288 GI/2019

(533)

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

REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 4]

ubZ fnYyh] tuojh 20—tuojh 26] 2019] 'kfuokj@ikS"k 30—ek?k 6] 1940

No. 4]

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 20—JANUARY 26, 2019, SATURDAY/ PAUSA 30— MAGHA 6, 1940

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

िव

िव मंालय

मंालय

(िवीय सेवाएं

िवीय सेवाएं

िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)

िवभाग)

नई द ली, 20 दस बर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 147

147

147.—इस िवभाग क दनांक 13.12.2013 क अिधसूचना संया 7/4/2013-बीओ-I के संदभ$ म&, के'(ीय

सरकार, एत+ारा, रा-ीय कृिष और 1ामीण िवकास ब3क (नाबाड$) के अ7य8 9ी हष$ कुमार भानवाला

(ज'म ितिथ: 27.11.1961) के काय$काल को दनांक 18.12.2018 से एक वष$ क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेशD तक,

जो भी पहले हो, बढ़ाती है।

[फा. सं. 7/7/2018-एसी]

गुरदीप Gसह, अवर सिचव

534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 20^th December, 2018

S.O. 147.—With reference to this Department’s Notification No. 7/4/2013-BO-I dated 13.12.2013, the Central

Government hereby extends the tenure of Shri. Harsh Kumar Bhanwala (DoB: 27.11.1961) as Chairman, National Bank

for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), for a period of one year with effect from 18.12.2018, or until

further orders, whichever is earlier.

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

GURDEEP SINGH, Under Secy.

िवदेश

िवदेश मंालय

मंालय

(सी

सी

सी.पी

पी

पी.वी

वी

वी. . . . भाग

भाग

भाग)

नई द ली, 3 जनवरी, 2019

का. आ.

का. आ. 148

148

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

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

एतद् Lारा, क& ( सरकार भारत के Mधान कDसलावास, बNमघम म& 9ी सुरे'( कुमार Gसह, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी

को दनांक 03 जनवरी 2019 से सहायक कDसुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर कDसुलर सेवाQ के िनव$हन के िलए Mािधकृत करती

है।

[सं. टी. 4330/1/2014]

Mकाश च'द, िनदेशक (कDसुलर)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2019

S. O. 148.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Surendra Kumar Singh,

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Birmingham to perform the

Consular services with effect from 03 January, 2019.

[No. T. 4330/1/2014]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

¼lrdZrk ,dd½

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2019

dk- vk- 149-&tcfd dsanz ljdkj dk ;g er gS fd MkW- e/kqi eksgrk] funs’kd ls lacaf/kr foHkkxh; tkap ds

mn~ns’;ksa ds fy, Jh lqHkk"k ikylqys] lqiq= Jh jke ikylqys] fuoklh 26&, uo;qx vkn’kZ vikVZesaV] fodkliqjh] ubZ

fnYyh&110018 vkSj funs’kd eSllZ] isukfyad baQksVSd fyfeVsM] dejk la[;k 205] ds&128] jathr lnu] eksgEeniqj] Hkhdkth

dkek Iysl] ubZ fnYyh&110066 (nwjHkk"k% 011&41459301 vkSj 011&26164145) dks xokg ds :i esa / fdlh nLrkost dh ekax

djus ds fy, cqykuk vko’;d gSA

vr% vc foHkkxh; tkap (xokgksa dh mifLFkfr izorZ vkSj nLrkost izLrqfr) vf/kfu;e] 1972 (1972 dk 18) dh /kkjk 4

dh mi&/kkjk (1) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsanz ljdkj Jh lqHkk"k ikylqys ds ekeys esa mDr vf/kfu;e dh

/kkjk 5 esa fufnZ"V 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djus ds fy, ,rn }kjk Jh vpy dqekj eYgks=k dks tkap izkf/kdkjh ds :i esa izkf/kd`r

djrh gSA

[la- D;w/lrdZrk@843@2@2010]

vfer ukjax] la;qDr lfpo [lh,uoh ,oa vkbZ]

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

535

(VIGILANCE UNIT)

New Delhi, the 17^th January, 2019

S.O. 149.—Whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that for the purposes of the departmental inquiry

relating to Dr. Madhup Mohta, Director, it is necessary to summon as witness / call for any document from Shri Subhash

Palsule, S/o Shri Ram Palsule, R/o 26-A, Navyug Adarsh Apartments, Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018 and Director,

M/s. Panalink Infotech Limited, Room No 205, K-128, Ranjit Sadan, Mohammadpur, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-

110066. (Telephone No 011-41459301 and 011-26164145)

NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Departmental

Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972 (18 of 1972), the Central

Government hereby authorizes Shri Achal Kumar Malhotra, as the Inquiring Authority to exercise the power specified in

Section 5 of the said Act in relation to Shri Subhash Palsule.

[No. Q/Vig/843/2/2010]

AMIT NARANG, Jt. Secy. [CNV& I]

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2019

dk- vk- 150-&tcfd dsanz ljdkj dk ;g er gS fd MkW- e/kqi eksgrk] funs’kd ls lacaf/kr foHkkxh; tkap ds

mn~ns’;ksa ds fy, Jh vt; dqekj xqIrk] lqiq= Jh fo’os’oj dqekj xqIrk] fuoklh vkj&16] ekSle fogkj] Fkkuk izhr fogkj] ubZ

fnYyh dks xokg ds :i esa / fdlh nLrkost dh ekax djus ds fy, cqykuk vko’;d gSA

vr% vc foHkkxh; tkap (xokgksa dh mifLFkfr izorZu vkSj nLrkost izLrqfr) vf/kfu;e] 1972 (1972 dk 18) dh /kkjk

4 dh mi&/kkjk (1) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsanz ljdkj Jh vt; dqekj xqIrk ds ekeys esa mDr vf/kfu;e

dh /kkjk 5 esa fufnZ"V 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djus ds fy, ,rn }kjk Jh vpy dqekj eYgks=k dks tkap izkf/kdkjh ds :i esa

izkf/kd`r djrh gSA

[la- D;w@lrdZrk@843@2@2010]

vfer ukjax] la;qDr lfpo [lh,uoh ,oa vkbZ]

New Delhi, the 17^th January, 2019

S.O. 150.—Whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that for the purposes of the departmental inquiry

relating to Dr. Madhup Mohta, Director, it is necessary to summon as witness / call for any document from Shri Ajay

Kumar Gupta, S/o Shri Vishweshwar Kumar Gupta, R/o R-16, Mausam Vihar, Police Station Preet Vihar, New Delhi.

NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Departmental

Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972 (18 of 1972), the Central

Government hereby authorizes Shri Achal Kumar Malhotra, as the Inquiring Authority to exercise the power specified in

Section 5 of the said Act in relation to Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta.

[No. Q/Vig/843/2/2010]

AMIT NARANG, Jt. Secy. [CNV& I]

कामक

कामक, लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

(कामक और िशण िवभाग)

नई द ली, 15 जनवरी, 2019

का. आ.

का. आ. 151

151

151—के' ( सरकार एतदLारा द ली िवशेष पुिलस R थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम

सं या 25) क धारा 6 के साथ पTठत धारा 5 क उपधारा (1) Lारा MदW शिXयD का Mयोग करते Yए उWर Mदेश राZ य

सरकार, गृह िवभाग लखनऊ के आदेश सं. 876/होम दनांकः 04 िसत बर, 2018 के मा7 यम से Mा^ त सहमित से लोक सेवा

आयोग उWर Mदेश, इलाहबाद Lारा आयोिजत अपर `ैिXक सिचव परी8ा-2010 म& क गa अिनयिमतताQ/दुराचार क

जांच/अ'वेषण करने के िलए द ली िवशेष पुिलस R थापना के सदR यD क शिXयD और 8ेbािधकार का िवR तार समR त उWर

Mदेश राZ य म& करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/46/2018-एवीडी-II]

एस.पी.आर. िb पाठी, अवर सिचव

536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING)

New Delhi, the 15^th January, 2019

S.O. 151.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of State

Government of Uttar Pradesh, Home Department, Lucknow issued vide Order No. 876/Home Dated Lucknow :

04 September, 2018, hereby extends the power and jurisdiction of the member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

in whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for enquiry/investigation into irregularities/misconducts committed in Additional

Private Secretary Examination-2010 held by Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad.

