5603 GI/2018

(5927)

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- 39]

ubZ fnYyh] flrEcj 30—vDrwcj 6] 2018] 'kfuokj@vkf'ou 8—vkf'ou 14] 1940

No. 39]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 30—OCTOBER 6, 2018, SATURDAY/ASVINA 8— ASVINA 14, 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)

िव मंालय

(िवीय

िवीय

िवीय सेवाएं

सेवाएं

सेवाएं िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग) ) ) )

नई दली, 4, अ तूबर, 2018

का

का.आ. 1434

1434

1434.—राीय कृिष और ामीण िवकास बक अिधिनयम, 1981 (1981 का 61) क धारा 6 क उप-धारा

(1) के खंड (ग) "ारा #द% शि'य( का #योग करते +ए, के-.ीय सरकार, भारतीय 1रजव3 बक के परामश3 से, , , , एत4ारा, , , , 5ी

महेश कुमार जैन, , , , उप-गवन3र, , , , भारतीय 1रजव3 बक को अिधसूचना क तारीख से तथा अगले आदेश( तक, , , , जो भी पहले हो,

5ी बी. पी. कानूनगो के <थान पर राीय कृिष और ामीण िवकास बक (नाबाड3) के िनदेशक म=डल म> अंशकािलक िनदेशक

नािमत करती है।

[फा. सं. 7/11/2018-एसी]

ए. के. दास, , , , अवर सिचव

5928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2018/ASVINA 14, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 4^th October, 2018

S.O. 1434.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the National

Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61 of 1981), the Central Government, in consultation with the

Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominates Shri Mahesh Kumar Jain, Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India as part-

time Director on the Board of Directors of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) from the

date of notification and until further orders whichever is earlier vice Shri B.P.Kanungo.

[F.No.7/11/2018-AC]

A. K. DAS, Under Secy.

कामक, लोक िशकायत और पशन मंालय

(कामक और िशण िवभाग)

नई @दA ली, 19 िसतBबर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1435

1435

1435.—के-.ीय सरकार, दंड #@Fया संिहता, 1973 (1974 का 2) क धारा 24 क उपधारा (8) "ारा

#द% शि'य( का #योग करते +ए, पुणे, महारा ि<थत माननीय सेशन -यायालय म> @दAली िवशेष पुिलस <थापन (के.अ.Mयू.)

"ारा संि<थत के-.ीय अ-वेषण Mयूरो मामला संNया आरसी 4 (एस)/2014-मुBबई (डॉ. नरे-. दाभोलकर हPया मामला) या

उ' मामले से उQभूत @कसी अ-य िवषय के अिभयोजन को संचािलत करने के िलए 5ी #काश शांताराम सूय3वंशी, अिधव'ा

को िनयुि' क तारीख से तीन वष3 क अविध के िलए या मामले के िनपटाए जाने तक के िलए, जो भी पहले हो, िवशेष लोक

अिभयोजन के Sप म> िनयु' करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/28/2018-एवीडी-II]

अV वनी द%ाWय ठाकरे, , , , उप सिचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2018

S.O. 1435.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Prakash Shantaram Suryavanshi, advocate as

Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of Central Bureau Investigation case number RC 4(S)/2014-

Mumbai (Dr. Narendra Dabholkar Murder Case) instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (C.B.I.) in the

Hon’ble Sessions Court at Pune, Maharashtara or any other matter arising out of the said case for a period of three years

from the date of the appointment or disposal of the case, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/28/2018-AVD-II]

ASHWINI DATTATRAYA THAKRE, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 19 िसतबर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1436

1436

1436.—के-.ीय सरकार, दंड #@Fया संिहता, 1973 (1974 का 2) क धारा 24 क उपधारा (8) "ारा

#द% शि'य( का #योग करते +ए, 5ी िनिखल गोयल, अिधव'ा को सीबीआई मामला संNया आरसी

08(एस)/2017/सीबीआई/एससी.1/नई @दAली और आरसी 09(एस)/2017/सीबीआई/एससी.1/नई @दAली, िजसे @दAली

िवशेष पुिलस <थापन (सीबीआई) "ारा माननीय उZ -यायालय, िहमाचल #देश, िशमला म> संि<थत @कया गया है और/या

उससे सBबि-धत और अनुषंिगक अ-य मामल( म> िनयुि' क तारीख से तीन वष3 के िलए या मामले के िनपटान तक, इनम> से

जो भी पूव3तर हो, म> उपि<थत होने के िलए िवशेष लोक अिभयोजन िनयु' करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/32/2017-एवीडी-II]

अV वनी द%ाWय ठाकरे, उप सिचव

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 6] 2018@vkf'ou 14] 1940

5929

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2018

S.O. 1436 .—In exercise of the powers conferred by bub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Nikhil Goel, Advocate as Special Public

Prosecutor to appear in CBI cases Number RC 08(S)/2017/CBI/SC.1/New Delhi and RC 09(S)/2017/CBI/SC.1/New

Delhi instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (C.B.I.) in the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at

Shimla and/or other matters connected therewith and incidental thereto for a period of three years from the date of

appointment or disposal of the case, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/32/2017-AVD-II]

ASHWINI DATTATRAYA THAKRE, Dy. Secy.

िवदेश मंालय

(सी.पी.वी. भाग)

नई @दA ली, 18 िसतB बर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1437

1437

1437.—राजनियक और क(सुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क

धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म> वैधािनक आदेश।

एत4ारा, क> . सरकार भारत के दूतावास, बेइ]जग म> 5ी पराग ]सघल, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को @दनांक

18 िसतBबर, 2018 से सहायक क(सुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर क(सुलर सेवा` के िनव3हन के िलए #ािधकृत करती है।

[सं. टी. 4330/01/2016]

देबाशीस िस-हा, अनुभाग अिधकारी (क(स-I)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 18th September, 2018

S. O. 1437.—Statutory Order: In pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Parag Singhal, Assistant

Section Officer, as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Beijing to perform Consular services with effect

from 18 September, 2018.

[No. T. 4330/01/2016]

DEBASHIS SINHA, Section Officer (Cons-I)

आवासन और शहरी काय! मंालय

नई द ली, 20 अग त, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1438

1438

1438.— के- .ीय सरकार एतद"ारा आवासन और शहरी काय3 मंWालय के #शासिनक िनयंWणाधीन @दA ली

िवकास #ािधकरण तथा के- .ीय लोक िनमा3ण िवभाग के िनB निलिखत काया3लय(, िजसके 80% से अिधक अिधका1रय( और

कम3चा1रय( ने ]हदी का काय3साधक aान #ाb त कर िलया है, को राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय #योजन( के िलए #योग) िनयम

1976 (यथा संशोिधत 1987) के िनयम 10 के उपिनयम (4) के अंतग3त अिधसूिचत करती है : -

1. मुN य अिभयंता (िडजाइन) काया3लय, िवकास मीनार, @दA ली िवकास #ािधकरण, @दA ली–110002

2. अधीdण अिभयंता, इंदौर के- .ीय प1रमंडल, के- .ीय लोक िनमा3ण िवभाग, सीजीओ प1रसर, #थम तल, “बी” ]वग,

इंदौर- 452001

[फा. सं. ई-11017/5/2013-िह दी]

सुधीर कुमार ितवारी, आथक सलाहकार

5930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2018/ASVINA 14, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 20^th August, 2018

S.O. 1438.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of Official Language (Use for official purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Delhi Development Authority

and Central Public Works Department, under Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, where more than 80% of

officers/employees have attained working knowledge of Hindi :—

Office of Chief Engineer (Design), Vikas Minar, Delhi Development Authority, Delhi-110002

Superintending Engineer, Indore Central Circle, CPWD, CGO Complex, Ist Floor, B-Wing, Indore-452001

[F. No. E-11017/5/2013-Hindi]

