

Fम सं

तहसील का नाम

मौजा का नाम

खसरा नं

े$फल

हे\टेयर

एयर

वग मीटर

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.0

बिलआपाल

दिणपदा -29

1

00

00

40

2

00

11

40

3

00

01

10

34

00

04

80

40

00

01

00

40/761

00

00

80

34/774

00

00

20

1/758

00

02

90

1/757

00

01

70

2

बिलआपाल

पालपदा - 25

784

00

08

50

785

00

03

00

786

00

04

00

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/9/2018-ओआर-I/ई-24540]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

3578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2018

S.O. 706.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India No 478 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 20.02.2017 vide S.O. Number

532(E) dated 15.02.2017 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Indian

Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Baliapal District Balasore in

Odisha State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the

transportation of petroleum products from Paradip in the State of Odisha to Haldia in the State of West-Bangal by the

Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Paradip–Haldia-Durgapur LPG Pipeline Project".

And whereas the copies of the Gazette were made available to the public. And whereas the Competent

Authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of Indian Government.

And whereas, the Indian Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is

required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Indian

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline; And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section

6 of the said Act, the Indian Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline

shall, instead of vesting in the Indian Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil

Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

District : Balasore

State : Odisha

S.No.

Name of Thesil

Name of Mouza

Khasra No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sqm

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.0

Baliapal

Dakhinapada -29

1

00

00

40

2

00

11

40

3

00

01

10

34

00

04

80

40

00

01

00

40/761

00

00

80

34/774

00

00

20

1/758

00

02

90

1/757

00

01

70

2

Baliapal

Palapada - 25

784

00

08

50

785

00

03

00

786

00

04

00

[F. No. R-11025(11)/9/2018-OR-I/E-24540]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 26 अ;ैल, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 707

707

707

707.—भारत सरकार ने पे[ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन) अिधिनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम8 इसके पwात उx अिधिनयम कहा गया है) कH धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी कH गई, भारत

सरकार के पे[ोिलयम और ;ाकृितक गैस मं$ालय कH अिधसूचना का.आ. 2517 तारीख 26.10.2017 िजसका ;काशन भारत के

राजप$ संGया 43 भाग II, खNड 3, उप खNड (II) तारीख 28.10.2017 म8 कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना म8 संलz अनुसूची म8 िविनSद{

ओडीशा राJय के तहसील:रेमूनािजला:बालासोर कH भूिम म8, ओडीशा राJय म8 पारादीप से पिwम बंगाल राJय म8 दुगापुर तक

पे[ोिलयम उhपादB के परवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपƒरेशन िलिमटेड के sारा Fयाि:वत कए जा रहे “पारादीप-हदीआ- दुगापुर

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3579

एलपीजी पाइपलाइन परयोजना” के संबंध म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ;योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने के िलए अपने

आशय कH घोषणा कH थी:

और उx राजप$ अिधसूचना कH ;ितयाँ जनता को उपल=ध करा दी गई थ€। और उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1)

के अनुसरण म8 सम ;ािधकारी ने भारत सरकार को अपनी रपोट दे दी है।

और के:^ीय सरकार ने उx रपोट पर िवचार करने के पwात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उx भूिम पाइपलाइन िबछाने

के िलए अपेित है, उसम8 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने का िविनR चय कया है:

अतः अब, भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (1) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए एतद् sारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलz अनुसूिच म8 िविनSद{ भूिम म8 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अoजत कया

जाए:

और भारत सरकार उx अिधिनयम कH धारा 6 कH उपधारा (4) sारा ;द2 शिxयB का ;योग करते fए, यह िनद}श देती है क

उx भूिम म8 उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के ;काशन कH तारीख से के:^ीय सरकार म8 िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी िबलंगमB से मुx

होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपƒरेशन िलिमटेड म8 िनिहत होगा।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला : बालासोर

राJय : ओिडशा

Fम सं

तहसील का नाम

मौजा का नाम

खसरा नं

े$फल

हे\टेयर

एयर

वग मीटर

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.0

रेमूना

कोरडा - 196

76

00

02

27

77

00

00

65

78

00

01

62

2.0

रेमूना

छनपुर - 187

1524

00

08

30

1525

00

01

95

1532

00

05

83

3

रेमूना

मेघडaब9 - 172

51

00

05

34

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/9/2018-ओआर-I/ई-24540]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2018

S.O. 707.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India No 43 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 28.10.2017 vide S.O. Number

2517 dated 26.10.2017 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition

of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Indian Government

declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Remuna District Balasore in Odisha State,

specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of

petroleum products from Paradip in the State of Odisha to Haldia in the State of West-Bangal by the Indian Oil

Corporation Limited for implementing the "Paradip–Haldia-Durgapur LPG Pipeline Project".

And whereas the copies of the Gazette were made available to the public. And whereas the Competent

Authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of Indian Government.

And whereas, the Indian Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is

required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Indian

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline; And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section

6 of the said Act, the Indian Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline

3580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

shall, instead of vesting in the Indian Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil

Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

District : Balasore

State : Odisha

S.No.

Name of Thesil

Name of Mouza

Khasra No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sqm.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.0

Remuna

Korada - 196

76

00

02

27

77

00

00

65

78

00

01

62

2.0

Remuna

Chhanpur - 187

1524

00

08

30

1525

00

01

95

1532

00

05

83

3

Remuna

Meghadambaru - 172

51

00

05

34

[F. No. R-11025(11)/9/2018-OR-I/E-24540]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 27 अ;ैल, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 708

708

708

708.—तेल उiोग (िवकास) अिधिनयम 1974 (1974 का 47) कH धारा (3) कH उपधारा (3)(ग) sारा ;द2 शि\ तयB का

;योग करते fए, के: ^ सरकार एत?ारा Oी एम.के. सुराणा, अ… य एवं ;बंध िनदेशक, एचपीसीएल को दनांक 01.04.2018 से

31.03.2020 तक अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, तेल उiोग िवकास बोड के सद य के 9प म8 िनयु\ त करती है।

[फा.सं. जी-38011/41/2016-िव2-I]

पेरन देवी, िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 27th April, 2018

S.O. 708.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (3)(c) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry

(Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri M.K. Surana, CMD, HPCL as

a member of the Oil Industry Development Board w.e.f. 01-04-2018 to 31-03-2020 or until further orders, whichever

is earlier.

[F.No. G-38011/41/2016-Fin.I]

PERIN DEVI, Director

नई दली, 27 अ;ैल, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 709

709

709

709.—तेल उiोग (िवकास) अिधिनयम 1974 (1974 का 47) कH धारा (3) कH उपधारा (3)(क) sारा ;द2 शि\ तयB

का ;योग करते fए, के: ^ सरकार एत?ारा Oी पी. राघवे: ^ राव, सिचव, रसायन एवं पे[ो रसायन िवभाग को दनांक 19.03.2018 से

18.03.2020 तक अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, तेल उiोग िवकास बोड के सद य के 9प म8 िनयु\ त करती है।

[फा.सं. जी-38011/41/2016-िव2-I]

पेरन देवी, िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 27th April, 2018

S.O. 709.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (3)(a) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry

(Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri P. Raghavendra Rao Secretary,

Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals as a member of the Oil Industry Development Board w.e.f. 19-03-2018 to

18-03-2020 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. G-38011/41/2016-Fin.I]

PERIN DEVI, Director

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3581

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 25 vizSy] 2018

dk-vk- 710-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ dqcSr

,;jost dkiksZjs'ku ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 51@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

10-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@26@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2018

S.O. 710.—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 No. 2,

Mumbai (Ref. No. 51/2013) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. Kuwait Airways Corporation and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 10.04.2018.

[No. L-11012/26/2013-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/51 of 2013

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

KUWAIT AIRWAYS CORPORATION

The Sr. Regional Director,

Kuwait Airways Corporation,

902, Nariman Bhawan, 9th Floor,

Nariman Point,

Mumbai – 400 021.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The Executive President,

Kuwait Airways Officers & Staff Association,

3/65, Nityanand Nagar-IV,

Near Railway Station, Andheri [E],

Mumbai – 400 069.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER

:

Mr. G.S. Desai, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN

:

Mr. Iqbal Siddique, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 19th February, 2018.

AWARD

1.

This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-11012/26/2013 – IR (CM-I) dated 29.08.2013. The terms of reference

given in the schedule are as follows :

3582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the demand of Kuwait Airways Staff and Officer’s Association, Mumbai for regularization of the

services of Sh. Hector D’Souza and Sh. Hemant Sawant office boy is legal and justified ? To what relief they

are entitled to ?“

2.

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. Second Party union filed their

statement of claim at Ex.5. First party management resisted the statement of claim by filing their written statement at

Ex.8. Issues were framed at Ex.9 by my Ld. predecessor. Union led the evidence. Thereafter the matter was fixed for

recording evidence of management.

3.

Meanwhile the concerned workmen Mr. H.D. D’Souza (Ex.17) and Mr. Hemant Mr. Sawant (Ex.16) filed the

applications dated 19.2.18 for disposing of the reference on the ground that they have settled all their disputes, claims

and demands concerning the above reference with the first party company vide settlement dated 10.2.2018. They

therefore do not desire to pursue the above reference & prayed to dispose of the reference.

4.

Other side has no objection. In the circumstances, I pass the following order.

ORDER

Reference is withdrawn and hence disposed off.

Date: 19.02.2018

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 vizSy] 2018

dk-vk- 711-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

bf.M;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 266@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 10-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@81@1998&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 25th April, 2018

S.O. 711.—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,

Bhubaneswar (Ref. No. 266/2001) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 10.04.2018.

