रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक WEEKLY
सं. 1] नई दिल्ली, दिसम्बर 30—जनवरी 5, 2019, शनिवार/पौष 9—पौष 15, 1940
No. 1] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 30—JANUARY 5, 2019, SATURDAY/ PAUSHA 9— PAUSHA 15, 1940
इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
िव(cid:3)िव(cid:3)िव(cid:3)िव(cid:3) मं(cid:6)ालयमं(cid:6)ालयमं(cid:6)ालयमं(cid:6)ालय ((((वित्तीयवित्तीयवित्तीयवित्तीय सेवाएंसेवाएंसेवाएंसेवाएं िवभागिवभागिवभागिवभाग))))
नई दिल्ली, 22 नवम्बर, 2018
का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1111....———— बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम, 1949 (1949 का 10) की धारा 53 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए, के न्(ीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर एत/ारा, यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप-धारा (1) के ख6ड (ग) के उप-ख6ड (i) के उपबंध यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया पर लागू नह< होंगे, जहां तक इसका संबंध बैंक के प्रबंध निदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यकारी अधिकारी ?ी राज किरन राय जी. को स्टार यूनियन दाई-ईची लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कं पनी लिमिटेड के बोर्ड में निदेशक के पद पर नामित करने से है।
[फा.सं. 13/2/2016-बीओ-I]
Fानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव
7560 GI/2018
(1)2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2018
S.O. 1.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Government on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the provisions of sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to Union Bank of India in relation to the nomination of Shri Raj Kiran Rai G., Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Union Bank of India on the Board of Star Union Dai-Ichi Life Insurance Company Limited as Director.
[F. No. 13/2/2016-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 4 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 2222....————बैंककारी कं पनी (उपGमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उप-धारा (3) के खंड (ख) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए, के न्(ीय सरकार, एत/ारा, ?ी आनंद मधुकर, विशेष कार्य अधिकारी (ओएसडी), भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय, वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेशों तक, सु?ी सिधु पिल्लई के स्थान पर यूको बैंक के निदेशक म6डल में सरकारी नामिती निदेशक नामित करती है।
[फा. सं. 6/3/2012-बीओ-I]
Fानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव
New Delhi the 4th December, 2018
S.O. 2.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Anand Madhukar, Officer on Special Duty, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services as Government nominee Director on the Board of Directors of UCO Bank, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Ms. Sindhu Pillai.
[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 3333....————भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम, 1934 की धारा 11 की उप-धारा (6) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए, के न्(ीय सरकार, एत/ारा, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के गवर्नर डॉ. उQजत आर. पटेल के त्याग-पत्र को स्वीकार करती है।
[फा. सं. 1/3/2013-बीओ-I]
Fानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2018
S.O. 3.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (6) of section 11 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Central Government, hereby accepts the resignation of Dr Urjit R. Patel as Governor, Reserve Bank of India.
[F. No. 1/3/2013-BO-I] JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 4444....———— भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम, 1934 की धारा 8 की उप-धारा (4) के साथ पठित उप-धारा (1) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए, के न्(ीय सरकार, एत/ारा, ?ी शक्तिकांत दास, आईएएस सेवानिवृत्त (टीएन:
80), भूतपूर्व सचिव, आQथक कार्य विभाग को तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक (आरबीआई) के गवर्नर के पद पर नियुक्त करती है।
[फा. सं. 1/3/2013-बीओ-I]
Fानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 3
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2018
S.O. 4.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) read with sub-section (4) of section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Shaktikanta Das, IAS Retd. (TN:80), former Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, as Governor, Reserve Bank of India (RBI), for a period of three years.
[F. No. 1/3/2013-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 21 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 5555....————भारतीय निर्यात-आयात बैंक अधिनियम, 1981 (1981 का 28) की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1) के खंड (ग) के अनुसरण में, के न्(ीय सरकार, एत/ारा, आईडीबीआई बैंक के प्रबंध निदेशक एवं मुख्य कार्यकारी अधिकारी (एमडी एवं सीईओ) को तत्काल प्रभाव से अगले आदेशों तक, भारतीय निर्यात-आयात बैंक (एक्जिम बैंक) के निदेशक म6डल में पदेन आधार पर िनदेशक के पद पर नािमत करती है।
[फा. सं. 9/16/2012-आईएफ-I]
सौम्यिजत घोष, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 21st December, 2018
S.O. 5.—In pursuance of Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Export Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981), the Central Government hereby nominates MD&CEO, IDBI Bank as Director on ex-officio basis on the Board of Directors of Export Import Bank of India (EXIM Bank) with immediate effect until further orders.
[F. No. 9/16/2012-IF-I]
SOUMYAJIT GHOSH, Under Secy.
िवदेश मं(cid:6)ालय िवदेश मं(cid:6)ालय िवदेश मं(cid:6)ालय िवदेश मं(cid:6)ालय
(पी. ए(पी. ए(पी. ए(पी. ए----1 अनुभाग)1 अनुभाग)1 अनुभाग)1 अनुभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 30 नवम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 6666....————उत्प्रवासन अिधिनयम 1983 (1983 का 31) की धारा 3 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए के न्( सरकार एतदद्वारा विदेश मंत्रालय में संयुक्त सचिव ?ी अमृत लुगून को पदभार Yहण करने की तारीख अर्थात 30.11.2018 (अपराZन) से अगले आदेशों तक विदेश मंत्रालय में उत्प्रवासी महा संरक्षक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।
[सं. पीए-I/34/2018 ]
िमजीतो िविनतो, अवर सिचव (एफएसपी एवं कै डर)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(PA-I SECTION)
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2018
S.O. 6.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Amrit Lugun, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs as Protector General of Emigrants, Ministry of External Affairs w.e.f. the date of assumption of charge of the post i.e. 30.11.2018 (A/N) until further orders.
[No. PA-I/34/2018]
MIJITO VINITO, Under Secy. (FSP & Cadre)4 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालयस्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालयस्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालयस्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 10 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ.का. आ.का. आ.का. आ. 7777....————के न्(ीय सरकार, सरकारी स्थान (अप्राधिकृ त अधिभोगियों की बदेखली) अधिनियम, 1971 (1971 का 40) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए, नीचे सारणी के स्तंभ (2) में उल्लिखित अिधकारी को, जो सरकार के राजपित्रत अधिकारी हैं, उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए संपदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है और उक्त अधिकारी उक्त सारणी के स्तंभ (3) में तत्स्थानी प्रविष्टि में विनि'दष्ट सरकारी स्थानों के प्रवगa की बावत अपनी अधिकारिता को स्थानीय सीमाओं के भीतर उक्त अधिनियम द्वारा या उसके अधीन प्रवगa संपदा अधिकारी को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग और उन पर अधिरोपित कत्र्तcों का पालन करेगा ।
सारणीसारणीसारणीसारणी
| Gम सं. | अिधकारी का नाम और पदािभधान | सरकारी स्थानों के प्रवर्ग और अधिकारिता की स्थानीय सीमाएं |
| )1( | )2( | )3( |
| 1 | डॉ. एस. आनंद पशुचिकित्सक, बीसीजी टीका प्रयोगशाला, चेन्नई | बीसीजी टीका प्रयोगशाला, गिडी, चेन्नई 600032 के प्रशासनिक नियंत्राणीन और कर्मचारिवृ ंद क् वार्टरों के प्रवर्तन संबंधी परिसर, क् वार्टरों से बेदखली और अस्थायी आ ंवटन से संबंिधत मामले । |
वरिन्दर कौर भल्ला, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2018
S.O. 7.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in the column (2) of the Table below, being Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be the Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act, and the said officer shall exercise all powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officer by under the said Act, within the local limits of his jurisdiction in respect of the categories of Public Premises specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table.
TABLE
| Sl. No. | Name & Designation of the Officer Categories | of Public Premises and Local limits of Jurisdiction. |
| (1) | (2) | (3) |
| 1. | Dr. S. Anand, Veterinarian, BCG Vaccine Laboratory, Chennai | Premises relating to enforcement, eviction of quarters and matters relating to BCG Staff Quarters and temporary allotment under the administrative control of the BCG Vaccine Laboratory, Guindy, Chennai – 600032. |
[F. No. Z-28020/11/2018-EPI]
Ms. VARINDER KAUR BHALLA, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 5महिला एवं बाल विकास मंत्रालयमहिला एवं बाल विकास मंत्रालयमहिला एवं बाल विकास मंत्रालयमहिला एवं बाल विकास मंत्रालय
((((बाल कल्याबाल कल्याबाल कल्याबाल कल्याणणणण----I अनुभागअनुभागअनुभागअनुभाग))))
शु(िcid:27)शु(िcid:27)शु(िcid:27)शु(िcid:27)----पत्रपत्रपत्रपत्र
नई दिल्ली, 10 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 8888....————बाल अधिकार संरक्षण आयोग अधिनियम, 2005 (2006 का 4) की धारा 4 के अनुसरण में, मिहला एवं बाल विकास मंत्रालय ने अधिसूचना संख्या 13/106/2015/यूएस(सीडब्ल्यू-I) का कार्यालय, दिनांक 31.10.2018 के माध्यम से ?ी प्रियंक कानूनगो को 17.10.2018 (पूर्वाZन) से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए, अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, राष्ट्रीय बाल अधिकार संरक्षण आयोग का अध्यक्ष नियुक्त किया था ।
2. अधिसूचना दिनांक 31.10.2018 के हिदी पाठ में '?ी प्रियांक कानूनगो' शब्दों को ''''?ी प्रियंक कानूनगो' पढ़ा जाए ।
[सं.13/106/2015/यूएस(सीडब्ल्यू-I) का कार्यालय (ई-13342)]
आस्था सक्सेना खटवानी, संयुक्त सिचव
MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
(CHILD WELFARE-I SECTION)
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2018
S.O. 8.—In pursuance of Section 4 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 ( 4 of 2006), Ministry of Women & Child Development vide notification No.13/106/2015-O/O US(CW-I) dated 31.10.2018 had appointed Shri Priyank Kanoongo as Chairperson, National Commission for Protection of Child Rights with effect from 17.10.2018 (A/N) for a period of three years, or until further orders, whichever is the earlier.
2.) In the Hindi version of notification dated 31.10.2018 , the words '?ी प्रियांक कानूनगो' may be read as ''?ी प्रियंक कानूनगो''।
[No. 13/106/2015-O/O US(CW-I) (e-13342)]
AASTHA SAXENA KHATWANI, Jt. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 10 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 9999....————बाल अिधकार संरक्षण आयोग अधिनियम, 2005 (2006 का 4) की धारा 4 के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार एतदद्वारा बkचों से संबंधित कानून के क्षेत्र में ?ी यशवंत जैन को दिनांक 02.11.2018 (अपराZन) को पद पर कार्यभार Yहण करने की तिथि से तीन वर्ष की अवधि, या 60 वर्ष की आयु प्राप्त करने, अथवा अगले आदेशों के होने, इनमें से जो भी पहले हो, तक राष्ट्रीय बाल अधिकार संरक्षण आयोग में सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।
[सं. 13/100/2015-सीडब्ल्यू-I(ई-12860)]
आस्था सक्सेना खटवानी, संयुक्त सिचव
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2018
S.O. 9.—In pursuance of Section 4 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of 2006), the Government of India hereby appoint Shri. Yashwant Jain as Member, National Commission for Protection of Child Rights for the field Laws relating to Children with effect from 02.11.2018 (A/N) for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge of the post or till attaining the age of 60 yrs or till further orders, whichever is the earlier.
[No. 13/100/2015-CW-I(e-12860)]
AASTHA SAXENA KHATWANI, Jt. Secy.
6 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]आयुष मंत्रालयआयुष मंत्रालयआयुष मंत्रालयआयुष मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 30 अक्तूबर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 10101010....————कें (ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के िलए प्रयोग) िनयम 1976 (यथा संशोिधत 1987) के िनयम 10 के उप-िनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, आयुष मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन निम्निलिखत कार्यालय, िजसके 84.21% प्रतिशत कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिदी का कार्यसाधक Fान प्राप्त कर िलया है, को एतदद्वारा अिधसूिचत करती हैं:—
''''''''क्षेत्रीयक्षेत्रीयक्षेत्रीयक्षेत्रीय आयुव दीयआयुव दीयआयुव दीयआयुव दीय त्वत्वत्वत्वकरोगकरोगकरोगकरोग अनुसंधानअनुसंधानअनुसंधानअनुसंधान संस्थासंस्थासंस्थासंस्थानननन, , , , अहमदाबादअहमदाबादअहमदाबादअहमदाबाद''''''''
[सं. ई-11018/1/2018-आयुष (रा.भा.)]
पी. एन. र6जीत कु मार, संयुक्त सिचव
MINISTRY OF AYUSH
New Delhi, the 30th October, 2018
S.O. 10.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the administrative control of the Ministry of AYUSH, wherein 84.21% Officials have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:
"Regional Ayurveda Research Institute for Skin Disorders, Ahmedabad"
[No. E-11018/1/2018-AYUSH(O.L.)]
P.N. RANJIT KUMAR, Jt. Secy.
पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालयपेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालयपेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालयपेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर, 2018
काकाकाका.आ..आ..आ..आ. 11.—के न्(ीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि मे उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अिधिनयम, 1962 ( 1962-50) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पnात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना जिसका प्रकाशन भारत के राजपत्र संख्या 15 दिनाक 15-21 अप्रैल 2018 का.आ. 607, 609 दिनाक 10.04.2018 भाग II, खंड 3, उपखंड (ii) में किया गया है! इस अधिसूचना से सलंq अनुसूची में विनिदिष्ट महाराष्ट्र राज्य की तहसील- आष्टी, िजला बीड की भूमि में महाराष्ट्र राज्य में कोयली (गुजरात) से अहमदनगर एवं सोलापुर तक पेट्रोलियम परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑइल कॉपuरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा Gियान्वित किए जा रहे "कोयली-अहमदनगर-सोलापुर परियोजना" के सम्बन्ध में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के लिए अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी :
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचनाओ की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 14 सितम्बर 2018 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी।
और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने के न्(ीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है।
और के न्(ीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पnात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए अपेिछत है, उसमें उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन करने का िविनnय किया है:
अत: अब, के न्(ीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए एत/ारा द्वारा घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से सलq अनुसूची में िविनदिष्ट भूिम में पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अQजत किया जाए:
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 7और के न्(ीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए, यह निदyश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से के न्(ीय सरकार में िनिहत होने के बजाय सभी िवल्लंगमो से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑइल कॉपuरेशन लिमिटेड में िनिहत होगा।
पेट्रोलियम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 की धारा 10 के अधीन किसी भी क्षितपूQत के लिए इंडियन ऑइल कॉपuरेशन लिमिटेड पूर्णतया उतरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से संबंधित किसी भी मामले पर के न्(ीय सरकार के विzद कोई वाद दावा या क़ानूनी कार्यवाही नही हो सके गी।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| तालुका तालुका :::: आष्टीआष्टीआष्टीआष्टी | िजला िजला :::: बीडबीडबीडबीड िजला िजला | राज्य राज्य :::: महाराष्ट्र राज्य राज्य महाराष्ट्र | ||
| गांगांगांगांवववव का नाम का नाम | सव सव सव सव नंनंनंनं..../ब्लॉक नं /ब्लॉक नं.... /ब्लॉक नं | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टर े े | आरआरआरआर | वर्ग वर्ग मीटर वर्गवर्ग मीटर |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) |
| कोयाल | 114 | 00 | 55 | 01 |
| 115 | 00 | 03 | 75 | |
| 120 | 00 | 54 | 10 | |
| 121 | 00 | 33 | 35 | |
| 122 | 00 | 88 | 58 | |
| 129 | 00 | 90 | 48 | |
| 13 | 00 | 48 | 92 | |
| 12 | 00 | 53 | 71 | |
| 06 | 00 | 26 | 94 | |
| 07 | 00 | 05 | 10 | |
| 04 | 00 | 68 | 58 | |
| 05 | 00 | 33 | 75 | |
| 31 | 00 | 53 | 75 | |
| 32 | 00 | 39 | 86 | |
| ख ंटेफल (वाटेफल) ु | 30 | 00 | 83 | 16 |
| 29 | 00 | 00 | 03 | |
| स ंबेवाडी ु | 41 | 00 | 24 | 34 |
| 42 | 00 | 63 | 04 | |
| 43 | 00 | 52 | 49 | |
| स ंबेवाडी ु | 44 | 00 | 59 | 77 |
| 45 | 00 | 29 | 66 | |
| 46 | 00 | 08 | 67 | |
| नांदुर | 104 | 00 | 25 | 19 |
| 105 | 00 | 43 | 37 | |
| 107 | 00 | 71 | 76 | |
| 96 | 00 | 55 | 51 | |
| 98 | 00 | 24 | 06 | |
| 97 | 00 | 30 | 97 | |
| बालेवाडी | 25 | 00 | 42 | 27 |
| 26 | 00 | 44 | 86 | |
| 28 | 00 | 44 | 32 | |
| 29 | 00 | 45 | 32 | |
| 32 | 01 | 16 | 45 | |
| 30 | 00 | 02 | 85 | |
| 31 | 00 | 51 | 10 | |
| 53 | 00 | 82 | 61 | |
| 54 | 00 | 22 | 11 | |
| 52 | 00 | 36 | 43 | |
| 55 | 00 | 36 | 50 | |
| 59 | 00 | 25 | 31 | |
| 58 | 00 | 61 | 30 | |
| 57 | 00 | 28 | 68 | |
| धानोरा | 108 | 00 | 15 | 31 |
| 107 | 00 | 17 | 79 | |
| 105 | 00 | 25 | 32 | |
| 106 | 00 | 28 | 99 | |
| 99 | 00 | 64 | 04 | |
| 98 | 00 | 56 | 72 | |
| धानोरा | 97 | 00 | 42 | 31 |
| 96 | 00 | 25 | 09 | |
| 90 | 00 | 39 | 73 | |
| 88 | 00 | 20 | 44 | |
| 87 | 00 | 42 | 74 | |
| 86 | 00 | 00 | 02 | |
| 77 | 00 | 11 | 56 | |
| 78 | 00 | 09 | 85 | |
| 81 | 00 | 07 | 16 | |
| 80 | 00 | 07 | 15 | |
| 82 | 00 | 10 | 13 | |
| 67 | 00 | 36 | 10 | |
| 66 | 00 | 05 | 74 | |
| 65 | 00 | 21 | 76 | |
| 64 | 00 | 00 | 15 | |
| 63 | 00 | 29 | 13 | |
| 58 | 00 | 20 | 06 | |
| 57 | 00 | 15 | 36 | |
| 55 | 00 | 18 | 53 | |
| 53 | 00 | 12 | 73 | |
| 52 | 00 | 14 | 69 | |
| 48 | 00 | 13 | 59 | |
| 49 | 00 | 02 | 54 | |
| 46 | 00 | 15 | 46 | |
| 45 | 00 | 45 | 58 | |
| साबलखेड | 12 | 00 | 10 | 60 |
| 117 | 00 | 25 | 82 | |
| 118 | 00 | 24 | 60 | |
| 97 | 00 | 91 | 47 | |
| साबलखेड | 115 | 00 | 47 | 04 |
| 98 | 00 | 27 | 35 | |
| चिचोली | 01 | 00 | 51 | 33 |
| 02 | 00 | 38 | 06 | |
| 03 | 00 | 40 | 88 | |
| 08 | 00 | 10 | 76 | |
| 9/4 | 00 | 06 | 76 | |
| 9/5 | 00 | 06 | 70 | |
| 10 | 00 | 16 | 71 | |
| 11/8 | 00 | 03 | 66 | |
| 11/9 | 00 | 04 | 42 | |
| 11/10 | 00 | 08 | 64 | |
| 13/1 | 00 | 14 | 31 | |
| 13/2 | 00 | 05 | 55 | |
| 13/3 | 00 | 07 | 66 | |
| 14 | 00 | 36 | 56 | |
| 17/4 | 00 | 15 | 31 | |
| 17/5 | 00 | 16 | 10 | |
| 18/5 | 00 | 57 | 68 | |
| कडा | 54 | 00 | 42 | 45 |
| 55 | 00 | 47 | 38 | |
| 48 | 00 | 43 | 47 | |
| 47 | 00 | 36 | 58 | |
| 61 | 00 | 05 | 43 | |
| 38 | 00 | 65 | 48 | |
| 39 | 00 | 40 | 01 | |
| 40 | 00 | 24 | 10 | |
| 36 | 00 | 09 | 85 | |
| 35 | 00 | 44 | 90 | |
| कडा | 34 | 00 | 34 | 76 |
| 30 | 00 | 18 | 97 | |
| 29 | 00 | 41 | 73 | |
| 101 | 00 | 25 | 54 | |
| 102 | 00 | 17 | 13 | |
| 103 | 00 | 31 | 71 | |
| 104 | 00 | 48 | 10 | |
| 105 | 00 | 41 | 11 | |
| 124 | 00 | 26 | 91 | |
| 123 | 00 | 29 | 43 | |
| 121 | 00 | 74 | 83 | |
| 119 | 00 | 34 | 41 | |
| 141 | 00 | 37 | 39 | |
| 142 | 00 | 15 | 14 | |
| 143 | 00 | 11 | 86 | |
| श ेरी खुर्द | 15 | 00 | 34 | 22 |
| 14 | 00 | 27 | 83 | |
| 13 | 00 | 05 | 91 | |
| 11 | 00 | 14 | 94 | |
| 12 | 00 | 13 | 50 | |
| 09 | 00 | 30 | 53 | |
| 07 | 00 | 30 | 49 | |
| 06 | 00 | 05 | 91 | |
| 05 | 00 | 01 | 54 | |
| 83 | 00 | 67 | 82 | |
| श ेरी बु(ुक | 84/3 | 00 | 09 | 39 |
| 84/4 | 00 | 12 | 00 | |
| नीमगाव चोभा | 75 | 00 | 23 | 95 |
| 76 | 00 | 57 | 98 | |
| नीमगाव चोभा | 69 | 00 | 09 | 76 |
| 77 | 00 | 45 | 94 | |
| 80 | 00 | 50 | 83 | |
| 81 | 00 | 53 | 65 | |
| वटणवाडी | 58 | 00 | 95 | 63 |
| 57 | 00 | 00 | 48 | |
| जलगांव | 74 | 00 | 34 | 59 |
| 72 | 00 | 27 | 63 | |
| 71/2 | 00 | 16 | 27 | |
| 69 | 00 | 18 | 07 | |
| 68 | 00 | 45 | 07 | |
| 66 | 00 | 03 | 59 | |
| 47 | 00 | 65 | 76 | |
| 58 | 00 | 31 | 62 | |
| 57 | 00 | 23 | 96 | |
| 56 | 00 | 29 | 95 | |
| 50 | 00 | 13 | 62 | |
| 55 | 00 | 57 | 08 | |
| पिप्री आष्टी | 83 | 00 | 27 | 76 |
| 84 | 00 | 59 | 40 | |
| 86 | 00 | 56 | 63 | |
| 87 | 00 | 03 | 70 | |
| 88 | 00 | 35 | 91 | |
| 97 | 00 | 45 | 24 | |
| 98 | 00 | 46 | 50 | |
| 05 | 00 | 52 | 10 | |
| 03 | 00 | 29 | 14 | |
| 17 | 00 | 42 | 18 | |
| 16 | 00 | 53 | 37 | |
| 15 | 00 | 40 | 38 | |
| म ुर्शदपुर | 7/1 | 00 | 26 | 39 |
| 6/1 | 00 | 33 | 36 | |
| 6/2 | 00 | 28 | 14 | |
| 5/1 | 00 | 27 | 46 | |
| 5/2 | 00 | 20 | 11 | |
| 11/1/1 | 00 | 11 | 86 | |
| 11/1/2 | 00 | 14 | 13 | |
| 11/1/3 | 00 | 12 | 38 | |
| 12/2 | 00 | 04 | 27 | |
| 02 | 00 | 22 | 63 | |
| 19/2 | 00 | 35 | 20 | |
| 20 | 00 | 46 | 26 | |
| 42 | 00 | 51 | 50 | |
| 40/4 | 00 | 08 | 70 | |
| 40/5 | 00 | 16 | 60 | |
| 40/9 | 00 | 07 | 19 | |
| 40/10 | 00 | 16 | 17 | |
| 44 | 00 | 18 | 50 | |
| 45/1 | 00 | 20 | 26 | |
| 46 | 00 | 83 | 00 | |
| आष्टी | 908 | 00 | 00 | 03 |
| 907 | 00 | 28 | 17 | |
| 906 | 00 | 44 | 22 | |
| 785 | 00 | 98 | 89 | |
| 788 | 01 | 15 | 06 | |
| 790 | 00 | 05 | 65 | |
| 786 | 00 | 00 | 40 | |
| 781 | 00 | 09 | 99 | |
| आष्टी | 780 | 00 | 21 | 30 |
| 703 | 00 | 33 | 06 | |
| 704 | 00 | 39 | 50 | |
| 705 | 00 | 37 | 93 | |
| 706 | 00 | 43 | 09 | |
| 474 | 00 | 50 | 57 | |
| 475 | 00 | 09 | 59 | |
| 476 | 00 | 49 | 15 | |
| 491 | 00 | 26 | 59 | |
| 489 | 00 | 07 | 50 | |
| 490 | 00 | 66 | 96 | |
| 487 | 00 | 63 | 08 | |
| 552 | 00 | 19 | 40 | |
| 554 | 00 | 00 | 20 | |
| 555 | 00 | 11 | 37 | |
| 556 | 00 | 11 | 62 | |
| 564 | 00 | 00 | 67 | |
| पोखरी | 875 | 00 | 04 | 16 |
| 876 | 00 | 14 | 75 | |
| 877 | 00 | 06 | 31 | |
| 878 | 00 | 05 | 79 | |
| 879 | 00 | 06 | 37 | |
| 880 | 00 | 05 | 70 | |
| 873 | 00 | 46 | 12 | |
| 872 | 00 | 00 | 38 | |
| 871 | 00 | 09 | 79 | |
| 870 | 00 | 08 | 57 | |
| 868 | 00 | 53 | 97 | |
| 844 | 00 | 33 | 68 | |
| पोखरी | 841 | 00 | 01 | 26 |
| 847 | 00 | 04 | 95 | |
| 840 | 00 | 02 | 80 | |
| 848 | 00 | 04 | 73 | |
| 839 | 00 | 02 | 88 | |
| 838 | 00 | 13 | 45 | |
| 837 | 00 | 37 | 08 | |
| 836 | 00 | 13 | 72 | |
| 824 | 00 | 06 | 57 | |
| 825 | 00 | 08 | 54 | |
| 826 | 00 | 10 | 86 | |
| 827 | 00 | 15 | 18 | |
| 365 | 00 | 00 | 15 | |
| 364 | 00 | 07 | 00 | |
| 362 | 00 | 04 | 60 | |
| 363 | 00 | 15 | 88 | |
| 368 | 00 | 25 | 04 | |
| 371 | 00 | 05 | 97 | |
| 103 | 00 | 02 | 03 | |
| 384 | 00 | 07 | 67 | |
| 385 | 00 | 02 | 21 | |
| 386 | 00 | 01 | 98 | |
| 387 | 00 | 02 | 42 | |
| 388 | 00 | 05 | 59 | |
| 391 | 00 | 00 | 21 | |
| 390 | 00 | 01 | 84 | |
| 389 | 00 | 03 | 07 | |
| 395 | 00 | 03 | 48 | |
| 408 | 00 | 14 | 92 | |
| पोखरी | 417 | 00 | 11 | 14 |
| 356 | 00 | 18 | 40 | |
| 346 | 00 | 06 | 89 | |
| 343 | 00 | 12 | 30 | |
| 310 | 00 | 25 | 15 | |
| 105 | 00 | 14 | 38 | |
| 294 | 00 | 34 | 71 | |
| 161 | 00 | 00 | 01 | |
| 157 | 00 | 00 | 37 | |
| 162 | 00 | 26 | 73 | |
| 156 | 00 | 16 | 04 | |
| 116 | 00 | 15 | 18 | |
| 117 | 00 | 10 | 41 | |
| 119 | 00 | 04 | 14 | |
| 123 | 00 | 19 | 33 | |
| 125 | 00 | 10 | 23 | |
| 128 | 00 | 00 | 78 | |
| 127 | 00 | 13 | 36 | |
| 129 | 00 | 31 | 28 | |
| 132 | 00 | 49 | 96 | |
| 134 | 00 | 15 | 88 | |
| 135 | 00 | 02 | 99 | |
| 136 | 00 | 09 | 00 | |
| 137 | 00 | 23 | 93 | |
| गांधनवाडी | 195 | 00 | 07 | 13 |
| 196 | 00 | 25 | 52 | |
| 203 | 00 | 06 | 85 | |
| 197 | 00 | 05 | 39 | |
| 204 | 00 | 19 | 88 | |
| गांधनवाडी | 205 | 00 | 10 | 94 |
| 207 | 00 | 10 | 15 | |
| 208 | 00 | 05 | 94 | |
| 206 | 00 | 01 | 28 | |
| 209 | 00 | 23 | 84 | |
| 222 | 00 | 03 | 93 | |
| 223 | 00 | 24 | 69 | |
| 224 | 00 | 17 | 63 | |
| 225 | 00 | 20 | 13 | |
| 226 | 00 | 03 | 59 | |
| 240 | 00 | 03 | 58 | |
| चिचपुर | 328 | 00 | 21 | 45 |
| 332 | 00 | 05 | 62 | |
| 325 | 00 | 04 | 63 | |
| 320 | 00 | 02 | 37 | |
| 321 | 00 | 09 | 19 | |
| 322 | 00 | 18 | 83 | |
| 323 | 00 | 05 | 63 | |
| 324 | 00 | 05 | 77 | |
| 306 | 00 | 15 | 63 | |
| 303 | 00 | 13 | 70 | |
| 302 | 00 | 39 | 31 | |
| 301 | 00 | 04 | 05 | |
| 222 | 00 | 38 | 63 | |
| 239 | 00 | 45 | 79 | |
| 241 | 00 | 03 | 26 | |
| 236 | 00 | 36 | 52 | |
| 238 | 00 | 34 | 00 | |
| 237 | 00 | 00 | 02 | |
| चिचपुर | 202 | 00 | 09 | 98 |
| 200 | 00 | 08 | 28 | |
| 199 | 00 | 08 | 90 | |
| 196 | 00 | 09 | 43 | |
| 171 | 00 | 43 | 73 | |
| 195 | 00 | 00 | 16 | |
| 189 | 00 | 66 | 90 | |
| भातोडी | 80 | 00 | 25 | 18 |
| 82 | 00 | 28 | 60 | |
| 84 | 00 | 01 | 22 | |
| 83 | 00 | 10 | 94 | |
| 86 | 00 | 15 | 01 | |
| खाकलवाडी | 30/1 | 00 | 34 | 16 |
| 30/3 | 00 | 17 | 79 | |
| 30/4 | 00 | 16 | 54 | |
| 30/5 | 00 | 02 | 40 | |
| 29/1 | 00 | 10 | 26 | |
| 29/2 | 00 | 00 | 98 | |
| 31/1 | 00 | 05 | 99 | |
| 31/2 | 00 | 25 | 04 | |
| 31/3 | 00 | 05 | 69 | |
| 31/5 | 00 | 00 | 08 | |
| 31/6 | 00 | 04 | 07 | |
| 31/12 | 00 | 09 | 65 | |
| 32/1 | 00 | 15 | 95 | |
| 32/2 | 00 | 24 | 96 | |
| 32/4 | 00 | 13 | 24 | |
| 32/5 | 00 | 00 | 01 | |
| 33/6 | 00 | 14 | 30 | |
| खाकलवाडी | 35/1 | 00 | 21 | 15 |
| 35/2 | 00 | 11 | 39 | |
| 35/3 | 00 | 08 | 76 | |
| 34 | 00 | 53 | 24 | |
| 22 | 00 | 36 | 94 | |
| 21 | 00 | 45 | 77 | |
| पांढरी | 191 | 00 | 55 | 49 |
| 192 | 00 | 83 | 09 | |
| 195 | 00 | 47 | 37 | |
| 171 | 00 | 49 | 04 | |
| 196 | 00 | 58 | 03 | |
| 149 | 00 | 81 | 91 | |
| 169 | 00 | 34 | 96 | |
| 154 | 01 | 00 | 52 |
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)6/2018-ओआर-I /ई-23678]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 11.—Whereas by the notification of The Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Published in the Gazette No. 15 date 15-21 April 2018 S.O No. 607, 609 date 10.04.2018 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), (Hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Tehsil Ashti, District Beed in Maharashtra State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum from Koyali in the State Gujrat to Solapur in the Maharashtra by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the ''Koyali-Ahmednagar-Solapur Pipeline Project''.
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 12 September 2018.
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report 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.
20 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]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
| Taluka : Ashti | District : Beed | State : Maharashtra | ||
| Name of Village | Survey No./ Block No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Square Metre |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) |
| Koyal | 114 | 00 | 55 | 01 |
| 115 | 00 | 03 | 75 | |
| 120 | 00 | 54 | 10 | |
| 121 | 00 | 33 | 35 | |
| 122 | 00 | 88 | 58 | |
| 129 | 00 | 90 | 48 | |
| 13 | 00 | 48 | 92 | |
| 12 | 00 | 53 | 71 | |
| 06 | 00 | 26 | 94 | |
| 07 | 00 | 05 | 10 | |
| 04 | 00 | 68 | 58 | |
| 05 | 00 | 33 | 75 | |
| 31 | 00 | 53 | 75 | |
| 32 | 00 | 39 | 86 | |
| Khuntephal (Watephal) | 30 | 00 | 83 | 16 |
| 29 | 00 | 00 | 03 | |
| Sumbewadi | 41 | 00 | 24 | 34 |
| 42 | 00 | 63 | 04 | |
| 43 | 00 | 52 | 49 | |
| 44 | 00 | 59 | 77 | |
| 45 | 00 | 29 | 66 | |
| 46 | 00 | 08 | 67 | |
| Nandur | 104 | 00 | 25 | 19 |
| 105 | 00 | 43 | 37 | |
| 107 | 00 | 71 | 76 | |
| 96 | 00 | 55 | 51 | |
| 98 | 00 | 24 | 06 | |
| 97 | 00 | 30 | 97 | |
| Balewadi | 25 | 00 | 42 | 27 |
| 26 | 00 | 44 | 86 | |
| 28 | 00 | 44 | 32 | |
| 29 | 00 | 45 | 32 | |
| Balewadi | 32 | 01 | 16 | 45 |
| 30 | 00 | 02 | 85 | |
| 31 | 00 | 51 | 10 | |
| 53 | 00 | 82 | 61 | |
| 54 | 00 | 22 | 11 | |
| 52 | 00 | 36 | 43 | |
| 55 | 00 | 36 | 50 | |
| 59 | 00 | 25 | 31 | |
| 58 | 00 | 61 | 30 | |
| 57 | 00 | 28 | 68 | |
| Dhanora | 108 | 00 | 15 | 31 |
| 107 | 00 | 17 | 79 | |
| 105 | 00 | 25 | 32 | |
| 106 | 00 | 28 | 99 | |
| 99 | 00 | 64 | 04 | |
| 98 | 00 | 56 | 72 | |
| 97 | 00 | 42 | 31 | |
| 96 | 00 | 25 | 09 | |
| 90 | 00 | 39 | 73 | |
| 88 | 00 | 20 | 44 | |
| 87 | 00 | 42 | 74 | |
| 86 | 00 | 00 | 02 | |
| 77 | 00 | 11 | 56 | |
| 78 | 00 | 09 | 85 | |
| 81 | 00 | 07 | 16 | |
| 80 | 00 | 07 | 15 | |
| 82 | 00 | 10 | 13 | |
| 67 | 00 | 36 | 10 | |
| 66 | 00 | 05 | 74 | |
| 65 | 00 | 21 | 76 | |
| 64 | 00 | 00 | 15 | |
| 63 | 00 | 29 | 13 | |
| 58 | 00 | 20 | 06 | |
| 57 | 00 | 15 | 36 | |
| 55 | 00 | 18 | 53 | |
| 53 | 00 | 12 | 73 | |
| 52 | 00 | 14 | 69 | |
| 48 | 00 | 13 | 59 | |
| 49 | 00 | 02 | 54 | |
| 46 | 00 | 15 | 46 | |
| 45 | 00 | 45 | 58 | |
| Sabalkhed | 12 | 00 | 10 | 60 |
| 117 | 00 | 25 | 82 | |
| 118 | 00 | 24 | 60 | |
| 97 | 00 | 91 | 47 | |
| 115 | 00 | 47 | 04 | |
| 98 | 00 | 27 | 35 | |
| Chincholi | 01 | 00 | 51 | 33 |
| 02 | 00 | 38 | 06 | |
| 03 | 00 | 40 | 88 | |
| 08 | 00 | 10 | 76 | |
| 9/4 | 00 | 06 | 76 | |
| 9/5 | 00 | 06 | 70 | |
| 10 | 00 | 16 | 71 | |
| 11/8 | 00 | 03 | 66 | |
| 11/9 | 00 | 04 | 42 | |
| 11/10 | 00 | 08 | 64 | |
| 13/1 | 00 | 14 | 31 | |
| 13/2 | 00 | 05 | 55 | |
| 13/3 | 00 | 07 | 66 | |
| 14 | 00 | 36 | 56 | |
| 17/4 | 00 | 15 | 31 | |
| 17/5 | 00 | 16 | 10 | |
| 18/5 | 00 | 57 | 68 | |
| Kada | 54 | 00 | 42 | 45 |
| 55 | 00 | 47 | 38 | |
| 48 | 00 | 43 | 47 | |
| 47 | 00 | 36 | 58 | |
| 61 | 00 | 05 | 43 | |
| 38 | 00 | 65 | 48 | |
| 39 | 00 | 40 | 01 | |
| 40 | 00 | 24 | 10 | |
| 36 | 00 | 09 | 85 | |
| 35 | 00 | 44 | 90 | |
| 34 | 00 | 34 | 76 | |
| 30 | 00 | 18 | 97 | |
| 29 | 00 | 41 | 73 | |
| 101 | 00 | 25 | 54 | |
| 102 | 00 | 17 | 13 | |
| 103 | 00 | 31 | 71 | |
| 104 | 00 | 48 | 10 | |
| Kada | 105 | 00 | 41 | 11 |
| 124 | 00 | 26 | 91 | |
| 123 | 00 | 29 | 43 | |
| 121 | 00 | 74 | 83 | |
| 119 | 00 | 34 | 41 | |
| 141 | 00 | 37 | 39 | |
| 142 | 00 | 15 | 14 | |
| 143 | 00 | 11 | 86 | |
| Sheri Khurd | 15 | 00 | 34 | 22 |
| 14 | 00 | 27 | 83 | |
| 13 | 00 | 05 | 91 | |
| 11 | 00 | 14 | 94 | |
| 12 | 00 | 13 | 50 | |
| 09 | 00 | 30 | 53 | |
| 07 | 00 | 30 | 49 | |
| 06 | 00 | 05 | 91 | |
| 05 | 00 | 01 | 54 | |
| 83 | 00 | 67 | 82 | |
| Sheri Budruk | 84/3 | 00 | 09 | 39 |
| 84/4 | 00 | 12 | 00 | |
| Nimgaon Chobha | 75 | 00 | 23 | 95 |
| 76 | 00 | 57 | 98 | |
| 69 | 00 | 09 | 76 | |
| 77 | 00 | 45 | 94 | |
| 80 | 00 | 50 | 83 | |
| 81 | 00 | 53 | 65 | |
| Watanwadi | 58 | 00 | 95 | 63 |
| 57 | 00 | 00 | 48 | |
| Jalgaon | 74 | 00 | 34 | 59 |
| 72 | 00 | 27 | 63 | |
| 71/2 | 00 | 16 | 27 | |
| 69 | 00 | 18 | 07 | |
| 68 | 00 | 45 | 07 | |
| 66 | 00 | 03 | 59 | |
| 47 | 00 | 65 | 76 | |
| 58 | 00 | 31 | 62 | |
| 57 | 00 | 23 | 96 | |
| 56 | 00 | 29 | 95 | |
| 50 | 00 | 13 | 62 | |
| 55 | 00 | 57 | 08 | |
| Pimpri Ashti | 83 | 00 | 27 | 76 |
| Pimpri Ashti | 84 | 00 | 59 | 40 |
| 86 | 00 | 56 | 63 | |
| 87 | 00 | 03 | 70 | |
| 88 | 00 | 35 | 91 | |
| 97 | 00 | 45 | 24 | |
| 98 | 00 | 46 | 50 | |
| 05 | 00 | 52 | 10 | |
| 03 | 00 | 29 | 14 | |
| 17 | 00 | 42 | 18 | |
| 16 | 00 | 53 | 37 | |
| 15 | 00 | 40 | 38 | |
| Murshadpur | 7/1 | 00 | 26 | 39 |
| 6/1 | 00 | 33 | 36 | |
| 6/2 | 00 | 28 | 14 | |
| 5/1 | 00 | 27 | 46 | |
| 5/2 | 00 | 20 | 11 | |
| 11/1/1 | 00 | 11 | 86 | |
| 11/1/2 | 00 | 14 | 13 | |
| 11/1/3 | 00 | 12 | 38 | |
| 12/2 | 00 | 04 | 27 | |
| 02 | 00 | 22 | 63 | |
| 19/2 | 00 | 35 | 20 | |
| 20 | 00 | 46 | 26 | |
| 42 | 00 | 51 | 50 | |
| 40/4 | 00 | 08 | 70 | |
| 40/5 | 00 | 16 | 60 | |
| 40/9 | 00 | 07 | 19 | |
| 40/10 | 00 | 16 | 17 | |
| 44 | 00 | 18 | 50 | |
| 45/1 | 00 | 20 | 26 | |
| 46 | 00 | 83 | 00 | |
| Ashti | 908 | 00 | 00 | 03 |
| 907 | 00 | 28 | 17 | |
| 906 | 00 | 44 | 22 | |
| 785 | 00 | 98 | 89 | |
| 788 | 01 | 15 | 06 | |
| 790 | 00 | 05 | 65 | |
| 786 | 00 | 00 | 40 | |
| 781 | 00 | 09 | 99 | |
| 780 | 00 | 21 | 30 | |
| 703 | 00 | 33 | 06 | |
| Ashti | 704 | 00 | 39 | 50 |
| 705 | 00 | 37 | 93 | |
| 706 | 00 | 43 | 09 | |
| 474 | 00 | 50 | 57 | |
| 475 | 00 | 09 | 59 | |
| 476 | 00 | 49 | 15 | |
| 491 | 00 | 26 | 59 | |
| 489 | 00 | 07 | 50 | |
| 490 | 00 | 66 | 96 | |
| 487 | 00 | 63 | 08 | |
| 552 | 00 | 19 | 40 | |
| 554 | 00 | 00 | 20 | |
| 555 | 00 | 11 | 37 | |
| 556 | 00 | 11 | 62 | |
| 564 | 00 | 00 | 67 | |
| Pokhari | 875 | 00 | 04 | 16 |
| 876 | 00 | 14 | 75 | |
| 877 | 00 | 06 | 31 | |
| 878 | 00 | 05 | 79 | |
| 879 | 00 | 06 | 37 | |
| 880 | 00 | 05 | 70 | |
| 873 | 00 | 46 | 12 | |
| 872 | 00 | 00 | 38 | |
| 871 | 00 | 09 | 79 | |
| 870 | 00 | 08 | 57 | |
| 868 | 00 | 53 | 97 | |
| 844 | 00 | 33 | 68 | |
| 841 | 00 | 01 | 26 | |
| 847 | 00 | 04 | 95 | |
| 840 | 00 | 02 | 80 | |
| 848 | 00 | 04 | 73 | |
| 839 | 00 | 02 | 88 | |
| 838 | 00 | 13 | 45 | |
| 837 | 00 | 37 | 08 | |
| 836 | 00 | 13 | 72 | |
| 824 | 00 | 06 | 57 | |
| 825 | 00 | 08 | 54 | |
| 826 | 00 | 10 | 86 | |
| 827 | 00 | 15 | 18 | |
| 365 | 00 | 00 | 15 | |
| 364 | 00 | 07 | 00 | |
| Pokhari | 362 | 00 | 04 | 60 |
| 363 | 00 | 15 | 88 | |
| 368 | 00 | 25 | 04 | |
| 371 | 00 | 05 | 97 | |
| 103 | 00 | 02 | 03 | |
| 384 | 00 | 07 | 67 | |
| 385 | 00 | 02 | 21 | |
| 386 | 00 | 01 | 98 | |
| 387 | 00 | 02 | 42 | |
| 388 | 00 | 05 | 59 | |
| 391 | 00 | 00 | 21 | |
| 390 | 00 | 01 | 84 | |
| 389 | 00 | 03 | 07 | |
| 395 | 00 | 03 | 48 | |
| 408 | 00 | 14 | 92 | |
| 417 | 00 | 11 | 14 | |
| 356 | 00 | 18 | 40 | |
| 346 | 00 | 06 | 89 | |
| 343 | 00 | 12 | 30 | |
| 310 | 00 | 25 | 15 | |
| 105 | 00 | 14 | 38 | |
| 294 | 00 | 34 | 71 | |
| 161 | 00 | 00 | 01 | |
| 157 | 00 | 00 | 37 | |
| 162 | 00 | 26 | 73 | |
| 156 | 00 | 16 | 04 | |
| 116 | 00 | 15 | 18 | |
| 117 | 00 | 10 | 41 | |
| 119 | 00 | 04 | 14 | |
| 123 | 00 | 19 | 33 | |
| 125 | 00 | 10 | 23 | |
| 128 | 00 | 00 | 78 | |
| 127 | 00 | 13 | 36 | |
| 129 | 00 | 31 | 28 | |
| 132 | 00 | 49 | 96 | |
| 134 | 00 | 15 | 88 | |
| 135 | 00 | 02 | 99 | |
| 136 | 00 | 09 | 00 | |
| 137 | 00 | 23 | 93 | |
| Gandhanwadi | 195 | 00 | 07 | 13 |
| 196 | 00 | 25 | 52 | |
| Gandhanwadi | 203 | 00 | 06 | 85 |
| 197 | 00 | 05 | 39 | |
| 204 | 00 | 19 | 88 | |
| 205 | 00 | 10 | 94 | |
| 207 | 00 | 10 | 15 | |
| 208 | 00 | 05 | 94 | |
| 206 | 00 | 01 | 28 | |
| 209 | 00 | 23 | 84 | |
| 222 | 00 | 03 | 93 | |
| 223 | 00 | 24 | 69 | |
| 224 | 00 | 17 | 63 | |
| 225 | 00 | 20 | 13 | |
| 226 | 00 | 03 | 59 | |
| 240 | 00 | 03 | 58 | |
| Chinchpur | 328 | 00 | 21 | 45 |
| 332 | 00 | 05 | 62 | |
| 325 | 00 | 04 | 63 | |
| 320 | 00 | 02 | 37 | |
| 321 | 00 | 09 | 19 | |
| 322 | 00 | 18 | 83 | |
| 323 | 00 | 05 | 63 | |
| 324 | 00 | 05 | 77 | |
| 306 | 00 | 15 | 63 | |
| 303 | 00 | 13 | 70 | |
| 302 | 00 | 39 | 31 | |
| 301 | 00 | 04 | 05 | |
| 222 | 00 | 38 | 63 | |
| 239 | 00 | 45 | 79 | |
| 241 | 00 | 03 | 26 | |
| 236 | 00 | 36 | 52 | |
| 238 | 00 | 34 | 00 | |
| 237 | 00 | 00 | 02 | |
| 202 | 00 | 09 | 98 | |
| 200 | 00 | 08 | 28 | |
| 199 | 00 | 08 | 90 | |
| 196 | 00 | 09 | 43 | |
| 171 | 00 | 43 | 73 | |
| 195 | 00 | 00 | 16 | |
| 189 | 00 | 66 | 90 | |
| Bhatodi | 80 | 00 | 25 | 18 |
| 82 | 00 | 28 | 60 | |
| Bhatodi | 84 | 00 | 01 | 22 |
| 83 | 00 | 10 | 94 | |
| 86 | 00 | 15 | 01 | |
| Khakalwadi | 30/1 | 00 | 34 | 16 |
| 30/3 | 00 | 17 | 79 | |
| 30/4 | 00 | 16 | 54 | |
| 30/5 | 00 | 02 | 40 | |
| 29/1 | 00 | 10 | 26 | |
| 29/2 | 00 | 00 | 98 | |
| 31/1 | 00 | 05 | 99 | |
| 31/2 | 00 | 25 | 04 | |
| 31/3 | 00 | 05 | 69 | |
| 31/5 | 00 | 00 | 08 | |
| 31/6 | 00 | 04 | 07 | |
| 31/12 | 00 | 09 | 65 | |
| 32/1 | 00 | 15 | 95 | |
| 32/2 | 00 | 24 | 96 | |
| 32/4 | 00 | 13 | 24 | |
| 32/5 | 00 | 00 | 01 | |
| 33/6 | 00 | 14 | 30 | |
| 35/1 | 00 | 21 | 15 | |
| 35/2 | 00 | 11 | 39 | |
| 35/3 | 00 | 08 | 76 | |
| 34 | 00 | 53 | 24 | |
| 22 | 00 | 36 | 94 | |
| 21 | 00 | 45 | 77 | |
| Pandhari | 191 | 00 | 55 | 49 |
| 192 | 00 | 83 | 09 | |
| 195 | 00 | 47 | 37 | |
| 171 | 00 | 49 | 04 | |
| 196 | 00 | 58 | 03 | |
| 149 | 00 | 81 | 91 | |
| 169 | 00 | 34 | 96 | |
| 154 | 01 | 00 | 52 |
[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2018
dk- vk- 12-&dsUnzh ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 2221 rkjh[k 14 flrEcj] 2017 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= Øekad 38] rkjh[k 17 flrEcj & 23 flrEcj 2017 ,oa dk-vk- 1103 rkjh[k 17 tqykÃ] 2018 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= Øekad 29] rkjh[k 22 tqykà & 28 tqykà 2018 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 29 fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa egkjk"Vª jkT; esa ftyk uanqjckj esa rkYkqdk uokiqj dks;yh & vgenuxj & lksykiqj isVªksfy;e ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh (
vkSj mä jkti= vf/kfu;e dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 19 flrEcj 2018 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh (
vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu dsUæh; ljdkj dks fjiksVZ dh gS (
vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mä Hkwfe ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS (
vr% vc] dsUæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk izn~Ùk 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk, (
vkSj ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk izn~Ùk 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUæh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxh A
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbZu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUæh; ljdkj ds fo#) dksbZ okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
vuqlwPkh
| rkyqdk%& uokiqj | ftyk%& uanqjckj | jkT;%& egkjk"Vª | |||
| {ks=Qy | |||||
| ekSts @xzke | losZ @ Cykd @ la- ¼IyksV la-½ | lc&Mho&la- | gsDVj | vkj | oxZ ehVj |
| ¼1½ | ¼2½ | ¼3½ | ¼4½ | ¼5½ | ¼6½ |
| e¨guikMk | 38@2 41 40 43@1 43@2 43@3 44 45@1@d 46@1 48@1@v 48@2 50@1 50@2 50@3 51@1 | 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 | 00 29 12 19 00 17 11 18 10 00 22 15 15 09 16 | 20 14 94 21 84 45 09 61 23 57 03 67 51 48 37 | |
| djath cqnzqd | 121@1 121@3 121@4 | 00 00 00 | 21 14 09 | 80 42 23 | |
| ¼1½ | ¼2½ | ¼3½ | ¼4½ | ¼5½ | ¼6½ |
| djath cqnzqd | 122@1 127@1 127@2@c 127@2@M 127@3 126@1 126@2 126@3 126@4 126@5 9@1@v 8@1 8@2 13@1@d 13@1@c 13@3 14@1 14@2 7 15 6@1 5 4@2 23@1@v 23@1@c 23@2 33@1@c 32@1 32@2 35 36 iSdh 52@3 53 54@1 54@2 54@3@v | 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 | 36 05 05 14 08 08 07 07 07 09 18 01 22 18 01 04 24 20 00 00 03 02 19 16 00 15 13 09 23 17 18 01 47 03 10 09 | 54 62 35 31 99 30 22 17 45 85 57 68 24 54 04 10 46 48 68 21 21 63 24 23 37 09 61 48 62 56 01 97 35 82 51 83 | |
| ¼1½ | ¼2½ | ¼3½ | ¼4½ | ¼5½ | ¼6½ |
| djath cqnzqd | 54@3@c 55@4 55@5 56 59@1@c@1 59@1@d 59@2@c 59@1@c@2 | 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 | 00 03 10 09 00 19 08 06 | 22 48 49 21 11 61 63 16 |
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)6/2018-ओआर-I/ई-23678]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S. O. 12.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide S.O. No. 2221 dated the 14th September, 2017, Gazette of India, No. 38 dated 17 – 23 September, 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), (here in after referred to as the said Act), Published in the Gazette of India, No. 29 dated 22 – 28 July, 2018 S. O. No. 1103 dated 17th July 2018 , 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 Koyali-Ahmednagar-Solapur Pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Products in Taluka Navapur in Nandurbar District in the State of Maharashtra by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 19th September 2018;
And whereas the competent authority has under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of said act submitted report to the 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 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 right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest 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 the pipeline.
