Servants of Knowledge
About this archive Create account
Indian Gazettes A searchable archive of gazettes published by the Union and State Governments of India
Weekly Gazette of India · Government of India

Gazette contains multiple Subjects

Published 27 July 2019

Ministry
Gazette contains multiple Ministries/Organizations
Part
Part II-Section 3-Sub-Section(ii)
Reference
S O 1319 to 1356
Identifier
in.gazette.central.w.2019-07-27.210266
Languages
English, Hindi
Gazette as published (PDF) Archive item ↗
Bookmark
Gazette text Alternate rendering

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 30] नई दिल्ली, जुलाई 21—जुलाई 27, 2019, शनिवार/आषाढ़ 30—श्रावण 5, 1941

No. 30] NEW DELHI, JULY 21—JULY 27, 2019, SATURDAY/ASADHA 30— SRAVANA—5, 1941

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

का(cid:7414)मकिा(cid:7414)मकिा(cid:7414)मकिा(cid:7414)मक,,,, लोक नकायत ता प(cid:7286)न मं(cid:7074)ालयलोक नकायत ता प(cid:7286)न मं(cid:7074)ालयलोक नकायत ता प(cid:7286)न मं(cid:7074)ालयलोक नकायत ता प(cid:7286)न मं(cid:7074)ालय

(का(cid:7414)मक और (cid:7079)न(cid:6979)ण र्नभाग) (का(cid:7414)मक और (cid:7079)न(cid:6979)ण र्नभाग) (का(cid:7414)मक और (cid:7079)न(cid:6979)ण र्नभाग) (का(cid:7414)मक और (cid:7079)न(cid:6979)ण र्नभाग)

नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली, 18 ुिलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1319131913191319....—क(cid:7286) (cid:7076)ीय सरकार एतद(cid:7367)ारा (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली र्नेष पुनलस (cid:7021)ापना अनधननयम, 1946 (1946 का अनधननयम सं(cid:6990)या 25) क(cid:7409) धारा 5 क(cid:7409) उपधारा (1) के सा प(cid:7407)ठत धारा 6, (cid:7367)ारा (cid:7079)द(cid:7275) न(cid:7334)य(cid:7298) का (cid:7079)योग करते (cid:7263)ए उ(cid:7275)राखंड रा(cid:6996)य सरकार, गृह अनुभाग-I, क(cid:7409) (cid:7408)दनांक 29 अ(cid:7079)ैल 2014 क(cid:7409) सहमनत सं 1078/ ए(cid:6989)स ए(cid:6989)स-1-/2014-9(3) 2014, देहरादून (cid:7367)ारा (cid:7079)ा(cid:7385) सहमनत से उ(cid:7275)राखंड के नच(cid:7408)क(cid:7004)सा (cid:7021र्)ा(cid:7021)(cid:7005)य र्एं प(cid:7407)र्रार क(cid:7016)याण र्नभाग, उ(cid:7275)राखंड म(cid:7286) एन.आर.एच.एम., आर.सी.एच. काय(cid:6981)(cid:7059)म के अंतग(cid:6981)त उपक(cid:7286) (cid:7076)(cid:7298) हेतु (cid:7059)य (cid:7408)कये गये (cid:7408)कट- 'ए' र्एं (cid:7408)कट- 'बी' ता आा (cid:7408)कट से स(cid:7013)बंनधत र्दाएं आ(cid:7408)द ोि (cid:7071)गर् ेयर हाउस, (cid:7272)क(cid:7409) म(cid:7286) रखी गयी ी, के कालातीत होने के (cid:7079)करण के अ(cid:7008र्)ेषण ता उपरो(cid:7334) उन(cid:7016)लनखत अपराध के स(cid:7013)ब(cid:7008)ध म(cid:7286) या स(cid:7013)ब(cid:7008)ध म(cid:7286) (cid:7079)यास, दु(cid:7020)(cid:7079)ेरणा ता षयं(cid:7074) ता उसी सं(cid:7390र्)हार के (cid:7059)म म(cid:7286) या उ(cid:7008)ह(cid:7277) त(cid:7005)य(cid:7298) से उ(cid:7006)धृत (cid:7408)कसी अ(cid:7008)य अपराध या अपराध(cid:7298) के अ(cid:7008र्)ेषण के स(cid:7013)ब(cid:7008)ध म(cid:7286) (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली र्नेष पुनलस (cid:7021)ापना के सद(cid:7021)य(cid:7298) क(cid:7409) न(cid:7334)य(cid:7298) और (cid:6979)े(cid:7074)ानधकार का र्न(cid:7021)तार स(cid:7013)पूण(cid:6981) उ(cid:7275)राखंड रा(cid:6996)य के स(cid:7013)ब(cid:7008)ध म(cid:7286) करती है ।

[ा. सं. 228/32/2014-र्एीडी-II]

एस.पी.आर. न(cid:7074)पाठी, र्अर सनर्च

3602 GI/2019

(5561)

5562 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2019

S.O. 1319.—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 the State Government of Uttarakhand, Home Section-1, Dehradun vide Notification No. 1078/XX-1-2014-9(3)2014 dated 29.04.2014, hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Uttarakhand for investigation of the issue of drugs purchased in the kit 'Á' and 'B' and drugs etc. of the ASHA kit under the RCH programme in the department of Medical Health & Family Welfare, Uttarakhand, which were stored in Drug Warehouse, Roorkee and got expired and further related matters to the issue and attempts, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offence and any other offence (offences) committed in the course of the same transaction or/and arising out of the same facts of the said case.

[F. No. 228/32/2014-AVD-II]

S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

रा(cid:7398)ीय तकनीक(cid:7409) अनुसंधान संगठनरा(cid:7398)ीय तकनीक(cid:7409) अनुसंधान संगठनरा(cid:7398)ीय तकनीक(cid:7409) अनुसंधान संगठनरा(cid:7398)ीय तकनीक(cid:7409) अनुसंधान संगठन

नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली, 19 ुिलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1320132013201320....————र्सा(cid:6981)निनक प(cid:7407)रसर (अनानधकृ त क(cid:7011)ेि से नन(cid:7020)कासन) अनुभाग-3 (अनधननयम 1971) म(cid:7286) दी गयी न(cid:7334)य(cid:7298) का (cid:7079)योग करते (cid:7263)ए भारत सरकार (cid:7088)ी मयूर गु(cid:7385)ा,र् ै(cid:6980)ाननक-ई, (समूह-अ अनधकारी) को अधोनलनखत काय(cid:6981) के नलए संपदा अनधकारी ननयु(cid:7334) करती है ता संपदा अनधकारी को ननद(cid:7287)नत (cid:7408)कया ािता है (cid:7408)कर् ह (cid:7079)दत क(cid:7409) गयी न(cid:7334)य(cid:7298) का (cid:7079)योग कर(cid:7286)गे और बताए गए अनधननयम के तहत अपनी न(िcid:7013)मेदारी का नर्न(cid:6981)हन सभी र्सा(cid:6981)निनक प(cid:7407)रसर(cid:7298) ((cid:7408)द(cid:7016)लीर् (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली से बाहर) के नलए ोि (cid:7408)क अ(cid:7007)य(cid:6979) एन.टी.आर.ओ. के ननयं(cid:7074)ण म(cid:7286) ह(cid:7289)।

[ा. सं. IV(D)/10/07/2019-2069]

के . संयिन, ननदेक ((cid:7079)ासन)

NATIONAL TECHNICAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2019

S.O. 1320.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Govt. hereby appoints Shri Mayur Gupta, Scientist 'E'/ ADD, a class-I Officer of the Government to be the Estate Officer for the purpose of the said act and directs that the Estate Officer shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officer by or under the said act in respect of all public premises under the control of the Chairman, NTRO at New Delhi and outstation offices.

[F. No. IV(D)/10/07/2019-2069]

K. SANJAYAN, Director (Admin)

आयुष मं(cid:7074)ालयआयुष मं(cid:7074)ालयआयुष मं(cid:7074)ालयआयुष मं(cid:7074)ालय

नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली, 29 मई, 2019

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 1321132113211321....————क(cid:7286) (cid:7076)ीय सरकार, राभिाषा (संघ के ासक(cid:7409)य (cid:7079)योनि(cid:7298) के नलए (cid:7079)योग) ननयम 1976 (या संोनधत

1987) के ननयम 10 के उप-ननयम (4) के अनुसरण म(cid:7286), आयुष मं(cid:7074)ालय के (cid:7079)ासननक ननयं(cid:7074)णाधीन नन(cid:7013)ननलनखत काया(cid:6981)लय,

नसिके त (cid:7079)नतत कम(cid:6981)चार्रीृ(cid:7008)द ने (cid:7410)हदी का काय(cid:6981)साधक (cid:6980)ान (cid:7079)ा(cid:7009)त कर नलया है, को एतद(cid:7367)ारा अनधसूनचत करती ह(cid:7289):-

''''''''(cid:6979)े(cid:7074)ीय यूनानी नच(cid:7408)क(cid:7004)सा(cid:6979)े(cid:7074)ीय यूनानी नच(cid:7408)क(cid:7004)सा(cid:6979)े(cid:7074)ीय यूनानी नच(cid:7408)क(cid:7004)सा(cid:6979)े(cid:7074)ीय यूनानी नच(cid:7408)क(cid:7004)सा अनुसंधान सं(cid:7021)ा अनुसंधान सं(cid:7021)ा अनुसंधान सं(cid:7021)ा अनुसंधान सं(cid:7021)ानननन, , , , मु ंबईमु ंबईमु ंबईमु ंबई''''''''

[सं. ई-11018/1/2018-आयुष (रा.भा.)]

पी. एन. र(cid:7003)ीित कु मार, संयु(cid:6989)त सनर्च[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5563

MINISTRY OF AYUSH

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2019

S.O. 1321.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules. 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the administrative control of the Ministry of AYUSH, wherein cent percent officials have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:

''Regional Research Institute of Unani Medicine, Mumbai"

[No. E-11018/1/2018-AYUSH (O.L.)]

P. N. RANJIT KUMAR, Jt. Secy.

उपभो(cid:7334)ाउपभो(cid:7334)ाउपभो(cid:7334)ाउपभो(cid:7334)ा मामलेमामलेमामलेमामले, , , , खा(cid:7378)खा(cid:7378)खा(cid:7378)खा(cid:7378) औरऔरऔरऔर र्सा(cid:6981)निनकर्सा(cid:6981)निनकर्सा(cid:6981)निनकर्सा(cid:6981)निनक र्नतरणर्नतरणर्नतरणर्नतरण मं(cid:7074)ालयमं(cid:7074)ालयमं(cid:7074)ालयमं(cid:7074)ालय

((((खा(cid:7378)खा(cid:7378)खा(cid:7378)खा(cid:7378) औरऔरऔरऔर र्सा(cid:6981)निनकर्सा(cid:6981)निनकर्सा(cid:6981)निनकर्सा(cid:6981)निनक र्नतरणर्नतरणर्नतरणर्नतरण र्नभागर्नभागर्नभागर्नभाग))))

नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली, 22 ुिलाई, 2019

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 1322132213221322....————के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार राभिाषा (संघ के ासक(cid:7409)य (cid:7079)योनि(cid:7298) के नलए (cid:7079)योग) ननयम, 1976 के ननयम 10 के उप ननयम (4) के अनुसरण म(cid:7286) उपभो(cid:7334)ा मामले, खा(cid:7378) और र्सा(cid:6981)निनक र्नतरण मं(cid:7074)ालय (खा(cid:7378) और र्सा(cid:6981)निनक र्नतरण र्नभाग) के (cid:7079)ासननक ननयं(cid:7074)णाधीन नन(cid:7388)नलनखत काया(cid:6981)लय(cid:7298), ननिके 80 (cid:7079)नतत से अनधक कम(cid:6981)चार्रीृ(cid:7008)द ने नह(cid:7008)दी का काय(cid:6981)साधक (cid:6980)ान (cid:7079)ा(cid:7385) कर नलया है, को रापि(cid:7074) म(cid:7286) अनधसूनचत करती है:-

1. क(cid:7286) (cid:7076)ीय भंडारण ननगम,

स(cid:7286)(cid:7069)लर् ेयरहाउस,

मार्लीाा पीईीि मैसस(cid:6981) ल(cid:7023)मी ए(cid:7003)ड कं पनी, कॉनकॉन(cid:6981) के पीछे, दौलताबाद रेर्ले (cid:7021)टेन के पास, मार्लीाा, औरंगाबाद – 431001

2. क(cid:7286) (cid:7076)ीय भंडारण ननगम,

स(cid:7286)(cid:7069)लर् ेयरहाउस,

अ(cid:7013)ब – 2 बी - 72, एम.आई.डी.सी., अ(cid:7013)ब – 2, नानसक – 422010

3. क(cid:7286) (cid:7076)ीय भंडारण ननगम,

स(cid:7286)(cid:7069)लर् ेयरहाउस,

मु ंडीपार, एम.आई.डी.सी., (cid:7009)लॉट न(cid:7013)बर – बी 28-29, पो(cid:7021)ट – दखानी, ग(cid:7298)(cid:7408)दया – 441614

[सं. ई-11011/1/2008-नह(cid:7008)दी]

कमल द(cid:7275)ा, संयु(cid:7334) सनर्च5564 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Food and Public Distribution)

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019

S.O. 1322.— In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the administrative control of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution (Deptt. of Food & Public Distribution), whereof more than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:

1. Central Warehousing Corporation, Central Warehouse,

Maliwada PEG Ms. Laxmi & Company, Behind CONCORN, Near by Daulatabad Railway Station, Maliwada, Aurangabad - 431001

2. Central Warehousing Corporation, Central Warehouse, Ambad –II B-72, IMDC, Ambad –II, Nasik - 422010

3. Central Warehousing Corporation, Central Warehouse, Mundipaar, IMDC, Plot No. B 28-29, Post Dakhaani, Gondia - 441614

[No. E-11011/1/2008-Hindi]

KAMAL DATTA, Jt. Secy.

नागर र्नमानन मं(cid:7074)ालयनागर र्नमानन मं(cid:7074)ालयनागर र्नमानन मं(cid:7074)ालयनागर र्नमानन मं(cid:7074)ालय

नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली, 22 ुिलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1323132313231323....————भारतीय र्नमानप(cid:7004)तन (cid:7079)ानधकरण अनधननयम, 1994 (1994 का सं(cid:6990)या 55) के खंड 3 और खंड 5

(cid:7367)ारा (cid:7079)द(cid:7004)त न(cid:7334)य(cid:7298) का उपयोग करते (cid:7263)ए क(cid:7286) (cid:7076) सरकार एत(cid:7375)ारा (cid:7088)ी गो(cid:7410र्)दरानि ेखर को त(cid:7004)काल (cid:7079)र्भा से तीनर् ष(cid:7300) क(cid:7409)

र्अनध र्अा आगामी आदे(cid:7298) तक, ोि भी पहले हो, भारतीय र्नमानप(cid:7004)तन (cid:7079)ानधकरण के बोड(cid:6981) पर गैर-सरकारी (cid:7021र्)तं(cid:7074) सद(cid:7021)य

(अंकानलक) के (cid:7272)प म(cid:7286) ननयु(cid:6989)त करती है ।

[ा. सं. र्एी-24015/4/2015-एएआई-एमओसीए]

पी. ेि. ॉमस, र्अर सनर्च

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019

S.O. 1323.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 and Section 5 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (No.55 of 1994), the Central Government hereby appoint Shri Govindarajan Sekar as Non-Official Independent Member (part time) on the Board of Airports Authority of India with immediate effect for a period of three years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. AV-24015/4/2015-AAI-MOCA] P. J. THOMAS, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5565

कोयला मं(cid:7074)ालयकोयला मं(cid:7074)ालयकोयला मं(cid:7074)ालयकोयला मं(cid:7074)ालय

नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली, 18 ुिलाई, 2019

काकाकाका....आ.आ.आ.आ. 1324132413241324.—के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार को यह (cid:7079)तीत होता है (cid:7408)क, इससे उपाब(cid:7373) अनुसूची म(cid:7286) उन(cid:7016)लनखत प(cid:7407)र(cid:6979)े(cid:7074) क(cid:7409) भूनम म(cid:7286) कोयला अनभ(cid:7079)ा(cid:7009)त (cid:7408)कए ािने क(cid:7409) संर्भाना है ;

और, रेखांक सं(cid:6990)या एनयूपीपीएल/पीएस/4(1)/002/2019, तारीख 26 मई, 2019 को उ(cid:7334) अनुसूची म(cid:7286)र् (cid:7414)णत भूनम का (cid:6979)े(cid:7074) अ(cid:7008)त(cid:7414र्)(cid:7397) (cid:7408)कया गया है, का ननरी(cid:6979)ण मु(cid:6990)य महा (cid:7079)बंधक (भूर्न(cid:6980)ानी/(cid:7079)भारी पर्चाा साउ कोयला (cid:7011)लॉक), नेर्येली उ(cid:7004)तर (cid:7079)दे र्पार नलनमटेड, नदिीक धोनबया (cid:7021)कू ल, बाबुपाा, नलिा दुमका, झारखंड के काया(cid:6981)लय म(cid:7286) या मु(cid:6990)य महा(cid:7079)बंधक (अ(cid:7008र्)ेषण (cid:7079)भाग), स(cid:7286)(cid:7069)ल माईन (cid:7009)ला(cid:7410)नग ए(cid:7003)ड नडािइन इ(cid:7008)(cid:7021)टी(cid:6994)यूट नलनमटेड, ग(cid:7298)र्दाना (cid:7009)लेस, कांके रोड, रांची (झारखंड) के काया(cid:6981)लय म(cid:7286) या कोयला ननयं(cid:7074)क, 1, काउं नसल हाऊस (cid:7021)(cid:7069)ीट, कोलकाता – 700001 के काया(cid:6981)लय म(cid:7286) या नलिानधकारी, नलिा दुमका- 814101 (झारखंड) के काया(cid:6981)लय म(cid:7286) (cid:7408)कया ाि सकता है ;

अत:, अब, के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार, कोयला धारक (cid:6979)े(cid:7074) (अ(िcid:6981)न और र्नकास) अनधननयम, 1957(1957 का 20) (नसिे इसम(cid:7286) इसके प(cid:7391)ात् उ(cid:7334) अनधननयम कहा गया है) क(cid:7409) धारा 4 क(cid:7409) उपधारा (1) (cid:7367)ारा (cid:7079)द(cid:7275) न(cid:7334)य(cid:7298) का (cid:7079)योग करते (cid:7263)ए, उ(cid:6989)त अनुसूची म(cid:7286)र् (cid:7414)णत भूनम म(cid:7286) कोयले का र्पू(cid:7287)(cid:6979)ण करने के अपने आय क(cid:7409) नो(cid:7407)टस देती है ;

उपरो(cid:7334) उन(cid:7016)लनखत अनुसूची म(cid:7286)र् (cid:7414)णत भूनम म(cid:7286) नहतब(cid:7373) कोई (cid:7018)यन(cid:6989)त, -

(i) भूनम के संपूण(cid:6981) या (cid:7408)कसी भाग या उ(cid:7334) भूनम म(cid:7286) या उसके ऊपर (cid:7408)कसी अनधकार के अ(िcid:6981)न पर आ(cid:6979)ेप कर सके गा ; या

(ii) उ(cid:6989)त अनधननयम क(cid:7409) धारा 4 क(cid:7409) उप-धारा (3) के अधीन क(cid:7409) गयी (cid:7408)कसी काय(cid:6981र्)ाही से (cid:7263)ई या होनेर् ाली संभार्नत (cid:7408)कसी (cid:6979)नत के नलए अनधननयम क(cid:7409) धारा 6 के अधीन (cid:7079)नतकर का र्दाा कर सके गा ; या

(iii) उ(cid:6989)त अनधननयम क(cid:7409) र्पू(cid:7287)(cid:6979)ण अनु(cid:6980)न(cid:7009)तय(cid:7298) के (cid:7079)र्भाहीन होने के संबंध म(cid:7286) धारा 13 क(cid:7409) उप-धारा (1) के अधीन या खनन प(cid:7349)े (cid:7079)र्भाहीन होने के नलए उ(cid:6989)त अनधननयम क(cid:7409) धारा 13 क(cid:7409) उप-धारा (4) के अधीन (cid:7079)नतकर का र्दाा कर सके गा और उसे उ(cid:6989)त अनधनयम क(cid:7409) धारा 13 क(cid:7409) उपधारा (1) के खंड (i) से खंड (iv) म(cid:7286) र्ननन(cid:7416)द(cid:7020)ट मद(cid:7298) के संबंध म(cid:7286) उपगत (cid:7018)यय को द(cid:7414)त करने के नलए र्पू(cid:7299)(cid:6989)त भूनम से संबंनधत सभी माननच(cid:7074)(cid:7298), चाट(cid:7300) और अ(cid:7008)य द(cid:7021)र्ताे(िcid:7298) को प(cid:7407)रद(cid:7004)त कर सके गा,

इस अनधसूचना के रापि(cid:7074) म(cid:7286) (cid:7079)कान क(cid:7409) तारीख से न(cid:7011)बे (cid:7408)दन के भीतर, मु(cid:6990)य महा(cid:7079)बंधक (भूर्न(cid:6980)ानी/(cid:7079)भारी पर्चाा साउ कोयला (cid:7011)लॉक), नेर्येली उ(cid:7004)तर (cid:7079)दे र्पार नलनमटेड, नदिीक धोनबया (cid:7021)कू ल, बाबुपाा, नलिा दुमका, झारखंड के काया(cid:6981)लय को भेेिग(cid:7286)।

अनुसूची अनुसूची अनुसूची अनुसूची

पर्चाा साउ (cid:7011)लॉक

रामिहल कोल(cid:7409)(cid:7016)ड

नलिा दुमका, झारखंड

[ रेखांक सं(cid:6990)या एनयूपीपीएल/पीएस/4(1)/002/2019, तारीख 26 मई, 2019 ]

. सं. ाम का नाम पर्टारी सकल सं या / ाना सं या तहसील नलिा े हे टेयर म (लगभग) क ु ल टपण
र ैयती सरकारी भूनम
ग ैरर्-न र्न
1. मलडाबर 18 गोपीकं दर दुमका 26.241 1.855 115.177 143.273 भाग
2. क ं डपहाी ु 19 गोपीकं दर दुमका 149.753 38.984 213.970 402.707 भाग
3. नचदह 20 गोपीकं दर दुमका 101.178 9.100 58.742 169.020 भाग
क ु ल े: 277.172 49.939 387.889 715.000
क ु ल े: 715.000 हे टेयर (लगभग) या 1766.765 एक (लगभग)
5566 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सीमार् ण(cid:6981)न :सीमार् ण(cid:6981)न :सीमार् ण(cid:6981)न :सीमार् ण(cid:6981)न :

क – ख : रेखा, नब(cid:7008)दु 'क' के म(cid:7263)लडाबर (cid:7061)ाम (सं(cid:6990)या 18) से आरंभ होती है और म(cid:7263)लडाबर (cid:7061)ाम (सं(cid:6990)या 18) के नब(cid:7008)दु 'ख' पर नमलती है । रेखा 'क-ख' (cid:7011)लॉक क(cid:7409) पन(cid:7019)चमी सीमा ननधा(cid:6981)(cid:7407)रत करती है ।

ख-ख1: रेखा, नब(cid:7008)दु 'ख' के म(cid:7263)लडाबर (cid:7061)ाम (सं(cid:6990)या 18) से आरंभ होती है और म(cid:7263)लडाबर (cid:7061)ाम (सं(cid:6990)या 18) के नब(cid:7008)दु 'ख1' पर नमलती है । रेखा 'ख-ख1' (cid:7011)लॉक क(cid:7409) पन(cid:7019)चमी सीमा ननधा(cid:6981)(cid:7407)रत करती है ।

ख1 –ग : रेखा, 'ख1-ग' के म(cid:7263)लडाबर (cid:7061)ाम (सं(cid:6990)या 18) के नब(cid:7008)दु 'ख1' से आरंभ होती है और म(cid:7263)लडाबर (cid:7061)ाम (सं(cid:6990)या 18) के नब(cid:7008)दु 'ग' पर नमलती है । रेखा 'ख1-ग' (cid:7011)लॉक क(cid:7409) पन(cid:7019)चमी सीमा ननधा(cid:6981)(cid:7407)रत करती है ।

ग – घ : रेखा, ''ग-घ'' म(cid:7263)लडाबर (cid:7061)ाम (सं(cid:6990)या 18) के नब(cid:7008)दु 'ग' से आरंभ होती है और नच(cid:7272)(cid:7408)दह (cid:7061)ाम पर नमलती है । रेखा 'ग-घ' (cid:7011)लॉक क(cid:7409) उ(cid:7004)तरी सीमा को ननधा(cid:6981)(cid:7407)रत करती है ोि(cid:7408)क बंसोली नदी के दन(cid:6979)णी (cid:7408)कनारे के सामा(cid:7008)तर है ।

घ – ड. : रेखा, 'घ-ड.' नच(cid:7272)(cid:7408)दह (cid:7061)ाम (सं(cid:6990)या 20) के नब(cid:7008)दु 'घ' से आरंभ होती है और नच(cid:7272)(cid:7408)दह (cid:7061)ाम (सं(cid:6990)या 20) के नब(cid:7008)दु 'ड.' पर नमलती है, ोि(cid:7408)क (cid:7011)लॉक क(cid:7409) र्पू(cid:7278) सीमा है ।

ड. – च : रेखा, 'ड.-च' के नब(cid:7008)दु 'ड.' से आरंभ होती है और नच(cid:7272)(cid:7408)दह (cid:7061)ाम (सं(cid:6990)या 20) के नब(cid:7008)दु 'च' पर नमलती है ोि(cid:7408)क (cid:7011)लॉक क(cid:7409) दन(cid:6979)णी और दन(cid:6979)णी-र्पू(cid:7278) सीमा है ।

च – छ : रेखा, 'च-छ' नच(cid:7272)डीह (cid:7061)ाम (सं(cid:6990)या 20) के नब(cid:7008)दु 'च' से आरंभ होती है और कु ं डपहाी (cid:7061)ाम (सं(cid:6990)या 19) के नब(cid:7008)दु 'छ' पर नमलती है, और (cid:7011)लॉक क(cid:7409) दन(cid:6979)णी सीमा ननधा(cid:6981)(cid:7407)रत करती है ।

छ – क : रेखा, 'छ-क' कु ं डपहाी (cid:7061)ाम (सं(cid:6990)या 19) के नब(cid:7008)दु 'छ' से आरंभ होती है और म(cid:7263)लडाबर (cid:7061)ाम (सं(cid:6990)या 18) के नब(cid:7008)दु 'क' पर नमलती है । रेखा 'छ-क' (cid:7011)लॉक क(cid:7409) दन(cid:6979)णी और दन(cid:6979)ण-र्पू(cid:7278) सीमा ननधा(cid:6981)(cid:7407)रत करती है ।

[ा. सं. 43015/20/2015-एलए ए(cid:7003)ड आईआर/खंड-I]

राम नरोमनण सरो,ि उप सनर्च

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2019

S.O. 1324.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And whereas, the plan bearing number NUPPL/PS/4(1)/002/2019, dated the 26th May, 2019 containing details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Chief General Manager (Geology/incharge Pachwara South Coal Block), Neyveli Uttar Pradesh Power Limited, Near Dhobia School, Babupara, District Dumka, Jharkhand or at the office of the Chief General Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road , Ranchi (Jharkhand) or at the office of the Coal Controller,1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 or at the office of the District Collector, District Dumka-814101, Jharkhand.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5567

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from the land described in the said Schedule;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule, may –

(i) object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land, or of any rights in or over the said land; or

(ii) claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any action taken under sub-section (3) of section 4 thereof ; or

(iii) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act, in respect of prospecting license ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to have effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the expenditure incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act,

to the office of the Chief General Manager (Geology/incharge Pachwara South Coal Block), Neyveli Uttar Pradesh Power Limited, Near Dhobia School, Babupara, District Dumka, Jharkhand, within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Pachwara South Block

Rajmahal Coalfield

District Dumka, Jharkhand

[Plan bearing number NUPPL/PS/4(1)/002/2019, dated the 26th May, 2019 ]

Sl. No. Name of the village Patwari/ Circle number/ Thana number Tehsil District Area in hectares (approximately) Total Remarks
Raiyati Government Land
Non- Forest Forest
1. Mahuldabar 18 Gopikander Dumka 26.241 1.855 115.177 143.273 Part
2. Kundapahadi 19 Gopikander Dumka 149.753 38.984 213.970 402.707 Part
3. Chirudih 20 Gopikander Dumka 101.178 9.100 58.742 169.020 Part
Total Area : 277.172 49.939 387.889 715.000
Total Area :715.000 hectares (approximately) or 1766.765 acres (approximately)

Boundary description:

A-B The line starts from point 'A' in Mahuldabar village (No. 18) and ends at point 'B' in Mahuldabar village (No.18). The line A-B forms the western boundary of the block.

B-B1 The line starts from point 'B' in Mahuldabar village (No. 18) and ends at point 'B1' in Mahuldabar Village (No.18). The line 'B-B1' forms the western boundary of the block.

B1-C The line 'B1-C' starts from point 'B1' in the Mahuldabar village (No.18) and ends point 'C' in Mahuldabar village (No. 18). The line 'B1-C' forms the western boundary of the block.