[No. L-30012/81/1998-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 266/2001

Date of Passing Award – 7th March, 2018

Between:

The General Manager,

M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

2, Ghariahat Road (South), Dhakuria,

Kolkatta – 68

…1st Party-Management

(And)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3583

Shri Manas Kumar Patra,

C/o. D.D. Gochayat, Qr. No. A/8,

HDO Colony, P.O. P.P.L. Township,

Paradip – 754 145

…2nd Party-Workman

Appearances :

M/s. Debraj Mohanty, Advocate

…

For the 1st Party-Management.

M/s. Susant Dash, Advocate

…

For the 2nd Party-Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercising its authority conferred by clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short The Act) have referred an

industrial dispute between the management of I.O.C. Ltd. Disputant Shri Manas Kumar Patra for its adjudication vide

its letter No. L-30012/81/98 – IR(C-I), dated 28.01.1999/06.07.1999 and the schedule of reference is “Whether

Shri Manas Kumar Patra is a workman of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited? If yes, whether the action of the

Management in retrenching his services is proper and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled”?

2.

The case of the 2nd party-workman is that he was engaged by the Management of IOCL, Paradip on a monthly

wages of Rs. 750/- with effect from 20.8.1994 to work as a Liaison Worker to co-ordinate the loading of furnace oil

with the tanker at Paradip Depot and for its transportation and unloading at P.P.L. site. He was also assigned other

duties. On the communication of the officer of the IOCL he was issued with a gate pass for his entry to the P.P.L.

campus. It is his claim that when he made a representation for enhancement of his wage keeping in view the minimum

wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, the Management turned down his request and removed him from

service. It has also instructed the CISF not to issue any gate pass for which he could not report himself to duty inside

the P.P.L. He raised a dispute before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central) resulting in the reference as mentioned

earlier.

3.

The Management has contested the statement of claim refuting all the allegations raised therein and taken a

stand that in no point of time the disputant workman was ever engaged or employed to supervise any sort of work

either in the IOCL or in the P.P.L. It has pleaded that petroleum products being bunkered at Paradip Port was supplied

to Paradip Phosphate Limited being transported in oil tanker. The tankers were facing difficulties to obtain

acknowledgement receipt towards unloading of petroleum products in the P.P.L. premises as a result of which

frequency of supply was affected. Accordingly, the Management appointed a contractor M/s. Port Service Station to

ensure that the acknowledgement invoice was obtained speedily. The disputant workman was engaged by the said

contractor to supervise his work and he was under the pay roll of said M/s. Port Service. In September, 1996 the P.P.L.

had re-organized the system of issuing acknowledgement invoices to avoid the delay in frequency of transportation.

The services of M/s. Port Service Station was dispensed with as a result of which M/s. Port Service might have

terminated the services of the disputant workman. It has denied any relationship of employer and employee with the

disputant workman and as such maintainability of the reference is also challenged.

4.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties following issues have been settled for the adjudication of the dispute.

ISSUES

1. Whether the reference made by the appropriate Government is maintainable?

2. Whether Shri Manas Kumar Patra is a workman of M/s. Oil Corporation Ltd.?

3. Whether the action of the management in retrenching his services is proper and justified?

4. To what relief the workman is entitled?

5.

Both the parties have examined one witness each and filed Xerox copies of certain documents to substantiate

their respective plea. In the process the disputant has examined himself as W.W.-1 and filed copies of the gate passes,

copy of letter dated 20.8.1994 issued by the Dy. Manager of IOCL, copies of letters issued by the Management on

different dates, copy of letter dated 15.7.1997 issued by the Management to the LEO (Central), Paradip, which are

marked as exhibits Ext.-Ext.-1 to Ext.-3, whereas the Management has examined one Shri Prabodh Kumar, D.G.M.,

Operation, as M.W.-1 and filed copies of the bills dated 9.3.1996 and 20.4.1996 of M/s. Port Service, copy of the reply

dated 15.7.1997 and copy of the letter dated 4.5.1998 of IOCL to A.L.C., Bhubaneswar marked as Ext.-A to Ext.-D to

refute the allegations raised by the disputant workman.

For the sake of convenience and since the findings of the issues are inter-related to each they are taken into

consideration simultaneously.

3584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The oral testimony of the disputant workman is a reiteration of his pleadings advanced in his statement of claim.

According to him he was employed by the Management of IOCL on oral direction of the then Deputy Manager

Mr. B.D. Majhi with effect from 20.8.1994 to coordinate and supervise the loading and unloading of furnace oil in the

oil tankers for its transportation from Paradip Port to P.P.L. site. He was paid a monthly wages of Rs. 750/- for doing the

above job. On the written instruction/letters of the officers of the Management Commandant, CISF engaged in the gate of

P.P.L. issued gate pass in his favour to enable him to supervise the unloading work. According to him he worked

continuously and uninterruptedly from 20.8.1994 to 12.12.1996. He was engaged more than 240 days continuously in

each calendar year as well as in the year preceding to his refusal of employment to him. When he raised a demand to

enhance his monthly wage keeping in view the minimum wage fixed by the Government he was disengaged without any

notice pay and retrenchment compensation. He was also refused gate pass. To strengthen his evidence reliance is placed

on the Xerox copies of the gate passes issued in his favour (Ext.-1 series), letters allegedly issued by the officers of the

Management to the Commandant, CISF for issuing gate pass in favour of the disputant workman (Ext.-2 series). Though,

the authenticity of the documents were challenged by the Management, the M.W.-1 has admitted in his cross examination

to have issued letters Ext.-2/C to 2/G. It is seen from these letters that recommendation was made by the officers of the

Management for issuance of gate pass in favour of the disputant workman. In the gate passes exhibited in the hearing the

Indian Oil Corporation has been named as the Contractor. Though the Management Witness has testified that the disputant

was engaged by the contractor of the Management i.e. M/s. Port Service, it has not taken such stand in it’s letter to the

labour machinery when a dispute is raised at the earliest after disengagement of the disputant workman since Ext.-3 is

silent in that regard. Undisputedly Ext.-3 is the correspondence of the Management with the labour machinery when a

dispute was raised by the workman. No document is also filed on behalf of the Management to show that M/s. Port

Service was ever entered into any agreement with the Management to work or to supervise or to liason for the smooth

loading and unloading of furnace oil for the Management for its transportation to P.P.L. The Management witness has also

admitted in his cross examination that casual labour were engaged by the 1st Party-Management with conformity to the

guideline and instructions given by the Government when the Oil depot was established newly at Paradip. It is also elicited

from his cross examination that payment register may be available in the office of the 1st Party-Management which can

show payment of wages to the casual labourers engaged directly by the 1st Party-Management and the said register can

disclose whether the 2nd party was receiving wages directly from the Management. The Management could have produced

those registers to show that the disputant was never paid any wages and had he been engaged the payment register could

have disclosed disbursement of wages to him. The disputant having been engaged as a casual worker for an amount of Rs.

750/- per month was not expected to be appointed through any appointment letter or through recruitment process. It is in

usual practice and it cannot be denied that such casual labours are usually appointed on oral instruction.

It cannot be over-sighted that though the Management of IOCL has filed two acknowledge receipts to establish

that M/s. Port Service was paying wages to the workman, no document is filed to prove that M/s. Port Service was ever

engaged as a Contractor on its behalf to look after loading and unloading of furnace oil for its transportation to P.P.L.

premises. That apart, the above plea was not taken before the labour machinery in the earliest opportunity when a

dispute was raised before the Labour machinery. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that from the pleadings and

evidence of the parties as discussed above that the disputant was engaged by the management. In the above back-drops

the oral testimony of the disputant workman is found trust-worthy to arrive at a conclusion that he was engaged by the

management of IOCL to do liasioning work for smooth unloading of furnace oil at P.P.L. He was found to have

worked for more than two years for the Management and even though he had worked 240 days continuously and

uninterruptedly in a calendar year preceding to his alleged disengagement on 13.12.1996, he was not paid either any

notice pay or retrenchment compensation. Hence, his disengagement amounted to retrenchment in violation of the

provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and as such, the same was illegal and unjustified.

Coming to the relief to which the disputant is entitled to, it is seen that M.W.-1 has admitted engagement of

some daily casual labours in the Management by following circulars and guidelines of the Government. A judicial

notice can be taken also that the Management being a Industry must be taking assistance of casual labours in its day to

day function. The disputant is found to have been retrenched in the year 1996 and due to inordinate delay in answering

the reference he is already crossed the age of eligibility for applying in any Government or Semi Government

Undertakings for his appointment. There is no evidence from the side of the Management to show that the disputant

was gainfully employed after his retrenchment. Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed in supra, it is

felt just and proper for a direction of reinstatement of the disputant workman with 50% of the back wages within two

months of publication of the award failing which the disputant is entitled to full wages from the date of this award

along with an interest of 8% on the back wages and the wages accrued to him from the date of the award.

Accordingly the reference is answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3585

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vizSy] 2018

dk-vk- 712-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ osLVuZ

dksyiQhYM fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 15@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@98@2010&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2018

S.O. 712.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Westeren

Coalfield Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.04.2018.

[No. L-22012/98/2010-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/15/2011-12

Date: 19.03.2018

Party No.1(a)

:

The Chief General Manager,

WCL, Nagpur Area, Jaripatka,

Nagpur.

Party No.1(b)

:

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

WCL, Coal Estate, Civil Lines,

Nagpur (MS).

Party No.1(c)

:

The General Manager, WCL,

Nagpur Area, Jaripatka,

Nagpur.

Party No.1(d)

:

The Colliery Manager,

Mine No. 3, WCL, Saoner,

Distt. Nagpur.