SCHEDULE
| Taluka:- Navapur | District:- Nandurbar | State :- Maharashtra | |||
| Mouje / Village | Survey/Block No. | Sub-Div-No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
| Mohanpada | 38/2 41 40 43/1 | 00 00 00 00 | 00 29 12 19 | 20 14 94 21 |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
| Mohanpada | 43/2 43/3 44 45/1/K 46/1 48/1/A 48/2 50/1 50/2 50/3 51/1 | 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 | 00 17 11 18 10 00 22 15 15 09 16 | 84 45 09 61 23 57 03 67 51 48 37 | |
| Karanji Budruk | 121/1 121/3 121/4 122/1 127/1 127/2/B 127/2/D 127/3 126/1 126/2 126/3 126/4 126/5 9/1/A 8/1 8/2 13/1/K 13/1/B 13/3 14/1 14/2 7 15 6/1 5 4/2 23/1/A 23/1/B 23/2 33/1/B 32/1 | 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 | 21 14 09 36 05 05 14 08 08 07 07 07 09 18 01 22 18 01 04 24 20 00 00 03 02 19 16 00 15 13 09 | 80 42 23 54 62 35 31 99 30 22 17 45 85 57 68 24 54 04 10 46 48 68 21 21 63 24 23 37 09 61 48 | |
| Karanji Budruk | 32/2 35 36 Paiki 52/3 53 54/1 54/2 54/3/A 54/3/B 55/4 55/5 56 59/1/B/1 59/1/K 59/2/B 59/1/B/2 | 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 | 23 17 18 01 47 03 10 09 00 03 10 09 00 19 08 06 | 62 56 01 97 35 82 51 83 22 48 49 21 11 61 63 16 |
[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.आका.आका.आका.आ. . . . 13131313....————के न्(ीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अिधिनयम, 1962 ( 1962-50) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पnात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना जिसका प्रकाशन भारत के राजपत्र संख्या 15 दिनाक 15-21 अप्रैल 2018 का.आ. 607 दिनाक 10.04.2018 भाग II खंड 3 उपखंड (II) में किया गया है! इस अधिसूचना से सलंq अनुसूची मे विनिदिष्ट महाराष्ट्र राज्य की तहसील- नगर, जिला अहमदनगर की भूमि मे महाराष्ट्र राज्य मे कोयली (गुजरात) से अहमदनगर एव सोलापुर तक पेट्रोलियम परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑइल कॉपuरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा Gियान्वित किए जा रहे "कोयली-अहमदनगर-सोलापुर परियोजना" के सम्बन्ध मे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के िलए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के लिए अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी :
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचनाओ की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 12 सितम्बर 2018 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी।
और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण मे सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने के न्(ीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है।
और के न्(ीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पnात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए अपेिछत है, उसमें उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन करने का िविनnय किया है:
अत: अब, के न्(ीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा पदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए,,,, एतद् द्वारा घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से सलq अनुसूची मे िविबदिष्ट भूिम मे पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अQजत किया जाए:
और कन्(ीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा पदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए, यह निदyश देती है कि उक्त भूमि मे उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से के न्(ीय सरकार मे िनिहत होने के बजाय सभी विल्गमो से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑइल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड मे िनिहत होगा।
पेट्रोलियम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 की धारा 10 के अधीन किसी भी क्षितपूQत के लिए इंडियन ऑइल कॉपuरेशन लिमिटेड पूर्णतया उतरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से सबधित किसी भी मामले पर कन्(ीय सरकार के विzद कोई वाद दावा या क़ानूनी कार्यवाही नह< हो सके गी।
34 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| तालुका तालुका :::: नगरनगरनगरनगर | िजला : : : : अहमदनगर िजला अहमदनगर | राज्य राज्य : : : : महाराष्ट्र राज्य राज्य महाराष्ट्र | ||
| गांव का नाम | सव न. सव न.\\\\ब्लॉक सव न. सव न. ब्लॉक न.न.न.न. ब्लॉक | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ेहेहेहेक् टेक् टेक् टेक् टेयरयरयरयर | आरआरआरआर | वर्ग मीटर |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) |
| अकोलनेर | 358 | 00 | 03 | 59 |
| 359 | 00 | 34 | 99 | |
| 360 | 00 | 05 | 14 | |
| 340 | 00 | 44 | 77 | |
| 339 | 00 | 34 | 30 | |
| 338 | 00 | 14 | 60 | |
| 300 | 00 | 51 | 48 | |
| 302 | 00 | 13 | 83 | |
| 303 | 00 | 13 | 52 | |
| 334 | 00 | 09 | 53 | |
| 333 | 00 | 04 | 51 | |
| 332 | 00 | 07 | 94 | |
| 330 | 00 | 03 | 57 | |
| 328 | 00 | 11 | 85 | |
| 327 | 00 | 15 | 47 | |
| 326 | 00 | 07 | 29 | |
| 325 | 00 | 09 | 21 | |
| 324 | 00 | 16 | 27 | |
| 323 | 00 | 09 | 09 | |
| 322 | 00 | 09 | 35 | |
| 320 | 00 | 21 | 09 | |
| 318 | 00 | 23 | 76 | |
| 317 | 00 | 14 | 58 | |
| अकोलनेर | 316 | 00 | 30 | 62 |
| 311 | 00 | 20 | 35 | |
| ख ंडाला | 237 | 00 | 60 | 40 |
| 244 | 00 | 11 | 70 | |
| 246 | 00 | 36 | 56 | |
| 250 | 00 | 34 | 53 | |
| 251 | 00 | 07 | 48 | |
| 253 | 00 | 13 | 07 | |
| 262 | 00 | 17 | 41 | |
| 263 | 00 | 12 | 61 | |
| 264 | 00 | 26 | 77 | |
| 219 | 00 | 04 | 62 | |
| 218 | 00 | 21 | 74 | |
| 217 | 00 | 03 | 80 | |
| 216 | 00 | 07 | 48 | |
| 214 | 00 | 05 | 65 | |
| 213 | 00 | 07 | 79 | |
| 198 | 00 | 12 | 00 | |
| 196 | 00 | 04 | 02 | |
| 199 | 00 | 03 | 89 | |
| 191 | 00 | 02 | 82 | |
| 190 | 00 | 10 | 65 | |
| 112 | 00 | 05 | 26 | |
| 113 | 00 | 02 | 12 | |
| 114 | 00 | 01 | 91 | |
| 115 | 00 | 03 | 32 | |
| 116 | 00 | 03 | 90 | |
| 110 | 00 | 22 | 07 | |
| 109 | 00 | 06 | 11 | |
| ख ंडाला | 109p | 00 | 04 | 60 |
| 108 | 00 | 04 | 99 | |
| 106 | 00 | 02 | 07 | |
| 105p | 00 | 06 | 10 | |
| 123 | 00 | 11 | 00 | |
| 128 | 00 | 61 | 52 | |
| 134 | 00 | 14 | 30 | |
| 133 | 00 | 31 | 47 | |
| 139 | 00 | 09 | 16 | |
| 140 | 00 | 20 | 68 | |
| 141 | 00 | 19 | 94 | |
| 142 | 00 | 12 | 61 | |
| 143 | 00 | 10 | 24 | |
| 130 | 00 | 25 | 21 | |
| 146 | 00 | 41 | 02 | |
| बाबुर्डी घुमट | 266 | 00 | 00 | 90 |
| 267 | 00 | 10 | 27 | |
| 261 | 00 | 17 | 31 | |
| 262 | 00 | 16 | 89 | |
| 263 | 00 | 15 | 30 | |
| 264 | 00 | 38 | 20 | |
| 260 | 00 | 50 | 57 | |
| 251 | 00 | 10 | 19 | |
| 252 | 00 | 09 | 22 | |
| 253 | 00 | 07 | 50 | |
| 254 | 00 | 08 | 64 | |
| 255 | 00 | 06 | 27 | |
| 247 | 00 | 40 | 97 | |
| 220 | 00 | 05 | 99 | |
| वालकी | 1265/1 | 00 | 52 | 82 |
| 1265/2 | 00 | 24 | 55 | |
| 1266 | 00 | 10 | 29 | |
| 1267 | 00 | 05 | 99 | |
| 1268 | 00 | 04 | 75 | |
| 1269 | 00 | 05 | 71 | |
| 1270 | 00 | 27 | 61 | |
| 1284 | 00 | 10 | 35 | |
| 1283 | 00 | 60 | 33 | |
| 1282 | 00 | 38 | 70 | |
| 1280 | 00 | 01 | 03 | |
| 1281 | 00 | 47 | 53 | |
| 1297 | 00 | 29 | 16 | |
| 1298 | 00 | 46 | 19 | |
| 02 | 00 | 02 | 56 | |
| 23 | 00 | 39 | 26 | |
| 22 | 00 | 34 | 48 | |
| 21 | 00 | 34 | 05 | |
| 20/3 | 00 | 33 | 38 | |
| 43 | 00 | 28 | 66 | |
| 59 | 00 | 06 | 12 | |
| 60 | 00 | 02 | 39 | |
| 62 | 00 | 01 | 92 | |
| 63 | 00 | 09 | 55 | |
| 64/2 | 00 | 34 | 76 | |
| 69 | 00 | 11 | 51 | |
| 64/3 | 00 | 01 | 20 | |
| 70 | 00 | 15 | 74 | |
| 296 | 00 | 21 | 30 | |
| वालकी | 285 | 00 | 06 | 32 |
| 284 | 00 | 00 | 21 | |
| 288 | 00 | 10 | 69 | |
| 282 | 00 | 06 | 95 | |
| 272 | 00 | 05 | 11 | |
| 271 | 00 | 06 | 15 | |
| 268 | 00 | 03 | 53 | |
| 263 | 00 | 02 | 39 | |
| 265 | 00 | 08 | 72 | |
| 253 | 00 | 01 | 08 | |
| 254 | 00 | 09 | 92 | |
| 256 | 00 | 01 | 06 | |
| 233 | 00 | 02 | 58 | |
| 244 | 00 | 02 | 17 | |
| 230 | 00 | 05 | 09 | |
| 229 | 00 | 01 | 52 | |
| 239 | 00 | 02 | 19 | |
| 231 | 00 | 02 | 79 | |
| 232 | 00 | 02 | 22 | |
| 233 | 00 | 02 | 63 | |
| 222 | 00 | 04 | 79 | |
| 221 | 00 | 03 | 36 | |
| 220 | 00 | 04 | 18 | |
| 216 | 00 | 08 | 96 | |
| 211 | 00 | 02 | 41 | |
| 210 | 00 | 32 | 88 | |
| 209 | 00 | 03 | 97 | |
| 200 | 00 | 10 | 24 | |
| 199 | 00 | 05 | 31 | |
| वालकी | 198 | 00 | 13 | 24 |
| 193 | 00 | 38 | 10 | |
| 330 | 00 | 57 | 45 | |
| 331 | 00 | 35 | 10 | |
| 353 | 00 | 44 | 77 | |
| 352 | 00 | 38 | 36 | |
| 458 | 00 | 37 | 23 | |
| 457 | 00 | 36 | 31 | |
| 456 | 00 | 25 | 77 | |
| 485 | 00 | 15 | 93 | |
| 486 | 00 | 17 | 46 | |
| 492 | 00 | 06 | 77 | |
| 493 | 00 | 20 | 37 | |
| 504 | 00 | 26 | 93 | |
| 503 | 00 | 32 | 91 | |
| 502 | 00 | 05 | 00 | |
| 495 | 00 | 07 | 51 | |
| 501 | 00 | 15 | 35 | |
| 496 | 00 | 17 | 77 | |
| 497 | 00 | 09 | 05 | |
| 480 | 00 | 13 | 52 | |
| 479 | 00 | 40 | 59 | |
| 478 | 00 | 39 | 80 | |
| 476 | 00 | 78 | 85 | |
| साकत खुर्द | 95 | 00 | 23 | 19 |
| तांदली वडगांव | 109 | 00 | 76 | 15 |
| 110 | 00 | 32 | 97 | |
| 107 | 00 | 56 | 31 | |
| तांदली वडगांव | 82 | 00 | 11 | 61 |
| 83 | 00 | 49 | 94 | |
| 85 | 00 | 16 | 53 | |
| 77 | 00 | 20 | 77 | |
| 76 | 00 | 08 | 60 | |
| 73 | 00 | 39 | 06 | |
| 71 | 00 | 43 | 02 | |
| 69 | 00 | 11 | 63 | |
| 68 | 00 | 18 | 37 | |
| 67 | 00 | 16 | 21 | |
| 66 | 00 | 15 | 88 | |
| वाटेफल | 155 | 00 | 49 | 55 |
| 132/B | 00 | 51 | 61 | |
| 287 | 00 | 00 | 35 | |
| 132/C | 00 | 51 | 99 | |
| 131 | 00 | 12 | 04 | |
| 130 | 00 | 07 | 47 | |
| 129 | 00 | 05 | 63 | |
| 122 | 00 | 11 | 30 | |
| 124 | 00 | 32 | 90 | |
| 114 | 00 | 07 | 97 | |
| 117 | 00 | 04 | 01 | |
| 118 | 00 | 03 | 79 | |
| 90 | 00 | 17 | 28 | |
| 87 | 00 | 24 | 49 | |
| 84 | 00 | 12 | 07 | |
| 82 | 00 | 12 | 64 | |
| 77 | 00 | 23 | 75 | |
| 76 | 00 | 12 | 97 | |
| वाटेफल | 75 | 00 | 13 | 34 |
| 70 | 00 | 11 | 73 | |
| 69 | 00 | 10 | 34 | |
| 68 | 00 | 10 | 78 | |
| 67 | 00 | 11 | 76 | |
| 62 | 00 | 15 | 65 | |
| 60 | 00 | 22 | 67 | |
| 59 | 00 | 31 | 71 | |
| 58 | 00 | 34 | 66 | |
| 57 | 00 | 26 | 92 | |
| 07 | 00 | 12 | 77 | |
| 08 | 00 | 07 | 06 | |
| 09 | 00 | 08 | 68 | |
| 10 | 00 | 04 | 28 | |
| 11 | 00 | 03 | 60 | |
| 12 | 00 | 03 | 38 | |
| 14 | 00 | 03 | 93 | |
| 15 | 00 | 02 | 39 | |
| 16 | 00 | 03 | 86 | |
| 17 | 00 | 07 | 12 | |
| 18 | 00 | 05 | 68 | |
| 19 | 00 | 04 | 54 | |
| 20 | 00 | 07 | 99 | |
| 21 | 00 | 04 | 23 | |
| 24 | 00 | 02 | 17 | |
| 25 | 00 | 05 | 26 | |
| 26 | 00 | 02 | 74 | |
| 27 | 00 | 02 | 60 | |
| 28 | 00 | 04 | 20 | |
| वाटेफल | 30 | 00 | 12 | 26 |
| 31 | 00 | 09 | 13 | |
| 32 | 00 | 02 | 92 | |
| 35 | 00 | 07 | 71 | |
| 36 | 00 | 03 | 75 | |
| 38 | 00 | 07 | 72 | |
| 39 | 00 | 11 | 87 | |
| 40 | 00 | 39 | 25 |
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)6/2018-ओआर-I /ई-23678]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 13.—Whereas by the notification of The Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Published in the Gazette No. 15 date 15-21 April 2018 S.O No. 607 date 10.04.2018 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), (Hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Tehsil Nagar, District Ahmednagar in Maharashtra State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum from Koyali in the State Gujrat to Solapur in the Maharashtra by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the ''Koyali-Ahmednagar-Solapur Pipeline Project''.
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 12 September 2018.
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report 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
| Taluka : Nagar | District : Ahmednagar | State : Maharashtra | ||
| Name of Village | Survey No./ Block No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Square Metre |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) |
| Akolner | 358 | 00 | 03 | 59 |
| 359 | 00 | 34 | 99 | |
| Akolner | 360 | 00 | 05 | 14 |
| 340 | 00 | 44 | 77 | |
| 339 | 00 | 34 | 30 | |
| 338 | 00 | 14 | 60 | |
| 300 | 00 | 51 | 48 | |
| 302 | 00 | 13 | 83 | |
| 303 | 00 | 13 | 52 | |
| 334 | 00 | 09 | 53 | |
| 333 | 00 | 04 | 51 | |
| 332 | 00 | 07 | 94 | |
| 330 | 00 | 03 | 57 | |
| 328 | 00 | 11 | 85 | |
| 327 | 00 | 15 | 47 | |
| 326 | 00 | 07 | 29 | |
| 325 | 00 | 09 | 21 | |
| 324 | 00 | 16 | 27 | |
| 323 | 00 | 09 | 09 | |
| 322 | 00 | 09 | 35 | |
| 320 | 00 | 21 | 09 | |
| 318 | 00 | 23 | 76 | |
| 317 | 00 | 14 | 58 | |
| 316 | 00 | 30 | 62 | |
| 311 | 00 | 20 | 35 | |
| Khandala | 237 | 00 | 60 | 40 |
| 244 | 00 | 11 | 70 | |
| 246 | 00 | 36 | 56 | |
| 250 | 00 | 34 | 53 | |
| 251 | 00 | 07 | 48 | |
| 253 | 00 | 13 | 07 | |
| 262 | 00 | 17 | 41 | |
| 263 | 00 | 12 | 61 | |
| 264 | 00 | 26 | 77 | |
| 219 | 00 | 04 | 62 | |
| 218 | 00 | 21 | 74 | |
| 217 | 00 | 03 | 80 | |
| 216 | 00 | 07 | 48 | |
| 214 | 00 | 05 | 65 | |
| 213 | 00 | 07 | 79 | |
| 198 | 00 | 12 | 00 | |
| 196 | 00 | 04 | 02 | |
| 199 | 00 | 03 | 89 | |
| Khandala | 191 | 00 | 02 | 82 |
| 190 | 00 | 10 | 65 | |
| 112 | 00 | 05 | 26 | |
| 113 | 00 | 02 | 12 | |
| 114 | 00 | 01 | 91 | |
| 115 | 00 | 03 | 32 | |
| 116 | 00 | 03 | 90 | |
| 110 | 00 | 22 | 07 | |
| 109 | 00 | 06 | 11 | |
| 109p | 00 | 04 | 60 | |
| 108 | 00 | 04 | 99 | |
| 106 | 00 | 02 | 07 | |
| 105p | 00 | 06 | 10 | |
| 123 | 00 | 11 | 00 | |
| 128 | 00 | 61 | 52 | |
| 134 | 00 | 14 | 30 | |
| 133 | 00 | 31 | 47 | |
| 139 | 00 | 09 | 16 | |
| 140 | 00 | 20 | 68 | |
| 141 | 00 | 19 | 94 | |
| 142 | 00 | 12 | 61 | |
| 143 | 00 | 10 | 24 | |
| 130 | 00 | 25 | 21 | |
| 146 | 00 | 41 | 02 | |
| Baburdi Ghumat | 266 | 00 | 00 | 90 |
| 267 | 00 | 10 | 27 | |
| 261 | 00 | 17 | 31 | |
| 262 | 00 | 16 | 89 | |
| 263 | 00 | 15 | 30 | |
| 264 | 00 | 38 | 20 | |
| 260 | 00 | 50 | 57 | |
| 251 | 00 | 10 | 19 | |
| 252 | 00 | 09 | 22 | |
| 253 | 00 | 07 | 50 | |
| 254 | 00 | 08 | 64 | |
| 255 | 00 | 06 | 27 | |
| 247 | 00 | 40 | 97 | |
| 220 | 00 | 05 | 99 | |
| Walki | 1265/1 | 00 | 52 | 82 |
| 1265/2 | 00 | 24 | 55 | |
| 1266 | 00 | 10 | 29 | |
| Walki | 1267 | 00 | 05 | 99 |
| 1268 | 00 | 04 | 75 | |
| 1269 | 00 | 05 | 71 | |
| 1270 | 00 | 27 | 61 | |
| 1284 | 00 | 10 | 35 | |
| 1283 | 00 | 60 | 33 | |
| 1282 | 00 | 38 | 70 | |
| 1280 | 00 | 01 | 03 | |
| 1281 | 00 | 47 | 53 | |
| 1297 | 00 | 29 | 16 | |
| 1298 | 00 | 46 | 19 | |
| 02 | 00 | 02 | 56 | |
| 23 | 00 | 39 | 26 | |
| 22 | 00 | 34 | 48 | |
| 21 | 00 | 34 | 05 | |
| 20/3 | 00 | 33 | 38 | |
| 43 | 00 | 28 | 66 | |
| 59 | 00 | 06 | 12 | |
| 60 | 00 | 02 | 39 | |
| 62 | 00 | 01 | 92 | |
| 63 | 00 | 09 | 55 | |
| 64/2 | 00 | 34 | 76 | |
| 69 | 00 | 11 | 51 | |
| 64/3 | 00 | 01 | 20 | |
| 70 | 00 | 15 | 74 | |
| 296 | 00 | 21 | 30 | |
| 285 | 00 | 06 | 32 | |
| 284 | 00 | 00 | 21 | |
| 288 | 00 | 10 | 69 | |
| 282 | 00 | 06 | 95 | |
| 272 | 00 | 05 | 11 | |
| 271 | 00 | 06 | 15 | |
| 268 | 00 | 03 | 53 | |
| 263 | 00 | 02 | 39 | |
| 265 | 00 | 08 | 72 | |
| 253 | 00 | 01 | 08 | |
| 254 | 00 | 09 | 92 | |
| 256 | 00 | 01 | 06 | |
| 233 | 00 | 02 | 58 | |
| 244 | 00 | 02 | 17 | |
| 230 | 00 | 05 | 09 | |
| Walki | 229 | 00 | 01 | 52 |
| 239 | 00 | 02 | 19 | |
| 231 | 00 | 02 | 79 | |
| 232 | 00 | 02 | 22 | |
| 233 | 00 | 02 | 63 | |
| 222 | 00 | 04 | 79 | |
| 221 | 00 | 03 | 36 | |
| 220 | 00 | 04 | 18 | |
| 216 | 00 | 08 | 96 | |
| 211 | 00 | 02 | 41 | |
| 210 | 00 | 32 | 88 | |
| 209 | 00 | 03 | 97 | |
| 200 | 00 | 10 | 24 | |
| 199 | 00 | 05 | 31 | |
| 198 | 00 | 13 | 24 | |
| 193 | 00 | 38 | 10 | |
| 330 | 00 | 57 | 45 | |
| 331 | 00 | 35 | 10 | |
| 353 | 00 | 44 | 77 | |
| 352 | 00 | 38 | 36 | |
| 458 | 00 | 37 | 23 | |
| 457 | 00 | 36 | 31 | |
| 456 | 00 | 25 | 77 | |
| 485 | 00 | 15 | 93 | |
| 486 | 00 | 17 | 46 | |
| 492 | 00 | 06 | 77 | |
| 493 | 00 | 20 | 37 | |
| 504 | 00 | 26 | 93 | |
| 503 | 00 | 32 | 91 | |
| 502 | 00 | 05 | 00 | |
| 495 | 00 | 07 | 51 | |
| 501 | 00 | 15 | 35 | |
| 496 | 00 | 17 | 77 | |
| 497 | 00 | 09 | 05 | |
| 480 | 00 | 13 | 52 | |
| 479 | 00 | 40 | 59 | |
| 478 | 00 | 39 | 80 | |
| 476 | 00 | 78 | 85 | |
| Sakat Khurd | 95 | 00 | 23 | 19 |
| Tandali Wadgaon | 109 | 00 | 76 | 15 |
| 110 | 00 | 32 | 97 | |
| Tandali Wadgaon | 107 | 00 | 56 | 31 |
| 82 | 00 | 11 | 61 | |
| 83 | 00 | 49 | 94 | |
| 85 | 00 | 16 | 53 | |
| 77 | 00 | 20 | 77 | |
| 76 | 00 | 08 | 60 | |
| 73 | 00 | 39 | 06 | |
| 71 | 00 | 43 | 02 | |
| 69 | 00 | 11 | 63 | |
| 68 | 00 | 18 | 37 | |
| 67 | 00 | 16 | 21 | |
| 66 | 00 | 15 | 88 | |
| Watephal | 155 | 00 | 49 | 55 |
| 132/B | 00 | 51 | 61 | |
| 287 | 00 | 00 | 35 | |
| 132/C | 00 | 51 | 99 | |
| 131 | 00 | 12 | 04 | |
| 130 | 00 | 07 | 47 | |
| 129 | 00 | 05 | 63 | |
| 122 | 00 | 11 | 30 | |
| 124 | 00 | 32 | 90 | |
| 114 | 00 | 07 | 97 | |
| 117 | 00 | 04 | 01 | |
| 118 | 00 | 03 | 79 | |
| 90 | 00 | 17 | 28 | |
| 87 | 00 | 24 | 49 | |
| 84 | 00 | 12 | 07 | |
| 82 | 00 | 12 | 64 | |
| 77 | 00 | 23 | 75 | |
| 76 | 00 | 12 | 97 | |
| 75 | 00 | 13 | 34 | |
| 70 | 00 | 11 | 73 | |
| 69 | 00 | 10 | 34 | |
| 68 | 00 | 10 | 78 | |
| 67 | 00 | 11 | 76 | |
| 62 | 00 | 15 | 65 | |
| 60 | 00 | 22 | 67 | |
| 59 | 00 | 31 | 71 | |
| 58 | 00 | 34 | 66 | |
| 57 | 00 | 26 | 92 | |
| 07 | 00 | 12 | 77 | |
| Watephal | 08 | 00 | 07 | 06 |
| 09 | 00 | 08 | 68 | |
| 10 | 00 | 04 | 28 | |
| 11 | 00 | 03 | 60 | |
| 12 | 00 | 03 | 38 | |
| 14 | 00 | 03 | 93 | |
| 15 | 00 | 02 | 39 | |
| 16 | 00 | 03 | 86 | |
| 17 | 00 | 07 | 12 | |
| 18 | 00 | 05 | 68 | |
| 19 | 00 | 04 | 54 | |
| 20 | 00 | 07 | 99 | |
| 21 | 00 | 04 | 23 | |
| 24 | 00 | 02 | 17 | |
| 25 | 00 | 05 | 26 | |
| 26 | 00 | 02 | 74 | |
| 27 | 00 | 02 | 60 | |
| 28 | 00 | 04 | 20 | |
| 30 | 00 | 12 | 26 | |
| 31 | 00 | 09 | 13 | |
| 32 | 00 | 02 | 92 | |
| 35 | 00 | 07 | 71 | |
| 36 | 00 | 03 | 75 | |
| 38 | 00 | 07 | 72 | |
| 39 | 00 | 11 | 87 | |
| 40 | 00 | 39 | 25 |
[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर, 2018
काकाकाका. . . . आआआआ. . . . 14141414....————के न्(ीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम में उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन) अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसमें इसके पnात उक्त अिधिनयम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय की अिधसूचना का.आ. 372 तारीख 16.12.2017 िजसका प्रकाशन भारत के राजपत्र संख्या 9, भाग II, ख6ड 3, उप ख6ड (II) तारीख 25.02.2018 से 30.03.2018 में किया गया है। इस अिधसूचना में संलq अनुसूची में विनि'दष्ट आं} प्रदेश राज्य के िजला िवशाखापटनम के मंडल : सब्बावरम, अनकापल्लि, मुनगापाका, अkयुतापुरम, रामबिल्लि, यलामंिचिल, एस. रायवरम, न~ापल्लि, और पायाकरावुपेटा की भूिम में, ओडीशा राज्य में पारादीप से तेलंगाना राज्य में हैदराबाद तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपyरेशन िलिमटेड के द्वारा Gियान्वित किए जा रहे "पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना" के संबंध में पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन करने के िलए अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी:
और उक्त राजपत्र अिधसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थ<।और उक्त अिधिनयम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी नें के न्(ीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है।
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 49और के न्(ीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर िवचार करने के पnात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूिम पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन करने का विनिष्चय किया है:
अतः अब, के न्(ीय सरकार उक्त अिधिनयम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए एतद् द्वारा घोषणा करती है कि इस अिधसूचना से संलq अनुसूिच में विनि'दष्ट भूिम में पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अQजत किया जाए:
और के न्(ीय सरकार उक्त अिधिनयम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए, यह निदyश देती है कि उक्त भूिम में उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से के न्(ीय सरकार में िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी बिल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपyरेशन िलिमटेड में िनिहत होगा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| िवशाखापटनम राज्य: िजला: िवशाखापटनम िजला: राज्य: आंआंआंआं प्रदेश राज्य: राज्य: प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | का नाम ामामामाम का नाम | नबर सवसवसवसव नबर | ेफल | ||
| ह ह टेयर े े ह ह े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगमीटर |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
अनकापल्लि तुम्मपाला 704 00 33 32
13 00 18 11
705 00 16 87
15 00 28 18
` 17 00 13 19
47 00 37 50
मुनगापाका नागावरम 143 00 39 64
203 00 61 19
202 00 39 11
199 00 38 99
198 00 26 04
196 00 04 61
197 00 31 03
191 00 16 94
190 00 25 37
187 00 18 95
185 00 22 36
183 00 03 82
184 00 05 51
311 00 01 71
302 00 31 63
310 00 03 68
303 00 24 85
304 00 26 89
50
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
358 00 13 43
357 00 03 33
354 00 11 53
352 00 06 21
351 00 25 87
अ(cid:18)युतापुरम मडुतु(cid:21) 477 00 13 76
469 00 00 04
468 00 61 83
460 00 15 30
462 00 14 44
463 00 13 98
464 00 24 54
456 00 01 64
457 00 29 86
424 00 26 30
293 00 12 47
294 00 01 46
296 00 14 87
288 00 18 47
303 00 62 70
305 00 04 11
306 00 00 13
308 00 38 37
309 00 00 01
310 00 23 50
103 00 13 93
104 00 41 12
105 00 08 75
106 00 00 78
102 00 01 99
96 00 07 27
100 00 25 06
62 00 01 04
66 00 24 27
75 00 16 68
74 00 13 70
76 00 08 38
77 00 20 40
रामबिल्लि दिमिलि 265 00 25 84 रामबिल्लि राजाला 28 00 31 34[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 51
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
26 00 05 28
24 00 06 48
31 00 04 43
25 00 18 14
23 00 04 34
21 00 06 87
19 00 24 39
14 00 23 42
17 00 02 74
16 00 01 13
यलामंिचिल (cid:28)ृ ष्णापुरम 200 00 16 03
यलामंिचिल पदमानाबाराजुपेटा 144/1E 00 31 35
144/1E-6A 00 31 35
144/1E-6B 00 31 35
एस.रायवरम पेटासूदिपुरम 50-4 00 0 27
322 00 07 42
338 00 26 24
न#ापल्लि गुल्लिपाडु 100 00 21 25
103 00 21 59
105 00 08 66
107 00 37 34
पायाकरावुपेटा अरटलाकोटा 143 00 13 64
143/A-1 00 13 64
143/A-2 00 13 64
पायाकरावुपेटा पल्टेरू 34 00 02 75
33 00 27 90
32 00 37 58
3 00 01 37
4 00 16 7
5 00 04 97
6 00 15 19
7 00 27 51
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 14.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, published in the Gazette of India No.9 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 25.02.2018 to 03.03.2018 vide S.O. Number 372 dated 16.12.2017 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 Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Mandals: Sabbavaram, Ankapalli, Munagapaka, Achutapuram, Rambilli, Yelamanchilli, S.Rayavaram, Nakkapalli and Payakaraopeta of Visakhapatnam District in Andhra Pradesh 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 Hyderabad in the State of Telangana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Paradip–Hyderabad Pipeline Project".
52 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]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 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 India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.
SCHEDULE
| DISTRICT:VISAKHAPATNAM STATE: ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY No. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
SABBAVARAM NAARAPADU 226 00 90 45
ANAKAPALLI TUMMAPALA 704 00 33 32
13 00 18 11
705 00 16 87
15 00 28 18
` 17 00 13 19
47 00 37 50
MUNAGAPAKA NAGAVARAM 143 00 39 64
203 00 61 19
202 00 39 11
199 00 38 99
198 00 26 04
196 00 04 61
197 00 31 03
191 00 16 94
190 00 25 37
187 00 18 95
185 00 22 36
183 00 03 82
184 00 05 51
311 00 01 71
302 00 31 63
310 00 03 68
303 00 24 85
304 00 26 89
305 00 14 29
342 00 23 73
341 00 24 06
340 00 26 13
339 00 35 44
347 00 13 7
358 00 13 43
357 00 03 33
354 00 11 53
352 00 06 21
351 00 25 87
ACHUTAPURAM MADUTURU 477 00 13 76
469 00 00 04
468 00 61 83
460 00 15 30
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
53
ACHUTAPURAM MADUTURU 462 00 14 44
463 00 13 98
464 00 24 54
456 00 01 64
457 00 29 86
424 00 26 30
293 00 12 47
294 00 01 46
296 00 14 87
288 00 18 47
303 00 62 70
305 00 04 11
306 00 00 13
308 00 38 37
309 00 00 01
310 00 23 50
103 00 13 93
104 00 41 12
105 00 08 75
106 00 00 78
102 00 01 99
96 00 07 27
100 00 25 06
62 00 01 04
66 00 24 27
75 00 16 68
74 00 13 70
76 00 08 38
77 00 20 40
78 00 47 80
377 00 21 73
RAMBILLI DIMILI 265 00 25 84
RAMBILLI RAJALA 28 00 31 34
VIJAYARAMPURAM
RAMBILLI 27 00 68 21
AGRAHARAM
26 00 05 28
24 00 06 48
31 00 04 43
25 00 18 14
23 00 04 34
21 00 06 87
19 00 24 39
14 00 23 42
17 00 02 74
16 00 01 13
YELAMANCHILLI KRISHNAPURAM 200 00 16 03
YELAMANCHILLI PADMANABHARAJUPETA 144/1E 00 31 35
144/1E-6A 00 31 35
144/1E-6B 00 31 35
S.RAYAVARAM PETASUDIPURAM 50-4 00 0 27
322 00 07 42
338 00 26 24
NAKKAPALLI GULLIPADU 100 00 21 25
103 00 21 59
NAKKAPALLI GULLIPADU 105 00 08 66
107 00 37 34
PAYAKARAOPETA ARATLAKOTA 143 00 13 64
54
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
PAYAKARAOPETA ARATLAKOTA 143/A-1 00 13 64
143/A-2 00 13 64
PAYAKARAOPETA PALTERU 34 00 02 75
33 00 27 90
32 00 37 58
3 00 01 37
4 00 16 7
5 00 04 97
6 00 15 19
7 00 27 51
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर, 2018
काकाकाका. . . . आआआआ. . . . 15151515....————के न्(ीय सरकार को लोकिहत में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में टू6डला टQमनल से कानपुर टQमनल तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के िलये इंिडयन ऑयल कापuरेशन िलिमटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए।
और के न्(ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के िलये यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूिम में जो इस से उपाब(cid:127) अनुसूची मे वQणत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन किया जाए ।
अतः अब, के न्(ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन) अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए उस भूिम में उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ।
कोई cक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वQणत भूिम में हितब(cid:127) है , उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इ~ीस दिन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए उसमें उपयोग के अिधकार के संबंध में सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कापuरेशन िलिमटेड पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग, निर्माण कार्यालय, उत्तरी क्षेत्र पाइपलाइन्स, टू6डला - गौरिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना,ई-160, प्रथम व द्वितीय तल, कमला नगर, आगरा (यू.पी.) – 282004 को िलिखत रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| मममम संसंसंसं.... | गांवगांवगांवगांव काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | ख़सरा ख़सरा संसंसंसं.... ख़सरा ख़सरा | ेफल | ||
| ह ह टेयर े े ह ह े े | एयर एयरएयर | मीटर वग मीटर वग वगवग |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1.1.1.1. नारनारनारनार खुर्दखुर्दखुर्दखुर्द 460 00 14 26 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 55
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
नारनारनारनार खुर्दखुर्दखुर्दखुर्द 459 00 00 17
436 00 13 90
435 00 18 81
434 00 04 58
433 00 00 10
420 00 14 16
304 00 00 25
311 00 05 80
419 00 15 59
312 00 08 02
418 00 06 47
315 00 01 84
317 00 27 00
316 00 00 10
318 00 13 47
325 00 02 66
324 00 10 32
323 00 05 69
340 00 18 59
337 00 06 54
339 00 16 33
346 00 00 36
347 00 10 20
348 00 18 16
392 00 15 13
393 00 16 10
56
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
नारनारनारनार खुर्दखुर्दखुर्दखुर्द 879 00 14 59
880 00 08 37
881 00 08 36
882 00 03 40
892 00 12 66
897 00 15 02
921 00 02 41
1386 00 01 07
1387 00 16 20
1389 00 15 78
1392 00 08 17
1450 00 14 44
1469 00 10 52
1477 00 07 26
1478 00 11 50
1482 00 06 93
1483 00 16 50
1485 00 00 65
1519 00 07 89
1520 00 15 45
1522 00 21 50
1523 00 08 24
2.2.2.2. नारनारनारनार खासखासखासखास 234 00 06 80
235 00 06 91
236 00 08 46
231 00 12 90
237 00 19 36
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
57
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
नारनारनारनार खासखासखासखास 247 00 33 21
246 00 00 10
257 00 30 07
258 00 00 10
259 00 00 37
260 00 10 08
199 00 21 03
266 00 00 36
267 00 00 10
268 00 14 99
269 00 07 56
271 00 07 28
272 00 00 10
273 00 17 17
189 00 03 09
188 00 26 92
3.3.3.3. भवनपुभवनपुभवनपुभवनपुरररर 440 00 22 52
434 00 09 20
432 00 04 58
431 00 02 49
430 00 12 67
429 00 04 55
428 00 08 53
419 00 08 36
418 00 12 55
417 00 12 99
58
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
भवनपुरभवनपुरभवनपुरभवनपुर 412 00 10 67
276 00 00 37
411 00 07 11
410 00 18 11
409 00 00 10
281 00 10 11
366 00 05 15
397 00 10 00
396 00 10 40
395 00 06 22
386 00 07 01
384 00 15 02
381 00 14 51
376 00 16 21
335 00 10 09
332 00 05 49
331 00 09 64
330 00 09 70
327 00 04 83
326 00 01 02
325 00 09 67
324 00 01 44
4.4.4.4. मनकीमनकीमनकीमनकी 48 00 02 34
59 00 00 64
49 00 00 36
58 00 28 72
238 00 17 40 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 59
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
मनकीमनकीमनकीमनकी 240 00 14 65
242 00 09 35
246 00 06 03
247 00 01 83
248 00 00 34
251 00 04 74
255 00 00 44
254 00 11 65
253 00 01 79
5.5.5.5. सलेमपुरसलेमपुरसलेमपुरसलेमपुर महेरामहेरामहेरामहेरा 1056 00 05 57
1061 00 07 04
1060 00 02 85
1059 00 09 71
1065 00 06 37
1066 00 03 20
746 00 01 91
6.6.6.6. कठिकाकठिकाकठिकाकठिका 98 00 03 35
93 00 10 90
92 00 01 54
94 00 07 10
91 00 04 67
95 00 10 40
97 00 07 28
127 00 15 18
99 00 01 63
107 00 15 57
7.7.7.7. मलगांवमलगांवमलगांवमलगांव 72 00 24 09 60 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
मलगांवमलगांवमलगांवमलगांव 74 00 11 14
76 00 10 51
75 00 00 26
78 00 00 73
79 00 17 92
34 00 00 45
33 00 10 98
230 00 07 31
227 00 20 05
150 00 15 23
141 00 34 91
143 00 00 10
139 00 12 97
138 00 00 10
137 00 05 39
135 00 02 68
136 00 03 42
373 00 08 68
372 00 07 46
375 00 00 10
376 00 00 52
377 00 00 24
380 00 01 43
371 00 06 41
381 00 31 50
392 00 17 59
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
61
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
मलगांवमलगांवमलगांवमलगांव 701 00 08 35
700 00 16 46
695 00 06 98
694 00 00 20
693 00 23 33
881 00 17 77
879 00 00 25
880 00 00 10
871 00 11 15
872 00 00 10
870 00 02 48
867 00 17 76
858 00 10 12
1265 00 06 33
1264 00 01 02
1277 00 09 53
1276 00 21 92
8.8.8.8. के शीपुरके शीपुरके शीपुरके शीपुर 88 00 17 47
89 00 06 16
90 00 05 12
93 00 22 66
91 00 04 54
92 00 01 35
94 00 17 14
95 00 04 59
100 00 00 34
62
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
के शीपुरके शीपुरके शीपुरके शीपुर 157 00 51 12
85/175 00 21 27
9.9.9.9. गाऊपुरगाऊपुरगाऊपुरगाऊपुर 155 00 12 46
156 00 17 86
157 00 04 02
158 00 04 06
186 00 01 45
142 00 12 09
188 00 16 14
193 00 06 95
194 00 24 45
192 00 02 97
195 00 01 93
197 00 00 56
198 00 00 48
644 00 13 50
643 00 14 34
652 00 19 02
653 00 00 72
642 00 10 38
595 00 08 83
554 00 11 10
551 00 01 60
550 00 06 83
546 00 13 41
521 00 01 18
565 00 02 52
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
63
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
गाऊपुरगाऊपुरगाऊपुरगाऊपुर 518 00 08 18
517 00 08 03
515 00 06 03
514 00 16 02
466 00 01 69
513 00 27 47
474 00 00 69
470 00 00 10
501 00 09 11
500 00 08 68
499 00 21 57
498 00 13 51
497 00 00 72
496 00 11 57
476 00 00 54
495 00 04 94
494 00 08 83
491 00 03 78
489 00 03 71
10.10.10.10. देवरादेवरादेवरादेवरा 169 00 20 91
170 00 14 63
178 00 16 75
180 00 16 10
185 00 06 88
183 00 00 10
186 00 14 57
187 00 08 99 11.11.11.11. मुलहीमुलहीमुलहीमुलही 202 00 00 2664 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
मुलहीमुलहीमुलहीमुलही 203 00 01 06
204 00 06 24
207 00 00 10
205 00 20 05
206 00 10 75
217 00 10 50
218 00 05 38
31 00 01 07
32 00 03 98
33 00 05 21
34 00 05 96
35 00 24 88
58 00 05 55
59 00 06 39
60 00 05 97
61 00 06 94
62 00 06 56
63 00 03 92
64 00 19 93
68 00 02 08
65 00 16 00
76 00 09 04
75 00 07 18
77 00 05 93
81 00 02 83
82 00 06 39
84 00 11 51 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 65
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
मुलहीमुलहीमुलहीमुलही 98 00 14 13
125 00 16 34
124 00 04 43
128 00 22 69
136 00 00 15
137 00 23 75
152 00 20 03
153 00 12 22
159 00 22 51
166 00 06 43
169 00 05 36
176 00 19 38
177 00 07 31
175 00 13 26
178 00 12 04
181 00 12 63
183 00 00 10
12.12.12.12. सुन्दरपुरसुन्दरपुरसुन्दरपुरसुन्दरपुर गजेनगजेनगजेनगजेन 594 00 12 05
595 00 12 00
596 00 01 46
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)20/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27595]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 15.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Tundla Terminal to Kanpur Terminal should be laid by 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 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, 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 of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( Pipelines Division), Construction Office, Northern Region Pipelines, Tundla-Gawria Pipeline Project, E-160,1st & 2nd floor, Kamlanagar, Agra(U.P.) – 282 004.
66 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]SCHEDULE
Tehsil:- Rasulabad District:- Kanpur Dehat State :- Uttar Pradesh
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1. Nar Khurd 460 00 14 26
465 00 05 21
457 00 06 52
456 00 01 01
459 00 00 17
436 00 13 90
435 00 18 81
434 00 04 58
433 00 00 10
420 00 14 16
304 00 00 25
311 00 05 80
419 00 15 59
312 00 08 02
418 00 06 47
315 00 01 84
317 00 27 00
316 00 00 10
318 00 13 47
325 00 02 66
324 00 10 32
323 00 05 69
340 00 18 59
337 00 06 54
339 00 16 33
346 00 00 36
347 00 10 20
348 00 18 16
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
67
Nar Khurd 877 00 00 39
878 00 00 87
879 00 14 59
880 00 08 37
881 00 08 36
882 00 03 40
892 00 12 66
897 00 15 02
921 00 02 41
1386 00 01 07
1387 00 16 20
1389 00 15 78
1392 00 08 17
1450 00 14 44
1469 00 10 52
1477 00 07 26
1478 00 11 50
1482 00 06 93
1483 00 16 50
1485 00 00 65
1519 00 07 89
1520 00 15 45
1522 00 21 50
1523 00 08 24
2. Nar Khas 234 00 06 80
235 00 06 91
236 00 08 46
231 00 12 90
237 00 19 36
240 00 19 13
250 00 21 49
247 00 33 21
246 00 00 10
258 00 00 1068 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Nar Khas 259 00 00 37
260 00 10 08
199 00 21 03
266 00 00 36
267 00 00 10
268 00 14 99
269 00 07 56
271 00 07 28
272 00 00 10
273 00 17 17
189 00 03 09
188 00 26 92
3. Bhavanpur 440 00 22 52
434 00 09 20
432 00 04 58
431 00 02 49
430 00 12 67
429 00 04 55
428 00 08 53
419 00 08 36
418 00 12 55
417 00 12 99
415 00 25 08
414 00 03 69
413 00 03 44
412 00 10 67
276 00 00 37
411 00 07 11
410 00 18 11
409 00 00 10
281 00 10 11
366 00 05 15
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
69
Bhavanpur 386 00 07 01
384 00 15 02
381 00 14 51
376 00 16 21
335 00 10 09
332 00 05 49
331 00 09 64
330 00 09 70
327 00 04 83
326 00 01 02
325 00 09 67
324 00 01 44
4. Manki
48 00 02 34
59 00 00 64
49 00 00 36
58 00 28 72
71 00 01 31
238 00 17 40
239 00 21 52
240 00 14 65
242 00 09 35
246 00 06 03
247 00 01 83
248 00 00 34
251 00 04 74
255 00 00 44
254 00 11 65
253 00 01 79
5. Salempur Mahera 1056 00 05 57
1061 00 07 04
1060 00 02 85
1059 00 09 71
70
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
98 00 03 35 6. Kathika
93 00 10 90
92 00 01 54
94 00 07 10
91 00 04 67
95 00 10 40
97 00 07 28
127 00 15 18
99 00 01 63
107 00 15 57
108 00 16 33
7. Malgaon 72 00 24 09
73 00 00 99
74 00 11 14
76 00 10 51
75 00 00 26
78 00 00 73
79 00 17 92
34 00 00 45
33 00 10 98
230 00 07 31
227 00 20 05
150 00 15 23
141 00 34 91
143 00 00 10
139 00 12 97
138 00 00 10
137 00 05 39
135 00 02 68
136 00 03 42
373 00 08 68
372 00 07 46
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
71
Malgaon 380 00 01 43
371 00 06 41
381 00 31 50
392 00 17 59
652 00 00 95
703 00 01 73
702 00 02 32
701 00 08 35
700 00 16 46
695 00 06 98
694 00 00 20
693 00 23 33
881 00 17 77
879 00 00 25
880 00 00 10
871 00 11 15
872 00 00 10
870 00 02 48
867 00 17 76
858 00 10 12
1265 00 06 33
1264 00 01 02
1277 00 09 53
1276 00 21 92
8. Keshipur 88 00 17 47
89 00 06 16
90 00 05 12
93 00 22 66
91 00 04 54
92 00 01 35
94 00 17 14
95 00 04 59
72
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Keshipur 152 00 38 43
157 00 51 12
85/175 00 21 27
9. Gaupur 155 00 12 46
156 00 17 86
157 00 04 02
158 00 04 06
186 00 01 45
142 00 12 09
188 00 16 14
193 00 06 95
194 00 24 45
192 00 02 97
195 00 01 93
197 00 00 56
198 00 00 48
644 00 13 50
643 00 14 34
652 00 19 02
653 00 00 72
642 00 10 38
595 00 08 83
554 00 11 10
551 00 01 60
550 00 06 83
546 00 13 41
521 00 01 18
565 00 02 52
567 00 08 36
519 00 04 05
518 00 08 18
517 00 08 03
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
73
Gaupur 513 00 27 47
474 00 00 69
470 00 00 10
501 00 09 11
500 00 08 68
499 00 21 57
498 00 13 51
497 00 00 72
496 00 11 57
476 00 00 54
495 00 04 94
494 00 08 83
491 00 03 78
489 00 03 71
10. Devra
169 00 20 91 170 00 14 63 178 00 16 75 180 00 16 10 185 00 06 88 183 00 00 10 186 00 14 57 184 00 00 10 187 00 08 99
11. Mulhi
202 00 00 26 203 00 01 06 204 00 06 24 207 00 00 10 205 00 20 05 206 00 10 75 217 00 10 50 218 00 05 38 31 00 01 0774 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Mulhi
35 00 24 88 58 00 05 55 59 00 06 39 60 00 05 97 61 00 06 94 62 00 06 56 63 00 03 92 64 00 19 93 68 00 02 08 65 00 16 00 76 00 09 04 75 00 07 18 77 00 05 93 81 00 02 83 82 00 06 39 83 00 11 24 84 00 11 51 97 00 24 62 98 00 14 13 125 00 16 34 124 00 04 43 128 00 22 69 136 00 00 15 137 00 23 75 152 00 20 03 153 00 12 22 159 00 22 51 166 00 06 43[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 75
Mulhi
177 00 07 31
175 00 13 26
178 00 12 04
181 00 12 63
183 00 00 10
12. Sundarpur Gajen 594 00 12 05
595 00 12 00
596 00 01 46
[F. No. R-11025(11)20/2018-OR-I/E-27595]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर, 2018
काकाकाका. . . . आआआआ.... 16161616.—के न्(ीय सरकार को लोकिहत में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में टू6डला टQमनल से कानपुर टQमनल तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के िलये इंिडयन ऑयल कापuरेशन िलिमटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए।
और के न्(ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के िलये यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूिम में जो इस से उपाब(cid:127) अनुसूची में वQणत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन किया जाए ।
अतः अब, के न्(ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम में उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन) अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियो का प्रयोग करते %ए उस भूिम में उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ।
कोई cक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वQणत भूिम में हितब(cid:127) है , उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इ~ीस दिन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए उसमें उपयोग के अिधकार के संबंध में सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कापuरेशन िलिमटेड पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग, निर्माण कार्यालय, उत्तरी क्षेत्र पाइपलाइन्स, टू6डला - गौरिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना,ई-160, प्रथम व द्वितीय तल, कमला नगर, आगरा (यू.पी.) – 282004 को िलिखत रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| <म<म<म<म संसंसंसं.... | गांवगांवगांवगांव काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | ख़सरा ख़सरा संसंसंसं.... ख़सरा ख़सरा | क्ष े क्षेत्रफल क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयर एयरएयर | वर्ग वर्ग मीटर वर्गवर्ग मीटर |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1.1.1.1. बचीतपुरवाबचीतपुरवाबचीतपुरवाबचीतपुरवा 542 00 20 58 76 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
बचीतपुबचीतपुबचीतपुबचीतपुरवारवारवारवा 537 00 11 80
536 00 09 80
517 00 16 52
513 00 01 94
512 00 04 59
510 00 06 48
511 00 01 27
498 00 00 12
500 00 12 58
501 00 00 85
499 00 04 19
504 00 09 79
505 00 13 94
683 00 00 11
682 00 00 10
681 00 00 10
678 00 11 22
676 00 05 72
679 00 30 37
680 00 01 79
674 00 10 55
671 00 33 09
670 00 16 26
670/1351 00 01 58
667 00 00 60
668 00 11 92
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
77
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
बचीतपुरवाबचीतपुरवाबचीतपुरवाबचीतपुरवा 1145 00 16 33
1146 00 08 30
1147 00 13 00
1168 00 01 17
1176 00 03 20
1215 00 03 39
1214 00 05 51
1177 00 01 26
1213 00 06 81
1212 00 14 99
1209 00 10 19
1208 00 22 81
1206 00 05 28
1205 00 07 45
1204 00 08 38
1203 00 03 63
1201 00 02 98
1202 00 02 38
1197 00 09 91
2.2.2.2. बनीपाराबनीपाराबनीपाराबनीपारा िजनईिजनईिजनईिजनई 519 00 07 79
518 00 09 41
509 00 26 12
506 00 21 03
501 00 24 75
500 00 27 14
499 00 16 85
78
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
बनीपाराबनीपाराबनीपाराबनीपारा िजनईिजनईिजनईिजनई 584 00 07 20
586 00 34 05
457 00 00 10
587 00 00 14
456 00 03 40
455 00 21 12
610 00 06 77
618 00 00 41
617 00 05 43
619 00 21 66
425 00 02 45
424 00 08 17
423 00 03 51
422 00 06 20
421 00 08 99
420 00 00 69
428 00 01 16
417 00 00 63
415 00 00 95
414 00 03 57
411 00 15 08
410 00 27 20
406 00 00 38
407 00 11 98
3.3.3.3. बनीपाराबनीपाराबनीपाराबनीपारा महाराजमहाराजमहाराजमहाराज 35 00 05 20
66 00 25 13
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
79
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
बनीपाराबनीपाराबनीपाराबनीपारा महाराजमहाराजमहाराजमहाराज 492 00 00 41
496 00 03 59
495 00 00 93
493 00 20 90
494 00 07 16
588 00 05 84
544 00 00 36
545 00 14 37
546 00 04 62
547 00 02 28
548 00 00 70
549 00 09 10
551 00 25 53
566 00 00 54
569 00 07 63
570 00 06 42
577 00 09 90
576 00 00 15
580 00 16 86
910 00 05 20
909 00 06 00
908 00 33 31
906 00 12 46
902 00 20 02
897 00 11 34
4.4.4.4. देवकीदेवकीदेवकीदेवकी पुपुपुपुरवारवारवारवा 313 00 06 31
80
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
देवकीदेवकीदेवकीदेवकी पुरवापुरवापुरवापुरवा 316 00 00 21
320 00 05 41
321 00 07 21
322 00 00 93
369 00 09 84
373/380 00 01 46
373 00 08 82
374 00 15 71
5.5.5.5. बनीपाराबनीपाराबनीपाराबनीपारा जौहरजौहरजौहरजौहर 74 00 10 73
75 00 00 10
62 00 28 76
63 00 14 52
45 00 11 64
43 00 20 66
42 00 04 72
12 00 12 11
9 00 10 29
10 00 07 24
6.6.6.6. जजमुइयाजजमुइयाजजमुइयाजजमुइया 739 00 09 28
737 00 15 08
751 00 11 73
752 00 17 38
756 00 13 43
892 00 11 83
894 00 44 62
887 00 07 82
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
81
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
जजमुइयाजजमुइयाजजमुइयाजजमुइया 877 00 00 10
881 00 32 37
880 00 36 17
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)20/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27595]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 16.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Tundla Terminal to Kanpur Terminal should be laid by 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 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, 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 of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( Pipelines Division), Construction Office, Northern Region Pipelines, Tundla-Gawria Pipeline Project, E-160,1st & 2nd floor, Kamlanagar, Agra(U.P.) – 282 004.