C-D The line 'C-D' starts from point 'C' in the Mahuldabar village (No.18) and ends at Chirudih village the line 'C-D' forms the northern boundary of the block running parallel to Bansoli nadi southern bank.

D-E The line 'D-E' starts from point 'D', in the Chirudih Village (No. 20) and ends at points 'E' Chirudih Village (No. 20) is a eastern foundary of the block.

5568 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

E-F The line 'E-F' starts from point 'E' at ends at point 'F' in the Chirudih village (No.20) and forms the southern and south-eastern boundary of the block.

F-G The line 'F-G' starts from point 'F' in the Chirudih village (No.20) and ends at point 'G' in the kundapahadi village (No.19) and forms the southern boundary of the block.

G-A The line 'G-A' starts at point 'G' in Kundapahadi village (No.19) and ends at point 'A' in the village (No.18). The line 'G-A' forms the southern and south eastern boundary of the block.

[F. No. 43015/20/2015-LA&IR/Vol.-I]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ , Dy Secy.

नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली, 18 ुिलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1325132513251325....————के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार को यह (cid:7079)तीत होता है (cid:7408)क इसके उपाब(cid:7373) अनुसूची म(cid:7286)र् (cid:7414)णत प(cid:7407)र(cid:6979)े(cid:7074) क(cid:7409) भूनम म(cid:7286) से कोयला अनभ(cid:7079)ा(cid:7385) होने क(cid:7409) संर्भाना है;

और, उ(cid:7334) अनुसूची म(cid:7286) र्(cid:7414)णत भूनम के (cid:6979)े(cid:7074) म(cid:7286) अंत(cid:7414र्)(cid:7397) करने र्ाला रेखांक सं(cid:6990)यांक आरर्ईी /01/2019, तारीख 25 अ(cid:7079)ैल, 2019 का ननरी(cid:6979)ण स(cid:7286)(cid:7069)ल कोल (cid:7409)(cid:7016)(cid:7001)स नलनमटेड (भूनम और रा(िcid:7021र्) र्नभाग), दरभंगा हाउस, रँची – 834029 (झारख(cid:7003)ड) के काया(cid:6981)लय म(cid:7286) या महा(cid:7079)बंधक, स(cid:7286)(cid:7069)ल कोल(cid:7409)(cid:7016)(cid:7001)स नलनमटेड, कोतरे – बसंतपुर -पचमो (cid:6979)े(cid:7074), नलिा रामग और बोकारो (झारख(cid:7003)ड) या महा(cid:7079)बंधक (खो ि (cid:7079)भाग) आर.आई.-III, के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय खान योनिा र्एं नडािईन सं(cid:7021)ान नलनमटेड, ग(cid:7298)र्डाना पैलेस, कांके रोड, रँची (झारखंड) के काया(cid:6981)लय म(cid:7286) या कोयला ननयं(cid:7074)क, 1, काउं नसल हाउस (cid:7021)(cid:7069)ीट, कोलकाता- 700001 के काया(cid:6981)लय म(cid:7286) (cid:7408)कया ाि सकता है ;

अत:, अब, के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार, कोयला धारक (cid:6979)े(cid:7074) (अ(िcid:6981)न और र्नकास) अनधननयम, 1957(1957 का 20) (नसिे इसम(cid:7286) इसके प(cid:7391)ात् उ(cid:7334) अनधननयम कहा गया है) क(cid:7409) धारा 4 क(cid:7409) उपधारा (1) (cid:7367)ारा (cid:7079)द(cid:7275) न(cid:7334)य(cid:7298) का (cid:7079)योग करते (cid:7263)ए, उ(cid:6989)त अनुसूची म(cid:7286)र् (cid:7414)णत भूनम म(cid:7286) कोयले का र्पू(cid:7287)(cid:6979)ण करने के अपने आय क(cid:7409) नो(cid:7407)टस देती है ;

उपरो(cid:7334) उन(cid:7016)लनखत अनुसूची म(cid:7286)र् (cid:7414)णत भूनम म(cid:7286) नहतब(cid:7373) कोई (cid:7018)यन(cid:6989)त, -

(i) भूनम के संपूण(cid:6981) या (cid:7408)कसी भाग या उ(cid:7334) भूनम म(cid:7286) या उसके ऊपर (cid:7408)कसी अनधकार के अ(िcid:6981)न पर आ(cid:6979)ेप कर सके गा ;

र्अा

(ii) उ(cid:6989)त अनधननयम क(cid:7409) धारा 4 क(cid:7409) उप-धारा (3) के अधीन क(cid:7409) गयी (cid:7408)कसी काय(cid:6981र्)ाही से (cid:7263)ई या होनेर् ाली संभार्नत (cid:7408)कसी (cid:6979)नत के नलए अनधननयम क(cid:7409) धारा 6 के अधीन (cid:7079)नतकर का र्दाा कर सके गा ; र्अा

(iii) उ(cid:6989)त अनधननयम क(cid:7409) र्पू(cid:7287)(cid:6979)ण अनु(cid:6980)न(cid:7009)तय(cid:7298) के (cid:7079)र्भाहीन होने के संबंध म(cid:7286) धारा 13 क(cid:7409) उप-धारा (1) के अधीन या खनन प(cid:7349)े (cid:7079)र्भाहीन होने के नलए उ(cid:6989)त अनधननयम क(cid:7409) धारा 13 क(cid:7409) उप-धारा (4) के अधीन (cid:7079)नतकर का र्दाा कर सके गा और उसे उ(cid:6989)त अनधनयम क(cid:7409) धारा 13 क(cid:7409) उपधारा (1) के खंड (i) से खंड (iv) म(cid:7286) र्ननन(cid:7416)द(cid:7020)ट मद(cid:7298) क(cid:7409) बाबद् उपगत (cid:7018)यय को उपद(cid:7414)त करने के नलए र्पू(cid:7299)(cid:6989)त भूनम से संबंनधत सभी माननच(cid:7074)(cid:7298), चाट(cid:7300) और अ(cid:7008)य द(cid:7021)र्ताे(िcid:7298) को प(cid:7407)रद(cid:7004)त कर सके गा,

इस अनधसूचना के रापि(cid:7074) म(cid:7286) (cid:7079)कान क(cid:7409) तारीख से न(cid:7011)बे (cid:7408)दन के भीतर महा(cid:7079)बंधक, स(cid:7286)(cid:7069)ल कोल(cid:7409)(cid:7016)(cid:7001)स नलनमटेड, कोतरे – बसंतपुर - पचमो (cid:6979)े(cid:7074), नलिा रामग और बोकारो (झारख(cid:7003)ड) या महा(cid:7079)बंधक, स(cid:7286)(cid:7069)ल कोल(cid:7409)(cid:7016)(cid:7001)स नलनमटेड, भूनम और रा(िcid:7021र्) र्नभाग, दरभंगा हाउस, रँची – 834029 (झारख(cid:7003)ड) के काया(cid:6981)लय को भे(िcid:7286)गे ।

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5569

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

कोतरे बसंतपुर पचमो ओ.सी.पी.

नलिा रामग और बोकारो (झारख(cid:7003)ड)

[ रेखांक सं(cid:6990)या आरर्ईी /01/2019, तारीख 25 अ(cid:7079)ैल, 2019 ]

.सं. ाम ाना सं. ाना नलिा े टपनणयां
हेटेयर म एक म
1. बसंतपुर 105 मांडू रामग 107.24 265.00 भ ा ग
2. कोतरे 106 मांडू रामग 253.33 626.00 भाग
3. रदाग 28 गोनमया बोकारो 15.38 38.00 भाग
4. पचमो 27 गोनमया बोकारो 32.26 79.71 भाग
5. पुरनापानी 25 गोनमया बोकारो 20.43 50.48 भाग
क ु ल : 428.64 हेटेयर (लगभग) 1059.19 एक (लगभग)

सीमा -र् ण(cid:6981)न:

क-ख-ग-घ-ड.-च--छ--िझ- ञ-ट-ठ-क - र ेखा, नबदु 'क' से आरंभ होती है और नबदु ख-ग-घ-ड.-च--छ--िझ- ञ-ट और 'ठ' से ग ुरिते ए और आरंनभक नबदु 'क' पर नमलती है ।
क-ख-ग-घ-ड.-च--छ - रेखा, नबदु 'क' से आरंभ होती है और नबदु ख-ग-घ-ड. और 'च' से गुरिते ए और नबदु 'छ' पर नमलती है, ोिक कोतरे बसंतपुर पचमो ओसीपी के परयोनिा रपोट के अनुसार नए अनि क सीमा है ।
छ--िझ-ञ-ट - रेखा, नबदु 'छ' से आरंभ होती है और नबदु -िझ-ञ और 'ट' (पचमो, रदाग और कोतरे ाम के भाग) कोयला धारक े अनधननयम क धारा 9(1) के अधीन का. आ. 2082, तारीख 30 ूिन, 1981 के तहत अनधहण सीमा से गुरिते ए और नबदु 'ट' पर नमलती है ।
ट-ठ-क - रेखा, नबदु 'ट' से आरंभ होती है और नबदु 'ठ' और 'क' (कोतरे और बसंतपुर ाम के भाग) कोयला धारक े अनधननयम क धारा 9(1) के अधीन का. आ. 981(अ), तारीख 22 दसबर, 1980 के तहत अनधहण सीमा से गुरिते ए और आरंनभक नबदु 'क' पर नमलती है ।

[ा. सं. 43015/15/2018-एलए ए(cid:7003)ड आईआर]

राम नरोमनण सरो,ि उप सनर्च

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2019

S.O. 1325.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And, whereas, the plan bearing number Rev/01/2019, dated the 25th April, 2019, containing details of the areas of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Central Coalfields Limited (Land and Revenue Department), Darbhanga House, Ranchi- 834029 (Jharkhand) or at the office of the General Manager, Central5570 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Coalfields Limited, Kotre-Basantpur-Pachmo Area, Districts Ramgarh and Bokaro (Jharkhand) or at the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Districts Ramgarh and Bokaro (Jharkhand) or at the office of the General Manager (Exploration Division), RI- III, Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi (Jharkhand) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata- 700 001;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in land described in the said Schedule.

Any person interested in the land described in the above mentioned Schedule may -

(i) object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over the said land; or

(ii) claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any action taken under sub-section (3) of section 4 thereof; or

(iii) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting license ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act, for mining lease ceasing to have effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the expenditure incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act,

to the office of the General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Kotre-Basantpur-Pachmo Area, Districts Ramgarh and Bokaro (Jharkhand) or General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Land and Revenue Department, Darbhanga House, Ranchi- 834029 (Jharkhand) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

KOTRE BASANTPUR PACHMO OCP

DISTRICT- RAMGARH AND BOKARO (JHARKHAND)

[ Plan bearing number Rev/01/2019, dated the 25th April, 2019]

Sl. No. Village Thana number Thana District Area Remarks
In hectares In acres
1. Basantpur 105 Mandu Ramgarh 107.24 265.00 Part
2. Kotre 106 Mandu Ramgarh 253.33 626.00 Part
3. Hurdag 28 Gomia Bokaro 15.38 38.00 Part
4. Pachmo 27 Gomia Bokaro 32.26 79.71 Part
5. Purnapani 25 Gomia Bokaro 20.43 50.48 Part
Total : 428.64 hectares (approxi- mately) 1059.19 acres (approxi- mately)

Boundary Description :

A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-A - Line starts from point 'A'and passes through points B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K and L and meets at starting point 'A'.
A-B-C-D-E-F-G - Line starts from point 'A' and passes through points B-C-D-E and F and meets at point 'G', which is new acquisition boundary as per project report of Kotre Basantpur Pachmo OCP.
G H- I-J-K - Line starts from point 'G' and passes through points H- I-J and K (part village of Pachmo, Hurdag and Kotre) {Acquisition boundary line of Hurdag Block under section 9(1) of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 number S.O. 2082, dated 30th June, 1981} and meets at point 'K'.
K-L-A - Line starts from point 'K' and passes through points L and A part village of Kotre and Basantpur (Acquisition Boundary Line of Basantpur Block under section 9(1) of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, number S.O. 981(E), dated the 22nd December, 1980 and meets at starting point 'A'.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5571

[F. No. 43015/15/2018-LA&IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

पे(cid:7069)ोनलयम और (cid:7079)ाकृ नतक गैस मं(cid:7074)ालय

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2019

dkdkdkdk----vkvkvkvk---- 1326132613261326----&&&&dsUnzh ljdkj dks ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd yksdfgr esa ;g vko';d gS fd gkbZMª¨dkcZu ds ifjogu ds fy, eaqnzk-HkVhaMk foLr`frdj.k ikbiykbu =xMh ls xqankyk rd ds ekxZ is vsp-ih-lh-vsy- feRry ikbiykbUl fyfeVsM] eaqnzk] ftYyk-dPN] jkT; xqtjkr }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,।

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh Hkwfe esa tks bl ls mikCk) vuqlph esa of.kZr gS] vkSj ftlesa mDr ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkuh gS mldk j{k.k gsrq mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk,(

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZZZZZZZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ml Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/akdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS%

dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwPkh esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks bl vf/klwpuk esa ;qDr Hkkjr ds jkti= dh izfr;ka lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gSa] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj] Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds fy, mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds lacU?k esa Jh vsJh vsJh vsJh vs---- dsdsdsds---- oLrkuh] l{ke izkf/kdkjh vspoLrkuh] l{ke izkf/kdkjh vspoLrkuh] l{ke izkf/kdkjh vspoLrkuh] l{ke izkf/kdkjh vsp----ihihihih----lhlhlhlh----vsyvsyvsyvsy---- feRry ikbiykbUl fyfeVsM] eaqnzk] ftfeRry ikbiykbUl fyfeVsM] eaqnzk] ftfeRry ikbiykbUl fyfeVsM] eaqnzk] ftfeRry ikbiykbUl fyfeVsM] eaqnzk] ftyk yk yk yk dPN] xqtjkr ,oa izkar vf/kdkjh eaqnzk] dPN] xqtjkr ,oa izkar vf/kdkjh eaqnzk] dPN] xqtjkr ,oa izkar vf/kdkjh eaqnzk] dPN] xqtjkr ,oa izkar vf/kdkjh eaqnzk] dks fyf[kr :i eas vk{ksi Hkst ldsxk।

जिला : कच्छ
अनुं नं. मौजा/ग्राम तहसील सर्वे/ब्लोक/सं (प्लोट सं) सब.डीव सं. क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर आरे वर्ग मीटर
1 2 3 4 5
1 त्रगडी मांडवी Govt. 237 - 02 79 85
238 - 00 59 57
239 - 00 85 61
240 - 00 92 29
241 - 00 57 63
257 - 00 00 20
258 - 00 16 20
259 - 00 91 88
261 - 00 12 38
262 - 00 12 68
263 - 00 03 42
Govt.260 - 00 49 20
Govt.265 - 00 55 07
270 - 00 01 63
Govt.260 - 00 16 68
266 - 00 21 07
267 - 00 00 75
त्रगडी चालु मांडवी Govt.260 - 00 10 61
219 - 00 76 79
220 - 00 30 40
218 - 00 52 82
Govt. 226 - 00 57 86
201 - 00 74 44
Govt. 226 - 00 59 46
200 - 00 51 39
Govt. 226 - 00 20 92
Govt. 197 - 00 04 07
2 नाना भाडीया मांडवी River - 00 60 91
305 1 00 04 06
553P Govt. - 00 50 40
305 1 00 25 95
305 2 00 29 07
304 - 00 53 76
308 - 00 30 24
307 1 00 31 01
307 2 00 33 31
309/1 P 1 00 00 20
309/1 P 2
309 2 00 05 76
311 3 00 52 12
310 1 00 66 76
310 2
Govt. 553 P 1 01 60 37
287 - 00 07 82
288 - 00 75 71
289 - 00 57 14
Govt. 553 P 1 00 04 06
290 1 00 33 04
290 2 00 23 10
Road - 00 10 86
280/P 1 P 1 00 00 20
280/P 1 P 2
280/P 1 P 3
280 P2
268 - 00 78 83
266 - 00 00 20
267 - 00 53 97
Road - 00 17 02
264 - 00 55 71
263 - 00 48 44
नाना भाडीया चालु मांडवी 262 - 00 09 74
Govt. 553 P 1 00 32 16
257 1 00 66 27
Govt. 553 P 1 01 99 67
122 - 00 46 78
120 - 00 03 40
121 - 00 74 42
3 कांडागरा मोटा म द्रा ु ं 379 - 00 11 89
Road - 00 20 75
380 - 00 65 11
385 1 00 47 70
385 2
387 - 00 45 75
388 - 00 00 84
390 2 00 38 26
386 1 00 01 04
390 1 00 55 88
396 - 00 31 34
395 - 00 24 93
394 1 00 48 62
394 2
394 3
393 1 00 09 35
402 - 00 04 56
393 3 00 50 20
Road - 00 08 18
517P Govt. - 02 06 71
490 - 00 00 20
491 - 00 01 60
Road - 00 01 28
503 2 00 06 38
504 - 00 54 75
512 - 00 22 59
513 3 00 20 67
513 2 00 17 12
513 1 00 24 04
511 - 00 02 75
Road - 00 07 36
17 1 00 18 09
17 2 00 12 92
18 1 00 32 73
19 - 00 20 81
24 - 00 09 60
कांडागरा मोटा चालु म द्रा ु ं 21 1 00 12 82
22 1 00 53 37
21 2 00 09 05
21 3 00 04 46
21 4 00 00 66
11 3 00 12 14
Road - 00 10 68
517 P Govt. - 00 32 64
Chalta No. 2 - 00 39 08
Road - 00 05 17
127 - 00 91 98
126 / 1 P 1 00 12 57
126 / 1 P 2
126/2 -
Govt. - 00 26 21
Road - 00 06 76
Govt. - 00 39 85
130 - 00 35 17
Govt. - 00 69 38
185 - 00 22 87
187 4 00 13 64
187 3 00 22 97
187 2 00 18 16
187 1 00 25 19
188 - 00 13 08
189 - 00 85 38
Govt. - 00 23 77
179 - 00 89 14
177 - 00 36 38
Road - 00 08 12
220 - 00 40 10
221 1 00 35 22
260 1 00 08 01
222 - 00 50 69
223 - 00 59 20
248 - 00 78 55
247 - 00 11 90
244 - 00 81 80
245 - 00 00 20
243 - 01 36 64
240 - 00 51 37
Road - 00 01 58
4 षिराचा म द्रा ु ं 295 P 1 00 28 45
षिराचा म द्रा ु ं 206 00 61 67
295 P 1 00 48 71
231 - 00 56 08
232 - 00 24 76
234 - 00 64 54
235 - 00 86 47
238 - 00 96 90
295 P 1 00 16 01
268 1 00 24 82
268 2 00 00 20
283 - 00 32 82
284 - 00 27 21
285 - 00 26 37
286 2 00 46 16
295 P 1 00 17 14
39 / 3 / P 1 00 19 29
Cart Track 39 / 3 / P 2 00 00 82
39 / 3 / P 1 00 02 71
39 / 2 P 1 00 32 57
Cart Track - 00 06 74
39 / 2 / P 1 00 25 40
40 - 00 18 48
41 - 01 16 00
42 - 00 05 43
74 - 00 65 37
73 2 00 24 01
73 1 00 07 01
73 3 00 12 30
73 4 00 03 17
61 - 01 23 54
60 - 00 15 42
59 5 00 15 31
59 4 00 60 31
5 देषलपर म द्रा ु ं 304 - 00 39 83
303 - 00 25 48
306 P 1 00 13 00
306 P 2
302 00 18 85
306 P 1 00 06 07
306 P 2
309 - 00 48 82
310 - 01 44 91
311/ 1 P 1 00 15 92
देषलपर म द्रा ु ं 311 P 2
Road - 00 07 99
299 1 00 25 08
299 2 00 23 63
298 - 00 59 27
284 - 01 54 44
283 1 01 48 63
283 2
281 - 01 07 53
279 - 00 68 21
275 - 00 00 90
278 P 1 01 03 48
278 P 2
Cart Track - 00 04 29
276 - 00 45 86
Road - 00 06 41
241 2 00 00 86
219 1 00 43 04
219 / 1 P 1
219 2 00 15 12
Road - 00 11 64
217 - 00 78 23
218 - 00 17 32
06 मोटी भुजपर म द्रा ु ं Govt.713 - 03 43 54
437 - 00 00 20
713 30 00 03 44
713 27 00 55 21
Govt.713 - 01 62 75
Gauchar.727 - 01 83 48
439 - 00 02 01
Gauchar.732 - 02 41 39
472 2 00 09 03
413 - 00 58 93
Gauchar.713 9 00 31 45
Gauchar.728 - 01 94 56
468 - 00 47 24
469 - 00 22 54
Govt.713 - 00 44 09
442 4 00 30 80
442 3 00 00 20
713 Road - 00 12 65
Govt.443 P 4 00 11 05
443 3 00 28 10
मोटी भुजपर म द्रा ु ं 446 - 00 14 89
445 - 00 97 80
444 - 00 00 20
Road - 00 07 77
713 Gauchar - 02 47 32
398 - 00 53 72
396 2 00 29 18
396 1 00 62 07
397 - 00 85 99
395 1 00 09 08
395 2
386 1 00 64 83
386 2
387 - 00 90 08
379 - 00 66 63
388 - 00 00 20
378/1 P 1 00 25 53
378/1 P 2
378 2
378 P 3
378 P 4
333 - 00 50 59
329 - 00 78 06
330 - 00 37 89
331 P 1 00 41 61
322/1 P 1 00 53 31
322 1 00 00 20
321 - 00 62 88
Road - 00 03 87
320 - 00 00 89
236 P 1 00 01 40
236 P 2
236 3
221 P 1 00 20 66
221 P 2
233 - 00 05 44
220 - 00 90 72
7 प््राागपर-2 म द्रा ु ं Govt. - 00 18 25
30 - 00 71 86
29 P1 00 59 82
29 P2
29 P3
Govt. - 00 46 13
प््राागपर-2 म द्रा ु ं 28 P 1 01 10 57
28 P 2
28 P 3
27 - 00 46 99
26 - 00 29 96
Govt. - 00 26 87
25 - 00 59 78
24 - 00 65 84
Govt. - 00 79 57
65 P 6 00 56 46
Govt. - 03 84 91
22 P 1 00 10 40
22 P 2
18 - 00 11 43
17 1 00 36 16
17 3 00 08 40
17 2 00 21 72
8 बराया म द्रा ु ं River - 00 90 52
462 - 00 14 57
461 - 00 14 51
463 - 00 28 70
460 - 00 10 13
465 - 00 18 89
Canal 509 - 00 31 98
370 - 00 02 33
371 - 00 31 22
372 - 00 32 21
373 - 00 36 55
368 - 00 03 23
365 - 00 44 88
364 - 00 48 22
361 - 00 00 67
363 - 00 24 78
362 - 00 18 20
Road 502 - 00 08 85
354 - 00 59 06
353 - 00 15 64
352 - 00 19 12
348 - 00 50 37
349 - 00 23 78
340 - 00 11 65
341 - 00 00 20
339 - 01 01 96
बराया म द्रा ु ं 357 - 00 07 84
Road 494 - 00 14 80
315 - 00 13 60
Road 492 - 00 31 09
Govt.314 - 00 18 01
Govt.313 - 00 00 20
310 - 00 02 01
493 - 00 12 92
312 - 01 04 53
311 - 00 70 22
308 - 00 04 48
302 - 01 15 95
301 - 00 23 22
300 - 00 44 78
293 - 00 96 73
288 - 00 00 20
289 - 00 00 20
292 - 00 88 75
291 - 00 33 23
9 प््राागपर-1 म द्रा ु ं 218 - 00 49 34
219 - 00 43 19
229 - 00 34 81
232 - 00 32 33
231 - 01 01 26
230 - 00 00 20
10 टोडा म द्रा ु ं 44 River - 00 78 81
Govt. 6 - 01 14 16
11 भोरारा म द्रा ु ं 344 - 00 00 20
347 - 01 07 11
390 Road - 00 14 29
348 - 00 62 32
349 - 00 11 37
350 - 00 35 11
351 - 00 30 20
352 - 00 15 03
353 - 00 50 48
354 - 00 25 47
355 - 00 26 97
356 - 00 46 76
322 - 00 14 14
321 - 00 35 92
320 - 00 36 27
319 - 00 23 02
360 - 00 03 60
भोरारा चालु म द्रा ु ं 318 - 00 47 78
317 Road - 00 02 99
286 - 00 03 06
287 - 00 31 07
288 - 00 23 76
317 Road - 00 11 17
283 - 00 10 46
289 - 00 34 91
282 - 00 00 13
290 - 00 65 41
291 - 00 00 20
292 - 00 00 20
293 - 00 00 22
378 - 00 00 55
377 - 00 02 78
12 विरानीया म द्रा ु ं Gauchar.352 - 00 26 40
Road - 00 07 49
351 - 00 65 97
349 - 00 08 00
Govt.348 - 00 02 29
345 - 00 00 45
346 - 00 44 98
344 - 00 25 29
343 - 00 21 65
13 ग ु दाला ं म द्रा ु ं 528 - 00 91 78
527 - 00 03 21
529 1 00 52 79
529 2
252 - 00 02 03
530 - 00 51 88
531 P 1 00 17 89
531 P 2
544 - 00 69 28
543 1 00 51 38
N.H.Road543/1 P 1 00 16 34
543 1 00 19 62
551 - 00 03 44
550 1 00 65 30
Road - 00 19 23
547 - 00 00 20
548 - 00 00 20
549 - 00 80 46
554 - 00 86 19
555 P 1 00 51 41
ग ु दाला चालु ं म द्रा ु ं 555 P 2
555 2
Road - 00 07 61
17 P 1 00 17 15
17 P 2
16 - 00 90 20
6 - 00 84 97
7 - 00 24 98
Cart Track - 00 12 64
7 - 00 10 38
Govt. - 01 10 57
94 2 00 46 75
95 - 00 06 06
133 - 00 72 28
132 - 00 39 51
Road - 00 09 23
134 - 00 19 90
138 - 01 26 68
Govt. - 00 16 99
200 - 00 02 20
201 - 01 43 23
206 - 00 65 94
Road - 00 10 03
384 - 00 67 27
385 - 00 02 86
388 - 00 42 19
389 - 00 52 82
390 - 00 00 06
388 - 00 12 24
391 - 00 36 64
382 - 00 29 44
Cart Track - 00 06 02
378 1 00 85 52
Govt. - 00 25 21
376 - 00 03 17
215 - 00 83 06
215 P 1
215 P 2
214/1 00 03 94
214/2
14 त्रगडी मांडवी Govt - 56 12 04
5572 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5573 5574 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5575 5576 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5577 5578 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5579 5580 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5581

[फा. सं. आर-12031/2/2018-ओआर-I/ई-26406]

शान्तनु धर, अवर सचिव5582 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2019

S.O. 1326.—Where as it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest and safety that for the Transportation of Hydrocarbon through Mundra – Bathinda Extension Pipeline from Tragadi to Gundala route, a pipeline should be laid by HPCL-Mittal Pipelines Limited, Mundra, Dist. Kutch, Gujarat.

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of protection of the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person who is interested in the land described in the said Schedule may submit objection in writing to Shri A. K. Vastani, Competent Authority, HPCL-Mittal Pipelines Limited, Mundra, Dist. Kutch, Gujarat and Prant Officer, Mundra, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, is published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.