Versus

Party No. 2

:

Shri Madhukar V. Motghare,

R/o Plot No. 15, Ward No. 4,

Khaparkheda, New Water Tank,

Tehsil: Saoner, Distt. Nagpur (MS).

AWARD

(Dated: 19th March, 2018)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited and their workman,

Shri Madhukar V. Motghare, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/98/2010- (IR(CM-II) dated 23.06.2011, with

the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Western coalfields limited in dismissing the service of the

applicant w.e.f. 01.04.2007 is legal and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

2.

On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement,

in response to which, the workman, Shri Madhukar V. Motghare, (“the workman” in short) filed the statement of claim

and the management of WCL, (“party no.1” in short) filed the written statement.

3586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that the party no.1 is an “industry” as defined

under the Act and the party no.1 have its own certified standing orders and the provisions of the standing orders have

got overriding effect and he came to be appointed as a mazdoor with party no.1 in the year 1981 and posted at Saoner

Mine no.3 and he was designated as a clerk in the year 1986 and his entire service record was clean and excellent and

no memo or charge sheet was ever served against him and he was performing his duty with honesty and utmost care

and to his utter surprise, he was suspended from service by order dated 19.04.2001 and he was served with the charge

sheet dated 04.08.2001, whereby, false charges were levelled against him and the order of suspension and the charge

sheet submitted against him were illegal, arbitrary and malafide and on 11.01.1994, the Chairman-Cum-Managing

Director, as empowered under clause 2.3 of the Standing Orders had notified the list of the Disciplinary Authority and

according to the said list, the Sub-area Manager, Silewara colliery was his Disciplinary Authority and the said

Authority was only empowered to issue the charge sheet and to take disciplinary action against him and the charge

sheet dated 04.08.2001 was submitted against him by the General Manager,(Operation), Nagpur Area, Jaripatka,

Nagpur, who was not the competent authority to issue the same and even otherwise also the charge sheet was not issued

within a period of 3 days from the date of issuance of the suspension order, as required under clause 28.2 of the

certified standing order and the charge sheet submitted against him was barred by limitation and no enquiry could have

been conducted in pursuance to the said charge sheet.

The further case of the workman is that for the same set of facts, a complaint was also lodged with the police

against him and police submitted a charge sheet against him in the Special Court (CBI) at Nagpur and therefore, he

raised objection before party no.1 and the Enquiry Officer, but his objection was not decided and being aggrieved by

the same, he filed the case, IESO No. 3/2004, before the First Labour court, Nagpur and the party no.1 and the Enquiry

Officer, without waiting for the decision of the court, completed the enquiry and issued the impugned dismissal order

and as per the settled position of law, two identical proceedings cannot be continued simultaneously against the

delinquent and therefore, the departmental enquiry ought to have been stayed during the pendency of the criminal case

no. 67/2003 (19/2001), but party no.1 and the Enquiry Officer did not stay the enquiry and he was compelled to

disclose his defence in the departmental enquiry, prior to the completion of the criminal trial and during the pendency

of the cases, initially, Shri R.K. Sharma and Shri P.K Roy were appointed as the Enquiry Officer and management

representative respectively, to conduct the enquiry against him and Shri Sharma was conducting the enquiry as per the

principles of natural justice and Shri Sharma, the Enquiry Officer noticed that the enquiry was delayed at the instance

of the management and inspite of completion of more than six months, the management was not paying the legitimate

subsistence allowance to him, so, Shri Sharma vide order dated 24.10.2001 directed the management to pay full

subsistence allowance to him and being annoyed by the order of the Enquiry Officer dated 24.10.2001, the management

without any cogent reason, changed the Enquiry Officer and the management representative and appointed Smt. R.P.

Barla and Shri M.R. Diwedi as the Enquiry Officer and management representative respectively and the Enquiry

Officer completed the enquiry in a most arbitrary manner and submitted the enquiry report on 07.04.2005 and on the

basis of such enquiry report, he was served with the show cause notice dated 09.10.2006 and he submitted an

application dated 14.10.2006 and requested for time to submit a detailed reply to the said show cause notice, but

without deciding the preliminary objections and his request for time, party no.1 issued the dismissal order dated

31.03.2007 against him and the said order is improper, unfair, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

It is also pleaded by the workman that he was not supplied with relevant documents and the documents on which,

reliance was placed by the party no.1 against him and during the course of the enquiry, he demanded several

documents, but those documents were not supplied to him and he was not allowed to be represented and defended

through an advocate in the enquiry, though the charges were severe and criminal in nature and his request to allow him

to engage an advocate for his defence was rejected by the Enquiry Officer on the ground of his not having any right to

be defended through an advocate in the departmental enquiry and he was not given the opportunity to cross-examine

the witnesses for the management or to adduce evidence in his defence and the management did not examine the

complainant, Shri Sanjay Payal, who had made complaint against him and the investigation officer, Shri Atul Hajela

and the management examined unnecessary witnesses and the charges were not proved against him and the Enquiry

Officer submitted her report dated 07.04.2005, holding only the charge no.1 to be proved and her such findings are

totally perverse and he was not given the opportunity to submit a detailed reply to the show cause notice and the

enquiry report and the documents were not duly proved in the enquiry and as per the principles of natural justice, he

was not given the opportunity of personal hearing before passing of the dismissal order dated 31.03.2007 and the order

dated 31.03.2007 was issued by the authority, who was not competent to issue the same and he was not given

reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry and his past service record was not consider before imposing of

the harass punishment of dismissal from service and through the charges were not proved in the enquiry, major

punishment was imposed upon him.

The further case of the workman is that he was acquitted in the criminal trial, special case no. 67/2003 (19/2001),

by judgment dated 17.098.2009 and in view of the same, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and

payment of full back wages.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3587

It is also pleaded by the workman that his wife was the Sarpanch of Walni Gram Panchayat and his wife for

fulfilling various demands, took active part in the work of the Gram Panchayat and being annoyed with the activity of

his wife, the party No.1 took revenge against him by dismissing him from service on false charges and after his

dismissal from service, he is unemployed.

The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded inter-alia that a stale claim has been referred to the Tribunal

for adjudication and the workman was dismissed on 31.03.2007 and the claim has been made after five years and the

workman has not given a single reason for making the claim at such a belated stage and due to delay and latches, the

claim is liable to be rejected.

The further case of the party no.1 is that the workman has suppressed material facts and he had filed IESO case

no. 3/2004 before the First Labour court, Nagpur, raising all the issues, as raised in the present reference and after filing

of its reply in the said case, the workman did not attend the case and finally the case was dismissed for default on

30.10.2009 and the workman had also filed writ petition no. 5316/2006, before the Hon’ble High Court and in the said

writ petition also, all the issues similar to the issues raised in the present claim were raised by the workman and the said

writ petition was dismissed on merits by the Hon’ble High Court, by its judgment dated 07.11.2006 and as the

workman has suppressed the filing of IESO case and the writ petition and their dismissal, the reference is liable to be

rejected and the present reference, so far it relates to the fairness of the enquiry is hit by the principles of res-judicata, in

view of the dismissal of the writ petition no. 5316/2006 by the Hon’ble High Court on merits.

It is further pleaded by the party no.1 that the service record of the workman was not clean and unblemished and

it is also settled position of law that the gravity of the first major misconduct to the credit of an employee also entitles

the employer to dismiss the employee and acceptance of bribe is a major misconduct, which was committed by the

workman and as such, after holding departmental enquiry, by observing all the principles of natural justice, the

dismissal order was passed and the workman was caught red handed, while accepting bribe of Rs. 5000/- and was

arrested for the same, so, he was rightly suspended and after the inquiry made by the Anti Corruption Department,

charge sheet dated 04.08.2001was issued by it against the workman and unless and until it is prima facie convinced that

misconduct has been committed by an employee, a charge sheet cannot be issued and in the case of the workman, the

enquiry of the commission of the misconduct was conducted by the Government Agency and after the preliminary

enquiry and filing of the charge sheet against the workman by the Anti Corruption Department, the charge sheet was

rightly issued by it against the workman and it is also not mandatory to issue the charge sheet to an employee within

three days and after the incident, the workman was transferred to Nagpur Area and accordingly, the charge sheet was

issued by the Head of the department, in accordance with the standing orders and the suspension order and charge sheet

were neither illegal nor arbitrary nor malafide and Shri P.K. Sharma and Shri P.K. Roy, who were initially appointed as

the Enquiry Officer and management representative respectively were transferred during the enquiry and as they

expressed their inability to continue with the enquiry, it became necessary to replace them and they were not changed

for any other reason or for any order passed by them and because of the non-cooperation from the side of the workman,

infact no progress could be made in the sittings held by shri R.K. Sharma and the workman participated in the enquiry

proceedings conducted by the newly appointed Enquiry Officer for some time, but with the change of his co-worker,

the workman started raising frivolous objections and as no stay order was obtained by the workman to the enquiry

proceedings, the Enquiry Officer was not wrong in continuing the enquiry proceedings and the objections raised by the

workman to the continuance of the enquiry proceedings were baseless and accordingly, the same were rejected and

there is no bar for continuance of the departmental enquiry and the criminal trial simultaneously and the workman was

supplied with all the documents on which it had relied and the same were exhibited during the enquiry proceedings in

presence of the workman and the workman did not raise any objection, while the said documents were exhibited and

just to gain mis-placed sympathy, bald allegations have been made without disclosing as to which documents were not

supplied and in what manner he was prejudiced and as per the standing orders, an employee can be represented through

a co-worker only, in a departmental enquiry and accordingly, permission to the workman to be represented through a

lawyer was rightly refused and the workman and his co-worker declined to cross-examine the witnesses and the