SUDHIR KUMAR TEWARI, Economic Advisor

वािणय एवं उोग मंालय

(वािण य िवभाग)

ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2018

dk vk- 1439-&के-.ीय सरकार, िनया3त (गुणव%ा िनयंWण एंव िनरीdण) िनयम, 1964 के िनयम 12, के

उपिनयम (2) के साथ प1ठत, िनया3त (गुणव%ा िनयंWण एंव िनरीdण) अिधिनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22) क धारा 7 क

उपधारा (1) "ारा #द% शि'य( का #योग करते +ए, मैसस3 सुपfरट>ड>स कंपनी ऑफ़ इंिडया #ाइवेट िलिमटेड, डोर नंबर 24-

1-31, अयमान िब]Aडग, थॉमसन <iीट, िवशाखापjनम - 530001, को इस अिधसूचना के राजपW म> #काशन क तारीख से

तीन वष3 क अविध के िलए भारत के राजपW भाग-II, खं= ड-3, उप खं= ड(ii), म> @दनांक 20 @दसBबर, 1965 को #कािशत

अिधसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975 @दनांक 20 @दसB बर 1965 म> दी गई अनुसूिचय( म> खिनज और अय<क समूह-I शीष3 के अंतग3त,

Fम सं. 2 पर िनlदm लौह अय<क के िनरीdण करने के िलए िवशाखापnन प%न, म> उo त अय< क के िनया3त से पूव3

िनpिलिखत शतq के अधीन एक अिभकरण के Sप म> मा-यता देती है, अथा3त् :

(i)

यह अिभकरण, खिनज और अय<क समूह-I का िनया3त (िनरीdण) िनयम, 1965 के िनयम 4 के अधीन िविनlदs ट

िनरीdण करने के िलये िनया3त िनरीdण प1रषद् "ारा नािमत अिधका1रय( को पया3t सुिवधाएं देगी;

(ii) यह अिभकरण, इस अिधसूचना म> यथा िविनlदs ट अपने कायu का िनs पादन करने के िलए, िनदेशक (िनरीdण

और गुणव%ा िनयंWण) िनया3त िनरीdण प1रषद "ारा समय-समय पर, िलिखत Sप म>, @दए गए ऐसे िनदwश( से

आबx ह(गी ।

[ फा. सं. के –16014/5/2018-िनया3त िनरीdण]

संतोष कुमार सारंगी, संयु' सिचव

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department Of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 26^th September, 2018

S.O. 1439.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control

and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)

Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s. Superintendence Company of India Private Limited, Door

No. 24-1-31, Ayman Building, Thomson Street, Visakhapatnam- 530001, as an agency for a period of three years from

the date of publication of this notification, for the inspection of Iron Ore mentioned at serial number 2 under the heading

Minerals and Ores- Group I, in the Schedule to the notification number S.O. 3975, dated the 20^thDecember, 1965,

published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 20^thDecember, 1965, prior to export of the

said Ore at Visakhapatnam Port, subject to the following conditions, namely: -

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 6] 2018@vkf'ou 14] 1940

5931

(i)

the said agency shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this

behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group I (Inspection)

Rules, 1965;

(ii)

the said agency shall, in performance of its function as specified in this notification shall be bound by such

directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council, may give in writing from

time to time.

[F. No. K-16014/5/2018-Export Inspection]

SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.

मिहला

मिहला एवं बाल िवकास मंालय

एवं बाल िवकास मंालय

(िह$ दी

(िह$ दी अनुभाग)

अनुभाग)

नई @दA ली, 24 िसतB बर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1440

1440

1440.—राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय #योजन( के िलए #योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उप-िनयम

(4) के अनुसरण म> के- . सरकार, एतद"ारा, मिहला एवं बाल िवकास मंWालय के अधीन िनB निलिखत काया3लय को ऐसे

काया3लय के तौर पर अिधसूिचत करती है िजसके 80 #ितशत से अिधक < टाफ को िह- दी का काय3साधक aान है:

'राs iीय मिहला कोष',

(मिहला एवं बाल िवकास मंWालय)

बी-12, कुतुब इं< टीyूशनल ए1रया,

नई @दA ली – 110016

[सं. 14013/1/2018-िह- दी]

आ< था सo सेना खटवानी, संयुo त सिचव

MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT

(HINDI SECTION)

New Delhi, the 24^th September, 2018

S.O. 1440.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby, notifies the following office under the Ministry of Women and

Child Development as office whose more than 80% members of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :

‘Rashtriya Mahila Kosh’

(Ministry of Women and Child Development)

B-12 Qutub Institutional Area,

New Delhi – 110016

[No. 14013/1/2018-Hindi]

AASTHA SAXENA KHATWANI, Jt. Secy.

पे'ोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

5932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2018/ASVINA 14, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई @दAली, 3 अo तूबर, 2018

का.

का. आ. . . . 1441

1441

1441.—के-.ीय सरकार ने पेiोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइंस (भूिम म> उपयोग के अिधकार का अज3न)

अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम> इसके पzात उ' अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के

अधीन जारी क गई, भारत सरकार के पेiोिलयम और #ाकृितक गैस मंWालय क अिधसूचना िजसका #काशन भारत के

राजपW संNया 10, @दनांक 17.03.2018 का.आ संNया 438, @दनांक 26.02.2018, भाग II, ख=ड 3, उप-ख=ड (ii) म> @कया

गया है। इस अिधसूचना से संल{ अनुसूची म> िविनlदm पंजाब रा|य क तहसील नवांशहर, िजला शहीद भगत ]सह नगर और

तहसील गढ़शंकर, िजला होिशयारपुर क भूिम म>, पंजाब रा|य के गाँव

: झुिगयां, िजला शहीद भगत ]सह नगर से िहमाचल

#देश के गाँव : पेखुबेला, िजला उना तक पैiोिलयम उPपाद( के प1रवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑइल कापuरेशन िलिमटेड "ारा

पीएजेपीएल– उना ~ांच पाइपलाइन प1रयोजना के सBबंध म> पाइपलाइन िबछाने के #योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का

अज3न करने के िलए अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी।

और उ' राजपW अिधसूचना` क #ितयाँ जनता को तारीख 30.05.2018 तक उपलMध करा दी गई थी।

और उ' अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण म> सdम #ािधकारी ने के-.ीय सरकार को अपनी 1रपोट3 दे दी

है।

और के-.ीय सरकार ने उ' 1रपोट3 पर िवचार करने के पzात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर @क उ' भूिम पाइपलाइन

िबछाने के िलए अपेिdत है, उसम> उपयोग के अिधकार का अज3न करने का िविनzय @कया है।

अत: अब, के-.ीय सरकार उ' अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) "ारा #द% शि'य( का #योग करते +ए यह घोषणा

करती है @क इस अिधसूचना से संल{ अनुसूची म> िविनlदm भूिम म> पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अ€जत @कया

जाए।

और के-.ीय सरकार उ' अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) "ारा #द% शि'य( का #योग करते +ए, यह िनदwश देती है

@क उ' भूिम म> उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के #काशन क तारीख से के-.ीय सरकार म> िनिहत होने के बजाय सभी

िवAलंगम( से मु' होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कापuरेशन िलिमटेड म> िनिहत होगा।

पेiोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम 1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन @कसी भी dितपू€त के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल

कापuरेशन िलिमटेड पूण3तया उ%रदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से सBबि-धत @कसी भी मामल> पर के-.ीय सरकार के िवx

कोई वाद - दावा या कानूनी काय3वाही नह‚ हो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

रा य : पंजाब

. . . .

सं.

िजला

तहसील

गाँव

गाँव का नाम

का नाम

हदबत

नंनंनंनं

खसरा सं.