[F. No. 228/46/2018-AVD-II]

S.P.R TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tuojh] 2019

dk- vk- 152-&dsanz ljdkj ,rn~ }kjk fnYyh fo’ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e la- 25½ dh

/kkjk 5 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ lgifBr /kkjk 6 ds }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, mRrj izns’k jkT; ljdkj] x`g ¼iqfyl½

vuqHkkx&03 y[kuÅ dh vf/klwpuk la[;k 441@fjV@6&ih&3&2018&2¼223½ih@2018 y[kuÅ fnukad 31 tqykbZ] 2018 }kjk

izkIr lgefr ls fØfeuy vihy ua- 1957@1986 ¼nqxkZ ukbZ cuke mRrj izns’k ljdkj½ ds ewy nLrkostksa rFkk fupyh vnkyr

ds nLrkostksa ds ykirk gksus ds lEca/k esa tkWp@vUos’k.k rFkk mlds lEca/k esa mn~Hkwr gksus okys rF;ksa ;k rF; ;k muds

laO;ogkj ds Øe esa fd, x, mDr vijk/kksa ds laca/k esa ;k mlls lalDr vijk/kksa@ekeyksa vkSj fdUgha vU; vijk/kksa] iz;Ruksa]

nq"izsj.kksa vkSj 'kM;a= ds vUos’k.k ds fy, fnYyh fo’ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kf/kdkj dk foLrkj

leLr mRrj izns’k jkT; ij djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 228@42@2018&,ohMh&II]

,l- ih- vkj- f=ikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 15^th January, 2019

S.O. 152.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(I) of Section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Uttar Pradesh, Home (Police) Section-3, Lucknow issued vide Notification No. 441Writ/VI-P-3-2018-

2(223)P/2018 Lucknow dated 31^st July, 2018, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for the Enquiry/Investigation into disappearance

of original records of criminal appeal No. 1957/1986 (Durga Nai Vs. State of UP) along with Lower Court Records and

in relation to or in connection with the said case in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same fact or

facts in relation to the aforesaid case.

[F. No. 228/42/2018-AVD-II]

S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

नई दली,14 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 153

153

153.—के'(ीय सरकार ने पेcोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म& उपयोग के अिधकार का अज$न)

अिधिनयम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50) ( िजसे इसम& इसके पdात उX अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के

अधीन जारी क गई, भारत सरकार के पेcोिलयम और Mाकृितक गैस मंbालय क अिधसूचना िजसका Mकाशन भारत के

राजपb संया 15 दनांक 15-21 अMैल 2018 का.आ. 607 दनांक 10.04.2018 भाग II, खंड 3, उपखंड (ii) म& कया गया

है। इस अिधसूचना से सलंe अनुसूची म& िविनfदg ट महारा- राZय क तहसील- आiी िजला बीड क भूिम म& महारा- राZय म&

कोयली (गुजरात) से सोलापुर (महारा-) तक पेcोिलयम पTरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑइल कॉपlरेशन िलिमटेड Lारा

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

537

mयाि'वत कए जा रहे “कोयली-अहमदनगर-सोलापुर पTरयोजना” के स ब'ध म& पाइपलाइन िबछाने के Mयोजन के िलए

उपयोग के अिधकार का अज$न करने के िलए अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी।

और उX राजपb अिधसूचनाओ क Mितयाँ जनता को तारीख 14 िसत बर 2018 को उपलqध करा दी गई थी।

और उX अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण म& स8म Mािधकारी ने के'(ीय सरकार को अपनी Tरपोट$ दे दी

है।

और के'(ीय सरकार ने उX Tरपोट$ पर िवचार करने के पdात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उX भूिम

पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए अपेि8त है, उसमे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज$न करने का िविनdय कया है।

अत: अब, के'(ीय सरकार उX अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) Lारा MदW शिXयD का Mयोग करते Yए एतद् Lारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलe अनुसूची म& िविनfदg ट भूिम म& पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार

अrजत कया जाए।

और के'(ीय सरकार उX अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) Lारा MदW शिXयD का Mयोग करते Yए, यह

िनदsश देती है क उX भूिम म& उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के Mकाशन क तारीख से के'(ीय सरकार म& िनिहत होने के

बजाय सभी िवलंगमD से मुX होकर इंिडयन ऑइल कॉपlरेशन िलिमटेड मे िनिहत होगा।

पेcोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी 8ितपूrत के िलए इंिडयन ऑइल

कॉपlरेशन िलिमटेड पूण$तया उWरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से संबंिधत कसी भी मामले पर के'(ीय सरकार के िवtu कोई

वाद दावा या क़ानूनी काय$वाही नही हो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

तालुका

तालुका: : : : आ ी

आ ी

िजला

िजला: : : : बीड

बीड

रा!य

रा!य: : : : महारा#

महारा#

गांव

गांव का नाम

का नाम

सव$

सव$ नंनंनंनं./'लॉक

./'लॉक

./'लॉक नंनंनंनं.

)ेफल

हे+टर

आर

वग-

वग- मीटर

मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Gपपला

431

439

444

445

446

447

448

451

452

503

502

538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Gपपला

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)6/2018-ओआर-I/ई-23678]

नोवस क'डो, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 14^th January, 2019

S.O. 153.—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 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 State 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 14 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 : Ashti

District : Beed

State : Maharashtra

Name of Village

Survey No./ Block

No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Meter

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Pimpla

431

439

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

539

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Pimpla

444

445

446

447

448

451

452

503

502

[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

नई दली, 14 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 154

154

154.—के'(ीय सरकार ने पेcोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म& उपयोग के अिधकार का अज$न)

राजपb संया 15 दनांक 15-21 अMैल 2018 का.आ. 608 दनांक 10.04.2018 भाग II, खंड 3, उपखंड (ii) म& कया गया

है। इस अिधसूचना से सलंe अनुसूची म& िविनदi महारा- राZय क तहसील- परांडा िजला उRमानाबाद क भूिम म& महारा-

राZय म& कोयली (गुजरात) से सोलापुर (महारा-) तक पेcोिलयम पTरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑइल कॉपlरेशन िलिमटेड Lारा

उपयोग के अिधकार का अज$न करने के िलए अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी।

और उX राजपb अिधसूचनाओ क Mितयाँ जनता को तारीख 27 िसत बर 2018 को उपलqध करा दी गई थी।

है।

और के'(ीय सरकार ने उX Tरपोट$ पर िवचार करने के पdात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उX भूिम पाइपलाइन

िबछाने के िलए अपेि8त है, उसमे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज$न करने का िविनw चय कया है।

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलe अनुसूची म& िविनfदg ट भूिम मे पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार

अrजत कया जाए।

और के'(ीय सरकार उX अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) Lारा MदW शिXयD का Mयोग करते Yए, यह िनदsश देती है

क उX भूिम म& उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के Mकाशन क तारीख से के'(ीय सरकार म& िनिहत होने के बजाय सभी

िवलंगमD से मुX होकर इंिडयन ऑइल कॉपlरेशन िलिमटेड म& िनिहत होगा।

540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

पेcोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी 8ितपूrत के िलए इंिडयन

ऑइल कॉपlरेशन िलिमटेड पूण$तया उWरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से संबंिधत कसी भी मामले पर के'(ीय सरकार के

िवxद कोई वाद दावा या क़ानूनी काय$वाही नही हो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

तालुका: परांडा

िजला: उ1मानाबाद

रा!य: महारा#

गांव का नाम

सव$ नं

सव$ नं./'लॉक नं

./'लॉक नं

./'लॉक नं.

)ेफल

हे+टर

आर

वग- मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

आरणगांव

136

जवला (िन.)

868

865

864

861

860

857

856

855

854

873

853

850

849

848

845

844

843

842

833

830

826

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

541

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

जवला (िन.)

827

778

788

783

784

782

781

774

772

768

767

766

765

702

703

705

704

591

590

589

588

567

569

568

381

382

380

354

342

542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

जवला (िन.)

341

343

344

345

346

336

335

334

309

304

305

303

306

302

301

293

294

295

296

111

106

112

116

117

118

119

167

168

160

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

543

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

जवला (िन.)

159

158

157

156

155

154

153

152

151

150

149

148

कांदलगांव

100

103

105

िसरसांव

1130

1142

1141

1144

544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

िसरसांव

1145

1146

1147

1152

1153

1154

1155

1157

1160

1103

1047

1063

1062

1061

1060

1059

1055

1054

1051

1050

1049

1048

1036

1037

1038

1039

1040

1030

1041

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

545

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

वाकडी

160

128

129

133

134

135

137

141

142

533/56

200

201

202

204

217/2

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

213

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)6/2018-ओआर-I/ई-23678]

नोवस क'डो, अवर सिचव

546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 14^th January, 2019

S.O. 154.—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. 608 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 Paranda District Osmanabad 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 Gujarat 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 27 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 : Paranda

District : Osmanabad

State : Maharashtra

Name of Village

Survey No./Block

No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Arangaon

136

Jawala (NI.)

868

865

864

861

860

857

856

855

854

873

853

850

849

848

845

844

843

842

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

547

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Jawala (NI.)

833

830

826

827

778

788

783

784

782

781

774

772

768

767

766

765

702

703

705

704

591

590

589

588

567

569

568

381

382

380

354

342

341

343

344

345

346

336

335

334

309

548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Jawala (NI.)