Enquiry Officer gave number of opportunities to the workman to lead evidence, but he failed to lead evidence and a

bare perusal of the enquiry proceedings will demonstrate that the workman was only interested in protracting the

enquiry proceedings on one ground or the other and witness, Shri Sanjay Payal was duly summoned by it to attend the

enquiry, but he did not attend the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer did not have the power to compel him to attend the

enquiry and the police Inspector of CBI was duly examined and most relevant witnesses were examined in the enquiry

to prove the charges levelled against the workman and strict rules of evidence are not applicable in departmental

enquiry and the enquiry was conducted by observing all the principles of natural justice and giving all opportunities

including that of second show cause notice to the workman, before passing of the order in terms of the enquiry report

and as commission of grave misconduct was established against the workman, the past service record was of no

consequence and even otherwise, the same was duly considered by the competent authority, before passing of the

3588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

impugned order and the competent authority before passing of the impugned order considered all the relevant factors as

were required to be considered in the eyes of law and it is a settled principles of law that once the employer losses

confidence in the employee, it is not desirable to continue such employee in the employment and in the criminal trial,

as witnesses turned hostile, the workman was acquitted, but in the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer after

consideration of the evidence on record, rightly concluded that the charge was duly proved against the workman and

the story put-forth by the workman in the statement of claim about his wife, is totally afterthought, as the same was not

pleaded by the workman either in the reply to the charge sheet or in any other communications and in the cases filed by

him and in the entire statement of claim, there is not a single word in regard to the proportionality of the punishment

imposed and the workman has not made out a case for interference and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4.

In the rejoinder, the workman has pleaded that being aggrieved by the order of his dismissal from services, on

08.06.2007, he preferred departmental appeal to the Chief General Manager, WCL, but the said Authority has not

decided the said appeal and after his acquittal from criminal charges, he submitted an application dated 09.11.2009 and

demand notice dated 22.12.2009 to the party no.1, with a request to reinstate him in service alongwith all consequential

benefits and as party no.1 did not give any reply to the same, he was compelled to raise the dispute by submitting the

application dated 12.01.2010 to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur and due to the non cooperation

of the party no.1, the conciliation failed and as such, his claim is not a stale claim and there is no delay in raising the

dispute and IESO case no. 03/2004 filed by him was for interpretation of the Standing Orders and after issuance of

dismissal order dated 31.03.2007, the said case became in-fructuous and writ petition no. 5316/2006 had been filed by

him to stay the departmental enquiry till the disposal of the criminal trial and the same was not filed by him raising all

the issues raised in this reference and as the most important witnesses, complainant, Shri Sanjay Payal and Shri Atul

Hajela, the CBI Inspector were not examined in the departmental enquiry, it is clear that there was absolutely no

evidence against him and in view of the same, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are totally perverse and he had

demanded the alleged complaint made by Shri Sanjay Payal and in the enquiry, Shri P.K. Roy, the management

representative had stated before the Enquiry Officer, Shri R.K. Sharma that Shri Sanjay Payal had not made any

complaint against him and the statement of Shri Roy had been recorded by Shri Sharma, the Enquiry Officer in the

enquiry proceeding and for that, the party no.1 is required to produce the enquiry papers before this Tribunal.

5.

Both the parties have placed reliance on documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. Besides the

documentary evidence, the workman has examined himself as a witness to prove his case.

6.

On behalf of the management they relied on case law Baljinder Pal Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and others 2016 I

SCC 671, Divisional Controller KSRTC vs. M.G. Vittal Rao 2012 I SCC 442, Dy. Inspector General of Police Vs.

S. Samuthiram 2013 I SCC 598 and Depot Manager APSRTC Vs. B. Swamy 2007 12 SCC 40 in which the following

principles are laid down:-

1)

“Judicial Review- Generally- Nature and scope- Held, judicial review is concerned primarily with decision-

making process and not decision itself.

2)

Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which

would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management.

3)

If he is dishonest in the performance of his duties…..and the gravity of misconduct cannot be minimize by

the fact that he was not earlier caught indulging in such dishonest conduct. There is no guarantee that he

had not acted dishonestly in the past as well, which went undetected.

These principles are also supported by Hon’ble Supreme Court with elaborated explanation in the following case

law:-

7.

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs Nemichand, Civil Appeal No. 5861 of 2007, SC dated 01.03.2011, Regional

Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Hotilal, Civil Appeal No. 5984 of 2000 dated 11.02.2003, State Bank of India Vs Ramesh

Dinkar, Civil Appeal No. 2055 of 2003 dated 11.08.2006, Devendra Kumar Vs State of Uttaranchal, Civil Appeal No.

1155 of 2006 dated 29.07.2013 and Bharat Forge Company Ltd. Vs A.B. Zodge, A.I.R. 1996 SC 1556, in which

following legal principles are laid down:-

i.

It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the

domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record.

ii.

Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquires, except where

such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity

is to see whether a Tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the

material on record. Courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of

natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary,

capricious, malafide or based on extraneous considerations.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3589

iii.

Legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being

fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline.

They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or

gravity of the misconduct.

iv

The position in our country, in administrative law, where no fundamental freedoms as aforesaid are

involved, is that the courts/tribunals will only play a secondary role while the primary judgment as to

reasonableness will remain with the executive or administrative authority.

v.

A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard of proof required is that of preponderance

of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

8.

Now we discuss the evidence with reference to argument as well as case laws put on behalf of the workman. It is

argued that, no charge has been proved against the Party No. 2 because, management had not examined Investigation

Officer as well as complainant and opportunity of cross-examination was also not given. This fact is denied by the

management. Workman relied on case laws:- Shanabhai M Padariya Vs Bhyagesh Jha 2017 (6) SLR 134 and

Commissioner of Police, Delhi Vs Jai Bhagwan (2011) 6 SCC 376, in which it was held that, non examination of

crucial witnesses in the departmental enquiry is fatal and non examination of complainant is also fatal and deny the

opportunity of cross examination to delinquent.

On behalf of the management, relied on case laws:- LIC Vs Ram Pal Singh Bisen (2010) I SCC (L&S) 1072,

Kanailal Bera Vs Union of India 2007 III CLR 830, Chairman & Managing Director V.S.P. Vs Gopal Raju Shri

Prabhakara Hari Babu (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 311 and Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Vs. Hukumchand (2009) 2

SCC (L&S) 615 in which it was held that – (1) “Held, detailed enquiry need not be held. Penalty based on

respondent’s admission that he unauthorisedly absented, was valid in view of the Evidence Act, 1872, S.58”. (2)

“Employee’s own admission of misconduct. Enquiry in such an eventuality, held not necessary – Administrative Law-

Natural justice”. It is also held that, once a disciplinary proceeding is initiated, same must be brought to its logicable

and finding of guilt or not guilt against the delinquent, has to be arrived at.

9.

Now we want to see evidence on this fact. Petitioner in his cross-examination admitted that, he and his

co-worker had signed on day to day proceeding of departmental enquiry. He also admitted that, three witnesses were

cross-examined on behalf of the management but they were not cross-examined on the ground of pendency of criminal

case against him. He also admitted that, day to day proceedings of departmental enquiry are true and correct. He also

admitted that, no stay order was passed by Central Administrative Tribunal. He also admitted that, he filed a Writ

petition No. 5316/2006 before the Hon’ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in which, he raised his all objection as a ground

mentioned in his statement of claim.

10.

On going all these factual situations, my humble opinion is that, complainant Shri Sanjay Payal and Investigation

Officer, Mr. Atul Hajela were not examined by the management in the departmental enquiry. All three witnesses were

examined by the management, but not cross-examined by the workman or his representative it shows that, management

provided an opportunity to the workman for cross-examination, which was not availed. It also shows that, no

document was admitted by the workman. On perusal of the criminal court judgment it reveals that complainant Shri

Sanjay Payal turned hostile and criminal court imposed him 10000/- as fine under section 250 of CRPC. Criminal court

also held that under section 344 that action perjury be initiate against the complainant Shri Sanjay Payal.

On behalf of the workman it was pointed out that in the enquiry report departmental officer had mentioned on

page no.6 that “as no further management witness could be produced inspite of sufficient time ……… evidence on

management side was close on 20.12.2004.” On page no.8 of enquiry report enquiry officer also mentioned that “the

said Shri Sanjay Payal could not be produced by the management representative …… there is nothing on record that

indicates that there were any witnesses present when ……. “Workman” demands the illegal gratification from Shri

Sanjay Payal on 17.04.2001 at 10.00 PM.” All these facts shows that there was defect in the departmental enquiry in

the light of above case law.

11.

On behalf of workman, advocate argued that, departmental enquiry and criminal case were based on same facts

and identical. He also argued that, original copy of complaint and criminal case document never produced in the

departmental enquiry and criminal court dismissed the criminal case. So, workman is entitled to reinstate. He relied on

case laws:-

Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 679, Union of India Vs Prakash Kumar

Tandon (2009) 2 SCC 541, G.M. Tank Vs State of Gujarat (2006) AIR SCC 2129, Divisional Controller, Karnataka Vs

M.G. Vittal Rao 2012(3) Mh. L.J. 169 and Baljinder Pal Kaur Vs State of Punjab and others (2016) I SCC 671.

In which, Hon’ble Lordship held that, in criminal case standard of proof required is beyond reasonable doubt

while in a domestic enquiry it is the preponderance of probabilities that constitutes the test to be applied. It is also held

3590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that, some time acquittal order of criminal court based on technical ground of prosecution witnesses turned hostile and

appeared to have been won over.