ेफल

हेटेयर

एयर

वग मीटर

एस. बी. एस. नगर

नवांशहर

दरीयापुर

278

एस. बी. एस. नगर

नवांशहर

राह

223

190//20/2

190//9/2

190 //2/2

एस. बी. एस. नगर

नवांशहर

लंगरोया

137

313/2/9

312/3/9

होिशयारपुर

गढ़शंकर

सबली

159

70//8/1

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 6] 2018@vkf'ou 14] 1940

5933

52//14

52//7

52//6

52//5

46//25

46//16/1

होिशयारपुर

गढ़शंकर

दलेवाल

482

39//24

होिशयारपुर

गढ़शंकर

मानसोवाल

484

2699/7

होिशयारपुर

गढ़शंकर

मजारी

475

14//19/1

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/1/2018-ओआर-I/ई-21789]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 3^rd October, 2018

S.O. 1441.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette No. 10, dated 17.03.2018, S.O. No. 438, dated 26.02.2018, Part-II section 3, sub-section

(ii) 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), (here in after referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to

acquire the right of user in the land situated in Tehsil – Nawanshahr of District Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar and Tehsil –

Garhshankar of District Hoshiarpur in Punjab State, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the

purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum product from village Jhungian in the State of Punjab,

District Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar to village Pekhubela in the State of Himachal Pradesh, District Una by the Indian Oil

Corporation Limited for implementing the "PAJPL - Una Branch pipeline project".

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 30.05.2018.

And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of

Central Government.

And whereas, the Central 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 Central

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 Central Government

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

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

encumbrances.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P & MP

Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to

pipeline.

SCHEDULE

5934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2018/ASVINA 14, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

State : Punjab

Sr.

No.

Name of

District

Name of

Tehsil

Name of Village

Hadbast

No.

Khasara No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq. mtr.

S.B.S. Nagar

Nawanshahr

Daryapur

278

S.B.S. Nagar

Nawanshahr

Rahon

223

190//20/2

190//9/2

190//2/2

S.B.S. Nagar

Nawanshahr

Langroya

137

313/2/9

312/3/9

Hoshiarpur

Garhshankar

Simbli

159

70//8/1

52//14

52//7

52//6

52//5

46//25

46//16/1

Hoshiarpur

Garhshankar

Dallewal

482

39//24

Hoshiarpur

Garhshankar

Mansowal

484

2699/7

Hoshiarpur

Garhshankar

Majari

475

14//19/1

[F. No. R-11025(11)/1/2018-OR-I /E-21789]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई @दA ली, 3 अo तूबर, 2018

का

का. आ. 1442

1442

1442.—के-.ीय सरकार को ऐसा #तीत होता है @क लोकिहत म> यह आवVयक है क गुजरात रा|य म>

सलाया से उ%र #देश म> मथुरा तक पेiोिलयम Fूड के प1रवहन के िलए “सलाया मथुरा पाइपलाइन के अंतग3त डी–

बोटलनेकƒग प1रयोजना “ के काया3-वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड "ारा एक पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;

और के-.ीय सरकार को उ' पाइपलाइन िबछाने के #योजन के िलए यह आवVयक #तीत होता है क उ' भूिम म> िजसके

भीतर उ' पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का #<ताव है और जो इस अिधसूचना से संल{ अनुसूची मे व€णत है उपयोग के अिधकार

का अज3न @कया जाए;

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 6] 2018@vkf'ou 14] 1940

5935

अत: अब के-.ीय सरकार पेiोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ-स (भूिम म> उपयोग के अिधकार का अज3न) अिधिनयम 1962

(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) "ारा #दत शि'य( का #योग करते +ए उ' भूिम म> उपयोग का अिधकार अज3न

करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है;

कोई „ि' जो उ' अनुसूची मे व€णत भूिम से िहतM…द है उस तारीख से िजसको भारत के राजपW म> यथा, #कािशत इस

अिधसूचना क #ितयाँ जनसाधारण को उपलMध करा दी जाती ह, इ†स @दन के भीतर उसमे उपयोग करने का अिधकार का

अज3न करने या भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के संबंध म> 5ी भरत जे. अFूवाला, सdम #ािधकारी (गुजरात) इंिडयन

ऑयल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड, पिzमी dेW पाइपलाइ-स #ोजेonस, 3/22, गुजरात 1रफाइनरी टाउनिशप,पो. ओ. जवाहरनगर

वडोदरा, गुजरात िपन -391320 को िलिखत Sप म> आdेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसू

अनुसूची

ची

रा*य

िज

िजला

ला

तह

तहसील

सील

ग+व

सव,ण

सं-या

खंड सं-या

उप खंड सं-या

ेफल

हेकटर

एकड

वग! मीटर

गुजरात

मोरबी

टंकारा

आनंदपर

155/1

155/2

162/1

130/1

48/1

2/36/3

2/17

2/12

2/7

2/18/1

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/8/2018-ओआर-I/ई-24459]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3^rd October, 2018

S.O. 1442.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the

transportation of petroleum crude a pipeline from Salaya in the State of Gujarat to Mathura in the State of Uttar Pradesh,

(Under Salaya-Mathura Pipeline De-bottlenecking Project) should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

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

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

Schedule annexed to this notification;

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

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

intention to acquire the right of user therein;

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

copies of this notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India,

5936

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2018/ASVINA 14, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the

pipeline under the land, to Shri BHARAT J. AKRUWALA, Competent Authority (Gujarat) Indian Oil Corporation

Limited, Western Region Pipelines Projects 3/122, Gujarat Refinery Township, PO: Jawaharnagar, Vadodara (Gujarat).

Pin-391320.

SCHEDULE

State

District

Taluka

Village

Survey / Block No.

Sub-Division No.

Additional Area

Hect.

Are

Sq.mtr.

Gujarat

Morbi

Tankara

Anandpar

155/1

155/2

162/1

130/1

48/1

2/36/3

2/17

2/12

2/7

2/18/1

[F. No. R-11025(11)/8/2018-OR-I/E-24459]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई @दA ली, 3 अo तूबर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1443

1443

1443.—के-.ीय सरकार ने पैiोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ-स (भूिम म> उपयोग के अिधकार का अज3न)

अिधिनयम, 1962(1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम> इसके पzात उ' अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) के

अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पैiोिलयम और #ाकृितक गैस मंWालय क अिधसूचना का. आ. सं. 661 @दनांक 17.04.2018

के "ारा उस अिधसूचना से संल{ अनुसूची म> िविनlदm गुजरात रा|य क तहसील : पडधरी और राजकोट, िजला : राजकोट

क भूिम म> “सलाया-मथुरा पाइपलाइन के अ-तग3त डी-बाँटलने‡कग परीयोजना ” के काया3-वयन के िलए इंिडयन ऑइल

कोपuरेशन िलिमटेड "ारा गुजरात रा|य म> सलाया से उ%र #देश रा|य म> मथुरा तक पैiोिलयम Fूड के प1रवहन के

िलए पाइपलाइन िबछाने हेतु उपयोग के अिधकार का अज3न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी ;

और, उ' अिधसूचना क #ितयां जनता को, कलेoटर राजकोट, मामलतदार पडधरी और राजकोट एवं संबिधत पnवारी

काया3लय को @दनांक 24.05.2018 के पW .ारा उपलMध करवा दी गई है ।

अत: अब, के-.ीय सरकार, उ' अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उप-धारा (1) "ारा #द% शि'य( का करते +ए यह घोषणा करती

है क इस अिधसूचना से उपाबx अनुसूची म> िविनlदm भूिम म> पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अ€जत @कया

जाता है ;

और के-.ीय सरकार, उ' अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उप-धारा (4) "ारा #द% शि'य( का #योग करते +ए यह िनदwश देती है

@क उ' भूिम म> उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा क #काशन क तारीख से के-.ीय सरकार म> िनिहत होने क बजाए सभी