SCHEDULE

DISTRICT : KUTCH STATE : GUJARAT

Sr. No. Village Tehsil Survey Number Sub.Div. No. Area
Ha. Are Sq.Mt.
1 2 3 4 5
1 Tragadi Mandvi Govt. 237 - 02 79 85
238 - 00 59 57
239 - 00 85 61
240 - 00 92 29
241 - 00 57 63
257 - 00 00 20
258 - 00 16 20
259 - 00 91 88
261 - 00 12 38
262 - 00 12 68
263 - 00 03 42
Govt. 260 - 00 49 20
Govt. 265 - 00 55 07
270 - 00 01 63
Govt. 260 - 00 16 68
266 - 00 21 07
267 - 00 00 75
Govt. 260 - 00 10 61
219 - 00 76 79
220 - 00 30 40
218 - 00 52 82
Govt. 226 - 00 57 86
201 - 00 74 44
Govt. 226 - 00 59 46
200 - 00 51 39
Govt. 226 - 00 20 92
Govt. 197 - 00 04 07
2 Nana Bhadiya Mandavi River - 00 60 91
305 1 00 04 06
Govt. 553 P. - 00 50 40
305 1 00 25 95
305 2 00 29 07
304 - 00 53 76
308 - 00 30 24
1 2 3 4 5
Nana Bhadiya Mandavi 307 1 00 31 01
307 2 00 33 31
309/1 P 1 00 00 20
309/1 P 2
309 2 00 05 76
311 3 00 52 12
310 1 00 66 76
310 2
Govt. 553 P 1 01 60 37
287 - 00 07 82
288 - 00 75 71
289 - 00 57 14
Govt. 553 P 1 00 04 06
290 1 00 33 04
290 2 00 23 10
Road - 00 10 86
280/P 1 P 1 00 00 20
280/P 1 P 2
280/P 1 P 3
280 P2
268 - 00 78 83
266 - 00 00 20
267 - 00 53 97
Road - 00 17 02
264 - 00 55 71
263 - 00 48 44
262 - 00 09 74
Govt. 553 P 1 00 32 16
257 1 00 66 27
Govt. 553 P 1 01 99 67
122 - 00 46 78
120 - 00 03 40
121 - 00 74 42
3 Kandagara Mota Mundra 379 - 00 11 89
Road - 00 20 75
380 - 00 65 11
385 1 00 47 70
385 2
387 - 00 45 75
388 - 00 00 84
390 2 00 38 26
386 1 00 01 04
390 1 00 55 88
396 - 00 31 34
395 - 00 24 93
394 1 00 48 62
394 2
394 3
393 1 00 09 35
402 - 00 04 56
393 3 00 50 20
Road - 00 08 18
Govt.517 P. - 02 06 71
490 - 00 00 20
491 - 00 01 60
Road - 00 01 28
503 2 00 06 38
504 - 00 54 75
512 - 00 22 59
Kandagara Mota Mundra 513 3 00 20 67
513 2 00 17 12
513 1 00 24 04
511 - 00 02 75
Road - 00 07 36
17 1 00 18 09
17 2 00 12 92
18 1 00 32 73
19 - 00 20 81
24 - 00 09 60
21 1 00 12 82
22 1 00 53 37
21 2 00 09 05
21 3 00 04 46
21 4 00 00 66
11 3 00 12 14
Road - 00 10 68
Govt.517 P. - 00 32 64
Chalta No.2 - 00 39 08
Road - 00 05 17
127 - 00 91 98
126 / 1 P 1 00 12 57
126 / 1 P 2
126/2 -
Govt. - 00 26 21
Road - 00 06 76
Govt. - 00 39 85
130 - 00 35 17
Govt. - 00 69 38
185 - 00 22 87
187 4 00 13 64
187 3 00 22 97
187 2 00 18 16
187 1 00 25 19
188 - 00 13 08
189 - 00 85 38
Govt. - 00 23 77
179 - 00 89 14
177 - 00 36 38
Road - 00 08 12
220 - 00 40 10
221 1 00 35 22
260 1 00 08 01
222 - 00 50 69
223 - 00 59 20
248 - 00 78 55
247 - 00 11 90
244 - 00 81 80
245 - 00 00 20
243 - 01 36 64
240 - 00 51 37
Road - 00 01 58
4 Shiracha Mundra 295 P 1 00 28 45
206 00 61 67
295 P 1 00 48 71
231 - 00 56 08
232 - 00 24 76
234 - 00 64 54
235 - 00 86 47
Shiracha Mundra 238 - 00 96 90
295 P 1 00 16 01
268 1 00 24 82
268 2 00 00 20
283 - 00 32 82
284 - 00 27 21
285 - 00 26 37
286 2 00 46 16
295 P 1 00 17 14
39 / 3 P 1 00 19 29
Cart Track 39 / 3 P 2 00 00 82
39 / 3 P 1 00 02 71
39 / 2 P 1 00 32 57
Cart Track - 00 06 74
39 / 2 P 1 00 25 40
40 - 00 18 48
41 - 01 16 00
42 - 00 05 43
74 - 00 65 37
73 2 00 24 01
73 1 00 07 01
73 3 00 12 30
73 4 00 03 17
61 - 01 23 54
60 - 00 15 42
59 5 00 15 31
59 4 00 60 31
5 Deshalpar Mundra 304 - 00 39 83
303 - 00 25 48
306 P 1 00 13 00
306 P 2
302 00 18 85
306 P 1 00 06 07
306 P 2
309 - 00 48 82
310 - 01 44 91
311 / 1 P 1 00 15 92
311 P 2
Road - 00 07 99
299 1 00 25 08
299 2 00 23 63
298 - 00 59 27
284 - 01 54 44
283 1 01 48 63
283 2
281 - 01 07 53
279 - 00 68 21
275 - 00 00 90
278 P 1 01 03 48
278 P 2
Cart Track - 00 04 29
276 - 00 45 86
Road - 00 06 41
241 2 00 00 86
219 1 00 43 04
219 / 1 P 1
219 2 00 15 12
Road - 00 11 64
Deshalpar Mundra 217 - 00 78 23
218 - 00 17 32
06 Moti Bhujpar Mundra Govt. 713 - 03 43 54
437 - 00 00 20
713 30 00 03 44
713 27 00 55 21
Govt. 713 - 01 62 75
GAUCHAR-727 - 01 83 48
439 - 00 02 01
GAUCHAR-732 - 02 41 39
472 2 00 09 03
413 - 00 58 93
GAUCHAR-713 9 00 31 45
GAUCHAR-728 - 01 94 56
468 - 00 47 24
469 - 00 22 54
Govt.-713 - 00 44 09
442 4 00 30 80
442 3 00 00 20
713 Road - 00 12 65
Govt.-443 P. 4 00 11 05
443 3 00 28 10
446 - 00 14 89
445 - 00 97 80
444 - 00 00 20
Road - 00 07 77
713 Gauchar - 02 47 32
398 - 00 53 72
396 2 00 29 18
396 1 00 62 07
397 - 00 85 99
395 1 00 09 08
395 2
386 1 00 64 83
386 2
387 - 00 90 08
379 - 00 66 63
388 - 00 00 20
378/1 P 1 00 25 53
378/1 P 2
378 2
378 P 3
378 P 4
333 - 00 50 59
329 - 00 78 06
330 - 00 37 89
331 P 1 00 41 61
322/1 P 1 00 53 31
322 1 00 00 20
321 - 00 62 88
Road - 00 03 87
320 - 00 00 89
236 P 1 00 01 40
236 P 2
236 3
221 P 1 00 20 66
221 P 2
233 - 00 05 44
220 - 00 90 72
7 Pragpar-2 Mundra Govt. - 00 18 25
30 - 00 71 86
29 P1 00 59 82
29 P2
29 P3
Govt. - 00 46 13
28 P 1 01 10 57
28 P 2
28 P 3
27 - 00 46 99
26 - 00 29 96
Govt. - 00 26 87
25 - 00 59 78
24 - 00 65 84
Govt. - 00 79 57
65 P 6 00 56 46
Govt. - 03 84 91
22 P 1 00 10 40
22 P 2
18 - 00 11 43
17 1 00 36 16
17 3 00 08 40
17 2 00 21 72
8 Baraya Mundra River - 00 90 52
462 - 00 14 57
461 - 00 14 51
463 - 00 28 70
460 - 00 10 13
465 - 00 18 89
Canal 509 - 00 31 98
370 - 00 02 33
371 - 00 31 22
372 - 00 32 21
373 - 00 36 55
368 - 00 03 23
365 - 00 44 88
364 - 00 48 22
361 - 00 00 67
363 - 00 24 78
362 - 00 18 20
Road 502 - 00 08 85
354 - 00 59 06
353 - 00 15 64
352 - 00 19 12
348 - 00 50 37
349 - 00 23 78
340 - 00 11 65
341 - 00 00 20
339 - 01 01 96
357 - 00 07 84
Road 494 - 00 14 80
315 - 00 13 60
Road 492 - 00 31 09
Govt.-314 - 00 18 01
Govt.-313 - 00 00 20
310 - 00 02 01
493 - 00 12 92
312 - 01 04 53
311 - 00 70 22
Baraya Mundra 308 - 00 04 48
302 - 01 15 95
301 - 00 23 22
300 - 00 44 78
293 - 00 96 73
288 - 00 00 20
289 - 00 00 20
292 - 00 88 75
291 - 00 33 23
9 Pragpar-1 Mundra 218 - 00 49 34
219 - 00 43 19
229 - 00 34 81
232 - 00 32 33
231 - 01 01 26
230 - 00 00 20
10 Toda Mundra 44 River - 00 78 81
Govt.6 - 01 14 16
11 Bhorara Mundra 344 - 00 00 20
347 - 01 07 11
390 Road - 00 14 29
348 - 00 62 32
349 - 00 11 37
350 - 00 35 11
351 - 00 30 20
352 - 00 15 03
353 - 00 50 48
354 - 00 25 47
355 - 00 26 97
356 - 00 46 76
322 - 00 14 14
321 - 00 35 92
320 - 00 36 27
319 - 00 23 02
360 - 00 03 60
318 - 00 47 78
317 Road - 00 02 99
286 - 00 03 06
287 - 00 31 07
288 - 00 23 76
317 Road - 00 11 17
283 - 00 10 46
289 - 00 34 91
282 - 00 00 13
290 - 00 65 41
291 - 00 00 20
292 - 00 00 20
293 - 00 00 22
378 - 00 00 55
377 - 00 02 78
12 Viraniya Mundra GAUCHAR-352 - 00 26 40
Road - 00 07 49
351 - 00 65 97
349 - 00 08 00
Govt.-348 - 00 02 29
345 - 00 00 45
346 - 00 44 98
344 - 00 25 29
343 - 00 21 65
13 Gundala Mundra 528 - 00 91 78
527 - 00 03 21
529 1 00 52 79
529 2
252 - 00 02 03
530 - 00 51 88
531 P 1 00 17 89
531 P 2
544 - 00 69 28
543 1 00 51 38
N.H.Road543/1 P 1 00 16 34
543 1 00 19 62
551 - 00 03 44
550 1 00 65 30
Road - 00 19 23
547 - 00 00 20
548 - 00 00 20
549 - 00 80 46
554 - 00 86 19
555 P 1 00 51 41
555 P 2
555 2
Road - 00 07 61
17 P 1 00 17 15
17 P 2
16 - 00 90 20
6 - 00 84 97
7 - 00 24 98
Cart Track - 00 12 64
7 - 00 10 38
Govt. - 01 10 57
94 2 00 46 75
95 - 00 06 06
133 - 00 72 28
132 - 00 39 51
Road - 00 09 23
134 - 00 19 90
138 - 01 26 68
Govt. - 00 16 99
200 - 00 02 20
201 - 01 43 23
206 - 00 65 94
Road - 00 10 03
384 - 00 67 27
385 - 00 02 86
388 - 00 42 19
389 - 00 52 82
390 - 00 00 06
388 - 00 12 24
391 - 00 36 64
Gundala Mundra 382 - 00 29 44
Cart Track - 00 06 02
378 1 00 85 52
Govt. - 00 25 21
376 - 00 03 17
215 - 00 83 06
215 P 1
215 P 2
214/1 00 03 94
214/2
14 Tragadi Mandvi Govt - 56 12 04
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5583 5584 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5585 5586 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5587 5588 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5589 5590 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[F. No. R-12031/2/2018-OR-I/E-26406]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली, 11 ुिलाई, 2019

काकाकाका. . . . आआआआ. 1327. 1327. 1327. 1327....————के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार के लोकनहत म(cid:7286) यह र्आ(cid:7019)यक (cid:7079)तीत होता है (cid:7408)क उडीसा रा(cid:6996)य म(cid:7286) पारादीप- सोमनापुर- हन(cid:7016)दया से पे(cid:7069)ोनलयम उ(cid:7004)पाद(cid:7298) के प(cid:7407)र्रहन के नलए इंनडयन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेन नलनमटेड के (cid:7367)ारा पाइपलाइन नबछाई ािनी चानहए।

और के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन नबछाने के (cid:7079)योनि के नलए यह र्आ(cid:7019)यक (cid:7079)तीत होता है ऐसी भूनम म(cid:7286) ोि इससे उपाब(cid:7373) अनुसूची मेर् (cid:7414)णत है और नसिम(cid:7286) उ(cid:7334) पाइपलाइन नबछाई ािने का (cid:7079)(cid:7021)र्ता है उपयोग के अनधकार का अ(िcid:6981)न (cid:7408)कया ािए।

अत: अब के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार पे(cid:7069)ोनलयम और खनन िपाइप लाइ(cid:7008)स (भूनम म(cid:7286) उपयोग के अनधकार का अ(िcid:6981)न) अनधननयम 1962 (1962 का 50) क(cid:7409) धारा 3 क(cid:7409) उपधारा (1) (cid:7367)ारा (cid:7079)द(cid:7004)त न(cid:7334)य(cid:7298) का (cid:7079)योग करते (cid:7263)ए उस भूनम के उपयोग के अनधकार अ(िcid:6981)न करने के अपने आय क(cid:7409) घोषणा करती है।

कोई (cid:7390)न(cid:7334) ोि उ(cid:7334) अनुसूची म(cid:7286) र् (cid:7414)णत भूनम म(cid:7286) नहतब(cid:7373) है उस ता(cid:7407)रख से नसि को इस अनधसूचना से भारत के रापि(cid:7074) (cid:7408)क (cid:7079)नतया साधारण निता को उपल(cid:7011)ध करा दी ािती है इ(cid:7333)(cid:7409)स (cid:7408)दन के भीतर भूनम के नीचे पाइपलाइन नबछाए ािने के नलए उसमे उपयोग के अनधकार अ(िcid:6981)न के स(cid:7013)ब(cid:7008)ध म(cid:7286) (cid:7088)ी नबमल (cid:7079)साद मोहंती, स(cid:6979)म (cid:7079)ानधकारी, पारादीप-सोमनापुर-ह(cid:7016)दीआ (cid:7079)ँड(cid:6989)ट पाइपलाइन पा(cid:7407)रयोनिा, इंनडयन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेन नलनमटेड पाइपलाइन (cid:7079)भाग, (cid:7332)ाट(cid:6981)र सं(cid:6990)या बी/2, इंनडयन ऑयल र्आासीय कॉलोनी,मेघड(cid:7013)(cid:7081)(cid:7271), पो(cid:7021)ट बॉ(cid:6989)स: कु (cid:7271)दा, बालासोर -756056 (ओनडा) को नलनखत (cid:7272)प से आ(cid:6979)ेप भे िसके गा।

अनुसूअनुसूअनुसूअनुसूचीचीचीची

इ इ ंनडयन कॉपरेन र इ इ ंनडयन ऑयलऑयलऑयलऑयल कॉप ंनडयन ंनडयन कॉप र र ेन नलनमटेड ेन ेन नलनमटेड
पारादीप पारादीप ---- सोसोसोसोमनापुर पारादीप पारादीप मनापुर ---- हदीआ मनापुर मनापुर हदीआ पाइपलाइ हदीआ हदीआ पाइपलाइनननन परयोनिा पाइपलाइ पाइपलाइ परयोनिा
3(1) अनुसूची 3(1) 3(1) 3(1) अनुसूची
नलिा नलिा ::::---- नलिा बालासोर राय राय ::::---- ओनडा ओनडा
....संसंसंसं तहसील तहसील काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम तहसील तहसील र्गॉर्गॉर्गॉर्गॉ काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम हालहालहालहाल लॉट लॉट मांक लॉट मांक क ु लकु लकु लकु ल अनधनहत अनधनहत ेल अनधनहत अनधनहत ेल
हैटेयर एयर एयरएयर र्गमीटर
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1 सोरो ग ुड सं 241 618 00 01 37
619 00 03 54
621/6194 00 02 53
621/6195 00 00 34
सोरो ग ुड सं 241 506/6190 00 00 54
506 00 00 51
506/6189 00 00 10
622 00 06 55
678 00 00 83
679 00 00 23
677 00 00 74
676 00 02 00
682/6159 00 01 90
682 00 01 03
681 00 00 51
683 00 00 03
689 00 00 35
504 00 04 01
498 00 01 04
200 00 06 68
201 00 02 41
202 00 00 36
205 00 01 20
207 00 01 68
208 00 06 49
233 00 04 18
224 00 00 06
232 00 02 83
264 00 06 21
269 00 00 22
268 00 00 74
267 00 02 60
266 00 02 14
85 00 01 72
94 00 03 91
101 00 02 29
103 00 01 67
105 00 02 96
115 00 03 41
सोरो ग ुड सं 241 116 00 06 45
117 00 03 09
123 00 01 56
124 00 01 38
125 00 01 68
127 00 03 38
128 00 01 24
129 00 01 85
130 00 00 72
131 00 03 41
132 00 00 81
141 00 02 84
142 00 00 10
140 00 02 21
893 00 00 89
892 00 00 20
894 00 01 70
895 00 00 67
896 00 00 10
897 00 02 14
890 00 01 35
1469 00 01 56
1471 00 03 03
1470 00 00 13
1464 00 02 60
1472 00 01 06
1463 00 07 54
1503 00 00 61
1540 00 00 94
1504 00 01 97
1538 00 02 83
1536 00 01 17
1547 00 00 10
1553 00 04 04
1595 00 00 05
सोरो ग ुड सं 241 1554 00 04 70
1555 00 00 80
1556 00 01 65
1592 00 01 57
1583 00 01 97
1584 00 01 20
1581 00 01 57
1585 00 01 57
1586 00 00 81
1588 00 00 09
1587 00 01 40
1651 00 03 63
1652 00 01 75
1654 00 00 04
1656 00 02 71
1655 00 00 09
1657 00 02 02
1649 00 00 13
1648 00 03 29
1646 00 00 28
1661 00 00 11
1644 00 03 65
1643 00 00 41
1641 00 02 76
1687 00 02 04
1688 00 03 83
1689 00 00 46
1196 00 03 69
1696 00 00 96
1695 00 01 32
1697 00 03 08
1180 00 01 90
1177 00 05 39
2526 00 01 52
2527 00 00 06
सोरो ग ुड सं 241 2528 00 02 26
2529 00 01 70
2533 00 02 01
2532 00 03 54
2530 00 00 10
2531 00 03 63
2581 00 01 79
2537 00 00 05
2580 00 03 26
2582 00 03 05
2611 00 02 84
2613 00 00 24
2615 00 07 50
2619 00 00 15
2620 00 00 32
2621 00 00 33
2622 00 00 37
2623 00 00 58
2626 00 00 47
2628 00 00 30
2627 00 01 08
2625 00 01 47
2630 00 00 33
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5591 5592 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5593 5594 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[ा. सं. आर-11025(11)/2/2019-ओआर-I/29478]

ा(cid:7008)तनु धर, र्अर सनर्च

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2019

S. O. 1327.—Whereas, it appears to the Indian Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Paradip-Somnathpur-Haldia, pipeline should be laid in State of Odisha by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, it appears to the Indian Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Bimal Prasad Mohanty, Competent[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5595 Authority, Paradip – Somnathpur – Haldia Product Pipeline Project, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipelines Division, Quarter No. B/2, Indian Oil Residential Colony, Meghadambaru, PO: Kuruda, Balasore-756056, Odisha.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited PROJECT : - PARADIP - SOMNATHPUR - HALDIA PIPELINE PROJECT SCHEDULE of 3(1)
DISTRICT : BALASORE STATE: ODISHA S. No. Name of Tehsil Name of Village Plot No.
Area
Hectare Are Sqm.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1 SORO GUR No. 241 618 00 01 37
619 00 03 54
621/6194 00 02 53
621/6195 00 00 34
506/6190 00 00 54
506 00 00 51
506/6189 00 00 10
622 00 06 55
678 00 00 83
679 00 00 23
677 00 00 74
676 00 02 00
682/6159 00 01 90
682 00 01 03
681 00 00 51
683 00 00 03
689 00 00 35
504 00 04 01
498 00 01 04
200 00 06 68
201 00 02 41
202 00 00 36
205 00 01 20
207 00 01 68
208 00 06 49
233 00 04 18
224 00 00 06
232 00 02 83
264 00 06 21
269 00 00 22
268 00 00 74
267 00 02 60
266 00 02 14
85 00 01 72
94 00 03 91
101 00 02 29
103 00 01 67
105 00 02 96
115 00 03 41
116 00 06 45
117 00 03 09
123 00 01 56
124 00 01 38
125 00 01 68
127 00 03 38
128 00 01 24
129 00 01 85
130 00 00 72
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
SORO GUR No. 241 131 00 03 41
132 00 00 81
141 00 02 84
142 00 00 10
140 00 02 21
893 00 00 89
892 00 00 20
894 00 01 70
895 00 00 67
896 00 00 10
897 00 02 14
890 00 01 35
1469 00 01 56
1471 00 03 03
1470 00 00 13
1464 00 02 60
1472 00 01 06
1463 00 07 54
1503 00 00 61
1540 00 00 94
1504 00 01 97
1538 00 02 83
1536 00 01 17
1547 00 00 10
1553 00 04 04
1595 00 00 05
1554 00 04 70
1555 00 00 80
1556 00 01 65
1592 00 01 57
1583 00 01 97
1584 00 01 20
1581 00 01 57
1585 00 01 57
1586 00 00 81
1588 00 00 09
1587 00 01 40
1651 00 03 63
1652 00 01 75
1654 00 00 04
1656 00 02 71
1655 00 00 09
1657 00 02 02
1649 00 00 13
1648 00 03 29
1646 00 00 28
1661 00 00 11
1644 00 03 65
1643 00 00 41
1641 00 02 76
1687 00 02 04
1688 00 03 83
1689 00 00 46
1196 00 03 69
1696 00 00 96
1695 00 01 32
1697 00 03 08
1180 00 01 90
1177 00 05 39
SORO GUR No. 241 2526 00 01 52
2527 00 00 06
2528 00 02 26
2529 00 01 70
2533 00 02 01
2532 00 03 54
2530 00 00 10
2531 00 03 63
2581 00 01 79
2537 00 00 05
2580 00 03 26
2582 00 03 05
2611 00 02 84
2613 00 00 24
2615 00 07 50
2619 00 00 15
2620 00 00 32
2621 00 00 33
2622 00 00 37
2623 00 00 58
2626 00 00 47
2628 00 00 30
2627 00 01 08
2625 00 01 47
2630 00 00 33
5596 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5597

[F. No. R-11025(11)/2/2019-OR-I/E-29478]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली, 11 ुिलाई, 2019

काकाकाका....आआआआ. . . . 1328132813281328....————के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार के लोकनहत म(cid:7286) यह र्आ(cid:7019)यक (cid:7079)तीत होता है (cid:7408)क ओनडा रा(cid:6996)य म(cid:7286) पारादीप- सोमनापुर-ह(cid:7016)दीआ से पे(cid:7069)ोनलयम उ(cid:7004)पाद(cid:7298) के प(cid:7407)र्रहन के नलए इंनडयन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेन नलनमटेड के (cid:7367)ारा पाइपलाइन नबछाई ािनी चानहए।

और के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन नबछाने के (cid:7079)योनि के नलए यह र्आ(cid:7019)यक (cid:7079)तीत होता है ऐसी भूनम म(cid:7286) ोि इससे उपाब(cid:7373) अनुसूची म(cid:7286)र् (cid:7414)णत है और नसि म(cid:7286) उ(cid:7334) पाइपलाइन नबछाई ािने का (cid:7079)(cid:7021)र्ता है उपयोग के अनधकार अ(िcid:6981)न (cid:7408)कया ािए।

अत: अब के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार पे(cid:7069)ोनलयम और खनन िपाइप लाइ(cid:7008)स भूनम उपयोग के अनधकार अ(िcid:6981)न अनधननयम 1962 (1962 का 50) क(cid:7409) धारा 3 क(cid:7409) उपधारा 1 (cid:7367)ारा (cid:7079)द(cid:7004)त न(cid:7334)य(cid:7298) का (cid:7079)योग करते (cid:7263)ए उस भूनम के उपयोग के अनधकार अ(िcid:6981)न करने के अपने आय क(cid:7409) घोषणा करती है।

कोई (cid:7390)न(cid:7334) ोि उ(cid:7334) अनुसूची म(cid:7286) र् (cid:7414)णत भूनम म(cid:7286) नहतब(cid:7373) है उस ता(cid:7407)रख से नसिको इस अनधसूचना से भारत के रापि(cid:7074) (cid:7408)क (cid:7079)नतया साधारण निता को उपल(cid:7011)ध करा दी ािती है इ(cid:7333)(cid:7409)स (cid:7408)दन के भीतर भूनम के नीचे पाइपलाइन नबछाए ािने के नलए उसमे उपयोग के अनधकार अ(िcid:6981)न के स(cid:7013)ब(cid:7008)ध म(cid:7286) (cid:7088)ी नबमल (cid:7079)साद मोहंती, स(cid:6979)म (cid:7079)ानधकारी, पारादीप-सोमनापुर-ह(cid:7016)दीआ (cid:7079)ँड(cid:6989)ट पाइपलाइन पा(cid:7407)रयोनिा, इंनडयन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेन नलनमटेड पाइपलाइन (cid:7079)भाग, (cid:7332)ाट(cid:6981)र सं(cid:6990)या बी/2,इंनडयन ऑयल र्आासीय कॉलोनी,मेघड(cid:7013)(cid:7081)(cid:7271), पो(cid:7021)ट बॉ(cid:6989)स : कु (cid:7271)दा, बालासोर -756056 (ओनडा) को नलनखत (cid:7272)प से आ(cid:6979)ेप भे िसके गा।

5598 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

इ इ ंनडयन र इ इ ंनडयन ऑयलऑयलऑयलऑयल कॉकॉकॉकॉपपपपरेन ंनडयन ंनडयन र र ेन नलनमटेड ेन ेन नलनमटेड
पारादीप पारादीप ---- सोमनापुर पारादीप पारादीप सोमनापुर –––– हहहह दी सोमनापुर सोमनापुर दीआआआआ ँडट दी दी ँडट पापापापाइपलाइ ँडट ँडट इपलाइनननन परयोनिा इपलाइ इपलाइ परयोनिा
3(1) अनुसूची 3(1) 3(1) 3(1) अनुसूची
नलिा राय बालासोर नलिा---- नलिा नलिा राय ::::---- ओनडा राय राय ओनडा
....संसंसंसं तहसील तहसील काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम तहसील तहसील र्गॉर्गॉर्गॉर्गॉ काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम लॉट मांक लॉट लॉट मांक ेल
हैटेयर एयर एयरएयर र्गमीटर
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1 र ेमुना पटरा - 250 1 00 01 49
2 00 00 15
2 र ेमुना नहराटकरी - 227 1423 00 03 27
1422 00 04 80
863 00 01 09
859 00 05 98
868 00 11 00
3 र ेमुना पहाडपुर - 217 214 00 05 54
179 00 00 76
183 00 03 36
181 00 00 02
182 00 01 88
184 00 00 11
180 00 04 02
166 00 03 33
185 00 00 13
165 00 06 52
160 00 02 74
159 00 09 26
157 00 12 73
156 00 06 82
155 00 06 19
150 00 01 32
149 00 01 77
148 00 01 04
147 00 01 36
144 00 02 77
146 00 07 02
र ेमुना पहाडपुर - 217 145 00 00 80
78 00 06 54
24 00 06 97
23 00 01 27
16 00 00 20
18 00 00 20
19 00 00 20
20 00 04 06
17 00 07 24
4 र ेमुना हनदया - 77 1523 00 10 79
1490 00 00 03
1491 00 03 92
1492 00 06 03
1480 00 00 01
1479 00 04 74
5 र ेमुना पादाबडगँ - 44 3185/3054 00 00 04
6 र ेमुना बडपाल - 88 1486 00 00 05
7 बालासोर खाननगर - 210 1925/2047 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5599

[ा. सं. आर-11025(11)/2/2019-ओआर-I/29478]

ा(cid:7008)तनु धर, र्अर सनर्च

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2019

S. O. 1328.—Whereas, it appears to the Indian Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Paradip-Somnathpur –Haldia, a pipeline should be laid in State of Odisha by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, it appears to the Indian Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Bimal Prasad Mohanty, Competent Authority, Paradip – Somnathpur – Haldia Product Pipeline Project, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipelines Division, Quarter No. B/2, Indian Oil Residential Colony, Meghadambaru, PO: Kuruda, Balasore-756056,Odisha.