SCHEDULE
State :- Uttar Pradesh
Tehsil:- Derapur District:- Kanpur Dehat
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
541 00 23 73 546 00 03 75 537 00 11 80 536 00 09 80 517 00 16 52 513 00 01 94 512 00 04 59 510 00 06 48 511 00 01 27 498 00 00 12 500 00 12 58 501 00 00 85 499 00 04 19
682 00 00 1082 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
678 00 11 22
676 00 05 72
679 00 30 37
680 00 01 79
674 00 10 55
671 00 33 09
670 00 16 26
670/1351 00 01 58
667 00 00 60
668 00 11 92
666 00 16 36
664 00 08 84
663 00 05 25
1145 00 16 33
1146 00 08 30
1147 00 13 00
1168 00 01 17
1176 00 03 20
1215 00 03 39
1214 00 05 51
1177 00 01 26
1213 00 06 81
1212 00 14 99
1209 00 10 19
1208 00 22 81
1206 00 05 28
1205 00 07 45
1204 00 08 38
1203 00 03 63
1201 00 02 98
1202 00 02 38
1197 00 09 91
2. Banipara Jinai 519 00 07 79
518 00 09 41
509 00 26 12
506 00 21 03
501 00 24 75
500 00 27 14
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
83
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
584 00 07 20
586 00 34 05
457 00 00 10
587 00 00 14
456 00 03 40
455 00 21 12
610 00 06 77
618 00 00 41
617 00 05 43
619 00 21 66
425 00 02 45
424 00 08 17
423 00 03 51
422 00 06 20
421 00 08 99
420 00 00 69
428 00 01 16
417 00 00 63
415 00 00 95
414 00 03 57
411 00 15 08
410 00 27 20
406 00 00 38
407 00 11 98
3. Banipara Maharaj 35 00 05 20
66 00 25 13
67 00 01 65
64 00 23 08
63 00 02 62
492 00 00 41
496 00 03 59
495 00 00 93
493 00 20 90
494 00 07 16
588 00 05 84
544 00 00 36
545 00 14 37
84
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
566 00 00 54
569 00 07 63
570 00 06 42
577 00 09 90
576 00 00 15
580 00 16 86
910 00 05 20
909 00 06 00
908 00 33 31
906 00 12 46
902 00 20 02
897 00 11 34
4. Devki Purva 313 00 06 31
312 00 01 68
318 00 00 38
317 00 05 58
316 00 00 21
320 00 05 41
321 00 07 21
322 00 00 93
369 00 09 84
373/380 00 01 46
373 00 08 82
374 00 15 71
5. Banipara Jauhar 74 00 10 73
75 00 00 10
62 00 28 76
63 00 14 52
45 00 11 64
43 00 20 66
42 00 04 72
12 00 12 11
9 00 10 29
10 00 07 24
739 00 09 28
6. Jajmuiya
737 00 15 08 751 00 11 73 752 00 17 38[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 85
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
885 00 00 53 878 00 02 74 877 00 00 10 881 00 32 37 880 00 36 17
[F. No. R-11025(11)20/2018-OR-I/E-27595]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर, 2018
काकाकाका. . . . आआआआ. . . . 17171717....————के न्(ीय सरकार को लोकिहत में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में टू6डला टQमनल से कानपुर टQमनल तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के िलये इंिडयन ऑयल कापuरेशन िलिमटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए।
और के न्(ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के िलये यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूिम में जो इस से उपाब(cid:127) अनुसूची मे वQणत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन किया जाए ।
अतः अब, के न्(ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन) अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियो का प्रयोग करते %ए उस भूिम में उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ।
कोई cक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वQणत भूिम में हितब(cid:127) है , उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इ~ीस दिन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए उसमें उपयोग के अिधकार के संबंध में सक्षम प्रािधकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कापuरेशन िलिमटेड पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग, निर्माण कार्यालय, उत्तरी क्षेत्र पाइपलाइन्स, टू6डला - गौरिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना,ई-160, प्रथम व द्वितीय तल, कमला नगर, आगरा (यू.पी.) – 282004 को िलिखत रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| <म<म<म<म स ंसंसंसं.... | गांवगांवगांवगांव काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | ख़सरा ख़सरा संसंसंसं.... ख़सरा ख़सरा | क्ष े क्षेत्रफल क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयर एयरएयर | वर्ग वर्ग मीटर वर्गवर्ग मीटर |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1.... गढवानागढवानागढवानागढवाना 7 00 23 81
8 00 05 64
9 00 05 56
86
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
12 00 00 79 13 00 09 76 21 00 04 52 22 00 04 47 25 00 19 81 32 00 07 28 38 00 12 43 37 00 05 41 39 01 01 17 480 00 05 98 477 00 11 23 481 00 10 73 482 00 00 32 490 00 05 06 489 00 17 98 487 00 03 44 493 00 07 39 492 00 00 10 494 00 03 12 491 00 01 50 495 00 06 04 497 00 03 05 496 00 03 74 503 00 07 13 504 00 03 45[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 87
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
513 00 22 23
669 00 61 92
670 00 01 81
2.... इटैलीइटैलीइटैलीइटैली 12 00 00 17
13 00 00 10
11 00 04 23
15 00 14 43
14 00 01 30
18 00 04 00
19 00 00 20
20 00 00 78
21 00 08 84
25 00 03 98
23 00 04 85
293 00 06 08
292 00 08 95
290 00 05 95
354 00 02 48
355 00 13 18
356 00 06 43
287 00 00 10
357 00 03 26
281 00 02 33
360 00 05 59
369 00 15 78
88
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
382 00 03 70 374 00 02 02 387 00 16 23 383 00 00 89 418 00 15 63 417 00 05 07 416 00 00 13 448 00 15 48 449 00 14 89 399 00 13 75 452 00 06 73 453 00 08 21 454 00 00 13 457 00 00 58 456 00 08 37 928 00 03 75 930 00 19 06 933 00 01 13 926 00 18 53 983 00 19 90 917 00 01 15 984 00 38 58 992 00 03 48 989 00 02 84 991 00 03 55[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 89
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1019 00 00 10
1042 00 13 56
1049 00 00 12
1043 00 15 87
1044 00 10 58
1067 00 08 69
1068 00 00 53
1065 00 16 27
1064 00 02 19
1063 00 15 74
1074 00 06 21
1083 00 19 10
1081 00 02 98
1082 00 09 06
1089 00 01 47
3. मसूदपुरमसूदपुरमसूदपुरमसूदपुर 764 00 10 48
765 00 01 46
763 00 07 47
766 00 08 77
773 00 06 20
774 00 19 05
4. नन्दपुरनन्दपुरनन्दपुरनन्दपुर 697 00 02 36
694 00 00 10
702 00 00 41
703 00 13 49
704 00 00 10
90
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
718 00 27 56 780 00 02 80 678 00 01 18 670 00 09 61 719 00 00 98 720 00 04 37 669 00 03 60 732 00 02 45 733 00 10 83 734 00 10 07 735 00 10 21 736 00 11 46 737 00 04 21 738 00 02 89 755 00 00 37 761 00 17 90 762 00 10 50 765 00 15 97 766 00 00 32 767 00 10 42 768 00 11 38 772 00 15 13 793 00 00 17 804 00 36 35 818 00 32 34 831 00 00 92[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 91
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
852 00 00 14
830 00 00 24
851 00 00 85
846 00 07 09
850 00 36 31
5. कु ं वरपुर कु ं वरपुर ं वरपुर कु ं वरपुर कु 238 00 29 76
6. ==ख़?र्द==ख़?र्द==ख़?र्द==ख़?र्द 2719 00 00 29
2718 00 00 41
2717 00 17 52
2716 00 14 06
2715 00 01 50
2726 00 10 84
2727 00 16 04
2730 00 29 43
2732 00 11 67
2733 00 41 03
2735 00 53 75
2994 00 40 25
2995 00 11 78
3298 01 01 19
3304 00 14 88
3305 00 03 61
3294 00 01 28
3306 00 00 33
3307 00 07 42
3308 00 24 43
92
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
3355 00 24 91
3463 00 03 34
3455 00 06 47
3452 00 04 82
3451 00 04 73
3447 00 11 30
3376 00 08 31
3377 00 15 28
3378 00 00 10
3425 00 58 08
3420 00 11 25
3418 00 00 40
7. बराहार बराहार बराहार बराहार 30 00 07 59
29 00 17 70
3 00 04 98
28 00 03 94
2 00 06 49
26 00 12 18
5 00 00 80
13 00 17 81
12 00 02 82
15 00 06 16
16 00 01 43
130 00 07 64
129 00 16 95
131 00 14 95
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
93
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
67 00 12 65
68 00 09 49
69 00 08 80
176 00 08 64
177 00 21 29
178 00 24 73
180 00 00 10
179 00 02 00
305 00 03 05
303 00 01 14
309 00 05 73
308 00 02 20
310 00 14 66
311 00 01 73
317 00 02 41
319 00 06 20
327 00 04 35
328 00 05 70
329 00 10 65
340 00 12 67
343 00 12 54
364 00 00 10
366 00 06 81
365 00 03 20
367 00 07 05
9. बलख@डपुर बलख@डपुर बलख@डपुर बलख@डपुर 162 00 12 07
94
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
10. सोहनीसोहनीसोहनीसोहनी 57 00 00 53
56 00 00 63
55 00 06 93
58 00 17 70
61 00 15 73
62 00 05 87
121 00 05 17
122 00 01 06
123 00 06 23
126 00 12 03
125 00 07 59
131 00 00 37
140 00 00 10
141 00 14 30
142 00 03 53
143 00 00 10
144 00 05 60
146 00 06 90
147 00 04 53
148 00 05 17
145 00 04 40
149 00 00 49
150 00 09 14
151 00 10 55
153 00 09 05
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
95
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
180 00 21 95
178 00 19 07
11. ऐलीऐलीऐलीऐली 158 00 00 62
159 00 05 90
160 00 21 03
162 00 07 40
12. ितलकपुर सरमे ँडीितलकपुर सरमे ँडीितलकपुर सरमे ँडीितलकपुर सरमे 00 05 79
21 00 06 36
30 00 06 10
29 00 01 14
28 00 06 34
32 00 10 04
56 00 25 42
63 00 23 54
68 00 00 32
73 00 15 31
97 00 08 62
98 00 00 10
99 00 07 17
101 00 00 38
102 00 08 69
105 00 07 96
106 00 03 62
13. दिवरांवदिवरांवदिवरांवदिवरांव 495 00 16 83
500 00 00 49
96
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
505 00 01 23 511 00 01 10 513 00 04 59 514 00 07 01 515 00 13 52 429 00 21 04 400 00 08 74 401 00 01 42 397 00 34 05 381 00 02 46 382 00 08 41 383 00 02 31 374 00 00 25 384 00 05 71 373 00 18 02 375 00 00 40 349 00 01 13 348 00 08 30 341 00 01 72 342 00 09 10 343 00 04 49 340 00 06 41 339 00 02 12 337 00 18 67 330 00 02 82[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 97
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
332 00 00 90
697 00 02 16
694 00 02 17
695 00 18 53
703 00 06 39
702 00 01 60
704 00 02 49
706 00 02 31
707 00 01 98
919 00 03 87
974 00 35 11
965 00 11 88
964 00 01 76
966 00 02 71
967 00 04 17
949 00 41 89
950 00 00 10
14. हरचंदपुरहरचंदपुरहरचंदपुरहरचंदपुर 294 00 09 28
299 00 07 65
298 00 17 19
303 00 01 52
304 00 05 51
315 00 16 00
341 00 16 71
317 00 03 59
98
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
329 00 04 76 330 00 00 10 328 00 00 79 327 00 12 00 449 00 34 14 450 00 00 16 465 00 21 85 466 00 10 39 467 00 10 45 468 00 07 49 469 00 16 10 514 00 23 50 515 00 05 00 513 00 09 18 516 00 12 32 523 00 02 38 521 00 07 94 654 00 17 26 655 00 11 77 591 00 10 82 593 00 05 32 645 00 02 35 627 00 07 38 626 00 07 60 624 00 10 09[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 99
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
621 00 15 73 620 00 06 44 606 00 06 30 605 00 05 81 607 00 03 04 604 00 00 10 557 00 03 52 2422 00 07 85 2420 00 03 25 2419 00 09 24 2418 00 09 57 2411/3756 00 01 51 2412 00 11 77 2413 00 00 10 2414 00 13 64 2363 00 00 60 2361 00 13 29 3459 00 08 59 2360 00 11 76 3460 00 01 70 2359 00 04 30 3461 00 10 79 3462 00 06 50 3471 00 01 66 3470 00 23 80100 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
3523 00 05 65 3571 00 02 82 3569 00 01 64 3568 00 03 59 3567 00 09 12 3566 00 07 86 3555 00 04 89 3533 00 02 52 3554 00 22 31 3553 00 15 36 3552 00 13 12 3298 00 17 27 3296 00 15 50 3293 00 12 06 3289 00 13 95 3288 00 00 15 3290 00 05 83 3284 00 06 92 3285 00 04 98 3282 00 24 84 3283 00 03 20 3231 00 15 98 3280 00 00 10 3227 00 09 97 3224 00 03 79[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 101
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
3239 00 04 27
3213 00 00 38
3212 00 00 10
3204 00 02 88
3205 00 03 21
3206 00 12 40
3210 00 08 44
3208 00 03 73
3207 00 00 25
3209 00 01 74
3190 00 15 01
15. ढरकनढरकनढरकनढरकन 165 00 14 12
16. अगहराअगहराअगहराअगहरा 395 00 25 19
403 00 00 10
404 00 16 06
410 00 12 76
453 00 20 51
454 00 10 84
455 00 15 13
438 00 00 10
556 00 07 69
555 00 00 82
558 00 07 96
553 00 01 91
559 00 05 64
102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
699 00 02 43
681 00 01 38
682 00 01 89
683 00 22 56
680 00 16 33
648 00 17 80
646 00 09 06
645 00 31 46
644 00 00 35
734 00 01 07
767 00 11 14
766 00 11 95
765 00 13 53
772 00 18 68
771 00 11 11
779 00 01 85
774 00 13 53
775 00 02 68
17. अ@डाअ@डाअ@डाअ@डा 94 00 00 19
95 00 00 14
96 00 15 66
93 00 36 17
117 00 06 79
99 00 01 90
100 00 16 06
111 00 14 94[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 103
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
21 00 38 75 24 00 04 24 23 00 01 23 22 00 07 07 83 00 00 10 20 00 16 13 86 00 29 67 87 00 19 02 88 00 06 09 324 00 08 99 322 00 21 28 323 00 03 84 311 00 15 02 312 00 00 80 309 00 22 49 308 00 08 06 307 00 10 66 398 00 19 86 418 00 06 86 434 00 03 86 436 00 07 11 437 00 00 78 435 00 06 98 465 00 04 32 466 00 00 23104 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
472 00 13 72
475 00 02 14
19. पुर्वाफकीरेपुर्वाफकीरेपुर्वाफकीरेपुर्वाफकीरे 85 00 15 17
86 00 01 58
90 00 30 84
89 00 01 28
88 00 07 62
98 00 05 39
99 00 06 55
101 00 00 25
102 00 06 21
108 00 19 83
110 00 04 92
109 00 00 14
287 00 06 58
20. ताजपुर छोँकताजपुर छोँकताजपुर छोँकताजपुर छोँक 124 00 08 05
123 00 05 30
122 00 06 62
121 00 03 92
115 00 00 10
120 00 07 85
119 00 09 95
118 00 00 87
117 00 02 91
186 00 34 73
222 00 23 97[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 105
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
198 00 11 21 199 00 05 28 204 00 03 33 205 00 02 38 203 00 05 36 202 00 04 22 265 00 00 13 621 00 14 21 615 00 06 41 616 00 01 71 610 00 04 58 614 00 00 84 609 00 01 35 608 00 00 50 613 00 05 97 612 00 02 21 611 00 02 37 706 00 07 17 599 00 06 30 707 00 93 30 712 00 05 17 708 00 01 46 744 00 00 10 711 00 01 79 709 00 00 56106 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
735 00 04 82
21. सहायलसहायलसहायलसहायल 114 00 15 91
120 00 25 49
119 00 00 10
117 00 10 93
118 00 00 67
166 00 17 06
222 00 16 70
221 00 15 39
220 00 10 45
187 00 03 43
186 00 08 42
185 00 26 62
184 00 00 60
183 00 07 29
410 00 04 16
409 00 10 62
406 00 22 21
414 00 09 27
402 00 23 37
400 00 07 76
424 00 00 90
425 00 03 29
426 00 02 27
427 00 17 40
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
107
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
436 00 06 47 435 00 05 64 1103 00 13 68 1102 00 00 10 1101 00 05 44 1112 00 04 30 1113 00 00 48 1114 00 18 35 1115 00 12 39 1116 00 10 95 1119 00 09 15 1120 00 01 81 2035 00 13 39 2033 00 21 34 2028 00 24 66 2030 00 01 01 2024 00 11 67 1125 00 00 16 2023 00 01 18 2022 00 20 63 2094 00 00 33 2093 00 16 71 2212 00 10 83 2214 00 20 32 2216 00 13 10108 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
2326 00 00 10 2327 00 12 46 2328 00 01 82 2329 00 28 31 2330 00 00 69 2427 00 13 24 2359 00 00 53 2425 00 19 09 2546 00 09 78 2545 00 00 10 2548 00 08 10 2553 00 11 24 2623 00 00 10 2555 00 13 95 2620 00 18 12 2624 00 09 87 2621 00 00 50 2636 00 00 81 2638 00 00 80 2641 00 05 52 2618 00 07 91 2642 00 11 08 2644 00 29 28 2646 00 00 27 2651 00 25 47[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 109
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
645 00 27 60 694 00 03 98 642 00 06 42 641 00 00 89 503 00 13 57 637 00 00 46 636 00 14 00 663 00 00 10 635 00 03 27 664 00 00 14 633 00 10 53 632 00 00 10 631 00 08 27 667 00 08 30 668 00 01 79 669 00 10 93 701 00 08 99 671 00 05 70 672 00 12 20 673 00 10 56 674 00 00 20 699 00 00 36 697 00 11 22 698 00 11 62 692 00 04 04110 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
682 00 01 51
607 00 01 44
686 00 18 35
606 00 00 82
583 00 01 26
23. बेल्Dपुरबेल्Dपुरबेल्Dपुरबेल्Dपुर 159 00 46 73
158 00 21 20
155 00 34 33
128 00 08 79
127 00 12 97
122 00 03 16
126 00 04 03
124 00 05 98
125 00 01 23
24. नवी मोहननवी मोहननवी मोहननवी मोहन 473 00 05 68
471 00 00 53
472 00 11 35
474 00 09 52
463 00 26 09
498 00 09 83
497 00 00 18
517 00 38 15
366 00 00 51
362 00 14 26
364 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
111
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
604 00 08 78
563 00 03 01
601 00 01 90
600 00 11 46
601 00 00 13
597 00 11 24
567 00 00 35
596 00 10 34
595 00 13 77
594 00 13 66
593 00 04 02
591 00 00 10
590 00 05 10
587 00 00 10
581 00 00 65
582 00 01 58
588 00 06 03
583 00 00 66
584 00 02 82
577 00 00 19
578 00 15 54
25. िसखू िसखू िसखू िसखू 187 00 00 26
190 00 07 34
192 00 24 39
192/271 00 00 10
112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
26. दिवरीदिवरीदिवरीदिवरी 488 00 13 88
487 00 11 53
486 00 00 10
519 00 10 56
521 00 09 41
520 00 00 42
474 00 10 67
473 00 08 82
470 00 02 22
469 00 04 25
468 00 04 37
467 00 10 14
466 00 06 33
465 00 01 96
444 00 00 41
437 00 04 11
438 00 16 49
428 00 09 13
426 00 09 01
420 00 11 88
412 00 10 90
411 00 04 41
410 00 01 52
409 00 06 01
408 00 00 10
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)20/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27595]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 113
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 17.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Tundla Terminal to Kanpur Terminal should be laid by 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 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, 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 of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( Pipelines Division), Construction Office, Northern Region Pipelines, Tundla-Gawria Pipeline Project, E-160,1st & 2nd floor, Kamlanagar, Agra(U.P.) – 282 004.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil:- Bidhuna District:- Auraiya
State :- Uttar Pradesh
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
8 00 05 64 9 00 05 56 11 00 30 70 10 00 00 10 20 00 29 10 12 00 00 79 13 00 09 76 21 00 04 52 22 00 04 47 25 00 19 81 32 00 07 28 38 00 12 43 37 00 05 41 39 01 01 17 480 00 05 98 477 00 11 23 481 00 10 73 482 00 00 32 490 00 05 06 489 00 17 98 487 00 03 44 493 00 07 39 492 00 00 10
497 00 03 05114 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
503 00 07 13 504 00 03 45 505 00 06 70 510 00 04 80 511 00 03 90 512 00 08 31 513 00 22 23 669 00 61 92 670 00 01 81 12 00 00 17
2. Itaili
13 00 00 10 11 00 04 23 15 00 14 43 14 00 01 30 18 00 04 00 19 00 00 20 20 00 00 78 21 00 08 84 25 00 03 98 23 00 04 85 293 00 06 08 292 00 08 95 290 00 05 95 354 00 02 48 355 00 13 18 356 00 06 43 287 00 00 10 357 00 03 26 281 00 02 33 360 00 05 59 369 00 15 78 377 00 01 20 375 00 01 16 376 00 01 93 379 00 11 21 382 00 03 70 374 00 02 02 387 00 16 23
417 00 05 07 416 00 00 13[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 115
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
449 00 14 89 399 00 13 75 452 00 06 73 453 00 08 21 454 00 00 13 457 00 00 58 456 00 08 37 928 00 03 75 930 00 19 06 933 00 01 13 926 00 18 53 983 00 19 90 917 00 01 15 984 00 38 58 992 00 03 48 989 00 02 84 991 00 03 55 990 00 02 07 1016 00 09 46 1017 00 00 10 1018 00 10 73 1019 00 00 10 1042 00 13 56 1049 00 00 12 1043 00 15 87 1044 00 10 58 1067 00 08 69 1068 00 00 53 1065 00 16 27 1064 00 02 19 1063 00 15 74 1074 00 06 21 1083 00 19 10 1081 00 02 98 1082 00 09 06 1089 00 01 47 764 00 10 48
3. Masudpur
765 00 01 46 766 00 08 77 116 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
697 00 02 36 4. Nandpur
694 00 00 10 702 00 00 41 703 00 13 49 704 00 00 10 707 00 10 02 706 00 23 76 710 00 19 03 718 00 27 56 780 00 02 80 678 00 01 18 670 00 09 61 719 00 00 98 720 00 04 37 669 00 03 60 732 00 02 45 733 00 10 83 734 00 10 07 735 00 10 21 736 00 11 46 737 00 04 21 738 00 02 89 755 00 00 37 761 00 17 90 762 00 10 50 765 00 15 97 766 00 00 32 767 00 10 42 768 00 11 38 772 00 15 13 793 00 00 17 804 00 36 35 818 00 32 34 831 00 00 92 826 00 26 29 827 00 01 91 828 00 01 50 852 00 00 14[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 117
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
238 00 29 76 5. Kunwarpur
6. Ruru Khurd 2719 00 00 29
2718 00 00 41
2717 00 17 52
2716 00 14 06
2715 00 01 50
2726 00 10 84
2727 00 16 04
2730 00 29 43
2732 00 11 67
2733 00 41 03
2735 00 53 75
2994 00 40 25
2995 00 11 78
3298 01 01 19
3304 00 14 88
3305 00 03 61
3294 00 01 28
3306 00 00 33
3307 00 07 42
3308 00 24 43
3309 00 13 71
3311 00 07 89
3352 00 00 10
3355 00 24 91
3463 00 03 34
3455 00 06 47
3452 00 04 82
3451 00 04 73
3447 00 11 30
3376 00 08 31
3377 00 15 28
3378 00 00 10
3425 00 58 08
3420 00 11 25
3418 00 00 40
30 00 07 59
118
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
5 00 00 80 13 00 17 81 12 00 02 82 15 00 06 16 16 00 01 43 130 00 07 64 129 00 16 95 131 00 14 95 133 00 10 23 62 00 00 31
8. Baruaa
67 00 12 65
68 00 09 49
69 00 08 80
176 00 08 64
177 00 21 29
178 00 24 73
180 00 00 10
179 00 02 00
305 00 03 05
303 00 01 14
309 00 05 73
308 00 02 20
310 00 14 66
311 00 01 73
317 00 02 41
319 00 06 20
327 00 04 35
328 00 05 70
329 00 10 65
340 00 12 67
343 00 12 54
364 00 00 10
366 00 06 81
365 00 03 20
367 00 07 05
9. Balkhandpur 162 00 12 07
161 00 00 82
164 00 13 27
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
119
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
61 00 15 73 62 00 05 87 121 00 05 17 122 00 01 06 123 00 06 23 126 00 12 03 125 00 07 59 131 00 00 37 140 00 00 10 141 00 14 30 142 00 03 53 143 00 00 10 144 00 05 60 146 00 06 90 147 00 04 53 148 00 05 17 145 00 04 40 149 00 00 49 150 00 09 14 151 00 10 55 153 00 09 05 154 00 02 94 157 00 00 10 155 00 00 10 169 00 00 61 180 00 21 95 178 00 19 07 158 00 00 62
11. Aili
159 00 05 90
160 00 21 03
162 00 07 40
12. Tilakpur Sarmendi 24 00 05 79
21 00 06 36
30 00 06 10
29 00 01 14
28 00 06 34
32 00 10 04
56 00 25 42
120
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
99 00 07 17 101 00 00 38 102 00 08 69 105 00 07 96 106 00 03 62 495 00 16 83
13. Divraon
500 00 00 49 496 00 00 10 501 00 10 65 502 00 09 89 507 00 12 15 505 00 01 23 511 00 01 10 513 00 04 59 514 00 07 01 515 00 13 52 429 00 21 04 400 00 08 74 401 00 01 42 397 00 34 05 381 00 02 46 382 00 08 41 383 00 02 31 374 00 00 25 384 00 05 71 373 00 18 02 375 00 00 40 349 00 01 13 348 00 08 30 341 00 01 72 342 00 09 10 343 00 04 49 340 00 06 41 339 00 02 12 337 00 18 67 330 00 02 82 336 00 01 06 335 00 00 61
697 00 02 16[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 121
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
695 00 18 53
703 00 06 39
702 00 01 60
704 00 02 49
706 00 02 31
707 00 01 98
919 00 03 87
974 00 35 11
965 00 11 88
964 00 01 76
966 00 02 71
967 00 04 17
949 00 41 89
950 00 00 10
14. Harchandpur 294 00 09 28
299 00 07 65
298 00 17 19
303 00 01 52
304 00 05 51
315 00 16 00
341 00 16 71
317 00 03 59
319 00 04 49
333 00 08 99
332 00 00 45
331 00 09 84
329 00 04 76
330 00 00 10
328 00 00 79
327 00 12 00
449 00 34 14
450 00 00 16
465 00 21 85
466 00 10 39
467 00 10 45
468 00 07 49
469 00 16 10
514 00 23 50
122
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
654 00 17 26 655 00 11 77 591 00 10 82 593 00 05 32 645 00 02 35 627 00 07 38 626 00 07 60 624 00 10 09 629 00 00 83 630 00 05 84 623 00 08 24 619 00 02 59 621 00 15 73 620 00 06 44 606 00 06 30 605 00 05 81 607 00 03 04 604 00 00 10 557 00 03 52 2422 00 07 85 2420 00 03 25 2419 00 09 24 2418 00 09 57 2411/3756 00 01 51 2412 00 11 77 2413 00 00 10 2414 00 13 64 2363 00 00 60 2361 00 13 29 3459 00 08 59 2360 00 11 76 3460 00 01 70 2359 00 04 30 3461 00 10 79 3462 00 06 50 3471 00 01 66 3470 00 23 80 3490 00 23 51[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 123
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
3569 00 01 64 3568 00 03 59 3567 00 09 12 3566 00 07 86 3555 00 04 89 3533 00 02 52 3554 00 22 31 3553 00 15 36 3552 00 13 12 3298 00 17 27 3296 00 15 50 3293 00 12 06 3289 00 13 95 3288 00 00 15 3290 00 05 83 3284 00 06 92 3285 00 04 98 3282 00 24 84 3283 00 03 20 3231 00 15 98 3280 00 00 10 3227 00 09 97 3224 00 03 79 3225 00 08 17 3215 00 03 95 3238 00 00 43 3214 00 02 80 3239 00 04 27 3213 00 00 38 3212 00 00 10 3204 00 02 88 3205 00 03 21 3206 00 12 40 3210 00 08 44 3208 00 03 73 3207 00 00 25 3209 00 01 74 3190 00 15 01124 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
453 00 20 51 454 00 10 84 455 00 15 13 438 00 00 10 556 00 07 69 555 00 00 82 558 00 07 96 553 00 01 91 559 00 05 64 560 00 12 45 561 00 00 16 701 00 07 27 700 00 11 11 699 00 02 43 681 00 01 38 682 00 01 89 683 00 22 56 680 00 16 33 648 00 17 80 646 00 09 06 645 00 31 46 644 00 00 35 734 00 01 07 767 00 11 14 766 00 11 95 765 00 13 53 772 00 18 68 771 00 11 11 779 00 01 85 774 00 13 53 774 00 11 02 775 00 02 68 94 00 00 19
17. Anda
95 00 00 14 96 00 15 66 93 00 36 17 117 00 06 79 99 00 01 90[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 125
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
25 00 08 65 18. Bahalolpur
21 00 38 75 24 00 04 24 23 00 01 23 22 00 07 07 83 00 00 10 20 00 16 13 86 00 29 67 87 00 19 02 88 00 06 09 324 00 08 99 322 00 21 28 323 00 03 84 311 00 15 02 312 00 00 80 309 00 22 49 308 00 08 06 307 00 10 66 398 00 19 86 418 00 06 86 434 00 03 86 436 00 07 11 437 00 00 78 435 00 06 98 465 00 04 32 466 00 00 23 462 00 00 10 467 00 00 82 464 00 04 82 471 00 21 97 472 00 13 72 475 00 02 14 85 00 15 17
19. Purva Fakire
86 00 01 58 90 00 30 84 89 00 01 28 88 00 07 62 98 00 05 39126 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
109 00 00 14
287 00 06 58
20. Tajpur Chhonk 124 00 08 05
123 00 05 30
122 00 06 62
121 00 03 92
115 00 00 10
120 00 07 85
119 00 09 95
118 00 00 87
117 00 02 91
186 00 34 73
189 00 05 84
223 00 25 70
222 00 23 97
194 00 00 46
198 00 11 21
199 00 05 28
204 00 03 33
205 00 02 38
203 00 05 36
202 00 04 22
265 00 00 13
621 00 14 21
615 00 06 41
616 00 01 71
610 00 04 58
614 00 00 84
609 00 01 35
608 00 00 50
613 00 05 97
612 00 02 21
611 00 02 37
706 00 07 17
599 00 06 30
707 00 93 30
712 00 05 17
708 00 01 46
744 00 00 10
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
127
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
740 00 18 76 Tajpur Chhonk
739 00 19 42 736 00 07 30 735 00 04 82 114 00 15 91
21. Sahayal
120 00 25 49 119 00 00 10 117 00 10 93 118 00 00 67 166 00 17 06 222 00 16 70 221 00 15 39 220 00 10 45 187 00 03 43 186 00 08 42 185 00 26 62 184 00 00 60 183 00 07 29 410 00 04 16 409 00 10 62 406 00 22 21 414 00 09 27 402 00 23 37 400 00 07 76 424 00 00 90 425 00 03 29 426 00 02 27 427 00 17 40 428 00 10 94 429 00 04 56 430 00 04 12 437 00 09 35 436 00 06 47 435 00 05 64 1103 00 13 68 1102 00 00 10 1101 00 05 44 1112 00 04 30128 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1120 00 01 81 2035 00 13 39 2033 00 21 34 2028 00 24 66 2030 00 01 01 2024 00 11 67 1125 00 00 16 2023 00 01 18 2022 00 20 63 2094 00 00 33 2093 00 16 71 2212 00 10 83 2214 00 20 32 2216 00 13 10 2081 00 18 12 2078 00 03 47 2079 00 00 44 2076 00 18 03 2326 00 00 10 2327 00 12 46 2328 00 01 82 2329 00 28 31 2330 00 00 69 2427 00 13 24 2359 00 00 53 2425 00 19 09 2546 00 09 78 2545 00 00 10 2548 00 08 10 2553 00 11 24 2623 00 00 10 2555 00 13 95 2620 00 18 12 2624 00 09 87 2621 00 00 50 2636 00 00 81 2638 00 00 80 2641 00 05 52[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 129
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
2651 00 25 47 Sahayal
2648 00 04 22 2650 00 04 45 494 00 01 77
22. Mugriha
645 00 27 60 694 00 03 98 642 00 06 42 641 00 00 89 503 00 13 57 637 00 00 46 636 00 14 00 663 00 00 10 635 00 03 27 664 00 00 14 633 00 10 53 632 00 00 10 631 00 08 27 667 00 08 30 668 00 01 79 669 00 10 93 701 00 08 99 671 00 05 70 672 00 12 20 673 00 10 56 674 00 00 20 699 00 00 36 697 00 11 22 698 00 11 62 692 00 04 04 690 00 04 37 689 00 01 39 684 00 07 13 683 00 12 13 682 00 01 51 607 00 01 44 686 00 18 35 606 00 00 82 583 00 01 26130 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
122 00 03 16
126 00 04 03
124 00 05 98
125 00 01 23
24. Navi Mohan 473 00 05 68
471 00 00 53
472 00 11 35
474 00 09 52
463 00 26 09
498 00 09 83
497 00 00 18
517 00 38 15
366 00 00 51
362 00 14 26
364 00 00 20
365 00 20 89
551 00 08 03
610 00 02 67
609 00 09 38
604 00 08 78
563 00 03 01
601 00 01 90
600 00 11 46
601 00 00 13
597 00 11 24
567 00 00 35
596 00 10 34
595 00 13 77
594 00 13 66
593 00 04 02
591 00 00 10
590 00 05 10
587 00 00 10
581 00 00 65
582 00 01 58
588 00 06 03
583 00 00 66
584 00 02 82
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
131
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
192/271 00 00 10 228 00 05 51 226 00 01 03 225 00 19 22 224 00 00 10 488 00 13 88
26. Divari
487 00 11 53 486 00 00 10 519 00 10 56 521 00 09 41 520 00 00 42 474 00 10 67 473 00 08 82 470 00 02 22 469 00 04 25 468 00 04 37 467 00 10 14 466 00 06 33 465 00 01 96 444 00 00 41 437 00 04 11 438 00 16 49 428 00 09 13 426 00 09 01 420 00 11 88 412 00 10 90 411 00 04 41 410 00 01 52 409 00 06 01 408 00 00 10
[F. No. R-11025(11)20/2018-OR-I/E-27595]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ.आ.आ.आ. 18181818....————कें (ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आं} प्रदेश राज्य में पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के Gियान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपuरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
132 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]और कें (ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमी में जो इस से उपाब(cid:127) अनुसूची में वQणत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी cक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वQणत भूमि में हितब(cid:127) है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इ~ीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में ?ी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आं} प्रदेश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेक्सी भवन, थि~ना (डायमंड पार्क ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉम्पलेक्स के पास, विशाखापटनम - 530004, आं} प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
जिला : Gीकाकु लम राज्य : आंH प्रदेशराज्य : आंH प्रदेशराज्य : आंH प्रदेशराज्य : आंH प्रदेश जिला : Gीकाकु लम जिला : Gीकाकु लम जिला : Gीकाकु लम
| म म ं ं म म डल का नाम ं ं | Iाम का नाम | सव सव सव सव नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
89/3 00 04 91 89/9 00 00 56 76/1 00 03 24 76/4 00 00 48 78/6 00 01 12 78/7 00 00 65 110/6 00 00 10 110/7 00 04 70 110/14 00 01 74 111/7 00 00 72 111/10 00 02 20 111/11 00 00 08 112/15 00 01 92
114/3 00 00 30 110/12 00 02 13[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 133
नंदिगाम नQसपुरम 110/15 00 01 62
नंदिगाम कोमाटूz 139/2 00 03 86
139/4 00 00 78
164/8 00 00 03
164/9 00 00 11
टे~लि रािववलासा 179/5 00 02 61
179/2 00 00 35
178/15 00 01 52
178/20 00 02 48
178/18 00 04 37
171/9 00 00 48
171/6 00 01 74
171/5 00 01 22
171/4 00 01 98
172/16 00 00 71
172/13 00 01 03
172/11 00 02 85
172/4 00 01 32
173/11 00 04 96
173/12 00 00 16
173/6 00 02 91
173/15 00 02 94
174/4 00 01 12
174/2 00 01 33
174/6 00 00 04
160/4 00 01 10
160/5 00 03 94
159/1 00 03 82
158/10 00 00 43134 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
टेक्किल रािववलासा 158/1 00 08 46
158/9 00 04 04
156/4 00 00 83
145/2 00 02 57
147/5 00 03 83
147/4 00 02 95
147/3 00 00 11
29/1 00 00 06
28/20 00 00 19
28/22 00 00 08
179/6 00 05 87
174/11 00 03 85
171/8 00 02 84
179/4 00 00 21
पोंदूz बो(cid:131)ेपल्लि 236 00 00 68
239/1 00 00 47
239/2 00 01 42
239/3 00 01 05
239/4 00 00 58
239/5 00 01 88
239/6 00 01 10
240/19 00 00 51
240/20 00 00 71
240/21 00 00 71
240/22 00 00 82
240/23 00 07 09
241/30 00 02 51
241/32 00 03 93
241/36 00 00 94
249/2 00 01 34
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
135
पोंदूz बो(cid:131)ेपल्लि 249/6 00 02 17
249/8 00 01 39
249/9 00 00 82
247/12 00 00 44
247/7 00 00 25
246/18 00 00 15
246/19 00 00 47
246/20 00 00 24
246/16 00 01 93
240/16 00 00 81
240/1 00 00 21
249/4 00 01 02
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 18.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline 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 who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) 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, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
89/3 00 04 91 89/9 00 00 56 76/1 00 03 24 76/4 00 00 48136 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Nandigam Narsipuram 78/7 00 00 65
110/6 00 00 10
110/7 00 04 70
110/14 00 01 74
111/7 00 00 72
111/10 00 02 20
111/11 00 00 08
112/15 00 01 92
112/16 00 00 27
114/3 00 00 30
110/12 00 02 13
110/15 00 01 62
Nandigam Komaturu 139/2 00 03 86
139/4 00 00 78
164/8 00 00 03
164/9 00 00 11
Tekkali Ravivalasa 179/5 00 02 61
179/2 00 00 35
178/15 00 01 52
178/20 00 02 48
178/18 00 04 37
171/9 00 00 48
171/6 00 01 74
171/5 00 01 22
171/4 00 01 98
172/16 00 00 71
172/13 00 01 03
172/11 00 02 85
172/4 00 01 32
173/11 00 04 96
173/12 00 00 16
173/6 00 02 91
173/15 00 02 94
174/4 00 01 12
174/2 00 01 33
174/6 00 00 04
160/4 00 01 10
160/5 00 03 94
159/1 00 03 82
159/3 00 01 05
158/10 00 00 43
158/1 00 08 46
158/9 00 04 04
156/4 00 00 83
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
137
Tekkali Ravivalasa 145/2 00 02 57
147/5 00 03 83
147/4 00 02 95
147/3 00 00 11
29/1 00 00 06
28/20 00 00 19
28/22 00 00 08
179/6 00 05 87
174/11 00 03 85
171/8 00 02 84
179/4 00 00 21
Ponduru Boddepalli 236 00 00 68
239/1 00 00 47
239/2 00 01 42
239/3 00 01 05
239/4 00 00 58
239/5 00 01 88
239/6 00 01 10
240/19 00 00 51
240/20 00 00 71
240/21 00 00 71
240/22 00 00 82
240/23 00 07 09
241/30 00 02 51
241/32 00 03 93
241/36 00 00 94
249/2 00 01 34
249/6 00 02 17
249/8 00 01 39
249/9 00 00 82
247/12 00 00 44
247/7 00 00 25
246/18 00 00 15
246/19 00 00 47
246/20 00 00 24
246/16 00 01 93
240/16 00 00 81
240/1 00 00 21
249/4 00 01 02
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
138 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 19191919....————के न्(ीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन)
अिधिनय में, 1962 ( 1962-50) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पnात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना जिसका प्रकाशन भारत के राजपत्र
संख्या 15 दिनाक 15-21 अप्रैल 2018 का.आ. 607 दिनाक 10.04.2018 भाग II खंड 3 उपखंड (II) में किया गया है। इस अधिसूचना से सलंq अनुसूची में िविन'दष्ट महाराष्ट्र राज्य की तहसील- जामखेड, जिला अहमदनगर की भूमि में महाराष्ट्र राज्य में कोयली (गुजरात) से अहमदनगर एवं सोलापुर तक पेट्रोलियम परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑइल कॉपuरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा Gियान्वित किए जा रहे "कोयली-अहमदनगर-सोलापुर परियोजना" के सम्बन्ध में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के िलए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के लिए अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी :
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचनाओं की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 13 सितम्बर 2018 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थ<।
और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने के न्(ीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है।
और के न्(ीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पnात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए अपेिछत है, उसमें उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन करने का िविनnय किया है:
अत: अब, के न्(ीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा पदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए! एतद द्वारा घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से सलq अनुसूची मे िवन'दष्ट भूिम मे पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अQजत किया जाए:
और कन्(ीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा पदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए, यह निदyश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से के न्(ीय सरकार में िनिहत होने के बजाय सभी िवलंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑइल कॉपuरेशन लिमिटेड में िनिहत होगा।
पेट्रोलियम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 की धारा 10 के अधीन किसी भी क्षितपूQत के लिए इंडियन ऑइल कॉपuरेशन लिमिटेड पूर्णतया उत्तरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से सबधित किसी भी मामले पर के न्(ीय सरकार के िवरू(cid:127) कोई वाद दावा या कानूनी कार्यवाह< नही हो सके गी।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| तालुका तालुका : : : : जामखेड़ तालुका तालुका जामखेड़ | िजला :::: अहमदनगर िजला अहमदनगर | राज्य राज्य :::: महाराष्ट्र राज्य राज्य महाराष्ट्र | ||
| गांव का नाम | सव सव सव सव नंनंनंनं....\\\\ब्लॉक ब्लॉक नंनंनंनं.... ब्लॉक | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ेहेहेहेक् टेक् टेक् टेक् टेयरयरयरयर | आरआरआरआर | वर्ग मीटर |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) |
| जामखेड़ | 1033 | 00 | 18 | 76 |
| 1034 | 00 | 38 | 09 | |
| 1037 | 00 | 08 | 35 | |
| 1031 | 00 | 20 | 50 | |
| 1030 | 00 | 11 | 12 | |
| 1027 | 00 | 31 | 72 | |
| 1026 | 00 | 17 | 80 | |
| जामखेड़ | 796 | 00 | 28 | 30 |
| 797 | 00 | 06 | 06 | |
| 798 | 00 | 04 | 57 | |
| 799 | 00 | 10 | 62 | |
| 800 | 00 | 10 | 78 | |
| 801 | 00 | 11 | 65 | |
| 802 | 00 | 07 | 51 | |
| 803 | 00 | 09 | 73 | |
| 804 | 00 | 09 | 35 | |
| 805 | 00 | 03 | 23 | |
| 806 | 00 | 03 | 40 | |
| 807 | 00 | 07 | 85 | |
| 808 | 00 | 05 | 28 | |
| 809 | 00 | 12 | 14 | |
| 812 | 00 | 03 | 35 | |
| 813 | 00 | 07 | 78 | |
| 818 | 00 | 06 | 94 | |
| 819 | 00 | 05 | 57 | |
| 820 | 00 | 05 | 24 | |
| 821 | 00 | 05 | 43 | |
| 825 | 00 | 01 | 49 | |
| 826 | 00 | 09 | 02 | |
| 827 | 00 | 11 | 95 | |
| 829 | 00 | 41 | 92 | |
| 831 | 00 | 06 | 02 | |
| 832 | 00 | 04 | 86 | |
| 833 | 00 | 05 | 58 | |
| 834 | 00 | 05 | 60 | |
| 835 | 00 | 01 | 83 | |
| जामखेड़ | 836 | 00 | 01 | 79 |
| 837 | 00 | 00 | 20 | |
| 838 | 00 | 01 | 21 | |
| 839 | 00 | 02 | 01 | |
| 840 | 00 | 00 | 97 | |
| 841 | 00 | 02 | 34 | |
| 843 | 00 | 24 | 17 | |
| 711 | 00 | 39 | 40 | |
| 694 | 00 | 13 | 26 | |
| 693 | 00 | 15 | 01 | |
| 692 | 00 | 12 | 09 | |
| 691 | 00 | 28 | 59 | |
| 690 | 00 | 02 | 41 | |
| 688 | 00 | 32 | 25 | |
| 673 | 00 | 36 | 80 | |
| 672 | 00 | 25 | 10 | |
| 670 | 00 | 10 | 53 | |
| 669 | 00 | 11 | 33 | |
| 667 | 00 | 11 | 46 | |
| 558 | 00 | 39 | 13 | |
| 262 | 00 | 24 | 36 | |
| 258 | 00 | 00 | 20 | |
| 554 | 00 | 10 | 21 | |
| 555 | 00 | 06 | 74 | |
| 556 | 00 | 08 | 21 | |
| 473 | 00 | 24 | 90 | |
| 470 | 00 | 13 | 83 | |
| 466 | 00 | 13 | 32 | |
| 459 | 00 | 14 | 50 | |
| जामखेड़ | 467 | 00 | 00 | 92 |
| 458 | 00 | 06 | 63 | |
| 457 | 00 | 16 | 48 | |
| 456 | 00 | 10 | 18 | |
| 419 | 00 | 06 | 44 | |
| 420 | 00 | 05 | 84 | |
| 421 | 00 | 05 | 08 | |
| 422 | 00 | 08 | 87 | |
| 423 | 00 | 02 | 43 | |
| 424 | 00 | 03 | 74 | |
| 425 | 00 | 08 | 23 | |
| 426 | 00 | 05 | 93 | |
| 428 | 00 | 04 | 17 | |
| 430 | 00 | 02 | 79 | |
| 432 | 00 | 01 | 64 | |
| 431 | 00 | 01 | 90 | |
| 433 | 00 | 02 | 31 | |
| 440 | 00 | 14 | 82 | |
| 441 | 00 | 12 | 07 | |
| 442 | 00 | 14 | 04 | |
| 443 | 00 | 20 | 09 | |
| 322 | 00 | 31 | 63 | |
| 323 | 00 | 61 | 11 | |
| 320 | 00 | 04 | 19 | |
| 318 | 00 | 45 | 76 | |
| 319 | 00 | 10 | 75 | |
| 228 | 00 | 20 | 24 | |
| 224 | 00 | 02 | 18 | |
| जमादारवाड़ी | 179 | 00 | 34 | 80 |
| 180 | 00 | 05 | 58 | |
| 181 | 00 | 03 | 76 | |
| 182 | 00 | 26 | 95 | |
| 09 | 00 | 14 | 59 | |
| 10 | 00 | 17 | 98 | |
| 11 | 00 | 29 | 77 | |
| 12 | 00 | 35 | 38 | |
| 13 | 00 | 27 | 14 | |
| 15 | 00 | 43 | 30 | |
| 18 | 00 | 05 | 41 | |
| 19 | 00 | 27 | 19 | |
| 23 | 00 | 13 | 45 | |
| 25 | 00 | 11 | 80 | |
| 26/1 | 00 | 15 | 62 | |
| 33/1 | 00 | 09 | 33 | |
| 34 | 00 | 09 | 09 | |
| 35 | 00 | 11 | 42 | |
| 36 | 00 | 13 | 71 | |
| 37 | 00 | 21 | 04 | |
| 47 | 00 | 00 | 13 | |
| 38 | 00 | 04 | 05 | |
| 46 | 00 | 93 | 93 | |
| 42 | 00 | 15 | 68 | |
| 43 | 00 | 00 | 08 | |
| 56 | 00 | 07 | 28 | |
| काटेवाड़ी | 182 | 00 | 30 | 82 |
| 183 | 00 | 13 | 04 | |
| 184 | 00 | 13 | 30 | |
| काटेवाड़ी | 195 | 00 | 57 | 02 |
| 196 | 00 | 22 | 09 | |
| 137 | 00 | 20 | 23 | |
| 215 | 00 | 12 | 11 | |
| 216 | 00 | 14 | 67 | |
| 217 | 00 | 13 | 75 | |
| 219 | 00 | 07 | 56 | |
| 218 | 00 | 11 | 68 | |
| 235 | 00 | 47 | 58 | |
| 233 | 00 | 17 | 48 | |
| 232 | 00 | 47 | 78 | |
| 259 | 00 | 24 | 53 | |
| 260 | 00 | 28 | 88 | |
| 264 | 00 | 22 | 25 | |
| 261 | 00 | 06 | 88 | |
| 263 | 00 | 03 | 08 | |
| सारोला | 181 | 00 | 20 | 78 |
| राजुरी | 378 | 00 | 09 | 12 |
| 377 | 00 | 18 | 78 | |
| 375 | 00 | 08 | 31 | |
| 374 | 00 | 12 | 89 | |
| 373 | 00 | 02 | 38 | |
| 372 | 00 | 02 | 00 | |
| 371 | 00 | 02 | 81 | |
| 370 | 00 | 05 | 82 | |
| 369 | 00 | 05 | 12 | |
| 368 | 00 | 03 | 24 | |
| 367 | 00 | 02 | 91 | |
| 366 | 00 | 10 | 87 | |
| राजुरी | 363 | 00 | 07 | 52 |
| 362 | 00 | 04 | 60 | |
| 361 | 00 | 11 | 15 | |
| 360 | 00 | 24 | 31 | |
| 359 | 00 | 18 | 28 | |
| 358 | 00 | 16 | 04 | |
| 357 | 00 | 07 | 07 | |
| 356 | 00 | 02 | 84 | |
| 352 | 00 | 05 | 87 | |
| 351 | 00 | 07 | 08 | |
| 347 | 00 | 05 | 67 | |
| 344 | 00 | 14 | 66 | |
| 310 | 00 | 10 | 05 | |
| 309 | 00 | 00 | 02 | |
| 307 | 00 | 16 | 57 | |
| 312 | 00 | 00 | 08 | |
| 313 | 00 | 10 | 27 | |
| 314 | 00 | 02 | 22 | |
| 343 | 00 | 07 | 87 | |
| 316 | 00 | 42 | 88 | |
| 296 | 00 | 11 | 96 | |
| 317 | 00 | 90 | 90 | |
| 274 | 00 | 17 | 67 | |
| 206 | 00 | 15 | 43 | |
| 206 | 00 | 55 | 58 | |
| 217 | 00 | 01 | 75 | |
| 195 | 01 | 24 | 97 | |
| 194 | 00 | 14 | 59 | |
| 193 | 00 | 31 | 04 | |
| राजुरी | 191 | 00 | 10 | 63 |
| 190 | 00 | 27 | 14 | |
| 186 | 00 | 14 | 09 | |
| 188 | 00 | 41 | 92 | |
| 187 | 00 | 21 | 03 | |
| पिपलगांव आलवा | 419 | 00 | 09 | 06 |
| 420 | 00 | 08 | 92 | |
| 421 | 00 | 13 | 15 | |
| 422 | 00 | 08 | 13 | |
| 423 | 00 | 30 | 05 | |
| 424 | 00 | 15 | 06 | |
| 425 | 00 | 16 | 99 | |
| 427 | 00 | 37 | 15 | |
| 428 | 00 | 22 | 46 | |
| 429 | 00 | 14 | 48 | |
| 430 | 00 | 06 | 21 | |
| नायगांव | 682 | 00 | 23 | 46 |
| 681 | 00 | 14 | 15 | |
| आनंदवाडी | 118 | 00 | 00 | 81 |
| 119 | 00 | 07 | 84 | |
| 121 | 00 | 15 | 58 | |
| 122 | 00 | 14 | 43 | |
| 131 | 00 | 09 | 44 | |
| 132 | 00 | 11 | 06 | |
| 135 | 00 | 02 | 79 | |
| 143 | 00 | 02 | 27 | |
| 141 | 00 | 02 | 96 | |
| 144 | 00 | 06 | 64 | |
| 145 | 00 | 05 | 46 | |
| आनंदवाडी | 142 | 00 | 02 | 96 |
| 147 | 00 | 18 | 76 | |
| 148 | 00 | 00 | 48 | |
| 166 | 00 | 07 | 57 | |
| 161 | 00 | 12 | 80 | |
| 81 | 00 | 06 | 82 | |
| 80 | 00 | 07 | 50 | |
| 79 | 00 | 05 | 16 | |
| 78 | 00 | 05 | 04 | |
| 61 | 00 | 10 | 70 | |
| 62 | 00 | 07 | 05 | |
| 67 | 00 | 14 | 33 | |
| 34 | 00 | 07 | 05 | |
| 35 | 00 | 06 | 39 | |
| 36 | 00 | 17 | 94 | |
| 64 | 00 | 24 | 95 | |
| 68 | 00 | 07 | 05 | |
| 60 | 00 | 03 | 49 | |
| 46 | 00 | 09 | 65 | |
| 45 | 00 | 31 | 09 | |
| 47 | 00 | 03 | 32 | |
| 09 | 00 | 25 | 39 | |
| 02 | 00 | 30 | 06 | |
| 03 | 00 | 00 | 06 | |
| 08 | 00 | 37 | 69 | |
| 05 | 00 | 25 | 18 | |
| बालगहाण | 46 | 00 | 15 | 11 |
| 47 | 00 | 44 | 91 | |
| 51 | 00 | 75 | 10 | |
| बालगहाण | 52 | 00 | 15 | 65 |
| 53 | 00 | 21 | 25 | |
| 54 | 00 | 17 | 74 | |
| 56 | 00 | 00 | 08 | |
| 55 | 00 | 36 | 43 | |
| 68 | 00 | 18 | 65 | |
| 67 | 00 | 12 | 87 | |
| 72 | 00 | 07 | 29 | |
| 73 | 00 | 01 | 95 | |
| 66 | 00 | 28 | 84 | |
| 65 | 00 | 20 | 06 | |
| 64 | 00 | 27 | 16 | |
| 96 | 00 | 41 | 10 | |
| 95 | 00 | 09 | 27 | |
| 101 | 00 | 67 | 52 | |
| खर्डा | 736 | 00 | 50 | 40 |
| 662 | 00 | 05 | 30 | |
| 664 | 00 | 67 | 98 | |
| 730 | 00 | 04 | 06 | |
| 731 | 00 | 26 | 31 | |
| 665 | 00 | 35 | 61 | |
| 672 | 00 | 66 | 07 | |
| 671 | 00 | 12 | 29 | |
| 670 | 00 | 57 | 57 | |
| 485 | 00 | 10 | 26 | |
| 483 | 00 | 46 | 83 | |
| 482 | 00 | 02 | 01 | |
| 484 | 00 | 13 | 59 | |
| 465 | 00 | 31 | 71 | |
| खर्डा | 467 | 00 | 11 | 12 |
| 468 | 00 | 00 | 14 | |
| 466 | 00 | 13 | 09 | |
| 385 | 00 | 04 | 77 | |
| 367 | 00 | 42 | 58 | |
| 386 | 00 | 05 | 86 | |
| 366 | 00 | 19 | 10 | |
| 365 | 00 | 23 | 21 | |
| 351 | 00 | 07 | 42 | |
| 352 | 00 | 16 | 82 | |
| 347 | 00 | 97 | 95 | |
| 348 | 00 | 30 | 54 | |
| 234 | 00 | 56 | 43 | |
| 241 | 00 | 20 | 44 | |
| 255 | 00 | 66 | 85 | |
| 257 | 00 | 13 | 88 | |
| 260 | 00 | 32 | 83 | |
| 266 | 00 | 24 | 01 | |
| 268 | 00 | 18 | 72 | |
| 267 | 00 | 12 | 57 |
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)6/2018-ओआर-I/ई-23678]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 19.—Whereas by the notification of The Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Published in the Gazette No. 15 date 15-21 April 2018 S.O No. 607 date 10.04.2018 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), (Hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Tehsil Jamkhed, District Ahmednagar in Maharashtra State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum from Koyali in the State Gujrat to Solapur in the Maharashtra by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the ''Koyali-Ahmednagar-Solapur Pipeline Project''.