304

305

303

306

302

301

293

294

295

296

111

106

112

116

117

118

119

167

168

160

159

158

157

156

155

154

153

152

151

150

149

148

Kandalgaon

100

103

105

Sirsav

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

549

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Sirsav

1130

1142

1141

1144

1145

1146

1147

1152

1153

1154

1155

1157

1160

1103

1047

1063

1062

1061

1060

1059

1055

1054

1051

1050

1049

1048

1036

1037

1038

1039

1040

1030

1041

Wakadi

160

128

550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Wakadi

129

133

134

135

137

141

142

533/56

200

201

202

204

217/2

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

213

[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 14 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 155

155

155.—के'(ीय सरकार ने पेcोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म& उपयोग के अिधकार का अज$न)

अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) ( िजसे इसम& इसके पdात उX अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के

राजपb संया 15 दनांक 15-21 अMैल 2018 का.आ. 608 दनांक 10.04.2018 भाग II, खंड 3, उपखंड (ii) मे कया गया

है। इस अिधसूचना से सलंe अनुसूची म& िविनदi महारा- राZय क तहसील- भूम, िजला उRमानाबाद क भूिम म& महारा-

उपयोग के अिधकार का अज$न करने के िलए अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी।

और उX राजपb अिधसूचनाओ क Mितयाँ जनता को तारीख 27 िसत बर 2018 को उपलqध करा दी गई थी।

है।

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलe अनुसूची म& िविबदi भूिम म& पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार

अrजत कया जाए।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

551

और के'(ीय सरकार उX अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) Lारा MदW शिXयD का Mयोग करते Yए, यह

िनदsश देती है क उX भूिम मे उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के Mकाशन क तारीख से के'(ीय सरकार मे िनिहत होने के

बजाय सभी िवलंगमD से मुX होकर इंिडयन ऑइल कॉपlरेशन िलिमटेड मे िनिहत होगा।

ऑइल कॉपlरेशन िलिमटेड पूण$तया उWरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से सबिधत कसी भी मामले पर के'(ीय सरकार के

िवxद कोई वाद दावा या क़ानूनी काय$वाही नही हो सकेगी।

अनुसू

अनुसूची

ची

तालुका: भूम

िजला: उ1मानाबाद

रा!य: महारा#

गाव का नाम

सुव$ नं

सुव$ नं./'लॉक नं.

./'लॉक नं.

)ेफल

हे+टर

आर

वग- मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

अंतरवली

146

32/1

32/2

32/3

42/3

552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

अंतरवली

सावरगांव

394

383

389

385

388

387

399

400

317

315

314

311

310

234

235

236

241

243

242

244

245

153

154

167

166

165

164

163

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

553

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

सावरगांव

158

157

पाyुड

1658

1659

1656

1650

1655

1651

1654

1652

1637

1634

1615

1632

1619

1618

1605

1603

1604

1596

1597

1591

1589

1588

1695

1486

1485

1483

1474

554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

पाyुड

1473

1461

1460

1438

1352

1351

1335

1336

1338

1339

1314

1313

1312

1311

1295

1310

1309

1307

1306

1090

1091

1255

1254

1253

1209

1208

1206

1205

1447

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

555

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

पाyुड

1792

1204

1210

1202

1201

1221

1161

1229

1218

1232

1241

1244

जंब

326

327

320

319

317

315

312

310

307

305

304

303

302

301

300

299

298

556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

रालेसांगवी

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

124

131

135

138

139

140

141

143

149

154

155

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

557

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

रालेसांगवी

167

168

169

170

171

172

पाठसांगवी

105

103

िहवडा$

439

440

441

457

458

459

460

456

558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

िहवडा$

455

454

391

389

388

386

387

382

362

356

352

353

338

335

337

336

322

323

296

292

291

270

272

273

275

वालवड

151/1

151/2

151/3

149

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

559

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

वालवड

148

146

135/2

135/1

136/5

129/5

129/9

129/10

127

126

125

179

208

206

205

204

226

227

223

222/2

222/4

263

265

259/4

259/3

255

254

252

250

560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

वालवड

251/2

251/3

गणेगांव

118

116

121

123

128

130

132

134

136

137

139

141

143

147

168

177

176

180

181

183

185

184

187

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

561

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

गणेगांव

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

Gपपलगांव

अंतरगांव

173

174

175

181

179

191

187

299

189

188

कानडी

562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

कानडी

ईडा

110

112

113

114

125

124

241

240

239

238

237

247

248

249

250

251

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

563

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ईडा

252

253

254

255

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)6/2018-ओआर-I/ई-23678]

नोवस क'डो, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 14^th January, 2019

S.O. 155.—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. 608 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 Bhum District Osmanabad 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 27 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: Bhum

District : Osmanabad

State : Maharashtra

Name of Village

Survey No./Block

No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Meter

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Antarwali

146

32/1

32/2

564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Antarwali

32/3

42/3

Sawargaon

394

383

389

385

388

387

399

400

317

315

314

311

310

234

235

236

241

243

242

244

245

153

154

167

166

165

164

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

565

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Sawargaon

163

158

157

Pathrud

1658

1659

1656

1650

1655

1651

1654

1652

1637

1634

1615

1632

1619

1618

1605

1603

1604

1596

1597

1591

1589

1588

1695

1486

1485

1483

1474

1473

1461

1460

1438

1352

1351

1335

1336

1338

1339

1314

566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Pathrud

1313

1312

1311

1295

1310

1309

1307

1306

1090

1091

1255

1254

1253

1209

1208

1206

1205

1447

1792

1204

1210

1202

1201

1221

1161

1229

1218

1232

1241

1244

Jamb

326

327

320

319

317

315

312

310

307

305

304

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

567

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Jamb

303

302

301

300

299

298

RaleSangvi

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

124

131

135

138

139

140

141

143

149

154

155

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

PathSangvi

105

103

Hiwarda

439

440

441

457

458

459

460

456

455

454

391

389

388

386

387

382

362

356

352

353

338

335

337

336

322

323

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

569

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Hiwarda

296

292

291

270

272

273

275

Walwad

151/1

151/2

151/3

149

148

146

135/2

135/1

136/5

129/5

129/9

129/10

127

126

125

179

208

206

205

204

226

227

223

222/2

222/4

263

265

259/4

259/3

255

254

252

250

251/2

570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

251/3

Ganegaon

118

116

121

123

128

130

132

134

136

137

139

141

143

147

168

177

176

180

181

183

185

184

187

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

Pimpalgaon

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

571

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Pimpalgaon

Antargaon

173

174

175

181

179

191

187

299

189

188

Kanadi

Ida

110

112

113

114

125

124

241

240

239

238

237

247

572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Ida

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 14 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 156

156

156.—के'(ीय सरकार ने पेcोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज$न)

राजपb संया 15 दनांक 15-21 अMैल 2018 का.आ. 608 दनांक 10.04.2018 भाग II खंड 3 उपखंड (ii) म& कया गया

है। इस अिधसूचना से सलंe अनुसूची म& िविनदi महारा- राZय क तहसील- बाशz िजला सोलापुर क भूिम म& महारा-

उपयोग के अिधकार का अज$न करने के िलए अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी।

और उX राजपb अिधसूचनाQ क Mितयाँ जनता को तारीख 11 अ{टूबर 2018 को उपलqध करा दी गई थी।

है।

पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए अपेि8त है, उसम& उपयोग के अिधकार का अज$न करने का िविनdय कया है।

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से सलe अनुसूची म& िविबदi भूिम म& पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार

अrजत कया जाए।

और के'(ीय सरकार उX अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) Lारा MदW शिXयD का Mयोग करते Yए, यह

बजाय सभी िवलंगमD से मुX होकर इंिडयन ऑइल कॉपlरेशन िलिमटेड मे िनिहत होगा।

िवxद कोई वाद दावा या क़ानूनी काय$वाही नह| हो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

तालुका: बाश5

िजला: सोलापुर

रा!य: महारा#

गांव का नाम

सव$ नं

सव$ नं./'लॉक नं

./'लॉक नं

./'लॉक नं.

)ेफल

हे+टर

आर

वग- मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

उपलाई (ठD.)

618

619

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

573

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

उपलाई (ठD.)

622

630

629

583/2

583/3

583/4

583/6

583/7

583/8

586

582

581

580

579

577

568/1

661

662

663

664

816

819

821

823

830

838

839

842

844

574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

उपलाई (ठD.)

845

846

847

1344

1342

1341

1339

1336

1337

21/1

21/2

वांगरवाड़ी

158

159

160

161

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

575

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

वांगरवाड़ी

163

162

129

136

137

138

139

141

142

147

146

145

144

खांडवी

997

996

979

937

949

948

942

943

944

945

815

819

816

817

818

716

576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

खांडवी

715

563

562

561

560

558

557

554

505

555

501

502

500

499

498

497

496

495

493

448

449

450

451

452

क}हे

442

443

446

449

450

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

577

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

क}हे

455

454

456

457

458

464

463P

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

502

495

498

411

263

266

264

251

261

262

103

109

110

111

112

578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

क}हे

115

116

117

118

123

126

131

132

134

133

135

162

160

159

137

138

153

139

140

141

142

143

145

146

147

148

149

पानगांव

1491

1495

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

579

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

पानगांव

1499

1500

1501

1503

1504

1507

1508

1545

1546

1547

1544

1554

1555

1557

1562

1563

1649

1595

1593

1592

1176

1348

1673

1339

1635

1626

1627

1629

1184

580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

पानगांव

1185

1186

1187

1196

1197

1199

194

1201

1202

1205

1178

1177

1030

1665

1032

1004

1033

1001

999

998

997

996

993

920

991

990

981

980

976

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

581

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

पानगांव

972

970

969

971

964

958

956

957

933

931

932

934

944

937

940

939

938

कालेगांव

582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

कालेगांव

110

106

107

108

104

103

102

101

100

131

137

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

583

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

कालेगांव

138

139

147

148

153

152

186

187

188

189

190

191

194

195

196

200

201

202

205

206

मानेगांव

255

254

253

252

250

485

249

248

371

584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

मानेगांव

247

246

123

124

118

119

109

108

107

106

ईलsवाड़ी

वैराग

364

363

361

350

351

352

345

346

342

सासुरे

569

570

576

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

585

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

सासुरे

577

579

567

566

563

562

561

560

558

556

555

554

551

548

544

537

536

दिहटणे

210

211

214

212

213

231

232

180

179

178

177

172

586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

दिहटणे

171

170

169

168

166

153

154

155

156

134

135

128

126

120

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

587

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

दिहटणे

मुंगशी (वा.)