5600 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
PROJECT : - PARADIP - SOMNATHPUR - HALDIA PRODUCT PIPELINE PROJECT
SCHEDULE of 3(1)
DISTRICT : BALASORE STATE: ODISHA Area Sl. No. Name of Tehsil Name of Village Plot No. Hectare
Are Sqm.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1 REMUNA PATARA - 250 1 00 01 49
2 00 00 15
2 REMUNA HIRATIKIRI - 227 1423 00 03 27
1422 00 04 80
863 00 01 09
859 00 05 98
868 00 11 00
3 REMUNA PAHADAPUR - 217 214 00 05 54
179 00 00 76
183 00 03 36
181 00 00 02
182 00 01 88
184 00 00 11
180 00 04 02
166 00 03 33
185 00 00 13
165 00 06 52
160 00 02 74
159 00 09 26
157 00 12 73
156 00 06 82
155 00 06 19
150 00 01 32
149 00 01 77
148 00 01 04
147 00 01 36
144 00 02 77
146 00 07 02
145 00 00 80
78 00 06 54
24 00 06 97
23 00 01 27
16 00 00 20
18 00 00 20
19 00 00 20
20 00 04 06
17 00 07 24
4 REMUNA HALADIA - 77 1523 00 10 79
1490 00 00 03
1491 00 03 92
1492 00 06 03
1480 00 00 01
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
REMUNA HALADIA - 77 1479 00 04 74
5 REMUNA PADABADAGAN - 44 3185/3054 00 00 04
6 REMUNA BADPAL - 88 1486 00 00 05
7 BALASORE KHANNAGAR - 210 1925/2047 00 00 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5601

[F. No. R-11025(11)/2/2019-OR-I/E-29478]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली, 11 ुिलाई, 2019

काकाकाका.... आआआआ. 1329. 1329. 1329. 1329....————के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार के लोकनहत म(cid:7286) यह र्आ(cid:7019)यक (cid:7079)तीत होता है (cid:7408)क उडीसा रा(cid:6996)य म(cid:7286) पारादीप- सोमनापुर-ह(cid:7016)दीआ से पे(cid:7069)ोनलयम उ(cid:7004)पाद(cid:7298) के प(cid:7407)र्रहन के नलए इंनडयन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेन नलनमटेड के (cid:7367)ारा पाईप लाइन नबछाई ािनी चानहए।

और के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन नबछाने के (cid:7079)योनि के नलए यह र्आ(cid:7019)यक (cid:7079)तीत होता है (cid:7408)क ऐसी भूनम म(cid:7286) ोि इससे उपाब(cid:7373) अनुसूची म(cid:7286)र् (cid:7414)णत है और नसिम(cid:7286) उ(cid:7334) पाइपलाइन नबछाई ािने का (cid:7079)(cid:7021)र्ता है उपयोग के अनधकार अ(िcid:6981)न (cid:7408)कया ािए।

अत: अब, के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार पे(cid:7069)ोनलयम और खनन िपाइप लाई(cid:7008)स (भूनम उपयोग के अनधकार अ(िcid:6981)न) अनधननयम 1962 (1962 का 50) क(cid:7409) धारा 3 क(cid:7409) उपधारा (1) (cid:7367)ारा (cid:7079)द(cid:7004)त न(cid:7334)य(cid:7298) का (cid:7079)योग करते (cid:7263)ए उस भूनम के उपयोग के अनधकार अ(िcid:6981)न करने के अपने आय क(cid:7409) घोषणा करती है।

कोई (cid:7390)न(cid:7334) ोि उ(cid:7334) अनुसूची म(cid:7286) र् (cid:7414)णत भुनम म(cid:7286) नहतब(cid:7373) है उस ता(cid:7407)रख से नसि को इस अनधसूचना से भारत के रापि(cid:7074) (cid:7408)क (cid:7079)नतया साधारण निता को उपल(cid:7011)ध करा दी ािती है इ(cid:7333)(cid:7409)स (cid:7408)दन के भीतर भूनम के नीचे पाइपलाइन नबछाए ािने के नलए उसम(cid:7286) उपयोग के अनधकार अ(िcid:6981)न के स(cid:7013)ब(cid:7008)ध म(cid:7286) (cid:7088)ी नबमल (cid:7079)साद मोहंती, स(cid:6979)म (cid:7079)ानधकारी, पारादीप-सोमनापुर-ह(cid:7016)दीआ (cid:7079)ँड(cid:6989)ट पाइपलाईन पा(cid:7407)रयोनिा, इंनडयन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेन नलनमटेड पाइपलाईन (cid:7079)भाग, (cid:7332)ाट(cid:6981)र सं(cid:6990)या बी/2,इंनडयन ऑयल र्आासीय कॉलोनी,मेघड(cid:7013)(cid:7081)(cid:7271), पो(cid:7021)ट बॉ(cid:6989)स: कु (cid:7271)दा, बालासोर- 756056 (ओनडा) को नलनखत (cid:7272)प से आ(cid:6979)ेपभे िसके गा।

इ इ ंनडयन र इ इ ंनडयन ऑयलऑयलऑयलऑयल कॉकॉकॉकॉपपपपरेन ंनडयन ंनडयन र र ेन नलनमटेड ेन ेन नलनमटेड
पारादीप पारादीप ---- सोमनापुर पारादीप पारादीप सोमनापुर –––– हहहह दी सोमनापुर दीआआआआ पाइपलाईन दी दी पाइपलाईन परयोनिा पाइपलाईन पाइपलाईन परयोनिा
3(1) अनुसूची 3(1) 3(1) 3(1) अनुसूची
नलिा राय बालासोर नलिा ::::---- नलिा राय ::::---- ओनडा राय राय ओनडा ....संसंसंसं तहसील तहसील काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम तहसील तहसील र्गॉर्गॉर्गॉर्गॉ काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम हालहालहालहाल लॉट लॉट मांक लॉट लॉट मांक
क ु लकु लकु लकु ल अअअअनधनहत नधनहत ेल नधनहत नधनहत ेल
हैटेयर एयर एयरएयर र्गमीटर
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1 बालासोर क ु अँरपुर - 288 220 00 01 33
216 00 10 82
210 00 00 80
182 00 00 01
184 00 04 98
185 00 01 54
186 00 01 97
बालासोर क ु अँरपुर - 288 205 00 01 04
187 00 00 20
204 00 04 92
192 00 03 88
196 00 02 29
195 00 01 07
302 00 00 47
303 00 00 42
304 00 00 53
544 00 01 02
536 00 02 73
537 00 02 25
532 00 01 40
531 00 01 29
525 00 06 55
519 00 02 59
514 00 00 38
513 00 03 72
512 00 00 04
562 00 01 51
565 00 06 49
569 00 04 89
568 00 04 80
695 00 00 39
570 00 00 19
571 00 02 12
688 00 03 82
692 00 00 20
691 00 05 31
691/1567 00 00 61
689 00 07 39
685 00 04 46
669 00 00 60
670 00 05 16
668 00 04 18
बालासोर क ु अँरपुर - 288 667 00 03 49
666 00 02 03
2 बालासोर च ंडीपुर - 278 403/525 00 01 93
403 00 00 20
421 00 03 39
422 00 00 10
418 00 00 37
419 00 02 60
420 00 01 93
416 00 00 18
413 00 00 46
414 00 02 04
415 00 00 67
410 00 02 31
356 00 03 14
357 00 04 32
354 00 00 45
352/508 00 02 56
352 00 00 31
350 00 03 81
349 00 00 63
348 00 01 37
3 बालासोर भीमपुर - 279 162 00 04 48
161 00 02 98
157 00 02 55
156 00 02 51
149 00 04 41
145 00 04 28
143 00 01 85
136 00 02 94
137 00 01 54
130 00 03 07
130/4385 00 02 83
104 00 00 81
105 00 01 43
बालासोर भीमपुर - 279 106 00 00 11
107 00 03 51
108 00 02 29
121 00 00 20
111 00 00 21
110 00 00 52
90/4585 00 00 20
109 00 04 21
90 00 00 20
89 00 01 67
88 00 02 11
87 00 00 34
80 00 02 96
78 00 01 58
77 00 02 37
62 00 02 40
61 00 00 33
51 00 02 36
54 00 01 58
55 00 01 67
56 00 02 37
36 00 00 71
35 00 02 98
34 00 01 52
22 00 03 26
25 00 07 18
29 00 00 16
26 00 03 28
27 00 02 20
268 00 01 45
275 00 04 87
276 00 03 03
1 00 00 72
4 बालासोर छ ेलीआपदा - 277 491 00 03 24
492 00 02 99
बालासोर छ ेलीआपदा - 277 493 00 02 51
494 00 01 02
446 00 02 22
448 00 00 96
447 00 00 84
449 00 00 07
450 00 02 12
455 00 00 05
451/521 00 03 59
451/522 00 00 10
451 00 02 51
452 00 02 93
453 00 01 30
408 00 00 79
453/552 00 00 03
407 00 03 81
405 00 01 39
414 00 02 44
415 00 01 76
404 00 03 64
344 00 02 43
341 00 04 76
340 00 01 48
338 00 03 37
337 00 02 28
310 00 03 35
311 00 00 06
313 00 00 04
312 00 03 04
309 00 00 12
315 00 04 88
5 बालासोर गोनब दा - 212 971 00 08 10
970 00 01 39
965 00 00 20
962 00 00 20
बालासोर गोनब दा - 212 961 00 00 20
980 00 07 94
981 00 05 03
982 00 00 46
983 00 07 40
987 00 02 05
988 00 05 64
1015 00 00 32
1069 00 06 76
1070 00 01 20
1071 00 09 36
1461 00 01 04
1458 00 08 88
1457 00 03 52
1456 00 01 51
1454 00 04 13
1453 00 04 76
1355 00 00 31
1244 00 08 30
1245 00 07 48
1249 00 12 35
1246 00 00 20
6 बालासोर क ं टाबननया - 224 28 00 05 74
27 00 02 90
26 00 05 89
25 00 00 09
17 00 00 22
16 00 00 15
2 00 02 24
3/152 00 00 30
3 00 18 73
4 00 02 08
7 बालासोर ख ंडाहार - 216 1017 00 13 14
1011 00 01 63
1018 00 00 01
बालासोर ख ंडाहार - 216 1010 00 09 52
1006 00 00 77
1007 00 06 10
1005 00 01 56
1004 00 06 19
1068 00 01 02
1104 00 07 04
1103 00 05 21
1105 00 00 20
1106 00 04 71
1124 00 16 67
1120 00 05 21
1123 00 00 14
1122 00 06 19
1121 00 02 02
1131 00 04 35
8 बालासोर नयापारा - 213 1118 00 02 04
1119 00 04 47
1120 00 02 31
1276 00 09 52
1122 00 00 02
1123 00 11 19
1124 00 00 29
1127 00 00 34
1126 00 04 00
1125 00 07 65
1068 00 01 79
1067 00 01 96
1066 00 02 37
823 00 09 73
840 00 03 29
839 00 05 23
838 00 00 59
835 00 08 76
833 00 01 30
बालासोर नयापारा - 213 721 00 00 02
836 00 03 74
876 00 00 49
877 00 00 46
878 00 03 18
879 00 02 77
881 00 08 05
885 00 07 77
9 बालासोर राइसुआँ - 127 1744 00 03 58
1747 00 05 56
1746 00 02 23
1766 00 10 74
1767 00 01 35
1726 00 05 09
1725 00 08 41
1784 00 03 24
1785 00 03 99
1710 00 00 20
1787 00 04 58
1793 00 06 48
1694 00 11 04
1698 00 04 94
1696 00 00 10
1695 00 00 10
1682 00 00 02
1687 00 00 10
1683 00 02 36
1684 00 02 16
1680 00 00 08
1638 00 08 35
1639 00 00 71
1640 00 00 20
1646 00 00 99
1642 00 01 00
1641 00 01 51
10101010 बालासोर ाहाािनगर - 276 48/1684 00 01 96
42 00 01 62
47 00 02 38
45 00 01 84
44 00 02 06
44/1792 00 00 10
43 00 01 96
41 00 02 21
37 00 00 05
38 00 02 73
36 00 01 64
36/1495 00 00 83
35 00 01 17
34 00 01 39
33 00 00 80
21 00 00 04
22 00 02 91
23 00 02 79
24 00 00 10
16 00 07 10
15 00 03 38
8 00 00 20
9 00 04 32
7 00 09 79
4 00 02 88
1 00 01 04
11111111 बालासोर यिदेबकसपा-274 2282 00 00 56
2283 00 10 22
2284 00 04 28
2285 00 02 58
2286 00 00 20
12121212 बालासोर आगमउदा - 206 681 00 07 83
682 00 07 63
686 00 04 89
687 00 04 79
बालासोर आगमउदा - 206 653 00 00 43
614 00 05 98
613 00 07 41
612 00 00 20
601 00 04 38
607/709 00 01 42
607 00 05 44
608 00 03 64
606 00 01 14
569 00 00 31
502 00 10 88
503 00 03 36
504 00 02 40
557 00 00 89
556 00 09 94
555 00 02 15
543 00 04 48
538 00 04 76
530 00 01 44
13131313 बालासोर ओलाओल - 226 19 00 00 05
20 00 01 74
24 00 01 45
21 00 01 79
22 00 00 20
17 00 08 39
23 00 03 18
14141414 बालासोर कादमउदा - 207 473 00 02 80
474 00 05 15
471 00 00 20
470 00 02 61
426 00 00 16
468 00 04 03
467 00 01 32
427 00 01 47
428 00 00 26
बालासोर कादमउदा - 207 465 00 02 55
431 00 09 24
432 00 01 28
433 00 00 44
434 00 06 34
437 00 01 20
436 00 01 57
435 00 03 49
443 00 02 41
441 00 00 20
442 00 04 27
447 00 08 85
15151515 बालासोर बरहमपुर - 208 1092 00 01 38
1116 00 08 65
1115 00 01 92
1111 00 06 96
1112 00 01 33
1110 00 03 59
1103 00 00 28
1104 00 02 39
1105 00 00 78
1039 00 00 53
1007 00 00 69
1005 00 05 73
1006 00 00 75
1003 00 05 92
1002 00 03 12
16161616 बालासोर काद - 209 7 00 00 57
6 00 09 11
1 00 03 35
2 00 04 27
17171717 बालासोर नमरनगमुडी - 201 1128 00 00 58
1129 00 08 09
1138 00 06 69
1133 00 11 49
बालासोर नमरनगमुडी - 201 1134 00 01 00
1043 00 10 55
1040 00 03 91
1041 00 00 66
1038 00 04 65
1037 00 03 84
1035 00 07 13
1021 00 00 53
1014 00 05 15
1015 00 00 20
1017 00 07 03
940 00 02 57
18181818 बालासोर ाि - 194 1 00 01 51
16 00 00 10
14 00 02 49
13 00 09 22
12 00 00 10
11 00 03 75
32 00 03 25
31 00 01 21
33 00 00 17
42 00 05 81
37 00 01 40
38 00 07 52
39 00 00 66
19191919 बालासोर नराम - 200 337 00 00 60
316 00 05 43
317 00 04 65
318 00 00 34
314 00 05 22
319 00 03 09
313 00 06 88
322 00 01 28
185 00 00 20
181 00 07 95
बालासोर नराम - 200 180 00 04 91
179 00 04 57
173 00 00 39
161 00 07 10
162 00 00 60
170 00 00 41
169 00 02 92
168 00 02 30
165 00 01 84
164 00 01 96
163 00 05 27
151 00 01 43
379 00 01 69
20202020 बालासोर आंको - 199 2240 00 00 67
2241 00 03 60
2242 00 03 30
2243 00 03 66
2247 00 02 78
2248 00 10 53
2249 00 00 76
2004 00 06 98
2003 00 00 12
2002 00 13 37
1999 00 00 31
2001 00 04 22
1991 00 00 45
1957 00 01 30
1966 00 03 48
1958 00 07 29
1951 00 05 18
1949 00 03 11
1947 00 00 71
1948 00 06 03
21212121 बालासोर मइँनषयाली - 186 115 00 00 96
111 00 00 22
बालासोर मइँनषयाली - 186 116 00 05 16
110 00 02 97
108 00 00 54
45 00 03 14
46 00 01 80
48 00 05 46
49 00 05 17
51 00 01 01
52 00 15 27
53 00 01 80
54 00 00 10
37 00 15 56
24 00 06 06
20 00 05 64
19 00 02 47
3 00 01 89
2 00 01 99
1 00 01 34
22222222 बालासोर टोलकनडहा - 196 1 00 00 20
5 00 00 20
6 00 00 20
5602 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5603 5604 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5605 5606 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5607 5608 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5609 5610 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5611 5612 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5613 5614 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[ा. सं. आर-11025(11)/2/2019-ओआर-I/29478]

ा(cid:7008)तनु धर, र्अर सनर्च

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2019

S. O. 1329.–Whereas, it appears to the Indian Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation ofPetroleum Product from Paradip-Somnathpur-Haldiaa a, pipeline should be laid in State of Odisha by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, it appears to the Indian Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Bimal Prasad Mohanty, Competent Authority, Paradip – Somnathpur – Haldia Product Pipeline Project, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipelines Division, Quarter No. B/2, Indian Oil Residential Colony, Meghadambaru, PO: Kuruda, Balasore-756056, Odisha.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5615
SCHEDULE Indian Oil Corporation Limited
PROJECT : - PARADIP - SOMNATHPUR - HALDIA PIPELINE PROJECT
SCHEDULE of 3(1)
DISTRICT : BALASORE STATE: ODISHA
Sl. No. Name of Tehsil Name of Village Survey No. Area
Hectare Are Sqm.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1 BALASORE KUANRPUR - 288 220 00 01 33
216 00 10 82
210 00 00 80
182 00 00 01
184 00 04 98
185 00 01 54
186 00 01 97
205 00 01 04
187 00 00 20
204 00 04 92
192 00 03 88
196 00 02 29
195 00 01 07
302 00 00 47
303 00 00 42
304 00 00 53
544 00 01 02
536 00 02 73
537 00 02 25
532 00 01 40
531 00 01 29
525 00 06 55
519 00 02 59
514 00 00 38
513 00 03 72
512 00 00 04
562 00 01 51
565 00 06 49
569 00 04 89
568 00 04 80
695 00 00 39
570 00 00 19
571 00 02 12
688 00 03 82
692 00 00 20
691 00 05 31
691/1567 00 00 61
689 00 07 39
685 00 04 46
669 00 00 60
670 00 05 16
668 00 04 18
667 00 03 49
666 00 02 03
2 BALASORE CHANDIPUR - 278 403/525 00 01 93
403 00 00 20
421 00 03 39
422 00 00 10
418 00 00 37
419 00 02 60
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
BALASORE CHANDIPUR - 278 420 00 01 93
416 00 00 18
413 00 00 46
414 00 02 04
415 00 00 67
410 00 02 31
356 00 03 14
357 00 04 32
354 00 00 45
352/508 00 02 56
352 00 00 31
350 00 03 81
349 00 00 63
348 00 01 37
3 BALASORE BHIMPUR - 279 162 00 04 48
161 00 02 98
157 00 02 55
156 00 02 51
149 00 04 41
145 00 04 28
143 00 01 85
136 00 02 94
137 00 01 54
130 00 03 07
130/4385 00 02 83
104 00 00 81
105 00 01 43
106 00 00 11
107 00 03 51
108 00 02 29
121 00 00 20
111 00 00 21
110 00 00 52
90/4585 00 00 20
109 00 04 21
90 00 00 20
89 00 01 67
88 00 02 11
87 00 00 34
80 00 02 96
78 00 01 58
77 00 02 37
62 00 02 40
61 00 00 33
51 00 02 36
54 00 01 58
55 00 01 67
56 00 02 37
36 00 00 71
35 00 02 98
34 00 01 52
22 00 03 26
25 00 07 18
29 00 00 16
26 00 03 28
27 00 02 20
268 00 01 45
275 00 04 87
276 00 03 03
1 00 00 72
4 BALASORE CHHELIAPADA - 277 491 00 03 24
492 00 02 99
493 00 02 51
494 00 01 02
446 00 02 22
448 00 00 96
447 00 00 84
449 00 00 07
450 00 02 12
455 00 00 05
451/521 00 03 59
451/522 00 00 10
451 00 02 51
452 00 02 93
453 00 01 30
408 00 00 79
453/552 00 00 03
407 00 03 81
405 00 01 39
414 00 02 44
415 00 01 76
404 00 03 64
344 00 02 43
341 00 04 76
340 00 01 48
338 00 03 37
337 00 02 28
310 00 03 35
311 00 00 06
313 00 00 04
312 00 03 04
309 00 00 12
315 00 04 88
5 BALASORE GOBINDA - 212 971 00 08 10
970 00 01 39
965 00 00 20
962 00 00 20
961 00 00 20
980 00 07 94
981 00 05 03
982 00 00 46
983 00 07 40
987 00 02 05
988 00 05 64
1015 00 00 32
1069 00 06 76
1070 00 01 20
1071 00 09 36
1461 00 01 04
1458 00 08 88
1457 00 03 52
1456 00 01 51
1454 00 04 13
1453 00 04 76
1355 00 00 31
1244 00 08 30
1245 00 07 48
BALASORE GOBINDA - 212 1249 00 12 35
1246 00 00 20
6 BALASORE KANTABANIA - 224 28 00 05 74
27 00 02 90
26 00 05 89
25 00 00 09
17 00 00 22
16 00 00 15
2 00 02 24
3/152 00 00 30
3 00 18 73
4 00 02 08
7 BALASORE KHANDAHARA - 216 1017 00 13 14
1011 00 01 63
1018 00 00 01
1010 00 09 52
1006 00 00 77
1007 00 06 10
1005 00 01 56
1004 00 06 19
1068 00 01 02
1104 00 07 04
1103 00 05 21
1105 00 00 20
1106 00 04 71
1124 00 16 67
1120 00 05 21
1123 00 00 14
1122 00 06 19
1121 00 02 02
1131 00 04 35
8 BALASORE NAYAPARA - 213 1118 00 02 04
1119 00 04 47
1120 00 02 31
1276 00 09 52
1122 00 00 02
1123 00 11 19
1124 00 00 29
1127 00 00 34
1126 00 04 00
1125 00 07 65
1068 00 01 79
1067 00 01 96
1066 00 02 37
823 00 09 73
840 00 03 29
839 00 05 23
838 00 00 59
835 00 08 76
833 00 01 30
721 00 00 02
836 00 03 74
876 00 00 49
877 00 00 46
878 00 03 18
879 00 02 77
881 00 08 05
885 00 07 77
9 BALASORE RAISUAN - 127 1744 00 03 58
1747 00 05 56
1746 00 02 23
1766 00 10 74
1767 00 01 35
1726 00 05 09
1725 00 08 41
1784 00 03 24
1785 00 03 99
1710 00 00 20
1787 00 04 58
1793 00 06 48
1694 00 11 04
1698 00 04 94
1696 00 00 10
1695 00 00 10
1682 00 00 02
1687 00 00 10
1683 00 02 36
1684 00 02 16
1680 00 00 08
1638 00 08 35
1639 00 00 71
1640 00 00 20
1646 00 00 99
1642 00 01 00
1641 00 01 51
10 BALASORE SAHAJANAGAR - 276 48/1684 00 01 96
42 00 01 62
47 00 02 38
45 00 01 84
44 00 02 06
44/1792 00 00 10
43 00 01 96
41 00 02 21
37 00 00 05
38 00 02 73
36 00 01 64
36/1495 00 00 83
35 00 01 17
34 00 01 39
33 00 00 80
21 00 00 04
22 00 02 91
23 00 02 79
24 00 00 10
16 00 07 10
15 00 03 38
8 00 00 20
9 00 04 32
7 00 09 79
4 00 02 88
1 00 01 04
11 BALASORE JAYDEBKASAPA - 274 2282 00 00 56
2283 00 10 22
2284 00 04 28
2285 00 02 58
2286 00 00 20
12 BALASORE AGAMAUDA - 206 681 00 07 83
BALASORE AGAMAUDA - 206 682 00 07 63
686 00 04 89
687 00 04 79
653 00 00 43
614 00 05 98
613 00 07 41
612 00 00 20
601 00 04 38
607/709 00 01 42
607 00 05 44
608 00 03 64
606 00 01 14
569 00 00 31
502 00 10 88
503 00 03 36
504 00 02 40
557 00 00 89
556 00 09 94
555 00 02 15
543 00 04 48
538 00 04 76
530 00 01 44
13 BALASORE ALAOL - 226 19 00 00 05
20 00 01 74
24 00 01 45
21 00 01 79
22 00 00 20
17 00 08 39
23 00 03 18
14 BALASORE KADAMOUDA - 207 473 00 02 80
474 00 05 15
471 00 00 20
470 00 02 61
426 00 00 16
468 00 04 03
467 00 01 32
427 00 01 47
428 00 00 26
465 00 02 55
431 00 09 24
432 00 01 28
433 00 00 44
434 00 06 34
437 00 01 20
436 00 01 57
435 00 03 49
443 00 02 41
441 00 00 20
442 00 04 27
447 00 08 85
15 BALASORE BERHAMPUR - 208 1092 00 01 38
1116 00 08 65
1115 00 01 92
1111 00 06 96
1112 00 01 33
1110 00 03 59
1103 00 00 28
1104 00 02 39
1105 00 00 78
BALASORE BERHAMPUR - 208 1039 00 00 53
1007 00 00 69
1005 00 05 73
1006 00 00 75
1003 00 05 92
1002 00 03 12
16 BALASORE KADA - 209 7 00 00 57
6 00 09 11
1 00 03 35
2 00 04 27
17 BALASORE MIRIGIMUNDI - 201 1128 00 00 58
1129 00 08 09
1138 00 06 69
1133 00 11 49
1134 00 01 00
1043 00 10 55
1040 00 03 91
1041 00 00 66
1038 00 04 65
1037 00 03 84
1035 00 07 13
1021 00 00 53
1014 00 05 15
1015 00 00 20
1017 00 07 03
940 00 02 57
18 BALASORE HUJA - 194 1 00 01 51
16 00 00 10
14 00 02 49
13 00 09 22
12 00 00 10
11 00 03 75
32 00 03 25
31 00 01 21
33 00 00 17
42 00 05 81
37 00 01 40
38 00 07 52
39 00 00 66
19 BALASORE SAKTIRAM - 200 337 00 00 60
316 00 05 43
317 00 04 65
318 00 00 34
314 00 05 22
319 00 03 09
313 00 06 88
322 00 01 28
185 00 00 20
181 00 07 95
180 00 04 91
179 00 04 57
173 00 00 39
161 00 07 10
162 00 00 60
170 00 00 41
169 00 02 92
168 00 02 30
165 00 01 84
164 00 01 96
BALASORE SAKTIRAM - 200 163 00 05 27
151 00 01 43
379 00 01 69
20 BALASORE ANKO - 199 2240 00 00 67
2241 00 03 60
2242 00 03 30
2243 00 03 66
2247 00 02 78
2248 00 10 53
2249 00 00 76
2004 00 06 98
2003 00 00 12
2002 00 13 37
1999 00 00 31
2001 00 04 22
1991 00 00 45
1957 00 01 30
1966 00 03 48
1958 00 07 29
1951 00 05 18
1949 00 03 11
1947 00 00 71
1948 00 06 03
21 BALASORE MAINSIALI - 186 115 00 00 96
111 00 00 22
116 00 05 16
110 00 02 97
108 00 00 54
45 00 03 14
46 00 01 80
48 00 05 46
49 00 05 17
51 00 01 01
52 00 15 27
53 00 01 80
54 00 00 10
37 00 15 56
24 00 06 06
20 00 05 64
19 00 02 47
3 00 01 89
2 00 01 99
1 00 01 34
22 BALASORE TOLAKADIHA - 196 1 00 00 20
5 00 00 20
6 00 00 20
5616 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5617 5618 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5619 5620 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5621 5622 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली, 11 ुिलाई, 2019

काकाकाका.... आआआआ.... 1330133013301330....————के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार के लोकनहत म(cid:7286) यह र्आ(cid:7019)यक (cid:7079)तीत होता है (cid:7408)क उडीसा रा(cid:6996)य म(cid:7286) पारादीप- सोमनापुर-ह(cid:7016)दीआ से पे(cid:7069)ोनलयम उ(cid:7004)पाद(cid:7298) के प(cid:7407)र्रहन के नलए इंनडयन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेन नलनमटेड के (cid:7367)ारा पाइपलाइन नबछाई ािनी चानहए।

और के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन नबछाने के (cid:7079)योनि के नलए यह र्आ(cid:7019)यक (cid:7079)तीत होता है (cid:7408)क ऐसी भूनम म(cid:7286) ोि इससे उपाब(cid:7373) अनुसूची मेर् (cid:7414)णत है और नसिम(cid:7286) उ(cid:7334) पाइपलाइन नबछाई ािने का (cid:7079)(cid:7021)र्ता है उपयोग के अनधकार अ(िcid:6981)न (cid:7408)कया ािए।

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5623

अत: अब के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार पे(cid:7069)ोनलयम और खनन िपाइपलाइ(cid:7008)स (भूनम उपयोग के अनधकार अ(िcid:6981)न) अनधननयम 1962 (1962

का 50) क(cid:7409) धारा 3 क(cid:7409) उपधारा (1) (cid:7367)ारा (cid:7079)द(cid:7004)त न(cid:7334)य(cid:7298) का (cid:7079)योग करते (cid:7263)ए उस भूनम के उपयोग के अनधकार अ(िcid:6981)न करने के अपने आय क(cid:7409) घोषणा करती है।

कोई (cid:7390)न(cid:7334) ोि उ(cid:7334) अनुसूची म(cid:7286) र् (cid:7414)णत भूनम म(cid:7286) नहतब(cid:7373) है उस ता(cid:7407)रख से नसिको इस अनधसूचना से यु(cid:6989)त भारत के रापि(cid:7074) क(cid:7409) (cid:7079)नतयां साधारण निता को उपल(cid:7011)ध करा दी ािती ह(cid:7289) इ(cid:7333)(cid:7409)स (cid:7408)दन के भीतर भूनम के नीचे पाइपलाइन नबछाए ािने के नलए उसम(cid:7286) उपयोग के अनधकार अ(िcid:6981)न के स(cid:7013)ब(cid:7008)ध म(cid:7286) (cid:7088)ी नबमल (cid:7079)साद मोहंती, स(cid:6979)म (cid:7079)ानधकारी, पारादीप-सोमनापुर- ह(cid:7016)दीआ पाइपलाइन पा(cid:7407)रयोनिा, इंनडयन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेन नलनमटेड पाइपलाइन (cid:7079)भाग, (cid:6989र्)ाट(cid:6981)र सं(cid:6990)या बी/2,इंनडयन ऑयल र्आासीय कॉलोनी,मेघड(cid:7013)(cid:7081)(cid:7271), पो(cid:7021)ट बॉ(cid:6989)स: कु (cid:7271)दा, बालासोर -756056 (ओनडा) को नलनखत (cid:7272)प से आ(cid:6979)ेप भे िसके गा।

