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 रवतन संथा
राीय भारत प रवतन संथा
राीय भारत प रवतन संथा
राीय भारत प रवतन संथा
नई दली, 1 मई, 2018
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 692
692
692
692.—राीय 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 सावजिनक िवतरण मं ालय
उपभोा मामले, खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मं ालय
उपभोा मामले, खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मं ालय
उपभोा मामले, खा और सावजिनक ि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 सम ;ाि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 अपेित 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 कापरेशन ि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 सम ;ाि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 अपेित 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 कापरेशन ि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 कापरेशन ि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 सम ;ाि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 अपेित 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 कापरेशन ि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 कापरेशन ि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 सम ;ाि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 अपेित 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 कापरेशन ि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 कापरेशन ि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 सम ;ाि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 अपेित 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 कापरेशन ि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 कापरेशन ि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 सम ;ाि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 अपेित 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 कापरेशन ि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 कापरेशन ि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 सम ;ाि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 अपेित 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 कापरेशन ि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
कोकरा - 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 कॉपरेशन ि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 सम ;ाि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 अपेित 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 कॉपरेशन ि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 कॉपरेशन ि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 सम ;ाि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 अपेित 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 कॉपरेशन ि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
दिणपदा -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 कॉपरेशन ि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 सम ;ाि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 अपेित 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 कॉपरेशन ि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'