285

286

291

299

300

301

302

303

305

277

276

275

274

273

272

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)6/2018-ओआर-I/ई-23678]

नोवस क'डो, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 14^th January, 2019

S.O. 156.—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. 608 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 Barshi District Solapur 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 State 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 11 October 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;

588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 : Barshi

District : Solapur

State : Maharashtra

Name of Village

Survey No./Block

No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Meter

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Upalai (Tho.)

618

619

622

630

629

583/2

583/3

583/4

583/6

583/7

583/8

586

582

581

580

579

577

568/1

661

662

663

664

816

819

821

823

830

838

839

842

844

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

589

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Upalai (Tho.)

845

846

847

1344

1342

1341

1339

1336

1337

21/1

21/2

Wangarwadi

158

159

160

161

163

162

129

136

137

138

139

141

142

147

146

145

590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Wangarwadi

144

Khandavi

997

996

979

937

949

948

942

943

944

945

815

819

816

817

818

716

715

563

562

561

560

558

557

554

505

555

501

502

500

499

498

497

496

495

493

448

449

450

451

452

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

591

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Kavhe

442

443

446

449

450

455

454

456

457

458

464

463P

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

502

495

498

411

263

266

264

251

261

262

103

109

110

111

112

115

116

117

118

123

126

131

592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Kavhe

132

134

133

135

162

160

159

137

138

153

139

140

141

142

143

145

146

147

148

149

Pangaon

1491

1495

1499

1500

1501

1503

1504

1507

1508

1545

1546

1547

1544

1554

1555

1557

1562

1563

1649

1595

1593

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

593

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Pangaon

1592

1176

1348

1673

1339

1635

1626

1627

1629

1184

1185

1186

1187

1196

1197

1199

194

1201

1202

1205

1178

1177

1030

1665

1032

1004

1033

1001

999

998

997

996

993

920

991

990

981

980

976

972

970

594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Pangaon

969

971

964

958

956

957

933

931

932

934

944

937

940

939

938

Kalegaon

110

106

107

108

104

103

102

101

100

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

595

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Kalegaon

131

137

138

139

147

148

153

152

186

187

188

189

190

191

194

195

196

200

201

202

205

206

Manegaon

255

254

253

252

250

485

596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Manegaon

249

248

371

247

246

123

124

118

119

109

108

107

106

Irlewadi

Vairag

364

363

361

350

351

352

345

346

342

Sasure

569

570

576

577

579

567

566

563

562

561

560

558

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

597

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Sasure

556

555

554

551

548

544

537

536

Dahitane

210

211

214

212

213

231

232

180

179

178

177

172

171

170

169

168

166

153

154

155

156

134

135

128

126

120

598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Dahitane

Mungashi (Va.)

285

286

291

299

300

301

302

303

305

277

276

275

274

273

272

[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 14 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 157

157

157.—के'(ीय सरकार ने पेcोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज$न)

अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) ( िजसे इसम& इसके पw चात उX अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के

राजपb संया 15 दनांक 15-21 अMैल 2018 का.आ. 608 दनांक 10.04.2018 भाग II खंड 3 उपखंड (II) मे कया गया

है। इस अिधसूचना से सलंe अनुसूची मे िविनदi महारा- राZय क तहसील- मोहोळ िजला सोलापुर क भूिम मे महारा-

राZय मे कोयली (गुजरात) से सोलापुर (महारा-) तक पेcोिलयम पTरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑइल कॉपlरेशन िलिमटेड Lारा

mयाि'वत कए जा रहे “कोयली-अहमदनगर-सोलापुर पTरयोजना” के स ब'ध मे पाइपलाइन िबछाने के Mयोजन के िलए

उपयोग के अिधकार का अज$न करने के िलए अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी।

और उX राजपb अिधसूचनाओ क Mितयाँ जनता को तारीख 26 अ{टूबर 2018 को उपलqध करा दी गई थी।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

599

और उX अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण मे स8म Mािधकारी ने के'(ीय सरकार को अपनी Tरपोट$ दे दी

है।

अत: अब, के'(ीय सरकार उX अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) Lारा MदW शिXयD का Mयोग करते Yए I एतद् Lारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से सलe अनुसूची मे िविबदi भूिम मे पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार

अrजत कया जाए।

और के'(ीय सरकार उX अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) Lारा MदW शिXयD का Mयोग करते Yए, यह

बजाय सभी िवलंगमD से मुX होकर इंिडयन ऑइल कॉपlरेशन िलिमटेड मे िनिहत होगा।

कॉपlरेशन िलिमटेड पूण$तया उWरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से संबंिधत कसी भी मामले पर के'(ीय सरकार के िवxद कोई

वाद दावा या क़ानूनी काय$वाही नही हो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

तालुका: मोहो

तालुका: मोहोल

िजला: सोलापुर

रा!य: महारा#

गांव का नाम

सव$ नं

सव$ नं./ 'लॉक नं

./ 'लॉक नं

./ 'लॉक नं.

)ेफल

हे+टर

आर

वग- मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

वालुज

486

484

483

482

481

480

477

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

वालुज

509

524

522

521

520

519

518

514

515

141

142

144

182

181

180

179

178

177

176

175

174

170

169

197

198

199

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

601

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

वालुज

200

201

203

204

246

245

244

243

242

239

238

229

230

231

देगांव (वा.)

748

749

750

765

764

761

760

757

756

492

494

493

495

602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

देगांव (वा.)

481

475

476

477

478

340

473

344

343

347

348

354

353

363

नरखेड

657

636

637

638

655

653

675

676

704

707

706

602

600

604

605

599

598

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

603

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

नरखेड

540

541

552

553

555

556

557

491

460

490

461

462

488

486

485

484

482

469

481

471

480

479

115

116

117/1

120

119

122

124

125

126

604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

नरखेड

127

130

132

133

139

140

143

144

145

146

147

155

154

भोयरे

544

543

536

550

551

533

532

531

530

525

524

523

518

517

515

514

513

512

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

605

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

भोयरे

511

510

504

501

496

493

492

485

484

479

391

392

393

394

395

468

396

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

446

451

452

445

606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

भोयरे

443

440

441

भांबेवाडी

24/1

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

607

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

भांबेवाडी

िशरापूर (सोलापूर)

108

112

109

111

110

113

121

123

131

132

129

138

140

181

180

166

लांबोटी

112

114

115

116

117

121

124

125

126

127

608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

लांबोटी

128

अजु$नसDड

186

187

188

189

190

185अ

185ब

237

238

अजु$नसDड

239

262

240

241

260

243

244

259

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

609

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

सावले€र

460

449

448

447

446

445

444

440

439

438

सावले€र

402

401

400

399

398

397

396p

395

396

393

391

390

389

386

385

360/2

354

360/1

363

364

365

610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

सावले€र

366

330

329

332

325

326

327/2

327/1

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)6/2018-ओआर-I/ई-23678]

नोवस क'डो, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 14^th January, 2019

S.O. 157.—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. 608 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 Mohol, District Solapur 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 State 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 26 October 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 : Mohol

District : Solapur

State : Maharashtra

Name of Village

Survey No./Block

No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Meter

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Waluj

486

484

483

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

611

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Waluj

482

481

480

477

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

509

524

522

521

520

519

518

514

515

141

142

144

182

181

180

179

178

177

176

175

174

170

612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Waluj

169

197

198

199

200

201

203

204

246

245

244

243

242

239

238

229

230

231

Degaon (Va)

748

749

750

765

764

761

760

757

756

492

494

493

495

481

475

476

477

478

340

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

613

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Degaon (Va)

473

344

343

347

348

354

353

363

Narkhed

657

636

637

638

655

653

675

676

704

707

706

602

600

604

605

599

598

540

541

552

553

555

556

557

491

460

490

461

462

488

486

485

484

614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Narkhed

482

469

481

471

480

479

115

116

117/1

120

119

122

124

125

126

127

130

132

133

139

140

143

144

145

146

147

155

154

Bhoire

544

543

536

550

551

533

532

531

530

525

524

523

518

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

615

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Bhoire

517

515

514

513

512

511

510

504

501

496

493

492

485

484

479

391

392

393

394

395

468

396

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

446

451

452

445

443

440

441

Bhambewadi

616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Bhambewadi

24/1

Shirapur (Solapur)

108

112

109

111

110

113

121

123

131

132

129

138

140

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

617

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Shirapur (Solapur)