इ इ ंनडयन र इ इ ंनडयन ऑयलऑयलऑयलऑयल कॉकॉकॉकॉपपपपरेन ंनडयन ंनडयन र र ेन नलनमटेड ेन ेन नलनमटेड
पारादीप पारादीप ---- सोमनापुर पारादीप पारादीप सोमनापुर ---- हदीआ सोमनापुर हदीआ पाइपलाइ हदीआ हदीआ पाइपलाइनननन परयोनिा पाइपलाइ पाइपलाइ परयोनिा
3(1) अनुसूची 3(1) 3(1) 3(1) अनुसूची
नलिा नलिा ::::---- नलिा नलिा बालासोर राय राय ::::---- ओनडा राय राय ओनडा
....संसंसंसं.... तहसील तहसील काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम तहसील तहसील र्गॉर्गॉर्गॉर्गॉ काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम हालहालहालहाल लॉट लॉट मांक लॉट मांक क ु लकु लकु लकु ल अनधनहत अनधनहत ेल अनधनहत अनधनहत ेल
हैटेयर एयर एयरएयर र्गमीटर
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1 बहानगा पटमुडा - 249 142 00 00 92
71 00 03 87
70 00 00 05
238 00 00 85
46 00 01 33
52 00 01 92
47 00 02 49
48 00 04 54
5 00 03 11
4 00 02 64
2 बहानगा दयानपाही - 252 219 00 02 83
220 00 03 93
217 00 00 05
216 00 06 82
223 00 05 31
209 00 00 32
207 00 02 48
206 00 04 17
205 00 02 90
204 00 02 87
200 00 03 08
201 00 00 43
बहानगा दयानपाही - 252 199 00 06 19
154 00 06 99
153 00 04 48
152 00 02 42
151 00 00 20
1 00 00 74
3 बहानगा बनलकनतरान - 253 770 00 01 03
769 00 00 80
581 00 01 67
584 00 02 51
585 00 02 88
590 00 04 31
591 00 03 37
594 00 03 98
593 00 00 46
596 00 03 46
598 00 02 07
600 00 01 67
607 00 06 31
606 00 01 03
605 00 01 97
470 00 03 51
454 00 06 46
455 00 03 34
456 00 00 88
457 00 02 24
458/797 00 00 64
460 00 01 61
438 00 00 18
436 00 05 56
434 00 01 31
305 00 00 61
345 00 01 14
346 00 07 12
347 00 00 18
348 00 01 08
बहानगा बनलकनतरान - 253 349 00 00 91
603 00 00 20
4 बहानगा छातुबाटी - 255 141 00 00 81
169 00 00 57
294 00 02 03
290 00 02 96
295 00 00 43
289 00 10 37
285 00 04 86
286 00 01 54
283 00 00 08
284 00 12 67
223 00 00 75
276 00 02 25
275 00 01 46
272 00 01 77
274 00 02 35
273 00 02 41
267 00 04 88
268 00 00 05
262 00 03 56
263 00 00 06
260 00 02 39
256 00 00 05
257 00 04 14
258 00 02 26
5 बहानगा झडता - 88 626 00 00 46
627 00 01 36
633 00 00 84
634 00 00 76
635 00 00 55
637 00 07 99
638 00 01 22
640 00 01 21
639 00 07 98
645 00 03 60
6 बहानगा पोडानडहा - 258 1234 00 02 18
1237 00 01 06
1236 00 01 08
1241 00 00 55
1240 00 02 11
1239 00 00 10
1244 00 01 97
1223 00 02 34
1222 00 00 22
1208 00 02 89
1217 00 01 25
1216 00 00 96
1215 00 00 53
1213 00 00 41
1214 00 01 21
907 00 02 05
909 00 02 67
827 00 00 46
7 बहानगा सहसपुरा - 90 2927 00 01 83
2926 00 00 67
2925 00 00 53
2924 00 02 71
2888 00 00 48
8 बहानगा रणभंपिुर - 92 7 00 00 72
8 00 01 48
2/408 00 00 83
6 00 04 96
2 00 01 36
5 00 01 81
2/407 00 01 30
4 00 01 31
3 00 00 15
9 बहानगा रहाणीगं ि- 128 923 00 02 00
924 00 03 92
930 932 00 00 01 06 58 37
बहानगा रहाणीगं ि- 128 933 00 02 04
961 00 02 35
955 00 05 50
954 00 05 22
952 00 01 18
951 00 07 25
979 00 00 05
981 00 03 26
982 00 02 51
983 00 02 08
989 00 04 17
986 00 00 07
988 00 05 39
992 00 00 12
993 00 04 14
861 00 00 05
860 00 16 10
833 00 03 65
834 00 00 74
831 00 03 22
835 00 00 66
836 00 00 87
830 00 02 88
829 00 04 29
827 00 01 95
488 00 04 45
10101010 बहानगा अंीि - 342 1339 00 00 80
1335 00 04 54
1336 00 01 17
1338 00 03 95
1341 00 06 60
1343 00 00 08
1342 00 02 61
1346 00 04 67
1347 00 00 12
1352 00 03 40
बहानगा अंीि - 342 1353 00 01 14
1351 00 03 14
2792 00 00 59
1350 00 00 61
2792/2954 00 02 61
2791 00 01 88
2794 00 03 34
2790/2927 00 02 06
2790/2928 00 01 97
2789 00 00 40
2804 00 02 01
2805 00 03 49
2819 00 00 05
2821 00 01 82
2824 00 00 28
2825 00 01 35
2779 00 02 74
2780 00 00 13
2776 00 01 65
2771 00 01 14
2770 00 03 62
2769 00 00 38
2768 00 04 91
2767 00 03 43
2840 00 00 05
2766 00 00 75
2762 00 02 68
2761 00 00 36
2760 00 01 61
2634 00 16 82
2484 00 01 50
2482 00 02 09
2481 00 01 74
2480 00 04 31
2479 00 01 83
2478 00 00 41
बहानगा अंीि - 342 2463 00 04 16
2467 00 00 94
2465 00 00 13
2466 00 00 72
2464 00 06 34
2412 00 00 05
2413 00 00 49
2414 00 04 31
2408 00 01 21
2405 00 01 19
2407 00 01 80
2406 00 01 43
2383 00 03 56
2382 00 01 28
2381 00 05 99
2368 00 06 48
2339 00 01 89
2340 00 00 85
2356 00 00 05
2341 00 00 95
2341/2941 00 00 44
2349 00 01 02
2355 00 01 53
2352 00 08 17
2351 00 00 33
2245 00 02 75
2243 00 00 05
2242 00 02 48
2235 00 00 03
2238 00 04 73
2237 00 02 89
2236 00 02 09
2483 00 00 20
2353 00 00 20
11111111 बहानगा काहेइओगालपुर - 89 677 00 01 94
713 00 03 43
बहानगा काहेइओगालपुर - 89 714 00 01 01
712 00 03 42
708 00 02 42
684 00 00 73
685 00 01 38
686 00 07 52
689 00 00 37
690 00 00 73
691 00 00 43
673 00 04 86
694 00 00 12
672 00 01 93
744 00 00 28
745 00 03 53
746 00 01 86
743 00 00 23
747 00 01 57
757 00 03 17
765 00 01 93
764 00 01 15
763 00 02 15
762 00 01 36
791 00 05 14
787 00 04 09
786/1070 00 04 42
781 00 11 50
780 00 04 66
776 00 00 05
778 00 06 18
777 00 02 79
893 00 02 28
895 00 05 93
892 00 00 61
894 00 06 05
890 00 01 18
897 00 07 15
बहानगा काहेइओगालपुर - 89 898 00 00 42
899 00 03 14
900 00 02 09
914 00 05 06
913 00 03 83
908 00 05 69
909 00 00 91
940 00 01 70
907 00 03 30
941 00 06 12
942 00 00 69
12121212 बहानगा करंािनबदा - 86 1855 00 00 76
1852 00 00 99
1854/1945 00 00 82
1854 00 02 02
1853 00 03 51
1849 00 00 06
1847 00 01 89
1848 00 02 01
1759 00 07 62
1760 00 02 80
1761 00 03 05
1747 00 00 05
1748 00 02 44
1746 00 06 22
1744 00 00 94
1743 00 01 04
1742 00 02 75
1689 00 07 15
1692 00 07 01
1691 00 02 31
1695 00 01 36
1696 00 00 90
1697 00 00 25
1698 00 00 99
1702 00 03 39
बहानगा करंािनबदा - 86 1703 00 03 35
1749 00 00 20
1206 00 05 83
1072 00 00 05
1205 00 03 23
1204 00 03 03
1202 00 02 79
1201 00 03 85
1169 00 03 03
1170 00 03 03
1171 00 03 55
1172 00 03 24
1198 00 00 05
1197 00 04 05
1176 00 03 59
1175 00 00 05
978 00 04 93
977 00 02 54
976 00 02 48
975 00 01 48
974 00 02 12
707 00 08 87
708 00 02 09
710 00 05 23
712 00 01 66
900 00 01 84
901 00 00 21
899 00 01 99
735 00 01 38
734 00 00 53
733 00 00 57
732 00 01 51
738 00 00 32
740 00 01 75
739 00 00 49
746 00 01 76
बहानगा करंािनबदा - 86 747 00 00 24
750 00 05 69
745 00 00 99
744/1957 00 00 30
751 00 00 29
756 00 01 12
758 00 04 95
759 00 02 24
281 00 00 25
282 00 03 44
283 00 02 59
285 00 02 93
286 00 02 96
294 00 03 47
297 00 03 99
292 00 00 77
253 00 01 01
251 00 02 56
247 00 02 68
246 00 00 21
235 00 03 06
234 00 03 37
215 00 00 50
214 00 05 44
211 00 00 12
210 00 01 04
209 00 03 17
199 00 00 30
158 00 00 80
104 00 02 53
105 00 03 71
89 00 02 71
106 00 00 72
107 00 15 17
108 00 02 49
109/1994 00 02 39
बहानगा करंािनबदा - 86 110 00 00 05
113 00 07 27
12 00 01 67
973 00 00 10
88 00 00 10
13131313 बहानगा डोलपुर - 87 832 00 05 45
818 00 00 62
831 00 03 12
830 00 05 80
829 00 05 29
828 00 03 32
824 00 09 15
798 00 02 84
799 00 01 31
800 00 01 20
793 00 00 15
14141414 बहानगा तेपुर - 83 904 00 01 15
908 00 04 37
909 00 02 82
910 00 01 72
911 00 02 22
912 00 03 30
913 00 00 05
919 00 02 94
921 00 01 36
853 00 00 05
851 00 04 50
852 00 00 29
848 00 02 61
847 00 03 24
846/991 00 00 05
843 00 00 98
844 00 02 13
842 00 02 48
841 00 02 41
840 00 01 91
बहानगा तेपुर - 83 832 00 00 94
830 00 05 39
829 00 00 73
827 00 05 77
824 00 00 89
823 00 00 31
820 00 00 20
15151515 बहानगा नारणाबाड - 60 1367 00 07 48
1382 00 00 59
1381 00 00 51
1368 00 00 48
1379 00 01 14
1378 00 01 12
1369 00 00 05
1377 00 04 61
1387 00 08 76
1375 00 03 25
1392 00 00 75
16161616 बहानगा नुआपुर - 64 1178 00 06 82
1185 00 02 51
1186 00 03 29
1187 00 01 32
1172 00 05 10
1168 00 01 04
1166 00 00 05
1169 00 00 33
1167 00 01 63
1120 00 00 60
1119 00 10 66
1126 00 04 08
1131 00 03 67
1132 00 02 40
1111 00 01 84
1108 00 01 87
1107 00 02 45
1106 00 01 63
बहानगा नुआपुर - 64 292 00 02 45
297 00 06 41
299 00 04 04
299/4057 00 01 67
300 00 04 09
235 00 02 30
236 00 02 84
253 00 01 44
252 00 06 66
251 00 02 78
248 00 01 44
250 00 01 23
249 00 00 83
34 00 03 46
35 00 02 79
36/4095 00 01 76
36 00 02 08
38 00 02 45
39/4078 00 01 39
39 00 03 26
43 00 05 54
17 00 02 98
45 00 03 58
48 00 00 56
10 00 00 97
9 00 01 90
7 00 00 22
8 00 00 46
17171717 बहानगा ालॉ - 62 1297 00 02 69
1290 00 03 19
1291 00 02 19
1293 00 02 31
1292 00 00 26
1225 00 03 06
1226 00 02 06
1223 00 01 18
बहानगा ालॉ - 62 1222 00 01 80
1221 00 02 84
1203 00 19 90
1196 00 00 65
1201 00 04 33
1199 00 02 26
1160 00 06 64
1200 00 00 72
484 00 01 07
485 00 01 39
483 00 00 23
474 00 01 25
475 00 01 17
473 00 05 07
429 00 00 08
472 00 01 10
465 00 00 75
430 00 00 90
464 00 01 39
431 00 00 90
432 00 00 63
463 00 03 37
437 00 06 56
438 00 01 99
439 00 02 58
440 00 02 82
399 00 04 91
400 00 02 24
401 00 01 99
232 00 07 86
234 00 00 90
233 00 00 82
226 00 07 17
225 00 01 97
224 00 01 65
222 00 01 80
बहानगा ालॉ - 62 219 00 02 34
218 00 01 03
216 00 01 85
185 00 04 76
183/1424 00 01 24
183/1423 00 01 07
183/1425 00 00 92
183 00 03 70
142 00 01 27
141 00 07 86
140 00 13 64
138 00 02 49
18181818 बहानगा कयाणी - 84 1311 00 01 30
1310 00 04 66
1309 00 03 44
1301 00 12 71
1283 00 05 53
1282 00 01 08
1281 00 03 59
1280 00 03 12
1285 00 02 83
1279 00 05 27
1278 00 04 93
1277 00 00 22
1275 00 03 32
1276 00 00 65
601 00 00 29
602 00 01 53
605 00 04 62
603 00 01 03
604 00 11 25
608 00 00 39
610 00 05 33
595 00 04 26
596 00 03 55
594 00 01 36
बहानगा कयाणी - 84 593 00 06 20
585 00 01 29
586 00 04 02
414 00 14 61
417 00 09 30
416 00 02 02
415 00 02 38
400 00 01 11
399 00 01 27
394 00 01 41
393 00 00 80
396 00 01 63
384 00 00 47
385 00 04 69
372 00 02 90
373 00 02 02
374 00 01 77
375 00 01 89
198 00 02 70
197 00 01 64
196 00 02 37
195 00 02 38
161 00 03 69
160 00 03 52
159 00 03 21
156 00 05 74
155 00 01 10
83 00 00 50
82 00 00 99
81 00 00 49
34 00 02 45
35 00 02 15
32 00 00 24
31 00 02 18
29 00 06 50
376 00 00 20
बहानगा कयाणी - 84 194 00 00 20
584 00 00 20
19191919 बहानगा ओडसाल - 61 756 00 02 67
755 00 00 92
754 00 00 95
753 00 00 97
750 00 01 01
749 00 03 65
751 00 00 71
747 00 00 38
748 00 03 64
707 00 01 33
739/3345 00 04 53
708 00 01 92
708/3369 00 01 79
738 00 07 33
739 00 03 90
733 00 00 48
731 00 01 62
730 00 00 06
729 00 05 03
732 00 00 05
728 00 04 27
542 00 09 77
541 00 00 07
537 00 02 87
536 00 04 26
535 00 02 65
525 00 05 93
524 00 00 05
20202020 बहानगा म्हपुर - 257 619 00 04 56
613 00 01 67
614 00 00 21
612 00 04 07
611 00 00 12
529 00 13 87
बहानगा म्हपुर - 257 528 00 03 81
525 00 02 79
527 00 02 19
468 00 14 96
526 00 00 28
464 00 03 33
465 00 02 18
411 00 08 37
406 00 08 11
403 00 02 44
402 00 02 82
401 00 00 42
395 00 03 05
319 00 06 16
358 00 02 56
357 00 02 29
327 00 00 35
356 00 00 14
356/1245 00 03 83
328 00 00 55
331 00 00 06
330 00 02 46
332 00 02 37
333 00 00 05
335 00 01 38
334 00 01 44
337 00 02 99
206 00 00 91
336 00 00 05
199 00 00 76
200 00 00 78
198 00 00 61
197 00 01 43
बहानगा म्हपुर - 257 180 00 01 85
49 00 02 35
50 00 02 47
176 00 00 54
175 00 02 16
169 00 01 26
174 00 00 09
170 00 03 49
157 00 00 60
171 00 00 23
156 00 02 46
152 00 00 79
155 00 01 97
154 00 02 43
140 00 00 34
141 00 00 51
153 00 00 03
142 00 00 50
143 00 02 21
127 00 02 17
108 00 03 09
126 00 00 05
109 00 03 73
111 00 00 17
110 00 01 21
113 00 00 90
96 00 07 47
98 00 03 04
99 00 00 89
992 00 01 94
993 00 02 00
994 00 01 19
995 00 01 36
बहानगा म्हपुर - 257 996 00 02 71
997 00 02 71
1002 00 02 01
1002/1220 00 01 10
5624 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5625 5626 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5627 5628 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5629 5630 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5631 5632 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5633 5634 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5635 5636 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5637 5638 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5639 5640 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5641 5642 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5643

[ा. सं. आर-11025(11)/2/2019-ओआर-I/29478]

ा(cid:7008)तनु धर, र्अर सनर्च

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2019

S. O. 1330.—Whereas, it appears to the Indian Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Paradip-Somnathpur-Haldiaa pipeline should be laid in State of Odisha by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, it appears to the Indian Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Bimal Prasad Mohanty, Competent Authority, Paradip – Somnathpur – Haldia Product Pipeline Project, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipelines Division, Quarter No. B/2, Indian Oil Residential Colony, Meghadambaru, PO: Kuruda, Balasore-756056, Odisha.

SCHEDULE Indian Oil Corporation Limited PROJECT : - PARADIP - SOMNATHPUR - HALDIA PIPELINE PROJECT SCHEDULE of 3(1)
DISTRICT : BALASORE STATE: ODISHA Sl. No. Name of Tehsil Name of Village Plot No.
Area
Hectare Are Sqm.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1 BAHANAGA PATIMUNDA - 249 142 00 00 92
71 00 03 87
70 00 00 05
238 00 00 85
46 00 01 33
52 00 01 92
47 00 02 49
48 00 04 54
5 00 03 11
4 00 02 64
2 BAHANAGA DIANPAHI - 252 219 00 02 83
220 00 03 93
217 00 00 05
216 00 06 82
223 00 05 31
209 00 00 32
207 00 02 48
206 00 04 17
205 00 02 90
BAHANAGA DIANPAHI - 252 204 00 02 87
200 00 03 08
201 00 00 43
199 00 06 19
154 00 06 99
153 00 04 48
152 00 02 42
151 00 00 20
1 00 00 74
3 BAHANAGA BALIKITIRAN - 253 770 00 01 03
769 00 00 80
581 00 01 67
584 00 02 51
585 00 02 88
590 00 04 31
591 00 03 37
594 00 03 98
593 00 00 46
596 00 03 46
598 00 02 07
600 00 01 67
607 00 06 31
606 00 01 03
605 00 01 97
470 00 03 51
454 00 06 46
455 00 03 34
456 00 00 88
457 00 02 24
458/797 00 00 64
460 00 01 61
438 00 00 18
436 00 05 56
434 00 01 31
305 00 00 61
345 00 01 14
346 00 07 12
347 00 00 18
348 00 01 08
349 00 00 91
603 00 00 20
4 BAHANAGA CHHATUBATI - 255 141 00 00 81
169 00 00 57
294 00 02 03
290 00 02 96
295 00 00 43
289 00 10 37
285 00 04 86
286 00 01 54
283 00 00 08
284 00 12 67
223 00 00 75
276 00 02 25
275 00 01 46
272 00 01 77
274 00 02 35
273 00 02 41
267 00 04 88
268 00 00 05
262 00 03 56
BAHANAGA CHHATUBATI - 255 263 00 00 06
260 00 02 39
256 00 00 05
257 00 04 14
258 00 02 26
5 BAHANAGA JHADATA - 88 626 00 00 46
627 00 01 36
633 00 00 84
634 00 00 76
635 00 00 55
637 00 07 99
638 00 01 22
640 00 01 21
639 00 07 98
645 00 03 60
6 BAHANAGA PORADIHA - 258 1234 00 02 18
1237 00 01 06
1236 00 01 08
1241 00 00 55
1240 00 02 11
1239 00 00 10
1244 00 01 97
1223 00 02 34
1222 00 00 22
1208 00 02 89
1217 00 01 25
1216 00 00 96
1215 00 00 53
1213 00 00 41
1214 00 01 21
907 00 02 05
909 00 02 67
827 00 00 46
7 BAHANAGA SAHASPURA - 90 2927 00 01 83
2926 00 00 67
2925 00 00 53
2924 00 02 71
2888 00 00 48
8 BAHANAGA RANABHANJPUR - 92 7 00 00 72
8 00 01 48
2/408 00 00 83
6 00 04 96
2 00 01 36
5 00 01 81
2/407 00 01 30
4 00 01 31
3 00 00 15
9 BAHANAGA RAHANIGANJA - 128 923 00 02 00
924 00 03 92
930 00 01 58
932 00 06 37
933 00 02 04
961 00 02 35
955 00 05 50
954 00 05 22
952 00 01 18
951 00 07 25
979 00 00 05
981 00 03 26
982 00 02 51
BAHANAGA RAHANIGANJA - 128 983 00 02 08
989 00 04 17
986 00 00 07
988 00 05 39
992 00 00 12
993 00 04 14
861 00 00 05
860 00 16 10
833 00 03 65
834 00 00 74
831 00 03 22
835 00 00 66
836 00 00 87
830 00 02 88
829 00 04 29
827 00 01 95
488 00 04 45
10 BAHANAGA ANJI - 342 1339 00 00 80
1335 00 04 54
1336 00 01 17
1338 00 03 95
1341 00 06 60
1343 00 00 08
1342 00 02 61
1346 00 04 67
1347 00 00 12
1352 00 03 40
1353 00 01 14
1351 00 03 14
2792 00 00 59
1350 00 00 61
2792/2954 00 02 61
2791 00 01 88
2794 00 03 34
2790/2927 00 02 06
2790/2928 00 01 97
2789 00 00 40
2804 00 02 01
2805 00 03 49
2819 00 00 05
2821 00 01 82
2824 00 00 28
2825 00 01 35
2779 00 02 74
2780 00 00 13
2776 00 01 65
2771 00 01 14
2770 00 03 62
2769 00 00 38
2768 00 04 91
2767 00 03 43
2840 00 00 05
2766 00 00 75
2762 00 02 68
2761 00 00 36
2760 00 01 61
2634 00 16 82
2484 00 01 50
2482 00 02 09
2481 00 01 74
BAHANAGA ANJI - 342 2480 00 04 31
2479 00 01 83
2478 00 00 41
2463 00 04 16
2467 00 00 94
2465 00 00 13
2466 00 00 72
2464 00 06 34
2412 00 00 05
2413 00 00 49
2414 00 04 31
2408 00 01 21
2405 00 01 19
2407 00 01 80
2406 00 01 43
2383 00 03 56
2382 00 01 28
2381 00 05 99
2368 00 06 48
2339 00 01 89
2340 00 00 85
2356 00 00 05
2341 00 00 95
2341/2941 00 00 44
2349 00 01 02
2355 00 01 53
2352 00 08 17
2351 00 00 33
2245 00 02 75
2243 00 00 05
2242 00 02 48
2235 00 00 03
2238 00 04 73
2237 00 02 89
2236 00 02 09
2483 00 00 20
2353 00 00 20
11 BAHANAGA KANHEIOGALPUR - 89 677 00 01 94
713 00 03 43
714 00 01 01
712 00 03 42
708 00 02 42
684 00 00 73
685 00 01 38
686 00 07 52
689 00 00 37
690 00 00 73
691 00 00 43
673 00 04 86
694 00 00 12
672 00 01 93
744 00 00 28
745 00 03 53
746 00 01 86
743 00 00 23
747 00 01 57
757 00 03 17
765 00 01 93
764 00 01 15
763 00 02 15
BAHANAGA KANHEIOGALPUR - 89 762 00 01 36
791 00 05 14
787 00 04 09
786/1070 00 04 42
781 00 11 50
780 00 04 66
776 00 00 05
778 00 06 18
777 00 02 79
893 00 02 28
895 00 05 93
892 00 00 61
894 00 06 05
890 00 01 18
897 00 07 15
898 00 00 42
899 00 03 14
900 00 02 09
914 00 05 06
913 00 03 83
908 00 05 69
909 00 00 91
940 00 01 70
907 00 03 30
941 00 06 12
942 00 00 69
12 BAHANAGA KARANJABINDHA - 86 1855 00 00 76
1852 00 00 99
1854/1945 00 00 82
1854 00 02 02
1853 00 03 51
1849 00 00 06
1847 00 01 89
1848 00 02 01
1759 00 07 62
1760 00 02 80
1761 00 03 05
1747 00 00 05
1748 00 02 44
1746 00 06 22
1744 00 00 94
1743 00 01 04
1742 00 02 75
1689 00 07 15
1692 00 07 01
1691 00 02 31
1695 00 01 36
1696 00 00 90
1697 00 00 25
1698 00 00 99
1702 00 03 39
1703 00 03 35
1749 00 00 20
1206 00 05 83
1072 00 00 05
1205 00 03 23
1204 00 03 03
1202 00 02 79
1201 00 03 85
1169 00 03 03
BAHANAGA KARANJABINDHA - 86 1170 00 03 03
1171 00 03 55
1172 00 03 24
1198 00 00 05
1197 00 04 05
1176 00 03 59
1175 00 00 05
978 00 04 93
977 00 02 54
976 00 02 48
975 00 01 48
974 00 02 12
707 00 08 87
708 00 02 09
710 00 05 23
712 00 01 66
900 00 01 84
901 00 00 21
899 00 01 99
735 00 01 38
734 00 00 53
733 00 00 57
732 00 01 51
738 00 00 32
740 00 01 75
739 00 00 49
746 00 01 76
747 00 00 24
750 00 05 69
745 00 00 99
744/1957 00 00 30
751 00 00 29
756 00 01 12
758 00 04 95
759 00 02 24
281 00 00 25
282 00 03 44
283 00 02 59
285 00 02 93
286 00 02 96
294 00 03 47
297 00 03 99
292 00 00 77
253 00 01 01
251 00 02 56
247 00 02 68
246 00 00 21
235 00 03 06
234 00 03 37
215 00 00 50
214 00 05 44
211 00 00 12
210 00 01 04
209 00 03 17
199 00 00 30
158 00 00 80
104 00 02 53
105 00 03 71
89 00 02 71
106 00 00 72
BAHANAGA KARANJABINDHA - 86 107 00 15 17
108 00 02 49
109/1994 00 02 39
110 00 00 05
113 00 07 27
12 00 01 67
973 00 00 10
88 00 00 10
13 BAHANAGA DOLPUR - 87 832 00 05 45
818 00 00 62
831 00 03 12
830 00 05 80
829 00 05 29
828 00 03 32
824 00 09 15
798 00 02 84
799 00 01 31
800 00 01 20
793 00 00 15
14 BAHANAGA FATEPUR - 83 904 00 01 15
908 00 04 37
909 00 02 82
910 00 01 72
911 00 02 22
912 00 03 30
913 00 00 05
919 00 02 94
921 00 01 36
853 00 00 05
851 00 04 50
852 00 00 29
848 00 02 61
847 00 03 24
846/991 00 00 05
843 00 00 98
844 00 02 13
842 00 02 48
841 00 02 41
840 00 01 91
832 00 00 94
830 00 05 39
829 00 00 73
827 00 05 77
824 00 00 89
823 00 00 31
820 00 00 20
15 BAHANAGA NARANABAR - 60 1367 00 07 48
1382 00 00 59
1381 00 00 51
1368 00 00 48
1379 00 01 14
1378 00 01 12
1369 00 00 05
1377 00 04 61
1387 00 08 76
1375 00 03 25
1392 00 00 75
16 BAHANAGA NUAPUR - 64 1178 00 06 82
1185 00 02 51
1186 00 03 29
BAHANAGA NUAPUR - 64 1187 00 01 32
1172 00 05 10
1168 00 01 04
1166 00 00 05
1169 00 00 33
1167 00 01 63
1120 00 00 60
1119 00 10 66
1126 00 04 08
1131 00 03 67
1132 00 02 40
1111 00 01 84
1108 00 01 87
1107 00 02 45
1106 00 01 63
292 00 02 45
297 00 06 41
299 00 04 04
299/4057 00 01 67
300 00 04 09
235 00 02 30
236 00 02 84
253 00 01 44
252 00 06 66
251 00 02 78
248 00 01 44
250 00 01 23
249 00 00 83
34 00 03 46
35 00 02 79
36/4095 00 01 76
36 00 02 08
38 00 02 45
39/4078 00 01 39
39 00 03 26
43 00 05 54
17 00 02 98
45 00 03 58
48 00 00 56
10 00 00 97
9 00 01 90
7 00 00 22
8 00 00 46
17 BAHANAGA SALAGAN - 62 1297 00 02 69
1290 00 03 19
1291 00 02 19
1293 00 02 31
1292 00 00 26
1225 00 03 06
1226 00 02 06
1223 00 01 18
1222 00 01 80
1221 00 02 84
1203 00 19 90
1196 00 00 65
1201 00 04 33
1199 00 02 26
1160 00 06 64
1200 00 00 72
484 00 01 07
BAHANAGA SALAGAN - 62 485 00 01 39
483 00 00 23
474 00 01 25
475 00 01 17
473 00 05 07
429 00 00 08
472 00 01 10
465 00 00 75
430 00 00 90
464 00 01 39
431 00 00 90
432 00 00 63
463 00 03 37
437 00 06 56
438 00 01 99
439 00 02 58
440 00 02 82
399 00 04 91
400 00 02 24
401 00 01 99
232 00 07 86
234 00 00 90
233 00 00 82
226 00 07 17
225 00 01 97
224 00 01 65
222 00 01 80
219 00 02 34
218 00 01 03
216 00 01 85
185 00 04 76
183/1424 00 01 24
183/1423 00 01 07
183/1425 00 00 92
183 00 03 70
142 00 01 27
141 00 07 86
140 00 13 64
138 00 02 49
18 BAHANAGA KALYANI - 84 1311 00 01 30
1310 00 04 66
1309 00 03 44
1301 00 12 71
1283 00 05 53
1282 00 01 08
1281 00 03 59
1280 00 03 12
1285 00 02 83
1279 00 05 27
1278 00 04 93
1277 00 00 22
1275 00 03 32
1276 00 00 65
601 00 00 29
602 00 01 53
605 00 04 62
603 00 01 03
604 00 11 25
608 00 00 39
610 00 05 33
BAHANAGA KALYANI - 84 595 00 04 26
596 00 03 55
594 00 01 36
593 00 06 20
585 00 01 29
586 00 04 02
414 00 14 61
417 00 09 30
416 00 02 02
415 00 02 38
400 00 01 11
399 00 01 27
394 00 01 41
393 00 00 80
396 00 01 63
384 00 00 47
385 00 04 69
372 00 02 90
373 00 02 02
374 00 01 77
375 00 01 89
198 00 02 70
197 00 01 64
196 00 02 37
195 00 02 38
161 00 03 69
160 00 03 52
159 00 03 21
156 00 05 74
155 00 01 10
83 00 00 50
82 00 00 99
81 00 00 49
34 00 02 45
35 00 02 15
32 00 00 24
31 00 02 18
29 00 06 50
376 00 00 20
194 00 00 20
584 00 00 20
19 BAHANAGA ODSHAL - 61 756 00 02 67
755 00 00 92
754 00 00 95
753 00 00 97
750 00 01 01
749 00 03 65
751 00 00 71
747 00 00 38
748 00 03 64
707 00 01 33
739/3345 00 04 53
708 00 01 92
708/3369 00 01 79
738 00 07 33
739 00 03 90
733 00 00 48
731 00 01 62
730 00 00 06
729 00 05 03
BAHANAGA ODSHAL - 61 732 00 00 05
728 00 04 27
542 00 09 77
541 00 00 07
537 00 02 87
536 00 04 26
535 00 02 65
525 00 05 93
524 00 00 05
20 BAHANAGA BRAHMAPUR - 257 619 00 04 56
613 00 01 67
614 00 00 21
612 00 04 07
611 00 00 12
529 00 13 87
528 00 03 81
525 00 02 79
527 00 02 19
468 00 14 96
526 00 00 28
464 00 03 33
465 00 02 18
411 00 08 37
406 00 08 11
403 00 02 44
402 00 02 82
401 00 00 42
395 00 03 05
319 00 06 16
358 00 02 56
357 00 02 29
327 00 00 35
356 00 00 14
356/1245 00 03 83
328 00 00 55
331 00 00 06
330 00 02 46
332 00 02 37
333 00 00 05
335 00 01 38
334 00 01 44
337 00 02 99
206 00 00 91
336 00 00 05
199 00 00 76
200 00 00 78
198 00 00 61
197 00 01 43
180 00 01 85
49 00 02 35
50 00 02 47
176 00 00 54
175 00 02 16
169 00 01 26
174 00 00 09
170 00 03 49
157 00 00 60
171 00 00 23
156 00 02 46
152 00 00 79
BAHANAGA BRAHMAPUR - 257 155 00 01 97
154 00 02 43
140 00 00 34
141 00 00 51
153 00 00 03
142 00 00 50
143 00 02 21
127 00 02 17
108 00 03 09
126 00 00 05
109 00 03 73
111 00 00 17
110 00 01 21
113 00 00 90
96 00 07 47
98 00 03 04
99 00 00 89
992 00 01 94
993 00 02 00
994 00 01 19
995 00 01 36
996 00 02 71
997 00 02 71
1002 00 02 01
1002/1220 00 01 10
5644 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5645 5646 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5647 5648 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5649 5650 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5651 5652 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5653 5654 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5655