िवAलंगम( से मु' होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड म> िनिहत होगा ।

अनुसूची

रा य

िजला

तालुका

गाँव

सव#ण सं$या

सव#ण सं$या/ / / /

उपखंड

ेेेेफल

फल

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 6] 2018@vkf'ou 14] 1940

5937

खंड सं$या

सं$या

हेकटर

एकड़

वग मीटर

गुजरात

राजकोट

पधरी

हदमितया

116

पधरी

मोटी चनोल

50/1/2

48/1/1

पधरी

वनप र

151/33

151/17/2

29/2/2

38/1

38/2

पधरी

मोटा रामपर

183/2

183/3

158/5

158/4

158/3

158/2

158/1

157/1

157/2

151/2

152

149

पडधरी

डूंगरका

85/1

85/2

78/4

78/2/2

86/2

पधरी

बाघी

18/2

18/3

29/1

5938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2018/ASVINA 14, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

29/2

58/1

पधरी

442

74/1

161

159/1

155/1

129

57/1

127

128

राजकोट

गौरीदड़

512/53

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/8/2018/ओ-आर-I/ई-24459]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3^rd October, 2018

S.O. 1443.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas number S.O. 661 dated 17^th April, 2018 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) the Central Government declared its intention to

acquire the right of user in the land in Taluka Paddhari and Rajkot of District Rajkot, in Gujarat State, specified in the

Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum crude from

Salaya in the State of Gujarat to Mathura in the State of Uttar Pradesh, (Under Salaya-Mathura Pipeline De-bottlenecking

Project) of Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, copies of the said notification were made available to the public vide letters of intimation to Collector

Rajkot, Mamlatdar Paddhari & Rajkot & respective Talati offices on 24.05.2018.

And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted his report to the

Central Government.

And further, whereas the Central Government has after considering the said report, decided to acquire the right of user in

the land specified in the Schedule appended to this Notification.

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

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said 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, Central Government directs the right of

user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on date of publication of this declaration, in

the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

State

District

Taluka

Village

Survey /

Block No.

Sub-

Division

No.

Area

Hect.

Area

Sq.mtr.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 6] 2018@vkf'ou 14] 1940

5939

Gujarat

Rajkot

Paddhari

Hadmatiya

116

Paddhari

Moti Chanol

50/1/2

48/1/1

Paddhari

Vanpari

151/33

151/17/2

29/2/2

38/1

38/2

Paddhari

Mota Rampar

183/2

183/3

158/5

158/4

158/3

158/2

158/1

157/1

157/2

151/2

152

149

Paddhari

Dungarka

85/1

85/2

78/4

78/2/2

86/2

Paddhari

Baghi

18/2

18/3

29/1

29/2

58/1

Paddhari

442

74/1

5940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2018/ASVINA 14, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

161

159/1

155/1

129

57/1

127

128

Rajkot

Gauridad

512/53

[F. No. R-11025(11)/8/2018-OR-I/E-24459]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 vDrwcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1444-&dsUnzh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko”;d izrhr gksrk gS fd rfeyukMw jkT; ds lsye dks dsjy

jkT; esa Hkkjr iSVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM+ dh dksfPp fjQkbujh ls rjyhd`r isVªksfy;e xSl ds ifjogu ds fy,] ,d

ikbiykbZu dksfPp lsye ikbiykbZu çkbosV fyfeVsM+ }kjk fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,;

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, ;g vko”;d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh Hkwfe esa] tks blls

mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS] ftlesa mDr ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus dk izLrko gS] mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk, ;

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] IksVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e 1962 ¼1962

dk 50½] dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] 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;k¡ lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gSa] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds fy;s mleas

mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds lEcU/k esa Jh c'khjdqatw ,] l{ke çkf/kdkjh] dksfPp lsye ikbi ykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM] d#.k

,aDyso] f}rh; ry] Mksj u- ch& 2] ,l ,u taD'ku] fjQkbZujh jksM] ;wfu;u cSad v‚Q bafM;k ds lkeus] f=iqfuFkqjk] ftyk

,sjukdqye] dsjy & 682301 dks fyf[kr :Ik esa vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA

vuqlwph

jkT;: dsjy

ftyk: ,sjukdqye

rkyqd: vkyqok

uke xzke

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,fj;k

Áfr oxZehVj

rqjowj ¼[k.M la 13½

27@4

27@5

27@6

27@7

27@15

27@16

30@1

rqjowj ¼[k.M la- 13½

30@3

30@4

30@5

30@6

30@7

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 6] 2018@vkf'ou 14] 1940

5941

30@8

30@10

36@1

36@2

36@3

36@4

37@1

37@2

37@3

39@1

39@2

39@4

39@11

39@13

40@13

49@10

49@11

49@12

49@13

49@14

49/15

49/16

50@4

50@7

90@2

ewDdUuwj ¼[k.M la- 15½

258@1

258@6

259@2

259@8

259@9

259@11

260@2

260@3

ewDdUuwj ¼[k.M la- 15½

260@4

260@5

260@6

260@7

260@11

5942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2018/ASVINA 14, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

260@12

260@13

260@14

260@15

260@17

260@18

260@21

294@6

294@7

295@1

295@3

295@4

295@6

295@7

295@11

295@13

296@1

296@2

296@3

296@5

296@7

296@8

296@9

297@1

297@2

297@3

297@4

297@5

297@6

298@1

298@3

298@4

298@6

ewDdUuwj ¼[k.M la- 15½

298@7

298@8

298@9

298@11

298@12

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 6] 2018@vkf'ou 14] 1940

5943

298@13

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

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3^rd October, 2018

S.O. 1444.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the

transport of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Kochi Refinery of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in the State of

Kerala to Salem in the State of Tamil Nadu and that the a pipeline should be laid by M/s. Kochi – Salem pipeline Private

Ltd;

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

to acquire the right of user in the lands under which such pipelines are proposed to be laid described in the schedule

annexed to this notification;

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

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

declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein.

Any person, interested in land described in the said schedule may, within 21 days from the date on which the

copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing

to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying or the pipeline under the land to Sri. Basheerkunju. A, Competent

Authority, Kochi-Salem Pipeline Private Ltd, Karun Enclave 2^nd floor, Door No. B2, S.N. Junction, Refinery Road, Opp:

Union Bank of India, Tripunithura, Pin – 682 301.

SCHEDULE

STATE : KERALA

DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM TALUK : ALUVA

VILLAGE

SURVEY NUMBERS

AREA (APPROXIMATE)

HECTARES

ARES

SQ:METERS

THURAVOOR BLOCK. No. 13

27/4

27/5

27/6

27/7

27/15

27/16

30/1

30/3

30/4

30/5

30/6

30/7

THURAVOOR BLOCK. No. 13

30/8

30/10

36/1

36/2

36/3

5944

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2018/ASVINA 14, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

36/4

37/1

37/2

37/3

39/1

39/2

39/4

39/11

39/13

40/13

49/10

49/11

49/12

49/13

49/14

49/15

49/16

50/4

50/7

90/2

MOOKKANNOOR

BLOCK. No. 15

258/1

258/6

259/2

259/8

259/9

259/11

260/2

260/3

260/4

260/5

MOOKKANNOOR

BLOCK. No. 15

260/6

260/7

260/11

260/12

260/13

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 6] 2018@vkf'ou 14] 1940

5945

260/14

260/15

260/17

260/18

260/21

294/6

294/7

295/1

295/3

295/4

295/6

295/7

295/11

295/13

296/1

296/2

296/3

296/5

296/7

296/8

296/9

297/1

297/2

297/3

297/4

297/5

297/6

298/1

298/3

298/4

MOOKKANNOOR

BLOCK. No. 15

298/6

298/7

298/8

298/9

298/11

5946

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2018/ASVINA 14, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