181

180

166

Lamboti

112

114

115

116

117

121

124

125

126

127

128

ArjunSond

186

187

188

189

190

185A

185B

237

238

239

262

240

241

260

243

244

259

245

246

247

248

249

618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ArjunSond

250

251

252

253

254

255

Sawleshwar

460

449

448

447

446

445

444

440

439

438

402

401

400

399

398

397

396p

395

396

393

391

390

389

386

385

360/2

354

360/1

363

364

365

366

330

329

332

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

619

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Sawleshwar

325

326

327/2

327/1

[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 14 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 158

158

158.—के'(ीय सरकार ने पेcोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज$न)

अिधिनयम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50) ( िजसे इसम& इसके पw चात उX अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के

राजपb संया 15 दनांक 15-21 अMैल 2018 का.आ. 608 दनांक 10.04.2018 भाग II खंड 3 उपखंड (II) मे कया गया

है। इस अिधसूचना से सलंe अनुसूची मे िविनदi महारा- राZय क तहसील- नोथ$ सोलापुर िजला सोलापुर क भूिम मे

महारा- राZय मे कोयली (गुजरात) से सोलापुर (महारा-) तक पेcोिलयम पTरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑइल कॉपlरेशन

िलिमटेड Lारा mयाि'वत कए जा रहे “कोयली-अहमदनगर-सोलापुर पTरयोजना” के स ब'ध मे पाइपलाइन िबछाने के

Mयोजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अज$न करने के िलए अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी।

और उX राजपb अिधसूचनाओ क Mितयाँ जनता को तारीख 25 अ{टूबर 2018 को उपलqध करा दी गई थीI

और उX अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण मेस8म Mािधकारी ने के'(ीय सरकार को अपनी

Tरपोट$ दे दी है।

और के'(ीय सरकार ने उX Tरपोट$ पर िवचार करने के पw चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उX भूिम

पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए अपेि8त है, उसमे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज$न करने का िविनw चय कया है।

अrजत कया जाए।

और के'(ीय सरकार उX अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) Lारा MदW शिXयD का Mयोग करते Yए, यह

बजाय सभी िवलंगमD से मुX होकर इंिडयन ऑइल कॉपlरेशन िलिमटेड मे िनिहत होगा।

िवxद कोई वाद दावा या क़ानूनी काय$वाही नही हो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

तालुका: नोथ- सोलापुर

िजला: सोलापुर

रा!य: महारा#

गांव का नाम

सव$ नं

सव$ नं./'लॉक नं

./'लॉक नं

./'लॉक नं.

)ेफल

हे+टर

आर

वग- मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

पाकणी

117

620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

पाकणी

118

115

110

104

105

108

107

132

131

134

135

136

137

141

142

144

145

146

157

271/B

273

272

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)6/2018-ओआर-I/ई-23678]

नोवस क'डो, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 14^th January, 2019

S.O. 158.—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. 608 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 North Solapur District Solapur in Maharashtra State, specified in

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

621

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 State 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 25 October 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 : North Solapur

District : Solapur

State : Maharashtra

Name of Village

Survey No./Block

No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square Meter

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Pakani

117

118

115

110

104

105

108

107

132

131

134

135

136

137

141

142

144

145

622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Pakani

146

157

271/B

273

272

[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

6म एवं रोजगार मंालय

नई दली, 10 जनवरी, 2019

का. आ.

का. आ. 159

159

159.—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म& के'(ीय सरकार

मेसस$ वTर‚ अधी8क, डाकघर, नागपुर, और अ'य एवं उनके कम$चारी के Mबंधतंb के संबu िनयोजकD और उनके कम$कारD के

बीच अनुबंध म& िनfदi औोिगक िववाद म& के'(ीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म 'यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट

(संदभ$ संया 82/2013) को Mकािशत करती है जो के'(ीय सरकार को 24.12.18 को Mाƒ Yए थे ।

[सं. एल-40012/116/2013- आईआर-डीयू]

राज&( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 10^th January, 2019

S.O. 159.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 82/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Senior

Superintendent, Post Offices Nagpur, and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on

24.12.18.

[No. L-40012/116/2013-IR DU]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

Case No.CGIT/NGP/82/2013-14

Date: 13.11.2018

Party No.1

The Senior Superintendent,

Post offices, Nagpur Mofussil Division,

3^rd Floor, Nagpur City Head office Building,

Itwari,

Nagpur - 440002.

Versus

Party No.2

Shri Madhav Laxman Vithole,

R/o At Post Mohgaon Khada Via Sihora,

District Bhandara (M.S.),

Bhandara - 441915.

Dated: 13th November, 2018

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

623

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 The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices and their

workman, Shri. Madhav Laxman Vithole for adjudication, as per letter No.L-40012/116/2013 (IR (DU)) dated

24.02.2014, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the Senior Superintend of Post Offices, Nagpur Mofussil Division, Nagpur in

terminating the services of Shri Madhav Laxman Vithole, substitute Gramin Dak Sewak Mali Delivery from 18-

06-2012, is just, fair & legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

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 R S Sundaram and Miss U R Tanna, advocates filed joint

vakalatnama on behalf of the Party No. 1 i.e. management on 13.05.2014 and Shri P. C. Marpakwar, Vikram Marpakwar

and S M Khan, advocates filed joint vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner on 13.05.2014. Petitioner filed statement of

claim on 13.05.2014 and Party No. 1 filed their reply on affidavit on 15.02.2016/18.03.2016., but nobody has been

appearing on behalf of the Petitioner from 13.07.2018, even petitioner’s advocate. Mr. S M Khan contacted by

management’s advocate, Miss U A Tanna on 27.03.2018 by mobile. After that petitioner’s advocate, petitioner is not

participating and there is no progress in this case so far. So management filed an application (I. A. No. 1) for Closure for

award or close the evidence and prayed that case may be fixed for management’s evidence. Nobody has opposed this

application and after that petitioner and his advocate did not appear. So I. A. No. 1 is partly allowed and in my opinion,

there is no need to fix the case for management’s evidence.

In these circumstances, without going on merit of the case, I.A. No. 1 is allowed. It shows that, the 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

नई दली,10 जनवरी, 2019

का. आ.

का. आ. 160

160

160.—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म& के'(ीय सरकार

मेसस$ भारतीय राg cीय राजमाग$ Mािधकरण का Mबंधन आसनसोल और अ'य एवं उनके कम$चारी के Mबंधतंb के संबu

िनयोजकD और उनके कम$कारD के बीच अनुबंध म& िनfदi औोिगक िववाद म& के'(ीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म

'यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट (संदभ$ संया 03/2014) को Mकािशत करती है जो के'(ीय सरकार को 11.9.18 को Mाƒ Yए

थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/65/2013- आईआर-डीयू]

राज&( जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 10^th January, 2019

S.O. 160.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Asansol, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of National Highway Authority of India Asansol, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 11.9.18.

[No. L-42012/65/2013-IR DU]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT : Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 03 OF 2014

PARTIES : The management of M/s. Clifford Facility Services & The management of National Highway Authority of

India (Principal Employer)

624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

V/s

Their 109 Contractor Workers

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the Management

None

For the Union (Workmen) :

None

INDUSTRY : NHAI

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated : 11.09.2018

AWARD

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter

No. L-42012/65/2013–IR(DU) dated 20.01.2014 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Contractor of Gauri Toll Plaza i.e. Clifford Facility Services and Principal Employer

i.e. National Highway Authority of India, Durgapur which resulted in retrenchment of 109 contractor workers is

legal / justified? If not, to what relief the 109 contractor workers (list enclosed) concerned are entitled to? ”

Having received the Order No. L-42012/65/2013–IR(DU) dated 20.01.2014 of the above said reference from the

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 03 of 2014 was

registered on 14.02.2014. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along

with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by

the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their

representative.

Case called out. Neither the management nor the union were present.

The Order Sheet of this reference reflects that neither the union nor the management has so far appeared before

the court except only once by Shri J. P. Tiwari, one of the 109 workmen on 23.05.2014. Since 23.05.2014 the Tribunal

has granted 12 (Twelve) dates, but none appeared before the Tribunal. Registered Notices were also sent to the parties on

28.02.2014, 29.08.2014 and 11.08.2015 but to no effect. It seems that neither the management nor the union has any

interest to proceed with the case further. As such the case is closed and accordingly a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby

passed.

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tuojh] 2019

dk- vk- 161-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

जेट एअरवेज इंिडया fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k पुणे ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 27@2013½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@01@2019 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&11012@16@2013–vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh-I)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

625

New Delhi, the 15^th January, 2019

S.O. 161.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal Pune (Ref. No. 27/2013) as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Jet Airways (India) Limited and

their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 08.01.2019.

[No. L-11012/16/2013-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI. P.R. BHAVAKE-PATIL, PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT PUNE

REFERENCE (IT) NO. 27 OF 2013

CNR NO. MHIC120003032013

M/s. Jet Airways (India) Limited

Through Sr. General Manager Human Resource

S.M. Center, Andheri Kurla Road

Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 059

…First Party

And

Shri. Nitin Sahebrao Bhosale

F15, Shri. Shankar Nagari

S.no. 85/1, Paud Road

Kothrud, Pune 411 038

…Second Party

CORAM : SHRI. P.R. BHAVAKE-PATIL, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PUNE.