[F. No. R-11025(11)/2/2019-OR-I/E-29478]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली 11 ुिलाई

काकाकाका. . . . आआआआ. 1331. 1331. 1331. 1331....————के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार के लोकनहत म(cid:7286) यह र्आ(cid:7019)यक (cid:7079)तीत होता है (cid:7408)क उडीसा रा(cid:6996)य म(cid:7286) पारादीप- सोमनापुर-ह(cid:7016)दीआ से पे(cid:7069)ोनलयम उ(cid:7004)पाद(cid:7298) के प(cid:7407)र्रहन के नलए इंनडयन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेन नलनमटेड के (cid:7367)ारा पाइपलाइन नबछाई ािनी चानहए।

और के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन नबछाने के (cid:7079)योनि के नलए यह र्आ(cid:7019)यक (cid:7079)तीत होता है (cid:7408)क ऐसी भूनम म(cid:7286) ोि इससे उपाब(cid:7373) अनुसूची मेर् (cid:7414)णत है और नसिम(cid:7286) उ(cid:7334) पाइपलाइन नबछाई ािने का (cid:7079)(cid:7021)र्ता है उपयोग के अनधकार अ(िcid:6981)न (cid:7408)कया ािए।

अत: अब के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार पे(cid:7069)ोनलयम और खनन िपाइपलाइ(cid:7008)स (भूनम उपयोग के अनधकार अ(िcid:6981)न) अनधननयम 1962 (1962 का 50) क(cid:7409) धारा 3 क(cid:7409) उपधारा (1) (cid:7367)ारा (cid:7079)द(cid:7004)त न(cid:7334)य(cid:7298) का (cid:7079)योग करते (cid:7263)ए उस भूनम के उपयोग के अनधकार अ(िcid:6981)न करने के अपने आय क(cid:7409) घोषणा करती है।

कोई (cid:7390)न(cid:7334) ोि उ(cid:7334) अनुसूची म(cid:7286) र् (cid:7414)णत भूनम म(cid:7286) नहतब(cid:7373) है उस ता(cid:7407)रख से नसिको इस अनधसूचना से भारत के रापि(cid:7074) क(cid:7409) (cid:7079)नतयां साधारण निता को उपल(cid:7011)ध करा दी ािती है इ(cid:7333)(cid:7409)स (cid:7408)दन के भीतर भूनम के नीचे पाइपलाइन नबछाए ािने के नलए उसम(cid:7286) उपयोग के अनधकार अ(िcid:6981)न के स(cid:7013)ब(cid:7008)ध म(cid:7286) (cid:7088)ी नबमल (cid:7079)साद मोहंती, स(cid:6979)म (cid:7079)ानधकारी, पारादीप-सोमनापुर-ह(cid:7016)दीआ (cid:7079)ँड(cid:6989)ट पाइपलाइन पा(cid:7407)रयोनिा, इंनडयन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेन नलनमटेड पाइपलाइन (cid:7079)भाग, (cid:7332)ाट(cid:6981)र सं(cid:6990)या बी/2, इंनडयन ऑयल र्आासीय कॉलोनी,मेघड(cid:7013)(cid:7081)(cid:7271), पो(cid:7021)ट बॉ(cid:6989)स: कु (cid:7271)दा, बालासोर – 756056 (ओनडा) को नलनखत (cid:7272)प से आ(cid:6979)ेप भे िसके गा।

5656 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
इ इ ंनडयन र इ इ ंनडयन ऑयलऑयलऑयलऑयल कॉकॉकॉकॉपपपपरेन ंनडयन ंनडयन र र ेन नलनमटेड ेन ेन नलनमटेड
पारादीप पारादीप ---- सोमनापुर पारादीप पारादीप सोमनापुर –––– हहहह दी सोमनापुर दीआआआआ पाइपलाइ दी दी पाइपलाइनननन परयोनिा पाइपलाइ पाइपलाइ परयोनिा
3(1) अनुसूची 3(1) 3(1) 3(1) अनुसूची
नलिा ::::---- नलिा बालासोर राय राय ::::---- ओनडा ओनडा
....संसंसंसं तहसील तहसील काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम तहसील तहसील गांगांगांर्र्र्र्गां काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम हालहालहालहाल लॉट लॉट मांक लॉट लॉट मांक क ु लकु लकु लकु ल अनधनहत अनधनहत ेल अनधनहत अनधनहत ेल
हैटेयर एयर एयरएयर र्गमीटर
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1 र ेमुना चकीरामपुर - 307 11 00 03 82
12 00 00 30
13 00 05 18
13/80 00 03 74
5 00 02 90
4/63 00 01 88
4 00 02 96
2/69 00 00 49
3 00 01 82
3/71 00 01 12
16 00 00 20
17 00 00 20
2 र ेमुना बहादलपुर - 45 263 00 02 41
319 00 05 59
321 00 01 64
318 00 02 01
308 00 07 60
317 00 00 13
313 00 10 11
311 00 00 03
309 00 07 62
285 00 03 52
299 00 00 06
298 00 07 98
293 00 02 57
292 00 02 53
3 र ेमुना बोइता - 301 2566 00 02 71
2567 00 04 14
2571 00 01 19
र ेमुना बोइता - 301 2570 00 01 16
2574 00 02 62
2531 00 01 88
2530 00 01 57
2525 00 01 77
2527 00 02 40
2528 00 02 44
2511 00 01 37
2510 00 01 37
2512 00 00 20
2504 00 00 95
2503 00 00 66
2513 00 00 99
2495 00 01 18
2494 00 06 40
2496 00 00 20
2493 00 01 27
2497 00 02 48
2492 00 00 05
2479 00 00 10
2480 00 05 86
2488 00 00 09
2481 00 09 84
2487 00 03 40
2019 00 00 97
2014 00 27 75
1989 00 02 28
1992 00 02 13
1993 00 03 45
1994 00 04 35
1997 00 02 05
1999 00 00 20
1996 00 04 68
2003 00 03 00
4 र ेमुना ग ंभारया - 304 1359 00 12 55
1360 00 03 54
1358 00 01 63
1355 00 00 02
1357 00 00 20
1354 00 05 21
1364 00 00 46
1368 00 01 04
1369 00 01 16
1368/2637 00 02 39
1421 00 02 35
1422 00 00 10
1425 00 00 64
1426 00 02 30
1428 00 02 38
1430 00 01 10
1431 00 00 89
1432 00 03 22
1436 00 00 39
1513 00 00 64
1512 00 03 08
1512/2620 00 00 20
1510 00 02 81
1509/2621 00 00 06
1509 00 02 95
1501 00 00 50
1502 00 02 48
1502/2549 00 01 14
1503 00 00 17
1500 00 03 80
1499/2585 00 00 75
1498 00 01 99
1497 00 03 28
1494 00 04 56
1496 00 00 08
र ेमुना ग ंभारया - 304 1495 00 01 14
1488 00 00 04
1604 00 02 25
1701 00 01 29
1616 00 00 91
1699 00 00 75
1700 00 00 02
1617 00 00 37
1698 00 05 84
1619 00 01 00
1620 00 01 39
1623 00 03 03
1624 00 01 81
1666 00 03 76
1667 00 00 19
1665 00 00 43
1668 00 01 34
1663 00 01 44
1662 00 03 23
1657 00 01 94
1651 00 03 27
1650 00 04 18
1649 00 03 48
1647 00 00 66
2495 00 00 44
2501 00 01 72
2502 00 02 91
2503 00 01 48
2504 00 01 53
2505 00 02 93
2477/2617 00 00 16
2477 00 00 40
5 र ेमुना रहनणआगनडआ - 306 120 00 00 81
121 00 00 87
119 00 02 92
र ेमुना रहनणआगनडआ - 306 114 00 04 03
123 00 03 57
172 00 03 83
171 00 00 17
185/214 00 02 91
170 00 01 86
163 00 02 72
162 00 00 65
160 00 02 40
161 00 00 04
159 00 00 38
157 00 02 32
155 00 02 35
136 00 02 15
138 00 02 13
97 00 02 55
96 00 03 27
31 00 00 50
95 00 01 19
93 00 02 13
92 00 01 77
34 00 02 44
35 00 02 50
60 00 05 14
59 00 01 28
37 00 01 09
44 00 02 34
46 00 03 50
6 र ेमुना ींिग - 308 1970 00 00 98
1943 00 06 41
1942 00 03 37
1941 00 00 08
1940 00 04 72
1912/4911 00 02 18
1912 00 03 95
र ेमुना ींिग - 308 1912/4910 00 01 75
1912/4909 00 01 24
1908/5358 00 00 55
1907 00 00 66
1908 00 04 69
1903 00 00 20
1904 00 02 74
1901 00 04 12
1898 00 04 05
1849 00 04 80
1848 00 04 41
1798 00 10 02
1797 00 00 50
1796 00 04 44
1795 00 04 68
1794 00 10 62
1726 00 01 60
1852 00 00 20
1792/4944 00 00 20
7 र ेमुना तुडरा - 284 776 00 01 40
777 00 00 78
779 00 01 01
781 00 02 20
781/5453 00 00 11
783 00 01 05
784 00 01 10
786 00 02 27
819 00 01 64
818 00 03 04
816 00 06 25
815 00 06 48
813 00 02 89
812 00 01 83
811 00 00 20
810 00 02 22
र ेमुना तुडरा - 284 809 00 01 21
847 00 00 63
852 00 06 93
851 00 00 68
850 00 00 04
870 00 11 08
869 00 00 04
868/4745 00 01 81
868 00 00 47
864/4812 00 01 47
864/4813 00 03 22
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5657 5658 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5659 5660 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5661 5662 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[ा. सं. आर-11025(11)/2/2019-ओआर-I/29478]

ा(cid:7008)तनु धर, र्अर सनर्च

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2019

S. O. 1331.—Whereas, it appears to the Indian Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Paradip-Somnathpur -Haldia a pipeline should be laid in State of Odisha by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, it appears to the Indian Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Bimal Prasad Mohanty, Competent Authority, Paradip – Somnathpur – Haldia Product Pipeline Project, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipelines Division, Quarter No. B/2, Indian Oil Residential Colony, Meghadambaru, PO: Kuruda, Balasore-756056, Odisha.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited
PROJECT : - PARADIP - SOMNATHPUR - HALDIA PIPELINE PROJECT
SCHEDULE of 3(1)
DISTRICT : BALASORE STATE: ODISHA Sl. No. Name of Tehsil Name of Village Survey No.
Area
Hectare Are Sqm.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
1 REMUNA CHAKSRIRAMPUR - 307 11 00 03 82
12 00 00 30
13 00 05 18
13/80 00 03 74
5 00 02 90
4/63 00 01 88
4 00 02 96
2/69 00 00 49
3 00 01 82
3/71 00 01 12
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
REMUNA CHAKSRIRAMPUR - 307 16 00 00 20
17 00 00 20
2 REMUNA BAHADALPUR - 45 263 00 02 41
319 00 05 59
321 00 01 64
318 00 02 01
308 00 07 60
317 00 00 13
313 00 10 11
311 00 00 03
309 00 07 62
285 00 03 52
299 00 00 06
298 00 07 98
293 00 02 57
292 00 02 53
3 REMUNA BOITA - 301 2566 00 02 71
2567 00 04 14
2571 00 01 19
2570 00 01 16
2574 00 02 62
2531 00 01 88
2530 00 01 57
2525 00 01 77
2527 00 02 40
2528 00 02 44
2511 00 01 37
2510 00 01 37
2512 00 00 20
2504 00 00 95
2503 00 00 66
2513 00 00 99
2495 00 01 18
2494 00 06 40
2496 00 00 20
2493 00 01 27
2497 00 02 48
2492 00 00 05
2479 00 00 10
2480 00 05 86
2488 00 00 09
2481 00 09 84
2487 00 03 40
2019 00 00 97
2014 00 27 75
1989 00 02 28
1992 00 02 13
1993 00 03 45
1994 00 04 35
1997 00 02 05
1999 00 00 20
1996 00 04 68
2003 00 03 00
4 REMUNA GAMBHARIA - 304 1359 00 12 55
1360 00 03 54
1358 00 01 63
1355 00 00 02
1357 00 00 20
REMUNA GAMBHARIA - 304 1354 00 05 21
1364 00 00 46
1368 00 01 04
1369 00 01 16
1368/2637 00 02 39
1421 00 02 35
1422 00 00 10
1425 00 00 64
1426 00 02 30
1428 00 02 38
1430 00 01 10
1431 00 00 89
1432 00 03 22
1436 00 00 39
1513 00 00 64
1512 00 03 08
1512/2620 00 00 20
1510 00 02 81
1509/2621 00 00 06
1509 00 02 95
1501 00 00 50
1502 00 02 48
1502/2549 00 01 14
1503 00 00 17
1500 00 03 80
1499/2585 00 00 75
1498 00 01 99
1497 00 03 28
1494 00 04 56
1496 00 00 08
1495 00 01 14
1488 00 00 04
1604 00 02 25
1701 00 01 29
1616 00 00 91
1699 00 00 75
1700 00 00 02
1617 00 00 37
1698 00 05 84
1619 00 01 00
1620 00 01 39
1623 00 03 03
1624 00 01 81
1666 00 03 76
1667 00 00 19
1665 00 00 43
1668 00 01 34
1663 00 01 44
1662 00 03 23
1657 00 01 94
1651 00 03 27
1650 00 04 18
1649 00 03 48
1647 00 00 66
2495 00 00 44
2501 00 01 72
2502 00 02 91
2503 00 01 48
2504 00 01 53
REMUNA GAMBHARIA - 304 2505 00 02 93
2477/2617 00 00 16
2477 00 00 40
5 REMUNA RAHANIAGADIA - 306 120 00 00 81
121 00 00 87
119 00 02 92
114 00 04 03
123 00 03 57
172 00 03 83
171 00 00 17
185/214 00 02 91
170 00 01 86
163 00 02 72
162 00 00 65
160 00 02 40
161 00 00 04
159 00 00 38
157 00 02 32
155 00 02 35
136 00 02 15
138 00 02 13
97 00 02 55
96 00 03 27
31 00 00 50
95 00 01 19
93 00 02 13
92 00 01 77
34 00 02 44
35 00 02 50
60 00 05 14
59 00 01 28
37 00 01 09
44 00 02 34
46 00 03 50
6 REMUNA SRIJANG - 308 1970 00 00 98
1943 00 06 41
1942 00 03 37
1941 00 00 08
1940 00 04 72
1912/4911 00 02 18
1912 00 03 95
1912/4910 00 01 75
1912/4909 00 01 24
1908/5358 00 00 55
1907 00 00 66
1908 00 04 69
1903 00 00 20
1904 00 02 74
1901 00 04 12
1898 00 04 05
1849 00 04 80
1848 00 04 41
1798 00 10 02
1797 00 00 50
1796 00 04 44
1795 00 04 68
1794 00 10 62
1726 00 01 60
1852 00 00 20
REMUNA SRIJANG - 308 1792/4944 00 00 20
7 REMUNA TUNDRA - 284 776 00 01 40
777 00 00 78
779 00 01 01
781 00 02 20
781/5453 00 00 11
783 00 01 05
784 00 01 10
786 00 02 27
819 00 01 64
818 00 03 04
816 00 06 25
815 00 06 48
813 00 02 89
812 00 01 83
811 00 00 20
810 00 02 22
809 00 01 21
847 00 00 63
852 00 06 93
851 00 00 68
850 00 00 04
870 00 11 08
869 00 00 04
868/4745 00 01 81
868 00 00 47
864/4812 00 01 47
864/4813 00 03 22
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5663 5664 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5665 5666 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[F. No. R-11025(11)/2/2019-OR-I/E-29478]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली,,,, 22 ुिलाई,,,, 2019

काकाकाका. आआआआ. 1332133213321332.—के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार को ऐसा (cid:7079)तीत होता है (cid:7408)क लोक नहत म(cid:7286) यह र्आ(cid:7019)यक (cid:7408)क क(cid:7340)े तेल के प(cid:7407)र्रहन के नलए एक पाइपलाइन,,,, हन(cid:7016)दया----बरौनी पाइपलाइन नस(cid:7021)ट(cid:7013)स प(cid:7407)रयोनिा के तहत, , , , पन(cid:7391)म बंगाल रा(cid:6996)य म(cid:7286) हन(cid:7016)दया से नबहार रा(cid:6996)य म(cid:7286) बरौनी तक, , , , इंनडयन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेन नलनमटेड (cid:7367)ारा पाइपलाइन नबछाई ािनी चानहए;;;;

और के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन नबछाने के (cid:7079)योनि के नलए यह र्आ(cid:7019)यक (cid:7079)तीत होता है (cid:7408)क उस भूनम म(cid:7286) नसिके भीतर उ(cid:7334) पाइपलाइन नबछाई ािने का (cid:7079)(cid:7021)र्ता है और ोि इस अनधसूचना से संल(cid:7336) अनुसूच(cid:7277) म(cid:7286) र्(cid:7414)णत है,,,, उपयोग के अनधकार का अ(िcid:6981)न (cid:7408)कया ािए ;;;;

अतः अब,,,, के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार,,,, पे(cid:7069)ोनलयम और खनन िपाइपलाइस (भूनम म(cid:7286) उपयोग के अनधकार का अ(िcid:6981)न) अनधननयम,,,, 1962 (1962 का 50) क(cid:7409) धारा 3 (cid:7408)क उप धारा (1) (cid:7367)ारा (cid:7079)दत न(cid:7334)य(cid:7298) का (cid:7079)योग करते (cid:7263)ए,,,, उस भूनम म(cid:7286) उपयोग के अनधकार का अ(िcid:6981)न करने के अपने आय क(cid:7409) घोषणा करती है ;;;;

कोई (cid:7390)न(cid:7334),,,, ोि उ(cid:7334) अनुसूच(cid:7277) म(cid:7286)र् (cid:7414)णत भूनम म(cid:7286) नहतब(cid:7373) है,,,, उस तारीख से नसिको,,,, भारत के रापि(cid:7074) म(cid:7286) या (cid:7079)कानत इस अनधसूचना क(cid:7409) (cid:7079)नतयँ साधारण निता को उपल(cid:7011)ध करा दी ािती है,,,, इ(cid:7333)(cid:7409)स (cid:7408)दन के अ(cid:7008)दर,,,, भूनम के भीतर पाइपलाइन नबछाए ािने हेतु उपयोग के अनधकार के अ(िcid:6981)न के नलए,,,, (cid:7088)ी नब(cid:7393)ना समादिार,,,, स(cid:6979)म (cid:7079)ानधकारी,,,, इंनडयन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेन नलनमटेड, , , , हन(cid:7016)दया – बरौनी पाइपलाइन नस(cid:7021)ट(cid:7013)स प(cid:7407)रयोनिा,,,, दी ली(िcid:7286)ड, , , , दूसरा र्एं तीसरा तल, , , , हीद खुदीराम सरणी , , , , नसटी स(cid:7286)टर, , , , दुगा(cid:6981)पुर 713216, नलिा- पन(cid:7391)म बध(cid:6981)मान (पन(cid:7391)म बंगाल) को नलनखत (cid:7272)प म(cid:7286) आ(cid:6979)ेप भे िसके गा ।

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5667
अनुअनुअनुअनुसूसूसूसूचीचीचीची
नलिा : रभूम राय : पनम बंगाल बीबीबीबीरभूम राय : पनम बंगाल
ाना मौा का नाम र्सर्सर्सर्स नबर नबर ेेेेलललल
हेटेयर एयर एयरएयर र्ग मीटर
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 
  बोलपुर              च(cid:7008)दनपुर - 110   286         00        03        23
                                               288         00        02        87
                                             539/883       00        00        20
ई(cid:7016)लमबाार    गोपालनगर - 132            140         00        04        74
                                               128         00        01        41
                                            128/2417       00        06        45
                                               117         00        08        16
                                               120         00        00        20
                                               121         00        04        28
                                               113         00        06        15
                                               111         00        00        95
                                               109         00        04        94
                                               101         00        00        20
                                            109/2415       00        03        78
                                               102         00        07        61
                                               98          00        06        04
                                               91          00        01        09
                                               92          00        00        25
                                               97          00        01        68
                                               90          00        00        79
                                               89          00        01        15
                                               84          00        04        87
                                             39/2403       00        07        22
                                               41          00        00        20
                                               46          00        02        69
                                               43          00        08        44
                                             8/2402        00        03        73
                                               39          00        06        56
                                               42          00        03        24
                                               44          00        00        20
ई(cid:7016)लमबाार     रामनगर - 130             903         00        00        72
                                               984         00        03        82
5668 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 
ई(cid:7016)लमबाार         पानचयारा - 106               1657           00          01          65
 दुबरापिुर                पनचयारा - 168                2590           00          01          84
                                                       2591           00          02          28
                                                       2589           00          00          20
                                                       2588           00          04          14
                                                       2587           00          00          79
 दुबरापिुर                पन(cid:7008)डतपुर - 111      1383           00          04          17
 दुबरापिुर                होसेनाबाद - 25               205            00          01          49
 दुबरापिुर                 ह(cid:7271)नलया - 27         77            00          07          10
 दुबरापिुर                  पु ंगलापुर - 3             520            00          00          20
 खायरासोल                  क(cid:7286) दुयाकु री - 7   414            00          01          27
                                                        37            00          03          10

[ा. सं. आर-11025(11)/22/2018-ओआर-I/27779]

ा(cid:7008)तनु धर, र्अर सनर्च

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019

S. O. 1332.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil, a pipeline from Haldia in the state of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Biswanath Samajder, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, The Legend, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Sahid Khudiram Sarani, City Centre, Durgapur – 713216, Dist. Pashchim Burdwan (West Bengal).