On behalf of the workman it was also argued that management examined only three witnesses namely Shri Vijay

Bhoyar, Shri Kundan Sahare and Shri A.G. Golwalkar. These were not relevant witnesses so argument was that

witnesses had never proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe. So according to the workman finding recorded in

the departmental enquiry was totally perverse and unsustainable in the eye of law. On contrary, this argument was

denied by the management by saying that it is settled principle of law that once employer losses confidence in the

employee, it was not desirable to continue such employee in the employment. It was also argued that enquiry officer

could not compel to complainant to attend the enquiry. He also argued that Police Inspector of CBI was duly

examined. He also argued that issued of fairness enquiry already stood concluded in WP NO. 5316/2006.

On behalf of the workman, it was also argued that party no.2 entitled to reinstate in service with continuity and

payment of full back wages because party no.1 with an intention to harass him. It also argued that party no.2 was not

allotted work of lifting and transportation of coal, so he never demanded illegal gratification. Even in absence of these

pieces of evidence the enquiry officer had proved the charges, so findings are perverse. He also argued that his past

service record was not considered before imposing harsh punishment of dismissal from services. On the contrary, this

argument was denied by the management by stating that in criminal trial complainant turn hostile and to have been

winning over, so judgment in criminal court is of no use. He also argued that accepting the bribe is a serious offence.

He also argued that workman had not raised any ground whereby challenging the finding recorded by the enquiry

officer. They also argued that punishment of dismissal imposed upon the workman could not be termed as

disproportionate.

12.

In the case law, A.P.S.R.T. Corporation Vs G. Murali, 2017 LLR 1233 held that, “Statement recorded by the TTI

from the passengers cannot be taken in evidence, as no opportunity was given respondent to cross-examine”.

13.

After perusal of the record, I want to mention some facts, established in this case:-

(i).

Workman after passing 10th standard exam he appointed as Mazdoor in 1981. He was promoted as a clerk

in the year 1986.

(ii).

Charge was framed against the workman on 04.08.2001. Departmental enquiry was run from 04.08.2001

to 07.04.2005.

(iii).

Second show cause notice was issued to the workman on 09.10.2006 but he did not file any reply to the

notice. He was dismissed from service on 31.03.2007. He filed an appeal, which was also dismissed on

08.06.2007. On defence, workman did not examine any witness nor any documentary evidence but he

filed his written notes of argument. He was acquitted by CBI court in corruption on 17.09.2009.

(iv).

As per the record, it appears that the age of workman is 58 years approx. According to the workman’s

advocate he has no gainful employment.

14.

It is also laid down in above case law that, Disciplinary Authority and Appellant Authority being the fact finding

authority, this Tribunal is not Appellate Authority. It is also held that, Tribunal will only play secondary role, while the

primary judgment as to reasonableness will remain with the executive of administrative authority.

In case law--- Delhi Transport Corp. vs. Ombir Singh 2017 LLR 252, Hon’ble Lordship held that “Where

principles of natural justice are not being complied with, then in such cases, compensation ought to be granted

even if termination of service is found to be valid”. On the basis of principle laid down in Engineering Laghu

Udhyog Employees Union vs Judge, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal & others – (2003) 12 SCC 1 in

which it was held that:- “no difference whether the matter comes before the tribunal for approval under S.33

or on a reference under S.10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In either case if the enquiry is defective or if

no enquiry has been held as required by Standing Orders, the entire case would be open before the tribunal and

the employer would have to justify on facts as well that its order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” “A

defective enquiry in our opinion stands on the same footing as no enquiry and in either case the tribunal would

have jurisdiction to go into the facts and the employer would have to satisfy the tribunal that on facts the order

of dismissal or discharge was proper.”

It will be open to the Tribunal to pay compensation even in a case where ultimate charges are proved, despite

holding that the order of termination is valid for the reason that principles of natural justice have not complied

with.

15.

Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles as mentioned above, it is found that law is

well settled that where principles of natural justice were not complied with, then in such cases compensation ought to

be granted because termination of the services in my opinion is valid. In view of the discussion made above and the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3591

materials on record, it is found that there is no scope to interfere with the order of the punishment of dismissal from

services passed against the workman. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of Western coalfields limited in dismissing the service of the applicant w.e.f.

01.04.2007 is legal and justified but due to lack of procedure in departmental enquiry, the workman is entitled

for lumpsum compensation of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) from party no.1 in lieu of

reinstatement, which is payable within one month from the publication of this award in official gazette, failing

which, the amount due to the workman will carry interest of 6% per annum from the date of due to the

workman to the date of actual payment of the amount to the workman. The workman is not entitled for any

other relief.

SHYAM SUNDER GARG, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vizSy] 2018

dk-vk- 713-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ osLVuZ

dksyiQhYM fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 39@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@260@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2018

S.O. 713.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Westeren

Coalfield Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.04.2018.

[No. L-22012/260/2012-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/39/2012

Date: 28.03.2018

Party No.1

:

The Chief General Manager

Wani North Area, WCL, Po:Bhalar,

Tah-Wani, Distt. Yavatmal (MS).

:

The Sub Area Manager, Ukni O/c Mines,

Wani North Area, WCL, PO: Ukni,

Tah-Wani, Distt. Yavatmal (MS)

Versus

Party No.2

:

The Secretary,

Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh

(BMS), Ukni Branch, Qr. No. MQ-320

Bhalar Township, Po: Bhalar,

Tah-Wani, Distt. Yavatmal (MS)

AWARD

(Dated: 28th March, 2018)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

3592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, Shri Gajanan U. Potraje, for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/260/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 20.02.2013, with the following schedule:-

“With reference to CIL’s Career growth to Personnel with ITI Certificate Holder, whether Mgmt’s denial

to remove anomaly/pay disparity in respect of Shri Gajanan U. Potraje, ITI Certificate Holder at Par with

his junior who is drawing more wages in Ukni Area of Wani North Area of WCL is legal and justified? If

not, what monetary benefit the workman is entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Gajanan U. Potraje, (‘the workman” in short), through its Union

Bhartiya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (‘the union” in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of

WCL (“Party No. 1” in short) filed their written statement.

3.

According to the workman his basic pay on 01.07.1996 was 198.40. While his junior worker Shri V.L.

Singhamwar was having basic pay of Rs. 191.13 on the same dated which was less than the petitioner. On 01.07.1998

Shri V.L. Singhamwar was promoted to category-B and his basic pay was equal to the basic of the workman i.e.

198.40.

4.

After implementation of instruction No. 32 JBCCI/NCWA-VI vide circular no. CIL/c-58/JBCCI/IT

No.32/2002/1048 dated 22.01.2002, applicant Shri Gajanan U. Potraje was notionally placed in higher category-A as a

Sr. EP Mech.(III) whose basic was done at Rs. 218.48 increasing benefit of just Rs. 2.33 and after adding one

increment, his basic was fixed on Rs. 224.99 as on 01.07.2000. Till 01.07.2000 applicant’s basic is higher than his

junior Shri V.L. Singhamwar (222.20).

5.

According to the workman he is entitled for the benefit under I.No. 32 Career growth of IT personnel. He also

claimed that JBCCI chart NCWA_VII he got fitment of Rs. 355.45 while his junior was drawing Rs.358.54.

6.

The workman prayed that he is entitled for Basic fitment on 363.85 on 01.07.2001. He also claimed that he is

entitled for all benefits corresponding to that basic. He also claimed interest on this amount and other related

allowances and benefits.

7.

On behalf of management written statement was filed by asserting that applicant was working as a Sr. E.P.

Mechanic. They also admitted that applicant was senior to Shri V.L. Singhamwar at Ukni mines of WCL. They also

asserted that on the basis of NCWA-VII chart, they fixed basic of both workers. According to the management, the

petitioner was holding ITI certificate so, he was given treatment in pursuance of implementation instruction no. 32

issued by the JBCCI, Calcutta.

8.

On behalf of the management it was asserted that no resolution was passed by the union to raise such disputes, so

petitioner’s claim did not fall within definition under section 2K of the Act. They also asserted that there is delay in

raising the dispute by the union. They also asserted that there was no merit in claim made by the petitioner through

union and prayed that reference deserves to be answered in favour of management.

9.

Petitioner filed rejoinder by asserting all these facts which was raised in statement of claim and also prayed that

he is entitled to be fixed on fitment of basic JBCCI chart NCWA-VII on 01.07.2001 Rs. 363.85 with all benefits. On

behalf of workman, it was also argued that, he is entitled for two increments according to the JBCCI chart and NCWA-

VII but management gave only one increment, so this is anomaly in fixation in basic.

10.

Petitioner filed affidavit in support of their statement of claim which was cross-examined by the representative of

the management, but on behalf of management no evidence was adduced. But both parties admitted the fitment chart

which is marked as Exhibit C-I (on behalf of Tribunal on the ground of admission of both parties).

11.

Now according to the parties, basic fitment of petitioner on 01.07.2001 is Rs. 363.85. Now the anomaly was

removed by JBCCI by issuing C-1 which was created due to defect in application of previous fitment chart. The

workman in his statement admitted that he was appointed as apprentice in the year1987. After that he was promoted to

6 higher posts. His last promotion was Sr. E.P. Mech. in the year 2005. He also admitted that as per Implementation

Instruction no. 32 of NCWA-VI, he got benefit on 01.07.2001. He also asserted that as he came to know about the

anomaly i.e. he received less payment in comparison to his junior, he filed his claim. He also asserted that on every

implementation of fitment in NCWA were done direct giving 2 increments. In his court evidence or court statement

nothing shows to disbelieve his statement. On the contrary management admitted these facts without producing any

evidence. Management also did not take care to settle the dispute before the RLC(C) and this Tribunal, so this matter is

pending before this Tribunal since 2012.

12.

Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

and High Court and on going through evidence of the workman, I found that the application of fitment chart issued

previously by the management was not legal and proper. Hence, it is ordered:-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3593

ORDER

“With reference to CIL’s Career growth to Personnel with ITI Certificate Holder, whether Mgmt’s denial

to remove anomaly/pay disparity in respect of Shri Gajanan U.Potraje, ITI Certificate Holder at Par with his

junior who is drawing more wages in Ukni Area of Wani North Area of WCL is not legal and justified. The

workman is entitled for basic fitment on 01.07.2001 of Rs. 363.85 and all other consequential benefit attached to

this basic. Management is directed to implement these benefits within one month from the publication of award.

In case of delay in application in fitment chart, workman is entitled for 6% interest per annum. He is also

entitled for the cost of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) from the management in lieu of expenses

for legal proceedings.

S. S. GARG, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vizSy] 2018

dk-vk- 714-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ osLVuZ

dksyiQhYM fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 40@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@261@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2018

S.O. 714.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Westeren

Coalfield Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.04.2018.

[No. L-22012/261/2012-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/40/2012

Date: 28.03.2018

Party No.1

:

The Chief General Manager

Wani North Area, WCL, Po:Bhalar,

Tah-Wani, Distt. Yavatmal (MS).

:

The Sub Area Manager, Ukni O/c Mines,

Wani North Area, WCL, PO: Ukni,

Tah-Wani, Distt. Yavatmal (MS)

Versus

Party No.2

:

The Secretary,

Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh

(BMS), Ukni Branch, Qr. No. MQ-320

Bhalar Township, Po: Bhalar,

Tah-Wani, Distt. Yavatmal (MS)

AWARD

(Dated: 28th March, 2018)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, Shri Manohar S. Lute, for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/261/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 20.02.2013, with the following schedule:-

3594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“With reference to CIL’s Career growth to Personnel with ITI Certificate Holder, whether Mgmt’s denial

to remove anomaly/pay disparity in respect of Shri Manohar S. Lute, ITI Certificate Holder at Par with

his junior who is drawing more wages in Ukni Area of Wani North Area of WCL is legal and justified? If

not, what monetary benefit the workman is entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Manohar S. Lute, (‘the workman” in short), through its Union Bhartiya

Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (‘the union” in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of WCL (“Party

No. 1” in short) filed their written statement.

3.

According to the workman his basic pay on 01.07.1996 was 198.40. While his junior worker Shri V.L.

Singhamwar was having basic pay of Rs. 191.13 on the same dated which was less than the petitioner. On 01.07.1998

Shri V.L. Singhamwar was promoted to category-B and his basic pay was equal to the basic of the workman i.e.

198.40.

4.

After implementation of instruction No. 32 JBCCI/NCWA-VI vide circular no. CIL/c-58/JBCCI/IT

No.32/2002/1048 dated 22.01.2002, applicant Shri Manohar S. Lute was notionally placed in higher category-A as a Sr.

EP Mech.(III) whose basic was done at Rs. 218.48 increasing benefit of just Rs. 2.33 and after adding one increment,

his basic was fixed on Rs. 224.99 as on 01.07.2000. Till 01.07.2000 applicant’s basic is higher than his junior Shri

V.L. Singhamwar (222.20).

5.

According to the workman he is entitled for the benefit under I.No. 32 Career growth of IT personnel. He also

claimed that JBCCI chart NCWA_VII he got fitment of Rs. 355.45 while his junior was drawing Rs.358.54.

6.

The workman prayed that he is entitled for Basic fitment on 363.85 on 01.07.2001. He also claimed that he is

entitled for all benefits corresponding to that basic. He also claimed interest on this amount and other related

allowances and benefits.

7.

On behalf of management written statement was filed by asserting that applicant was working as a Sr. E.P.

Mechanic. They also admitted that applicant was senior to Shri V.L. Singhamwar at Ukni mines of WCL. They also

asserted that on the basis of NCWA-VII chart, they fixed basic of both workers. According to the management, the

petitioner was holding ITI certificate so, he was given treatment in pursuance of implementation instruction no. 32

issued by the JBCCI, Calcutta.

8.

On behalf of the management it was asserted that no resolution was passed by the union to raise such disputes, so

petitioner’s claim did not fall within definition under section 2K of the Act. They also asserted that there is delay in

raising the dispute by the union. They also asserted that there was no merit in claim made by the petitioner through

union and prayed that reference deserves to be answered in favour of management.

9.

Petitioner filed rejoinder by asserting all these facts which was raised in statement of claim and also prayed that

he is entitled to be fixed on fitment of basic JBCCI chart NCWA-VII on 01.07.2001 Rs. 363.85 with all benefits. On

behalf of workman, it was also argued that, he is entitled for two increments according to the JBCCI chart and NCWA-

VII but management gave only one increment, so this is anomaly in fixation in basic.

10.

Petitioner filed affidavit in support of their statement of claim which was cross-examined by the representative of

the management, but on behalf of management no evidence was adduced. But both parties admitted the fitment chart

which is marked as Exhibit C-I (on behalf of Tribunal on the ground of admission of both parties).

11.

Now according to the parties, basic fitment of petitioner on 01.07.2001 is Rs. 363.85. Now the anomaly was

removed by JBCCI by issuing C-1 which was created due to defect in application of previous fitment chart. The

workman in his statement admitted that he was appointed as apprentice in the year1987. After that he was promoted to

6 higher posts. His last promotion was Sr. E.P. Mech. in the year 2005. He also admitted that as per Implementation

Instruction no. 32 of NCWA-VI, he got benefit on 01.07.2001. He also asserted that as he came to know about the

anomaly i.e. he received less payment in comparison to his junior, he filed his claim. He also asserted that on every

implementation of fitment in NCWA were done direct giving 2 increments. In his court evidence or court statement

nothing shows to disbelieve his statement. On the contrary management admitted these facts without producing any

evidence. Management also did not take care to settle the dispute before the RLC(C) and this Tribunal, so this matter is

pending before this Tribunal since 2012.

12.

Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

and High Court and on going through evidence of the workman, I found that the application of fitment chart issued

previously by the management was not legal and proper. Hence, it is ordered:-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3595

ORDER

“With reference to CIL’s Career growth to Personnel with ITI Certificate Holder, whether Mgmt’s denial

to remove anomaly/pay disparity in respect of Shri Manohar S. Lute, ITI Certificate Holder at Par with his

junior who is drawing more wages in Ukni Area of Wani North Area of WCL is not legal and justified. The

workman is entitled for basic fitment on 01.07.2001 of Rs. 363.85 and all other consequential benefit attached to

this basic. Management is directed to implement these benefits within one month from the publication of award.

In case of delay in application in fitment chart, workman is entitled for 6% interest per annum. He is also

entitled for the cost of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) from the management in lieu of expenses

for legal proceedings.

S. S. GARG, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vizSy] 2018

dk-vk- 715-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ osLVuZ

dksyiQhYM fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 41@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@262@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2018

S.O. 715.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Westeren

Coalfield Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.04.2018.

[No. L-22012/262/2012-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/41/2012

Date: 28.03.2018

Party No.1

:

The Chief General Manager

Wani North Area, WCL, Po:Bhalar,

Tah-Wani, Distt. Yavatmal (MS).

:

The Sub Area Manager, Ukni O/c Mines,

Wani North Area, WCL, PO: Ukni,

Tah-Wani, Distt. Yavatmal (MS)

Versus

Party No.2

:

The Secretary,

Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh

(BMS), Ukni Branch, Qr. No. MQ-320

Bhalar Township, Po: Bhalar,

Tah-Wani, Distt. Yavatmal (MS)

AWARD

(Dated: 28th March, 2018)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, Shri R.G. Kene, for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/262/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 20.02.2013, with the following schedule:-

3596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“With reference to CIL’s Career growth to Personnel with ITI Certificate Holder, whether Mgmt’s denial

to remove anomaly/pay disparity in respect of Shri R.G. Kene, ITI Certificate Holder at Par with his

junior who is drawing more wages in Ukni Area of Wani North Area of WCL is legal and justified? If not,

what monetary benefit the workman is entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri R.G. Kene, (‘the workman” in short), through its Union Bhartiya Koyala

Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (‘the union” in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of WCL (“Party No. 1”

in short) filed their written statement.

3.

According to the workman his basic pay on 01.07.1996 was 198.40. While his junior worker Shri V.L.

Singhamwar was having basic pay of Rs. 191.13 on the same dated which was less than the petitioner. On 01.07.1998

Shri V.L. Singhamwar was promoted to category-B and his basic pay was equal to the basic of the workman i.e.

198.40.

4.

After implementation of instruction No. 32 JBCCI/NCWA-VI vide circular no. CIL/c-58/JBCCI/IT

No.32/2002/1048 dated 22.01.2002, applicant Shri R.G. Kene was notionally placed in higher category-A as a Sr. EP

Mech.(III) whose basic was done at Rs. 218.48 increasing benefit of just Rs. 2.33 and after adding one increment, his

basic was fixed on Rs. 224.99 as on 01.07.2000. Till 01.07.2000 applicant’s basic is higher than his junior Shri V.L.

Singhamwar (222.20).

5.

According to the workman he is entitled for the benefit under I.No. 32 Career growth of IT personnel. He also

claimed that JBCCI chart NCWA_VII he got fitment of Rs. 355.45 while his junior was drawing Rs.358.54.

6.

The workman prayed that he is entitled for Basic fitment on 363.85 on 01.07.2001. He also claimed that he is

entitled for all benefits corresponding to that basic. He also claimed interest on this amount and other related

allowances and benefits.

7.

On behalf of management written statement was filed by asserting that applicant was working as a Sr. E.P.