APPEARANCES :- ➢ Shri. Aditya R. Joshi, Ld. Advocate for the First Party.

➢ Shri. Himanshu Advant, Ld. Advocate for the Second Party

AWARD

Dated 19th November, 2018

The reference is filed by the Central Government for adjudication that whether the action taken by the Management of

M/s. Jet Airways (India) Mumbai in terminating the services of the workman Shri. Nitin Sahebrao Bhosale w.e.f.

21.6.2008 is legal and justified ? and what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?

2. The Second Party in response to the notices issued to him filed his statement of claim at Exh. U-2 and U-2A by way of

application. The First Party filed its written statement at Exh. C3 and resisted the claim of the Second Party of passing

dismissal order dated 20.6.2008 and for reinstatement with full back wages.

3. The Second party claims that he had filed Complaint (ULP) No. 95/2008 before First Labour Court, Pune. After

realisation that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction he approached the Labour Commissioner (Central Government,

Pune) on 11.12.2012. The Labour Commissioner Pune admitted to resolve the issue by way of conciliation proceeding.

However, he could not succeed and reference is made to this Court for adjudication. Meanwhile, he has also filed one

Reference (IDA) No. 290/2013 before the Labour Court, Pune. Subsequently, he withdrew the said reference and

appeared in this proceeding.

4. The Applicant is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He was working

as the Senior Security Assistant. Considering the nature of the work, the applicant was not working as a supervisor or

under managerial post. After holding enquiry, he is dismissed from service. There are serious lapses in the enquiry

proceedings. No proper opportunity of engaging the Advocate to defend the enquiry was given to him. The punishment is

disproportionate. Though he is a workman, the enquiry is held as he is working under the supervisory category.

Therefore, the whole enquiry proceeding is bad in law. There were no any serious allegations against him. Whenever he

received notices about alleged lapses, he was warned and the action was taken and the matters were finalised. However,

with grudge in mind by digging all the old allegations enquiry is held. The action taken by the management is false and

legal. Hence, the dismissal order be set aside and he be reinstated in service with full back wages since the date of

suspension.

5. By filing written statement, the First Party resisted the claim. According to the First Party, the Second party is not a

workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, this dispute is not

maintainable at all. The Second Party was employed in A2 cadre of the organisational set up of the company in the

626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

capacity of Senior Assistant and the Second party has accepted all the terms and conditions of salary structure admissible

to said posts. Salary of the Second Party is Rs. 25,186/ excluding Medical Reimbursement and Bonus facility. The above

scale is not available to the persons falling in the category of workman defined u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. The Second Party is exempted from personal search being in the capacity of Sr. Security Assistant. During the

entire tenure of the services, the Second Party was entitled to enjoy the status, privileges and benefits applicable to the

personnel employed in the managerial, administrative and supervisory category in the organisational set up of the

company. Hence, the Second Party is estopped by his conduct in claiming status of workman. The Second Party was

employed in the managerial cadre and designated as Senior Security Assistant. The nature of activities work performed,

responsibilities attached to his post is that to report to assigned duties, screen registered baggage for any unauthorised

items, report and personally carry out physical checks of bags, ensure that the passengers are profiled and report, ensure

that the XRay, strapping machine are working, the loaders are available, and the required Security stickers / seals / forms

/ registers are accounted and available, screen the registered baggage for any unauthorised items, report and personally

carry out physical checks of bags as required, ensure that the surveillance is maintained in the respective areas, prior to

boarding frisk the passengers and check the hand baggage etc. This reference is barred by principle of res judicata as the

Second Party had already filed Complaint (ULP) No. 95/2008 and Reference (IDA) No. 90/2013 before the Labour

Court.

6. Various allegations i.e. of grooming, nonpunctuality, allocation, accountability, indecent behaviour and the Irrelevant

Endorsement on check sheet were made. All these allegations / charges are proved in the enquiry conducted against him.

The Enquiry Officer held him guilty after issuing show cause notice and obtaining written explanation. Services of the

Second Party are terminated on the basis of findings of the enquiry report. The contents of the statement of claim are

false. Hence, the reference be dismissed with costs.

7. On the basis of above pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed by my learned predecessor. My

findings thereon for the reasons given here-in-below are as follows:-

ISSUES

FINDINGS

1) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and decide

the present reference?

In the affirmative

2) Whether the Second Party is a workman as defined under the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ?

In the affirmative

3) Whether the enquiry was fair and proper?

In the negative

4) Whether the findings are justified?

In the affirmative

5) Whether the impugned action is illegal and unjustified?

In the affirmative

6) What Order ?

Reference is allowed.

REASONS

AS TO ISSUE NOS. 1 TO 5 :

8. The Second Party has adduced his own oral evidence at Exh. U3, U6 and U8 and produced voluminous documentary

evidence on record. The First Party has adduced oral evidence at Exh. C-10 of one Mr. Surendra Dattaram Kripal and the

Enquiry Officer Shri. Bhushan Tapaswi at Exh. C-7. The First Party has also produced number of documentary evidence

on record. I shall discuss the documentary evidence at its appropriate stage. Both the parties have led their oral evidence

as per their pleadings.

9. The First Party has raised issue of resjudicata. According to the First Party, Complaint (ULP) No. 95/2008 and

Reference (IDA) No. 90/2013 were filed by the Second party before the Labour Court, Pune. Therefore, this reference is

hit by the principle of resjudicata. I do not agree with this submission. There is nothing on record to show that Complaint

(ULP) NO. 95/2008 and Reference (IDA) No. 90/2013 are decided by the competent Court. On the contrary, it reveals

from the evidence of the Second Party that the said proceedings are withdrawn by the Second Party and he contested this

reference before this Court. Hence, the question between the parties was not finally decided by the competent Court

during pendency of this reference. Hence, this reference is not hit by principle of resjudicata. It is further submitted that

the Central Government ought to have made this reference to the National Tribunal. This Industrial Tribunal has no right

to entertain and adjudicate this reference. I also do not agree with the submissions as there is specific provision. Last

proviso to subsection (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 clearly states that :

“Provided also that where the dispute in relation to which the Central Government is the appropriate

Government, it shall be competent for that Government to refer the dispute to a Labour Court or an Industrial

Tribunal, as the case may be, constituted by the State Government.”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

627

Hence, if the Central Government considers to make reference to the Tribunal then the Central Government has power to

make such reference to the Industrial Tribunal and the Industrial Tribunal has power to adjudicate the same. Therefore, I

do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the First Party that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and

entertain present reference.

10. The workman is defined u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

“Workman” means any personal (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 employees of a prison or;

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative 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.]”

11. Both parties have disputed this issue. According to the Second party, he is a workman. According to the First Party,

the Second Party is not a workman. Both the parties have given details of nature of work and the salary of the Second

Party. Undisputedly, the Second Party was promoted and have worked as Senior Security Assistant as on the date of

initiation of the enquiry. According to the Second Party, he was not discharging any supervisory duties or he was not

holding any managerial post. On the contrary, the First Party claims that by looking into the nature of duties, he was

holding supervisory posts. I do not agree with these submissions of the First Party. Both the parties are in agreement that

the Second party was employed in the A-2 cadre of the organisational set up of the company in the capacity of Senior

Security Assistant. Merely because the Senior Security Assistant was exempted from personal search on the gate,

enjoying the facility of leaving the premises of the company for personal work or company work by making

endorsement, the Second party cannot be said to be having supervisory duty.

12. The ld. Advocate for the First Party Mr. A.R. Joshi brought my attention towards Industrial Employment (Standing

Order) Central Rules 1946 and the Model Standing Order (Central) in Schedule I. He submitted that the enquiry is

conducted against the Second party for the misconduct committed by him under Rule 14 of the said Standing Order. The

enquiry of workman could only be held under these rules. It means that the First party has admitted in the enquiry

proceedings conducted under these rules that the Second Party is a workman. Therefore, the First Party cannot again

deny status of the Second Party as a workman. Much evidence is adduced by both the parties to prove their rival claims

of status as a workman. However, from the admission of the First Party in the enquiry it appears that the Second Party is

a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is no where stated in the enquiry

proceedings that the enquiry against the Second party is held as he is holding the supervisory or managerial post. It is

also to be noted here that the enquiry is not held as per any Standing Orders applicable to the Second Party. There is no

any reference of any rules infringed by the Second Party which needs to hold enquiry against him. Therefore, I hold that

the Second Party is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

13. Though the Second Party is cross examined in length, the evidence is not shattered in his cross examination by which

I could believe the case made out by the First Party. The First Party has examined Dy. General Manager (HR) – Mr.

Surendra Kripal at Exh. C-10. Merely because he was not having any authority letter to depose, his evidence cannot be

discarded. He has admitted that initially the Second Party was appointed as Trainee Security Assistant. Thereafter, he

was promoted as Security Assistant and then promoted as Senior Security Assistant. He does not remember as to whether

the Second Party was informed about which the Standing Orders are applicable to him. The First Party again examined

the Enquiry Officer – Mr. Bhushan Tapaswi at Exh. C-7. This witness has given evidence that he was appointed as

Enquiry Officer, and he conducted the enquiry by following principles of natural justice. The chargesheet was issued.