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 12 September 2018.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 149And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report 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
| Taluka : Jamkhed | District : Ahmednagar | State : Maharashtra | ||
| Name of Village | Survey No./ Block No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Square Metre |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) |
| Jamkhed | 1033 | 00 | 18 | 76 |
| 1034 | 00 | 38 | 09 | |
| 1037 | 00 | 08 | 35 | |
| 1031 | 00 | 20 | 50 | |
| 1030 | 00 | 11 | 12 | |
| 1027 | 00 | 31 | 72 | |
| 1026 | 00 | 17 | 80 | |
| 796 | 00 | 28 | 30 | |
| 797 | 00 | 06 | 06 | |
| 798 | 00 | 04 | 57 | |
| 799 | 00 | 10 | 62 | |
| 800 | 00 | 10 | 78 | |
| 801 | 00 | 11 | 65 | |
| 802 | 00 | 07 | 51 | |
| 803 | 00 | 09 | 73 | |
| 804 | 00 | 09 | 35 | |
| 805 | 00 | 03 | 23 | |
| 806 | 00 | 03 | 40 | |
| 807 | 00 | 07 | 85 | |
| 808 | 00 | 05 | 28 | |
| 809 | 00 | 12 | 14 | |
| 812 | 00 | 03 | 35 | |
| 813 | 00 | 07 | 78 | |
| 818 | 00 | 06 | 94 | |
| 819 | 00 | 05 | 57 | |
| Jamkhed | 820 | 00 | 05 | 24 |
| 821 | 00 | 05 | 43 | |
| 825 | 00 | 01 | 49 | |
| 826 | 00 | 09 | 02 | |
| 827 | 00 | 11 | 95 | |
| 829 | 00 | 41 | 92 | |
| 831 | 00 | 06 | 02 | |
| 832 | 00 | 04 | 86 | |
| 833 | 00 | 05 | 58 | |
| 834 | 00 | 05 | 60 | |
| 835 | 00 | 01 | 83 | |
| 836 | 00 | 01 | 79 | |
| 837 | 00 | 00 | 20 | |
| 838 | 00 | 01 | 21 | |
| 839 | 00 | 02 | 01 | |
| 840 | 00 | 00 | 97 | |
| 841 | 00 | 02 | 34 | |
| 843 | 00 | 24 | 17 | |
| 711 | 00 | 39 | 40 | |
| 694 | 00 | 13 | 26 | |
| 693 | 00 | 15 | 01 | |
| 692 | 00 | 12 | 09 | |
| 691 | 00 | 28 | 59 | |
| 690 | 00 | 02 | 41 | |
| 688 | 00 | 32 | 25 | |
| 673 | 00 | 36 | 80 | |
| 672 | 00 | 25 | 10 | |
| 670 | 00 | 10 | 53 | |
| 669 | 00 | 11 | 33 | |
| 667 | 00 | 11 | 46 | |
| 558 | 00 | 39 | 13 | |
| 262 | 00 | 24 | 36 | |
| 258 | 00 | 00 | 20 | |
| 554 | 00 | 10 | 21 | |
| 555 | 00 | 06 | 74 | |
| 556 | 00 | 08 | 21 | |
| 473 | 00 | 24 | 90 | |
| 470 | 00 | 13 | 83 | |
| 466 | 00 | 13 | 32 | |
| 459 | 00 | 14 | 50 | |
| 467 | 00 | 00 | 92 | |
| Jamkhed | 458 | 00 | 06 | 63 |
| 457 | 00 | 16 | 48 | |
| 456 | 00 | 10 | 18 | |
| 419 | 00 | 06 | 44 | |
| 420 | 00 | 05 | 84 | |
| 421 | 00 | 05 | 08 | |
| 422 | 00 | 08 | 87 | |
| 423 | 00 | 02 | 43 | |
| 424 | 00 | 03 | 74 | |
| 425 | 00 | 08 | 23 | |
| 426 | 00 | 05 | 93 | |
| 428 | 00 | 04 | 17 | |
| 430 | 00 | 02 | 79 | |
| 432 | 00 | 01 | 64 | |
| 431 | 00 | 01 | 90 | |
| 433 | 00 | 02 | 31 | |
| 440 | 00 | 14 | 82 | |
| 441 | 00 | 12 | 07 | |
| 442 | 00 | 14 | 04 | |
| 443 | 00 | 20 | 09 | |
| 322 | 00 | 31 | 63 | |
| 323 | 00 | 61 | 11 | |
| 320 | 00 | 04 | 19 | |
| 318 | 00 | 45 | 76 | |
| 319 | 00 | 10 | 75 | |
| 228 | 00 | 20 | 24 | |
| 224 | 00 | 02 | 18 | |
| Jamadarwadi | 179 | 00 | 34 | 80 |
| 180 | 00 | 05 | 58 | |
| 181 | 00 | 03 | 76 | |
| 182 | 00 | 26 | 95 | |
| 09 | 00 | 14 | 59 | |
| 10 | 00 | 17 | 98 | |
| 11 | 00 | 29 | 77 | |
| 12 | 00 | 35 | 38 | |
| 13 | 00 | 27 | 14 | |
| 15 | 00 | 43 | 30 | |
| 18 | 00 | 05 | 41 | |
| 19 | 00 | 27 | 19 | |
| 23 | 00 | 13 | 45 | |
| 25 | 00 | 11 | 80 | |
| Jamadarwadi | 26/1 | 00 | 15 | 62 |
| 33/1 | 00 | 09 | 33 | |
| 34 | 00 | 09 | 09 | |
| 35 | 00 | 11 | 42 | |
| 36 | 00 | 13 | 71 | |
| 37 | 00 | 21 | 04 | |
| 47 | 00 | 00 | 13 | |
| 38 | 00 | 04 | 05 | |
| 46 | 00 | 93 | 93 | |
| 42 | 00 | 15 | 68 | |
| 43 | 00 | 00 | 08 | |
| 56 | 00 | 07 | 28 | |
| Katewadi | 182 | 00 | 30 | 82 |
| 183 | 00 | 13 | 04 | |
| 184 | 00 | 13 | 30 | |
| 195 | 00 | 57 | 02 | |
| 196 | 00 | 22 | 09 | |
| 137 | 00 | 20 | 23 | |
| 215 | 00 | 12 | 11 | |
| 216 | 00 | 14 | 67 | |
| 217 | 00 | 13 | 75 | |
| 219 | 00 | 07 | 56 | |
| 218 | 00 | 11 | 68 | |
| 235 | 00 | 47 | 58 | |
| 233 | 00 | 17 | 48 | |
| 232 | 00 | 47 | 78 | |
| 259 | 00 | 24 | 53 | |
| 260 | 00 | 28 | 88 | |
| 264 | 00 | 22 | 25 | |
| 261 | 00 | 06 | 88 | |
| 263 | 00 | 03 | 08 | |
| Sarola | 181 | 00 | 20 | 78 |
| Rajuri | 378 | 00 | 09 | 12 |
| 377 | 00 | 18 | 78 | |
| 375 | 00 | 08 | 31 | |
| 374 | 00 | 12 | 89 | |
| 373 | 00 | 02 | 38 | |
| 372 | 00 | 02 | 00 | |
| 371 | 00 | 02 | 81 | |
| 370 | 00 | 05 | 82 | |
| 369 | 00 | 05 | 12 | |
| Rajuri | 368 | 00 | 03 | 24 |
| 367 | 00 | 02 | 91 | |
| 366 | 00 | 10 | 87 | |
| 363 | 00 | 07 | 52 | |
| 362 | 00 | 04 | 60 | |
| 361 | 00 | 11 | 15 | |
| 360 | 00 | 24 | 31 | |
| 359 | 00 | 18 | 28 | |
| 358 | 00 | 16 | 04 | |
| 357 | 00 | 07 | 07 | |
| 356 | 00 | 02 | 84 | |
| 352 | 00 | 05 | 87 | |
| 351 | 00 | 07 | 08 | |
| 347 | 00 | 05 | 67 | |
| 344 | 00 | 14 | 66 | |
| 310 | 00 | 10 | 05 | |
| 309 | 00 | 00 | 02 | |
| 307 | 00 | 16 | 57 | |
| 312 | 00 | 00 | 08 | |
| 313 | 00 | 10 | 27 | |
| 314 | 00 | 02 | 22 | |
| 343 | 00 | 07 | 87 | |
| 316 | 00 | 42 | 88 | |
| 296 | 00 | 11 | 96 | |
| 317 | 00 | 90 | 90 | |
| 274 | 00 | 17 | 67 | |
| 206 | 00 | 15 | 43 | |
| 206 | 00 | 55 | 58 | |
| 217 | 00 | 01 | 75 | |
| 195 | 01 | 24 | 97 | |
| 194 | 00 | 14 | 59 | |
| 193 | 00 | 31 | 04 | |
| 191 | 00 | 10 | 63 | |
| 190 | 00 | 27 | 14 | |
| 186 | 00 | 14 | 09 | |
| 188 | 00 | 41 | 92 | |
| 187 | 00 | 21 | 03 | |
| Pimpalgaon Alwa | 419 | 00 | 09 | 06 |
| 420 | 00 | 08 | 92 | |
| 421 | 00 | 13 | 15 | |
| 422 | 00 | 08 | 13 | |
| Pimpalgaon Alwa | 423 | 00 | 30 | 05 |
| 424 | 00 | 15 | 06 | |
| 425 | 00 | 16 | 99 | |
| 427 | 00 | 37 | 15 | |
| 428 | 00 | 22 | 46 | |
| 429 | 00 | 14 | 48 | |
| 430 | 00 | 06 | 21 | |
| Naigaon | 682 | 00 | 23 | 46 |
| 681 | 00 | 14 | 15 | |
| Anandwadi | 118 | 00 | 00 | 81 |
| 119 | 00 | 07 | 84 | |
| 121 | 00 | 15 | 58 | |
| 122 | 00 | 14 | 43 | |
| 131 | 00 | 09 | 44 | |
| 132 | 00 | 11 | 06 | |
| 135 | 00 | 02 | 79 | |
| 143 | 00 | 02 | 27 | |
| 141 | 00 | 02 | 96 | |
| 144 | 00 | 06 | 64 | |
| 145 | 00 | 05 | 46 | |
| 142 | 00 | 02 | 96 | |
| 147 | 00 | 18 | 76 | |
| 148 | 00 | 00 | 48 | |
| 166 | 00 | 07 | 57 | |
| 161 | 00 | 12 | 80 | |
| 81 | 00 | 06 | 82 | |
| 80 | 00 | 07 | 50 | |
| 79 | 00 | 05 | 16 | |
| 78 | 00 | 05 | 04 | |
| 61 | 00 | 10 | 70 | |
| 62 | 00 | 07 | 05 | |
| 67 | 00 | 14 | 33 | |
| 34 | 00 | 07 | 05 | |
| 35 | 00 | 06 | 39 | |
| 36 | 00 | 17 | 94 | |
| 64 | 00 | 24 | 95 | |
| 68 | 00 | 07 | 05 | |
| 60 | 00 | 03 | 49 | |
| 46 | 00 | 09 | 65 | |
| 45 | 00 | 31 | 09 | |
| 47 | 00 | 03 | 32 | |
| Anandwadi | 09 | 00 | 25 | 39 |
| 02 | 00 | 30 | 06 | |
| 03 | 00 | 00 | 06 | |
| 08 | 00 | 37 | 69 | |
| 05 | 00 | 25 | 18 | |
| Balgavhan | 46 | 00 | 15 | 11 |
| 47 | 00 | 44 | 91 | |
| 51 | 00 | 75 | 10 | |
| 52 | 00 | 15 | 65 | |
| 53 | 00 | 21 | 25 | |
| 54 | 00 | 17 | 74 | |
| 56 | 00 | 00 | 08 | |
| 55 | 00 | 36 | 43 | |
| 68 | 00 | 18 | 65 | |
| 67 | 00 | 12 | 87 | |
| 72 | 00 | 07 | 29 | |
| 73 | 00 | 01 | 95 | |
| 66 | 00 | 28 | 84 | |
| 65 | 00 | 20 | 06 | |
| 64 | 00 | 27 | 16 | |
| 96 | 00 | 41 | 10 | |
| 95 | 00 | 09 | 27 | |
| 101 | 00 | 67 | 52 | |
| Kharda | 736 | 00 | 50 | 40 |
| 662 | 00 | 05 | 30 | |
| 664 | 00 | 67 | 98 | |
| 730 | 00 | 04 | 06 | |
| 731 | 00 | 26 | 31 | |
| 665 | 00 | 35 | 61 | |
| 672 | 00 | 66 | 07 | |
| 671 | 00 | 12 | 29 | |
| 670 | 00 | 57 | 57 | |
| 485 | 00 | 10 | 26 | |
| 483 | 00 | 46 | 83 | |
| 482 | 00 | 02 | 01 | |
| 484 | 00 | 13 | 59 | |
| 465 | 00 | 31 | 71 | |
| 467 | 00 | 11 | 12 | |
| 468 | 00 | 00 | 14 | |
| 466 | 00 | 13 | 09 | |
| 385 | 00 | 04 | 77 | |
| Kharda | 367 | 00 | 42 | 58 |
| 386 | 00 | 05 | 86 | |
| 366 | 00 | 19 | 10 | |
| 365 | 00 | 23 | 21 | |
| 351 | 00 | 07 | 42 | |
| 352 | 00 | 16 | 82 | |
| 347 | 00 | 97 | 95 | |
| 348 | 00 | 30 | 54 | |
| 234 | 00 | 56 | 43 | |
| 241 | 00 | 20 | 44 | |
| 255 | 00 | 66 | 85 | |
| 257 | 00 | 13 | 88 | |
| 260 | 00 | 32 | 83 | |
| 266 | 00 | 24 | 01 | |
| 268 | 00 | 18 | 72 | |
| 267 | 00 | 12 | 57 |
[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2018
dk-vk- 20-&dsUnzh ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gSa½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 1095 rkjh[k 17 tqykÃ] 2018 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= Øekad 29] rkjh[k 22 tqykà & 28 tqykà 2018 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa egkjk"Vª jkT; esa ftyk vkSjaxkckn esa rkYkqdk oStkiqj dks;yh & vgenuxj & lksykiqj isVªksfy;e ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZj'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh (
vkSj mä jkti= vf/kfu;e dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 19 flrEcj] 2018 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh (
vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu dsUæh; ljdkj dks fjiksVZ dh gS (
vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mä Hkwfe ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS (
vr% vc] dsUæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk izn~Ùk 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk, (
vkSj ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk izn~Ùk 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUæh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxh A
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbZu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUæh; ljdkj ds fo#) dksbZ okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 157 vuqlwPkh
| rglhy%&oStkiqj | ftyk%& vkSjaxkckn | jkT;%& egkjk"Vª | |||
| ekSts @xzke | losZ @ Cykd @ la- ¼IyksV la-½ | lc&Mho&la- | {ks=Qy | ||
| gsDVj | vkj | oxZ ehVj | |||
| ¼1½ | ¼2½ | ¼3½ | ¼4½ | ¼5½ | ¼6½ |
| lqjkYkk | 137 136 146 147 148 149 161 162 | 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 | 25 36 12 11 13 11 11 23 | 70 22 79 75 30 90 87 30 |
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)6/2018-ओआर-I/ई-23678]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S. O. 20.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide S.O. No. 1095 dated the 17th July, 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), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), Published in the Gazette of India, No.29 dated 22 – 28 July, 2018 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 Koyali-Ahmednagar-Solapur Pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Products in Aurangabad District in the State of Maharashtra by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 19th September, 2018;
And whereas the competent authority has under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of said act submitted report to the 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 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 right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest 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 the pipeline.
158 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]SCHEDULE
| Tehsil:- Vaijapur | District:- Aurangabad | State :- Maharashtra | |||
| Mouja / Village | Survey/Block No. | Sub-Div-No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Surala | 137 136 146 147 148 149 161 162 | 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 | 25 36 12 11 13 11 11 23 | 70 22 79 75 30 90 87 30 |
[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2018
dk-vk- 21-&dsUnzh ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gSa½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 2219 rkjh[k 14 flrEcj] 2017 tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] rkjh[k 17 flrEcj & 23 flrEcj 2017 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa egkjk"Vª jkT; esa ftyk ukfld esa rkYkqdk ;soyk dks;yh & vgenuxj & lksykiqj isVªksfy;e ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkjiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh (
vkSj mä jkti= vf/kfu;e dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 4 Qjojh 2018 rd miyC/k djk dh xbZ Fkh (
vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu dsUæh; ljdkj dks fjiksVZ dh gS (
vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mä Hkwfe ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS (
vr% vc] dsUæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk izn~Ùk 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk, (
vkSj ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk izn~Ùk 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUæh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dksiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxh A
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dksiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbZu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUæh; ljdkj ds fo#) dksbZ okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 159
vuqlwPkh
| rglhy%&;soyk | ftyk%& ukfld | jkT;%& egkjk"Vª | |||
| ekStk @xzke | losZ @ Cykd @ la- ¼ la-½ | lc&Mho&la- | {ks=Qy | ||
| ह े र | vkj | oxZ ehVj | |||
| ¼1½ | ¼2½ | ¼3½ | ¼4½ | ¼5½ | ¼6½ |
| dqlqj | 10 11@1 11@2 12 13 14@1 25@1 25@2 24 34 39 38 35 37 51@2 50 49 48 67 68 69 64 63 102@1 103 111 110 142@2 143 144 145 | 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 | 39 09 09 11 11 39 08 02 07 09 01 10 05 22 10 12 21 20 18 31 14 15 00 09 24 25 35 03 07 10 43 | 50 58 43 92 45 10 94 12 13 63 78 02 14 78 40 16 24 50 49 48 51 52 65 02 14 86 64 76 83 91 90 | |
| ¼1½ | ¼2½ | ¼3½ | ¼4½ | ¼5½ | ¼6½ |
| 146 147 148 149 151 152 153 154 155 | 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 | 14 06 03 07 02 02 02 00 00 | 38 67 44 36 97 10 58 80 51 |
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)6/2018-ओआर-I/ई-23678]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S. O. 21.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide S.O. No. 2219 dated the 14th September, 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), Published in the Gazette of India dated the 17th September-23rd September 2017, 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 Koyali-Ahmednagar-Solapur Pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Products in Taluka Yeola in Nashik District in the State of Maharashtra by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 4th February 2018;
And whereas the competent authority has under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of said act submitted report to the 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 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 right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest 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 the pipeline.
SCHEDULE
| Tehsil:- Yeola | District:- Nashik | State :- Maharashtra | |||
| Mouja / Village | Survey/Block No. | Sub-Div-No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Kusur | 10 11/1 | 00 00 | 39 09 | 50 58 | |
| 11/2 | 00 | 09 | 43 |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| 12 13 14/1 25/1 25/2 24 34 39 38 35 37 51/2 50 49 48 67 68 69 64 63 102/1 103 111 110 142/2 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 151 152 153 154 155 | 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 | 11 11 39 08 02 07 09 01 10 05 22 10 12 21 20 18 31 14 15 00 09 24 25 35 03 07 10 43 14 06 03 07 02 02 02 00 00 | 92 45 10 94 12 13 63 78 02 14 78 40 16 24 50 49 48 51 52 65 02 14 86 64 76 83 91 90 38 67 44 36 97 10 58 80 51 |
[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
162 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आआआआ.... 22222222....————कें (ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आं} प्रदेश राज्य में पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के Gियान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और कें (ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूिम में जो इस से ऊपाब(cid:127) अनुसूची में वQणत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी cक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वQणत भूमि में हितब(cid:127) है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इ~ीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में ?ी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आं} प्रदेश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेक्सी भवन, थि~ना (डायमंड पार्क ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉम्पलेक्स के पास, िवशाखापटनम - 530004, आं} प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| जिला : Gीकाकु लम राज्य : आँH प्रदेश | |||||||||
| म म ं ं म म डल का नाम ं ं | Iाम का नाम | सव सव सव सव नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||||||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||||||
(cid:1)ीकाकु लम नैरा
234/2 00 00 71
234/4 00 00 09
233/18 00 01 93
233/20 00 02 31
233/19 00 00 55
233/4 00 01 30
233/3 00 00 15
54/5 00 02 09
आमुदालावलासा दूिस
54/8 00 02 19
55/3 00 00 75
55/4 00 00 11
55/6 00 00 19
54/4 00 02 84
54/10 00 00 41
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 163
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 22.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline 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 who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) 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, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY No. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
234/2 00 00 71
234/4 00 00 09
233/18 00 01 93
233/20 00 02 31
233/19 00 00 55
233/4 00 01 30
233/3 00 00 15
AMUDALAVALASA DUSI 54/5 00 02 09
54/8 00 02 19
55/3 00 00 75
55/4 00 00 11
55/6 00 00 19
54/4 00 02 84
54/10 00 00 41
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आआआआ.... 23232323....————कें (ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आं} प्रदेश राज्य में
पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के Gियान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
164 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]और कें (ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूिम में जो इस से ऊपाब(cid:127) अनुसूची में वQणत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते %ए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी cक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वQणत भूमि में हितब(cid:127) है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इ~ीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में ?ी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आं} प्रदेश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेक्सी भवन, थि~ना (डायमंड पार्क ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉम्पलेक्स के पास, िवशाखापटनम - 530004, आं} प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| जिला : Gीकाकु लम राज्य : जिला : Gीकाकु लम राज्य : आंआंआंआंH प्रदेश जिला : Gीकाकु लम राज्य : H प्रदेश | |||||
| म म ं ं म म डल का नाम ं ं | Iाम का नाम | सव सव सव सव नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | ( (5)5)5)5) ( ( | (6) |
संताबोम्मालि अरिकावलासा 83/3 00 01 51
81/2C 00 04 72
80/4 00 00 35
80/1 00 00 47
80/7 00 00 94
67/13 00 01 86
67/11 00 00 05
68/4 00 00 47
69/2 00 04 50
70/14 00 03 97
70/5 00 00 10
70/4 00 00 30
43/7A 00 00 11
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940
165
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | ( (5)5)5)5) ( ( | (6) |
संताबोम्मालि अरिकावलासा 30/9D 00 01 58
30/7 00 01 00
30/5 00 01 88
29/3 00 00 39
16/8 00 00 72
16/7 00 00 86
16/9 00 00 73
16/5 00 01 80
5/6 00 00 48
5/4 00 00 68
5/3 00 00 11
16/13 00 09 21
17/7P 00 01 22
16/14 00 02 23
83/4 00 16 19
नरासन्नापेटा लुकालाम 290/6 00 03 89
290/5 00 00 16
288/9 00 00 12
288/3 00 00 45
286/13 00 02 34
326/2 00 01 16
326/1 00 01 15
329/2 00 02 17
329/3 00 03 08
329/4 00 05 53
343/10 00 02 54
166
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | ( (5)5)5)5) ( ( | (6) |
नरासन्नापेटा लुकालाम 343/12 00 01 03
343/6 00 00 64
344/3 00 00 24
352/18 00 00 21
352/17 00 00 15
353/18 00 02 27
353/16 00 00 60
353/17 00 00 80
355/25 00 00 32
355/24 00 00 33
355/16 00 01 40
344/1 00 02 23
343/5 00 02 03
355/18 00 00 41
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 23.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline 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 who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 167 Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) 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, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY No. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
Santa Bommali Arikavalasa 83/3 00 01 51
81/2C 00 04 72
80/4 00 00 35
80/1 00 00 47
80/7 00 00 94
67/13 00 01 86
67/11 00 00 05
68/4 00 00 47
69/2 00 04 50
70/14 00 03 97
70/5 00 00 10
70/4 00 00 30
43/7A 00 00 11
43/4 00 01 27
43/1 00 01 25
30/9D 00 01 58
30/7 00 01 00
30/5 00 01 88
29/3 00 00 39
16/8 00 00 72
16/7 00 00 86
16/9 00 00 73
16/5 00 01 80
168
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
Santa Bommali Arikavalasa 16/13 00 09 21
17/7P 00 01 22
16/14 00 02 23
83/4 00 16 19
Narasannapeta Lukalam 290/6 00 03 89
290/5 00 00 16
288/9 00 00 12
288/3 00 00 45
286/13 00 02 34
326/2 00 01 16
326/1 00 01 15
329/2 00 02 17
329/3 00 03 08
329/4 00 05 53
343/10 00 02 54
343/12 00 01 03
343/6 00 00 64
344/3 00 00 24
352/18 00 00 21
352/17 00 00 15
353/18 00 02 27
353/16 00 00 60
353/17 00 00 80
355/25 00 00 32
355/24 00 00 33
355/16 00 01 40
344/1 00 02 23
343/5 00 02 03
355/18 00 00 41
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 169(cid:1)म एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय(cid:1)म एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय(cid:1)म एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय(cid:1)म एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 24242424....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स उप महाप्रबंधक, स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया नई दिल्ली और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों
और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म
न्यायालय, नई दिल्ली -1 के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 213/2018) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को
29/11/2018 को प्राप्त <ए थे ।
[सं. एल----12011/05/2018----आईआर )डीयू( ]
राजें(cid:31) जोशी, उप िनदेशक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 24.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 213/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India New Delhi, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 29.11.2018.
[No. L-12011/05/2018-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR
COURT No.1: ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
ID No. 213/2018
Shri Kanchan Walia, B-82, 1st Floor, Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar Complex, Delhi – 110 092
…Workman
Versus
1. The Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India, DAO -1, 1st Floor, Delhi Administrative Office-1, 11 Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110001
2. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, RBO-3, 3rd Floor, Block A, Delhi Zonal Office, 11 Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110 001
…Management170 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received vide letter No.L-12011/05/2018-IR(B-I) dated 10.07.2018 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial disputes, terms of which are as under:
"Whether the action of the management of SBI, regarding punishment of 'removal from service' awarded on Smt. Kanchan Walia, Special Assistant, State Bank of India, Ghonda Branch, Delhi is just, fair and proper? If not, whether she is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service ? ''
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Smt. Kanchan Walia, the workman, opted not to file her claim statement with the Tribunal.
3. Further, on receipt of the above reference, notice was also sent to the workman as well as the management.
Neither the postal article, referred above, was received back undelivered nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected during the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the workman. Despite service of the notice, the workman opted to abstain from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on her behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither put in her appearance nor has she led any evidence so as to prove her cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a 'No Dispute/Claim' award.
However, it will not debar the claimant from seeking relief afresh as there is no adjudication of the reference on merits.
An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : November 28, 2018
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 25252525....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स महािनदेशक, सीपीडब्ल्यूडी कार्यालय नई दिल्ली, और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों और
उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय,
नई दिल्ली -1 के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 122/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 17.12.18 को प्राप्त <ए थे ।
[सं. एल----42011/85/2013----आईआर )डीयू( ]
राजें(cid:31) जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 25.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.122/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court -1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director General, CPWD Office New Delhi , & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 17.12.18.
[No. L-42011/85/2013-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 171
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT No. 1: ROOM No. 511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
ID No.122/2013
Smt. Tara Devi W/o Late Shri Prem Nath Manjhi, through All India Central PWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.), House No.4823, Gali No.13, Balbir Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032
…Workman
Versus
The Director General (Works), Central Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 001
The Executive Engineer, CD – IV, CPWD, IARI, Pusa, New Delhi
…Management
AWARD
A reference was received from Ministry of Labour and Employment vide Order No.L-42011/85/2013-IR(DU) dated 04.09.2013/06.09.2013 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
'Whether the demand of the union to regularize the services of the deceased workman late Shri Prem Nath Manjhi from the same date from which his juniors have been granted regularization and release of consequential benefits including, pension and other retirement benefits as per the rules applicable to regular workmen is legal and unjustified? To what relief the widow/legal heir of the deceased workman are entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect?'
2. Claim statement was filed by Ms. Tara Devi, W/o late Shri Prem Nath Manjhi (in short the claimant ) wherein it is averred that late Shri Prem Nath Manjhi (in short the late workman) was initially appointed as beldar on 16.08.1988 on muster roll. He expired on 27.04.2008 after have put in 19 years and 8 months of regular service on muster roll. Management had granted temporary status to the late workman with effect from 01.09.1993. As per the temporary status scheme 50% service on muster roll is to be counted for pensionary benefits after regularization. As per the provisions of CPWD manual and scheme of temporary status, the late workman was entitled for regularization of service after completion of 2 years continuous service from date of his initial date of appointment on hand receipt. In spite of having sufficient sanctioned vacant posts of beldars during the service of the late claimant, the late workman was not regularized against the said post though juniors to him were regularized with effect from 27.11.2001 and 05.08.2002. Services of the claimant were regularized on 11.12.2006 under one time relaxation scheme framed by the Department and which was available to those workmen who have completed more than 10 years of regular service in the Department on the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Though the management has made payment of gratuity to the wife of the late workman on account of his death yet she has not been granted pensionary benefits. Denial of regularization to the late workman from the date when junior to him were regularized, amounts to unfair labour practice and discrimination. The late workman was a member of the Sangathan and the claimant, his widow, has consented for taking up the case of her late husband. Finally, it has been prayed that the late workman may be regularized from the date when his juniors were regularized and for grant of terminal and pensionary benefits to the claimant.
3. Claim was demurred by the management by taking various preliminary objections, inter alia of the absence of an industrial dispute, concealment of material facts etc. On merits, it has been stated that the juniors to the late workman, i.e. Shri Randhir Singh, Shri Ram Prasad Tiwari and Shri Kalu Ram were regularized as per directions of CAT, Principal bench, New Delhi. The management has denied the other material averments contained in the statement of claim. Finally, it has been prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
4. Against this factual background, my learned predecessor on the basis of pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 16.01.2014, noted that no other issue than the one referred or adjudication by the appropriate Government is made out. Thereafter, the case was listed for evidence of the claimant. The claimant, in order to prove her case against the management, examined herself as WW1 and tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.WW1/A. She also relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/5. However, during the course of her cross examination, settlement was tried between the parties and finally it was stated by the management that a new order of DOPT regarding grant of pension has been issued and the case of the claimant was stated to be duly covered under said order. Management also filed letter dated 06.01.2018 Ex.P-1 wherein the services of the claimant have been regularized on the post of beldar in the scale of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.1600 with effect from 11.12.2006 vide order No.10 (1)/SE-Circle (Electrical)/E- 4/2038 dated 11.09.2011.
172 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]5. As a sequel to my above discussions, it is held that since late Shri Prem Nath Manjhi has been regularized with effect from 11.12.2006, the same date from which his juniors have been granted regularization, management is directed to release all consequential benefits including pension and other retirement benefits as per the rules applicable to regular workmen. It is further held that widow/legal heirs is entitled to the retirral benefits of her late husband. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 26262626.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
मैसर्स भारती एयरटेल स@वसेज लिमिटेड और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के
बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय, 1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट
(संदर्भ संख्या 63/2016) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 31.10.2018 को प्राप्त <ए थे ।
[सं. एल----40011/47/2015-आईआर )डीयू( ]
राजें(cid:31) जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 26.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 63/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s. Bharti Airtal Services Ltd. , and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 31.10.2018.
[No. L-40011/47/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT No. 1: ROOM No. 511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
ID No.63/2016
Shri Ramesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ganga Prasad Yadav, through Samast Delhi Karamchari Union (Regd.), Affiliated to Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, 52C, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 3, New Delhi - 110 020
…Workman
Versus
1. M/s. Bharti Airtel Services Ltd.,
234, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase 3, New Delhi 110020
2. The Managing Director,
M/s. Johnsons Control (I) Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, Plot No.A4 & A5, Logix Soft Tel Pvt. Ltd. Building, Sector 16, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh
3. The Managing Director,
M/s. ACE Facility Management Pvt. Ltd., HR/36/2, 60 Ft. Road, Pul Prahaladpur, New Delhi – 110 044
…Managements[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 173
AWARD
A reference was received from Ministry of Labour and Employment vide Order No.L-40011/47/2015-IR(DU) dated 07.01.2016/13.01.2016 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
'Whether the claim of the workman Shri Ramesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ganga Prasad Yadav for regularization of his service with the managements of Bharti Airtel Limited alongwith the payment of all legal dues is legal and justified and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?'
2. Shri Ramesh Kumar Yadav filed his statement of claim stating that he was employed by M/s Bharti Airtel Limited in their parking as Driver/Parking Boy on 01.12.2006 where he worked with dedication and sincerity. He was working under the direct control and supervision of M/s Bharti Airtel Limited continuously till 2011. Later on, without any notice to the claimant he was placed on pay rolls of various contractors. On objecting to this practice, the claimant was threatened to be thrown out and also informed that only his salary would be paid through contractor. M/s ACE Facility management Pvt. Ltd. took 12 hours of job at a monthly wage of Rs.10,081.00 deprived his of various leaves, bonus etc. which clearly amounts to unfair labour practice. A complaint was also filed before this Tribunal for payment of the dues etc. Initially, the principal employer, M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. was paying salary, overtime, yearly leaves, bonus etc. In 2011, without the notice of the claimant, he was being paid his salary through the contractor. Demand notice was also sent to the management in this regard on 16.04.2014 and 15.07.2014. However, no response was received from the management. Finally, it has been prayed that the claimant may be regularized with all consequential benefits.
2. Claim was resisted by M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. taking various preliminary objections, inter alia of approaching the court with unclean hands, facts being distorted, non-espousal, concealment of facts etc. On merits, it is admitted that the management had engaged the services of M/s CBRE South Asia Private Ltd. (earlier known as M/s Johnsons Controls India Pvt. Ltd. ) for certain permissible services rendered by it and have no nexus with the workforce of CBRE South Asia Pvt. Ltd. M/s Bharti Airtel has denied the material averments contained in the statement of claim.
3. No reply was filed by M/s Johnsons Control (I) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s ACE Facility Management Pvt. Ltd., who were proceeded ex-parte on 05.01.2017.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 04.07.2017 :
(i) Whether there is no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited management No.1?
(ii) Where is no espousal of the case, as alleged by the management? (iii) In terms of reference
5. Thereafter, the case was listed for evidence of the claimant and the case was listed on 24.10.2018. In the meanwhile, parties stated that they have settled the matter amicably and there remains no occasion to adjudicate the issues referred above.
7. Claimant made a statement to the effect that he is willing to accept Rs.2,40,000.00 from M/s ACE Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. towards full and final settlement of his claim for reinstatement in service, other benefits etc., if any. Now, the claimant does not have any surviving dispute with any of the managements and the matter has been disposed of amicably between the parties. Statement of the claimant has been separately recorded. The receipt of full and final settlement, Ex.C-I, shall form integral part of the award. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.
Dated : October 29, 2018
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 27272727....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
मैसर्स भारती एयरटेल स@वसेज लिमिटेड और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के
बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट
(संदर्भ संख्या 268/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 31.10.2018 को प्राप्त <ए थे ।
[सं. एल----42025/03/2018----आईआर )डीयू( ]
राजें(cid:31) जोशी, उप िनदेशक174 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 27.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.268/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the M/s. Bharti Airtal Services Ltd., and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 31.10.2018.
[No. L-42025/03/2018-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT No. 1: ROOM No . 511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
ID No.268/2017
Shri Nagendra Kumar, through General Mazdoor Union, B-89, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi – 110049
…Workman
Versus
Bharti Airtel Services Ltd., Through, The Director, Plot No.234, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III, New Delhi 110020
…Management
AWARD
Present dispute has been raised by Shri Nagendra Prasad (in short the workman) under the provisions of sub- section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired from the date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act empowers him to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His contention stands substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been given a right by the Act to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of her service, without a dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Since dispute was within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section 2- A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.
2. Claim was filed by the claimant that he was working as Technician with M/s Bharti Airtel Services Limited since 01.05.2008. His last drawn wages was Rs.24,535.00 per month. He was given a glorified designation of Officer S- 4 though he has not powers of officer, to sign cheques, to appoint or remove anyone. Prior to appointing the claimant, management took trade test as well as interview. During the interview, it was specifically informed to the claimant that he would be placed in Delhi. Management was adopting unfair labour practice such as changing service conditions like changing permanent employees to contact employee status, forcing permanent employees to resign from job etc. In July 2016, management pressurized the claimant to resign. Since he refused to do so, management threatened to post him to a faraway place, though his appointment letter does not contain any transfer clause. However, with intention to harass the claimant, transfer order was sent to him through e-mail. On 09.08.2016 when the claimant reported for duties he was given a transfer letter with instructions to report at Dimapur. Demand notice was sent to the management on 10.08.2016 to allow him to continue his duties at Delhi but the management did not heed to his request. On 16.08.2016, the claimant performed his duties at Delhi. On 17.08.2016 when the claimant reported for duties, he was informed by the Security Guard that there is an order from the management to not to allow him to enter the company premises. On contacting the management personnel, the claimant was informed that his name has been struck off from the rolls of the company at Delhi and that he should report at Dimapur. The above acts of the management is illegal, malafide and amounts to victimization. Finally, it has been prayed that the transfer order be termed illegal and direct the management to take the claimant back at Delhi.
3. Written statement was filed by the management wherein various preliminary objections, inter alia that the relief sought is beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, transfer of an employee being inherent right of an employer, non espousal etc. The management has denied the material averments contained in the statement of claim
4. From the records, it emerged that in fact the case of the claimant it that of his transfer from Delhi to Dimapur. The case has been wrongly registered under 2-A of the Act as it is not a case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment of otherwise termination of the service of the claimant. Concededly, provisions of Section 2-A can be pressed into service[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 175 only when the service of a workman is terminated or he is discharged/dismissed or retrenched from service. Section 2-A cannot be availed in case of transfer of a workman. Statement of Shri Mohan Nair, A/R for the claimant has been recorded separately that he neither wants to prosecute his claim nor does he want to lead any evidence in support of his claim. Hence, the claim petition is, hereby, dismissed. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let it be sent for publication as required under section 17 of the Act.
Dated : October 29, 2018
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 28282828....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
प्रशासनिक अधिकारी, अखिल भारतीय आयु@वCान संस्थान एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों और उनके
कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय, 1
नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 76/2016) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 29.11.2018 को प्राप्त <ए थे ।
[सं. एल----42012/221/2015---- आईआर )डीयू( ]
राजें(cid:31) जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 28.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.76/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Administrative Officer, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 29.11.2018.
[No. L-42012/221/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT No. 1: ROOM No. 511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
ID No.76/2016
Shri Vidya Nand Sharma S/o late Shri Uday Narain Sharma, R/o F-48, Lado Sarai, New Delhi 110 030
…Workman
Versus
(i) The Administrative Officer,
All India Institute of Medical Sciences Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110 029
(ii) M/s. Sulabh International Social Service Organization,
Sulabh Bhawan, Mahavir Enclave, RZ-83, Palam – Dabri Road, New Delhi – 110 045
…Managements
AWARD
A reference was received from Central Government under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act), by this Tribunal, vide letter No.L-42012/221/2015- IR(DU) dated 04.01.2016, for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
"Whether the claim of the workman Shri Vidya Nand Sharma S/o late Uday Narain Sharma to be reinstated in service on the roll of AIIMS with effect from 20.09.2009 with consequential benefits i.e. DA, HRA, etc. as176 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] admissible to the regular employees of cafeteria in AIIMS is legal and justified and if so what relief the workman is entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect?''
2. Shri Vidya Nand Sharma, the claimant, filed his statement of claim wherein it is averred that he was orally appointed by the General Manager, Cafeteria All India Institute of Medical Sciences, alongwith various other employees. No appointment letter was issued by the management. All of a sudden, without any notice or memorandum claimant was removed from service. Nature of the duty of the claimant is on regular basis with effect from 25.01.2008 as an Assistant Manager cum Storekeeper continuously without any technical break. Hence, the claimant is entitled for the regular pay scale as the work carried/performed is regular nature, which is being performed by other cafeteria employees of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, i.e. pay scale of Rs.5200 + 20,200 + 2400 with grade pay of Rs.2400. Claimant has averred that he is also entitled for dearness allowance, house rent, CCA, patient care allowance, leave benefits etc. equal to the similarly placed employees with effect from February'08. Finally it has been prayed that the claimant may be extended the above benefits as holding the post of Assistant Manager.
3. Reply was filed on behalf of M/s Sulabh International Social Service Organization averring that the complaint is not maintainable nor fit to be taken cognizance of. Initially complaint was against All India Institute of Medical Sciences but subsequently M/s Sulabh International Social Service Organization was added as one of the contesting management. During the conciliation, it was specifically conceded by the claimant before the Ld. Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) that he has no grievance or dispute against M/s Sulabh International Social Service Organization. Hence, the instant complaint is fit to be rejected.
3. Initially despite affording of several opportunities, All India Institute of Medical Sciences failed to file their written statement and hence were proceeded ex-parte, which was later on recalled on an application filed by them. Written statement was filed on behalf of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, taking various preliminary objections of the claim being illegal, invalid and unsustainable, the claimant never being appointed by AIIMS. Earlier the claimant had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the matter was compromised between the parties by payment of Rs. 6 lakh. Thereafter the claimant filed an application under Section 20(i) of Minimum Wages Act in which a claim of Rs.3,70,590.00 was made and the said application was disposed of by the Ld. Judge Evening Court No.2, Patiala House Court vide order dated 21.08.2015. Hence the case is hit by principle of res-judicata, estoppel and laches. Finally, it is prayed that the claim petition may be dismissed.
4. Thereafter, case was listed for filing of rejoinder. In the meanwhile, it was brought to the notice of this Tribunal that the claimant has since expired. It is pertinent to mention here that the claimant was fighting the case himself and no legal heir has come forward to pursue the case. In such circumstances, this Tribunal is left with no alternative but to pass a 'no dispute' award. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : November 26, 2018
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 29292929....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
प्रबंधन, कें (cid:31)ीय बोर्ड ऑफ सिचाई और पावर का प्रबंधन एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों और उनके
कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय 1,
नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 101/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 29.11.2018 को प्राप्त <ए थे ।
[सं. एल----42012/07/2015----आईआर )डीयू( ]
राजें(cid:31) जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 29.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.101/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Managrment of Central Board Of Irrigation & Power, & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 29.11.2018.
[No. L-42012/07/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 177
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
ID No. 101/2015
Shri Mohan Lal, S/o. Late Shri Prabhu Dayal, through Shri Vinay Kumar Chamber No.B-93, BGS Block, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 110054
…Workman/Claiman
Versus
1. The Management of Central Board of Irrigation & Power, Through its Secretary, Malcha Marg, Chankyapuri, New Delhi.
2. Ministry of Water Resoures, New Delhi -110001.
…….Management
AWARD
This Award shall dispose of a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide letter No. L-42012/07/2015-IR(DU) dated 05.03.2015 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:—
'Whether the termination of Shri Mohan Lal s/o. Shri Prabhu Dayal, who was appointed by the management of Central Board of Irrigation & Power as Mali (attendant) on 23.3.2006 after the death of his father considering the request of appointment on compassionate grounds w.e.f. 1.5.2007 is illegal and unjustified and if so, what relief is the claimant to and what directions are necessary in this respect ?'
2. Both parties were put to notice and the claimant. The claimant Mohan Lal filed his statement of claim, with the averments that his father Shri Prabhu Lal was appointed by the Management on the post of Mali vide appointment letter dated 10/2/1982 and was a permanent employee. His father expired on 24/1/2005 due to heart-attack while on duty. After the death of Shri Prabhu Dayal, his son Mohan Lal through his mother Smt. Ram Pyari moved an application dated 12/4/2005 for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Management duly considered the said application & the claimant Mohan Lal was appointed as Attendant/Maali vide office order dated 12/10/2006 on temporary basis, initially for six months which period was extended time and again. It has been pleaded that the claimant had uninterrupted and unblemished service record to his credit. In the month of March,2007 instead of confirming the workman/claimant or giving him further extension, the Management started compelling him to work through contractor and when he refused to mark his attendance through the contractor, he was not being allowed by the Management to enter into the premises and even his salary for the month of April, 2007 was withheld. Ultimately services of the workman were terminated illegally by the Management w.e.f. 1/5/2007 without following the principle of natural justice, though he was working on a job of regular and permanent nature, which is continuing with the Management. A civil suit bearing CS No.786/13 was filed by the workman wherein liberty was granted to the workman vide order dated 10/9/2013 to approach the Labour Court against illegal termination. The workman is totally unemployed since his termination. As such action of the management in terminating the services of the workman amounts to unfair labour practice inasmuch as no notice or notice pay was given to him at the time of termination of his services. Prayer has been made for reinstatement of the workman into service with full back wages alongwith all consequential benefits.
3. The claim petition has been resisted by the Management No.1 who filed its written statement and took preliminary objections that the claim petition before this Tribunal is not maintainable as the Management No.1 is not an instrumentality of State or Central Government. There never existed any employer-employee relationship between the parties and that the claimant has not worked for 240 days in a calendar year and as such the claimant has no locus standi to file the present claim petition.. While denying the allegations of the claimant that his father Shri Prabhu Dayal was permanent employee of the Management, it has been alleged that father of the claimant was appointed we..f. 10/2/1983 only for six months but date of his death is not in the knowledge of the Management. It has been denied that the father of claimant namely Shri Prabhu Dayal was a permanent employee of the Management and that claimant could never be appointed against the permanent post. There was no permanent post of Maali in the establishment of the Management and accordingly, the claimant was engaged only on temporary basis for six months at a consolidated salary of Rs.4000/- per month. It has been denied that the salary for the month of April, 2017 has not been given to the claimant. Since the claimant was never a regular employee, as such question of termination of his services on any date did not arise. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. The claimant/workman filed rejoinder wherein he denied all the allegations made by the Management and reiterated his own case as set up in the claim petition.
178 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 10/3/2016 :-
i) Whether this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction/authority to decide the matter as alleged ?
ii) As in terms of reference ?
6. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as W.W.1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A alongwith documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/14.
7. On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined one Shri P.P. Wahi, Director (IT) as MW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A alongwith documents Ex.MW1/1.
8. I have carefully gone through the evidence adduced on record by both the parties and have give my thoughtful consideration to rival contentions of the parties counsel.
Issue No.1 :—
9. Learned A/R for the Management No.1 vehementally argued that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition since the Management No.1 -Board viz. Central Board of Irrigation & Power is not an instrumentality of State or Central Government rather it is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. She submitted that Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 18/9/2013 in W.P.() No.334/1998 and others writ petitions filed by the workers of the Management has held that the Board/Management No.1 is not an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as the said Board is not performing public functions/public duties. As such, the reference is not legally maintainable.
10. Per-contra, learned A/R for the workman submitted that this Tribunal has all powers to adjudicate and decide the Reference which has been made by the Appropriate Government under the provisions of the Act and moreso the Management –Board being a registered Society is an "industry" as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act.