Mechanic. They also admitted that applicant was senior to Shri V.L. Singhamwar at Ukni mines of WCL. They also

asserted that on the basis of NCWA-VII chart, they fixed basic of both workers. According to the management, the

petitioner was holding ITI certificate so, he was given treatment in pursuance of implementation instruction no. 32

issued by the JBCCI, Calcutta.

8.

On behalf of the management it was asserted that no resolution was passed by the union to raise such disputes, so

petitioner’s claim did not fall within definition under section 2K of the Act. They also asserted that there is delay in

raising the dispute by the union. They also asserted that there was no merit in claim made by the petitioner through

union and prayed that reference deserves to be answered in favour of management.

9.

Petitioner filed rejoinder by asserting all these facts which was raised in statement of claim and also prayed that

he is entitled to be fixed on fitment of basic JBCCI chart NCWA-VII on 01.07.2001 Rs. 363.85 with all benefits. On

behalf of workman, it was also argued that, he is entitled for two increments according to the JBCCI chart and NCWA-

VII but management gave only one increment, so this is anomaly in fixation in basic.

10.

Petitioner filed affidavit in support of their statement of claim which was cross-examined by the representative of

the management, but on behalf of management no evidence was adduced. But both parties admitted the fitment chart

which is marked as Exhibit C-I (on behalf of Tribunal on the ground of admission of both parties).

11.

Now according to the parties, basic fitment of petitioner on 01.07.2001 is Rs. 363.85. Now the anomaly was

removed by JBCCI by issuing C-1 which was created due to defect in application of previous fitment chart. The

workman in his statement admitted that he was appointed as apprentice in the year1987. After that he was promoted to

6 higher posts. His last promotion was Sr. E.P. Mech. in the year 2005. He also admitted that as per Implementation

Instruction no. 32 of NCWA-VI, he got benefit on 01.07.2001. He also asserted that as he came to know about the

anomaly i.e. he received less payment in comparison to his junior, he filed his claim. He also asserted that on every

implementation of fitment in NCWA were done direct giving 2 increments. In his court evidence or court statement

nothing shows to disbelieve his statement. On the contrary management admitted these facts without producing any

evidence. Management also did not take care to settle the dispute before the RLC(C) and this Tribunal, so this matter is

pending before this Tribunal since 2012.

12.

Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

and High Court and on going through evidence of the workman, I found that the application of fitment chart issued

previously by the management was not legal and proper. Hence, it is ordered:-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3597

ORDER

“With reference to CIL’s Career growth to Personnel with ITI Certificate Holder, whether Mgmt’s denial

to remove anomaly/pay disparity in respect of Shri R.G. Kene, ITI Certificate Holder at Par with his junior who

is drawing more wages in Ukni Area of Wani North Area of WCL is not legal and justified. The workman is

entitled for basic fitment on 01.07.2001 of Rs. 363.85 and all other consequential benefit attached to this basic.

Management is directed to implement these benefits within one month from the publication of award. In case of

delay in application in fitment chart, workman is entitled for 6% interest per annum. He is also entitled for the

cost of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) from the management in lieu of expenses for legal

proceedings.

S. S. GARG, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vizSy] 2018

dk-vk- 716-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ osLVuZ

dksyiQhYM fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 58@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@97@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2018

S.O. 716.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Westeren

Coalfield Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.04.2018.

[No. L-22012/97/2013-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/58/2013-14

Date: 05.02.2018

Party No.1

:

The Area General Manager,

Western Coalfields Ltd.,

Nagpur Area, At PO Jaripatka

Nagpur-440014.

V/s.

Party No.2

:

Shri Kishore Jairam Chakole

Plot No. 136, Ayurvedic layout

Umred Road, Sakkardara

Nagpur.

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workman,

Shri Kishore Chakole, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/97/2013-IR (CM-II) dated 11.09.2013, with the

following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of the Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur area in imposing the

punishment of dismissal on Shri Kishore Jairam Chakole, Electrical Fitter Helper, is fair, just and legal?

If not, to what relief is entitled to the concerned workman to?”

3598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement,

in response to which, the workman Shri Kishor J. Chakole, (“the workman” in short) through his Advocate, filed the

statement of claim and the management of Western Coalfields Limited (“party no.1” in short) filed the written

statement.

3.

On behalf of the workman Shri Kishore filed statement of claim in this Tribunal by asserting that he came to be

appointed as a General Mazdoor on 1984, then he promoted as Electric Fitter Helper.

4.

According to workman, the entire service career was clean and excellent, except false charge sheet on him by the

Party no.1 on 15.10.2004. He was also suspended from service on 15.10.2004 and management imposed two charges

against him, which were denied by the workman in his reply.

5.

He also stated that he met with an accident on duty in 1989 and his treatment undergone in Mayo General

Hospital, Nagpur from 13.08.2004 to 06.03.2005. He was advised bed rest from 13.08.2004 to 18.10.2004. He also

asserted that the charges were vague in nature. He also asserted that management issued second charge sheet on

21.01.2006, which was stereo type.

6.

According to the workman, management did not consider his reply and he was imposed with the punishment of

dismissal from the services by the Mine Manager, Pipla Mine. According to the workman, who is not a competent

authority. So, according to the workman his dismissal from the services was illegal. So, he is entitled for reinstatement

with full back wages. He also argued that principles of natural justice were not followed and departmental enquiry

conducted against him was not in accordance with law.

7.

On behalf of the management, written statement was filed to denying claim petition. According to the

management, they followed all principles of natural justice and all proceedings were according to law. According to

management, proceedings, infact are maintainable on ground of delay and latches. They also asserted that they

challenge present reference before Hon’ble High Court, Nagpur Bench, which is pending.

8.

According to the management, workman cannot follow the Standing Order of the organization to obtain leave of

absence. Provisions also clarify in case of unforeseen circumstances. According to him if employee remains absent

unauthorized he will loss his lien on his appointment. According to management workman remain absent from duty

even after the charge sheet was issued.

9.

According to the management, the workman suddenly stopped attending duty from 13.08.2004 without any

intimation or sanctioned leave. Even he did not reply charge sheet up to 15.10.2004. It is also denied by the

management, charge sheet and punishment were not given by proper authority. According the management Sub-Area

Manager was himself recommended for termination of the service of workman. So they pray that the workman is not

entitled for any relief and they also prayed that the reference may be kindly answered in negative.

10.

Petitioner filed rejoinder stating that management have challenged the present reference before Hon’ble High

Court Nagpur Bench but not notice for such proceedings is received by the party no.2 till filing of the rejoinder.

Petitioner also asserted that, it has been proved beyond the shadow of doubt that party no.1 is acting as per their whims

and fashion with malafide intentions. They also asserted that standing orders of organization is not applicable in the

present case. They also asserted that General Manager has not given speaking order for approval of his dismissal.

11. Both the parties, in order to prove their respective stands have relied on documentary evidence. Besides the

documentary evidence, the workman has examined himself as a witness in support of his case. Party no.1 has not

adduced any oral evidence.

12.

On behalf of the petitioner Shri Darda on the basis of case law of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi in

case of Shailender Kumar Vs. Union of India O.A. No. 2805/2013 dated 13.05.2015, argued that, the workman had no

independent administrative or financial power to exercise the finance matter. But he had only supervisory power. He

also argued that allegation under the charge sheet in the enquiry did not prove by examining any witnesses and

workman was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the management witnesses. So according to the workman, it

is clear violation of principles of natural justice and rules and regulations, framed by the management. He also argued

that workman was one of the signatory of the cheque and other signatory of the cheques was equally responsible for the

irregularities. So charge sheet itself is illegal and conclusion of in house enquiry and the same is devoid of legal

sanctity.

13.

Per contra, management based his argument on case law, Coimbatore District Central co-operative bank Vs.

Employee Association (2007) IV SCC 669, Maharashtra State Seed Corporation limited Vs. Hari Prasad (2006) III

SCC 690, State Bank of India Vs. Belabagchi (2005) VII SCC 435, Managing Director, North East Karnataka Road

Transport Corporation Vs. K. Murthy (2006) XII SCC 570 and Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Vs. N. Balkrishnan

(2007) IX SCC 755, argued that the charge sheet was served on the workman for committing grave misconduct and

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3599

reasonable opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself. All procedure was followed in consonance of

principles of natural justice. He also argued that this tribunal held departmental enquiry legal and proper.

14.

Now we see the legal position:- Management’s advocate to support his argument put following case laws :--

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs Nemichand, Civil Appeal No. 5861 of 2007, SC dated 01.03.2011, Regional

Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Hotilal, Civil Appeal No. 5984 of 2000 dated 11.02.2003, State Bank of India Vs Ramesh

Dinkar, Civil Appeal No. 2055 of 2003 dated 11.08.2006, Devendra Kumar Vs State of Uttaranchal, Civil Appeal No.

1155 of 2006 dated 29.07.2013 and Bharat Forge Company Ltd. Vs A.B. Zodge, A.I.R. 1996 SC 1556, in which

following legal principles are laid down:-

i.

It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the

domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record.

ii.

Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquires, except where

such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity

is to see whether a Tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the

material on record. Courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of

natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary,

capricious, malafide or based on extraneous considerations.

iii.

When a court is considering whether punishment of ‘termination from service’ imposed upon a bank

employee is shockingly excessive or disproportionate to the gravity of the proved misconduct, the loss of

confidence in the employee will be an important and relevant factor.

iv.

That having regard to the gravity of the established misconduct, the punishing authority had the power

and jurisdiction to impose punishment.

v.

Legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being

fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline.