SCHEDULE

District : Birbhum State : West Bengal
Police Station Name of Mouza Survey No. Area
Hectare Are Square Metre
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 
                                                       (3)          (4)         (5)         (6)
Bolpur                  Chandanpur - 110              3112          00           05         49
                                                      1208          00           04         88
                                                      1201          00           02         55
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5669
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 
                                                       (3)          (4)         (5)         (6)
Illambazar               Gopalnagar - 132              140          00          04          74
                                                       128          00          01          41
                                                    128/2417        00          06          45
                                                       117          00          08          16
                                                       120          00          00          20
                                                       121          00          04          28
                                                       113          00          06          15
                                                       111          00          00          95
                                                       109          00          04          94
                                                       101          00          00          20
                                                    109/2415        00          03          78
                                                       102          00          07          61
                                                       98           00          06          04
                                                       91           00          01          09
                                                       92           00          00          25
                                                       97           00          01          68
                                                       90           00          00          79
                                                       89           00          01          15
                                                       84           00          04          87
                                                     39/2403        00          07          22
                                                       41           00          00          20
                                                       46           00          02          69
                                                       43           00          08          44
                                                     8/2402         00          03          73
                                                       39           00          06          56
                                                       42           00          03          24
                                                       44           00          00          20
Illambazar                Ramnagar - 130               903          00          00          60
                                                       984          00          03          82
Illambazar                 Pachiara - 106             1657          00          01          65
Dubrajpur                  Pachiara - 168             2590          00          01          84
                                                      2591          00          02          28
                                                      2589          00          00          20
                                                      2588          00          04          14
                                                      2587          00          00          79
Dubrajpur                 Panditpur - 111             1383          00          04          17
Dubrajpur                 Hosenabad - 25               205          00          01          49
Dubrajpur                   Harulia - 27               77           00          07          10
Dubrajpur                  Punglapur - 3               520          00          00          20
Khayrasol                 Kenduakuri - 7               414          00          01          27
                                                       37           00          03          10

[F. No. R-11025(11)/22/2018-OR-I/E-27779]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली,,,, 22 ुिलाई,,,, 2019

काकाकाका. आआआआ. 1333133313331333.—के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार को ऐसा (cid:7079)तीत होता है (cid:7408)क लोक नहत म(cid:7286) यह र्आ(cid:7019)यक (cid:7408)क क(cid:7340)े तेल के प(cid:7407)र्रहन के नलए एक पाइपलाइन,,,, हन(cid:7016)दया----बरौनी पाइपलाइन नस(cid:7021)ट(cid:7013)स प(cid:7407)रयोनिा के तहत, , , , पन(cid:7391)म बंगाल रा(cid:6996)य म(cid:7286) हन(cid:7016)दया से नबहार रा(cid:6996)य म(cid:7286) बरौनी तक, , , , इंनडयन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेन नलनमटेड (cid:7367)ारा पाइपलाइन नबछाई ािनी चानहए;;;;

और के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन नबछाने के (cid:7079)योनि के नलए यह र्आ(cid:7019)यक (cid:7079)तीत होता है (cid:7408)क उस भूनम म(cid:7286) नसिके भीतर उ(cid:7334) पाइपलाइन नबछाई ािने का (cid:7079)(cid:7021)र्ता है और ोि इस अनधसूचना से संल(cid:7336) अनुसूच(cid:7277) म(cid:7286) र्(cid:7414)णत है,,,, उपयोग के अनधकार का अ(िcid:6981)न (cid:7408)कया ािए ;;;;

5670 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अतः अब,,,, के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार,,,, पे(cid:7069)ोनलयम और खनन िपाइपला(cid:7306)स (भूनम मे उपयोग के अनधकार का अ(िcid:6981)न) अनधननयम,,,, 1962 (1962 का 50) क(cid:7409) धारा 3 (cid:7408)क उप धारा (1) (cid:7367)ारा (cid:7079)दत न(cid:7334)य(cid:7298) का (cid:7079)योग करते (cid:7263)ए,,,, उस भूनम म(cid:7286) उपयोग के अनधकार का अ(िcid:6981)न करने के अपने आय क(cid:7409) घोषणा करती है ;;;;

कोई (cid:7390)न(cid:7334),,,, ोि उ(cid:7334) अनुसूची म(cid:7286)र् (cid:7414)णत भूनम म(cid:7286) नहतब(cid:7373) है,,,, उस तारीख से नसिको,,,, भारत के रापि(cid:7074) म(cid:7286) या (cid:7079)कानत इस अनधसूचना क(cid:7409) (cid:7079)नतयँ साधारण निता को उपल(cid:7011)ध करा दी ािती है,,,, इ(cid:7333)(cid:7409)स (cid:7408)दन के अ(cid:7008)दर,,,, भूनम के भीतर पाइपलाइन नबछाये ािने हेतु उपयोग के अनधकार के अ(िcid:6981)न के नलए,,,, (cid:7088)ी नब(cid:7393)ना समादिार,,,, स(cid:6979)म (cid:7079)ानधकारी,,,, इंनडयन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेन नलनमटेड, , , , हन(cid:7016)दया – बरौनी पाइपलाइन नस(cid:7021)ट(cid:7013)स प(cid:7407)रयोनिा,,,, हन(cid:7016)दया – बरौनी पाइपलाइन नस(cid:7021)ट(cid:7013)स प(cid:7407)रयोनिा,,,, दी ली(िcid:7286)ड, , , , दुसरा र्एं तीसरा तल, , , , हीद खुदीराम सरणी, , , , नसटी स(cid:7286)टर, , , , दुगा(cid:6981)पुर 713216, नलिा- पन(cid:7391)म बध(cid:6981)मान ((((पन(cid:7391)म बंगाल)))) को नलनखत (cid:7272)प मे आ(cid:6979)ेप भे िसके गा ।

अनुअनुअनुअनुसूसूसूसूचीचीचीची

नलिा : बमान राय : पनम बंगाल
ाना मौा का नाम र्सर्सर्सर्स नबर नबर ेेेेलललल
हेटेयर एयर एयरएयर र्ग मीटर
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5(5(5(5)))) (6)

रायना-II मननयारी - 138 335/796 00 01 80 ख(cid:7008)डघोष संकरी - 70 430 00 03 61 गलसी - II नह(cid:7349)ा - 112 3035 00 04 58 गलसी - II च(cid:7382)ा - 111 5 00 02 00 औस(cid:7061)ाम - I बेल(cid:7061)ाम - 116 8094/8403 00 01 77

4090/4779 00 01 60 औस(cid:7061)ाम - I नसलुट - 69 1593 00 01 10 औस(cid:7061)ाम - I न(cid:7088)कृ (cid:7020)नपुर - 77 349 00 05 95 औस(cid:7061)ाम – ।। नबलांडा- 81 814 00 01 10

815 00 02 16

816 00 00 20

813 00 01 41

803 00 05 08

377 00 02 55

273 00 00 56

276 00 01 48

277 00 00 30

275 00 01 53

278 00 00 80

279 00 00 20

280 00 01 11

281 00 01 08[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5671

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5(5(5(5)))) (6) 
औस(cid:7061)ाम – II नबलांडा- 81           283          00       05        69
                                          290          00       04        26
                                          289          00       02        73
                                          295          00       02        85
                                          296          00       01        08
                                          246          00       00        20
                                          245          00       07        43
                                          297          00       00        20
                                          233          00       01        64
                                          244          00       00        20
                                          234          00       05        22
                                          232          00       01        87
                                          237          00       00        20
                                          231          00       01        35
                                          230          00       03        07
                                          229          00       00        20
                                          228          00       02        84
                                          227          00       02        37
                                          224          00       04        40
                                          222          00       01        90
                                          223          00       00        31
                                          221          00       04        51
                                          212          00       00        20
                                          213          00       01        58
                                          215          00       00        68
                                          134          00       08        86
                                          40           00       03        63
                                          30           00       00        33
                                          34           00       00        20
                                          33           00       02        67
                                          32           00       01        85
                                          29           00       02        94
                                          31           00       01        76
5672 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5(5(5(5)))) (6) 
औस(cid:7061)ाम – II      नबलांडा- 81                 27              00          07          78
                                                     26              00          00          20
                                                      1              00          20          96

[ा. सं. आर-11025(11)/22/2018-ओआर-I/27779]

ा(cid:7008)तनु धर, र्अर सनर्च

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019

S. O. 1333.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil, a pipeline from Haldia in the state of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Biswanath Samajder, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, The Legend, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Sahid Khudiram Sarani, City Centre, Durgapur – 713216, Dist. Pashchim Burdwan (West Bengal).

SCHEDULE

District : Burdwan State : West Bengal
Police Station Name of Mouza Survey No. Area
Hectare Are Square Metre
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

(3) (4) (5) (6) Raina – II Maniari - 138 335/796 00 01 80 Khandoghosh Sankari - 70 430 00 03 61 Galsi - II Hitta - 112 3035 00 04 58 Galsi - II Channa - 111 5 00 02 00 Ausgram - I Belgram - 116 8094/8403 00 01 77 4090/4779 00 01 60 Ausgram - I Silut - 69 1593 00 01 10 Ausgram - I Srikrishnapur - 77 349 00 05 95 Ausgram - II Bilshanda - 81 814 00 01 10 815 00 02 16 816 00 00 20 813 00 01 41 803 00 05 08 377 00 02 55 273 00 00 56 276 00 01 48 277 00 00 30 275 00 01 53 278 00 00 80 279 00 00 20 280 00 01 11 281 00 01 08 283 00 05 69 290 00 04 26[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5673

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 
                                                      (3)          (4)         (5)        (6)
Ausgram - II              Bilshanda - 81              289          00          02         73
                                                      295          00          02         85
                                                      296          00          01         08
                                                      246          00          00         20
                                                      245          00          07         43
                                                      297          00          00         20
                                                      233          00          01         64
                                                      244          00          00         20
                                                      234          00          05         22
                                                      232          00          01         87
                                                      237          00          00         20
                                                      231          00          01         35
                                                      230          00          03         07
                                                      229          00          00         20
                                                      228          00          02         84
                                                      227          00          02         37
                                                      224          00          04         40
                                                      222          00          01         90
                                                      223          00          00         31
                                                      221          00          04         51
                                                      212          00          00         20
                                                      213          00          01         58
                                                      215          00          00         68
                                                      134          00          08         86
                                                      40           00          03         63
                                                      30           00          00         33
                                                      34           00          00         20
                                                      33           00          02         67
                                                      32           00          01         85
                                                      29           00          02         94
                                                      31           00          01         76
                                                      27           00          07         78
                                                      26           00          00         20
                                                       1           00          20         96

[F. No. R-11025(11)/22/2018-OR-I/E-27779]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली,,,, 22 ुिलाई,,,, 2019

काकाकाका आआआआ. 1334133413341334.—के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार को ऐसा (cid:7079)तीत होता है (cid:7408)क लोक नहत म(cid:7286) यह र्आ(cid:7019)यक (cid:7408)क क(cid:7340)े तेल के प(cid:7407)र्रहन के नलए एक पाइपलाइन,,,, हन(cid:7016)दया----बरौनी पाइपलाइन नस(cid:7021)ट(cid:7013)स प(cid:7407)रयोनिा के तहत, , , , पन(cid:7391)म बंगाल रा(cid:6996)य म(cid:7286) हन(cid:7016)दया से नबहार रा(cid:6996)य म(cid:7286) बरौनी तक, , , , इंनडयन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेन नलनमटेड (cid:7367)ारा पाइपलाइन नबछाई ािनी चानहए;;;;

और के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन नबछाने के (cid:7079)योनि के नलए यह र्आ(cid:7019)यक (cid:7079)तीत होता है (cid:7408)क उस भूनम म(cid:7286) नसिके भीतर उ(cid:7334) पाइपलाइन नबछाई ािने का (cid:7079)(cid:7021)र्ता है और ोि इस अनधसूचना से संल(cid:7336) अनुसूची मे र्(cid:7414)णत है,,,, उपयोग के अनधकार का अ(िcid:6981)न (cid:7408)कया ािए ;;;;

अतः अब,,,, के (cid:7008)(cid:7076)ीय सरकार,,,, पे(cid:7069)ोनलयम और खनन िपाइपलाइंस (भूनम मे उपयोग के अनधकार का अ(िcid:6981)न) अनधननयम,,,, 1962 (1962 का 50) क(cid:7409) धारा 3 (cid:7408)क उप धारा (1) (cid:7367)ारा (cid:7079)दत न(cid:7334)य(cid:7298) का (cid:7079)योग करते (cid:7263)ए,,,, उस भूनम मे उपयोग के अनधकार का अ(िcid:6981)न करने के अपने आय क(cid:7409) घोषणा करती है ;;;;

कोई (cid:7390)न(cid:7334),,,, ोि उ(cid:7334) अनुसूची म(cid:7286)र् (cid:7414)णत भूनम म(cid:7286) नहतब(cid:7373) है,,,, उस तारीख से नसिको,,,, भारत के रापि(cid:7074) म(cid:7286) या (cid:7079)कानत इस अनधसूचना क(cid:7409) (cid:7079)नतयँ साधारण निता को उपल(cid:7011)ध करा दी ािती है,,,, इ(cid:7333)(cid:7409)स (cid:7408)दन के अ(cid:7008)दर,,,, भूनम के भीतर पाइपलाइन5674 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नबछाये ािने हेतु उपयोग के अनधकार के अ(िcid:6981)न के नलए,,,,(cid:7088)ी नब(cid:7393)ना समादिार,,,, स(cid:6979)म (cid:7079)ानधकारी,,,, इंनडयन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेन नलनमटेड, , , , हन(cid:7016)दया – बरौनी पाइपलाइन नस(cid:7021)ट(cid:7013)स प(cid:7407)रयोनिा,,,, दी ली(िcid:7286)ड, , , , दूसरा र्एं तीसरा तल, , , , हीद खुदीराम सारणी, , , , नसटी स(cid:7286)टर, , , , दुगा(cid:6981)पुर 713216, नलिा- पन(cid:7391)म बध(cid:6981)मान ((((पन(cid:7391)म बंगाल)))) को नलनखत (cid:7272)प मे आ(cid:6979)ेप भे िसके गा ।

अनुअनुअनुअनुसूसूसूसूचीचीचीची

नलिा : पूब मेदनीपुर राय : पनम बंगाल नलिा : पूब मेदनीपुर नलिा : नलिा :
ाना मौा का नाम र्सर्सर्सर्स नबर नबर ेेेेलललल
हेटेयर एयर एयरएयर र्ग मीटर
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

सुताहटा - I राािरामपुर - 102 398 00 10 01 सुताहटा - II (cid:7408)कसमत नबरामनगर - 94 757 00 03 09 सुताहटा - II बरसु ंदरा - 54 288 00 00 20 मनहादल बामु(cid:7008)या - 134 1319 00 00 87

1501 00 00 39

1502 00 18 13 मनहादल दन(cid:6979)न कानमनगर - 129 449 00 00 20

430/842 00 02 05

27 00 00 20 न(cid:7008)दकु मार माधबपुर - 122 248 00 02 95 न(cid:7008)दकु मार भबानीपुर - 73 1709 00 03 59

[ा. सं. आर-11025(11)/22/2018-ओआर-I/27779]

ा(cid:7008)तनु धर, र्अर सनर्च

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019

S. O. 1334.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil, a pipeline from Haldia in the state of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Biswanath Samajder, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, The Legend, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Sahid Khudiram Sarani, City Centre, Durgapur – 713216, Disst. Pashchim Burdwan (West Bengal).

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5675

SCHEDULE

District : Purba Medinipur State : West Bengal
Police Station Name of Mouza Survey No. Area
Hectare Are Square Metre
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 
Sutahata - II          Kismat Shibramnagar - 94         757           00          03          09
Sutahata - II               Barsundra - 54              288           00          00          20
 Mahishadal                 Bamunya - 134               1319          00          00          87
                                                        1501          00          00          39
                                                        1502          00          18          13
 Mahishadal           Dakshin Kashimnagar - 129         449           00          00          20
                                                      430/842         00          02          05
                                                         27           00          00          20
Nandakumar                 Madhabpur - 122              248           00          02          95
Nandakumar                 Bhabanipur - 73              1709          00          03          59

[F. No. R-11025(11)/22/2018-OR-I/E-27779]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

नई (cid:7408)द(cid:7016)ली, 23 ुिलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1335133513351335....————क(cid:7286) (cid:7076)ीय सरकार, तेल उ(cid:7378)ोग (र्नकास) अनधननयम, 1974 (1974 का 47) क(cid:7409) धारा 3 क(cid:7409) उपधारा (3) (ख) (cid:7367)ारा (cid:7079)द(cid:7004)त न(cid:7334)य(cid:7298) का (cid:7079)योग करते (cid:7263)ए एत(cid:7375)ारा (cid:7088)ी र्राीि बंसल, अनत(cid:7407)र(cid:7334) सनर्च और र्न(cid:7275)ीय सलाहकार, पे(cid:7069)ोनलयम और (cid:7079)ाकृ नतक गैस मं(cid:7074)ालय को 24.07.2019 से 23.07.2021 तक या अगले आदे होने तक, ोि भी पहले हो, तेल उ(cid:7378)ोग र्नकास बोड(cid:6981) का सद(cid:7021)य ननयु(cid:6989)त करती है।

[ा. सं. ीि-38011/41/2016-र्न(cid:7275)-I]

पे(cid:7407)रन र्देी, ननदेक

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2019

S.O. 1335.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (3)(b) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry (Development) Act, 1974(47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Rajiv Bansal, Additional Secretary & Financial Adviser, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas as a member of the Oil Industry Development Board w.e.f. 24.07.2019 to 23.07.2021 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

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

PERIN DEVI, Director5676 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SHRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (cid:1)म एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय(cid:1)म एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय(cid:1)म एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय(cid:1)म एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 18 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1336133613361336....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार मैसर्स महाप्रबंधक विजयमोहिनी मिल्स ति%वनंतपुरम, कोचीन,और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब+ िनयोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि-दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं /म न्यायालय,

एर्नाकु लम के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 19/2011) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार को 17.06.19 को प्राप्त 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/278/2010-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2019

S.O.1336.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Ernakulum, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General Manager Vijayamohini Mills Thiruvananthapuram, Cochin. & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 16.07.19.

[No. L-42012/278/2010-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULUM

Present: Shri. V. Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer

(Wednesday the 3rd day of July 2019, 12thAsadha, 1941)

ID No. 19 of 2011

Workman : Shri.B.Gopalakrishnan Kudayathukonathu PuthenVeedu Cheriyakonni P.O., Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram – 695013 By Adv. Shri. R. LakshmanaIyer

Management : The General Manager Vijayamohini Mills Thirumala P.O. Thiruvananthapuram

By Adv. Shri.Ajith S. Nair

This case coming up for final hearing on 14.05.2019 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 03.07.2019 passed the following.

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42012/278/2010-IR(DU) dated 24.05.2011 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

2. The dispute referred is;

"Whether the enquiry conducted by the management against the workman namely

Shri. B. Gopalakrishnan was proper and in full appreciation of the facts of the case? Whether the

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5677

punishment imposed on the workman was proportionate to the charges levelled against him? If

not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

3. According to the claim statement filed by the workman he was appointed in the service of the management in the year 1992. On 14.02.2005 he met with an industrial accident during the course of his employment, while working in the carding machine and sustained serious injury to his right knee. He was treated in ESI hospital and was referred to Medical College, Trivandrum. He underwent treatment for a period of one year. During the period of treatment he was on medical leave, sanctioned by the management. He rejoined duty after prolonged treatment. Evenafter joining duty he used to suffer severe pain and used to go on leave. While so, he received a show cause notice dt.08.07.2008 directing the workman to give his explanation on allegations of poor attendance and unauthorized absence. His explanation was rejected by the management and an enquiry was ordered to be conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 04.09.2009. Management accepted the enquiry report and the findings therein and imposed a punishment of removal from service on the workman with effect from 19.10.2009. The enquiry report along with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority was challenged onthe ground that

a. The workman was not given proper assistance to defend his case

b. Copies of the documents were not given to the workman

c. The Muster Roll relied on by the Enquiry Officer is not marked in the enquiry

d. No opportunity was given to the workman to lead defence evidence.

e. The workman never admitted the charges framed against him as claimed by the Enquiry Officer.

4 According to the workman the punishment of removal from service is grossly disproportionate to the charges alleged to be proved. The management failed to consider the extenuating circumstances under which the workman was forced to take leave.

5 The management filed their written statement denying the allegations of the workman. According to the management policy disciplinary action was initiated against employees whose attendance was very poor. The workman was not attending his duties regularly. Hence a memo dt.08.07.2008 was issued to him. The workman admitted his poor attendance and committed that he will improve his attendance. Since his reply was not satisfactory a Disciplinary Enquiry was ordered and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire in to the charges. The Enquiry Officer returned a finding of guilt. The report was communicated to the workman to offer his comments. The workman did not offer any comment and a show cause notice was issued to him intimating the decision of the management to relieve him from the service. In the reply the workman did not allege any impropriety in conduct of the enquiry and findings by the Enquiry Officer. He only submitted that he will try to improve his attendance. Since the management found that his explanation was not satisfactory he was relived from the service as per order dated 12.10.2009. It is admitted by the management that the workman met with a serious accident and was on sanction medical leave for all most a year. However the managementdenied that there was any irregularity in the conduct of the enquiry, as adequate opportunity was given to the workman, all proceedings were recorded and signed by him and he never raised any objection regarding marking of documents during the course of enquiry.

6. After completing the pleadings the management examined the enquiry officer as MW1 and marked Exbts.M1 to M9. The workman did not adduce any evidence.

7. The issues to be considered are;

1. Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer is proper and justified on the basis of evidence?

2. Whether the punishment is proportional to the proved charges?

3. Relief and cost

8. Issue No. 1

This Tribunal has already found that the enquiry is conducted properly following the principles of natural justice. Hence the further question to be decided is whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer are supported by legal evidence. The charge leveled against the workman is low attendance and productivity. Exbt.M3, show cause notice dt.08.07.2008 clearly spells out the charges of low attendance and unauthorized absence. In his reply, Exbt.M3(a) he admitted the low attendance and agreed that he will regularly attend the office. In Exbt.M3(c) the workman admitted that he worked only for 7 days during February 2007. From the enquiry proceedings dt.14.03.2009 it is seen that workman admitted his unauthorized absence and explained that he could not attend the office because of his sickness. Further in the proceedings dt.28.03.2009 the workman admitted to the charges levelled against him.

5678 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9. In view of the above evidence the findings of the enquiry is proper and justified.

10. Issue nos. 2& 3

It is an admitted fact that the workman met with an industrial accident during 2005. It is also admitted that the workman was undergoing treatment for almost one year in ESI Hospital and Medical college. He was on medical leave during the period of treatment. The management has no case that the workman was irregular in attendance before the date of his accident. The management has taken a lenient view holding that the workman is entitled to all retiral benefits. Considering the above facts and circumstances it is felt that the punishment of removal from service is proportionate to the charges proved against the workman.

11. It is clear from the evidence available on record that the workman will not be in a position to do justice to his work in future. In a market economy it is also not advisable to direct the management to retain a person in service when his productivity has come down to 10%. It is seen from the Exbt.M8, discharge order dated 12.10.2009 that the Management had already extended all retiral benefits to the workman.

In view of the above I am not inclined to interfere with discharge order issued to the workman by the management.

Hence an Award is passed holding that the punishment awarded to the workman is proportionate to the proved charges against him and he is not entitled to any further relief.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and passed by me on this the 3rd day of July 2019.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the workman          -       Nil
Witness for the Management       -       MW1     dt.02.07.2014 Shri. R. Harikumar
Exhibits for the  workman        -       Nil

Exhibits for the Management:-

M1 -Enquiryfindings (in Original) conducted by Shri.R.Harikumar.

Enquiry Officer dated 04.09.2009.

M2 -Enquiry proceedings (in Original) conducted by

Shri.R.Harikumar Enquiry Officer on 14.03.2009 & 28.03.2009.

M3 -Copy of Show Cause Notice dated 08.07.2008 served to the workman by the management

M3(a) -Copy of the reply dated Nil submitted by the workman to the management

M3(b) -Copy of the Memo dated 10.03.2007 issued by the General Manager of the management to the workman M3(c) -Copy of the reply dated 10.03.2007 submitted by the workman to the management

M3(d) -Copy of the Memo dated 10.03.2007 issued by the General Manager of the management to the workman M3(e) -Copy of the Memo dated 12.02.2007 issued by the General Manager of the management to the workman M4 -Copy of the Enquiry Notice dated 18.07.2008 served by the management to the workman

M5 -Copy of the Memo dated 15.09.2009 issued by the General Manager of the management to the workman M6 -Copy of the Memo dated 05.10.2009 issued by the General Manager of the management to the workman M7 -Letter dated 05.10.2009 addressed to the General Manager of the management by the workman M8 -Copy of the order dated 12.10.2009 issued by the General Manager of the management to the workman M9 -Undelivered letter sent by the management through Registered Post with A/D to the workman marking the same as 'Unclaimed Returned to sender'.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5679

नई दिल्ली, 18 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1337133713371337....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:29)ीय

ंबई, और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब+ सरकार मेसर्स सेंट्रल इंस्टी=ूट ऑफ फिशरीज एजुके शन, वसAवा मु नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि-दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं /म

ंबई के (संदर्भ संख्या CGIT-2-5/2018) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार को 10.07.19 को प्राप्त न्यायालय, मु 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2019

S.O. 1337.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT -2-5/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Mumbai, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Central Institute of Fisheries Education,Versova Mumbai . & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 10.07.19.

[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

COMPLAINT NO. CGIT-2/5 of 2018

IN

REF. NO. CGIT-2 / 46 OF 2009

1. Rudraprasad Singh

2. P.K. Sharma

3. S.N. Mishra

4. Abhiram Sharma

5. Sanjay K. Sharma

6. R. D. Singh

7. Shiv Kumar Singh

8. Arjun Sharma

9. P. A. Pawar

10. JaysinghYadav

11. DhanrajYadav

12. Pramod K. Singh

13. Prakash B. Kadam

Address for all Complainants:

C/o. Shri R. K. Pednekar 504, Type II Building, New CPWD Building Near Sahar Cargo Complex, Andheri [East], Mumbai – 400 099. : COMPLAINANTS

V/s.

Central Institute of Fisheries Education, PanchMarg, Off Yari Road, Versova, Andheri [West], Mumbai- 400 061. : OPPONENT5680 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE OPPONENT             :      Mr. P. Shah, Advocate
FOR THE COMPLAINANTS         :      Mr. J. H. Sawant, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 17th June, 2019.

AWARD

1. Complainants are second party workmen in industrial dispute referred by the Central Government by order dated 21.05.2009. The reference is pending.

2. According to the complainants, the opponent had contravened the provisions made u/s. 33 of I.D. Act. The opponent as such has altered the conditions of services of the complainants who are workmen to their prejudice during pendency of the proceedings in Ref. No. CGIT-2 / 46 OF 2009, by reducing the amount of their monthly wages to the extent of Rs.7000/- per head from the month of Oct. '18 by making inordinate delay in payment of wages by non- payment of amount of EPF & ESIC contribution in respect of complainants and by not making payment of bonus. The complainants are therefore asking for giving direction to the opponent to make the payment of full wages to them without any deductions as effected by the opponent, timely payment of wages in every month, payment of EPF & ESIC contributions and payment of bonus for every year of their service to them. They are also asking for awarding punishment to the opponent for his contravention in section 33 of I.D. Act.

3. The opponent by filing say contended that they have not altered the conditions of the service of the complainants and 46.75% are deducted as per the directions of Annual Audit Party of the opponent. Service conditions of the complainants are continuing by the Central Institute of Fisheries Education as per the directions of Hon'ble H.C. in W.P. No. 634 of 2001. Since the complainants are not regular employees of the first party, they have no right to regularization nor they can claim any consequential benefits as prayed for. The opponent has thus sought for dismissal of complaint.

4. By filing rejoinder Ex.6, complainants have reiterated that in Ref. No. CGIT-2 / 46 OF 2009 by reducing the amount of their monthly wages to the extent of Rs.7000/- per head from the month of Oct. '18 the service conditions of the complainants have been altered. Complainants are therefore asking for payment of full wages except statutory deductions as being made from the month of Oct. '18.

5. Following points arises for my determination and my findings thereon for the reasons to follow are as under:

Sr. No. Point Findings
1 Whether the complainants are entitled are entitled to full wages without deduction excluding statutory deductions along with timely payment of wages, payment of EPF & ESIC and bonus etc. for very year of their services. ? Yes
2. What order ? As per final order

Reasons

Point No. 1 & 2.

6. At the outset it may be stated that the union General KamgarMazdoor Union filed the WP No. 634 / 2001 and claimed that they should be absorbed by direct employment of opp. No.1 As per the order of Hon'ble H.C since the union had approached the appropriate government for referring the dispute to the court under industrial dispute as per section 10 of I.D. Act, petitioners are at liberty to apply for interim relief. As per the order of Hon'ble H.C in this writ petition, the opp. No.1 are directed to pay salary/wages to the employees on whose behalf the petition is filed till then the interim relief was granted by the Hon'ble H.C is ordered to be continued. Thus the Hon'ble H.C has already directed the opponent to pay salary/wages to the employees on whose behalf the petition is filed. It is precisely the case of opponent that complainants i.e. concerned workman are being continued in service of Central Institute of Fisheries Education as per the order of Hon'ble H.C in WP No. 634 / 2001.

7. Now it is the case of opponent that 46.75% of the wages of the complainants are deducted as per the directions of Annual Audit Party of the opponent from the month of Oct. '18. As such it is admitted by the opponent that 46.75% of the amount of wages of the complainants are being deducted from the month of Oct. '18 that to during the pendency of reference and therefore that amounts to change of service conditions.

8. It is in that circumstances the opponent can be directed to make full payment of wages to the complainants without altering any service condition during the pendency of reference and as such the opponent is directed to make payment to the complainants without any deductions.

9. Since it appears to me that making any deductions in the wages of the complainants amounts to change of service conditions in view of provisions of section 33 of I.D. Act which amounts to violation of section 33. The[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5681 application of the complainants is liable to be allowed to that extent. Hence the above points are answered accordingly as indicated against each of them in terms of above observations.

10. In the result, I pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint is partly allowed.

2. Opponents are directed to make payment of full wages to the complainants without any deductions.

3. They are also directed to make timely payment of wages every month, payment of EPF & ESIC

and payment of bonus for every year of their service during the pendency of reference.

4. In view of this the complaint is disposed of.

Date : 17.06.2010

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1338133813381338....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार मेसर्स रिलायंस नेक्स्ट लिक प्रा. िलिमटेड रेवाड़ी (एच आर) और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब+ नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि-दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं /म न्यायालय,

चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 07/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार को 15.07.19 को प्राप्त 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2019

S.O. 1338.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.07/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Reliance Next Link Pvt. Ltd. Rewari (HR.) & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.07.2019.

[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer

ID No.7/2014

Registered on:-17.04.2014

Sh. Govind Ram, S/o Sh. Asha Ram, R/o Village Kharota, P.O. Aharva, Teh. & Distt. Palwal-121102 (Hry.) …Workman Versus

Reliance Next Link Pvt. Ltd. Shanti Complex, Opposite Shed Piper Tourism Complex, NaiwalaChowk, Rewari (Hry.) …Management

AWARD

Passed on: 12.06.2019

1. The workman has directly filed this claim petition under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with the averment that he was in the service of the management from 21.04.2008 till his illegal termination by the respondent- management. The workman was performing the duty of Electrician/Mechanical Engineer/Bill Clerk. The nature of work was of DG Repaid Mechanic and Electrical Repairs of the Towers installed by the respondent-management on various locations. He was paid Rs.14,284/- per month along with other allowances like travel allowances Rs. 5,000/- and Rs.1,000/- as diet money. He had worked for more than 240 days continuously in each preceding calendar year till his termination. Due to the satisfactory performance of the claimant/workman he was promoted on 28.05.2005 by the management by issuing employee code No. 23509073 and increases the salary and allowances. Respondent-management5682 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] are lose minded towards employee whereby the legally permissible benefit/privileges like ESIC, PF, Bonus, Casual Leave etc. are not extended when claimant demanded his dearness allowance on 30.06.2009 and remaining emoluments management relieved him from his duty illegally against the violation of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Claimant requested for his duty repeatedly but has not been allowed to resume his duties. The claimant has been forced to remain unemployed due to his illegal termination by the respondent. The respondent at the time of termination of the claimant retains the juniors and also made fresh appointments. In spite of notice and proceeding initiated before the Additional Labour Commissioner, Faridabad. Management refused to reinstate the claimant/workman. It is prayed that claimant be taken on duty with continuity of service and other benefits that prayed.