298/12

298/13

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

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 vDrwcj] 2018

dk- vk- 1445&dsUnzh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko”;d izrhr gksrk gS fd rfeyukMw jkT; ds lsye dks dsjy

jkT; esa Hkkjr iSVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM+ dh dksfPp fjQkbujh ls rjyhd`r isVªksfy;e xSl ds ifjogu ds fy,] ,d

ikbiykbu dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM+ }kjk 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 blls mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS] ftlesa mDr ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus dk izLrko gS] mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k

tk, ;

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] IksVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e 1962

¼1962 dk 50½] dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] 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;k¡ lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gSa] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds

fy;s mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds lEcU/k esa Jh c'khjdqatw ,] l{ke çkf/kdkjh] dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV

fyfeVsM] d#.k ,aDyso] f}rh; ry] Mksj u- ch& 2] ,l ,u taD'ku] fjQkbZujh jksM] ;wfu;u cSad v‚Q bafM;k ds lkeus]

f=iqfuFkqjk] ftyk ,sjukdqye] dsjy & 682301 dks fyf[kr :Ik esa vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA

vuqlwph

jkT;: dsjy

ftyk: ,sjukdqye

rkyqd: dqUukFkqukMw

uke xzke

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,fj;k

Áfr oxZehVj

fdt+kDdEcye ¼[k.M la- 25½

39@3

39@4

39@5

40@9

40@11

40@16

40@17

44@7

44@10

44@11

44@13

fdt+kDdEcye ¼[k.M la- 25½

44@14

44@15

44@16

46@5

46@6

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 6] 2018@vkf'ou 14] 1940

5947

46@7

46@8

46@9

46@10

46@11

46@17

47@2

58@11

58@12

58@13

58@14

58@15

58@16

59@1

59@2

59@3

59@4

60@1

60@3

61@10

62@10

62@11

62@12

62@14

62@15

62@16

63@2

63@3

63@5

63@6

63@7

63@8

63@9

fdt+kDdEcye ¼[k.M la- 25½

90@4

90@6

90@7

90@10

90@11

5948

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2018/ASVINA 14, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

91@11

91@12

91@13

91@14

91@15

91@16

91@17

101@9

101@10

101@11

101@12

ekjefifYy ¼[k.M la- 24½

49@1

49@2

54@7

54@11

okt+dqye ¼[k.M la- 24½

61@9

61@12

61@18

61@19

jkT;: dsjy

ftyk: ,sjukdqye

rkyqd: vkyqok

vkyqok bZLV ¼[k.M la- 35½

163@5

207@6

208@4

208@12

208@15

213@6

213@7

213@8

213@9

213@10

213@11

213@12

213@13

vkyqok bZLV ¼[k.M la- 35½

213@15

218@5

218@6

218@7

218@8

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 6] 2018@vkf'ou 14] 1940

5949

218@9

218@10

218@11

218@13

218@16

218@17

218@18

dht+ekM+ ¼[k.M la- 32½

150@6

153@8

156@6

279@13

280@2

282@8

282@11

282@13

307@3

307@5

oMDdqEckxe ¼[k.M la- 28½

192@6

[Qk- la- vkj&12031@196@2017&vksvkj&I /bZ&19746 ]

Ikou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3^rd October, 2018

S.O. 1445.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the

transport of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Kochi Refinery of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in the State of

Kerala to Salem in the State of Tamil Nadu and that the a pipeline should be laid by M/S Kochi – Salem pipeline Private

Ltd;

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

to acquire the right of user in the lands under which such pipelines are proposed to be laid described in the schedule

annexed to this notification;

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

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

declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein.

Any person, interested in land described in the said schedule may, within 21 days from the date on which the

copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing

to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying or the pipeline under the land to Sri. Basheerkunju. A, Competent

Authority, Kochi-Salem Pipeline Private Ltd, Karun Enclave 2^nd floor, Door No. B2, S.N. Junction, Refinery Road,

Opposite Union Bank of India, Tripunithura, Ernakulam Kerala Pin – 682 301.

SCHEDULE

STATE : KERALA DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM TALUK : KUNNATHUNADU

VILLAGE

SURVEY

NUMBERS

AREA

HECTARES

ARES

SQ MTRS

5950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2018/ASVINA 14, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

KIZHAKKAMBALAM

(BLOCK No.25)

39/3

394/4

39/5

40/9

40/11

40/16

40/17

44/7

44/10

44/11

44/13

44/14

44/15

44/16

46/5

46/6

46/7

46/8

46/9

46/10

46/11

46/17

47/2

58/11

58/12

58/13

58/14

58/15

58/16

59/1

59/2

59/3

59/4

60/1

60/3

KIZHAKKAMBALAM

(BLOCK No.25)

61/10

62/10

62/11

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 6] 2018@vkf'ou 14] 1940

5951

62/12

62/14

62/15

62/16

63/2

63/3

63/5

63/6

63/7

63/8

63/9

90/4

90/6

90/7

90/10

90/11

91/11

91/12

91/13

91/14

91/15

91/16

91/17

101/9

101/10

101/11

101/12

MARAMPILLY (BLOCK No. 24)

49/1

49/2

54/7

54/11

VAZHAKKULAM (BLOCK

No.24)

61/9

61/12

61/18

61/19

STATE : KERALA

DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM

TALUK : ALUVA

ALUVA EAST (BLOCK No.35)

163/5

207/6

208/4

5952

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2018/ASVINA 14, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

208/12

208/15

213/6

213/7

213/8

213/9

213/10

213/11

213/12

21/13

213/15

218/5

218/6

218/7

218/8

218/9

218/10

218/11

218/13

218/16

218/17

218/18

KEEZHMADU BLOCK No. 32

150/6

153/8

156/6

279/13

280/2

282/8

282/11

282/13

307/3

307/5

VADAKKUMBHAGAM BLOCK

No.28

192/6

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

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2018

dk- vk- 1446-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

funs”kd] nf{k.k e/; {ks= dsanz ¼,llhtsMlhlh½] ukxiqj ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 6] 2018@vkf'ou 14] 1940

5953

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds

iapkV ¼CGIT/NGP/17/2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@03@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks”kh] mi funs”kd

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 24^th September, 2018

S.O. 1446.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/17/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, South

Central Zone Cultural Centre (SCZCC), Nagpur and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

12.09.2018.

[F. No. L-42012/03/2013– IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

Case No.CGIT/NGP/17/2013-14

Date: 30.08.2018

Party No.1

The Director,

South Central Zone Cultural Centre (SCZCC),

56/1, Opposite of MLA Hostel,

Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440001.

Versus

Party No.2

Ms. Ranabai W/o Shankar Gedam,

R/o Near Shyamrao Mandlik’s House,

Hajari Pahad, Vayusena Nagar,

Nagpur - 440013.

AWARD

(Dated: 30^th August 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 employer, in relation to the management of South Central Zone Cultural Centre (SCZCC) and their

workman, Ms Ranabai W/o Shankar Gedam for adjudication, as per letter No.L-42012/03/2013- (IR(DU) dated

26.04.2013, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of South Central Zone Cultural Centre, Nagpur in retrenching

the services of Ms. Ranabai w.e.f. 01.10.2004 after filing case of the regularisation of her services before

Industrial court is just, fair or legal? What relief, the applicant is entitled to?”

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

statement and accordingly, the workman; Smt. Ranabai (“the workman” in short) filed the statement of claim on

26.11.2013, but the management of South Central Zone Cultural Centre (“Party No. 1” in short) did not file any written

statement. Even they did not cross-examine the workman, so proceedings against Party No. 1 remained ex-parte. On

behalf of the Party No. 1, Mr. Prasad A. Abhyankar, advocate filed vakalatnama on 15.10.2013. On servicing of further

notice, Mr. Sudarshan J. Patil filed authority letter of Director on 08.05.2018, but nobody appeared on behalf of the Party

No. 1 after that.