The Second Party has given his explanation about the charges. Then the Second Party was given an opportunity to defend

the enquiry. Though initially the Second Party was intending to appoint the Advocate on his behalf, subsequently he

decided to conduct the enquiry in person. He cross examined the witness examined by the First Party. He did not choose

to examine any witness on his behalf. Then his statement was recorded and the enquiry proceeding was concluded. On

the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties, the Second Party is held guilty. Accordingly, he submitted his report to

the management.

628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14. The enquiry report is also placed on record at Exh. C-5A. It reveals that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer

are based on the material before it. The management has proved the charges of grooming, non punctuality, allocation,

accountability, indecent behaviour and irrelevant endorsement on checksheet. However, it is to be noted here that even

the Enquiry Officer did not note anywhere in the enquiry report or in the enquiry proceeding that under which provision

this enquiry is conducted.

15. The ld. Advocate for the First Party Mr. A.R. Joshi submitted that under general provisions of the Standing Order,

this enquiry is conducted. I do not agree with these submissions. When the enquiry on the serious allegations against the

employee is to be made then it should be held under the specific provisions of the Standing Orders applicable to the

employees. No such averments have been made either by the management or even the Enquiry Officer. From the record,

it appears that the First Party was in confusion as to which Standing Orders are applicable to the Second party. On

perusal of Rule 14 of the Model Standing Order (Central) under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central

Rules, 1946 specific procedure is given of enquiry about the allegation or charges of sexual harassment made of any

female employee. In this way, it appears that no such procedure laid down under the Rule 3D is followed by the

management. Hence, in these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the enquiry proceeding is not held properly and

fairly against the Second Party. On the basis of unfair and improper enquiry, the First Party has chosen to dismiss the

Second Party from the services. It also appears prima facie that the punishment imposed by the First Party on the Second

Party is not proper. Though some of the charges were finally decided and the management had chosen to give warning,

the management has again decided to hold enquiry on these charges. Hence, I record my findings on Issue no. 1 to 5

accordingly and proceed to pass following order :

ORDER

The reference is allowed.

The dismissal order dated 20.6.2008 issued to the Second Party by the First Party is hereby set aside and quashed.

The Second party is reinstated in employment of the First Party with full back wages and other allowances and

benefits with continuity of service.

The copies of Award be sent to the appropriate Government for its publication.

Date: 19.11.2018

P.R. BHAVAKE-PATIL, Presiding Officer

Secretary

Industrial Tribunal, Pune

Nsp

Argued on

15.11.2018

Judgment dictated on

19.11.2018

Judgment transcribed on

21.11.2018

Judgment checked and signed on

22.11.2018

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tuojh] 2019

dk- vk- 162-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

Likbl tsV tsV fyfeVsM 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; u- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 163@2016½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-1-2019 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la- ,y&11012@37@2015–vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh-I)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

629

New Delhi, the15^th January, 2019

S.O. 162.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, New

Delhi (Ref. No. 163/2016) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Spice Jet Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

15.01.2019.

[No. L-11012/37/2015-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, 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. 163/2016

Shri Rajesh Kumar s/o. Shri Hari Dass,

R/o. D-97, Gauri Shankar Enclave Prem Nagar -3,

Nithari, Sultan Puri,

New Delhi

C/o. Hindusta Engg. And General Majdoor Union

D-2/24, Sulatanpuri, Delhi.

… Workman/Claimant

Versus

1. M/s. Spice Jet Limited

Domestic Interstate Airport Terminal No.1,

Palam Airport, New Delhi 110037.

2. M/s. Sun Shine Enterprise,

49, Ground Floor, Kailash Clony Metro Station,

Sant Nagar, New Delhi 110049.

…Management

AWARD

In the present case, matter was referred to this Tribunal vide letter No. L-11012/37/2015-IR(CM-1) dated

04.10.2016 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 termination of services of Shri Rajesh Kumar s/o. Shri Hari Das by the management of Sunshine

Enterprises (Contrator)/ Spice Jet Ltd. (Principal employer) without complying with the provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 is just, fair and legal ? If not, what relief is the workman concerned is entitled to ?

2. Parties to the dispute were put to notice and the claimant. Rajesh Kumar/workman filed statement of claim. As per

the averments made in the claim petition, the workman was working as Loader under the control and supervision of

M/s. Spicejet through M/s. Sunshine Enterprises (contractor) w.e.f. 1/7/2008 as there was contract to do

loading/unloading work between M/s. Spicejet (principal employer) and M/s Sunshine Enterprises (contractor) and he

was being paid wages of Rs.8450/- per month. It is alleged that the Management had deprived the workman from

various facilities like wage slip, appointment letter, bonus, ESI and PF and minimum wages etc w.e.f 1/4/2014. When

the workman made a demand for providing him such like facilities, the Management illegally terminated his services

w.e.f. 30/9/2014 and did not comply with the legal requirements of Section 25-F of the Act. The workman got sent a

demand letter dated 6/10/2014 but to no avail. On 24/2/2015 Management sent a notice to the workman, which was duly

replied by the workman, stating that he is unemployed and ready & willing to perform duty. Thereafter he approached

the Conciliation Officer but to no success. It has been stated that the workman is unemployed and has no source of

income since the date of his illegal termination. Prayer has been made for reinstatement into service with full back

wages and all facilities.

3. Management No.1 M/s Spicejet Ltd. caused appearance through its Authorised Representative Shri Mukesh Kumar

Sharma, whereas Management No.2 M/s Sunshine Enterprises also caused appearance through its Authorised

representative Shri Mohd. Aftab. But both of them did not file any written statement/reply to the claim statement despite

number of opportunities granted and ultimately the matter was proceeded ex parte against the Managements vide order

dated 28/9/2017.

4. 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 WW1/12.

5. 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. Demand notice (dated 6-10-2014) which was sent to the Management is Ex.WW1/1 and its postal

630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

receipts are Ex.WW1/2 to Ex.WW1/5. Ex.WW1/6 is the copy of the claim which the workman had made before the

Conciliation Officer and same is also in line with the averments made in the claim statement made before this Tribunal.

Ex.WW1/7 is the copy of the reply which M/s SpiceJet Ltd. had given before the Conciliation Officer. Document Ex,

WW1/10 is a copy of show cause notice dated 24/2/2015 which M/s Sunshine Enterprises had issued to the workman,

wherein it has been stated that the workman had himself abandoned the job without any notice and he failed to return his

Airport Entry pass in its office and further that, he has been working with a firm namely Flip Cart and as such he was

required to submit true facts. To this, the workman vide reply ExWW1/11 informed the Management of M/s Sunshine

Enterprises that the allegations leveled in the show cause notice are false and that he being unemployed is ready &

willing to work and for this they may make statement before the Conciliation Officer.

6. The testimony of the workman which is in line with the averments made in the claim petition has gone unchallenged

and unassailed. From his testimony and documents filed on record, it is crystal clear that the workman was engaged by

M/s. Sunshine Enterprises (contractor) on the post of Loader, whereas M/s Spicejet Ltd. was the principal employer. The

claimant/workman was in continuous service of M/s Sunshine Enterprises from 1/7/2008 till his termination on

30/9/2014. The version of the claimant that his services have been illegally and unlawfully terminated by the employer

M/s Sunshine Enterprises, without complying with the legal requirements of Section 25-F of the Act, has gone

unrebutted, inasmuchas the Management has not adduced any evidence to show that Management had paid retrenchment

benefits to the claimant in terms of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. 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.

7. 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.

Relief :-

8. 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 M/s Sushine Enterprises since 1/7/2008. There is no show cause notice or memo

issued to the claimant/workman by the Management. Moreover, the job of the workman is of perennial and regular

nature as Loader is required to load and unload the baggies of the passengers at the Airport during journey by Air.

9. 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.”

10. 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).

11. 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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

631

12. 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.”

13.

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 29^th 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…..”

14.

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, inasmuch 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 No.1. Award is

passed accordingly against Management No.1 M/s Sunshine Enterprises.

Date : 06.12.2018

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tuojh] 2019

dk- vk- 163-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

vks-,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM 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; vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 37@2016½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 8-1-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20040@22@1995–vkbZ- vkj- ¼lh-I)]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 15^th January, 2019

S.O. 163.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad

(Ref. No. 37/2016) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. ONGC Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

08.01.2019.

[ No. L-20040/22/1995-IR(C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 10^th December, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 37/2016

The Regional Manager,

ONGC Ltd.,

Western Region, Makarpura Road,

Baroda (Gujarat)

… First Party

V/s

The Secretary,

ONGC Labour Union,

8, Samarpan Shopping Complex, Highway Road,

Mehsana (Gujarat) – 384002

…Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri K.V. Gadhia

For the Second Party

: Shri Yogen Pandya

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-20040/22/95–

IR(Coal-I) dated 22.04.1996 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 ONGC Ltd., in terminating the services of Shri Kalpesh J. Dave

w.e.f. 07.10.1992 is proper, legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”

And

“Whether the demand of the union for regularisation of the services of Shri Kalpesh J. Dave as Junior Engineer

(Civil) w.e.f. 01.02.1992 is legal and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

1. The reference dates back to 22.04.1996 and received on 30.04.1996 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. The then Presiding Officer, Smt. N.J. Shelat, Industrial Tribunal (Central), Ahmedabad passed award on

29.05.2004, as the reference was earlier pending and adjudicated by Industrial Tribunal (Central), Ahmedabad

as per the reference dated 22.04.1996 made by Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi. The final order

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 26] 2019@ek?k 6] 1940

633

in the award was passed as under:”The management of ONGC Limited has not player any part in terminating

the services of Shri Kalpesh Jashwantlal Dave with effect from 07.10.1992. The demand of the second party

Union for regularisation of services of Shri Kalpesh Jashwantlal Dave as Junior Engineer (Civil) with effect

from 01.02.1992 is not legal and justified. Shri Kalpesh Jashwantlal Dave is not entitled to get any relief from

the management of ONGC Limited. Parties to bear their own costs.”