11. The workman/claimant was admittedly engaged by the Management No.1 – may be on temporary basis, on the job of Maali (Attendant) and this fact is also borne out from the documents Ex. Ex.WW1/6 (offer of appointment) and Ex.WW1/7 (letter of appointment) issued by the Management No.1. As such, the claimant is a workman, within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. It is noteable that the definition of "workman does" not make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours in not a workman. Reference may be made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Davinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council Sanaur, AIR 2011 (SC 2532).
12. Just because the Management No.1-Board is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, it will be improper to say that it is not an "industry". I may mention that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewage Board Vs. A. Rajappa AIR 1978 SC 548 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression "industry" as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act and held as under :—
"(a) Where a complex of activities, some of which qualify for exemption, other not involves employees on the total undertaking some of whom are not "workman" as in the University of Delhi case (supra) or some departments are not productive of goods and services, if isolated, even then the predominant nature of the services and integrated nature of the departments as explained in the Corporation of Nagpur (supra) will be the true test. The whole undertaking will be "industry" although those who are not "workmen" by definition may not benefit by the statue.
(b) Notwithstanding the previous clauses, sovereign functions strictly understood (alone) qualify for exemption, not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by the Government or Statutory bodies.
( c) Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries and they are substantially severable, they can be considered to come within Section 2(j).
(d) Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may well remove from the scope of the Act, categories which otherwise may be covered thereby
(e) We overrule Safdarjung (supra), Solicitors' case(supra),Gymkhana (supra, Delhi University (supra) Dhanrajgiri Hospital (supra) and other ruling whose ratio run counter to the principles enunciated above and Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (supra) is hereby rehabilitated.''
13. In view of the law enunciated by the Apex Court, as discussed above, I am of the considered view that Management No.1-Board is an "industry" within the definition of Section 2(j) of the Act qua the claimant/workman who was simply working as Maali (Attendant).
14. I may mention that since Delhi is a Union Territory, the reference for adjudication of Industrial Dispute can be made either by the Central Government or by the State Government in terms of Rule 2(f) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. To this view I am fortified with the decision in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Union of India, 2007 (113) FLR 770. Furthermore, the nomenclature of the Management No.1 viz. Central Board of Irrigation & Power (CBIP) is such that even a prudent man may think it is an institution of the Government. A "workman" doing a mineal job is not expected to exactly know the intracacies about the constitution of the Management Board or to exactly know as[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 179 to whether it is simply a Society under the Societies Registration Act or the department/establishment of the Government. It is a matter of record that in the civil suit filed by the claimant herein, the Management had taken a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the civil suit and the said suit was disposed by learned Civil Judge, granting liberty to the claimant to approach the Labour Court. Thereafter the claimant had approached the Conciliation Officer and the proceedings before the said forum culminated into the present reference. Law is well settled that when a reference has been received by the Industrial Tribunal from the Appropriate Government, it has to decide such a reference on merits. The Tribunal can not go into the validity of the reference. Furthermore, in the instant case, the Management No.2 viz. Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. of India, New Delhi has also been impleaded as a party to the claim petition and the said Ministry is functioning under Government of India.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion coupled with the fact that the claimant is "workman" & the Management is an "industry" within the definitions as provided in the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the present reference having been made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government is legally maintainable and that this Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide the matter in accordance with law. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the claimant and against the Management No.1.
Issue No.2 :—
16. From the pleading of the parties and evidence adduced on record, particularly the documents Ex.WW1/6 (offer of appointment) and Ex.WW1/7 (letter of appointment) issued by the Management No.1, it is evident that the claimant Miohan Lal was appointed by Management No.1 purely on temporary basis as Attendant (Mali) for a period of six months w.e.f. 29/9/2006 to 28/3/2017 on a consolidated salary of Rs.4000/- per month, with reference to his application dated 22/3/2006 for employment on compassionate grounds after the death of his father Shri Prabhu Dayal. It was stipulated in the said Offer of appointment (Ex.WW1/6) that the appointment is on purely temporary basis for a period of 6 months initially. Further extension may be considered subject to satisfactory performance and pursuant thereto, appointment letter Ex. WW1/7 was issued. Ex.WW1/8 is the copy of the identity card of Shri Prabhu Dayal showing that he was working as Head Mali with the Management No.1 prior to his death. The said identity card has been issued on 1/4/2004 and was valid upto 31/8/2017. Ex.WW1/10 is the copy of pay slip of the said Shri Prabhu Dayal for the month of November, 2004. In the light of documents Ex.WW1/8 & Ex.WW1/0, it does not lie in the mouth of the Management No.1 to allege that Shri Prabhu Dayal – father of the claimant was not its permanent employee and that the claimant could never be appointed on compassionate ground. Factum of death of Shri Prabhu Dayal on 24/1/2005 is proved from the death certificate Ex.WW1/9. Undisputedly the claimant started working with the Management w.e.f. 29/9/2016 though appointment letter Ex.WW1/7 was issued on 12/10/2006 for a period of six months upto 28/3/2017. MW1 PP Wahi – witness of the Management stated in his cross examination that the claimant worked with the Management from 12/10/2006 to March, 2007. The claimant has specifically pleaded and deposed in his affidavit Ex.WW1/ A that in the month of March, 2007 instead of confirming or giving him further extension, the Management started compelling him to work through contractor and the Management also did not allow him to mark his attendance and even his salary for the month of April, 2007 was withheld. Ultimately his services were terminated illegally by the Management w.e.f. 1/5/2007 without following the principle of natural justice, though he was working on a job of regular and permanent nature, which is continuing with the Management.
17. Even if version of the claimant is accepted in toto, it can be summerised that the workman/claimant worked with the Management only for a limited period i.e. from 29/9/2006 to 30/4/2007. Thus, it is very much evident that the claimant had not at all rendered continuous service of 240 days in any calendar year or in preceding 12 months from the date of his disengagement/ alleged illegal termination/retrenchment on 1/5/2007 As such, provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are at all not attracted in this case.
18. It is undisputed fact that the workman was working as Attendant/Maali with the Management. MW1 Shri PP Wahi has admitted in his cross examination that at present they have engaged an attendant through Private Contractor which shows that the job of the claimant to which was working was/is of a regular and perennial nature. The Management has not adduced any evidence on record to show that his services were discontinued either as a punishment inflicted upon him or due to unsatisfactory performance of the claimant. As such, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that non-engagement of the claimant with effect from 1/5/2007 amounts to retrenchment.
19. Although the workman was working on daily wage basis and had not completed 240 days in any calendar year prior to his disengagement/ retrenchment on 1/5/2007, yet it was imperative upon the Management to comply with the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act i.e. to say to apply the principle of "last in, first out/go" (LIFO method) while retrenching/terminating the services of the workmen concerned. For the purpose of applying the aforesaid principle as required under Section 25-G of the Act, the Management was required to maintain a list of all such workers whether employed on a daily wage basis or otherwise for short periods of time, so as to ascertain as to who (workman) was/is required to be retrenched first and so on if circumstances so warrant. It is evident from the testimony of MW1 PP Wahi that at present the Management has engaged an attendant through Private Contractor. This shows that the Management retrenched the services of the workman/claimant in violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act. As such, the action of the Management in terminating/retrenching the services of workman w.e.f. 1/5/2007 can not held to be legal and justified.
20. Now the crucial question for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back wages and/or reinstatement of service. The claimant in the pleading as well as in his testimony has stated that he is unemployed since after his termination. The Management has not adduced any evidence to show that the claimant is gainfully employed somewhere else or that he is in a position to make his both ends meet by doing any work. Even if it180 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
is assumed that the claimant is doing some intermittent or adhoc work to make his both ends meet, that would not itself
amount to gainful employment. But at the same time this Tribunal can not ignore the fact that the workman was
just working on casual/temporary basis as Attendant/Maali and has worked with the Management only for about
six months or so. Latest trend itself discernable from the various pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Apex
Court is that when a person has been engaged on daily wage basis or for doing temporary kinds of work, in that
situation full back wages are not to be awarded. There are number of factors which are required to be
considered by the Tribunal while considering the question of reinstatement with back wages.
21. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter reported as Jaipur Development Authority Versus Ramasahai, (2006) 11 SCC 684 observed as under :-
"However, even assuming that there had been a violation of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, but the same by itself, in our opinion, would not mean that the Labour Court should have passed an award of reinstatement with entire back wages. This Court time and again has held that the jurisdiction under Section 11-A must be exercised judiciously. The workman must be employed by State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, having regard to the doctrine of public employment. It is also required to recruit employees in terms of the provisions of the rules for recruitment framed by it. The respondent had not regularly served the appellant. The job was not of perennial nature. There was nothing to show that he, when his services were terminated, any person who was junior to him in the same category, had been retained. His services were dispensed with as early as in 1987. It would not be proper to direct his reinstatement with back wages We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if instead and in place of reinstatement of his services, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- is awarded to be respondent by way of compensation as has been done by this Court in a number of its judgements.."……
22. It has been held in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 as under :-
" Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. An order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly daily wages has not been found to be proper by the Supreme Court and instead compensation has been awarded. The Supreme Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal, because of non payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation.''
23. Having regard to the recent judicial trends and duration of service rendered by the claimant, an amount of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh) appears to be just and reasonable, and the same is payable to the claimant herein by the Management. In case this compensation amount is not paid within two months from the date of publication of this Award, then the claimant will be entitled to recover the same alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till realization. Award is passed accordingly.
Dated :28.11.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 30303030....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
प्रबंधन, मैसर्स एडीईसीसीओ इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों और उनके
कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय, 1
नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 144/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 29/11/2018 को प्राप्त <ए थे।
[सं. एल----42012/118/2015----आईआर )डीयू( ]
राजें(cid:31) जोशी, उप िनदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 181
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 30.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.144/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Managrment, M/s. ADECCO Indian Pvt. Ltd., and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 29.11.2018.
[No. L-42012/118/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
ID No. 144/2015
Shri Vishwa Mohan Das S/o. Shri Vishwa Nandan Das, A-92, Okha Phase II, New Delhi 110020.
… Workman/Claimant
Versus
1. The Management M/s. ADECCO Indian Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.11, G Block, Hauz Khas Market, 3rd Floor, New Delhi 110016.
2. The Management, M/s. Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. (MTS), A-194, Oklhla Phase-I, New Delhi 110020.
…Management
AWARD
This award shall dispose of a reference which was made to this Tribunal vide letter No. L-42012/118/2015- IR(DU) dated 17.06.2015 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under :—
'Whether the services of the workman Shri Vishwa Mohan Das s/o. Shri Vishwa Nandan Das has been terminated illegally and.or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is the workman entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?'
2. Parties to the dispute were put to notice and the claimant/workman, Vishwa Mohan Das filed his statement of claim, with the averments that the workman was working as Marketing Boy with the Management w.e.f. 15/11/2013 and his last drawn wages were Rs.10500/-. He was working with honesty and sincerity, He was appointed for one year as per agreement but his services without any notice or charge-sheet were terminated illegally by the Management on 18/1/2014. Claimant is entitled for wages of 10 months as per agreement. A demand letter dated 20/3/2014 was sent by him to the Management but to no response. Then he approached the Conciliation Officer but to no avail. It has been alleged that the Management had got his signatures on blank papers in illegal manner. It has been stated that the workman is unemployed and has no source of income since the date of his illegal termination, though he made efforts to find out the job. Prayer has been made for reinstatement into service with full back wages and all facilities w.e.f. 18/1/2014.
3. Management No.1 M/s Adecco India Pvt. Ltd. resisted the claim of the claimant and filed written statement mainly on the grounds that workman was selected for the post of Enterprise-DST on fixed term contract and he was deputed with the Management No.2 and after joining on 15/11/2013, the workman worked till16/1/2014, though contract period was one year only. The Management No.1 issued a letter dated 22/1/2014 to the workman for not attending his duties and abandonment of job. Services of the workman were never terminated and he had not worked for 240 days and as such he had not attained the status of a regular employee nor had derived any status or lien to the said post. The Management No.1 had paid amount of Rs.5027/- through ECS transfer is his bank account for the period of services rendered by the claimant. This is a case of abandonment of services by the claimant himself and as such the claim petition is not maintainable. Prayer has been made for dismissal of claim petition.
4. Management No.2 also resisted the claim of the claimant and it has stated in the written statement that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the Management No.2 and the claimant, as he was the employee of Management No.1 with whom there was a contact by Management No.2 for deploying the employees at the182 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] establishment of Management No.2 The claim petition is wrong and false and liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merits
5. The claimant filed rejoinder wherein he denied all the allegations as made in the written statements and reiterated his own case as set up in the claim petition.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 30/5/2016 :-
1. Whether the claim petition /reference is not maintainable against Management No.2 and there is no relationship of employer & employee between the Management and the workman ?
2. As in terms of reference ?
7. The Claimant/workman in support of his case examined himself as W.W.1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A alongwith documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/5. On the other hand, Management No.2 examined one Shri P.L.Saini as M2W1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.M2W1/A and relied on documents Ex.M2W1/1 to Ex.M2W1/6. However, Management No.1 did not examine any witness and the case was proceeded ex parte against it vide order dated 16/5/2018.
8. I have heard authorised representatives of the claimant as well as of Management No.2 and have gone through the records carefully. My findings on the above issues are as follows
Issue No. 1.:
9 The testimony of the workman vide his affidavit Ex.WW1/A is in line and in conformity with the averments made in the claim petition. Neither in his pleadings nor in the affidavit Ex.WW1/A, the claimant has clearly mentioned as to who was his employer. He has vaguely stated that he was working as Marketing Boy with the Management w.e.f. 15/11/2013 and his services were illegally terminated by the Management on 18/1/2014. However, he admitted in his cross examination that he was appointed by M/s Adecco Flexion Workforce Solutions Pvt.Ltd. and he never protested against the terms & conditions of his letter of appointment Ex.WW1/1. He was paid an amount of Rs.9382/- per month by M/s. Adecco Flexion Workforce Solutions Pvt.Ltd. as wages. Ex.WW1/M-2 and M-3 are the salary slips issued by Adecco Flexion Workforce Solutions Pvt.Ltd.. He also admitted that there was no relationship of employer and employee between Management No.2 and himself.
10. It is worthwhile to mention here that there can not be two employers of a workman. Since the appointing authority as well as paying authority of the workman/claimant was Management No.1 - M/s Adecco Flexion Workforce Solutions Pvt. Ltd., it stands proved on record that there was no relationship of employer and employee between Management No.2 and the workman./claimant. As such, the claim petition against Management No.2 is not maintainable. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the claimant.
Issue No.2 :
11. Now the crucial question arises for consideration is whether the services of the claimant were illegally terminated by the Management No.1 as alleged by the claimant,, or whether the claimant had himself abandoned the services, as alleged by the Management No.1. WW1/1 is the letter of appointment dated 15/11/20113 issued by Management No.1 wherein it has been stipulated that the term of employment of the workman/claimant was for a period of twelve months from the date of his joining and that the contract was terminable by either party giving 15 (fifteen) days' notice in writing or salary in lieu of notice to the other party. The claimant has specifically stated that his services were illegally terminated by the Management on 18/01/2014 without any notice or charge-sheet. In cross examination he denied the suggestion that he was issued a letter dated 22/1/2014 by Management No.1 that he was absconding from duties.
12. The Management No.1 has not led any evidence to show that it was the claimant who himself had absconded from duties. Though it has been alleged in the pleadings that the Management NO.1 had duly issued a letter dated 22/1/2014 to the workman for not attending his duties and abandonment of job, however no such letter has been filed or proved on record by the Management No.1. Even no witness has been examined by the Management No.1 to prove its case. As such, the version of the claimant that his services were illegally terminated by the Management on 18/1/2014 without any notice or charge-sheet is accepted. There is nothing on record to suggest that Management No.1 had paid retrenchment benefits to the claimant in terms of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
13. There is long line of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the Management Bank to be illegal and void under the law.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 18314. Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the Management to the workman at the time of termination or in lieu of such notice, any compensation was paid to him, as such action of the Management No.1 in terminating the services of the workman is held to be illegal and void.
RELIEF :
15. Now the residual question arises for consideration is as to what relief the claimant is entitled to. As discussed above, It has been proved on record that claimant worked with the Management No.1 only for two months ie. from 15/11/2013 to 16/1/2014. There is no show cause notice or memo issued to the claimant/workman by the Management No.1 though it was also stipulated in the letter of appointment Ex.WW1/1 issued by Management No.1 and was binding on it. There is nothing on record to suggest that job of the claimant was on permanent basis or that he was given any regular post by the Management No.1. There are number of factors which are required to be considered by the Tribunal while considering the question of reinstatement with back wages. It has been held in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 as under :-
"Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. An order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly daily wages has not been found to be proper by the Supreme Court and instead compensation has been awarded. The Supreme Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal, because of non payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation.''
15. Having regard to the recent judicial trends and duration of service rendered by the claimant, an amount of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh) appear to be just and reasonable, and the same is payable to the claimant herein by the Management No.1. Award is passed accordingly.
Date : 28.11.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 31313131....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947(1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स आयुक्त, नगर निगम दिल्ली और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच
अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय, 1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट
(संदर्भ संख्या 182/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 19.11.2018 को प्राप्त <ए थे ।
[सं. एल----42012/11/2012----आईआर )डीयू( ]
राजें(cid:31) जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 31.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.182/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Delhi, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 19.11.2018.
[No. L-42012/11/2012-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director184 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT No. 1: ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
ID No.182/2012
The General Secretary, Municipal Employees Union, Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi – 110 054
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006
…Management
AWARD
A reference was received by this Tribunal under section 10(2)(a) read with clause 1(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 from the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-42012/11/2012-IR(DU) dated 09.12.2012 with following terms of reference:
'Whether the action of the management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in not regularizing the services of Shri Anil Kumar & 6 other workmen working for last 14-15 years is fair and justified ? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?'
2. It is clear from the statement of claim that four workmen, as per details given hereunder, were appointed by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (management ):
| Sl. No. | Name and Father's Name (S/Shri) | Desig-nation | Date of Appointment | Present place of posting |
| 1 | Anil Kumar S/o Shri Jagi Ram | Safai Karamchari | 12.02.1996 | DEMS, Rohini Zone, Zonal Office |
| 2 | Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Jai Kishan | Safai Karamchari | 01.02.1996 | DEMS, Rohini Zone, Zonal Office |
| 3 | Rajender Kumar S/o Shri Dharam Pal | Safai Karamchari | 28.09.1995 | DEMS, Rohini Zone, Zonal Office |
| 4 | Ashu S/o Shri Prem Chand | Safai Karamchari | 15.04.1994 | DEMS, Rohini Zone, Zonal Office |
| 5. | Sanjeev S/o Shri Brahmu Ram | Safai Karamchari | 23.09.1994 | DEMS, Rohini Zone, Zonal Office |
| 6. | Jagbir Singh S/o Shri Mahender Singh | Safai Karamchari | 16.09.1994 | DEMS, Rohini Zone, Zonal Office |
| 7. | Joginder Kumar S/o Shri Kanwar Singh | Safai Karamchari | 01.12.1997 | DEMS, Rohini Zone, Zonal Office |
3. Averments, as contained in the statement of claim, are that the workmen were taken on the job as daily rated/muster roll workers and their wages were also revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act, while their counterparts doing the identical work, were treated as regular employees. Workmen herein were discharging their services with the management with unblemished and uninterrupted record of service. Workmen herein were supposed to have been regularized in service from the date of initial date of joining but the management has only regularized them since the dates mentioned in para 2 above.
4. Non regularization of services of the workman from the date of joining on the basis of on the post of safai karamchari in proper pay scale alongwith allowances and non payment of salary to which the workmen are entitled on the principle of equal pay for equal work is totally unjust and malafide and amounts to unfair labour practice. The action of the management is in violation of Article 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India.
5. It is alleged that the management has not framed any rules or regulation nor got it passed by UPSC nor noticed in the official gazette for governing conditions of muster roll workers/part time seasonal workmen. Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are applicable to the workmen herein. Workmen herein have not acquired status of a permanent employee from the initial date of their respective joining into the employment after completing 90 days of continuous days of employment as provided under Model Standing Orders. Even otherwise, claimants have acquired status of permanent employee after completing 240 days of continuous employment on regular basis as has been held by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Harish Kumar Vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 1856. The workman also served demand notice upon the management vide communication dated 18.11.2009, which was duly received management and it is presumed that the same was rejected due to adamant and non-cooperative attitude of the management. Finally, prayer has been made for regularization of services of the workmen on the post of driver with retrospective effect from the date of their initial joining with the management .
7. Case was contested by the management, who filed written statement thereto, taking various preliminary objections, inter alia that the dispute has not been espoused, no demand notice has been served and reference has been made in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. On merits, it has been denied that the workmen herein are supposed to be regularized since their initial dates of joining. Management has its own policy of regularization , i.e. subject to availability of post and funds. Management has regularized services of the workmen in a phased manner policy of regularization adopted by the management. As such, the workmen herein are not entitled for regularization from the date of their initial engagement.
8. Against this factual background, this Tribunal vide order dated 19.07.2013 framed the following issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties:
(i) Whether the dispute has not acquired status of industrial dispute for want of espousal?
(ii) Whether dispute is bad for want of service of demand notice on the management?
(iii) Whether regularization of S/Shri Anil Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Rajender Kumar, Ashu, Sanju and Jagbir Singh from respective dates mentioned in para 6 of the written statement frustrates their claim?
(iv) As in terms of reference
9. Claimant, in support of its case, examined S/Shri Anil Kumar, whose affidavit is Ex.WW1/A and he also tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/8. The claimants also examined S/Shri Ashu, Jagbir Singh, Joginder Singh, Sanjeev, Rajender Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Surender Bhardwaj as WW2 to WW8 and also tendered in evidence Ex.ww2/1, Ex.WW3/1 to Ex.WW3/4, Ex.WW4/1 to Ex.WW4/4, Ex.WW5/1, Ex.WW6/1 to Ex.WW6/3 and Ex.WW7/1 to Ex.WW7/3 respectively. WW2 to WW7 also relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/8. WW8 relied on document Ex.WW1/5. I shall be adverting to them in the subsequent paras while drawing my conclusion.
10. Management, was given several opportunities to adduce evidence to rebut the case of the claimant. However, management failed to adduce any evidence. Vide order dated 12.04.2018, evidence of the management was closed by the orders of this Tribunal.
11. I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the claimant and Shri Madan Sagar, A/R for the management. I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows
Issue No.1 & 2
12. It is clear from the preliminary objections taken in the written statement by the management that the management has raised objection that no demand notice has been served upon the management nor the MCD General Mazdoor Union has any locus standi to raise the present dispute as the union is not a recognized union of the management. To my mind, there is no requirement of law that a dispute can be raised only by a recognized union. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kripa Shankar Jaiswal (AIR 1961 (2) SC Report 1) wherein also objection was taken on behalf of the management that the union was not a registered under the Trade Union Act on the date of the settlement and said plea was rejected by observing as under:
'Held, that for a dispute to constitute an industrial dispute it is not a requisite condition that it should be sponsored by a recognized union or that all the workmen of an industrial establishment should be parties to it. A settlement arrived at in course of conciliation proceedings falls within Section 18(3)(a) and (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such binds all the workmen though an unregistered union or only some of workmen may have raised the dispute. The absence of notice under Section 11(2) by the Conciliation Officer does not affect the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer and its only purpose is to apprise the establishment that the person who is coming is the conciliation officer and not a stranger. Any contravention of Section 12(6) in not submitting the report within 14 days may be a breach of duty on the part of the conciliation officer ; it does not affect the legality of the proceedings which terminated as provided in Section 20(2) of the Act.'
13. Equally merit-less is the plea taken by the management that the present dispute is not sponsored or espoused by substantial number of workmen. It is fairly settled position in law that even non-espousal of a case by the union would not deprive the workman of the relief to which the workman is otherwise entitled under the law. Such view appears to have been taken in the case of Nazrul Hassan Siddiqui vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial cum Labour Court Bombay (1997) Lab.I.C. 1807. In the above cited case also contention was raised by the management that the dispute dies not fall within the definition of 'industrial dispute' and the same has not been referred or supported by substantial section of workmen. High Court rejected the plea of the management by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (AIR 1960 SC 777), which it was observed as under:
'We have already noticed that an industrial dispute can be raised by a group of workmen or by a union even though neither of them represent the majority of the workmen concerned; in other words, the majority rule on which the appellant's construction of Section 19(6) is based is inapplicable in the matter of the reference under186 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Section 10 of the Act. Even a minority group of workmen can make a demand and thereby raise an industrial dispute which in a proper case would be referred or adjudication under Section 20.'
14. It is further clear that from the affidavit filed by Shri Surender Bhardwaj, Ex.WW8/A that workmen herein had approached their union for redresssal of their grievance as is clear from para 2 of the affidavit. Consequently, a resolution was passed in the meeting of the union held on 04.11.2009, copy of which is Ex.WW1/5, which clearly shows that the case of the workman was espoused by the Municipal Employees Union. There is no cross examination of any of the witness examined by the workmen herein on the point of espousal by the management nor the management has whispered even a single word in their affidavit Ex.MW1/A regarding non-espousal of the case. It is, thus, clear from recital contained in the affidavit as well as Ex.WW1/11 that the case of the workman herein was espoused by the union. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in the cases of Management of M/s Hotel Samrat Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi (2007 (136) DLT 290) that the workman are simply to allege and prove that they have raised their grievance through their union and the expression espousal simply means that the dispute of the workman is adopted by the union as its own dispute or a large number of workmen have given their support to the case of the individual workman so involved in such dispute.
15. In view of the ratio of the judgement discussed above, it is clear that espousal of a dispute by majority members of the union is not sine qua non for adjudication of such dispute in terms of Section 10 of the Act. Accordingly, it is held that issue No.(i) and (ii) is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
Issue No.(iii) and (iv)
16. Now, the next question is whether the workmen herein are entitled for regularization with retrospective effect, i.e. from the date of their initial appointment as per model standing orders. In this regard., it is appropriate to refer to the statements of WW1 to WW7 and affidavits of the workmen herein are on the same lines as the averments contained in the claim statement and it clearly shows that the workmen, WW1 to WW7 are continuously discharging their duties with the management since the date of their respective dates of joining of services with the management. Management has regularized services of the workmen, as stated in para 2 above, whereas regularization of services of the workman was to be from the date of their initial engagement or joining. It was strongly urged on behalf of the workmen that they are performing the same duties which their regular counterparts are performing and there is substantial difference in their salary of such daily rated workers vis-à-vis regular safai karamcharis employed by the management.
17. It is clear from perusal of Ex.WW1/1 that the workmen have approached the management against the non- regularization of their services and non-payment of difference in their salary. There is specific reference in the above letter to the case of Harish Kumar Vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court which deals with disparity in the salary of workmen. Further Ex.WW1/3 is acknowledgement of the said letter. Ex.WW1/M2, Ex.WW2/M2 and Ex.WW3/M2 are the letter of regularization of Shri Anil Kumar, Shri Ashu and Shri Jagbir Singh.
18. Now, question which arises for consideration is whether the workmen herein are entitled for regularization of their services from the dates of their initial date of appointment or whether they are entitled for entitled for equal pay which their regular counterparts are getting in the management . Reliance was placed upon the case titled 'Umrala Gram Panchayat Vs. The Secretary, Municipal Employees Union (MANU/SC/0354/2015). In this case also, workmen were appointed initially as casual/daily wage workers and later on their services were regularized from different dates in an arbitrary manner without following any policy. Claim of the workman was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court by observing as under:
'It is an admitted fact that the work which was being done by the concerned workmen was the same as that of the permanent workmen of the appellant- Panchayat. They have also been working for similar number of hours, however, the discrepancy in the payment of wages/salary between the permanent and the non-permanent workmen is alarming and the same has to be construed as being an unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) of the ID Act r/w Entry No.10 of the Fifth Schedule to the ID Act, which is prohibited under Section 25(T) of the ID Act. Further, there is no documentary evidence produced on record before the Labour Court which shows that the present workmen are working less or for lesser number of hours than the permanent employees of the appellant-Panchayat. Thus, on the face of it, the work being done by the concerned workmen has been permanent in nature and the Labour Court as well as the High Court have come to the right conclusion on the points of dispute and have rightly rejected the contention of the appellant-Panchayat as the same amounts to unfair labour practice by the appellant-Panchayat which is prohibited under Section 25(T) of the ID Act and it also amounts to statutory offence on the part of the appellant under Section 25(U) of the ID Act for which it is liable to be prosecuted.
Further, Section 25(T) of the ID Act clearly states that unfair labour practice should not be encouraged and the same should be discontinued. In the present case, the principle "equal work, equal pay" has been violated by the appellant-Panchayat as they have been treating the concerned workmen unfairly and therefore, the demand raised by the respondent-Union needs to be accepted. The High Court has thus, rightly not interfered with the Award of the Labour Court as the same is legal and supported with cogent and valid reasons.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 187In view of the reasons stated supra and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we hold that the services of the concerned workmen are permanent in nature, since they have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year from the date of their initial appointment.'
19. Similarly, in Union of India vs. Dineshan K.K. (MANU/SC/0395/2008)where the question of equal pay for equal work was considered and similar view was taken by holding that having due regard to the constitutional mandate of equality and inhibition against discrimination in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. AS such, workmen are entitled for equal pay when they were performing similar kind of work.
20. Yet again in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajesh Kumar Gond (MANU/SC/0769/2013), MCD vs. Ram Milan (MANU/DE/3969/2015) and MCD Vs. Smt. Krishna (MCD/DE/3966/2009) consistent view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court on the principle of equal pay for equal work which have been applied in a catena of decisions, workmen were held to entitled to the same pay and allowances with their counterparts performing similar duties 19. There is no merit in the contention of the management that the workmen herein are not entitled for regularization with retrospective date on the grounds that as and when post falls vacant, workmen are regularized. Regularization is not done till seniority list of such workmen is prepared. Learned A/R for the management could not cite any policy of regularization so as to support his submission. Hon'ble High Court in the case of MCD Vs. Ram Milan(Manu/DE/3979/2015) has dealt with the question of regularization wherein workman was working as chowkidar since 1987. Plea of the management that the workman was only employed on casual basis when there was no regular workman, as such, he was not entitled for salary of regular workman as well as regularization was turned down by the Hon'ble High Court by placing reliance on a number of cases. It was also observed that the workman in that case was performing same duties which permanent workmen were performing. He was also working for similar number of hours. However, there was discrepancy in the payment of wages/salary between the permanent and non-permanent workmen, which was quite alarming. Accordingly, it was held that the workmen have worked for 240 days in a calendar year from the date of their initial appointment, which is clear from the evidence on record, as such the management was legally required to make services of such workers permanent.
21. In view of the ratio of the law discussed above in the various rulings relied upon by the workmen, it is held that the workmen herein are entitled for regularization of their services like their other counterparts whose services have been regularized by the management. Action of the management in not regularizing services of Shri Anil Kumar and 6 other workmen is held to be neither legal nor justified. It is, further, held that the workmen herein, S/Shri S/Shri Anil Kumar, Ashu, Jagbir Singh, Joginder Singh, Sanjeev, Rajender Kumar, Rajesh Kumar are entitled for entire difference of salary on the principles of equal pay for equal pay, alongwith all consequential benefits from the date of their initial appointment. An award is accordingly passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Date : 15.11.2018
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 32323232....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स आयुक्त, नगर निगम दिल्ली एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में
नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय, 1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट
(संदर्भ संख्या 195/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 22.10.2018 को प्राप्त <ए थे ।
[सं. एल----42012/109/2012----आईआर )डीयू( ]
राजें(cid:31) जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 32.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.195/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 22.10.2018.
[No. L-42012/109/2012-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director188 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT No. 1: ROOM No. 511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
ID No.195/2012
S/Shri Ramesh Chand Meena S/o Shri R.S. Meena & 7 others, through Delhi Udhiyan Karamchari Union, B-5, Ram Gali, North Ghonda, New Delhi - 110 053
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006
…Management
AWARD
In the present case, an order was received from Ministry of Labour and Employment vide letter No. L-42012/109/2012-IR(DU) dated 07.12.2012 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and Section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
Whether the action of the management of MCD in regularizing the workmen S/Shri Ramesh Chand Meena S/o Shri R.S. Meena and 7 others (list enclosed) on the post of 'Nala Beldar' instead of 'Beldar' is legal & justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?
2. Claim statement was filed on behalf of Shri Ramesh Chand Meena S/o Shri R.S. Meena, Shri Gulam Asgar S/o Shri Haider Abbas, Shri Dharam Pal Singh S/o shri Manvir Singh, Shri Shiv Kumar S/o Shri Promod Kumar, Shri Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Sohan Lal, Shri Pardeep Kumar S/o Shri Manvir singh, Shri Javed Ahmed S/o Shri Liak Ahmed and Shri Sukh Lal S/o Ramji Lal (hereinafter referred to as the claimants), averring that they joined MCD (hereinafter referred to as the management) as Beldar in the years 2001/2002/2003 and worked continuously on the said post till their regularization in September 2008 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2006 with usual allowance as admissible under the rules. The claimants had unblemished and uninterrupted record to their credit. The management submitted working report for daily wagers report at the time of their regularization by terming as beldars whereas the letter of regularization issued to them depicted them as beldar/nala beldar. This action of the management tantmounts to exploitation of labour, illegal, bad, unjust, malafide and is in violation of Article 14, 16 and 30 of the Constitution of India. . Finally, it has been prayed that the claimants are entitled to the post of beldars in place of nala Behdar from the date of regularization alongwith all consequential benefits.
3. No written statement was filed by the management despite affording of several opportunities. Vide order dated 11.10.2013, defence of the management was struck off by my learned predecessor and the case was listed for evidence of the claimants.
4. S/Shri Ramesh Chand Meena, Gulam Asgar, Dharam Pal Singh, Shiv Kumar, Praveen and Javed Ahmed, were examined on behalf of the claimants whose affidavits are Ex.WW1/A to Ex.WW6/A and they relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/10, Ex.WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/3, Ex.WW3/1 to Ex.WW3/4, Ex.WW4/1 to Ex.WW4/2, Ex.WW5/1 to Ex.WW5/3, Ex.WW6/1 to Ex.WW6/4, respectively. Witnesses WW2 to WW6 also relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/7. Since defence of the management was struck off and no written statement was filed, hence, management was not granted any opportunity to adduce evidence.
5. I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri Madan Sagar, A/R for the management. My findings on the issues involved in the controversy are as follows:
6. The only issue which requires determination in the case in hand is whether the workman herein is entitled to the designation of Beldar (instead of Nala Beldar) from the date of their regularization. Perusal of letter Ex.WW1/4 issued by the management, depicts the designation of the claimants as beldar. Ex.WW2/1, Ex.WW3/1, Ex.WW4/1, Ex.WW5/1 and Ex.WW6/1 being the number of days worked in the years 2001 to 2006, depicts the designation of the claimant as beldar and the said document is signed by the Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer as well as the Executive Engineer. Thus, it apparent that initially that the claimants were designated as beldars and at the time of regularization, their designation was mentioned as 'nala beldars/beldars'.
7. As a sequel to above discussion, it is held that the claimants herein have been wrongly regularized as nala beldars instead of beldars. Hence, the action of the management of MCD in denying the designation of 'beldar'; (instead of nala beldar) at the time of regularization of services of the workmen Shri Ramesh Chand Meena S/o Shri R.S. Meena and 07 others (total 08) as named in the ID by the management of MCD with effect from 01.04.2006 in the pay scale of Rs.2500-3200 is totally unjust and unfair. Hence, the management is liable to redesignate the claimants Shri Ramesh Chand Meena S/o Shri R.S. Meena, Shri Gulam Asgar S/o Shri Haider Abbas, Shri Dharam Pal Singh S/o Shri Manvir Singh, Shri Shiv Kumar S/o Shri Promod Kumar, Shri Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Sohan Lal, Shri Pardeep Kumar[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 189 S/o Shri Manvir singh, Shri Javed Ahmed S/o Shri Liak Ahmed and Shri Sukh Lal S/o Ramji Lal as beldars instead of Nala beldars with effect from 01.04.2006, i.e. the date of their regularization. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : October 16, 2018
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 33333333....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
प्रबंधन, कें (cid:31)ीय बोर्ड ऑफ सिचाई और पावर का प्रबंधन और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों और
उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय,
नई दिल्ली -1 के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 66/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 29/11/2018 को प्राप्त <ए थे।
[सं. एल----42012/202/2014----आईआर )डीयू( ]
राजें(cid:31) जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 33.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.66/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, New delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Managrment of Central Board of Irrigation and Power Lt., and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 29.11.2018.
[No. L-42012/202/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
ID No. 66/2015
Shri Ajeet Singh S/o. late Shri Veer Singh, through Shri Vinay Kumar Chamber No.B-93, BGS Block, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 110054
…Workman/Claimant
Versus
The Management of Central Board of Irrigation & Power, Through its Secretary, Malcha Marg, Chankyapuri, New Delhi. …Management
AWARD
This Award shall dispose of a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide letter No. L-42012/202/2014-IR(DU) dated 14.08.2015 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
'Whether the termination of Shri Ajeet Singh appointed on compassionate ground after the death of his father Is illegal and unjustified ? If so, what relief the claimant is entitled to and what directions are necessary in this regard ?'
2. Both parties were put to notice and the claimant. The claimant Ajeet Singh filed his statement of claim, with the averments that his father Shri Veer Singh was appointed by the Management on the post of Helper-cum-Plumber vide appointment letter dated 24/4/1986 and was a permanent employee. His father expired on 30/5/2005, leaving behind his widow, two sons and two daughters. After the death of Shri Veer Singh, his son Ajeet Singh moved an application dated 26/9/2005 for appointment on compassionate grounds, in place of his deceased father. The190 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Management duly considered the said application & the claimant Ajeet Singh was appointed as Attendant on temporary basis, vide office order dated 9/1/2006 initially for three months which period was extended time and again. It has been pleaded that the claimant had uninterrupted and unblemished service record to his credit. In the month of March,2007 instead of confirming the workman/claimant or giving him further extension, the Management started compelling him to work through contractor and the Management also did not allow him to mark his attendance and even his salary for the month of April, 2007 was withheld. Ultimately services of the workman were terminated illegally by the Management w.e.f. 1/5/2007 without following the principle of natural justice, though he was working on a job of regular and permanent nature, which is continuing with the Management. A civil suit bearing CS No.787/13 was filed by the workman wherein liberty was granted to the workman vide order dated 10/9/2013 to approach the Labour Court against illegal termination. The workman is totally unemployed since his termination. As such action of the management in terminating the services of the workman amounts to unfair labour practice inasmuch as no notice or notice pay was given to him at the time of termination of his services and termination is in violation of Section 25-F, G & H of the Act. Prayer has been made for reinstatement of the workman into service with full back wages alongwith all consequential benefits.
3. The claim petition has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement and took preliminary objections that the claim petition before this Tribunal is not maintainable as the Management No.1 is not an instrumentality of State or Central Government. There never existed any employer-employee relationship between the parties and that the claimant has not worked for 240 days in a calendar year and as such the claimant has no locus standi to file the present claim petition.. While denying the allegations of the claimant that father of the claimant was permanent employee of the Management, it has been alleged that father of the claimant was appointed vide appointment letter dated dated 24/4/1986 for three months and therefore question of any permanent appointment does not arise. only for six months but date of his death is not in the knowledge of the Management It has been alleged that the claimant was engaged only on temporary basis for three months at a consolidated salary of Rs.4000/- per month vide office order dated 9/1/2006. It has also been alleged that the salary of the claimant for the month of April, 2017 has not withheld Since the claimant was never a regular employee, as such question of termination of his services on any date did not arise. It has further been alleged that civil suit filed by the claimant was for regularization in service deeming that he is in employment and now a new story has been cooked up that it is a case of termination to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. The claimant/workman filed rejoinder wherein he denied all the allegations made by the Management and reiterated his own case as set up in the claim petition.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 3/10/2016 :-
i) Whether reference is not legally maintainable in view of the varius preliminary objections ?
ii) In terms of reference ?
iii) Relief.
6. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as W.W.1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A alongwith documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/12.
7. On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined one Shri P.P. Wahi, Director (IT) as MW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A alongwith documents Ex.MW1/1.
8. I have carefully gone through the evidence adduced on record by both the parties and have give my thoughtful consideration to rival contentions of the parties counsel.
Issue No.1 :
9. Learned A/R for the Management No.1 vehementally argued that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition since the Management No.1 -Board viz. Central Board of Irrigation & Power is not an instrumentality of State or Central Government rather it is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. She submitted that Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 18/9/2013 in W.P.() No.334/1998 and others writ petitions filed by the workers of the Management has held that the Board/Management No.1 is not an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as the said Board is not performing public functions/public duties. As such, the reference is not legally maintainable.
10. Per-contra, learned A/R for the workman submitted that this Tribunal has all powers to adjudicate and decide the Reference which has been made by the Appropriate Government under the provisions of the Act and moreso the Management –Board being a registered Society is an "industry" as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act.
11. Since the workman/claimant was admittedly engaged by the Management No.1 – may be on temporary basis, on the job of Attendant, he is a workman, within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours in not a workman. Reference may be made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Davinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council Sanaur, AIR 2011 (SC 2532).
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 19112. Just because the Management No.1-Board is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, it will be improper to say that it is not an "industry". I may mention that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewage Board Vs. A. Rajappa AIR 1978 SC 548 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression "industry" as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act and held as under :-
"(a) Where a complex of activities, some of which qualify for exemption, other not involves employees on the total undertaking some of whom are not "workman" as in the University of Delhi case (supra) or some departments are not productive of goods and services, if isolated, even then the predominant nature of the services and integrated nature of the departments as explained in the Corporation of Nagpur (supra) will be the true test. The whole undertaking will be "industry" although those who are not "workmen" by definition may not benefit by the statue.
(b) Notwithstanding the previous clauses, sovereign functions strictly understood (alone) qualify for exemption, not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by the Government or Statutory bodies.
( c) Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries and they are substantially severable, they can be considered to come within Section 2(j).
(d) Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may well remove from the scope of the Act, categories which otherwise may be covered thereby
(e) We overrule Safdarjung (supra), Solicitors' case(supra),Gymkhana (supra, Delhi University (supra) Dhanrajgiri Hospital (supra) and other ruling whose ratio run counter to the principles enunciated above and Hospital Mazdor Sabha (supra) is hereby rehabilitated.
13. In view of the law enunciated by the Apex Court, as discussed above, I am of the considered view that Management No.1-Board is an "industry" within the definition of Section 2(j) of the Act
14. Since Delhi is a Union Territory, the reference made to this Tribunal for adjudication of Industrial Dispute can be made either by the Central Government or by the State Government in terms of Rule 2(f) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. To this view I am fortified with the decision in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Union of India, 2007 (113) FLR 770. Furthermore, the nomenclature of the Management No.1 viz. Central Board of Irrigation & Power (CBIP) is such that even a prudent man may think it is an institution of the Government. A "workman" doing a mineal job is not expected to exactly know the intracacies about the constitution of the Management Board or to exactly know as to whether it is simply a Society under the Societies Registration Act or the department/establishment of the Government. It is a matter of record that in the civil suit filed by the claimant herein, the Management had taken a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the civil suit and the said suit was disposed by learned Civil Judge, granting liberty to the claimant to approach the Labour Court. Thereafter the claimant had approached the Conciliation Officer and the proceedings before the said forum culminated into the present reference. Law is well settled that when a reference has been received by the Industrial Tribunal from the Appropriate Government, it has to decide such a reference on merits. The Tribunal can not go into the validity of the reference.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion coupled with the fact that the claimant is "workman" & the Mangement is an "industry" within the definitions as provided in the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the present reference having been made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government is legally maintainable. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the claimant and against the Management No.1.
Issue No.2 :
16. From the pleading of the parties and evidence adduced on record, particularly the documents Ex.WW1/2 (offer of appointment) and Ex.WW1/3 to Ex.WW1/7 (letters of appointment/extension of service of the claimant ) issued by the Management No.1, it is evident that the claimant Ajeet Singh was appointed by Management No.1 purely on temporary basis as Attendant/Helper for the work relating to plumbering w.e.f. 2/1/2006 on a consolidated salary of Rs.4000/- per month, with reference to his application dated 2/8/2005 for employment on compassionate grounds after the death of his father . Vide order dated 24/4/1986 (Ex.WW1/8), Shri Veer Singh – father of the claimant herein was appointed by the Management for the post of Helper on adhoc basis pursuant to his interview. Ex.WW1/9 is the copy of pay slip of the said Shri Veer Singh for the month of October, 2004. Ex.WW1/10 is the copy of the identity card issued to Shri Veer Singh, Helper by the Management which was issued on 1/4/2004 and was valid upto 31/10/2016. In the light of documents Ex.WW1/8 to Ex.WW1/0, it does not lie in the mouth of the Management to allege that Shri Veer Singh – father of the claimant was not a permanent employee. The plea of the Management that the claimant has not worked for 240 days in a calendar year also falsifies inasmuch as MW1 PP Wahi –witness of the Management admitted in his cross examination that the claimant worked with the Management from 9/1/2006 to March, 2007. This witness also admitted that the claimant was the only employee alongwith Shri Mohan Lal who were appointed on compassionate grounds. He further admitted that the work of attendant is regular in nature.
17. As discussed above, it is proved that the claimant/workman was in continuous service of the Management from 9/1/2006 till his termination. There is nothing on record to suggest that retrenchment benefits have been paid to the claimant by the Management at the time of his termination from services. MW1 PP Wahi has clarified in his cross examination that no show cause notice or memo was given to the claimant, but volunteered that same was not required. Once the claimant had worked with the Management for 240 days in a calendar year, it was obligatory on the part of the Management to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
192 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]18. There is long line of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the Management to be illegal and void under the law.
19. Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the Management to the workman at the time of termination or in lieu of such notice, any compensation was paid to him, as such action of the Management in terminating the services of the workman is held to be illegal and void. There is also nothing on record to prove that wages for the month of April, 2007 was paid to the workman. The Management should have produced documents in this regard.
20. Now the residual question is whether the claimant/work is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. It is proved on record that claimant was continuously in the employment of the Management w.e.f. 9/1/2006 to March, 2007. There is no show cause notice or memo issued to the claimant/workman by the Management. Moreover, the job of the Attendant is of perennial and regular nature which fact has been admitted by MW1 Shri PP Wahi, Director (IT) of the Management Board. The claimant WW1 has reiterated in his cross examination that he is unemployed since 2007 though he tried for a job but could not get.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya" reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :
"The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a workman's service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
23. A Bench of three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the act of employer is found to be totally illegal and arbitrary, in that eventuality the workman is required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen alongwith payment of back wages.
24. However, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported as 2005 SCC (L&S) 716 observed as under :-
"8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calander year."[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 193 25. Yet in another latest case of Bholanath Lal and others Vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd., Manu/DE/1922/2018 (decided on 10/5/2018), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of illegal termination and reinstatement held as under :-
"The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same The courts must always keep in view that that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee./workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/ workman his dues in the form of full back wages."
A similar view has been taken in the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Vimal Kumar (decided on 5-4-2018) MANU/de/1322/2018 wherein service of a casual driver was terminated without any notice or payment of one month's salary in lieu of such notice. The Industrial Tribunal answering the reference held the action of the management to be illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Award was upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by observing as under :-
"In view of the above discussion, I am unable to discern any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award, dated 29th May, 2003, of the Labour Court, to the extent that it holds the termination of the services of the respondent, by the petitioner, to be illegal and unlawful. I am entirely in agreement with the finding, of the Labour Court, that the services of the respondent were retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act and that, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In view of the fact that going by the age of the respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, he would, today, be only 50 years of age, and also in view of the fact that the termination of his services as SCM Driver was not on account of any deficiency or shortcoming detected in the manner of discharge by the respondent, of his duties as such, I am of the opinion, that the facts of the present case, do not warrant any interference with the direction, of the Labour Court, to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with the benefit of continuity of service. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith. Inasmuch as the respondent has not been rendering any service to the petitioner since the date of his termination, however, the back wages payable to the respondent would be limited to 50 per cent of the wages which he would have drawn he had continued to serve the petitioner….."
26. Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the fact that the claimant was performing duty to a post of regular and perennial nature, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled for reinstatement into service on the same post, with 50 per cent back wages, iinasmuch as termination of the claimant/workman is per-se illegal, particularly when the job is of regular and perennial nature and the claimant/workman is not gainfully employed anywhere since after his termination by the Management. Award is passed accordingly.
Date : 28.11.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 34343434....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
सेक्शन ऑफिसर, ओवरसीज इंडियन अफे यर्स मिनिस्ट्री नई दिल्ली और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0
नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म
न्यायालय, नई दिल्ली-1 के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 1/2016) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 06.12.2018 को
प्राप्त <ए थे ।
[सं. एल----42025/03/2018---- आईआर )डीयू( ]
राजें(cid:31) जोशी, उप िनदेशक194 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 34.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 1/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Section Officer, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs New Delhi, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 06.12.2018.
[No. L-42025/03/2018-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
ID No. 01/2016
Sudhri Kumar S/o. Shri Rameshwar Dayal, Delhi General Udyog Karamchari Sangh (Regd.), Chamber No.75, Civil Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 110054.
… Workman
Versus
1. Section Officer, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Akbar Bhawan, New Delhi 110021
2. M/s. Stander Trading Company, 428/A Kewal Industrial Estate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel West, Mumbai 400013.
3. M/s. Stander Trading Company, Akbar Bhawan, 9th Floor, OCI Room No.912, Chankayapuri New Delhi 110021
…Management
AWARD
This is a claim directly filed by the Workman/claimant Shri Sudhir Kumar under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), with the averments that workman had been working in the office of the Management No.1 through the contractor –Management No.2 & 3 for the post of Printer Operator and was getting wages of Rs.8500/- per month. He was doing his work sincerely and honestly. Supervision and control over his work was that of principal employer viz Management No.1. The workman was not given any appointment letter, casual leave, minimum wages, overtime etc. despite oral demands made. Though ESI and EPF contributions used to be deducted from his wages/salary, however neither any ESI card nor PF receipt/statement was issued to him. It is alleged that the Management had obtained his signatures and thumb impression on blank papers and used to threat him to terminate from services Wages for the month of May, 2015 was not paid to him and he was terminated from services illegally on 29/5/2015 by the Management, without issuing any notice or charge sheet and without payment of compensation in lieu of notice period. The workman sent a demand letter dated 8/6/2015 to the Management but to no response. It is also alleged that the workman is unemployed since after his termination and he has no source of his livelihood. Prayer has been made for his reinstatement into service with full back wages and with all consequential benefits.
2. The claim petition has been resisted by the Managements No.2 & 3 who filed joint written statement and took preliminary objections that before the Conciliation Officer on 14/12/2015, the Management had offered the workman to join duty at his earlier working place and had already paid him advance salary for the month of June, 2015. It was the workman who himself left his services on 29/5/2015 without giving any prior notice or information and the workman did not join his duty despite repeated requests and phone calls of the Maagement. If the intention of the Management was to terminate the services of the workman, there was no reason for the Management to pay him salary for the month of June, 2015. In nut-shell, case of the Management is that the workman himself abandon the job and failed to join duty despite requests. The allegations of the workman regarding his illegal termination or about his unemployment have been denied. Since the workman has been absenting himself from duty unauthorisedly and not reporting for duty despite repeated requests, it is stated that the claimant is not entitled to any relief. Prayer has been made for rejection of the claim petition.
3. Management No.1 did not participate in the proceedings and was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 6/3/2017 when following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties:-
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 195
1) Whether termination of the claimant on 29/5/2015 is illegal and against provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged?
2) Whether the claimant has abandoned his services as alleged ?
3) Whether the claimant is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service ?
4. The Claimant in support of his case examined herself as W.W.1 and tendered her affidavit Ex.WW1/A alongwith
documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/3.
5. On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined Shri Hemant
Chandrakant Trivedi, Project Manager as MW1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A alongwith
documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/5.
6. I have heard Shri Devender Sharma, A/R for the claimant and Shri M.L. Pandey, A/R for the Management No.2
and 3 and have gone through the records carefully. My findings on the above issues are as follows.
Issue No.1 and 2 :
7. Both these issues being inter related are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion and they can be conveniently disposed of.
8. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that there existed relationship of employee-employer between the workman/claimant herein and the Management No.2 and 3 as he was working under the said Management April, 2011. This fact also finds corroboration from the pay slips Ex.WW1/1 (colly.) of the workman and documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/5 filed on record by Management No.2 and 3 However, the workman has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to show that over his work there was direct control & supervision of Management No.1 or that the Management No.1 had engaged him for the job.