Fact of the case:

According to the workman, 1987, she came to be appointed with Party No. 1 in the capacity of Garden Labour

on the wages of Rs. 350/- per month for a period of 3 months. This period was extended time to time without giving any

break. According to the workman, Party No. 1 did not give him any holiday or sick leave, even on Sunday, she was

5954

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2018/ASVINA 14, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

supposed to work. According to the workman, she had completed 240 days of service in every year, so she completed

near about 17 years of service without any break and she acquired the status of permanent employee.

According to the workman, Party No. 1 is a society registered under Bombay Public Trust Act and Societies

Registration Act under authority of Central Govt., Central Govt. is an appropriate government. According to the

workman, she was initially appointed as a temporary worker, but Party No. 1 did not regularize her even completion of

17 years of service. According to her, it is unfair labour practice on behalf of the Party No. 1, which is illegal, arbitrary

and malafide. According to her, Party No. 1 issued termination order without complying the provision of 25-F & G of

the above Act. She also prayed that, she is entitled for retrenchment compensation @ 50 days wages for every complete

year or in excess of six months. She also prayed that, she filed her claim before 3^rd Labour Court, Nagpur, which was

decided on 21.11.2011.

According to the workman, Party No. 1 paid a cheque of Rs. 18,900/- towards retrenchment compensation

without proper calculation, so she prayed that, she may be reinstated in the service with back wages and also prayed legal

retrenchment compensation with cost.

On behalf of the Party No. 1, as I stated above, no written statement was filed, but they filed an application

dated 08.05.2018, in which they prayed that, matter was finally decided by the concerned Labour Court. They also

prayed that, the workman had preferred an application before the ALC(C), Nagpur with a request to hold the conciliation

proceedings and requested to reject the representation of the workman summarily. According to the Party No. 1, there is

no substantial question involved in this case.

Point of determination:

Whether the workman is entitled to regularization?

ii.

Whether the retrenchment compensation is proper?

iii.

Whether the workman is entitled to required relief?

Reasons for decision:

On behalf of the workman, she relied on case laws, Management of Prajatantra Prachar Samity Vs, Cuttack

Press Workers’ Union 2013 LLJ 320, Union of India Vs. Ganga Ram 2013 I LLJ 766, Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal

Coucil, Sanaur 2011 II CLR 461, Ratan Singh Vs. Union of India 1997 11 SCC 396, Maaharashtrala State Road

Transport Corp. Vs. Casteribe Rajya P. Karmachari Sanghatana 2009 III CLR 262 = AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2656,

Director of Fisheries Terminal Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda AIR 2010 SC 1236 and R.M. Bank of India

Vs. CGIT-cum-Labour Court Kanpur 2013(137) FLR 1043, in which following principles are laid down:-

“The Tribunal has given a specific finding that the juniors to the workman remained in employment and that after

the termination of the workman new workers were engaged the Court is of the opinion, that the action of the

respondents in terminating the services of the workman was not based on any justifiable reasons”.

ii.

“Burden of proof shifts to employer to prove that he did not complete 240 days of service in requisite period to

constitute continuous service”.

iii.

“Complaints of Unfair Labour Practice………………….held that, unrecognized union which filed complaints in

Industrial Court at Bombay was not competent to filed complaints of unfair labour practice………………However

in exercise of power under Art. 142 of the Constitution of India”.

iv.

“Termination of service of such a workman without complying with S. 25-F, held, illegal – However, 20 long years

having elapsed since termination, instead of directing reinstatement, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid in lieu of

reinstatement and back wages”.

“Jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act

as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or

Tribunal”.

vi.

“A person should not be kept in a temporary and ad hoc status for long. Where a temporary or ad hoc appointee is

continued for long, the Court presumes that there is need and warrant for a regular post”.

vii.

“Held, even though appointment of Respondent No. 1 was part-time, he performed his duties for more than 8 hours

a day and was continuously working with Petitioner department ………….. Completed more than 10 years of

service, is entitled to be considered for regularization in view of instruction issued by Petitioners”.

I fully agree with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Judges in the above ca se laws. I also want to point

out some other case laws:-

B.C. Ramkrishna Vs. State 2003 LIC 1014 (Karnataka), Dr. Mrs. Chanchal Goyal Vs. State of Raj 2003 LIC

1141 (SC), Ashiwani Kumar vs. State of Bihar 1997 LIC 578 (SC), M.P. State Agro Vs. S.C. Pande 2006 SCC(L&S)

434, Delhi Development Vs. Delhi Administration 1992 SCC(L&S) 805, Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi

2006 SCC(L7S) 753, State of Karnataka Vs. G.V. Chandrashekhar 2009 I SCC(L&S) 834, Vice chancellor Lucknow Vs.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 6] 2018@vkf'ou 14] 1940

5955

Akhilesh Kumar 2016 I SCC(L&S) 186 and Talwara Cooperative Vs. Sushil Kumar 2008 2 SCC(L&S) 931, in which,

following principles are laid down:-

Held, “The challenge to the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner on the ground of long continuance as ad

hoc/temporary employee would not be tenable ……….mere continuance does not imply such waiver………no

waiver which would be against requisite compliances can be countenanced”.

ii.

Held, “Right to regularisation, if any, on completion of 240 days’ continuous service………..by itself would not

confer any legal right upon him to be regularized in service”.

iii.

“Absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc

employees appointed/recruited dehors the constitutional scheme of public directions amount to creating another

mode of public appointment, which is not permissible”

iv.

It is also held that, in para 54 in the case of 2006 SCC(L&S) 753, it is also held that, “Those decisions which run

counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein,

will stand denuded of their status as precedents”.

Ad hoc appointments continuing for a long time, reiterated, cannot be ordered to be regularized.

vi.

Daily wager, considering that, respondent was out of employment for more than 20 years and could not seek

regular appointment elsewhere due to over age, compensation of 4 lacs directed to pay to each respondent.

Now I want to discuss the factual argument of the workman.

10.

On behalf of the workman, it was argued that, she came to be appointed with the Party No. 1 in the capacity of

Garden Labour as a temporary worker for three months, which was extended for further period without any gap/break i.e.

she was in continuous service up to 2002. She also asserted that, she had completed 240 days of services in every

calendar year and acquired the status of permanent employee, but no document was filed on behalf of the workman,

except Labour Court Order dated 21.11.2011. This order was passed by learned Labour Judge on hearing of both parties,

in which he gave some observations about the service career of the workman. This evidence remained un-crossed or

unchallenged by the Party No. 1, because proceedings in this case remained ex-parte after appearance of advocate or

representative of Party No. 1. Now I want to mention some observations given by learned Labour Court Judge:-

In para 12 of the judgment, court observed that, filing of complaint before the Industrial Court for regularization is

also not disputed by the respondent -“Working by complainant with respondent is not a dispute between the

parties”.

ii.

“Termination order dated 30.09.2004 ……… is not disputed. --- Compensation determined U/s 25-F of the I.D.

Act …….. for Rs. 18900/- dated 30.09.2004”.

iii.

In para 14 of the judgment, it was observed that, “Appointment of complainant for period of three months w.e.f.

01.01.2001 on contract basis with monthly remuneration ……. Appears to be same nature and without any

break………..this amounts to continuous service rendered by the complainant’s proceeding to their

termination…….there was rendering of 240 days continuous service on the basis of appointment orders and

documents……….it is necessary for the respondent to comply the provision of section 25-F and 25-G of the I.D.

Act”.

iv.

In para 16 of the judgment, “On coming to the non-compliance of Section 25-F and 25-G of I.D. Act, amounts to a

ground in this complaint to declare termination as illegal…….case of complainant falls under I.D. Act subject to

appropriate government”.