3. The second party workman approached the Gujarat High Court by way of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India vide Special Civil Application (SCA) No. 4821 of 2006. The Hon’ble High Court vides

its order dated 06.01.2016 passed the following order: “The award dated 29.05.2004 in Reference (ITC) No. 13

of 1996 is set aside. It is clarified that the award is set aside in view of and on account of above mentioned

technical grounds and the Court has not expressed any final conclusion or view on merits of rival claims and

contentions. The award is set aside having regard to the respondent’s request for production of document on

record before the learned Tribunal, in compliance off the order dated 18.06.1999 below Ex. 12. The learned

Tribunal will allow opportunity to the respondent to place on record relevant documents and other material as

may be necessary to support its case and after considering such material/evidence which may be placed by the

respondent, the learned Tribunal shall pass appropriate fresh order after hearing the parties. The process shall be

completed as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months after the certified copy of this order

placed before the learned Tribunal. It is clarified that the learned Tribunal will consider and decide the reference

on its own merits on the basis of the evidence available on record and without being influenced by the fact that

for the aforesaid reasons and on the aforesaid grounds, the award is set aside in present proceedings. With the

aforesaid clarifications and directions, the petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.”

4. Both the parties were asked to submit fresh evidence oral as well as documentary but the first party ONGC

Mehsana vide letter Ex. 18 stated that ONGC does not want to lead any further evidence. The second party

workman was also asked to submit further evidence. He also refused to lead any documentary evidence.

Therefore, arguments of both the parties were heard and the reference was reserved for award.

5. To proceed further for passing award, it would be necessary to state the brief facts of the reference. The second

party union in his statement of claim Ex. 3 stated that the workman Kalpesh J. Dave was having Diploma in

Civil Engineering who was engaged by first party ONGC Mehsana through contractor M/s Ekta Mazdoor

Sahakari Mandli on 01.11.1989. The first party ONGC while appointing the workman Kalpesh J. Dave through

contractor got verified his educational certificates, registration card in the employment exchange and also took

his personality test/interview, thereafter; he was assigned the duty of Technical Assistant normally carried out

by a regular junior engineer (Civil) of ONGC. It is further alleged that the contract of the contractor M/s Ekta

Mazdoor Sahakari Mandli was terminated on 30.04.1990; therefore, the workman Kalpesh J. Dave was re-

engaged through a new contractor M/s Umiya Mazdoor Sahakari Mandli Ltd. under whom he worked till

31.07.1990. Thereafter, the workman Kalpesh J. Dave was engaged directly by the Civil Section of ONGC on

01.08.1990 and ONGC paid his wages directly to him. The workman Kalpesh J. Dave was paid wages as high

skilled employed throughout his employment tenure from 01.11.1989 to 31.08.1992. It is further alleged that the

services of the workman was again transferred to another labour contractor named M/s Swastic Mazdoor

Kamdar Sahakari Limited, Mehsana w.e.f. 01.12.1990 where his worked till 31.05.1991. Suddenly on

07.10.1992, the services of the workman was terminated without giving any notice and without paying notice

pay or retrenchment compensation, thus without following the due procedure provided under the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. It is further alleged that as per the certified standing orders, Industrial Employment

Standing Orders Act, 1946 which regulates the services of the workmen, it clearly stipulates that a workman

who has worked for more than 240 days in any period of 12 consecutive months and who possessive minimum

qualifications as per prescribed for the post, will be considered for absorption as a regular employee. The

present workman who had worked continuously from 01.06.1991 to 06.10.1992 rendering the service for more

than 240 days in 12 consecutive months under the ONGC, ought to have been regularised, was terminated

illegally. It has been further alleged that the workman junior to him have been retained and doing job. Thus the

second party has prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages as an employee of ONGC

as Junior Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 01.02.1992 on regular basis.

6. The first party ONGC appeared through his advocate Shri K.V. Gadhia and filed his written statement Ex. 4

inter alia stating that the grounds taken in the statement of claims are denied. The management of the first party

ONGC used to award job contracts to various contractors to carry out jobs of purely casual nature. The present

workman Kalpesh J. Dave might have worked through various contractors in the ONGC without having any

master-servant relationship with the ONGC. The workman who was engaged through contractors was not

subject to the control and supervision of ONGC. He was not appointed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) of Technical

Assistant as per the rules of ONGC, therefore, he cannot be said to be entitled to get benefits at par with the

regular employees of ONGC. Thus the prayer sought by the workman or his union has no force and the

reference is required to be dismissed with cost.

7. The second party submitted 5documents vide Ex. 7 to 10 and 12 and 31 documents vide list Ex. 15 and 23

respectively. The second party further submitted 5 and 2 documents vide list Ex. 23 A and 26 respectively. The

second party further moved applications Ex. 6 and 27 demanding various documents detailed in the application.

The first party in response to the applications submitted 2 documents only informing that rest of them are not

traceable.

634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 26, 2019/MAGHA 6, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

i. Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., in terminating the services of

Shri Kalpesh J. Dave w.e.f. 07.10.1992 is proper, legal and justified? To what relief the

workman is entitled?

ii. Whether the demand of the union for regularisation of the services of Shri Kalpesh J. Dave as

Junior Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 01.02.1992 is legal and justified?

iii. To what relief, if any, the concerned workman is entitled?

9. Issue No. i, ii and iii: As all the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of

these issues lies on the second party union who submitted the affidavit Ex.22 of the workman Kalpesh J. Dave

reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim but in the cross-examination of the workman, he had

admitted that he was not given any appointment letter for the said post by ONGC. He was always paid wages for

the days he worked by the concerned contractors. He also admitted that he was paid wages by M/s. Ekta Labour

Contractor from 01.01.1989 to 30.04.1990, M/s Umiya Labour Contractor from 01.05.1990 to 30.07.1990, M/s.

Swastic Labour Contractor from 01.12.1990 to 31.05.1991 and by ONGC from 01.06.1991 to 01.08.1992. He

has also admitted in his cross-examination that he was also having licence to work as contractor. He has also

admitted that he was not given any appointment letter as a skilled workman by ONGC or labour contractors. He

also admitted that he has not produced the alleged application made by him for increasing the wages as stated in

the statement of claim as well as in his evidence for which he was alleged to have been terminated. He has also

admitted that he cannot produce the appointment letters of those junior persons who were given appointment

after his termination. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that he has worked with Mehsana

Nagarpalika as well as GEB as contractor. He has also admitted that he will submit the copies of the tender of

GEB as well as payment receipts from both the contracts as well as payment received as salary from Mehsana

Nagarpalika as a surveyor. He has also admitted that he did not make any application seeking for job as so on.

10. The first party ONGC, Mehsana did not prefer to lead any evidence oral as well as documentary.

11. I heard the arguments and considered the evidence oral as well as documentary of both the parties as available

on the record.

12. Earlier, the matter was adjudicated before the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Ahmedabad as Reference (ITC) No.

13/1996. The Tribunal rejected the prayer made by the second party and accordingly, the reference was also

dismissed being not maintainable. The second party union moved a petition Special Civil Application (SCA)

No. 8421 of 2006 in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before High Court of

Gujarat. The Hon’ble High Court vide its judgement dated 06.01.2016 remanded back the matter to this

Tribunal without expressing any view on merit to decide afresh after taking documentary evidence. The main

reason to remand back the matter to this Tribunal was that the documents as sought for and ordered by the

Tribunal were not produced before the Tribunal at the relevant time by ONGC, therefore, the Hon’ble High

Court observed that after allowing the ONGC to place the material and documents before the Tribunal, the

Tribunal shall pass appropriate fresh order after hearing the parities. The High Court in Para 17 of the order also

observed as under: “If that is so, the respondent should follow the procedure for declaring the facts about

availability or non-availability of document. Even for that purpose, it would be necessary to remand the

proceeding before the Learned Tribunal where the respondent may also get opportunity to disclose this status

related to availability or non-availability of documents and the learned Tribunal may examine the matter in light

of such documents or declaration by the respondent.”

13. After receiving the record on remand from the High Court of Gujarat, ONGC vide letter Ex.18 stated that

ONGC have never demanded any documents as per Ex. 6 except the documents produced vide Ex. 14 in the

matter before the Tribunal. The first party ONGC does not have any further documents and strict to the

statements made by its senior advocate before the Hon’ble High Court.

14. Similarly, the second party union was referred to lead any further evidence if it desires. The leaned advocate for

the second party also stated not to lead any further evidence.

15. The workman in the statement of claim as well as in the written evidence stated that he was having Diploma in