9. Testimony of the workman by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A is in line with the averments made in the statement of claim. It is the specific case of the workman that Wages for the month of May, 2015 was not paid to him and his services were illegally terminated on 29/5/2015 by the Management, without issuing any notice or charge sheet and without payment of compensation in lieu of notice period. Shri Hemant Chandrakant Trivedi MW1- sole witness examined by the Management though claimed that the workman was on unauthorized absence from duty and that the Management had made oral requests to the workman to join duty, however admitted that the Management did not issue any charge sheet regarding unauthorized absence of the workman, nor conducted any enquiry against him. He also stated that no appointment letter was issued to the workman. He also admitted that the workman worked in Delhi from the date of his engagement. Even if the workman remained unauthorised absent from duty w.e.f. 31/5/2015, it was incumbent upon the Management No.2 & 3 to issue letter/notice, asking the workman to report back for duty or to hold enquiry against him regarding his unauthorized absence prior to termination of his services. Nothing of the sort has been done by the Management. As such, it can not be concluded that the workman himself had abandoned the job of the Management No.2 and 3 voluntarily or that he was not interested to work there.
10. Order sheet dated 3/10/2016 shows that during pendency of the matter, the Management No.2 and 3 herein had filed an application directing the claimant to report for duty and the claimant had shown his inclination to join duties, without prejudice to his rights. However, on 28/11/2016 the claimant had informed the Tribunal that as per previous order he had gone to the Office of Management for reporting duties but the Management had clearly told him that there was no vacant post in Delhi and he might join duties at Mumbai. This was suggestive of the fact that the Management did not have any regard for the verbal undertaking given by its A/R. Despite that another opportunity was granted to the Management to consider the aspect of posting of the claimant in any of its two branches in Delhi –either at Akbar Bhawan and Patiala House but the Management failed to do so. These facts lead this Tribunal to draw an inference that the Management was not at all interested to allow the workman to join duty at Delhi and to harass the workman, they wanted him to post at its office at Mumbai, despite the fact that the workman since very beginning was working at its Delhi office. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it can be safely concluded that the services of the workman were illegally terminated by the Management, inasmuch as neither any notice nor any compensation in lieu of notice period has been paid by it to the workman. There is long line of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render whole action of the Management Bank to be illegal and wrong under the law. Resultantly, it is held that the action of the Management in terminating services of the workman w.e.f. 29/5/2015 is void, illegal and against the provisions of the Act. These issues are, therefore, decided in favour of the workman and against the Management.
Issue No. 3 :
11. Now the residual question is whether the claimant/work is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. Though it was alleged by the claimant/workman that he was not paid wages for the month of May, 2015 but he admitted in his cross examination that salary for the month of May, 2015 was credited in his account with HDFC Bank. As such, this claim of the workman/claimant is not tenable. This Tribunal while rendering findings on Issue No.1 and 2 has held that the Management has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act prior to termination of the workman from service. It is undisputed fact that the workman was serving under the Management for a job of regular and perennial in nature, for the last about four years prior to termination of his service. The workman has categorically pleaded and deposed on oath that he is unemployed196 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] since after his termination. The Management has not adduced any evidence to show that the workman/claimant is gainfully employed.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya" reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :
"The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a workman's service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
14. A Bench of three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the act of employer is found to be totally illegal and arbitrary, in that eventuality the workman is required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen alongwith payment of back wages.
15. However, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported as 2005 SCC (L&S) 716 observed as under :-
"8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calander year."
16. Yet in another latest case of Bholanath Lal and others Vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd., Manu/DE/1922/2018 (decided on 10/5/2018), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of illegal termination and reinstatement held as under :-
"The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same The courts must always keep in view that that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 197 the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee./workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/ workman his dues in the form of full back wages."
A similar view has been taken in the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Vimal Kumar (decided on 5-4-2018) MANU/de/1322/2018 wherein service of a casual driver was terminated without any notice or payment of one month's salary in lieu of such notice. The Industrial Tribunal answering the reference held the action of the management to be illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Award was upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by observing as under :-
"In view of the above discussion, I am unable to discern any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award, dated 29th May, 2003, of the Labour Court, to the extent that it holds the termination of the services of the respondent, by the petitioner, to be illegal and unlawful. I am entirely in agreement with the finding, of the Labour Court, that the services of the respondent were retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act and that, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In view of the fact that going by the age of the respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, he would, today, be only 50 years of age, and also in view of the fact that the termination of his services as SCM Driver was not on account of any deficiency or shortcoming detected in the manner of discharge by the respondent, of his duties as such, I am of the opinion, that the facts of the present case, do not warrant any interference with the direction, of the Labour Court, to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with the benefit of continuity of service. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith.
Inasmuch as the respondent has not been rendering any service to the petitioner since the date of his termination, however, the back wages payable to the respondent would be limited to 50 per cent of the wages which he would have drawn he had continued to serve the petitioner….."
17. Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the fact that the claimant was performing duty to a post of regular and perennial nature, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled for reinstatement into service on the same post, with 50 per cent back wages, iinasmuch as termination of the claimant/workman is per-se illegal and the claimant/workman is not gainfully employed anywhere since after his termination by the Management No.2 and 3. Award is passed accordingly against Management 2 & 3.
Date : 04.12.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 35353535....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947(1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, दूरसंचार िवभाग अहमदाबाद, और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों और
उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय,
नई अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या. 1165/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 24.08.18 को प्राप्त <ए
थे।
[सं. एल----40012/444/2000---- आईआर )डीयू( ]
राजें(cid:31) जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2018
S.O. 35.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.1165/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chife General Manager, Telecom Department Ahmedabad, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 24.08.18.
[No. L-40012/444/2000-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director198 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad, Dated 06th August, 2018
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1165/2004
1. The Chief General Manager,
Telecom Department, Seva Sadan Building, 1st Floor, Bhadra, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
2. The Telecom District Manager,
Telecom Department,Near Aiankar Talkies, Surendranagar (Gujarat) – 363001 …First Party
V/s
The President, Saurashtra Employees Union, City Shops, 3rd Floor, Opposite Jagnath Police Chowky, Dr. Yagnik Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri H.R. Raval
For the Second Party : Ms. Kajal Kalwani
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/444/2000– IR(DU) dated 18.01.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to theIndustrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom Department, Surendranagar/Ahmedabad in terminating/discontinuing the services of Shri Jasmuddin Ansari, Casual Labour w.e.f. 30.09.1997 is just, valid and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and what directions are necessary in the matter?"
1. The reference dates back to 18.01.2001 and received on 12.02.2001 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication.
2. In response to the notice issued to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 alleging that he was engaged as a Casual Labour by the first parties The Chief General Manager, Telecom Department, Seva Sadan Building, 1st Floor, Bhadra, Ahmedabad and The Telecom District Manager, Telecom Department, Near Aiankar Talkies, Surendranagar on 03.07.1979 where he worked till 29.02.1984. Thereafter, he was re- engaged on 01.02.1989 till August, 1997 by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Phone), Surendranagar and Sub- Divisional Officer (Telephone), Ahmedabad. The copies of the working days are enclosed with the statement of claim mark as 1. Thus he continuously worked for 15 years with the first party and also worked for more than 240 days in the last preceding 12 months prior to the termination of his service in the month of August, 1997 without following the procedure laid down in Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has further alleged that while terminating his service, the persons/workmen junior to him were retained and many of them have also been regularised violating the provisions of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has further alleged that he was entitled for temporary status as per the scheme of the first party which was denied to him in mala-fide manner by termination of his service by way of oral order. Thus he has prayed for declaring the termination as illegal in violation of the provisions of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act and Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
3. The first parties The Chief General Manager, Telecom Department, Seva Sadan Building, 1st Floor, Bhadra, Ahmedabad and The Telecom District Manager, Telecom Department, Near Aiankar Talkies, Surendranagar, jointly submitted the written statement Ex. 6 denying the averments made in the statement of claim submitted that the second party workman has no cause of action, the reference is barred by Limitation Act and misconceived, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the judgement of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in O.A. No. 1075/HP of 1996 has held that daily wages employees cannot claim any right to hold civil post and in State of Himachal Pradesh V/s Suresh A. Kumar Verma, 1996 (2) SC C 455, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that appointment to a post in the Government of India can only be according to its rules and the Court cannot give any direction to re-engage such persons in any work or to[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 199 appoint him against the existing vacancies and if the Court does so, the judicial process would become another mode of recruitment de-hors of rules. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Tulsi Ram Patel V/s Government of India, AIR 1985 SC 1416, has held that the servants employed by the Government of India hold the post under the pleasure of the President of India and such pleasure cannot be curtailed by a parliamentary enactment. It has been further submitted that the workman worked from July, 1979 to 29.02.1984 under SDO, Telephones, Ahmedabad and Surendranagar and remained absent from 01.03.1984 to 31.01.1989 at his own accord without intimating the first party and such period of absence cannot be condoned as per rules. It is further submitted that the workman re-engaged as Casual Labour from 01.02.1989 to 28.02.1991 under SDO, Telephones, Dharangadhara and from 01.03.1991 to 30.03.1997 under SDO, Telephones, Halvad. It is wrong to say that he was re-engaged by SDO, Telephones, Surendranagar and Ahmedabad. It is further submitted that his services were terminated following the procedure laid down in Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act as there was no work available to be given to the workman.
4. It is further submitted that the workman challenged the termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad vide O.A. No. 583/1997 for regularising of service and consequential benefits which was dismissed. No junior employee was retained while terminating his services. Thus the prayer sought by the workman in his statement of claim has no force and liable to be rejected.
5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:
I. Whether the action of the management of Telecom Department, Surendranagar/Ahmedabad in terminating/discontinuing the services of Shri Jasmuddin Ansari, Casual Labour w.e.f. 30.09.1997 is just, valid and legal?
II. To what relief, if any, the employee concerned is entitled?
6. Issue No. I and II: Both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are to be decided together. The burden of proof of these issues was lying on the second party workman. He has submitted his affidavit Ex. 10 reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was engaged as Casual Labour in July 1979 and worked till the year 1984, thereafter; he did not go to the office for doing work as he was not given work. He was re-engaged in the year 1987 as Casual Labour on vouchers and he was orally terminated on 30.09.1987. He also remained ill for 2 years during the year 1984 to 1989 and he did not inform the first party regarding his illness. He was also given notice while terminating his service with 2 cheques as notice pay which he returned to the first party. He admitted that he worked at Halvad and Tikar. He has also admitted that no one was re-engaged or re-employed after his termination. He also admitted that he did not work for 240 days in any calendar year. He is still unemployed though he searches the job. He has 5 members in his family and used to earn Rs.1000/- by doing labour work.
7. After cross-examination of the workman, he stopped coming to the Tribunal and on 13.07.2017, The Assistant General Manager (Legal), Telephones, Surendranagar, informed the Tribunal that the workman has expired. Ms. Kajal Kalwani, advocate for the second party workman on 14.07.2017 requested for time to verify the facts regarding the death of the workman but till date Ms. Kajal Kalwani is unable to explain regarding the facts.
8. Firstly, as the workman has expired, therefore, the reference has become abate as no legal heirs have moved any application for their substitution as party in the place of the deceased workman. Secondly, the deceased workman while alive has admitted that he was a casual labour and was retrenched after giving notice and paying the notice pay by way of cheques. There is no proof on the record that he did not en-cash such cheques. Thirdly, he cannot be said to be a workman as he admitted that he never worked for 240 days in any calendar year.
9. Thus the reference has no force and the action taken by the management of Telecom Department, Surendranagar/Ahmedabad in terminating/discontinuing the services of Shri Jasmuddin Ansari, Casual Labour w.e.f. 30.09.1997 cannot be said to be unjust and illegal.
10. The award is passed accordingly. No relief can be granted.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 36363636....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स मंडल सिचव, अखिल भारतीय डाक कर्मचारी संघ अहमदाबाद, और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0
नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म
न्यायालय, नई दिल्ली -1 के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 978/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 24.08.18 को
प्राप्त <ए थे ।
[सं. एल----40012/149/93---- आईआर )डीयू( ]
राजें(cid:31) जोशी, उप िनदेशक200 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2018
S.O. 36.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 978/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Circlr Secretary, All India postal Employees Union Ahmedabad, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 24.08.18.
[No. L-40012/149/93-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad, Dated 06th August, 2018
Reference: (CGITA) No. 978/2004
1. The Supdt. Of Post Offices,
Kutch Division, Bhuj, Kutch (Gujarat)
2. The Chief Post Master General,
Gujarat Circle, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
3. The Sub-Divisional Inspector,
Bhachau Post Office, Bhachau, Kutch (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
The Circle Secretary, All India Postal Employees Union, Postman Class IV and EDAS, BecharGnanchiChal, Opp. Behrampura, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380022 …Second Party
For the First Party : Shri P.M. Rami For the Second Party : Shri R.C. Pathak
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/149/93– IR(DU) dated 25.11.1994 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Supdt. Of Post Offices, Kachchh Division, Bhuj in terminating/not taking on duties/discontinuance/the services of Shri Popatlal Gokalbhai Prajapati, Extra Departmental Agent, Chitrod Branch of Post Office w.e.f. 13.05.1991 is valid, justified and legal? If not, to what benefits the workman is entitled to and what directions are necessary in the matter?"
1. The reference dates back to 25.11.1994 and received on 12.12.1994 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication.
2. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal to the parties, the second party workman Popatlal Gokalbhai Prajapati submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 alleging that he was initially engaged as Postman by the first party on 14.09.1988 against a clear vacant post of Postman and he worked on the said post till 13.05.1991 when his services were suddenly terminated by the first party without following the due procedure of law. His work was satisfactory during the said period. He has further alleged that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various decisions has observed as under: "Where the workman has worked for a period of more than 2 years continuously then obviously the work will be of permanent nature and the said workman shall be absorbed by the Management." The Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically in a case of daily wages employee of Post and Telegraph Department observed that there is no scheme of regularisation for Class IV employee in the Post and Telegraph Department, therefore, all the employees of Post and Telegraph Department must be regularised who have completed 360 days of service. He has further alleged that as per the circulars of the first party itself, such workman was entitled for the grant of temporary status but the management neither granted him the temporary[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 201 status as per its circular nor regularise his service as per the decision of Supreme Court. Thus the termination was unjust and illegal. He has further alleged that the management has not followed the principle of 'last come and first go' as numbers of employees who were junior to him were retained in the service while terminating his service. He was also not issued any notice or paid retrenchment compensation while terminating his services violating the principles of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the conciliation proceedings also, the management did not agree for reinstatement of service. Therefore, he has prayed for reinstatement of service with back wages, continuity of service and all the consequential benefits.
3. The first parties The Supdt. Of Post Offices, Kutch Division, Bhuj, Kutch (Gujarat), The Chief Post Master General, Gujarat Circle, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) and The Sub-Divisional Inspector, Bhachau Post Office, Bhachau, Kutch (Gujarat), partly admitting the averments made in the statement of claim, jointly submitted the written statement Ex. 28 alleging that the workman has worked as Extra Departmental Agent from 14.09.1988 to 13.05.1991 and was not appointed or engaged as Postman as stated by him in his statement of clam. It is true that the post on which he was engaged was of permanent nature but he was engaged purely on ad-hoc basis as a stop-gap arrangement against the post of a regular employee named R.A. Sadhu who was placed under suspension/put off duty. Thus the post was not vacant. The engagement of the workman was purely a stop-gap arrangement to manage the work assigned to R.A. Sadhu till the disciplinary proceedings are finalised against him. It is wrong to say that the services of the workman were terminated without following due process of law. There was no violation of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act because he was not appointed on permanent basis as said above. It is also submitted that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter because the services of the Government servant under Union of India are not governed by the Industrial Disputes Act. Their service disputes are always adjudicated by the Central Administrative Tribunal as the Post and Telegraph Department is not an Industry. Thus the reference has no force and the prayed sought by the workman is liable to be rejected.
4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:
I. Whether the action of the Supdt. Of Post Offices, Kachchh Division, Bhuj in terminating/not taking on duties/discontinuance/the services of Shri Popatlal Gokalbhai Prajapati, Extra Departmental Agent, Chitrod Branch of Post Office w.e.f. 13.05.1991 is valid, justified and legal?
II. To what relief, if any, the employee concerned is entitled?
5. Issue No. I and II: Both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are to be decided together. The burden of proof of these issues was lying on the second party workman. The workman was examined vide Ex. 17 wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the statement of claim and in his cross-examination, he has not said anything contrary to his examination-in-chief but has not stated that he was recruited as per the procedure of the recruitment rules of Post and Telegraph Department. He has admitted that he was engaged as a Extra Departmental Agent as stop-gap arrangement for a fixed period from time to time. He submitted number of documents vide list Ex. 7. Neither of the documents reveals that he was appointed on permanent basis but some of the documents reveal that he was paying the premium of insurance in the Postal Department.
6. The first party examined one Valajibhai Maheshwari who has stated on oath that the second party workman was not a permanent employee or Postman but he was engaged as Extra Departmental Agent in the leave vacancy of a permanent employee who was subjected to disciplinary proceedings.
7. The workman in his oral and documentary evidences has not proved that any junior person has been appointed after termination of his service.
8. The first party has submitted the departmental rules and regulations of recruitment (D.G., P.&T., Letter No. – 43-4/77-Pen., dated 18.05.1979 and Circular No. 19-34/99-ED & Trg., dated 30.12.1999) which provides as under:
"(16) Provisional appointment of ED Agents – It has come to the notice of this office that provisional appointments made to ED posts are being allowed to continue for indefinite periods and when regular appointments are made, the provisionally appointed persons do not readily hand over the charge. The following instructions are issued in this regard: -
i. As far as possible, provisional appointments should be avoided. Provisional appointments should not be made to fill the vacancies caused by the retirement of ED Agents. In such cases, the Appointment Authority should take action well in time before the retirement of the incumbent ED Agent, to select 2 suitable successors.
ii. Where possible, provisional appointments should be made only for specific periods. The appointed person should be given to understand that the appointment will be terminated on expiry of the specified period and that he will have no claim for regular appointment. Where a new post office is opened or where a new post is created or where an ED Agent dies while in service or resigns from his post and it is not possible to make regular appointment immediately, a provisional appointment should be made for a specific period. The offer for appointment should be in the form annexed (Annexure A).
202 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]iii. Where an ED Agent is put off duty pending departmental or judicial proceedings against him and it is not possible to ascertain the period by which the departmental/judicial proceedings are likely to be finalized, a provisional appointment may be made, in the form annexed (Annexure B). It should be made clear to the provisionally appointed person that if ever it is decided to reinstate the previous incumbent, the provisional appointment will be terminated and that he shall have no claim to any appointment.
Even in cases where an appointment is made to fill the vacancy caused by the dismissal/removal of an ED Agent and the dismissed/removed employee has not exhausted all channels of appeal, the appointment should only be provisional. The offer for appointment should be in the form annexed (Annexure B).
Efforts should be made to give alternative employment to ED Agents who are appointed provisionally and subsequently discharged from service due to administrative reasons, if at the time of discharge they had put in not less than three years' continuous approved service. In such cases, their names should be included in the waiting list of ED Agents discharged from service, prescribed in D.G., P. & T., Letter No. 43-4/77-Pen., dated 23.02.1979."
9. I considered the oral and written arguments of the parties. From the evidence of record, it is established that the workman was appointed as an Extra Departmental Agent on a fixed term as a stop-gap arrangement against the vacancy of permanent employee named R.A. Sadhu who has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings.
10. It is a settled law that no appointment can be made in the Government of India against the recruitment rules.
This workman was engaged on a fixed term basis against the non-vacant post of one R.A. Sadhu who was put under suspension for undergoing disciplinary proceedings. Thus the retrenchment cannot be said to be illegal but as the documentary evidences reveal that he worked for more than 391 days but in less than 3 years, therefore, it would be equitable to grant a lump-sum amount of Rs. 50000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) as compensation. No further relief is granted except as said above.
11. The award is passed accordingly. The first parties are directed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the second party workman Popatlal Gokalbhai Prajapati within 60 days from the publication of the award.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 37373737....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स सहायक भविष्य निधि आयुक्त, कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि संगठन अहमदाबाद, और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के
संब0 नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं
6म न्यायालय, नई दिल्ली-1 के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 10/2009) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 17.10.18 को
प्राप्त <ए थे ।
[सं. एल-42012/52/2009- आईआर )डीयू( ]
राजें(cid:31) जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2018
S.O. 37.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.10/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation Ahmedabad, & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 17.10.18.
[No. L-42012/52/2009-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 203
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad, Dated 09th October, 2018
Reference (CGITA) No. 10/2009
1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation, SRO, Vapi (Gujarat)
2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Head Office, 14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi
3. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, Nr. RBI, Income Tax Circle, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Parties
V/s
Shri Harish Kumar M. Gulrajani, 52, Hathram Ka Darwaja, Near Mohan Talkies, Ratlam (MP) – 457001
…Second Party
For the First Parties : None For the Second Party : Shri R.C. Pathak
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42012/52/2009– IR(DU) dated 07.12.2009 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ahmedabad in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on their workman Shri Harish M. Gulrajani vide order dated 23.12.2004 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
1. The reference dates back to 07.12.2009 and received on 21.12.2009 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. In response to the notice issued to the parties, the second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 7 alleging that he joined as Lower Division Clerk in the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Vapi on 19.04.1995. His services were found satisfactory, therefore, he was promoted on 31.12.1998 as Upper Division Clerk and posted at SRO, Vapi but he was dismissed from service on 04.08.2004 with a mala-fide intention and illegally on the ground that he was trapped to take bribe by the Anti Corruption Bureau. He was subjected to criminal trial under Prevention of Corruption Act wherein he was acquitted by the court of law for want of evidence. But as the first party was adamant to victimize him, therefore, he was subjected to departmental enquiry wherein he was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. He preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal before the appropriate authority but same was also rejected. Therefore, he raised this dispute before the Conciliation Officer; hence, this reference was referred for adjudication before the Tribunal.
3. The first party did not prefer to submit the written statement, therefore, the reference was ordered to proceed ex- parte against the first party on 10.03.2016.
4. The second party workman in support of his statement of claim Ex. 7 submitted the affidavit Ex. 12 reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim Ex. 7 and has also filed the documents regarding the order of acquittal by the Criminal Court and other relevant documents regarding the departmental proceedings.
5. I heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the second party.
204 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]6. The Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code provides as under:
"9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred: The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred."
7. The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 provides as under:
"SECTION 1 SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT:
(1) This Act may be called the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
(2) It extends, – (a) in so far as it relates to the Central Administrative Tribunal, to the whole of India;
(b) In so far as it relates to the Administrative Tribunals for States, to the whole of India, except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
(3) The provisions of this Act, in so far as they relate to the Central Administrative Tribunal, shall come into force on such date 1 as the Central Government may, by notification, appoint.
(4) The provisions of the Act, in so far as they relate to Administrative Tribunal, for a State shall come into force in State on such date 2 as the Central Government may, by notification appoint.
Comments:
The Act applies to all categories of Central Government servants and others posted to work in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as well; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Subhas Sharma, (2002) 4 SCC 145.
1. The provisions of this Act in so far as they relate to the Central Administrative Tribunal, came into force on 1-7- 1985, vide G.S.R. 527(E), dated 1st July, 1985.
2. The provisions of this Act in so far as they relate to the State Administrative Tribunal, for Andhra Pradesh came into force on I-11-1989, vide G.S.R. 921(E), dated 25th October, 1989 and for Arunachal Pradesh came into force on 3-8-1989, vide G.S.R. 638(E), dated 3rd August, 1989 and for Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Orissa came into force on 1-1-1985; vide G.S.R. 956(E), dated 31st December, 1985, and for the State of Bihar came into force on 22-10-1991, vide S.O. 715(E), dated 22nd October, 1991.
2. ACT NOT TO APPLY TO CERTAIN PERSONS:
The provisions of this Act shall not apply to –
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 2059. The principles of legal jurisprudence provide that Civil Court has jurisdiction over all the matters of civil nature unless it is expressly or impliedly barred as given under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. The service disputes regarding employees of State and Central Government are barred by the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Second principle is that if there is a dispute of jurisdiction between the two statutes, then the later statutes in date will be applicable. In the present case, the workman has himself alleged in his statement of claim that he was a Upper Division Clerk in the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under the Government of India, therefore, is a central government employee and the later in date the statute namely Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 provides that any service dispute with respect to a person regarding all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any state or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of Government of India regarding (i) Remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits; (ii) Tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, revision, pre-mature retirement and superannuation; (iii) Leave of any kind; (iv) Disciplinary matters; (v) any other matters whatsoever shall be adjudicate by the Central Administrative Tribunal or State Administrative Tribunal as the case may be.
10. In the present case, the so called workman has himself admitted that he was dismissed from service while serving as Upper Division Clerk in the service of Union of India, thus the question of his dismissal or termination as per the provisions of the Central Administrative Act can only be adjudicated by the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 being later in date to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and this is a basis principle that if there is a dispute between the two statutes regarding jurisdiction then the statute later in date shall prevail.
11. Thus this Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has no jurisdiction over the matter and the reference is disposed of with a direction to the so called workman Harish M. Gulrajani to approach the proper forum.
12. The award is passed accordingly.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 38383838....————औद्योगिक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स उप-मंडल (टेली), भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड देसा, अहमदाबाद , और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0
नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक िववाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अिधकरण एवं 6म
न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 551/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 22.10.18 को प्राप्त
<ए थे ।
[सं. एल----40012/257/2002---- आईआर )डीयू( ]
राजें(cid:31) जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi,the 20th December, 2018
S.O. 38.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.551/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Sub – Divisional (Tele) , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Deesa, Ahmedabad, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 22.10.18.
[No. L-40012/257/2002-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad, Dated 22nd October, 2018
Reference (CGITA) No. 551/2004
1. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Tele.),
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Deesa Telephone Exchange, Deesa (B.K.) – 385536206 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. The Chief General Manager,
Telecom Department, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Khanpur, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
3. The General Manager Telecom,
Telecom Department, Palanpur Telecom District, Joravar Palace, Palanpur (B.K.) – 385001
…First Parties
V/s
The Org. Secretary, The Association of Railway and Post Employees, 15, Shashi Apartment, Nr. Anjalee Cinema, Vasna Road, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380007 …Second Party
For the First Party : Shri H.R. Raval For the Second Party : Shri Chintan Gohel
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/257/2002– IR(DU) dated 17.04.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom District Manager, Palanpur/SDOT, Deesa, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Telecom Department) in terminating the services of Shri Md. Umatali Md. Alim is legal, proper and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and since when?"
1. The reference dates back to 17.04.2003 and received on 21.05.2003 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. In response to the notice, the second party submitted the statement of claim along with vakalatpatra of Shri R.C. Pathak on 05.04.2005. The first party submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 6 of Shri H.R. Raval on 31.01.2010 and written statement Ex. 7 on 06.08.2010.
3. The second party workman submitted an application Ex. 8 for production of documents and the first party submitted the reply Ex. 9 in response to the application Ex. 8.
4. Today on 22.10.2018, Shri Chintan Gohel, the advocate for the second party stated in the Tribunal that the workman has not been in his contact and he has no instructions from the client.
5. Thus it appears that the second party workman is not willing to prosecute the case.
6. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman with the observation as under: "the action of the management of Telecom District Manager, Palanpur/SDOT, Deesa, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Telecom Department) in terminating the services of Shri Md. Umatali Md. Alim is legal, proper and justified."
7. The award is passed accordingly.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 39393939....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स मुख्य महाप्रबंधक )दूरसंचार( , गुजरात स3कल, भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड, खानपुर अहमदाबाद, और अन्य एवं उनके
कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या. 536/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय
सरकार को 17.10.18 को प्राप्त <ए थे ।
[सं. एल----40012/163/2004---- आईआर )डीयू( ]
राजें(cid:31) जोशी, उप िनदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 207
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2018
S.O. 39.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.536/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chife General Manager (Telecom), Gujarat Circle ,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Khanpur Ahmedabad, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 17.10.18.
[No. L-40012/163/2002-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad, Dated 24th September, 2018
Reference (CGITA) No. 536/2004
1. The Chief General Manager (Telecom),
Gujarat Circle, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Khanpur, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001 2. The Telecom District Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ganj Market, Palanpur (B.K.) – 385001
…First Parties
V/s
The Org. Secretary, The Association of Railway and Post Employees, 15, Shashi Apartment, Nr. Anjalee Cinema, Vasna Road, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) –380007 …Second Party
For the First Party : Shri H.R. Raval For the Second Party : Shri Chinten Gohel
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/163/2002– IR(DU) dated 10.02.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Telecom Department) in terminating the services of Shri Baijnath Sing Yadav is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concern workman is entitled to and what other directions are necessary in the matter?"
1. The reference dates back to 10.02.2003 and received on 06.03.2003 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim on 05.04.2005 and the first party submitted the written statement on 22.04.2010.
3. On 24.09.2018, Shri Chintan Gohel, advocate for the second party workman has given in writing that the workman Baijnath Sing Yadav has not been in his contact.
4. Therefore, it appears that the second party union or its workman is not willing to prosecute the case.
5. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party union or its workman with the observation as under: "the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Telecom Department) in terminating the services of Shri Baijnath Sing Yadav is legal, proper and justified."
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer208 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 40404040....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स दूरसंचार िजला अिभयंता, दूरसंचार िवभाग अहमदाबाद, और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों
और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय,
अहमदाबाद पंचाट के (संदर्भ संख्या 1215/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 17.10.18 को प्राप्त <ए थे ।
[सं. एल----40012/171/2002---- आईआर )डीयू( ]
राजें(cid:31) जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2018
S.O. 40.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.1215/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Telecom District Engineer, Telecom Department Ahmedabad, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 17.10.18.
[No. L-40012/171/2002-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad, Dated 05th October, 2018
Reference (CGITA) No. 1215/2004
The Telecom District Engineer, Telecom Department, Surendranagar (Gujarat) – 363001 …First Party
V/s
The President, Saurashtra Employees Union, City Shops, 3rd Floor, Opp. Jagnath Policy Chowky, Dr. Yagnik Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri H.R. Raval For the Second Party : Shri Prabhatsinh Parmar
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/171/2002– IR(DU) dated 08.01.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal , Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Surendranagar not to give employment to Shri Hejam Kishorkumar Tulsidas is justified or legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled for and since when?"
1. The reference dates back to 08.01.2003 and received on 16.02.2003 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 on 19.08.2003/04.11.2003 along with number of documents. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 7 on 06.01.2005.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 2093. Today on 05.10.2018, the second party workman moved an application Ex. 32 stating that he does not want to proceed the case and requested the Tribunal to withdraw the case. The application Ex. 32 is allowed.
4. Thus the reference is disposed of as withdrawn.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2018
dk- vk- 41-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkU/kzk cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ukxiqj] ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 04@2013&14½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-12-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@82@2012&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2018
S.O. 41.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2013-14) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Andhra Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.12.2018.
[No. L-12012/82/2012-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER,CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/04/2013-14 Date: 01.11.2018
Party No.1(a) : The General Manager, Andhra Bank, Zonal Office, Mahakali Caves Road, Mahal Industrial Estate, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400093.
Party No.1(b) : The Branch Nanager, Andhra Bank, Butibori Branch, Tehsil & Distt. Nagpur, Nagpur – 441108.
Party No.1(c) : Shri C. Ramchandran, C.M.D., Andhra Bank, Pattabhi Bhawan, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, Hyderabad (A.P.).
Versus
Party No.2 : Smt. Sangita Satish Patil, R/o C/o Sonu Devaji Shivankar, At & PO. New Basti, Shrusti Layout, Ward No. 3, Behind Jijamata School, Butibori, Tehsil & Distt. Nagpur, Nagpur (M.S.).
(Dated: 01st November, 2018)
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 Andhra Bank and their workman, Smt. Sangita Satish Patil for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12012/82/2012-IR (B-II) dated 01.03.2013, with the following schedule:-
"Whether the action of the management of the Andhra Bank, Buttibori, Tah & Distt. Nagpur through its
Branch Manager for termination from services of Smt. Sangita Satish Patil, R/o Buttibori, Distt. Nagpur is legal
and justified? What relief to the workman is entitled to?"
210 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]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, Shri B.B Sharma and Y.B. Sharma, advocates field joint vakalatnama on behalf of the Party No. 1 i.e. management on 20.06.2013 and Mrs. Rajshree Waikar, advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner on 07.08.2013. Petitioner filed statement of claim on 20.09.2013 and Party No. 1 filed their reply on affidavit on 01.03.2018. Petitioner also examined herself after filing evidence on affidavit on 13.02.2015, but petitioner was absent from 02.11.2017, even this Tribunal issued fresh notice to both parties.
3. Party No. 1/management filed an application, I.A. No. 1 for setting aside the exparte order, which was allowed by this Tribunal on 18.10.2018, after the service of the application I.A. No. 1(According to the track report). Party No. 1 also filed an application for dismissal of the reference on 18.10.2018, which was marked as I.A. No. 2. In these circumstances, without going on merit of the case, I.A. No. 2 is allowed. It shows that, petitioner is not interested to continue with this reference. Hence it is ordered:
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
ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2018
dk- vk- 42-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkQ egkjk"Vª ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ukxiqj] ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 86@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-12- 2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@73@2006&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2018
S.O. 42.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 86/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.12.2018.
[No. L-12012/73/2006 - IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/86/2006 Date: 09.10.2018
Party No.1 : The Regional Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Regional Office, Near Siddharth Hotel, Chandrapur (M.S.) - 442402.
Versus
Party No.2 : Shri Bhalchandra Parshuram Lengure, R/O Madnapur Ward, Post Sindewahi, Chandrapur (M.S.).
(Dated: 09th October, 2018)
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 employer, in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workman, Shri Bhalchandra Parshuram Lengure for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12012/73/2006- (IR(B-II) dated 30.10.2006, with the following schedule:-
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 211"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra in respect of their Sindewahi Branch,
Distt. Chandrapur in terminating the services of Shri Bhalchandra Parshuram Lengure, Ex-Sub Staff w.e.f.
30.10.2004 is proper & justified? If not, 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, by registered post with acknowledge due. In this case, petitioner/claimant filed statement of claim and management filed written statement. Management also filed evidence on affidavit, but nobody has appeared on behalf of the workman from 29.12.2010 to 22.03.2011. Management also filed written notes of argument and petitioner filed an application for setting aside the order dated 29.12.2010. This application was allowed on 03.01.2014 by my predecessor. On 16.12.2014, my predecessor rejected the application of the petitioner, in which, he prayed to set aside the order dated 19.03.2014. After that, petitioner and his advocate have been absent.
3. This Tribunal issued a notice to the petitioner for appearance on 12.03.2018, but nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner. It shows that, petitioner did not want to proceed with the reference, so it was closed. Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative and against the workman. The workman is not entitled to any
relief.
SHYAM SUNDER GARG, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2018
dk- vk- 43-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 154@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-12- 2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&39025@01@2017&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2018
S.O. 43.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 154/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.12.2018.
[No. L-39025/01/2017 - IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
ID No. 154/2013
Shri Chedda Lal Sharma, S/o. late Shri Puran Chand, R/o. H.No.B014/1, Manbhari Kunj, Sindhu Farm Road, Meetapur Extn. New Delhi 110044.
…Workman
Versus
(1) The Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Market, Gole Market, New Delhi.
(2) The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, SSI Branch Okhla, 173-174 DSIDC, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi 110020.
… Management212 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
This Award shall decide a claim petition directly filed by the workman/claimant Chedda Lal Sharma under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( hereinafter referred to as "the Act")., with the averments that he was engaged as a casual worker by Management No.2 in the year 1998, where he worked till 21/6/2011 without any break. The Management was taking the work of dafty from the workman for stitching of vouchers etc. continuously and paid him wages/salary in his bank account as there was no daftry posted in the said Branch of the Management Bank. The Management did not regularize the workman though gave assurances and as such, the workman raised an Industrial dispute in the year 2011 for his regularization before the Conciliation Officer but after that the Management in frustration terminated the services of the workman during the conciliation proceedings. The petitioner had rendered service for more than 13 years with the Management Bank on regular basis without any break. Though the prayer clause of the statement of claim is not happily worded, yet it can be inferred from the averments made in para (viii) thereof that the workman is seeking relief of reinstatement into service on regular basis, inasmuch as he has already crossed the age bar to get some other service and has spent most part of his life to serve the Bank.
2. The claim petition has been resisted by the Management who filed written statement and took preliminary objections that the claimant was neither an employee of the Management Bank nor was appointed by the Management rather he was only engaged for casual work by the Management Bank at its SSI Branch, Okhla, New Delhi and as such there never existed any employer-employee relationship between the parties. On merits, it is stated that the claimant was engaged for doing the job work of book binding at its Okhla Branch as and when required and he was paid according to the job work performed by him and as per bills submitted by him. It has been denied that the claimant worked from 1998 to 21/1/2011 as alleged by him. Since the claimant was not an employee of the Management Bank, question of termination of his service did not arise. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor on 26/2/2014 :-
(1) Whether the claimant rendered continuous service of one year as contemplated by provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination of service ?
(2) Whether claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in service ?
4. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as W.W.1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A alongwith documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/4.
5. On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined Shri Roop Lal Meena, Assistant General Manager as MW1 who also tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A alongwith documents Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.MW1/2.
6. I have heard Shri Devender Sharma, A/R for the workman and Shri Rajat Arora, A/R for the Management and have gone through the records carefully. My findings on the above issues are as follows.
Issue No. 1 :
7. There is no dispute about preposition of law that onus to prove that claimant was in the employment of Management is always on the workman/claimant and he worked with the Management for 240 days in a calendar year. it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of his employment with the Management Bank. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of his/her appointment or engagement for that year to show that he/she has worked with the employer for 240 days or more in a Calendar year. In this regard, reference may be made to Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sowaran Singh, (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries Terminated Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Gavda (2012) 1 SCC 47.
8. This Tribunal has to consider the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on record so as to decide the question of relationship of employer and employee between the Management and the claimant herein. In this respect, it is appropriate to refer to the affidavit Ex.WW1/A of the claimant which is in line with the averments made in the claim petition. According to the testimony of the claimant that the Management was taking the work of daftry from him and he worked as such for the last 13 years at different branches of the Bank and his work was totally supervisd by the Bank officials. His salary was paid by the Bank and used to be credited in his account by the bank and in support, he has filed on record copies of the bank statement and cheque deposit slips as Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2 (colly.) He also deposed that he had been working at the instructions of the Management and dealt in maintaining vouchers, current deposit and day book which work was of perennial in nature. He has filed on record copies of cover note of cash book/day book etc. maintained by him as Ex.WW1/3 alongwith photographs Ex.WW1/4 to show that he was working inside the bank premises. In cross examination he clarified that no appointment letter was issued to him by the Management and that entry dated 4/11/1999 & 6-11-1999 and other entries in Ex.WW1/1 pertain to the wages having been paid by the Bank.
9. It has been admitted by the Management in its written statement that the claimant was engaged for casual work by the Management Bank at its SSI Branch, Okhla, New Delhi. MW1 Shri Roop Lal Meena clarified in his cross examination that the claimant was engaged only for book binding work casually during the period from 1998 to 2011 and that no record of such casual employee is maintained by the Bank. According to him, payment used to be made to the claimant under book binding expenses/misc. expenses head by way of cheque or through ECS. He admitted that the workman had worked at various branches of the Management bank but he could not say for how many hours in a day, the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 213 claimant worked. He also admitted that the claimant ued to prepare/bind books like documents Ex.WW1/3. He could not admit or deny if the claimant did the work of daftry with the Management Bank. He also stated that the Bank does not have any documentary evidence to show that the workman worked for less than 240 days in a calendar year. He admitted that the payments having been made to the workman/claimant from time to time through vouchers must have been reflected./entered in the General Register and/or Cash Book maintained by the branch.
10. From the pleadings and evidence on record as discussed above it stands proved that the claimant was duly engaged by the Management Bank for casual work and he did the work of daftry/book binder from 1998 to 2011 at different branches of the Management Bank. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of "workman" has observed as under :-
"The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/
contract of service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for
deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The
definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a
person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which
it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole
time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages
or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman."
It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of "workman" as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act. Consequently, it is held that there existed relationship of employee –employer between the workman/claimant and the Management.
11. Equally settled is the position of law that when relationship of employer-employee stands proved between the parties, then onus will shift upon the employer/management to show that the claimant has not worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year or that the services of the claimant was terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Act or in accordance with Standing Order applicable to the establishment concerned, As discussed above, in the case in hand, engagement of the claimant for casual work of book binding has been duly proved on record. The Management has not filed any document in the form of abstract of attendance of claimant or other such casual workers so as to show that claimant has not completed 240 days in a calendar year. Even MW1 Roop Lal Meena admitted that the Management Bank does not have any documentary proof to show that the workman worked for less than 240 days in a calendar year. In such circumstances, statement of the claimant who appeared as WW1 can not be brushed aside, more so for the reason that work of daftry is of regular and perennial in nature. The Management bank has not adduced any evidence to show as to who was/were the person/s engaged or doing such like work in the said Branch.
12. Net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the claimant had completed 240 days in a calendar year as contemplated under Section 25-B of the Act. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the claimant and against the Management.
Issue No.2 :
13. Now the vital question for consideration is as to whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 21/6/22011 is legal and justified.
14. The case of the workman is that since the Management did not regularize the workman despite assurances, the workman raised an Industrial dispute in the year 2011 for his regularization before the Conciliation Officer but after that the Management in frustration terminated his services during the conciliation proceedings by an oral order. The claimant has deposed in his testimony that no memo or charge sheet was issued to him prior to his illegal termination and even no compensation was paid or offered by the Management. This Tribunal has already held that the claimant was the "Workman" for the purposes of the Act and had worked for over 240 days in a calendar year.
15. Management has not adduced any evidence to show that before ordering termination of workmen herein w.e.f. 21/6/2011, the workmen has been issued any notice or has been paid one month's wages in lieu of such notice as required under Section 25-F of the Act. There is long line of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render whole action of the Management Bank to be illegal and wrong under the law. In the circumstances, it is held that action of the Management in terminating the service of the workmen is totally illegal, wrong and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act.
16. Now the residual question is whether the claimant/work is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. In his affidavit, the workman has specifically stated that he is unemployed since the date of his illegal termination and he could not get any job despite best efforts. The Management has not adduced any evidence to show that the claimant is gainfully employed somewhere else on full time/regular basis. Even if it is assumed that the workmen is doing some intermittent or adhoc work to make his both ends meet on daily wage basis, that would not itself amount to gainful employment.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya" reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :
214 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]"The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a workman's service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
19. A Bench of three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the act of employer is found to be totally illegal and arbitrary, in that eventuality the workman is required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen alongwith payment of back wages.
20. However, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported as 2005 SCC (L&S) 716 observed as under :-
"8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year."
21. Yet in another latest case of Bholanath Lal and others Vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd., Manu/DE/1922/2018 (decided on 10/5/2018), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of illegal termination and reinstatement held as under :-
"The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same The courts must always keep in view that that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee./workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/ workman his dues in the form of full back wages."
A similar view has been taken in the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Vimal Kumar (decided on 5-4-2018) MANU/de/1322/2018 wherein service of a casual driver was terminated without any notice or payment of one month's[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 215 salary in lieu of such notice. The Industrial Tribunal answering the reference held the action of the management to be illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Award was upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by observing as under :-
"In view of the above discussion, I am unable to discern any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award, dated 29th May, 2003, of the Labour Court, to the extent that it holds the termination of the services of the respondent, by the petitioner, to be illegal and unlawful. I am entirely in agreement with the finding, of the Labour Court, that the services of the respondent were retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act and that, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In view of the fact that going by the age of the respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, he would, today, be only 50 years of age, and also in view of the fact that the termination of his services as SCM Driver was not on account of any deficiency or shortcoming detected in the manner of discharge by the respondent, of his duties as such, I am of the opinion, that the facts of the present case, do not warrant any interference with the direction, of the Labour Court, to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with the benefit of continuity of service. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith.
Inasmuch as the respondent has not been rendering any service to the petitioner since the date of his termination, however, the back wages payable to the respondent would be limited to 50 per cent of the wages which he would have drawn he had continued to serve the petitioner….."
22. Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the fact that the claimant was performing duty to a post of regular and perennial nature, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled for reinstatement into service on the same post, with 50 per cent back wages, iinasmuch as termination of the claimant/workman is per-se illegal, particularly when the job is of regular and perennial nature and the claimant/workman is not gainfully employed anywhere since after his termination by the Management. Award is passed accordingly.
Date :4.12.18
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2018
dk- vk- 44-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 36@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-12-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@52@2011&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2018
S.O. 44.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.12.2018.
[No. L-12012/52/2011 - IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 MUMBAI
Present :JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-1/ 36 OF 2011
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Bank of India
and
Their workman (Harish G Chintalwad)
Appearances:
For the first party no.1/ Management : Mr.Lancy D' Souza, Adv. For the second party / Workman : Mr.R.M.Nijampurkar, Adv. State : Maharashtra
Mumbai, dated the 22nd day of November, 2018216 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
1. The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-12012/52/2011 – IR (B- II)dated04.11.2011 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as under:
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Pune in imposing the punishment of
compulsory retirement on Shri Harish G. Chintalwad vide order dated 11.7.2007 is legal and justified?
What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"
2. Brief facts giving rise to this reference are that the workman Shri Harish G.Chintalwad was working as Sub- staff – Cash Peon in the Bank of India, Khadki Branch. It I alleged that while working as sub-staff at the above Bank, the workman prepared bogus salary certificate of himself on 23.9.2001 on the Banks letter head. The workman on the above bogus salary certificate falsely showed his total emoluments as 7593.94 when his take home salary in the month of September 2001 was Rs.2,962.00. He also impressed the rubber stamp of the above Bank on the said bogus salary certificate. Thus, the workman committed an act of misconduct to qualify himself as a guarantor in respect of a loan application made by one of his acquaintance Shri Ajay Manohar Torne. This fraud came to light of the Bank when an order of attachment dated 1.3.2006 issued by Recovery Officer was received by the Branch. Owing to above gross misconduct a charge sheet was issued to the workman. During enquiry the workman himself gave his admission in writing on the copy of Marathi version of the charge sheet . He also unconditionally accepted the charges and the documents filed by the Presenting Officer. After the conclusion of enquiry, the disciplinary authority awarded him the punishment of compulsory retirement with immediate effect with superannuation benefits. The workman challenged the punishment order and thereby raised an industrial dispute which has been referred by the Government of Indi for decision by this Tribunal.
3. The workman has pleaded that the punishment imposed on him is unjust, unreasonable and improper being shockingly disproportionate and harsh one besides being discriminatory vis-à-vis the punishment imposed upon other workman with similar act of misconduct. He has also pleaded that the action against him was vitiated on account of bias and partial attitude of the Enquiry Officer. The findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse and vitiates the enquiry. He blindly accepted the admission of the workman without going into the contents of the said admission. Thus, the workman challenged the punishment order and has claimed is reinstatement with full back wages with other consequential benefits.
4. The management of the Bank has filed its written statement depicting the factual position as above. However, it pleaded inter alia that the act of misconduct committed by the workman comes within gross misconduct of "doing any act prejudicial of the interest of the Bank" within the meaning of clause 5 sub-clause (j) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002. Therefore, a charge sheet was submitted and enquiry was conducted against the workman concerned in which he admitted all the charges and the documents filed during enquiry. Consequently, the Enquiry Officer found charges proved against him and submitted his report whereupon a show cause notice of punishment was issued to the workman and after hearing him a punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits was passed against the workman concerned.
5. On behalf of the workman WW-1 Shri Harish Chintanwad has been examined to substantiate the illegality of enquiry, however, on behalf of the management MW-1 Rajesh G.Iyer was examined by the management. No other witness was produced on behalf of the management.
6. Burden lies on the workman to prove that the enquiry conducted against him is illegal and not in consonance of principles of natural justice. But as it is evident from the application moved by the workman concerned on 1.8.2018, the workman concerned is not interested to pursue the proceedings of this case and he has requested for closure of the proceedings, the illegality of enquiry is not required to be adjudicated upon.
7. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the punishment order was passed on the ground of admission made by the workman concerned during enquiry proceedings. The workman concerned participated in the enquiry. He does not want to say anything against the validity and illegality of the enquiry proceedings. He has requested for closure of the proceedings. Therefore, in view of this application dated 1.8.2018, no further adjudication in the matter is required as there exist no dispute and in view of above, let award be passed accordingly.
JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 45454545....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स नेशनल इंश्योरेंस कम्पनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट
औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 60/2014) को
प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 26.12.2018 को प्राप्त <आ था।
[सं. एल-17012/140/2014-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 217
New Delhi, the 27th December, 2018
S.O. 45.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 60/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. National Insurance Company Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26.12.2018.
[No. L-17012/140/2014-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S. S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/60/2014-15 Date: 03.10.2018
Party No. 1(a) : The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, No.2, Paul Commercial Complex, 5th Floor, Ajni Chowk, Nagpur, Nagpur – 440015.
Party No.1(b) : The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Buttibori, Nagpur.
Versus
Party No.2 : Shri Satish Mahadeorao Patil, C/o Sonu Devaji Shivankar, Srushti Layout, Navin Vasti, Ward No. 3, Buttibori, Nagpur, Nagpur.
(Dated: 03rd October, 2018)
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 employer, in relation to the management of National Insurance Co. Ltd. and their workman, Shri Satish Mahadeorao Patil for adjudication, as per letter No.L-17012/140/2014- (IR(M) dated 22.01.2015, with the following schedule:-
"Whether the action of the Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Nagpur/Buttibori, Nagpur in
terminating the services of Sh. Satish Mahadeorao Patil, Ex Office Boy/Peon w.e.f. 10.04.2012 is just, fair
and legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is 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 nobody was appearing from either side from the beginning. On 07.11.2017, order was passed to issue fresh notice to the parties, fixing the date on 08.12.2017. On 08.12.2017, Advocate C.A. Anthony filed Memo of Appearance on behalf of the management, but nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner, though notice was served on him.
3. On 20.02.2018, Advocate C.A. Anthony filed vakalatnama on behalf of the management, but nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. After perusal of the record, it reveals that, after serving of notice on the workman, eight dates have been given to him to file statement of claim, but no statement of claim has been filed. On 25.09.2018, advocate for the management filed a pursis mentioning therein for closure of this case and on that also, the workman was absent and no claim was filed. So, I think that, the workman is not interested to continue with this reference. Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative and against the workman. The workman is not entitled to any
relief.
SHYAM SUNDER GARG, Presiding Officer218 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 46464646....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार मेसर्स हिन्दुस्तान जिक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय, उदयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 03/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 24.12.2018 को प्राप्त <आ था।
[सं. एल-43012/12/2000-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 27th December, 2018
S.O. 46.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2000) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Udaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Hindustan Zinc Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.12.2018.
[No. L-43012/12/2000-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
vuqca/k
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] mn;iqj ¼jktLFkku½ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh & Jh v:.k dqekj nqcs
izdj.k la[;k 03@2000 I.T.R.(C)
Jh vf[ky Hkkjrh; tLrk mRiknd Jfed la?k tujy lsdsVªh] pEikyky /keZ'kkyk] mn;iqj
---izkFkhZ
fo:)
Jh fgUnqLrku ftad fyfeVsM] tujy eSustj] jktiqjk njhck ekbZUl] iksLV njhck] jktleUn
---foi{kh
mifLFkr %&
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls % Jh izHkqyky lq[koky] izfrfuf/k
foi{kh dh vkSj ls % Jh Hkjr l:ifj;k] vf/koDrk
iapkV
fnukad 23 vxLr] 2018 Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk Øekad L-43012/ 12/2000(IR{M})New Delhi fnukad 30-06-2000 ds }kjk fuEukafdr fookn bl U;k;ky; dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ izsf"kr fd;k x;k &
"Whether the action of the management of
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Rajpura Dariba Mines,
Dariba Distt. Rajsamand in not giving Pay
protection and step up to Sh. Mithulal
Vaishnav and giving more salary to his
Junior Workman is legal and justified ?