The learned Labour Judge also observed that, Central Government is an appropriate authority. Moreover, this

reference came from Central Government order dated 24.05.2013. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the power

of the Central Government. So, bounden duty of this Tribunal to decide this reference according to the law, I take my

guidance from the principles laid down in the following case laws:-

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd, (1984) 4 SCC 392 and National Engineering Industries Ltd.,

AIR 2000 SC 469 is that:- “Section 10(1) confers power on the appropriate Government to refer an existing or

apprehended Industrial Dispute, amongst others, to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The dispute therefore, which

can be referred for adjudication of necessity, has to be an industrial dispute which would clothe the appropriate

Government with power to make the reference and the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate it.” “Jurisdiction of the

Industrial Tribunal, which could be examined by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. It is the existence of the

Industrial Tribunal which would clothe the appropriate Government with power to make the reference and the Industrial

Tribunal to adjudicate it.”

11.

In above case law (AIR 2010 SC 1236), it was observed that, burden of proof shift to employer to prove that the

workman did not complete 240 days. In case law [2013 (137) FLR 1043], it was observed that, after the termination of

the workman, new workers were engaged………terminating the service of the workman was not based on any justifiable

reasons. In case law [(1997) 11 SCC 396], it was observed that, instead of directing reinstatement, a sum of Rs. 25,000/-

in lieu of reinstatement. This view is also supported by Hon’bles in case laws:-

5956

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2018/ASVINA 14, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.” These principles are also laid down by

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case laws- Punjab Urban Planning & Development authority Vs. Mandip Singh (2016) 7

SCC-571, UPSRTC Vs. Gopal Shukla (2015) SCC 603, Sanjay Singh Vs. National Seed Corporation (2017) 13 SCC

269, V.D. Vegad Vs. State of Gujurat (2017) 2 SCC 508 and Angikr Oriental (Arbic) Higher Secondary School Vs. A.

Harnoon (2017) 2 SCC 510.

12.

Judging the present case in hand with touch stone of principles as mentioned above, I observed that, Party No. 1

did not participate in this case proceedings knowingly. On behalf of the workman, it was also argued that, workman is

old lady; she is running near about 58 years, so she prayed that, suitable compensation must be awarded. I also observed

that, she was working in Party No. 1’s department near about 15 years. It is also correct to say that, Party No. 1 paid

some compensation, but in my opinion, this compensation is not sufficient as per length of the service. So, in my humble

opinion, workman is entitled for 1 lac compensation (Rupees one lac only) in lieu of reinstatement in service and back

wages. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of South Central Zone Cultural Centre, Nagpur in retrenching the services

of Ms. Ranabai w.e.f. 01.10.2004 after filing case of the regularisation of her services before Industrial court is not

just, fair or legal, so she is entitled for Lumpsum monetary compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) in

lieu of reinstatement in service, which is payable within one month from the publication of this award in official

gazette, failing which, amount due to 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] 24 flrEcj] 2018

dk- vk- 1447-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

egkizca/kd] vkWMs±l QSDVªh] HkaMkjk] egkjk’Vª ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV

¼CGIT/NGP/15/2018) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&14011@24@2017&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks”kh] mi funs”kd

New Delhi, the 24^th September, 2018

S.O. 1447.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/17/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager,

Ordance Factory, Bhandara, Maharashtra and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

12.09.2018.

[No. L-14011/24/2017– IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

Case No.CGIT/NGP/15/2018-19

Date: 03.08.2018

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 6] 2018@vkf'ou 14] 1940

5957

Party No.1

The General Manager,

Ordnance Factory,

Bhandara, PO Ord FY Bhandara,

Bhandara (M.S.) – 441906.

Versus

Party No.2

The General Secretary,

Ordnance Factory Employees Union,

C/o ordnance Factory,

Bhandara PO Ord. FY. Bhandara,

Distt. Bhandara (M.S.) – 441906.

AWARD

(Dated: 03^rd August, 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 employer, in relation to the management of Ordnance Factory, Bhandara and their union, Ordnance

Factory Employees Union for adjudication, as per letter No.L-14011/24/2017-IR(DU) dated 17.04.2018, with the

following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the Union Ordnance Factory Employees Union (OFEU) by not following the rules,

regulations and directives of the Govt. of India and creating unhealthy industrial relations atmosphere in

the Ordnance factory, Bhandara thus interfering in the production activities of the factory during the

period 09.04.2017 to 15.04.2017, as alleged by the management of Ordnance Factory, Bhandara, is legal

and justified? What directions are necessary in this case?”

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

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due, but no party filed any statement of claim or W.S. On behalf of the

Party No. 1, Mr. Prabhasa Bhoi filed an affidavit on 13.07.2018 with list of documents.

Today, Party No. 1 filed an application to withdraw the reference, which is marked as I.A. No. 1 and also filed

“No Objection” certificate on behalf of the union dated 28.07.2018. Today, representative for the Party No. 1 filed this

application with his I.D. proof. Affidavit dated 07.07.2018 also supports this application by stating that, matter/issue has

been settled. It appears that, Party No. 1 does not want to continue this reference. So, application for withdrawal of the

reference is allowed. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the management. The management is not entitled

to any relief.

SHYAM SUNDER GARG, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2018

dk- vk- 1448-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

eq[; egkizca/kd] ch,l,u,y] cqy<k.kk] egkjk’Vª vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds

iapkV ¼CGIT/NGP/54/2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@03@2016&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks”kh] mi funs”kd

New Delhi, the 24^th September, 2018

S.O. 1448.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/54/2015) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief General

5958

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2018/ASVINA 14, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Manager, BSNL, Buldhana, Maharashtra and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

12.09.2018.

[No. L-40012/03/2016–IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/NGP/54/2015-16

Date: 08.08.2018

Party No.1(a)

The Chief General Manager,

Bharat sanchar Nigam Limited, Khamgaon,

Tehsil: Khamgaon,

Buldhana (M.S.) – 444303.

Party No.1(b)

The Assistant General Manager (Planning),

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Khamgaon,

Buldhana (M.S.) – 444303.

Versus

Party No.2

Shri Sheikh salim sheilh Budhan & 10 others

At/PO/Tehsil – Jalgoan (Jamod),

Buldhana (M.S.) – 443402.

AWARD

Dated: 08^th August, 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 employer, in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workmen, Shri

Sheikh Salim Sheikh Budhan & 10 others for adjudication, as per letter No.L-40012/03/2016- IR(DU) dated 07.03.2016,

with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Khamgaon Distt. Buldhana in

terminating the service of workman 1) Shri Sheikh Salim Sheikh 2) Sh. Sudhakar Tukaram Jadhao 3) Sh. Ajay

Shivaji Pawar 4) Sh. Kashinath Shambhu Chanchne 5) Sh. Goutam Namdeo Surwade 6) Sh. Ramdas Devidas

Chandurkar 7) Sh. Sunil Sashiram Wakode 8) Sh. Vitthal Jairam Gadhave 9) Sh. Vishal Ramesh Kaotekar 10)

Sh. Vinod Ram More & 11) Sh. Anil Shantaram Gudekar are just, fair & legal? If not, to what relief the

concerned eleven workmen are entitled to?”

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

by registered post with acknowledge due, but the workmen did not appear or file statement of claim. On behalf of the

Party No. 1, filed written statement. It shows that, workmen are not interested to continue this reference. This reference

is pending from 08.06.2016. So, reference is closed. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioners. The petitioners are not entitled to any

relief.