They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or

gravity of the misconduct.

vi

The position in our country, in administrative law, where no fundamental freedoms as aforesaid are

involved, is that the courts/tribunals will only play a secondary role while the primary judgment as to

reasonableness will remain with the executive or administrative authority.

vii.

Court interfered with the punishment only after coming to the conclusion that the punishment was in

outrageous defiance of logic and was shocking.

viii.

If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of

functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be

dealt with iron hands.

ix.

Misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud, and further held fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit

and consists in lending a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on

falsehood.

x.

If the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the

same.

15.

Now we discuss of the evidence with reference to argument of the workman. The workman in his evidence on

affidavit as well his written notes of argument has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim. He firstly

argued that, he met with an accident while duty in underground mines in 1989, in which, he was injured but, its pain

was continuous giving problem to him. So, he took treatment from Government Hospital form 13.08.2004 to

06.03.2005. He also asserted that, he filed all these documents including certificate in the department but, management

did not consider these documents but, workman in para 11 of his court statement, admitted that, he did not file any

document regarding his illness. So, argument of workman is not sustainable.

16.

On behalf of workman, in written note of argument, it was argued that, two charge sheets were issued to the

workman but, both were stereo type. He relied case laws, Kanailal Bera Vs Union of India 2007 III CLR 830 and Gaya

Singh Vs Chairman, Coal India Ltd. 2003 II CLR 991, in which, Lordship held that, “First charge sheet against

petitioner having not been withdrawn, nor having reached its finality, second charge sheet for same allegations, not

maintainable……there is no explanation given by the respondent”

17.

On behalf of the management, W.S. is filed and in para 5 of the W.S., it was mentioned that, “After receiving the

charge sheet…he continued to remain absent till 20.01.2005. Therefore the charge sheet dated 20/21.01.2005 was

3600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

issued for different period of absenteeism”. In my opinion, this explanation is not proper as per principle laid down in

the above case laws. So, in my view, it was defect in departmental enquiry.

18.

On behalf of the workman, it was also argued that, enquiry conducted exparte, so, punishment imposed by the

management, was improper. He also relied the enquiry report submitted by the management. On perusal of Xerox

copy of the enquiry report, it shows that, there were sixteen sittings in the departmental proceedings, in which,

workman was present in four sittings and co-worker was also present in one sitting. It was also mentioned that,

workman was casually attending the enquiry sittings even giving of several notices.

In para no. 9 of the court evidence, workman admitted that he was attending the departmental enquiry from

beginning to end. All management’s witnesses were examined before him. He also admitted in para No. 10 that, show

cause notice was served on him with enquiry report. He also filed appeal. He also examined himself as a defence

witness. These facts show that, he had full knowledge of departmental enquiry. He also avail the right of appeal.

Workman did not show how he prejudiced in the departmental enquiry. In my humble opinion, workman did not

prejudice in departmental enquiry and he had full opportunity to defend himself. So, argument of workman, in my

opinion, is not sustainable.

19.

On behalf of the workman, it was also argued that, the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority were not

competent, so, punishment was passed shockingly and against the principle of law. On the contrary, management

denied this fact by arguing that, finding of the Enquiry Officer cannot be examined as per the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court – U.P. S.R.T.C Vs Vinod Kumar (2008) I SCC 115. He also argued that, the workman has miserably

failed to show that, he had sustained injury and hence was not able to perform his duty and thus committing serious

misconduct of remaining absent unauthorizedly. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case held that:-

“Where the workmen removed from service had challenged only the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer

and the quantum of punishment but not the legality or fairness of the enquiry proceedings, held, Labour Court

could not examine the findings of the enquiry officer and hold that the charge was not proved”.

On going the facts of this, enquiry report and punishment order, which show that, Colliery Manager passed the

punishment order against the workman after taking approval from General Manager (N). So, in my opinion, the

workman did not prejudice in this way and argument of workman in this circumstances not sustainable in my

opinion.

20.

On behalf of the workman, on relying case laws – Roopchand vs Delhi Transport Corporation, 2015 III CLR 848,

State of West Bengal Vs Asutosh Roy, 2016 I CLR 743 and D. Aasaithambi Vs Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State

Transport Corporation, 2017 III CLR 744, argued that, punishment of dismissal for absenteeism was too harsh, Enquiry

Officer did not apply the mind in passing the order and he also argued that, appeal order was not speaking. He also

argued that, the family of the workman is feeling starvation from last more than 10 years, so, he prayed that, on this

ground, workman is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages.

21.

On behalf of the management, it was also argued that, in this case, there are so may latches and delay on behalf of

the workman, so he is not entitled for any relief by this Tribunal. He also produced Hon’ble High Court’s order dated

27.07.2016 of the Nagpur Bench in W.P. No. 621/2015, Western Coalfields Ltd. Vs Shri Kishore, in which, Hon’ble

High Court permitted the management to raise all these issues before the Tribunal.

On going the facts of this case, my humble opinion is that, proper opportunity was given to the workman in

departmental enquiry and to defend his case. He was absent for 124 days in the year of 2003, 107 days in 2004 and

thereafter he was continuously absent. This reference was issued by the Central Govt. on 11.09.2013. It shows to

much late. So, in my opinion, the workman is not entitled for reinstatement.

22.

It is also laid down in above case law that, Disciplinary Authority and Appellant Authority being the fact finding

authority, this Tribunal is not Appellate Authority. It is also held that, Tribunal will only play secondary role, while the

primary judgment as to reasonableness will remain with the executive of administrative authority.

In case law--- Delhi Transport Corp. vs. Ombir Singh 2017 LLR 252, Hon’ble Lordship held that “Where principles of

natural justice are not being complied with, then in such cases, compensation ought to be granted even if termination of

service is found to be valid”. On the basis of principle laid down in Engineering Laghu Udhyog Employees Union vs

Judge, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal & others – (2003) 12 SCC 1 in which it was held that:- “no difference

whether the matter comes before the tribunal for approval under S.33 or on a reference under S.10 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947. In either case if the enquiry is defective or if no enquiry has been held as required by Standing

Orders, the entire case would be open before the tribunal and the employer would have to justify on facts as well that

its order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” “A defective enquiry in our opinion stands on the same footing as no

enquiry and in either case the tribunal would have jurisdiction to go into the facts and the employer would have to

satisfy the tribunal that on facts the order of dismissal or discharge was proper.”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 5] 2018@oS'kk[k 15] 1940

3601

It will be open to the Tribunal to pay compensation even in a case where ultimate charges are proved, despite holding

that the order of termination is valid for the reason that principles of natural justice have not complied with.

23.

Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles as mentioned above, it is found that law is

well settled that where principles of natural justice or defect in departmental enquiry were not complied with, then in

such cases compensation ought to be granted because termination of the services in my opinion is valid. In view of the

discussion made above and the materials on record, it is found that there is no scope to interfere with the order of the

punishment of dismissal from services passed against the workman. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of the Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur area in imposing the punishment of

dismissal on Shri Kishore Jairam Chakole, Electrical Fitter Helper, is fair, just and legal, but due to lack of

procedure in departmental enquiry, the workman is entitled for lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees

fifty thousand only) from party no.1 in lieu of reinstatement, which is payable within one month from the

publication of this award in official gazette, failing which, the amount due to the workman will carry interest of

6% per annum from the date of due to the workman to the date of actual payment of the amount to the

workman. The workman is not entitled for any other relief.

S. S. GARG, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 vizSy] 2018

dk-vk- 717-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ osLVuZ

dksyiQhYM fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 109@2002) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@196@2000&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2018

S.O. 717.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 109/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Westeren

Coalfield Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.04.2018.

[No. L-22012/196/2000-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/109/2002

Date: 27.03.2018

Party No.1

:

The Sub Area Manager

Hindustan Lalpeth Open Cast Sub Area of WCL,

Post- Lalpeth, Chandrapur (MS).

V/s.

Party No.2

:

The General Secretary,

Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS),

C/o. C.J. Khandre, Near Mahakali Mandir, Chandrapur (MS)

ORDER

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute for adjudication between the management of Western Coalfields Limited and the General Secretary, Koyla

Shramik Sabha (HMS) vide letter No.L-22012/196/2000-IR(CM-II) dated 19.10.2010, on the following schedule:-

3602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 5, 2018/VAISAKHA 15, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management of Hindustan Lalpeth Open Cast of WCL, Post Lalpeth, Distt.

Chandrapur innot protecting wages of Shri Ramayan Sukhalu and Shri Gouri Shankar Bhaddu, Dumper

operators, Hindustan Lalpeth Open Cast of WCL is Legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the

workmen are entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of this reference statement of claim and rejoinder filed by the petitioner and written statement filed by

the party no.1.

On behalf of the petitioner evidence is produced. The statement of Mr. Gauri Shankar, Chandrakant Khandre was

recorded on behalf of the petitioner. But on behalf of the party no.1 evidence on affidavit of Mr. K. Raja Prabhakaran

was filed. On behalf of petitioner LRs of Gaurishankar and Ramayan Sukalu filed two applications for withdrawal of

this reference. Mr Gaurishankar Bhaddu was dead and his LRs are recorded in statement of claim. On this application

heard both the parties. On behalf of management no objection was filed. Petitioner Mr. Ramayan Sukalu and LRs of

Mr. Gaurishankar Bhaddu was identified by Mr. Rakesh Shinde, Tripman of Chandrapur Area. Now application is

accepted and permission of withdrawal is allowed.

Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The application for withdrawal of the case is allowed. The case is treated as withdrawn. The application

filed by the Party No. 2 for withdrawal of the case is made part of the order. The reference is answered in the

negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

S. S. GARG, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

ALOK

KUMAR

Digitally signed

by ALOK KUMAR

Date: 2018.05.22

12:43:52 +05'30'