If not,to what relief the workmen concerned
is entitled to ?"
mDr vk'k; dk izlax izkIr gksus ij U;k;ky; }kjk izdj.k ntZ fd;k tkdj lEcfU/kr i{kdkjku dks uksfVl tkjh fd;s x;sA ftl ij izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls fnukad 08-01-2001 dks Dyse fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk foi{kh dh vkSj ls fnukad 28-08-2001[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 219 dks tckc is'k fd;k x;k rFkk vU; dk;Zokgh gksus ds ckn cgl lquh tkdj U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 13-04-2005 dks vfUre iapkV fuEu izdkj ikfjr fd;k x;k &
^^Dyse jsQjsUl esa izkFkhZ i{kdkj vf[ky Hkkjrh; tLrk mRiknd Jfed la?k }kjk izLrqr o iSjoh ugha fd;s tkus ds dkj.k pyus ;ksX; ugha gksus ls [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS A **
mDr iapkV ds fo:) feBwyky oS".ko dh vkSj ls ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj esa ;kfpdk S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4844/2005 Mithu Lal Vaishnav Vs. The Judge Ind. Tribunal and Gen. Manager Hindustan Zin Ltd. is'k dh A ftlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us vius vkns'k fnuakd 06-04-2011 }kjk bl izdj.k dks bl U;k;ky; dks fjek.M djrs gq, nksuksas i{kks dks lquokbZ dk volj nsdj xq.k&nks"k ij iapkV ikfjr djus dk vkns'k fn;k A
ftl ij fnuakd 13-12-2011 dks izdj.k iqu% ntZ fd;k tkdj nksuksa i{kksa dks lk{; o nLrkost is'k djus dk volj fn;k x;k A
izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr Dyse ds rF; la{ksi esa bl izdkj gS fd& Jfed feBwyky dks fu;kstd i{k us fnukad 30-08-75 ds vius vkns'k }kjk 'kk[kk tkoj ekbZUl esa lsEiy ckW; ds in ij Js.kh&f}rh; esa osru J`a[kyk 160&6&250 esa fu;qDr fd;kA mlds ckn fu;kstd }kjk Jfed dks fnuakd 01-01-79 dks Js.kh&r`rh; ds in ij inksUur fd;kA Jfed }kjk foi{kh ds v/khu 09-09-75 ls 31-03-84 rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k A fu;kstd us fnukad 01-05-86 dks Js.kh&prqFkZ ij inksUur fd;k o mlds ckn Js.kh iape ij Lor% inksUur fd;k x;k A tgka fnukad 01-01-96 ls ewy osru 3586 :i;s gksdj fnukad 01-07-96 ls ewy osru 3662 ds fglkc ls Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk gS] tcfd Jfed i{k ds i'pkr~ fu;kstd i{k ds ;gka dk;Zjr deZpkjh xksihyky] papy dqekj] rstflag dks Js.kh& iape esa ewy osru 3738 :i;s ds fglkc ls Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk gS A Jfed i{k ds i'pkr~ fu;qDr mDr deZpkfj;ksa dks 2 o"kZ 4 ekg ckn iape&Js.kh nh xbZ gS A blh izdkj tkoj ekbZUl esa dk;Zjr 'ke'kwy gd dks fnukad 01-08-96 ls Js.kh iakp esa ewy osru 3814 :i;s ds fglkc ls Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk gS A bl lEcU/k esa Jfed us dbZ ckj fyf[kr ,oa ekSf[kd :i ls osru vlaxfr dks nwj djus dk fuosnu fd;k] ysfdu fu;kstd us dksbZ /;ku ugha fn;k A Jfed ds fu;kstu dky easa foi{kh dsk dHkh dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha jgh A bl izdkj fu;kstd }kjk Jfed dks vU; dfu"B leku in ,oa Js.kh ij dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa ls osru vlaxfr gksus ls de osru dk Hkqxrku djuk vuqfpr Je O;ogkj gS A blfy;s osru folaxfr dks nwj dj mls lHkh ykHk fnyk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k A
foi{kh us vius tckc esa ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ dk osru fu/kkZj.k fof/kor foi{kh laLFkku esa ekU;rk izkIr la?k ls fnukad 29-09-95 dks gq, nh?kZ vof/k le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gS ,oa mlh vuqlkj mldks Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk gSA izkFkhZ us fnuakd 30-08-75 dks tkoj ekbZUl esa Js.kh&nks esa viuk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k Fkk rFkk 31-03-84 rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k ,oa izkFkhZ us izcU/ku dks tkoj [knku ls jktiqjk njhck [knku esa On request transfer dh izkFkZuk dh ftl ij vkns'k fnukad 16-03-84 ls izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k fd;k x;k ftl vkns'k esa gh ;g Li"V :i ls lwfpr fd;k Fkk fd ^^vUr% ofj"Brk esa dfu"Bre jgsxsa A** izkFkhZ us mDr vkns'k esa of.kZr 'krksZ dks Lohdkj djrs gq, jktiqjk njhck [knku bZdkbZ esa dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k Fkk A feBwyky }kjk fnuakd 01-05-86 ls ofj"B lsEiyesu&A] Js.kh&pkj esa 8 o"kZ dk dk;Zdky iw.kZ djus ij i= dzekad 568 fnukad 22-06-94 }kjk fu;ekuqlkj inksUufr nh xbZ A foHkkx esa dk;Zjr vU; deZpkjh xksihyky] papy dqekj] rstflag fnukad 04-04z-84 dks izkFkhZ feBwyky ds tkoj [knku ls jktiqjk njhck [knku esa On request transfer ds le; ofj"B lsEiyesu&aAA] Js.kh&rhu esa dk;Zjr Fks ,oa feBwyky }kjk bl bdkbZ esa LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k esa n'kkZ;h 'krksZ ds vuqlkj feBwyky foHkkx esa dk;Zjr vU; deZpkfj;ksa ls dfu"Bre ekus x;s Fks A blfy;s feBwyky tkoj ekbZUl esa dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa ls osru vlaxfr ds lEcU/k esa rqyuk djus dk gdnkj ugha gS A feBwyky }kjk osru vlaxfr ds lEcU/k esa izkFkZuk djus ij mls bl ckcr lwfpr dj fn;k Fkk fd mldk osru vlaxfr dk ekeyk ugh curk gS A feBwyky dfu"B deZpkjh gksus ds dkj.k os ofj"B deZpkjh ls de osru izkIr dj jgs gS A blfy;s izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh A
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls vius Dyse ds leFkZu esa fnukad 04-12-15 dks 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k ftl ij fnukad 27-01-16 dks ftjg gqbZ o foi{kh dh vkSj ls ujsUnz iqjksfgr dk 'kiFk i= is'k gqvk ftlls fnukad 05-02-18 dks ftjg iwjh gqbZ o mlh fnu lk{; foi{kh lekIr dh rFkk i=koyh cgl vafre esa fu;r dh xbZ ftl ij nksuksa i{kksa dh vkSj ls fyf[kr cgl is'k dh xbZA
cgl lquh xbZ A i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;k A
izkFkhZ ,oa foi{kh dh vkSj ls bl ekeys esa iwoZ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds le{k fnuakd 16-03-2018 dks fyf[kr cgl izLrqr dh xbZ Fkh] ftldh vkSj Hkh /;ku vkdf"kZr fd;k x;k A220 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] mijksDr rdksZ dk [k.Mu djrs gqos fo}ku vf/koDrk foi{kh dk rdZ gS fd bl ekeys esa izkFkhZ o foi{kh dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; ls ;g iw.kZ:is.k lkfcr gS fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr foi{kh laLFkku esa gqbZ Fkh] rRi'pkr~ izkFkhZ us foi{kh laLFkku esa viuk LFkkukUrj.k njhck ekbZUl esa djkus dk vkosnu izLrqr fd;k] ftl ij foi{kh laLFkku ds fu;eksa ds rgr LoSfPNd LFkkukUrj.k Jfed dk ml LFkku ij fu;qDr leku oxZ ds Jfedksa ls dfu"B ekuk tk;sxk] bu 'krksZa ds lkFk foi{kh laLFkku us izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k tkoj ekbZUl ls njhck ekbZUl esa fd;k Fkk] ftl ij izkFkhZ us viuh lgefr nh Fkh A njhck ekbZUl esa tksbZu djus ds i'pkr~ og iwoZ in LFkkiu ij leku oxZ ds Jfedksa ls dfu"B ekuk ml vk/kkj ij mldk o iwoZ fu;qDr Jfedksa ls vius osru dh rqyuk djus dk fookn ugha mBk ldrk A vr% izkFkhZ dk Dyse izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt djus dh izkFkZuk dh A
izkFkhZ feBwyky us viuh lk{; esa vius }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i=ksa dh iqujkofrZ djrs gqos ;g izdV fd;k gS fd foi{kh laLFkku ds tkoj ekbZUl esa lSEiy ckW; ds in ij fnuakd 09-09-1975 dks mldh fu;qfDr gqbZ Fkh rFkk fnuakd 01-01-1979 dks mls lSEiy eSu r`rh; Js.kh cuk fn;k Fkk A vkxs viuh lk{; esa ;g dgk gS fd esjs vuqjks/k ij esjk LFkkukUrj.k tkoj ekbZUl ls njhck ekbZUl esa dj fn;k Fkk A ;g LFkkukUrj.k mn;yky ikyhoky ofj"B lSEiy eSu r`rh; dk in fjDr gksus ds dkj.k fd;k x;k Fkk A LoSfPNd LFkkukUrj.k ij dEiuh ds fu;ekuqlkj eq>s LFkkukUrj.k ds ykHk ugha fn;s x;s rFkk ofj;rk dk ykHk ugha fn;s tkus ds izko/kku ugha gksrs gq, Hkh foi{kh }kjk mls njhck ekbZUl esa dfu"B cuk fn;k x;k rFkk is&izksVsDV ugha dh xbZ A njhck ekbZUl esa fnukad 04-04-1984 dks tksbZu fd;k rc r`rh; Js.kh esa ofj"B lsEiy esu ds in ij dk;Zjr jgrs gq, mldk osru 716@&:Ik;s Fkk] tcfd mlls dfu"B Jfed jruyky] Hkxokuyky] vk'kwjke] ca'khyky] 'kadjyky lsEiy esu r`rh; Js.kh esa dk;Zjr jgrs gq, mudk osru 680@&:i;s Fkk A vkxs viuh lk{; esa ;g dgk gS fd mldh prqFkZ Js.kh esa inksUufr 01-01-1985 dks gksuh pkfg;s Fkh] tcfd mDr Jfedksa dh 1986 esa gksuh pkfg;s Fkh] ysfdu eq>ls dfu"B Jfed jruyky] Hkxokuyky] vk'kwjke] ca'khyky] 'kadjyky dh inksUufr eq>ls iwoZ esa dh xbZ A blh izdkj viuh lk{; esa vius ls dfu"B Jfed xksihyky] papy dqekj] rstflag dh inksUufr dj mudk osru vius ls vf/kd gksuk izdV fd;k gS rFkk viuh lk{; esa bu Jfedksa dks dfu"B crkrs gqos viuk osru Hkh buds osru ds cjkcj fd;k tkuk izdV fd;k gS A vkxs viuh lk{; esa bl xokg dh vksj ls bl U;k;ky; esa izsf"kr fookn ds i'pkr~ ds rF;ksa dk o.kZu djrs gqos vU; rF; vafdr fd;s gSa] ftlds foospu dh dksbZ vko';drk bl izdj.k ugha gS A
foi{kh dh vksj ls izLrqr xokg ujsUnz iqjksfgr us vius 'kiFk i= esa ;g izdV fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ feBwyky dh lSEiy ckW; Js.kh f}rh; ds :i esa fnuakd 30-08-1975 dks tkoj ekbZUl esa fu;qfDr gqbZ Fkh rFkk mls vkns'k fnuakd 01-01-1979 }kjk ofj"B lSEiy eSu Js.kh r`rh; esa inksUufr dh x;h Fkh A feBwyky us fgUnqLrku ftad fyehVsM dh tkoj ekbZUl bZdkbZ esa dk;Zjr jgrs gqos izcU/ku dks izkFkZuk i= is'k dj fuosnu fd;k fd mls tkoj ekbZUl ls jktiqjk njhck ekbZUl esa LoSfPNd LFkkukUrj.k dj fn;k tkos A ftlds vk/kkj ij mldh izkFkZuk ij LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k fnuakd 16-03-1984 tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlesa dEiuh ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj LoSfPNd LFkkukUrj.k ij ofj"Brk esa dfu"B jgus rFkk fdlh izdkj ds LFkkukUrj.k ds ykHk ds gdnkj ugha gksus dh 'krsZ FkhA bu 'krksZa ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k tkoj ekbZUl ls njhck ekbZUl esa fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ us bu 'krksZa dks Lohdkj dj njhck ekbZUl esa fnuakd 04-04-1984 dks viuk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ dk osru fu/kkZj.k Hkh ekU;rk izkIr la?k rFkk foi{kh izcU/ku ds e/; fnuakd 29-09-1995 dks gqos le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k esa n'kkZ;h x;h 'krksZa ds vuqlkj foi{kh laLFkku dh mDr bZdkbZ esa dk;Zjr vU; deZpkfj;ksa ls dfu"B ekuk x;k Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ njhck ekbZUl esa vius ls iwoZ dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa ls osru folaxfr dh rqyuk djus dk gdnkj ugha gS] blds vykok izkFkhZ vU; ekbZUl esa dk;Zjr Jfedksa ls osru dh vlaxfr ds vk/kkj ij viuk osru iqu% fu/kkZj.k djus dk Hkh vf/kdkjh ugha gS A feBwyky dks fu;ekuqlkj inksUufr nh x;h gS rFkk o"kZ 1981 esa mldk osru vlaxfr dk ekeyk cuk Fkk tks foi{kh laLFkku }kjk mldk osru 403@&:i;s ls 413@&:i;s dj fn;k x;k Fkk A bl vkns'k dh izfr izn'kZ R-13 dks Hkh bl ckcr~ lk{; esa iznf'kZr djk;k gS rFkk viuh lk{; esa ;g crk;k gS fd izkFkhZ dk On request transfer dk izkFkZuk i= Fkk] ftlds vk/kkj ij mldk LFkkukUrj.k fd;k x;k Fkk A bl izdkj ml LFkku ij fu;qDr deZpkfj;ksa ls og dfu"B ekuk x;k rFkk vius ls ofj"B deZpkjh ls osru vlaxfr dh rqyuk djus dk og vf/kdkjh ugha gS] u gh izkFkhZ ds osru vlaxfr dk dksbZ ekeyk gS A
izkFkhZ vkSj foi{kh dh lk{; ls ;g Lohd`r rF; lkeus vk;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr foi{kh laLFkku esa lsEiy ckW; f}rh; ds in ij fnuakd 09-09-1975 dks dh xbZ Fkh rFkk fnuakd 01-01-1979 dks izkFkhZ dh ofj"B lsEiy esu Js.kh r`rh; ds in ij inksUufr dh xbZ Fkh A rRi'pkr~ bl ekeys esa izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k fnuakd 29-03-1984 ls tkoj ekbZUl ls jktiqjk njhck ekbZUl esa dh xbZ Fkh ftl ij izkFkhZ us fnuakd 04-04-1984 dks viuk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k rFkk mlds dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djrs le; foi{kh laLFkku dh vkSj ls izkFkhZ dks ml oxZ esa dk;Zjr vU; deZpkfj;ksa ls lcls dfu"B ekuk x;k A
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls vius LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k dks pqukSfr nsrs gq, ;g rdZ fn;k x;k gS fd LoSfPNd LFkkukUrj.k ls vius i'pkr~ foi{kh laLFkku esa fu;qDr deZpkfj;ska ls dfu"B ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS vkSj lkjk fookn blh fcUnw ij gS fd D;k LFkkukUrj.k ds i'pkr~ vius oxZ esa dk;Zjr vU; Jfedksa ls dfu"B ekuk tk;sxk rFkk D;k izkFkhZ viuh fu;qfDr fnukad ls ofj"Brk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \
bl lEcU/k esaa tks ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr gqbZ gS] mlesa izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls vius rdksZ esa LoSfPNd LFkkukUrj.k dks pqukSfr nh xbZ gS rFkk cgl ds nkSjku Hkh izkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k }kjk izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k mlds LoSfPNd vkosnu ij ugha fd;k tkuk izdV fd;k gS A bl lEcU/k esa tks nLrkosth lk{; foi{kh dh vkSj ls izLrqr gqbZ gS] mlesa izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k izn'kZ R-3 izLrqr fd;k x;k gS tks o"kZ 1984 dk gS] mlesa mYysf[kr 'krZ ;g Fkh fd izkFkhZ }kjk LoSfPNd LFkkukUrj.k dk izkFkZuk i= fn;k x;k] bl vk/kkj ij mldk LFkkukUrj.k fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izkFkhZ lsEiy esu Js.kh r`rh; esa mDr ;wfuV esa LFkkukUrj.k fd;k tkrk gS rFkk og mDr ;wfuV esa mDr oxZ esa dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa ls dfu"B ekuk tk;sxk rFkk mls fdlh izdkj dk LFkkukUrj.k HkRrk fu;eksa ds rgr iznku ugha fd;k tk;sxk] u gh og tksbZfuax VkbZe izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxk A[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 221 mDr vkns'k ds i'pkr~ izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls izn'kZ R-4A izkFkZuk i= foi{kh laLFkku dh njhck ekbZUl esa izLrqr fd;k x;k A ftlesa ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd fjyho vkns'k dh ikyuk esa fnuakd 04-04-1984 dks viuh mifLFkfr ns jgk gwa rFkk izn'kZ R-4A ij izkFkhZ feBwyky ds gLrk{kj gS o ftls viuh lk{; esa Lo;a ds gLrk{kj gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA bl izdkj foi{kh dh vkSj ls izLrqr ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us foi{kh laLFkku esa tkoj ekbZUl ls njhck ekbZUl esa viuk LoSfPNd LFkkukUrj.k gsrq vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k Fkk] ftlds vk/kkj ij mldk LosfPNd LFkkukurj.k vkns'k izn'kZ R-3 esa mYysf[kr 'krksZ ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dks dksbZ ofj"Brk iznku u djrs gq, mldk LFkkukUrj.k fd;k x;k Fkk ftls Lohdkj djrs gq, izkFkhZ us fnuakd 04-04-1984 dks njhck ekbZUl esa viuh M~;qVh tksbZu dh Fkh A bu rF;ksa ls iw.kZr;k ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us LFkkukUrj.k 'krksZ dks Lohdkj djrs gq, njhck ekbZUl esa viuh M~;qVh tksbZu dh Fkh A
bl lEcU/k easa izkFkhZ dh lk{; ds voyksdu ls LoSPNk LFkkukUrj.k ds ckcr~ tks rF; vk;s gSa] mlesa izkFkhZ us tkoj ekbZUl ls njhck ekbZUl esa vius LFkkukUrj.k ckcr~ LoSPNk vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k Fkk A bldk mYys[k izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr tckcqy tokc ds isjk la[;k 2 esa gS] ftlesa izkFkhZ us ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd vkns'k fnuakd 16-03-1984 ds vk/kkj ij fnuakd 04-04-1984 dks jktiqjk njhck esa M~;qVh tksbZu dh Fkh A bl vkns'k ls ;g Li"V gS fd LFkkukUrj.k dk ykHk ;fn On request eku Hkh fy;k tkos rks mls ;k=k o vU; HkRrs ds :i esa ugha fn;k x;k] fdUrq ,slh dksbZ fof/k ;k le>kSrk ugha gS] ftlds vuqlkj izkFkhZ&Jfed dks dfu"Bre jktiqjk njhck ekbZUl esa cuk;k tk lds A ;g lekurk ds fl}kUr ds fo:} gS A bl izdkj izkFkhZ us vius tokcqy tokc esa Hkh On request LFkkukUrj.k fd;k x;k ;g rF; ekuk gS A lkFk gh bl lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls izLrqr vius 'kiFk i= ds isjk uEcj 2 esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd esjs vuqjks/k ij esjk LFkkukUrj.k orZeku in ofj"B lSEiy eSu Js.kh r`rh; ij fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk bl 'krZ ij fd;k x;k Fkk fd mls LoSfPNd LFkkukUrj.k dk ykHk fu;eksa ds rgr~ ugha fn;k tk;sxkA bl ckcr~ tks ftjg gqbZ gS] mlesa izkFkhZ us viuh ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izn'kZ R-3 dk;kZy; vkns'k esa A ls B bZckjr lgh gS rFkk izn'kZ R-4A esa tks eSaus vius LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k dh ikyuk esa izLrqr fd;k Fkk] og i= esjs }kjk fy[kk x;k Fkk A blls Hkh ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks vius LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k dk iw.kZ Kku Fkk rFkk mlus izn'kZ R-3 ds vuqlkj njhck ekbZUl esa mifLFkfr ckcr~ izkFkZuk i= is'k fd;k Fkk] mls Lohdkj fd;k gS A lkFk gh bl xokg us viuh ftjg esa ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd eSaus LFkkukUrj.k esa vafdr mDr 'krksZa dh ikyuk dh Fkh A ;g Hkh lgh gS fd dSVsxjh 3 esa igys ls yksx dk;Zjr Fks A ;g Hkh lgh gS fd eq>s LFkkukUrj.k ls osru dh gkfu ugha gqbZ gS A
bl rjg ls nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{; ls ;g iw.kZ:is.k lkfcr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{kh laLFkku }kjk tkoj ekbZUl ls njhck ekbZUl esa mlds LoSPNk ls LFkkukUrj.k dk izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;s tkus ij foi{kh us mldk LFkkukUrj.k fd;k Fkk rFkk mDr LFkkukUrj.k dh 'krksZa dks ekurs gqos izkFkhZ us fnuakd 04-04-1984 dks njhck ekbZUl esa viuh M~;qVh tksbZu dh Fkh A LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k izn'kZ R-3 foi{kh laLFkku dh vkSj ls tkjh fd;k Fkk] tks izkFkhZ ds LoSPN;k LFkkukUrj.k ds vkosnu ij tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk A bl lEcU/k esa foi{kh dh vksj ls viuh laLFkku esa Jfedksa ds inksUufr o fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa vDVqcj 1981 esa fu;e cuk;s Fks tks izn'kZ R-13 gS A mDr fu;eksa ds fu;e 4 ds rgr ftlesa ;g mYys[k gS fd ;fn dksbZ Jfed ,d ;qfuV ls nwljs ;qfuV esa LFkkukUrj.k pkgrk gS rks mlds LoSPNk LFkkukUrj.k okys ;wfuV esa dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa ls lcls dfu"B ekuk tk;sxk rFkk dfu"B ds in ij LFkkukUrj.k fd;k tk;sxk A
foi{kh laLFkku dh vkSj ls vius laLFkku ds fu;eksa ds rgr~ izn'kZ R-13 esa of.kZr 'krksZ ds v/khu izkFkhZ dk LoSPNk LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k izn'kZ R-3 ds }kjk fd;k rFkk izkFkhZ dh lk{; ls Hkh ;g rF; lkfcr gS fd mlus bl vkns'k dh ikyuk esa fnuakd 04-04-1984 dks njhck ekbZUl esa viuh M~;qVh tksbZu dh Fkh rFkk LoSPNk LFkkukUrj.k ls mldh Js.kh esa vU; Jfed tks dk;Zjr Fks] mDr Jfedksa dh fu;qfDr viuh fu;qfDr ds i'pkr~ gksuk crkrs gqos izkFkhZ us muls ofj"B gksuk crkrs gqos viuh ofj"Brk dh eakx rFkk ml vk/kkj ij viuk osru fu/kkZj.k djus o LVsi&vi djkus dh izkFkZuk dh A tcfd lk{; ls ;g lkfcr gS fd foi{kh laLFkku esa viuh laLFkku ds fu;eksa ds rgr~ LoSPNk LFkkukUrj.k dk vkosnu Lohdkj djrs gqos mls tkoj ekbZUl ls njhck ekbZUl esa LFkkukUrfjr fd;k] tgak ij izkFkhZ us viuh M~;qVh tksbZu dh A vr% izkFkhZ mDr LFkkukUrj.k ls vius oxZ esa dk;Zjr Jfedksa ls lcls dfu"B ekuk tk;sxk A
bl rF; dh iqf"V foi{kh dh vksj ls ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUr Civil Appeal No. 2766/2009 Surendra Singh Beniwal Vs. Hukum Singh on 23 April 2009 ls gksrh gS A ftlesa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk mRrj izns'k f'k{kk foHkkx ds bUVj ehMh;sV dkWyst ds v/;kid dks mldk LoSfPNd LFkkukUrj.k vU; fo|ky; esa fd;s tkus ij LFkkukUrfjr fo|ky; esa lcls dfu"B v/;kid ekus tkus ds dkj.k U.P.Intermediate Education Act ds rgr lgh Bgjk;k Fkk rFkk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k fd ;s fu;e LFkkukUrfjr dkWyst esa igys ls in LFkkfir v/;kidksa ds fgrksa dks lqjf{kr djus ds fy, fu.kZ; fd;k gS rFkk v/;kid dks ofj"Brk esa lcls dfu"B ekuk tk;sxk A
gLrxr ekeys esa foi{kh laLFkku ds fu;e izn'kZ R-13 tks vDrwcj] 1981 esa fufeZr fd;s x;s Fks] ls LoSfPNd LFkkukUrj.k ds fu;eksa ds rgr LoSfPNd LFkkukUrj.k ij vk;k deZpkjh mDr LFkku ij leku oxZ ds iwoZ ls dk;Zjr vU; deZpkfj;sa ls ofj;rk dze esa lcls uhps ekuk tk;sxk A ;s fu;e fof/k lEer gS rFkk ogka ij dk;Zjr vU; Jfedksa ds fgrksa dks lqjf{kr j[kus ckcr gS A mlds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k izn'kZ R-3 ds }kjk fd;k x;k LFkkukUrj.k vkSj mlesa mYysf[kr 'krsZ ftuds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ jktiqjk njhck [knku esa vius oxZ esa lcls dfu"B Jfed ekuk tkosxk A vr% izkFkhZ dk ;g rdZ ekus tkus ;ksX; ugh gS fd LFkkukUrj.k ds i'pkr~ og LFkkukUrj.k LFky ij vius i'pkr~ fu;qDr deZpkfj;ksa ls ofj"B ekuk tkos A
vr% bl ekeys esa foi{kh laLFkku esa fnukad 04-04-1984 dks izkFkhZ dks jktiqjk njhck [knku esa fu;qfDr ds i'pkr~ mldks ofj;rk esa dfu"B ekurs gq, mldk osru fu/kkZj.k o LVsi&vi fd;k x;k gS og vius ls ofj"B deZpkjh ls osru dk LVsi&vi o osru dh rqyuk ugha dj ldrk gS rFkk lk{; ls ;g iw.kZ :is.k lkfcr gS fd foi{kh laLFkku }kjk izkFkhZ dk osru222 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] laj{k.k o LVsi&vi fd;k gS og fu;eksa ds vuqlkj fd;k gS rFkk jktiqjk njhck ekbZUl eas izkFkhZ ls dksbZ dfu"B deZpkfj;ksa gks vkSj mls vf/kd osru iznku fd;k x;k gks] ;g lk{; ls lkfcr ugha gS A
bl ekeys esa cgl ds nkSjku fo}ku vf/koDrk foi{kh dh vkSj ls ;g rdZ fn;k x;k gS fd Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk bl U;k;ky; dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ tks izlax izsf"kr fd;k gS mlesa izkFkhZ dh ;wfu;u i{kdkj gS rFkk ;g fookn osru folaxfr ,oa LVsi&vi ls lacaf/kr gS] tks izkFkhZ dh ;wfu;u }kjk gh izLrqr fd;k tk ldrk gS] tcfd ;g izdj.k izkFkhZ Lo;a }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] vr% mldh vkSj ls igys mlds vf/koDrk }kjk rRi'pkr~ mlds fof/kd izfrfuf/k }kjk iSjoh dh tk jgh gS] tcfd /kkjk 36 vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds rgr mlds vf/koDrk }kjk iSjoh djus ds fy;s btktr ugha yh xbZ gS rFkk Jfed la?k }kjk iSjoh ugha fd;s tkus ds dkj.k ;g izdj.k blh vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA
mijksDr rdksZ dk fojks/k djrs gq, izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh vkSj ls ;g rdZ fn;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh lk{; ls ;g lkfcr gS fd ;g ekeyk Jfed la?k }kjk mBk;k x;k Fkk rFkk Jfed la?k dh vkSj ls Je vk;qDr ds ;gak fookn izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] tgka ls ekeyk l{ke ljdkj dks Hksts tkus ij bl U;k;ky; esa ;g izlax izsf"kr gqvk gS A ml izlax esa i{kdkj Jfed la?k gh gS] rRi'pkr~ bl U;k;ky; esa Jfed la?k }kjk iSjoh ugha dh xbZ gS] bl dkj.k izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls izkjEHk esa igys vf/koDrk dh vkSj ls rRi'pkr~ fof/kd izfrfuf/k }kjk iSjoh dh tk jgh gS A foi{kh dh vkSj ls Hkh vius vf/koDrk ds }kjk iSjoh dh tk jgh gS A brus o"kksZ ls ;g izdj.k U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS rFkk foi{kh dh vkSj ls blesa iSjoh djus ls dHkh euk ugha fd;k x;k gSA QyLo:i ;g rF; ekus tkus ;ksX; ugh gS fd U;k;ky; dh vuqefr ds fcuk izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls mlds vf/koDrk ;k izfrfuf/k dh vkSj ls iSjoh dh tk jgh gS rFkk /kkjk 36 vkS- fo- vf/kfu;e ds rgr ;g izdj.k [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; ugha gS A vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls fuEukafdr U;kf;d n`"VkUr is'k fd;k gS &
Superme Court Appeal (Civil) 1089/2003
J.H.Jadhav Vs. M/s. Forbes Gokak Ltd.
Date of Judgment 11/02/2005
mDr U;kf;d n`"VkUr esa deZdkj dh inksUufr dk ekeyk Fkk] ysfdu mDr izdj.k esa iSjoh Jfed la?k }kjk dh xbZ Fkh] ftls lgh Bgjk;k x;k Fkk A
(1) AIR 1966 (S.C.) 182 (V 53 C 41)
Workman of M/s.Dharam Pal Vs. M/s Dharma Pal Premchand
(2) AIR 1970 (S.C.) 1205 (V 57 G 252)
M/s. Westran India Watch Vs.
bu nksuska izdj.kksa esa deZdkj dh c[kkZLrxh ds lEcU/k esa fookn Fkk] tcfd gLrxr ekeys esa osru fu/kkZj.k ls lacaf/kr fookn gS A vr% bu nksuksa U;kf;d n`"VkUr ls izkFkhZ dks dksbZ enn ugha feyrh gs A
gLrxr ekeys ds voyksdu ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd bl U;k;ky; esa dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk ;g izlax vf[ky Hkkjrh; tLrk mRiknd Jfed la?k dh vkSj ls izkFkhZ Jfed feBwyky ds fookn ds lEcU/k esa foi{kh laLFkku ds fo:) izsf"kr fd;k x;k gS A izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls izLrqr lk{; rFkk mldh vkSj ls izLrqr nLrkost izn'kZ&26 yxk;r izn'kZ&33 ds voyksdu ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ ds osru lEcU/kh fookn dks izkFkhZ ds Jfed la?k }kjk loZizFke Je vk;qDr ds le{k mBk;k Fkk] tgka foi{kh laLFkku dh vkSj ls Hkh mifLFkfr nh Fkh A le>kSrk okrkZ vlQy gksus ds i'pkr~ ;g ekeyk l{ke ljdkj dks izsf"kr fd;k x;k] tgka ls ;g izlax fu/kkZj.k gsrq bl U;k;ky; dks izkIr gqvk A bl U;k;ky; esa ;g izdj.k fnuakd 09-10-2000 dks ntZ gqvk rFkk ;gka ij izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls Lo;a us vkosnu izLrqr fd;k Fkk rFkk mldh vkSj ls igys mlds vf/koDrk dh vkSj ls rRi'pkr~ mlds izfrfuf/k }kjk iSjoh dh tk jgh gS rFkk foi{kh dh vkSj ls bl izdj.k easa iSjoh muds vf/koDrk dh vkSj ls dh tk jgh gSA vkS- fo- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36 ds rgr nksuksa i{kdkjks us U;k;ky; ls vius vf/koDrk ;k izfrfuf/k ds ek/;e ls iSjoh gsrq fyf[kr btktr ugha yh gS] ysfdu 10 o"kZ ls i{kdkjks ds vf/koDrk ;k izfrfuf/k }kjk bl izdj.k esa iSjoh dh tk jgh gS] ftls bl U;k;ky; }kjk dHkh jksdk ugha x;k gS A vr% ;g ekus tkus ;ksX; gS fd U;k;ky; dh Lohd`fr ls nksuksa i{kksa ds vf/koDrk o izfrfuf/k }kjk muds izdj.k esa iSjoh dh tk jgh gS A lkFk gh lk{; ls ;g rF; lkfcr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dk fookn Je vk;qDr ds ;gka Jfed la?k }kjk mBk;k x;k Fkk ysfdu bl U;k;ky; esa izlax izkIr gksus ds i'pkr~ Jfed la?k mifLFkr ugha vk jgk gS A la?k ds inkf/kdkjh o izkFkhZ ds e/; fookn gksus ds dkj.k la?k us mldh iSjoh NksM nh gS rFkk foxr 18 o"kksZ ls izkFkhZ ds vf/koDrk o fof/kd izfrfuf/k }kjk izdj.k esa iSjoh dh xbZ gS A vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds rgr izkFkhZ dk fookn Jfed la?k }kjk mBk;k tkuk ekurs gq, izkFkhZ ds }kjk vc iSjoh fd;k tkuk fof/k lEer gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA vr% izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, bl fookn esa iSjoh izkFkhZ }kjk Lo;a fd;k tkuk iw.kZr% fof/k lEer gS A
vr% mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij foi{kh laLFkku }kjk izkFkhZ dk osru laj{k.k o LVsi&vi fd;k gS og fu;eksa ds vuqlkj fd;k gS rFkk izkFkhZ ls dfu"B deZpkfj;ksa dks izkFkhZ ls vf/kd osru iznku ugha fd;k x;k gS A
vr% Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr izlax fnukad 30 vxLr] 2000 dks mRrfjr djrs gq, iapkV bl izdkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd&[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 223 izcU/kd] fgUnqLrku ftad fyfeVsM] jktiqjk njhck ekbZUl] njhck] ftyk jktleUn }kjk izkFkhZ feBwyky dks osru laj{k.k o LVsi&vi ugha nsuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS rFkk jktiqjk njhck ekbZUl eas izkFkhZ ls dksbZ dfu"B deZpkfj;ksa gks vkSj mls vf/kd osru iznku fd;k x;k gks] ;g lkfcr ugha gS A
vr% izkFkhZ dksbZ jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS A
iapkV izdk'kukFkZ leqfpr ljdkj dks Hkstk tkosa A
iapkV vkt fnukaad 23-08-2018 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;k A
v:.k dqekj nqcs] U;k;k/kh'k
नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 47474747....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार मेसर्स अशोका मिनरल्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय, उदयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 03/2009) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 24.12.2018 को प्राप्त <आ था।
[सं. एल-29012/90/2008-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 27th December, 2018
S.O. 47.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2009) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Udaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Ashoka Minerals and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.12.2018.
[No. L-29012/90/2008-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
vuqca/k
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] mn;iqj ¼jktLFkku½ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh && Jh v:.k dqekj nqcs
izdj.k la[;k 03@2009 I.T.R.(C)
Jh jktdqekj firk eksxkjke eh.kk ¼e`rd½ fuoklh xkao o iksLV
¼1½ Jherh lfjrk iRuh Lo- jktdqekj eh.kk
¼2½ lqJh eksfudk iq=h Lo- jktdqekj eh.kk vk;q 11 o"kZ
¼3½ lqJh jatuk iq=h Lo- jktdqekj eh.kk vk;q 8 o"kZ
¼4½ Jh furhu firk Lo- jktdqekj eh.kk vk;q 5 o"kZ
¼5½ lqJh [kq'kcw iq=h Lo- jktdqekj eh.kk vk;q 4 o"kZ pkjks ukckfyx tfj;s laj{kd ekrk Jherh ljhrk fuoklh;ku xkao elkjks dh vksojh] rg- [kSjokMk
---izkFkhZx.k
fo:)
Jh eSustj] v'kksdk feujYl]224 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Ekq- iks-
---foi{kh
mifLFkr %
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls % Jh jkts'k fla?koh] vf/koDrk
foi{kh dh vkSj ls % Jh g"kZo/kZu tSu] vf/koDrk
iapkV
fnukad 27 uoEcj] 2018
Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk Øekad L-29012/ 90/2008-IR{M} New Delhi fnukad 18-11-2008 ds }kjk fuEukafdr fookn bl U;k;ky; dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ izsf"kr fd;k x;k &
''Whether the action of the management of
M/s Ashoka Minerals, Village & Post Dhelana
Tehsil Kherwara Distt.Udaipur in terminating
the Service of Shri Rajkumar Meena S/o Shri
Mogaram Meena w.e.f. 03/08/2017 is just and
legal ? To what relief the workmen is entitled
and from which date ?"
mDr vk'k; dk izlax izkIr gksus ij U;k;ky; }kjk izdj.k ntZ fd;k tkdj lEcfU/kr i{kdkjku dks uksfVl tkjh fd;s x;sA
fnukad 25-02-2010 dks Jherh lfjrk eh.kk us ,d izkFkZuk i= is'k dj fuosnu fd;k fd mlds ifr jktdqekj eh.kk dk fnukad 14-09-2009 dks fu/ku gks x;k gS rFkk jktdqekj eh.kk dh og Lo;a rFkk pkj cPps eksfudk] jatuk] fufru] [kq'kcw fof/kd okfjlku gS A blfy;s jktdqekj eh.kk ds LFkku ij mUgS i{kdkj cuk;s tkus dk vkns'k iznku fd;k tkos A ftl ij U;k;ky; }kjk fnuakd 23-08-10 dks Jherh lfjrk o vU; dks jsdkMZ ij fy;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k A
izkFkhZ i{k dh vkSj ls fnukad 23-08-10 dks Dyse fd;k x;k] ftlds la{ksi esa rF; bl izdkj gS fd jktdqekj eh.kk dks fnukad 01-03-2005 dks foi{kh laLFkku esa ^^Msfjd dzsu vkWijsVj** ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k A tgka jktdqekj eh.kk ls fnuakd 02-08-2007 rd yxkrkj dk;Z fy;k x;k o tc fnukad 03-08-2007 dks jktdqekj eh.kk foi{kh ds le{k M~;qVh ds fy;s mifLFkr gqvk rks foi{kh us mls fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s M~;qVh ij ysus ls bUdkj dj ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsok i`Fkd dj fn;k A lsok i`Fkd djus ls iwoZ dksbZ vkjksi i=] psrkouh i= ugha fn;k] u gh lsok i`Fkd djus ls iwoZ dksbZ uksfVl ;k uksfVl&is dk Hkqxrku fd;k] u eqvkotk jkf'k vnk dh A foi{kh ds v/khu fu;kstu ds nkSjku jktdqekj eh.kk dh dHkh dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha jgh vkSj jktdqekj eh.kk us iwjh fu"Bk ds lkFk foi{kh ds ;gka dk;Z fd;k A bl izdkj foi{kh }kjk jktdqekj eh.kk dks voS/k o vuqfpr :i ls lsok i`Fkd dj fn;k A blfy;s lsok eqfDr dks voS/k o vuqfpr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos rFkk lsok i`Fkd fnuakd ls mudh e`R;q fnukad 14-09-2009 rd dh vof/k dk lEiw.kZ osru o vU; ykHk fnyk;s tkos A
foi{kh us viuk tckc is'k dj izkFkZuk i= esa vafdr rF;ksa dks vLohdkj djrs gq, ;g vafdr fd;k fd jktdqekj eh.kk dh foi{kh laLFkku esa dHkh Hkh LFkk;h fu;qfDr ughaa dh xbZ] cfYd jktdqekj eh.kk nSfud osru ds vk/kkj ij dk;Z djrs Fks rFkk jktdqekj }kjk fnukad 01-03-2005 ls 02-08-2007 rd fu;fer rkSj ij dk;Z ugha fd;k A jktdqekj eh.kk dbZ ckj 'kjkc ihdj vkus yxs] ftl ij mls dbZ ckj 'kjkc ihdj vkus ls euk fd;k A foi{kh }kjk dHkh Hkh jktdqekj eh.kk dks lsok i`Fkd ugha fd;k x;k] cfYd jktdqekj eh.kk dks vR;f/kd 'kjkc dh yr iM tkus ds dkj.k og ukSdjh ij mifLFkr ughas gksrk Fkk A foi{kh }kjk mls lsok i`Fkd ugha fd;k x;k blfy;s mls vkjksi i=] psrkouh i=] uksfVl ;k {kfriwfrZ jkf'k nsus dh vko';drk ugha Fkh A jktdqekj eh.kk dks dHkh lsok i`Fkd ugha fd;k x;k] cfYd vR;f/kd 'kjkc dh yr iM tkus ds dkj.k og ukSdjh ij mifLFkr ugha gksrk Fkk A blfy;s izkFkhZx.k dk Dyse [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh A
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls vius Dyse ds leFkZu esa Jherh lfjrk dk 'kiFk i= is'k gqvk ftlls foi{kh vf/koDrk us ftjg dhA foi{kh dh vkSj ls Jh uklhj gqlSu o gjh'k dqekj vjksjk dk 'kiFk i= is'k gqvk ftuls izkFkhZ vf/koDrk us ftjg dh A
i{kdkjks ds vf/koDrk dh cgl lquh xbZ A i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;k A
izkFkhZ vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ us foi{kh laLFkku esa fnukad 01-03-2005 ls 02-08-2007 rd yxkrkj dzsu vkWijsVj ds in ij dk;Z fd;k Fkk rFkk mlds dk;Z ls foi{kh laLFkku dks dHkh dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha jgh] cfYd izkFkhZ ,d vPNk deZdkj Fkk] bl ckcr foi{kh laLFkku }kjk mls ,d izek.k i= izn'kZ&2 tkjh fd;k Fkk rFkk foi{kh }kjk vius tckc o lk{; esa ;g[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 225 izdV fd;k fd jktdqekj eh.kk 'kjkc ihdj vkus yxk Fkk blfy;s mls dk;Z ij ugha fy;k tkrk Fkk] ysfdu bl ckcr foi{kh }kjk dHkh Hkh dksbZ uksfVl oxSjk mls ugha fn;k A izkFkhZ }kjk vius fu;kstu ds nkSjku izR;sd okf"kZd dky esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dh lsok,a nh rFkk mls fcuk fdlh dkj.k ls fnuakd 03-08-2007 dks foi{kh ds le{k M~;qVh ds fy;s mifLFkr gqvk rks mls fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s M~;qVh ij ysus ls bUdkj dj ekSf[kd vkns'k ls voS/k :i ls lsok i`Fkd dj fn;k rFkk lsok i`Fkd djus ds ckn fnukad 14-09-2009 dks mldh e`R;q gks xbZ A blfy;s lsok eqfDr dks voS/k ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos rFkk jktdqekj dks lsok i`Fkd djus dh fnuakd ls mldh e`R;q fnukad rd dh vof/k dk lEiw.kZ ykHk fnyk;k tkos A
foi{kh us mDr rdksZ dk fojks/k djrs gq, ;g izdV fd;k fd jktdqekj eh.kk foi{kh laLFkku esa fu;fer rkSj ij dk;Zjr ugha Fkk cfYd mls nSfud osru ds vk/kkj ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk mls nSfud osru ds vk/kkj ij gh Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk Fkk A jktdqekj eh.kk vf/kdka'kr% 'kjkc ihdj vkus yxk bl ij mls dbZ ckj 'kjkc ihdj u vkus dks dgk x;k rFkk og 'kjkc ihdj Msfjd dzsu vkWijsVj dk dk;Z djrk rks lEiw.kZ LVkQ dks Mj yxrk Fkk fd dgha dksbZ nq?kZVuk ?kfVr u gks tkos bl ckjs esa mls psrkouh Hkh nh xbZ Fkh rFkk Lo;a jktdqekj dks 'kjkc dh yr yxus ls og gh ukSdjh ij ugha vkrk Fkk A jktdqekj us fdlh Hkh o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z ugha fd;k A jktdqekj }kjk 'kjkc ihdj vkus o dzsu vkWijsVj dk dk;Z djus ls fdlh Hkh le; cMk gknlk gksus dh laHkkouk cuh jgrh Fkh vkSj og Lo;a gh ukSdjh ij mifLFkr ugha gksrk Fkk foi{kh }kjk mls lsok i`Fkd ugha fd;k x;k A blfy;s izkFkhZx.k dksbZ ykHk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gS A
Dyse izkFkZuk i= ds leFkZu esa jktdqekj dh iRuh Jherh lfjrk us vius 'kiFk i= esa Dyse izkFkZuk ds rF;ksa dh iqujkofrZ dh gS rFkk ;g izdV fd;k fd mlds ifr foi{kh laLFkku esa 01-03-2005 ls 02-08-2007 rd yxkrkj dk;Zjr Fks rFkk fnuakd 03-08-2007 dks tc os M~;qVh ds fy;s mifLFkr gqvk rks mls fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk, M~;qVh ij ysus ls bUdkj dj fn;k rFkk ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsok i`Fkd dj fn;k A viuh ftjg esa ;g dgk fd ukSdjh ij fudkyus dk eqdnek mlds ifr us gh yxk;k Fkk A
foi{kh dh vkSj ls uklhj gqlSu o gjh'k dqekj dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr gqvk ftlesa mUgskaus foi{kh }kjk izLrqr tckc ds rF;ksa dh iqujkofrZ dh dh gS rFkk ;g izdV fd;k fd jktdqekj eh.kk us dHkh Hkh foi{kh laLFkku esa fnuakd 01-03-05 ls 02-08- 07 rd fu;fer rkSj ij dk;Z ugha fd;k] cfYd mlds }kjk nSfud osru ds vk/kkj ij dk;Z fd;k x;k A jktdqekj 'kjkc dk lsou djds vkus yxk ftl gsrq dbZ ckj mls ekbZUl eSustj o ekbZUl lqijokbZtj }kjk 'kjkc ihdj vkus ls euk fd;k rFkk mls dbZ ckj psrkouh Hkh nh xbZ Fkh ,oa jktdqekj 'kjkc dh yr ds dkj.k gh dbZ ckj viuh M~;qVh ij mifLFkr ugha gksrk Fkk A
bl izdj.k esa izkFkhZ i{k dh vkSj ls ;g crk;k x;k gS fd jktdqekj us foi{kh laLFkku esa fnuakd 01-03-2005 ls 02-08-2007 rd yxkrkj MSfjd dzsu vkijsVj ds in ij dk;Z fd;k Fkk A foi{kh dh vkSj ls izLrqr tckc o lk{; esa ;g crk;k x;k fd jktdqekj eh.kk us dHkh Hkh foi{kh laLFkku esa fnukad 01-03-2005 ls 02-08-2007 rd fu;fer rkSj ij dk;Z ugha fd;k] cfYd mlds }kjk nSfud osru ds vk/kkj ij dk;Z fd;k A bl izdkj Hkys gh jktdqekj us foi{kh laLFkku esa nSfud osru ds vk/kkj ij dk;Z fd;k gks] cfYd mlds }kjk mDr vof/k esa foi{kh ds ;gka MSfjd dzsu vkWijsVj ds in ij dk;Z fd;k ;g rF; rks lkfcr gks tkrk gSA blds vykok foi{kh laLFkku dh vkSj ls izn'kZ&2 izek.k i= tkjh fd;k mlesa Hkh ;g vafdr gS fd jktdqekj eh.kk us fnukad 01-03-2005 ls 31-07-2007 rd MSfjd dzsu vkWijsVj ds in ij dk;Z fd;k Fkk A
tgka rd izkFkhZ dks fnuakd 03-08-2007 dks lsok i`Fkd djus dk iz'u gS] izkFkhZ i{k dh vkSj ls vius Dyse o 'kiFk i= esa ;g dgk gS fd fnukad 03-08-2007 dks tc jktdqekj eh.kk foi{kh ds ;gka M~;qVh ij mifLFkr gqvk rks foi{kh us fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk, mls M~;qVh ij ysus ls bUdkj dj ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsok i`Fkd dj fn;k A tcfd foi{kh dh vkSj ls ;g lk{; izLrqr dh xbZ gS fd foi{kh laLFkku }kjk dHkh Hkh jktdqekj dks voS/k :i ls lsok i`Fkd ugha fd;k x;k] cfYd jktdqekj Lo;a gh vR;f/kd 'kjkc dk lsou fd;s tkus dh yr iM tkus dh otg ls og ukSdjh ij mifLFkr ugh gksrk Fkk A
bl izdkj foi{kh }kjk ;g izdV fd;k x;k fd jktdqekj dks muds }kjk lsok i`Fkd ugha fd;k x;k] cfYd og Lo;a gh 'kjkc dh yr iM tkus ds dkj.k ukSdjh ij mifLFkr ugha gksrk Fkk A bl lEcU/k esa uklhj gqlSu us viuh ftjg esa ;g dgk fd izkFkhZ ds vuqifLFkfr ckcr dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k A izkFkhZ dks 'kjkc ihdj vkus vuq'kklu esa ugh jgus dk dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k A gjh'k dqekj vjksjk us Hkh viuh ftjg esa bl rF; dsk Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ ds M~;qVh ij ugha vkus ckcr mls uksfVl ugha fn;k Fkk A
tgka rd jktdqekj eh.kk ds }kjk 'kjkc ihdj M~;qVh ij vkus dk iz'u gS] foi{kh dh vkSj ls ;g Hkh crk;k x;k fd jktdqekj eh.kk 'kjkc ihdj vkus yxk bl ckjs esa mls euk Hkh fd;k Fkk rFkk 'kjkc ihdj og dzsu vkWijsVj dk dk;Z djus ds fy;s cSBrk rks LVkQ esa Mj yxus yx x;k Fkk rFkk dHkh Hkh dksbZ gknlk gksus dh laHkkouk cuh jgrh Fkh A
bl lEcU/k esa uklhj gqlSu us viuh ftjg esa ;g dgk fd izkFkhZ ds 'kjkc ihdj vkus ds ckjs esa fdlh us Hkh fy[khr f'kdk;r dh gks rks mls irk ugha A ftl eSustj us izkFkhZ dks 'kjkc ihdj vkus dh ckr dgha mldk uke vkt ;kn ugh gS A gjh'k vjksjk us Hkh viuh ftjg esa dgk fd og Li"V ugha crk ldrk fd izkFkhZ ,d efgus esa fdruh ckj 'kjkc ihdj vkrk Fkk
bl izdkj foi{kh dh vkSj ls tks lk{; is'k gqbZ gS mlesa uklhj gqlSu dks ;g Hkh irk ugha fd fdlh us izkFkhZ ds 'kjkc ihdj vkus dh f'kdk;r dh gks A gjh'k vjksjk ;g ugha crk ldrk fd izkFkhZ ,d efgus esa fdruh ckj 'kjkc ihdj vkrk Fkk A blds vykok foi{kh dh vkSj ls ,slh dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; Hkh is'k ugha dh xbZ fd jktdqekj eh.kk 'kjkc ihdj vkrk gks vkSj mls dksbZ psrkouh nh xbZ gks A
izkFkhZ i{k dh vkSj ls izn'kZ&2 izek.k i= iznf'kZr djk;k gS A ftlesa jktdqekj eh.kk dk muds ;gka fnukad 01-03- 2005 ls 31-07-2007 rd MSfjd dzsu vkWijsVj ds in ij dk;Zjr gksuk rFkk mDr vof/k esa gkMZ odZj fu"diV gksuk crk;k gSA226 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ;fn jktdqekj eh.kk dks 'kjkc ihus dh yr gksrh vkSj oks vk;s fnu 'kjkc ihdj muds ;gka mifLFkr gksrk rks foi{kh laLFkku bl izdkj dk izek.k i= tkjh ugha djrk A blds vykok gjh'k vjksjk us viuh ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ ds dk;Z esa dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha Fkh A
foi{kh dh vkSj ls ;g Hkh izdV fd;k x;k fd jktdqekj eh.kk dks dHkh ukSdjh ls ugha fudkyk vkSj og 'kjkc ihus dh yr ds dkj.k ukSdjh ij mifLFkr ugha gksrk Fkk A bl ckcr foi{kh dh vkSj ls tks gktjh jftLVj is'k fd;k x;k mlls ;g izrhr ugha gskrk fd og jktdqekj ds vR;f/kd 'kjkc ihus dh yr ds dkj.k og Lo;a ukSdjh ij mifLFkr ugha gksrk Fkk A
tgka rd foi{kh laLFkku esa jktdqekj eh.kk }kjk vius fu;kstu dky esa izR;sd okf"kZd dky esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fnol ij mifLFkr gksdj viuh lsok,a nsus dk iz'u gS A bl lEcU/k esa lfjrk eh.kk us viuh lk{; esa ;g dFku fd;k fd mlds ifr vius lEiw.kZ fu;kstu dky ds nkSjku izR;sd okf"kZd dky esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fnol ij mifLFkr gskdj viuh lsok,a vfiZr dh gS A uklhj vgen ls bl lEcU/k esa ftjg dh xbZ rks mlus viuh ftjg esa ;g dgk fd izkFkhZ ds mifLFkfr iaftdk ds vuqlkj ,d lky esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd fnu gks jgs gks rks og ugha crk ldrk] tcfd ;g xokg i
bl izdkj foi{kh }kjk izLrqr lk{; ls ;g lkfcr ugha gksrk gS fd jktdqekj eh.kk 'kjkc ihus dk vknh gks rFkk og 'kjkc dh yr ds dkj.k Lo;a dk;Z ij mifLFkr ugha gksrk gks A jktdqekj eh.kk }kjk vius fu;kstu dky esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fnol ij mifLFkr gskdj viuh lsok,a nh gS A foi{kh dh vkSj ls ,slh Hkh dksbZ lk{; ugha vkbZ fd jktdqekj eh.kk fnuakd 03-08-2007 dks 'kjkc ihdj vk;k gks vkSj mls M~;qVh ij ugha fy;k gsk A foi{kh }kjk tkjh izek.k i= izn'kZ&2 ds vuqlkj jktdqekj eh.kk }kjk 01-03-2005 ls 31-07-2007 rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k tkuk izekf.kr gS rFkk foi{kh ds ;gka la/kkfjr eLVjjksy ds vuqlkj jktdqekj dh fnukad 1 o 2 vxLr 2007 dh mldh mifLFkfr ntZ gS rFkk fnukad 03-07-2007 ls mldks vuqifLFkr crk;k x;k gS] ysfdu mldh vuqifLFkfr ckcr mls dksbZ uskfVl fn;k gks] ;g rF; lk{; ls izekf.kr ugha gS A blfy;s mDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdV gksrk gSfd jktdqekj eh.kk fnukad 03-08-2007 dks foi{kh ds le{k M~;qVh ds fy;s mifLFkr gqvk rks foi{kh us fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsok i`Fkd dj fn;kA
vc ;g ns[kuk gS fd bl voS/k lsok eqfDr ds fy;s izkFkhZ D;k jkgr izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \
jktdqekj eh.kk }kjk foi{kh ds v/khu nks o"kZ ls vf/kd le; rd dk;Z fd;k x;k rFkk jktdqekj dks lsok i`Fkd fd;s tkus ds ckn Hkh foi{kh ds ;gka mDr in dk dk;Z Fkk] bl lEcU/k esa gjh'k vjksjk us viuh ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ ds ckn gekjs ;gka ,d vU; O;fDr nSfud dzsu vkWijsVj dk dke djus yxkA jktdqekj eh.kk dks lsok i`Fkd fd;s tkus ds ckn fnukad 14-09-2009 dks mldh e`R;q gks xbZ ;g rF; lk{; ls izdV gqvk gS A ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa jktdqekj dks iqu% lsok esa j[kus dk vkns'k ugha fn;k ldrk gS vkSj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr U;kf;d n`"VkUr 2004(3) WLC(Raj.) Page 142 District Education Officer Vs. Babulal esa Hkh 240 fnu dh lsok ekurs gq, izfrdj fnyk;k tkuk mfpr ekuk x;k bl izdkj jktdqekj eh.kk ds okfjlku dks Hkh mDr fl)kUr ds vk/kkj ij 1]00]000@&:i;s {kfriwfrZ fnyk;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA
vr% Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr izlax fnukad 18@11@2008 dks mRrfjr djrs gq, iapkV bl izdkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd &
fd foi{kh laLFkku esllZ v'kksdk feujYl] xkao o iksLV
foi{kh iapkV izdk'ku ds nks ekg esa izkFkhZ dks mDr jkf'k dk Hkqxrku djs] vU;Fkk mDr jkf'k ij fu.kZ; dh fnukad ls Hkqxrku rd 8 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt ns; gksxk A
iapkV izdk'kukFkZ Hkkjr ljdkj dks Hkstk tkosa A
iapkV vkt fnukaad 27 uoEcj] 2018 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;k A
v:.k dqekj nqcs] U;k;k/kh'k
नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर, 2018
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 227का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 48484848....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार मेसर्स इंटरनेशनल मिनरल इPडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय, उदयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 04/2009) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 24.12.2018 को प्राप्त <आ था।
[सं. एल-29012/76/2008-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 27th December, 2018
S.O. 48.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 04/2009) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Udaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. International Mineral Industries Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.12.2018.