SHYAM SUNDER GARG, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2018

dk- vk- 1449-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

funs'kd] nf{k.k e/; {ks= lkaLÑfrd dsUnz ¼,llhtsMlhlh½] ukxiqj ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj

ds iapkV ¼CGIT/NGP/21/2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@11@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks”kh] mi funs”kd

New Delhi, the 24^th September, 2018

S.O. 1449.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/21/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, South

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 6] 2018@vkf'ou 14] 1940

5959

Central Zone Cultural Center (SCZCC), Nagpur, Maharashtra and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 12.09.2018.

[No. L-42012/11/2013– IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

Case No.CGIT/NGP/21/2013-14

Date: 30.08.2018

Party No.1

The Director,

South Central Zone Cultural Centre (SCZCC),

56/1, Opposite of MLA Hostel,

Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440001.

Versus

Party No.2

Ms. Saraaswatabai Gajanan Gajbhiye,

R/o Near Gautam Kirana Store,

Jagdish Nagar, Makardhakda,

Katol Road, Nagpur - 440013.

AWARD

Dated: 30^th August, 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 employer, in relation to the management of South Central Zone Cultural Centre (SCZCC) and their

workman, Ms Saraswatabai Gajanan Gajbhiye for adjudication, as per letter No.L-42012/11/2013- IR(DU) dated

24.05.2013, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of South Central Zone Cultural Centre, Nagpur in retrenching

the services of Ms. Saraswatabai Gajanan Gajbhiye w.e.f. 01.10.2004 after filing case of the regularisation

of her services before Industrial court is just, fair or legal? What relief 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; Smt. Saraswatibai Gajanan Gajbhiye (“the workman” in short) filed the statement of

claim on 26.11.2013, but the management of South Central Zone Cultural Centre (“Party No. 1” in short) did not file any

written statement. Even they did not cross-examine the workman, so proceedings against Party No. 1 remained ex-parte.

On behalf of the Party No. 1, Mr. Prasad A. Abhyankar, advocate filed vakalatnama on 15.10.2013. On servicing of

further notice, Mr. Sudarshan J. Patil filed authority letter of Director on 08.05.2018, but nobody appeared on behalf of

the Party No. 1 after that.

3. Fact of the case:

According to the workman, 1987, she came to be appointed with Party No. 1 in the capacity of Garden Labour

on the wages of Rs. 350/- per month for a period of 3 months. This period was extended time to time without giving any

break. According to the workman, Party No. 1 did not give him any holiday or sick leave, even on Sunday, she was

supposed to work. According to the workman, she had completed 240 days of service in every year, so she completed

near about 17 years of service without any break and she acquired the status of permanent employee.

4. According to the workman, Party No. 1 is a society registered under Bombay Public Trust Act and Societies

Registration Act under authority of Central Govt., Central Govt. is an appropriate government. According to the

workman, she was initially appointed as a temporary worker, but Party No. 1 did not regularize her even completion of

17 years of service. According to her, it is unfair labour practice on behalf of the Party No. 1, which is illegal, arbitrary

and malafide. According to her, Party No. 1 issued termination order without complying the provision of 25-F & G of

the above Act. She also prayed that, she is entitled for retrenchment compensation @ 50 days wages for every complete

year or in excess of six months. She also prayed that, she filed her claim before 3^rd Labour Court, Nagpur, which was

decided on 21.11.2011.

5960

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 6, 2018/ASVINA 14, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5. According to the workman, Party No. 1 paid a cheque of Rs. 18,900/- towards retrenchment compensation without

proper calculation, so she prayed that, she may be reinstated in the service with back wages and also prayed legal

retrenchment compensation with cost.

6. On behalf of the Party No. 1, as I stated above, no written statement was filed, but they filed an application dated

08.05.2018, in which they prayed that, matter was finally decided by the concerned Labour Court. They also prayed that,

the workman had preferred an application before the ALC(C), Nagpur with a request to hold the conciliation proceedings

and requested to reject the representation of the workman summarily. According to the Party No. 1, there is no

substantial question involved in this case.

Point of determination:

i. Whether the workman is entitled to regularization?

ii. Whether the retrenchment compensation is proper?

iii. Whether the workman is entitled to required relief?

Reasons for decision:

On behalf of the workman, she relied on case laws, Management of Prajatantra Prachar Samity Vs, Cuttack

Press Workers’ Union 2013 LLJ 320, Union of India Vs. Ganga Ram 2013 I LLJ 766, Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal

Coucil, Sanaur 2011 II CLR 461, Ratan Singh Vs. Union of India 1997 11 SCC 396, Maaharashtrala State Road

Transport Corp. Vs. Casteribe Rajya P. Karmachari Sanghatana 2009 III CLR 262 = AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2656,

Director of Fisheries Terminal Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda AIR 2010 SC 1236 and R.M. Bank of India

Vs. CGIT-cum-Labour Court Kanpur 2013(137) FLR 1043, in which following principles are laid down:-

“The Tribunal has given a specific finding that the juniors to the workman remained in employment and

that after the termination of the workman new workers were engaged the Court is of the opinion, that the

action of the respondents in terminating the services of the workman was not based on any justifiable

reasons”.

ii.

“Burden of proof shifts to employer to prove that he did not complete 240 days of service in requisite

period to constitute continuous service”.

iii.

“Complaints of Unfair Labour Practice………………….held that, unrecognized union which filed

complaints in Industrial Court at Bombay was not competent to filed complaints of unfair labour

practice………………However in exercise of power under Art. 142 of the Constitution of India”.

iv.

“Termination of service of such a workman without complying with S. 25-F, held, illegal – However, 20

long years having elapsed since termination, instead of directing reinstatement, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to be

paid in lieu of reinstatement and back wages”.

“Jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not

entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the

inferior Court or Tribunal”.

vi.

“A person should not be kept in a temporary and ad hoc status for long. Where a temporary or ad hoc

appointee is continued for long, the Court presumes that there is need and warrant for a regular post”.

vii.

“Held, even though appointment of Respondent No. 1 was part-time, he performed his duties for more than

8 hours a day and was continuously working with Petitioner department ………….. Completed more than

10 years of service, is entitled to be considered for regularization in view of instruction issued by

Petitioners”.

I fully agree with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Judges in the above case laws. I also want to point

out some other case laws:-

B.C. Ramkrishna Vs. State 2003 LIC 1014 (Karnataka), Dr. Mrs. Chanchal Goyal Vs. State of Raj 2003 LIC

1141 (SC), Ashiwani Kumar vs. State of Bihar 1997 LIC 578 (SC), M.P. State Agro Vs. S.C. Pande 2006 SCC(L&S)

434, Delhi Development Vs. Delhi Administration 1992 SCC(L&S) 805, Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi 2006

SCC(L7S) 753, State of Karnataka Vs. G.V. Chandrashekhar 2009 I SCC(L&S) 834, Vice chancellor Lucknow Vs.

Akhilesh Kumar 2016 I SCC(L&S) 186 and Talwara Cooperative Vs. Sushil Kumar 2008 2 SCC(L&S) 931, in which,

following principles are laid down:-

Held, “The challenge to the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner on the ground of long

continuance as ad hoc/temporary employee would not be tenable ……….mere continuance does not imply

such waiver………no waiver which would be against requisite compliances can be countenanced”.

ii.

Held, “Right to regularisation, if any, on completion of 240 days’ continuous service………..by itself

would not confer any legal right upon him to be regularized in service”.

iii.

“Absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad

hoc employees appointed/recruited dehors the constitutional scheme of public directions amount to

creating another mode of public appointment, which is not permissible”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 6] 2018@vkf'ou 14] 1940

5961

iv.

It is also held that, in para 54 in the case of 2006 SCC(L&S) 753, it is also held that, “Those decisions

which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what

we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents”.

Ad hoc appointments continuing for a long time, reiterated, cannot be ordered to be regularized.

vi.

Daily wager, considering that, respondent was out of employment for more than 20 years and could not

seek regular appointment elsewhere due to over age, compensation of 4 lacs directed to pay to each

respondent.