[No. L-29012/76/2008-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
vuqca/k
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] mn;iqj ¼jktLFkku½ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh && Jh v:.k dqekj nqcs
izdj.k la[;k 04@2009 I.T.R.(C)
Jh Nxuyky firk ckcwyky cSjkxh fuoklh lk/kq cLrh] Hkxokuxat] vtesj
---izkFkhZ
fo:)
esllZ bUVjus'kuy feujy b.MLLVªht fy- tfj;s izcU/k funs'kd@ izcU/kd] futZjuk] ftyk jktleUn
---foi{kh
mifLFkr %
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls % Jh jkts'k fla?koh] vf/koDrk
foi{kh dh vkSj ls % Jh vkj-,l- pkSgku] vf/koDrk
iapkV
fnukad 29 vDrwcj] 2018 Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk Øekad L-29012/ 76/2008(IR{M})New Delhi fnukad 15-07-2008 ds }kjk fuEukafdr fookn bl U;k;ky; dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ izsf"kr fd;k x;k &
''Whether the action of the management of
M/s. International Mineral Industries Ltd.,
Nijarana, Distt. Rajsamand in terminating
the services of their workmen Shri Chaganlal
S/o Sh. Babulal w.e.f.07.10.2006 is Just and
legal ? If not, to what relief the Workman
is entitled to and from which date ?"
mDr vk'k; dk izlax izkIr gksus ij U;k;ky; }kjk izdj.k ntZ fd;k tkdj lEcfU/kr i{kdkjku dks uksfVl tkjh fd;s x;sA ftl ij izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls fnukad 06-04-2009 dks Dyse fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk foi{kh dh vkSj ls fnukad 28-01-2010 dks tckc is'k fd;k x;k A228 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr Dyse ds rF; la{ksi esa bl izdkj gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{kh }kjk fnuakd 01-08-1998 dks dkj MªkbZoj ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k tgka izkFkhZ us fnuakd 06-10-2006 rd yxkrkj dke fd;k o fnukad 07-10-2006 dks tc viuh M~;wVh ds fy;s mifLFkr gqvk rks foi{kh us fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsok i`Fkd dj fn;k A izkFkhZ dks lsok i`Fkd djus ls iwoZ dksbZ vkjksi] psrkouh i= ugha fn;k u gh dksbZ uksfVl ;k uksfVl&is vkfn nh A izkFkhZ us foi{kh laLFkku esa vius fu;kstu ds nkSjku izR;sd okf"kZd dky esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dh lsok,a nh gS A izkFkhZ dks vuqfpr :i ls lsok i`Fkd dj mlds LFkku ij u;k dkj MªkbZoj fu;qDr dj fn;k A blfy;s izkFkhZ us fnukad 07-10-2006 dks dh xbZ lsok eqfDr dks voS/k o vuqfpr ?kksf"kr djus o izkFkhZ dks lHkh ykHkks lfgr lsok esa cgky djk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k A
foi{kh us vius tckc esa izkFkZuk i= ds rF;ksa dks vLohdkj djrs gq, ;g vafdr fd;k fd izkFkhZ dks fnukad 07-10- 2006 dks foi{kh }kjk fdlh Hkh vkns'k ls lsok eqDr ugha fd;k ] cfYd izkFkhZ fnuakd 07-10-2006 ;k mlds ckn vU; fdlh fnukad dks dk;Z ij mifLFkr ugha gqvk A izkFkhZ foi{kh ds ilwUn fLFkr dk;kZy; ij MªkbZoj ds in ij fu;qDr Fkk rFkk dk;kZy; esa dk;Z ugha gksus ls fnukad 05-09-2006 ds vkns'k ls foi{kh laLFkku dh futZuk fLFkr [knku ij LFkkukUrfjr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ dks ;g fgnk;r nh xbZ Fkh fd og gsSoh eksVj Oghdy dk yk;lsUl cuok;s vkSj bl gsrq mls 7 fnu dk loSrfud vodk'k Hkh fn;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ fnukad 04-10-2006 ds ckn foi{kh laLFkku esa Hkh mifLFkr ugha gqvk ftl ij mls fnuakd 02-12-2006 dks jftLVMZ lwpuk i= izsf"kr fd;k x;k bldh izkfIr ds ckn Hkh og mifLFkr ugha gqvk vkSj u gh viuh vuqifLFkfr ckcr dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k fn;kA foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks lsok i`Fkd ugha fd;k x;k] blfy;s dksbZ vkjksi i=]uksfVl vkfn nsus dh vko';drk ugha Fkh A izkFkhZ us dHkh Hkh fu"Bk o bZekunkjh ls dk;Z ugha fd;k A
izkFkhZ us fdlh Hkh o"kZ esa 240 fnu ;k blls vf/kd dk;Z ugha fd;k A blfy;s izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
izkFkhZ us fnukad 22-09-16 dks viuk 'kiFk i= is'k fd;k rFkk ftjg gsrq vkxkeh is'kh nh xbZ] ysfdu fnukad 17-11-16 ls 24-10-2017 rd vusdks volj fn;s tkus ds ckn Hkh izkFkhZ ftjg gsrq mifLFkr ugha gqvk rFkk fnuakd 09-01-18 dks Hkh mifLFkr ugh gqvk blfy;s izkFkhZ dh lk{; cUn dh xbZ A foi{kh dh vkSj ls Hkh dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha gqbZ A
i{kdkjku ds vf/koDrk dh cgl lquh xbZ A i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;k A
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls 2015 DNJ (SC) Page 297 Bhavnagar Municipal Corp. Vs. Jadeja Gopvubha U;kf;d n`"VkUr is'k dj ;g rdZ fn;k x;k fd ;fn fu;kstd }kjk 240 fnu dk;Z djus ds lEcU/k esa nLrkost is'k ugha fd;s gS rks fu;kstd ds fo:) foijhr mi/kkj.kk yh tkosxh A
blds foijhr foi{kh dh vkSj ls fuEukafdr U;kf;d n`"VkUr is'k fd;s x;s gS &
(1) 2005 LLR Page 737 (S.C.)
Manager RBI Vs. S. Mani and others
(2) 2013 LLR Page 726 (Delhi)
The Manager R.R.Foundation Vs. Pappu & Anr.
(3) 2014 LLR Page 282 (Allahabad)
Cambridge School Vs. State of U.P.
ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr U;kf;d n`"VkUr esa ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd Jfed vius LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse esa fy;s x;s vfHkdFkuksa dk fof/k vuqlkj iqzQ ds tfj;s lkfcr djuk vko';d gS] ;fn izkFkhZ vius i{k dks lkfcr djus esa vleFkZ jgrk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa foi{kh dh izfrj{kk ds lkfcr ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa Hkh izkFkhZ dksbZ lgk;rk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS rFkk ;fn izkFkhZ vius Dyse dks lkfcr ugh dj ikrk gS rks izfrj{kk esa jgh fdlh deh ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dksbZ lgk;rk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS A bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; us mDr U;kf;d n`"VkUr esa ,sls gh er O;Dr fd;s gS A fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; }kjk mDr U;kf;d n`"VkUr esa ;g fl)kUr ikfjr fd;k gS fd i=koyh ij miyC/k[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 229 fdlh Hkh nLrkost dks fof/k vuqlkj lkfcr fd;s fcuk bl rjg ds nLrkost ds vk/kkj ij fdlh Hkh rjg dh dksbZ jk; ugha nh tk ldrh gS A
mDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;fn izkFkhZ us nLrkost is'k Hkh fd;s gS vkSj mUgS fof/k vuqlkj lkfcr ugha djk;k gS rks ,sls nLrkostks ij dksbZ er O;Dr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS rFkk izkFkhZ us vius Dyse esa fy;s x;s vfHkopuksa dks fof/k vuqlkj lkfcr ugha fd;k gS] blfy;s izkFkhZ dksbZ lgk;rk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugh gS A izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls tks U;kf;d n`"VkUr is'k fd;k gS] mlesa rks izkFkhZ us viuh mifLFkfr ds ckcr nLrkost dh QksVks izfr is'k dj mUgS lkfcr djk;k Fkk] tcfd gLrxr izdj.k esa izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls vius }kjk izLrqr nLrkost dks lkfcr ugha djk;k gS A izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUr ds rF;
gLrxr ekeys esa ykxw ugh gksrs gS] D;ksafd blesa rks Lo;a izkFkhZ us vius i{k dks lkfcr ugha fd;k gSA
izkFkhZ us ,slh Hkh dksbZ ekSf[kd ;k nLrkosth lk{; is'k ugha dh fd izkFkhZ fnukad 07-10-2006 dks foi{kh laLFkku esa M~;qVh ds fy;s mifLFkr gqvk vkSj foi{kh us fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsok i`Fkd dj fn;k gks A blfy;s lk{; ds vHkko esa foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks fnukad 07-10-2006 dks lsok i`Fkd fd;s tkus dk rF; Hkh lkfcr ugha gS A bl vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dksbZ jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS A
vr% Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr izlax fnukad 15@07@2008 dks mRrfjr djrs gq, iapkV bl izdkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd&
foi{kh laLFkku esllZ bUVjus'kuy feujy bUMLV~zht fyfeVsM] fu>juk] ftyk jktleUn }kjk Jfed Jh Nxuyky firk ckcqyky dks fnukad 07-10-2006 ls lsok eqDr fd;k tkuk izekf.kr ugh gS A
vr% izkFkhZ dksbZ jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
iapkV izdk'kukFkZ Je foHkkx] Hkkjr ljdkj dks Hkstk tkosa A
iapkV vkt fnukaad 29-10-2018 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;k A
v:.k dqekj nqcs] U;k;k/kh'k
नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 49494949....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार मेसर्स आर०के ० मार्बल प्राइवेट लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय, उदयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 55/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 27.12.2018 को प्राप्त <आ था।
[सं. जेड-16025/4/2018-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 27th December, 2018
S.O. 49.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 55/2015) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Udaipur now as shown in the230 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. R.K. Marbal Private Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27.12.2018.
[No. Z-16025/4/2018-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
vuqca/k
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] mn;iqj
izdj.k la[;k 55 lu 2015 ITR (Central)
dj.k flag jkBkSM iq= Jh nwYgs flag fuoklh xksofy;k iksLV e.Mksy rglhy o ftyk jktleUn ¼jktLFkku½
&cuke&
egkizcU/kd] vkj-ds-ekcZy izkbZosV fyfeVsM] eksjoM] ftyk jktleUn¼jktLFkku½
08-09-2018
izkFkhZ dj.kflag e; vfHkHkk"kd Jh lqHkk"k Jhekyh mi0A foi{kh dh vksj ls vpy flag jkBkSM e; vfHkHkk"kd Jh eksgEen 'kjhQ Nhik mifLFkr A i{kdkjku }kjk ,d izkFkZuk i= is'k dj fuosnu fd;k fd muds e/; yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls vkt jkthukek gks x;k gS eqrkfcd jkthukek ds izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fnuakd 16-4-1998 ls izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr fnuakd 26-03-2014 rd izfro"kZ dh lsok vof/k ds vk/kkj ij (Per Completed Years Of Service)¼dqy lsok vof/k 15 o"kZ 11 ekg 10 fnu dks 16 o"kZ ekurs gqos½ dk 30 fnu dk rRle; feyus okys Hkqxrku 9040@& dh nj ld ,Dlxzsfl;k Hkqxrku 1]44]640@& ds :i esa foi{kh fn;k tk;sxk A osru esa ewy osru ,p-vkj-,- o dUosUl Hkqxrku 'kkfey gksxk A ;k uksfVl ihfj;M esa fn;s x;s osru nj ls Hkqxrku fd;k tk,xk A
mDr ,Dlxzsfl;k Hkqxrku #- 1]44]640@&o xzsP;qVh #- 50]123@& dqy Hkqxrku #-1]94]763@&ds vfrfjDr #i;s 20]137@&dqy feykdj 2]15]000 ¼v{kjs nks yk[k iUnzkg gtkj #i;s½ foi{kh] izkFkhZ dks ,d ekg ds vUnj Hkqxrku dj nsxkA vU;Fkk mDr jkf'k ij 6 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls vkt fnuakd ls C;kt ns; gksxk A
blds vykok izkFkhZ dh foi{kh ls bl laca/k dksbZ cdk;k jkf'k ugha jgsxh rFkk fdlh izdkj dk lsok lac/kh ;k vU; fookn 'ks"k ugha jgsxk A
jkthukek nksuksa i+{kdkjksa dks ik;k x;k nksuksa i{kdkjksa us jkthukek lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;kA izkFkhZ d.kZflag dks mlds vfHkHkk"kd Jh lqHkk"k Jhekyh rFkk foi{kh Jh vpyflag jkBkSM] izcU/kd H.R dh vf/koDrk Jh eksgEen 'kjhQ Nhik us igpkuk dhA jkthukek i`Fkd ls rLnhd fd;k x;k A layXu i=koyh jgs A jkthukes ds vk/kkj ij nksuksa i{kdkj ikcUn jgsxsaA
¼dsfUnz;½ vtesj }kjk tkjh i= Øeakd AJ-5(75) 2014-RLC fnuakd 9] tqykbZ 2014 ,ao mlds lkFk layXu izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k 2(A) I.A. Act ds rgr~ is'k fd;k x;k Fkk A
vr% iapkV izdk'kukFkZ leqfpr ljdkj dks Hkstk tkos A
i=koyh QSly 'kqekj gksdj ckn rdehy nkf[ky n¶rj gks A
v:.k dqekj nqcs] U;k;k/kh'k
नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 50505050....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार मेसर्स आर. के . मार्बल प्राइवेट लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय, उदयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 04/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 27.12.2018 को प्राप्त <आ था।
[सं. जेड-16025/4/2018-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 27th December, 2018
S.O. 50.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 04/2014) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Udaipur now as shown in the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 231 Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. R.K. Marbal Private Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27.12.2018.
[No. Z-16025/4/2018-IR(M)
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
vuqca/k
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] mn;iqj
izdj.k la[;k 04 lu 2014 ITR(Central) fnyhi flag iq= Jh Hkaojflag jktiwr fuoklh ckxksy rglhy nslwjh ftyk ikyh ¼jktLFkku½
cuke
egkizcU/kd] vkj-ds- ekcZy izkbZosV fyfeVsM] eksjoM] ftyk jktleUn ¼jktLFkku½
30-07-2018
mHk;i{k ds vfHkHkk"kdx.k mi-A
i{kdkjku us yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls jkthukek is'k fd;k] tks i`Fkd ls rLnhd fd;kA 'kk- i=koyh jgs A i=koyh jkthukek QSly 'kqekj gksdj ckn rdehy izfo"B ys[k Hk.Mkj gks A lwpuk ljdkj dks Hksth tkos A
v:.k dqekj nqcs] U;k;k/kh'k
नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 51515151....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार मेसर्स एयरपोर्ट अथॉरिटी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय सं.-1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 142/2016) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 24.12.2018 को प्राप्त <आ था।
[सं. एल-11011/11/2016-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 27th December, 2018
S.O. 51.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 142/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No.1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.12.2018.
[No. L-11011/11/2016-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
ID No. 142/2016
Shri G.A. Rudrappa through The General Secretary, Indian Airport Kamgar Union (IAKU), CHQ Office : Qtr.No.B-14-, Pocket A, INA Colony, New Delhi 110023. …Workman/Claimant
Versus
The Chairman, Airport Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,232 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Safdarjang Airport, New Delhi 110003.
… Management/ Respondent
AWARD
This Award shall dispose of a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide letter No.L-11011/11/2016/IR(M) dated 13.07.2016 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:-
'Whether the refusal of the management of Airport Authority of India to extend the benefit of the workman Shri G.A. Rudrappa for attending the meeting on 2.3.2009 at Mumbai in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) 283/2015 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?'
2. Both parties were put to notice and the claimant G.A. Rudrappa filed statement of claim. As per the averments made in the claim petition, claimant G.A.Rudrappa is General Secretary of Indian Airport Kamgar Union (IAKU) - a registered Trade Union operating in the establishments of Airport Authority of India (AAI) & representing the workers of AAI throughout the country and functioning for the welfare & interest of the employees of AAI. The AAI had leased out Chatterpati Shivaji Internatiional Airport to M/s GVK on the basis of agreement which is called as Operation Management & Development Agreement (OMDA) w.e.f. 3/5/2006. Due to implementation of aforesaid agreement, the workers employed with AAI started facing various problems and the claimant Union raised an industrial dispute which was adjudicated upon by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No.2, Mumbai and interim order dated 15/1/2009 was passed, thereby some relief to the workers was provided. AAI challenged the same before Hon'ble High Court at Mumbai in a W.P. No 2085 of 2009. During hearing, Hon'ble High Court directed that an attempt should be made by the parties to settled the matter amicably by mutual discussions. Consequent upon the said direction of Hon'ble High Court, Regional Executive Director of AAI (Western Region), Mumbai convened a meeting for 2/3/2009 at 2.30 p.m. at Mumbai. M/s K.V. Kini & Co., Advocates & Solicitors of the AAI vide letter dated 27/2/2009 communicated to the Advocate of the Union about the date & time of the said meeting and requested him to instruct his client to attend the aforesaid meeting. Ms. Gayatri Devi, Advocate of the Union asked the General Secretary of the claimant Union to attend the meeting. The claimant informed the Controlling Officer viz. the Airport Director of AAI, Hyderabad about the said meeting and sought permission to leave the station on 28/2/2009 vide his application dated 27/2/2009.
3. It is alleged that the claimant being General Secretary of the Union attended the said meeting on 2/3/2009 at Mumbai and made request vide his application dated 19/3/2009 to the Director of AAI, Hyderabad to grant him the benefits attached to the official tour for attending the said meeting. In the meanwhile the AAI transferred the workman from Hyderabad to Madurai Airport where he joined on 18/12/2009. It is also alleged that the claimant submitted a representation dated 12/5/2010 to the Regional Executive Director of AAI at Chennai and in reply thereto, the Airport Controller, Madurai Airport informed him vide letter dated 6/7/2010 that his request could not be agreed to since grant of special casual leave for attending court is not within the AAI leave regulation and thereby his claim for official benefits for attending the said meeting was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant sent his request dated 18/8/2010 to the Chairman, AAI through proper channel for grant of Special Casual leave as well as benefits of Tour & TA/DA etc., which was returned to him by the Airport Controller, Madurai vide his memo dated 20/8/2010 with an advice to take up the matter directly as General Secretary with AAI Management and hence, he directly sent a letter dated 6/9/2010 to the Chairman but to no response. Thereafter he approached the Conciliation Officer which culminated into the present reference. Prayer has been made for passing an Award of giving him all the benefits of tour on equal footings as granted to the General Secretary of Airport Authority Employees Union.
4. Management has resisted the claim of the Workman and filed written reply, taking preliminary objections that this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim petition as no cause of action arose at Delhi and admittedly the writ petition was filed by the Management before Hon'ble High Court at Mumbai. The claimant is not entitled to any relief inasmuch as Indian Airport Kamgar Union (IAKU) is not a recognized Trade Union of the Management and as per Airport Authority (Leave) Regulations, 2003 there is no provision for granting special casual leave to the workmen of the non recognized Union for attending courts. It is also alleged that the claimant is neither a member of the recognized Union of AAI, nor he is representing the workers of AAI throughout the country and that there is no privity of contract between IAKU and the Management. There was no written or verbal direction of Hon'ble High Court for grant of such facilities to the claimant. It is further alleged that the claimant was neither on official tour, nor any such approval was ever granted to him by the Management. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the workman/claimant, whereby the case as set up in the claim petition has been reiterated and allegations made in the written statement have been denied.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 1/8/2017 :-
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 233i) Whether the claim is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objections ?
ii) In terms of reference ?
7. The Claimants in support of his case examined himself WW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A & relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/14, whereas Management examined one Shri I.P. Aggarwal, Asstt. General Manager (HR), AAI who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A
Issue No.1 :
8. Learned A/R for the Management strenuously argued that this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition inasmuch as no cause of action arose at Delhi and admittedly the writ petition was filed by the Management before Hon'ble High Court at Mumbai, the meeting was convened at Mumbai and the workman/claimant at the relevant time was not posted here in Delhi. However, during the course of arguments he conceded that the Head/Principal Office as well as Human Resource (Personnel department) office of AAI is located at Delhi. Even the final representation/request letter by the claimant regarding grant of Special Casual leave and other benefits was made to the Chairman, whose office is also situated here in Delhi. Further, all policy decision in respect of administrative matters of the AAI are taken by the Head Office. In view of all these and the fact that the reference has been received by this Tribunal from the Appropriate Government, I am afraid to accept the contention of learned A/R for the Management that this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
9. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management submitted that there was no espousal of cause of action since the claim made by the claimant is not sponsored or espoused by a Union of the workers, rather the claimant himself claiming to be the General Secretary of IAKU – unrecognized Union has filed, signed and verified the claim petition whereas he has raised a cause/dispute of his own i.e. an individual workman. As such, the claimant has no locus standi to file the present claim petition, without there being espousal and it can not be termed as industrial dispute.
10. Per contra, learned A/R for the Workman/claimant has strenuously argued that the claimant G.A. Rudrappa happens to be the General Secretary of the claimant Union IAKU which Union is functioning for the welfare & benefit of the workers and as such the claimant was a protected workman of the Management during the year 2009. Being General Secretary of the claimant Union, the claim petition filed by G.A. Rudrappa/ claimant is maintainable.
11. I may mention that the procedure for reference of an "Industrial Dispute" under sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act, has been narrated in Part-I of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. Rule 4 of the said Rules clearly provides as under :-
4. Attestation of application – The application and the statement accompanying it shall be signed –
(a) in the case of an employer……………….
(b) in the case of workmen, either by the President and Secretary of a Trade Union of the workmen, or by five representatives of the workmen duly authorised in this behalf at a meeting of the workmen held for the purpose;
(c ) in the case of an individual workman, by the workman himself or by any officer of the trade union of which he is a member or by another workman in the same establishment duly authorised by him in this behalf;
Provided that such workman is not a member of different trade union.)
Definition of "industrial dispute" has been carved out in Section 2(k) of the Act and same is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience :-
2(k) "industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person"
Law in relation to "industrial dispute" is well settled, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Workman of Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi) Vs. Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi), (1965) 1 LLJ 668 SC, has held that :-
"For the purpose of Section 2(k) it must be shown that (1) the dispute is connected with employment or non employment of a workman; (2) the dispute between a single workman and his employer was sponsored or espoused by the union of workman or by a number of workmen. The phrase "the union" merely indicates the Union to which the employee belongs even though it may be a Union of a minority of the workmen; (3) the establishment had no union on its own and some of the employees had joined the Union of another establishment belonging to the same industry. In such a case it would be open to that Union to take up the cause of the workmen if it is sufficiently representative of those workmen, dispute the fact that such Union was not exclusively of the workmen working in the establishment concerned."
In renowned case of "Workmen of Indian Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Management of Indian Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd., "an outside Union" was held to be sufficiently representative to espouse the cause.
12. It is manifest from the above decision that in order to give jurisdiction to refer the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, it was essential for the workman/claimant to show that his individual cause/dispute, was sponsored or espoused by a Union of the workmen. Apparently, there is nothing on record to suggest that the claimant's234 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] cause/dispute for grant of special casual leave and other benefits of TA/DA etc. is/was espoused by IAKU Union (though it is unrecognized by the Management herein). The claimant G.A. Rudrappa, seeking relief for himself, has himself signed & verified the claim petition, though he has also affixed the seal of General Secretary of IAKU under his signatures. Neither in the pleadings nor in his affidavit, he has stated that he was seeking relief not as an individual but that of Member of the Union. However, he has neither filed on record any resolution of five representatives of the workmen/Union (IAKU) duly authorised in this behalf at a meeting held for the purpose, nor the present claim petition is signed jointly by the President & General Secretary so as to comply with the provisions of Rule 4 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. Hence, it can not be said that the cause of the claimant has been espoused by the Union (IAKU) or else.
13. In the light of the aforesaid rulings and the fact that there is no espousal to the cause/dispute of the workman/claimant herein, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the claim petition being not covered under the definition of "industrial dispute" is not maintainable. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the Management and against the claimant herein.
Issue No.2 :
13. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that in relation to an industrial dispute between the parties, interim order dated 15/1/2009 was passed by CGIT, Mumbai, thereby some relief to the workers was provided. AAI challenged the same before Hon'ble High Court at Mumbai in a W.P. No 2085 of 2009. During hearing, Hon'ble High Court directed that an attempt should be made by the parties to settle the matter amicably by mutual discussions. Consequent upon the said direction of Hon'ble High Court, Regional Executive Director of AAI (Western Region), Mumbai convened a meeting for 2/3/2009 at 2.30 p.m. at Mumbai. M/s K.V. Kini & Co., Advocates & Solicitors of the AAI vide letter (Ex.WW1/3) dated 27/2/2009 communicated to the Ms. Gayatri Singh, Advocate of the IAKU as well as to Ms. Jane Cox Advocate for Airport Kamgar Union, about the date & time of the said meeting and requested him to instruct his client to attend the aforesaid meeting (not more than two members of each of the Union) as to find out the possibility of settlement talks.. It is claimed by the claimant that Ms. Gayatri Devi, Advocate of the IAKU asked General Secretary of the claimant Union (i.e. to him) to attend the meeting. The claimant vide his application dated 27/2/2009 (Ex.WW1/4) informed the Controlling Officer viz. the Airport Director of AAI, Hyderabad about the said meeting and had simply sought permission to leave the station on 28/2/2009 (A/N) for the purpose of attending the meeting on 2/3/2009. It is pertinent to mention here that vide his request letter dated 27/2/2009 (Ex.WW1/4), the claimant had no where sought for Special Casual Leave, nor had stated that he will be claiming T A/DA etc, if any, as per rules.
14. It is undisputed fact that the claimant herein had attended the meeting at Mumbai on 2/3/2009 in the capacity of General Secretary of IAKU and besides him, four other office bears of the same Union/IAKU namely K.S.Prajapati – Regional Secretary, Mahesh Gumgaonkar, Branch Secretgary, Srikant Pant, Asstt. General Secretary and P.K. Bandopadhya= President of IAKU had attended the said meeting, which fact is apparent from the very first page of the minutes/record note of discussion of the said meeting (Ex.WW1/5). Thus, it is evident that five office bearers of IAKU had attended the said meeting, though it was specifically mentioned in the letter Ex.WW1/3) that not more than two members of each of the Unions should attend the meeting.
15. It is also not in dispute that vide his application dated 19/3/2009 (Ex.WW1/6), addressed to the Director of AAI, Hyderabad, the claimant had requested for grant of benefits attached to official tour /meeting which he attended on 2/3/2009 at Mumbai. It is noteworthy that the claimant had made no request for grant of Special Casual leave, rather he had simply requested for grant of benefits attached to the said official tour and had not disclosed as to how (either by Air or by Train) he travelled and what expenses he had actually incurred for the same. Even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments, that it was an official meeting convened by the side of the Management at Mumbai, yet invitation was meant only for two office bearers of IAKU. But there is no explanation from the side of the claimant as to why five office bears of IAKU had attended the said meeting.
16. It is also not in dispute that the claimant had sent his request dated 18/8/2010 (Ex.WW1/10) addressed to the Chairman, AAI through proper channel for grant of benefits of attached to official Tour & TA/DA etc., which was returned to him by the Airport Controller, Madurai vide his memo dated 20/8/2010 with an advice to take up the matter directly as General Secretary with AAI Management because he had attended the meeting in his capacity as General Secretary of IAKU & not as Sr.Supdt(FS) and hence, he directly sent a letter dated 6/9/2010 (Ex.WW1/3) to the Chairman but to no response.
17. Perusal of the record shows that the Management had issued certain Guidelines under the cover of office order dated 22/11/2002 (Ex.WW1/14 (colly.) for providing certain facilities to the Recognised (majority elected) Union vis-à-vis office accommodation, furniture, telephone facilities, Notice Board, TA/DA for attending official meetings/conferences convened by the Management.
18. Learned A/R for the claimant placed reliance on the decisions in the case of UOI Vs. Paschim Railway Karamchari Parishad Union (Special Civil Application No.8069 of 1997 – decided by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs.Indain Airlines Technical Assist ants Union W.A.848/1994 – dated on 12/6/1996, decided by Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, to stress that unrecognized Union is also entitled to same privileges which are accorded to the Recognized (Majority elected) Union.
19. Per contra, learned A/R for the Management submitted that the Management is rules & regulations governing the Management organization does not provide for payment of any such benefits to non-recognised union and as such[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 235 claim of the claimant/workman is misconceived. Moreover, the claimant had attended the meeting at Mumbai alongwith four other office bearers of IAKU, though only two of them were required to attend the meeting.
20. There is no dispute about preposition of law that
"The Trade Union Act confers certain rights on the Registered Union to ventilate the grievance of the members of its union. The Management is obliged to hear them and resolve its disputes as far as possible without resorting to the conciliation & adjudicatory process Though the Management is not obliged to recognize the unrecognized (minority elected) Unionbut at the same time it can not refuse to hear the grievances voiced by it in respect of service conditions of its members. The Management is expected to conduct itself in a fair and reasonable manner in the interest of industrial peace and harmony. Therefore reconginising the Union for the limited purpose of negotiation and settlement in respect of its members, can not be construed as recognition under the Code of Discipline On the other hand, it improves the labour-management relations and paves the way for achieving optimum output. There is no provision under the Industrial Disputes Act or Trade Union Act, prohibiting the management from negotiating, discussing or entering into settlement with the unrecognized union. It is only in cases where the demand of unrecognized union is already seized of by the recognized union such a demand would not be maintainable….
Further that, unrecognized Union is also entitled to same privileges which are accorded to the Recognized (Majority elected) Union.
However, in the instant case, the claim of the claimant/workman does not appear to be justifiable, inasmuch as there is no explanation from the side of the claimant as to why five office bears of IAKU had attended the meeting at Mumbai, whereas only two of them were required to attend the same. Vide his first request letter dated 27/2/2009 (Ex.WW1/4), the claimant had no where sought for Special Casual Leave, nor had stated that he will be claiming T A/DA etc, if any, as per rules rather he had sought permission to leave station. Further, vide his application dated 19/3/2009 (Ex.WW1/6), the claimant had made no request for grant of Special Casual leave, rather he had simply requested for grant of benefits attached to the said official tour. Neither in his application as well as subsequent representations made to the Chairman nor in the claim petition filed before this Tribunal, the workman/claimant disclosed as to how (either by Air or by Train) he travelled and what expenses he had actually incurred for the same. No document about the expenses incurred for the same has been filed on record. The meeting was attended by the claimant on 2nd March, 2009. Final request letter/representation was made by him to the Chairman, AAI on 6/9/2010 but to no avail, whereas the claimant/workman approached the Conciliation Officer only in the year 2016, that is after gap of six years. This shows that there is belated raising of claim by the workman /claimant. There is no pleadings or evidence from the side of the claimant to show that he ever raised any grievance during the period after September, 2010 till 2016 before any forum, about grant of Special Casual Leave and benefits attached to the official tour. It would not be out of place to mention here that IAKU had moved the Hon'ble High Court by filing W.P (Civil) No. 6446/2013 concerning the election of the recognized Trade Union of the Airport Authority of India, held on 29/1/2013 wherein the Airports Authority "Employees Union (AAEU) was declared elected as the recognized(majority) union of AAI". The said writ petition was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 17/3/2016. It appears that thereafter workman/claimant again agitated his claim for grant of Special Casual Leave & benefits of TA/DA etc before Conciliation Officer. This fact also strengthen my view that the claim of the workman/claimant is belated one and has been made beyond reasonable period, besides the same is unspecified in terms of money which is sought to be reimbursed by the Management. All these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case lead this Tribunal to conclude that claim of the workman for grant of Special Casual Leave and benefit of TA/DA etc. for attending the meeting on 2/3/2009 at Mumbai, is unjust and improper at this belated stage.
Relief :
In view of my findings on issue No.1 and 2 above, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the claimant is not entitled to any relief whatsoever, firstly because there is no espousal to his claim and lastly his claim being belated is not justifiable. The award is accordingly passed.
Date : 06.12.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 52525252....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स दिल्ली इंटरनेशनल एयरपोर्ट लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब0 नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में236 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नि3दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं 6म न्यायालय सं. 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या
32/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:31)ीय सरकार को 24.12.2018 को प्राप्त <आ था।
[सं. जेड-16025/4/2018-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 27th December, 2018
S. O. 52.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 32/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Delhi International Airport Ltd. And other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.12.2018.
[No. Z-16025/4/2018-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
ID No. 32/2013
Shri Ram Kishan, S/o. Shri Chander Prakash, R/o. E-2344 Block, Gurgaon 122017 (Haryana). … Workman/Claimant
Versus
1. M/s. Delhi International Airport Ltd., New Uddan Bhawan, Terminal No.III, IGI Airport, New Delhi 110037.
2. M/s. Biman Bangldesh Airlines Ltd., 317, 320-321, Indra Prakash Building, Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi.
….Management
AWARD
This award shall decide a claim petition filed by the workman/ claimant Ram Kishan under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) with the averments that the claim petition, the workman was appointed by Management No.2 M/s Biman Bangladesh Airlines as Accounts Assistant on 16/4/2010 initially on daily wage basis vide appointment letter dated 16/4/2010 but was deputed at Indira Gandhi International Airport as Traffic Officer. In view of his satisfactory work and conduct, his services were regularized vide letter dated 15/11/2010 and since then he had working with the Management No.2 on a monthly salary of Rs.14,300/- . It has been alleged that though the workman was appointed for a job of perennial nature but unlawful terms & conditions to renew his employment after three years were mentioned in the letter dated 15/11/2010. It is pleaded that job of the workman was of operation, clerical and manual. Though he had been appointed as Accounts Assistant but he worked as Traffic Officer and that is why Management had got issued him Airport Entry Pass to work as Traffic Officer at IGI Airport. One of the officers of the Management wanted the workman to do some unlawful act and when he denied to do so, the said Officer got annoyed and threatened the workman of victimization of service and thereafter he started harassing the workman/claimant and the said Officer got the workman transferred from IGI Airport to Biman City Office at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi vide letter dated 12/6/201. The claimant was made to sit idle throughout his duty hours and sometimes upto 8 PM without allowing him to have tea or lunch etc. and as such the workman became patient of hypertension. On 10/7/2012 while the claimant as on duty, his conditions got deteriorated in the office where office boy helped him in getting auto-rickshaw for his house. On reaching home, his family members took the workman to Kapoor Clinic where he remained under treatment w.e.f. 11/7/012 to 2/8/2012. When on 3/8/201`2 he reported for duty alongwith medical certificate and application, the Management refused to receive the same and did not allow him to perform duty. As such, the claimant sent his medical certificate and application through courier on 3/8/2012. He also served a demand notice dated 23/8/2012 upon the Management. It is alleged that termination of service of workman is in gross violation of Section 25-[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 237 F of the Act. The workman approached the Conciliation Officer who took up the matter on 22/11/2012, 21/12/12 and 19/2/2013 but no settlement could be arrived at and hence, he filed the present claim petition. It is also alleged that the workman is unemployed from the date of termination of his service as he could not get any job despite his best efforts and is facing economic hardship. He has prayed for reinstatement into service with continuity of service and full back wages and all consequential benefits.
2. The claim petition has been resisted by the Management No.1 who filed its written statement and took preliminary objections inter-alia that the the workman/claimant is not its employee and on the contrary it has been admitted by the claimant that he was appointed by Management No.2 and his salary was paid by Management No.2.. Prayer has been made that Management No.1 be deleted from the array of the parties in the claim petition
3. Management No.2 also resisted the claim of the workman, filed written statement and took preliminary objections inter-alia that since the appointment of the workman was on contractual basis, therefore in terms of Section 2(00)(bb) of the Act, the present dispute is not sustainable, as termination of such a contractual employee does not fall within the ambit of retrenchment. However it is admitted that the workman was appointed by the Management No.2 as Accounts Assistant on 16/4/2010 initially on daily basis. It has been denied that due to his satisfactory work and conduct, the workman was regularized in service w.e.f. 15/11/2010 vide letter dated 15/11/2010. The service contract of the workman was terminated on 24/7/2012 in terms of clause 5 of the contract letter dated 15/11/2010 and he was offered the salary upto the period 24/7/2012 alongwith salary of two weeks' in lieu of notice period and was directed to deposit the property of the Management viz. ID card and entry/security pass, uniform, office keys etc. which the workman was holding during the course of his contractual employments with the Management but the workman did not comply with the same. It has been denied that the workman worked as Traffic Officer or that Officer of the Management ever asked him to perform some unlawful and immoral traffic act or that he was mentally harassed and tortured by the Management. Since the contractual term of the workman had come to an end on 24/7/2012 , there was no occasion for him to report for duty alongwith medical certificate on 3/8/2012. It is alleged that the claimant is not entitled to claim back wages or reinstatement into service as he had voluntarily accepted contractual employment. Prayer has been made that present dispute is not tenable and no dispute award be passed against the claimant.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 16/5/2013 :-
(1) Whether action of termination of service of the claimant by M/s Biman Bangladesh Airlines Ltd. falls within sub clause (bb) of clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disptues Act, 1947 ?
(2) Whether claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in service ?
5. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as W.W.1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A alongwith documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/3.
6. On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined Mohd. Mofizul Islam, Operations Manager as MW1 who who also tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex. WW1/M-1 to Ex.WW1/M-7
7. I have heard Shri Maya Ram, A/R for the claimant; Shri Ramesh Thakur, A.R for Management No1 and Shri Subhash Bakshi, Deputy General Manager of Management No.2. and have also gone through the evidence adduced on record by the parties.
Issue No.1 and 2 :
8. Both these issues are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion and they can be conveniently disposed of.
9. From the pleading of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is evident that the claimant herein was appointed by the Management No.2 M/s Biman Bangldesh Airlines as Accounts Assistant initially on 16/8/2010 on daily wage basis and in fact the Management No.1 M/s DIAL has got no privity of contract with the claimant/workman in respect of his employment, inasmuch as Management No.2 alone was the controlling and paying authority and this is so apparent from the document Ex.WW1/3 viz. appointment-cum-regularization letter.
10. A/R for the workman/claimant submitted that services of the claimant were regularized by the letter dated 15/11/2010 (Ex.WW1/3) to a post of perennial nature, as his work and conduct was found to be satisfactory by the Management from 16/8/2010 onwards and further that while he being unwell & under treatment remained on leave w.e.f. 11/7/012 to 2/8/2012, he reported for duty alongwith medical certificate and application on 3/8/2012, the Management refused to receive the same and did not allow him to perform duty. As such action of the Management in terminating his services is illegal.
11. Per contra, A/R for the Management submitted that appointment of the workman was purely on contractual basis for a period of three years and the Management terminated the services of the workman vide letter dated 24/7/2012, in terms of clause (5) of the agreement/contract letter dated 15/11/2010 (Ex.WW1/3). As such, the Management was well within its rights to disengage the services of the workman/claimant at any time and as such, there is no violations of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act . In fact, the Management had issued termination letter dated 24/7/2012 (Ex.WW1/M-1) to the claimant/workman and same is within the purview of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act.
12. To ascertain the truth, It will be worthwhile to refer to the evidence adduced on record by the parties, in the light of the appointment letter dated 15/11/2010, relevant extracts of which are reproduced hereunder :-
238 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]"Subject : Regularization of service as "Accounts Assistant"
Dear Mr. Kishan,
The management of Biman Bangladesh Airlines Ltd. has decided to appoint your as "Accounts Assistant for a contractual period of 3 (three) years under the following terms & conditions :-
1. Your consolidated monthly remuneration will be Rs.14,300/-
2. Your employment will be renewed after satisfactory completion of three years of service including six months of apprenticeship period.
3. …………….
4. …………………
5. Both the parties (Biman and/or employee) reserve the right to revoke the contract through serving 2 (two) weeks' notice in advance. However, Biman reserves the right to terminate your service forthwith on payment of notice pay.
6. You will be entitled to enjoy 14 days leave per year after completion of one year service. Any unutilized leave will not be accumulated for the next year.
7. Your appointment will be effective from 16th April, 10. ''
13. Though the claimant WW1 specifically denied the suggestion that letter Ex.WW1/M-1 was served upon him on 24/7/2012 whereby his contractual appointment was terminated, however the Management did not file on record any document like postal receipt or acknowledgement etc. to show that the said termination letter dated 24/7/2012 was actually served upon the claimant. On the contrary, it is the specific case of the claimant/workman that he happened to be on medical leave w.e.f. 11/7/2012 to 2/8/2012 and that on 3/8/2012 when he reported for duty alongwith medical certificate and application, Management did not allow him to perform duty. Sick leave application of the workman for the said period has been produced on record by the Management itself as Ex.WW1/M-2. The said leave application dated 3/8/2012 is on the prescribed proforma of the Management and bears the signatures of the workman/claimant. In the face of this document Ex.WW1/M-2, the version of the workman/claimant is believable and it appears that the Management has cooked up a false story and fabricated the termination letter dated 24/7/2012, inasmuch as had the Management disengaged the services of the workman through termination letter dated 24/7/2012 there was no question for the workman/claimant to submit his leave application Ex.WW1/M-2 on 3/8/2012 alongwith the medical certificate Ex.WW1/M-7, so produced by the Management. As per the contract/appointment letter Ex.WW1 the claimant/workman was entitled to enjoy 14 days leave per year and he had already put in service for about two years.
14. The workman/claimant also denied the suggestions of the Management that letter Ex.WW1/M-4 was sent to him by the Management alongwith a cheque of Rs.18,590/- (Ex.WW1/M-5), wherein his postal address written thereon is correct. He also denied the suggestion that he refused to accept the said letter Ex.WW1/M-4 when it was handed over to him by the postal authorities. Despite that the Management has not filed any document about the service of the said letter Ex.WW1/M-4 upon the workman. Moreover, this letter is dated 15/4/2013 whereas the cheque Ex.WW1/M-5 is dated 16/4/2013. It appears that the said letter was issued by the Management, only after the claimant/workman had filed the claim petition and notice of the same was received by the Management for hearing dated 17/4/2013, when Authorised representative of the Management had put in appearance before this Tribunal.
15. At the time when the services of the claimant were terminated w.e.f. 3/8/2012 or 24/7/2012 as the case may be, the workman/claimant had already served the Management for about two years. The appointment cum regularization letter Ex.WW1/3 clearly goes to show that the appointment though on contract basis, was made for three years. It is not the case of the Management that the workman was employed for any specific project/scheme and that is why the Management had shut down its business/operations in the year 2012 when the services of the claimant were terminated/disengaged. MW1 Mohd. Mofizul Islam –witness of the Management admitted that Management Airlines was operational but not in Delhi, in the year 2012, 2013 and 2014 intermittently. He also admitted that Airways Bills Ex.MW1/W-1 and MW1/W-2 are of the Management company. Same pertains to the period July, 2014 which shows that the Management company was in operation even in July, 2014. The Management has not led any evidence to show that the work or the post to which the claimant was employed itself ceased to exist when the services of the claimant were disengaged/terminated. In the given circumstances, this Tribunal is unable to accept the contention of the Management that the order of retrenchment/termination is within the purview of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act, inasmuch as contractual employment appears to have been resorted to as a mechanism to frustrate the claim of the employee to become regular or permanent against a job of regular and perennial in nature. In S.M. Nilajkar Versus Telecom, District Manager, Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 3553, their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and laid down the following propositions :-
"12. Retrenchment in its ordinary connotations is discharge of labour as surplus though the business or work itself is continued, it is well settled by a catena of decisions that labour laws being beneficial pieces of legislation are to be interpreted in favour of the beneficiaries in case of doubt or where it is possible to take two views of a provision. It is also well settled that the Parliament has employed the expression "the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever"[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 239 while defining the term retrenchment which is suggestive of the legislative intent to assign the term retrenchment, a meaning wider than what it is understood to have in common parlance. There are four exceptions carved out of the artificially extended meaning of the term 'retrenchment' and therefore, termination of service of a workman so long as it is attributable to the act of the employer would fall within the meaning of 'retrenchment' do hors the reason for termination. To be excepted from within the meaning of 'retrenchment' the termination of service must fall within one of the four excepted categories. A termination of service which does not fall within the categories (a)(b),(bb) and (c) would fall within the meaning of 'retrenchment'.
13. The termination of service of a workman engaged in a scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Sub-clause (bb) subject to the following conditions being satisfied:
i) that the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration.
ii) the employment was on a contract and not as a daily wager simplicitor, which provided inter alia that the employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project; and
iii) the employment came to an end simulateneously with the termination of the scheme or project and consistently with the terms of the contract
iv) the workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the abovesaid terms by the employer the commencement of employment. ''
In K. Rajendran Versus Director, Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., 1995-III LLJ (Suppl.) 240 Mad., the facts were that the petitioner was appointed as Messenger for 44 days at a time. He continued to work on similar terms for about three years and the work was available on the date of termination of his service. While rejecting the plea of the employer that termination of service was covered by clause (bb) of Section 2(oo), Hon'ble Madras High Court held as under :-
"But there is nothing in sub-clause (bb) which enables an unscrupulous employer to terminate the service of the workers on the ground of non-renewal of their contract even when the work for which they were employed subsists. The exception as contained in Sub-clause (bb) will have to be strictly construed and clause (bb)should be made applicable only to such cases where the work ceases with the employment or the post itself ceases to exist. Clause (bb) can not be made applicable to a case when the employer resorts to contractual employment as a device simply take it out of clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Act not-withstanding the fact that the work for which the workmen are employed continues or the nature of duties which the workman was performing are still in existence."
In the light of aforesaid ruling and the facts of the case as discussed above, this Tribunal is the considered view that the action of termination of services of the claimant by the Management No.2 Biman Bengladesh Airlines Ltd. does not fall within the purview of sub clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. 16) There is long line of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the Management Bank to be illegal and void under the law.
17. Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the Management to the workman at the time of termination or in lieu of such notice, any compensation has actually been paid to the claimant/workman, as such action of the Management in terminating the services of the workman is held to be illegal and void.
18. Now the residual question is whether the claimant/work is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. It is proved on record that claimant was continuously in the employment of the Management since 15/11/2010 and prior to that he had been working on daily wage basis since 16/4/2010. There is no show cause notice or memo issued to the claimant/workman by the Management. Moreover, the job of the workman being employed as Accounts Assistant is/was of perennial and regular nature relating the operation and management activities of the Airlines of the Management. The claimant has specifically pleaded and deposed on oath that he is unemployed from the date of termination of his services and he could not get any job despite his best efforts. The Management has not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to show that the claimant is gainfully employed somewhere.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya" reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :
"The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
240 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."
20.. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a workman's service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
21. A Bench of three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the act of employer is found to be totally illegal and arbitrary, in that eventuality the workman is required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen alongwith payment of back wages.
22. However, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported as 2005 SCC (L&S) 716 observed as under :-
"8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calander year." 27. Yet in another latest case of Bholanath Lal and others Vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd., Manu/DE/1922/2018 (decided on 10/5/2018), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of illegal termination and reinstatement held as under :-
"The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same The courts must always keep in view that that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee./workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/ workman his dues in the form of full back wages."[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जनवरी 5, 2019/पौष 15, 1940 241 A similar view has been taken in the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Vimal Kumar (decided on 5-4-2018) MANU/de/1322/2018 wherein service of a casual driver was terminated without any notice or payment of one month's salary in lieu of such notice. The Industrial Tribunal answering the reference held the action of the management to be illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Award was upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by observing as under :-
"In view of the above discussion, I am unable to discern any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award, dated 29th May, 2003, of the Labour Court, to the extent that it holds the termination of the services of the respondent, by the petitioner, to be illegal and unlawful. I am entirely in agreement with the finding, of the Labour Court, that the services of the respondent were retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act and that, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In view of the fact that going by the age of the respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, he would, today, be only 50 years of age, and also in view of the fact that the termination of his services as SCM Driver was not on account of any deficiency or shortcoming detected in the manner of discharge by the respondent, of his duties as such, I am of the opinion, that the facts of the present case, do not warrant any interference with the direction, of the Labour Court, to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with the benefit of continuity of service. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith.
Inasmuch as the respondent has not been rendering any service to the petitioner since the date of his termination, however, the back wages payable to the respondent would be limited to 50 per cent of the wages which he would have drawn he had continued to serve the petitioner….."
23. Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the fact that the claimant was performing duty to a post of regular and perennial nature, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled for reinstatement into service on the same post, with 50 per cent back wages, iinasmuch as termination of the claimant/workman is per-se illegal, and the claimant/workman is not gainfully employed anywhere since after his termination by the Management No. 2. Award is passed accordingly against Management No. 2 M/s. Biman Bengladesh Airlines Ltd.
Date : 15.11.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, 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.
- [***] (b) Omitted (c) Any officer or servant of the Supreme Court or any High Court ↩
- [or Courts subordinate thereto;] (d) Any person appointed to the secretarial staff of either House of Parliament or to the secretarial staff of any State Legislature or a House thereof or, in the case of a Union territory having a Legislature, of that Legislature. 1. Clause (b) omitted by Act 19 of 1986, sec. 3 (w.r.e.f. 1-11-1985). 2. Ins. by Act 51 of 1987, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 22-12-1987). 8. The Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides as under: “The Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines workman as under: ’’ “Section 2 (s): “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person – (i) Who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a person; or (iii) Who is employed mainly in a managerial or administration capacity; or (iv) Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding (ten thousand rupees) per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.” ↩