2. Respondent-management has resisted the claim petition by filing written statement where it is averred that it has never terminated the services of the applicant/claimant but as a matter of fact, he himself remained absent from duty without intimation w.e.f. 30.06.2009 and falsely alleged that wages for the month of April, May, June and other benefits had not been paid. The respondent-management has paid all the legal dues of the claimant/workman as such, he is not entitled to any relief as he himself has abandoned his services for better opportunities. The present industrial dispute by way of reference in view of amended provisions of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable before this Tribunal because of the fact that assuming the service of the claimant/workman terminated by the respondent- management on 30.06.2009, the workman has made the industrial dispute by way of demand notice dated 21.11.2012 after the expiry of 3 years from the date of his termination. Thus, claim petition is time barred in view of sub-Section 2 and 3 of Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further alleged that in the light of the specific statutory provisions this Hon'ble Tribunal is not competent to proceed with the claim petition and liable to be dismissed with cost. It is further alleged that no single person is handling the same profile in the entire region i.e. Punjab, Haryana, himachal, J&K. Therefore question of reinstatement at this stage does not arise. The alleged legal dues of the workman has already been settled in the year 2009 and the respondent-management reserves the right to submit reply, if needed. It is prayed that claim petition be disposed of in the light of the legal submission made by the respondent-management as it is not maintainable in view of the provisions of sub-Section 3 of Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 3. Claimant has filed his replication/rejoinder denying that he has left the job at his own. It is further alleged that respondent-management has terminated his services from 30.06.2009. It is also averred that if there is any delay in filing the petition it is due to management who used to give false promises for payment of remaining dues and reinstatement. Remaining facts are the same which are already in the claim petition as such, are not required to be repeated again. 4. Both the parties are given opportunities to file their evidence. Claimant/workman Govind Ram has submitted his affidavit Ex.WW1/A as oral evidence along with 6 papers but management-counsel did not turn up for cross- examination hence, vide order dated 03.07.2018, respondent-management was proceeded ex parte. 5. During the course of pendency of the claim petition at the stage of argument, workman along with his counsel did not appear on 28.05.2019. Hence, opportunity of oral argument is being closed and case is fixed for orders. However, claimant has filed its written argument which is on record. 6. At the very outset, it can be observed that management has taken legal issue regarding the maintainability of the claim petition by virtue of its time barred in the light of the provisions contained in Section 2-A sub-Clause 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This specific plea has been taken by the management in Para 2 of the written statement as such, it is the legal obligation of the Tribunal to discuss the issue at first. On the basis of the plea, raised by the respondent-management, I am of the view that following points would arise for consideration:-

(i) "Whether Labour Court can entertain a claim petition filed under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 after three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or services otherwise

terminated?

(ii) Whether Labour Court has right to condone the delay in filing claim statement though sub-Section (3) of

Section 2-A barred such claim?"

7. Section 2-A of the I.D. Act enables the individual workman to raise a dispute connected with or arising out of his discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of his services by his employer and by legal fiction it would constitute "Industrial Dispute". No other type of dispute regarding an individual workman is contemplated by Section 2-A. After the enactment of Section 2-A, it is not necessary that a dispute relating to the discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service of a workman must be sponsored by a trade union or a substantial number of workman. In other words, even if it is not sponsored by a trade union or a substantial number of workman, such a dispute will be deemed to be an industrial dispute. Section 2-A of the ID Act reads as under:

"2-A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute-

(1) Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an

individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected

with, or arising out of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an

industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the

dispute.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5683

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-Section(1)

may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute

referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the

Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of

such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon

the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the

provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as

they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.

(3) The application referred to in sub-Section(2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

exp9iry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of

service as specified in sub-Section(1)."

A bare reading of above provisionwould indicate that a dispute covered under sub-Section(1) can be

agitated or questioned by a workman by making an application directly to the Labour Court or

Tribunal for adjudication of such dispute and such application should be filed before the expiry of

three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service. In

other words, the right conferred under Section 2A would lapse immediately preceding the date of

expiry of three years of the date of dismissal, discharge etc. Sub-Section (3) of Section 2A would

operate independently. The right available to the workman under Section 2A is not withstanding

anything contained in Section 10 of the ID Act.

8. Thus, question arises for consideration in the present case is whether the dispute raised after three years from the date of dismissal can be entertained by the Labour Court or Tribunal condoning the delay, if any, in raising the dispute? Keeping the above principles in mind, a reading of Section 2A(3) would lead to an irresistible conclusion that time stipulated for invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or the Tribunal as the case may be, has to be necessarily "before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-Section (1). "Time limit for making an application to the Labour Court stipulated in sub-Section (3) of Section 2A does not appear to have a bearing to the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 2A. In any event right conferred under Section 2A would lapse immediately preceding the date of expiry of three years from the date of dismissal, discharge etc.,. In other words, the limitation of three years prescribed under sub-Section (3) of Section 2A being mandatory, same cannot be condoned by taking recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which has no application to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

9. Therefore, it has to be held that if claim petition is filed beyond the limitation period then it will be incumbent on the part of this Tribunal not to entertain such an application since the condition does not bars the special remedy but it also strikes at the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain such application. Such interpretation is in consonance to the general rule of the interpretation of statute and such instruction will not also in any way prejudice the right of the workman to get his dispute resolved by a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act provided the dispute sought to be raised do not become state because of his inaction as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh Vs. Punjab Roadways, Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. Prahalad Singh,

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nasiruddin vs. SitaramAggarwal, reported in AIR 2003 SCW 908, has held in Para 20 as under:-

"The Courts jurisdiction to interpret a statute can be invoked when the same is ambiguous. It is well known

that in a given case, the Court can iron out the fabric but it cannot change the texture of the fabric. It cannot

enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of provision is plain and unambiguous. It

cannot add or subtract the words to a statute or read something into it which is not there. It cannot re-write

or recast legislation. It is also necessary to determine that there exists a presumption that the legislature has

not used any superfluous words. It is well settled that the real intention of legislature must be gathered from

the language used."

11. Thus, in the background of the dicta of the Apex Court in Naziruddin's case referred to supra, when Section 2- A is perused, it would indicate that if the legislature really intended that the period of limitation provided in sub-Section (3) of Section 2-A of the Act was to be construed as directory, then it would not have prescribed the limitation of three years and it would have used the words "at any time" instead of using the words "before the expiry of three years". Though the words 'at any time' is found in section 10(1), same is conspicuously absent in sub-Section(3) of Section 2-A which would clearly depict the intention of the legislature namely, it had deliberately imposed limitation period under sub-Section (3) of Section 2-A and as such legislature did not employ the words 'at any time' in the said provision as found in Section 10(1) and in its place, it has specifically incorporated the words 'before the expiry of three years'. Hence, to interpret the period of limitation found in sub-Section (3) of Section 2-A as directory and not mandatory would amount to adding something which is not provided in the provisions by the legislature or it would amount to doing violence to the provision, if such interpretation is sought to be made. To my mind, the limitation of 3 years prescribed5684 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] under sub-Section (3) of Section 2-A is mandatory and same cannot be condoned by taking recourse of Limitation Act, 1963 which has no application to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

12. In the background of the aforesaid discussion, when the facts of case in hand are examined, it would clearly indicate that the services of the claimant by his own averments in the petition has been terminated by the management on 30.06.2009 while order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) dated 31.12.2013 reveals that the matter has been raised by the workman on 31.11.2012 before the authority while this claim petition is preferred before this Tribunal on 16.04.2014 almost after 5 years of his alleged termination. In view of the fact that sub-Section (3) of Section 2-A having been held as mandatory and the said provision clearly indicate that in case of dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or termination, an application referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 2-A to be made before the expiry of three years, i.e., on or before 30.06.2012 and same having not been made, respondent-employee cannot be heard to contend that delay is to be condoned. At the cost of repetition, it is to be held that on the expiry of three years period from the date of discharge, dismissal etc., the right to invoke Section 2-A would stand extinguished.

13. In view of the aforestated discussion, I am of the considered view that Point No.s(1) & (ii) has to be answered in the negative namely, Labour Court cannot entertain a claim petition filed under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act after three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination and this Tribunal has no right to condone the delay more than five years in filing the claim petition. Even otherwise there is no explanation forthcoming for the delay in not raising the dispute from 30.06.2009 to 21.11.2012 from the date of termination till the date of filing of application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The contention of the workman that if there is any delay regarding the filing of claim petition it is due to the conduct of management on pretext of false promise for payment and reinstatement has no force in the eye of law.

14. Having gone through the factual and legal proposition, I am of the view that claim petition is time barred as such, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present claim petition and passed the order on merit without jurisdiction as such, the claimant is not entitled for any relief and the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

15. The reference is answered accordingly. Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.

A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1339133913391339....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार

मैसर्स रिलायंस नेक्स्ट लिक प्रा. िलिमटेड रेवाड़ी (एच आर) और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब+ नियोजकों और

उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि-दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं /म न्यायालय,

चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 06/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार को 15.07.19 को प्राप्त 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2019

S.O. 1339.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Lab our Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Reliance Next Link Pvt. Ltd. Rewari (HR.) & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.07.2019.

[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5685

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer

ID No.6/2014

Registered on:-17.04.2014

Sh. Govind Kishor Maheshwari S/o Sh. Kailash Chand, R/o H.No.155, Purani CIA Wali Gali, Nahar Singh Colony, Shekhpura, Teh. & Distt. Palwal-121102 (Hry.) …Workman

Versus

Reliance Next Link Pvt. Ltd. Shanti Complex, Opposite Shed Piper Tourism Complex, Naiwala Chowk, Rewari (Hry.)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on:-12.06.2019

1. The workman has directly filed this claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with the averment that he was in the service of the management from 28.05.2005 till his illegal termination by the respondent- management. The workman was performing the duty of Electrician/Mechanical Engineer/Bill Clerk. The nature of work was of DG Repaid Mechanic and Electrical Repairs of the Towers installed by the respondent-management on various locations. He was paid Rs.14,284/- per month along with other allowances like travel allowances Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,000/- as diet money. He had worked for more than 240 days continuously in each preceding calendar year till his termination. Due to the satisfactory performance of the claimant/workman he was promoted on 28.05.2005 by the management by issuing employee code no.23503870 and increases the salary and allowances. Respondent-management are lose minded towards employee whereby the legally permissible benefit/privileges like ESIC, PF, Bonus, Casual Leave etc. are not extended when claimant demanded his dearness allowance on 30.06.2009 and remaining emoluments management relieved him from his duty illegally against the violation of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Claimant requested for his duty repeatedly but has not been allowed to resume his duties. The claimant has been forced to remain unemployed due to his illegal termination by the respondent. The respondent at the time of termination of the claimant retains the juniors and also made fresh appointments. In spite of notice and proceeding initiated before the Additional Labour Commissioner, Faridabad. Management refused to reinstate the claimant/workman. It is prayed that claimant be taken on duty with continuity of service and other benefits that prayed.

2. Respondent-management has resisted the claim petition by filing written statement where it is averred that it has never terminated the services of the applicant/claimant but as a matter of fact, he himself remained absent from duty without intimation w.e.f. 30.06.2009 and falsely alleged that wages for the month of April, May, June and other benefit had not been paid. The respondent-management has paid all the legal dues of the claimant/workman as such, he is not entitled to any relief as he himself has abandoned his services for better opportunities. The present industrial dispute by way of reference in view of amended provisions of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable before this Tribunal because of the fact that assuming the service of the claimant/workman terminated by the respondent- management on 30.06.2009, the workman has made the industrial dispute by way of demand notice dated 21.11.2012 after the expiry of 3 years from the date of his termination. Thus, claim petition is time barred in view of sub-Section 2 and 3 of Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further alleged that in the light of the specific statutory provisions this Hon'ble Tribunal is not competent to proceed with the claim petition and liable to be dismissed with cost. It is further alleged that no single person is handling the same profile in the entire region i.e. Punjab, Haryana, himachal, J&K. Therefore question of reinstatement at this stage does not arise. The alleged legal dues of the workman has already been settled in the year 2009 and the respondent-management reserves the right to submit reply, if needed. It is prayed that claim petition be disposed of in the light of the legal submission made by the respondent-management as it is not maintainable in view of the provisions of sub-Section 3 of Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

3. Claimant has filed his replication/rejoinder denying that he has left the job at his own. It is further alleged that respondent-management has terminated his services from 30.06.2009. It is also averred that if there is any delay in filing the petition it is due to management who used to give false promises for payment of remaining dues and reinstatement. Remaining facts are the same which are already in the claim petition as such, are not required to be repeated again.

4. Both the parties are given opportunities to file their evidence. Claimant/workman Govind Kishore Maheshwari has submitted his affidavit Ex.WW1/A as oral evidence along with 6 papers but management-counsel did not turn up for cross-examination hence, vide order dated 03.07.2018, respondent-management was proceeded ex parte.

5686 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5. During the course of pendency of the claim petition at the stage of argument, workman along with his counsel did not appear on 28.05.2019. Hence, opportunity of oral argument is being closed and case is fixed for orders. However, claimant has filed its written argument which is on record.

6. At the very outset, it can be observed that management has taken legal issue regarding the maintainability of the claim petition by virtue of its time barred in the light of the provisions contained in Section 2-A sub-Clause 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This specific plea has been taken by the management in Para 2 of the written statement as such, it is the legal obligation of the Tribunal to discuss the issue at first. On the basis of the plea, raised by the respondent-management, I am of the view that following points would arise for consideration:-

(i) "Whether Labour Court can entertain a claim petition filed under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 after three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or services otherwise

terminated?

(ii) Whether Labour Court has right to condone the delay in filing claim statement though sub-Section (3)

of Section 2-A barred such claim?"

7. Section 2-A of the I.D. Act enables the individual workman to raise a dispute connected with or arising out of his discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of his services by his employer and by legal fiction it would constitute "Industrial Dispute". No other type of dispute regarding an individual workman is contemplated by Section 2-A. After the enactment of Section 2-A, it is not necessary that a dispute relating to the discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service of a workman must be sponsored by a trade union or a substantial number of workman. In other words, even if it is not sponsored by a trade union or a substantial number of workman, such a dispute will be deemed to be an industrial dispute. Section 2-A of the ID Act reads as under:

"2-A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute-

(1) Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an

individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with,

or arising out of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an

industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the

dispute.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-Section(1)

may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute

referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the

Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of

such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon

the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the

provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as

they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.

(3) The application referred to in sub-Section(2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

exp9iry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of

service as specified in sub-Section(1)."

A bare reading of above provisionwould indicate that a dispute covered under sub-Section(1) can be

agitated or questioned by a workman by making an application directly to the Labour Court or

Tribunal for adjudication of such dispute and such application should be filed before the expiry of

three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service. In

other words, the right conferred under Section 2A would lapse immediately preceding the date of expiry

of three years of the date of dismissal, discharge etc. Sub-Section (3) of Section 2A would operate

independently. The right available to the workman under Section 2A is not withstanding anything

contained in Section 10 of the ID Act.

8. Thus, question arises for consideration in the present case is whether the dispute raised after three years from the date of dismissal can be entertained by the Labour Court or Tribunal condoning the delay, if any, in raising the dispute? Keeping the above principles in mind, a reading of Section 2A(3) would lead to an irresistible conclusion that time stipulated for invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or the Tribunal as the case may be, has to be necessarily "before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-Section (1). "Time limit for making an application to the Labour Court stipulated in sub-Section (3) of Section 2A does not appear to have a bearing to the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 2A. In any event right conferred under Section 2A would lapse immediately preceding the date of expiry of three years from the date of dismissal, discharge etc.,. In other words, the limitation of three years prescribed under sub-Section (3) of Section 2A being mandatory, same cannot be condoned by taking recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which has no application to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5687

9. Therefore, it has to be held that if claim petition is filed beyond the limitation period then it will be incumbent on the part of this Tribunal not to entertain such an application since the condition does not bars the special remedy but it also strikes at the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain such application. Such interpretation is in consonance to the general rule of the interpretation of statute and such instruction will not also in any way prejudice the right of the workman to get his dispute resolved by a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act provided the dispute sought to be raised do not become state because of his inaction as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh Vs. Punjab Roadways, Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. Prahalad Singh.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nasiruddin vs. SitaramAggarwal, reported in AIR 2003 SCW 908, has held in Para 20 as under:-

"The Courts jurisdiction to interpret a statute can be invoked when the same is ambiguous. It is well known

that in a given case, the Court can iron out the fabric but it cannot change the texture of the fabric. It cannot

enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of provision is plain and unambiguous. It

cannot add or subtract the words to a statute or read something into it which is not there. It cannot re-write

or recast legislation. It is also necessary to determine that there exists a presumption that the legislature has

not used any superfluous words. It is well settled that the real intention of legislature must be gathered from

the language used."

11. Thus, in the background of the dicta of the Apex Court in Naziruddin's case referred to supra, when Section 2-A is perused, it would indicate that if the legislature really intended that the period of limitation provided in sub-Section (3) of Section 2-A of the Act was to be construed as directory, then it would not have prescribed the limitation of three years and it would have used the words "at any time" instead of using the words "before the expiry of three years". Though the words 'at any time' is found in section 10(1), same is conspicuously absent in sub-Section(3) of Section 2-A which would clearly depict the intention of the legislature namely, it had deliberately imposed limitation period under sub- Section (3) of Section 2-A and as such legislature did not employ the words 'at any time' in the said provision as found in Section 10(1) and in its place, it has specifically incorporated the words 'before the expiry of three years'. Hence, to interpret the period of limitation found in sub-Section (3) of Section 2-A as directory and not mandatory would amount to adding something which is not provided in the provisions by the legislature or it would amount to doing violence to the provision, if such interpretation is sought to be made. To my mind, the limitation of 3 years prescribed under sub- Section (3) of Section 2-A is mandatory and same cannot be condoned by taking recourse of Limitation Act, 1963 which has no application to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

12. In the background of the aforesaid discussion, when the facts of case in hand are examined, it would clearly indicate that the services of the claimant by his own averments in the petition has been terminated by the management on 30.06.2009 while order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) dated 31.12.2013 reveals that the matter has been raised by the workman on 31.11.2012 before the authority while this claim petition is preferred before this Tribunal on 16.04.2014 almost after 5 years of his alleged termination. In view of the fact that sub-Section (3) of Section 2A having been held as mandatory and the said provision clearly indicate that in case of dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or termination, an application referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 2A to be made before the expiry of three years, i.e., on or before 30.06.2012 and same having not been made, respondent-employee cannot be heard to contend that delay is to be condoned. At the cost of repetition, it is to be held that on the expiry of three years period from the date of discharge, dismissal etc., the right to invoke Section 2A would stand extinguished.

13. In view of the aforestated discussion, I am of the considered view that Point No.s(1) & (ii) has to be answered in the negative namely, Labour Court cannot entertain a claim petition filed under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act after three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination and this Tribunal has no right to condone the delay of more than 5 years in filing the claim petition. Even otherwise there is no explanation forthcoming for the delay in not raising the dispute from 30.06.2009 to 21.11.2012 from the date of termination till the date of filing of application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The contention of the workman that if there is any delay regarding the filing of claim petition it is due to the conduct of management on pretext of false promise for payment and reinstatement has no force in the eye of law.

14. Having gone through the factual and legal proposition, I am of the view that claim petition is time barred as such, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present claim petition and passed the order on merit without jurisdiction as such, the claimant is not entitled for any relief and the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

15. The reference is answered accordingly. Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.

A.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer5688 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 18 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1340134013401340....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार मैसर्स निदEशक,राष्ट्रीय समु(cid:29) विGान संस्थान, डोना पाउला, गोवा और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब+ नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि-दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं /म न्यायालय, गोवा के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या IT/37/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार को 03.07.2019 को प्राप्त 7आ था।

[सं. एल-42012/20/2007-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2019

S.O. 1340.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. IT/37/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court GOA as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The The Director, National Institute of Oceanography, Dona Paula, Goa & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 03.07.2019.

[No. L-42012/20/2007-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

(BEFORE MR. VINCENT D'SILVA, HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

Ref. No. IT/37/07

Smt. Sugandha Shirodkar, H. No. 674, Nagali, Taleigao, Goa.

…Workman/Party I

V/s

The Director, National Institute of Oceanography, Dona Paula, Goa.

…Employer/Party II

Workman/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri. SuhaasNaik.

Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri. K. P. Anilkumar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 25th day of the month

of June of the year 2019)

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India/Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi by Order dated 06.07.2007 bearing No. L-42012/20/2007-IR(DU), has referred the following dispute for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the management of National Institute of Oceanography in terminating the services of

their workman Smt. SugandhaShirodkarw.e.f 1.8.2006 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled to?"

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered as IT/37/07 and registered A/D notices were issued to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices, Party I filed a Claim statement at Exhibit 5and Party II filed a Written statement at Exhibit 7.

3. In short, the case of the Party I is that she joined the services of National Institute of Oceanography (NIO)/Party II and was posted in the Canteen of the Party II effective from 02.02.2004 and continued to work in the Canteen of Party II as an Office Assistant under Mrs. S. Almeida who was working as a Receptionist/In-charge of canteen of Party II on a[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5689 monthly salary of Rs. 2000/- per month. The canteen was situated in the premise of Party II and she was working as an Office Assistant performing duties like maintenance of the stock entry register; writing coupon register and tallying the sale of coupons with the cash received; taking orders for lunch online and submitting the same at the coupon counter and writing the cash book and making all the entries on the computer etc. and worked continuously from 02.02.2004 till 31.07.2006 with clean and unblemished service record maintaining excellent and cordial relations with the Party II management and other staff. The Party I met with an scooter accident and was unable to attend the duties on 24.07.2006 to 28.07.2006 and after recovering from the accident, the Party I reported for duty on 31.07.2006 but was told by the officials of Party II that her services has been terminated effective from closing hours of 31.7.2006 w.e.f 01.08.2006.

4. The action of Party II in terminating the services of Party I workman is illegal, unjustified and bad in law. The Party I worked from 02.02.2004 till the closing hours of 31.07.2006 prior to her illegal termination of service and have completed more than 240 days of continuous service with Party II. The Party I was appointed by Party II and Party I was working with Party II in the canteen under the supervision and control of Party II officers and was also paid her monthly salaries by Party II, as such there was a blatant violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and rules made thereunder. The Party II has failed to conduct any enquiry of whatsoever nature nor Party I was paid any wages nor compensation nor she was given any prior notice or pay in lieu of notice. The action of Party II in illegally terminating service of Party I w.e.f 01.08.2006 is illegal, unjustified and bad in law and is in total contravention of Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rules made thereunder.

5. The Party II has issued her service certificate stating that Party I has worked with Party II as Office Assistant. The Party I also claimed that after terminating the services of the Party I by the Party II, the Party II has recruited new persons in place of the Party I. The Party I has raised an Industrial Disputes vide letter dated 01.08.2006 however, Party II failed to respond and as such the Party I raised an Industrial Dispute before the Office of the Asst. Labour Commissioner, Government of India Vasco, on 19.02.2007 demanding immediate reinstatement, full back wages and continuity in service. The Asst. Labour Commissioner intervened immediately. However, the matter was not resolved in conciliation across the table and as such a failure was recorded by the Asst. Labour Commissioner in conciliation on 14.03.2007. The action of Party II in illegally terminating her services w.e.f 01.08.2006 is illegal, unjustified and bad in law and is an act of hire & fire at the whims and fancies of Party II. Hence the reference.

6. In the Written statement, the Party II has claimed that the National Institute of Oceanography is one of the National Laboratories set up by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), as such, it is not an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Planning Commission of India formulates policy and sets objective targets for the purpose of research by CSIR. The Planning Commission has set up various working groups consisting of experts in different fields to formulate the plan for relevant sector in collaboration with Central Ministries and State Governments. Likewise in the case of Scientific Research, Planning Commission has set up independent committees, working groups, and panel of experts and scientists to suggest plans for various sectors of scientific research. CSIR or any of its Laboratories including NIO are not indulged in any activity of business, trade or manufacture. It is merely a Research Institute. It is also not a Commercial Enterprise. The research conducted by NIO is for the benefit of India as a Nation and also for the benefit of mankind. Thus, NIO does not come within the scope of definition of the term 'Industry' as defined under Section 2(j) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, as such, the present dispute is not an industrial dispute at all. The present dispute/ reference is therefore liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction being not maintainable before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

7. CSIR and NIO are exercising sovereign functions of the State. At the time of recruitment of any employees, NIO always follows the well established process of selection as laid down by law. Apart from calling for names from Employment Exchange, it advertises all the posts. The Selection Committee selects the candidates on merits. In case of promotional posts, the selection is done by Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) by following the norms set up by the Govt. of India. The records of NIO disclose that the Party I has never been employed by NIO. Even otherwise, she has neither faced any interview nor any other process of selection. She has never been on the rolls of NIO as its employee. The Party I has approached this Hon'ble Tribunal with false and fabricated claims. Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable for the employees of NIO. The Party I is not entitled for any relief from either by way of adjudication of her false claim of termination or reinstatement or with back wages or otherwise.

8. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exh.8 denying the case put forth by Party II in the written statement.

9. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 9 are as follows:

(1) Whether the Party I proves that she was working as an Office Assistant in the canteen of the Party II from 02.02.2004 till 31.07.06?

(2) Whether the Party I proves she was unable to attend duties from 24.07.06 to 28.07.06 due to an accident?

(3) Whether the Party I proves that the termination of her services, by the Party II is illegal and unjustified?

5690 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(4) Whether the Party II is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act?

(5) Whether the dispute is an Industrial Dispute?

(6) Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the reference/dispute?

(7) What relief? What order?

10. The Party I, Smt. Sugandha Shirodkar examined herself and produced on record a copy of statements of Accounts dated 22.11.2010 State Bank of India at Exh. 20 colly, a copy of Certificate dated 07.02.2006 issued by Secretary NIO Department Canteen at Exh. 21, a copy of notice dated 02.02.2005 issued by Secretary, NIO Departmental Canteen at Exh. 22, a copy of letter dated 02.08.2006 addressed to the Director of NIO at Exh. 23, a copy of dispute dated 04.09.2006 raised before the Assist. Labour Commissioner, Panaji at Exh. 24 and a copy of letter dated 19.02.2007 addressed to the Asst. Labour Commissioner, Vasco da Gama, Goa at Exh. 25. On the other hand, Party II examined Shri Mohan Ganesh Dalvi and produced on record a copy of Index of Writ Petition No. 741/2010 along with the annexures at Exh. 30 colly and a copy of order dated 06.01.2011 in the Writ Petition at Exh. 31.

11. Heard arguments. Notes of Written arguments came to be placed on record by both the parties.

12. I have gone through the records of the case and have duly considered the arguments advanced. My findings to the above issues are as follows:

Issue No. 1, 2 & 3 … In the Negative

Issue No. 4, 5 & 6 … In the Negative

Issue No. 7 … As per final order

REASONS

ISSUE NO. 1, 2 & 3:

13. Learned Adv. ShriSuhaasNaik for Party I has submitted that Party I was recruited directly by NIO by conducting the written test, oral test and interview and after following due process of selection as stated by her. The work of Party I was supervised and controlled by the Secretary of the Party II canteen, Mr. BlascoFernandes and Party I workman was interviewed by the Mrs. Shanti Almeida, the employee of Party II establishment. He further submitted that Party I has also produced her service certificate issued Mr. Vijay Kumar at Exhibit 21 who was the officer of Party company and was receiving salary in her salary account by cheque through Party II establishment i.e. NIO and has produced the statement of account of State Bank of India, Dona Paula, which clearly reflects that the salary was paid by NIO. He further submitted the recruitment of Party I was done under Central Government Service Rules, however suddenly on 01.08.2006 her services was terminated without following due process of law, which is illegal, unjust and bad in law and is an act of hire-& fire at the whims and fancies of NIO. He further submitted that the employer has also failed to produce any document to suggest that the workman was engaged through the contractor neither the employer produced any contract licence on record that the said contractor was having a valid contract licence to employ Party workman and that it is clear fact that no notice, notice pay has been served by the employer NIO and as such there is complete violation of the statutory provisions of law as required under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and hence the Party I is entitled for relief prayed.

14. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri K. P Anilkumar for Party II has submitted that the Party II herein follows the CCS(CCA) Rules as applicable to the Central Government servants. It is covered by the constitutional requirement of reservation etc. The employees are recruited through well laid down procedures like advertisement, written test, interview etc. Posts are fixed and are filled up through the above recruitment process. Appointment in the lab level is made by the Director of the concerned lab. He further submitted that the Party I was not recruited by CSIP or NIO. The Party I has not done any work of CSIR or NIO. She has never applied for any post and she was not issued any appointment letter. She was as seen from the records, appointed by the Canteen Committee who was running a canteen for the employees of NIO. The canteen committee consisted of employees of NIO and NIO has no role in running the canteen and there is no position in NIO in respect of canteen and therefore the Industrial dispute raised by the Party I claiming employment under CSIR/NIO is false.

15. It is well settled that burden of proof is on the workman to establish employer-employee relationship and where a person asserts that she is a workman of the company and it is denied by the company, it is for him/her to prove that fact and not for the company to prove that she was not an employee of the company but of some other person. The relevant facts to be taken into consideration to establish an employer- employee relationship as held in the case of M/s. Workmen of Nilgiri Co-op. Mkt. Society Ltd. vs. State of T.N. and others, (2004) 3 SCC 514 would include, inter alia: (a) who is the appointing authority; (b) who is paymaster; (c) who can dismiss; (d) how long alternative service lasts; (e) the extent of control and supervision; (f) the nature of the job e.g. whether it is professional or skilled work; (g) nature of establishment; (h) the right to reject.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5691

16. Admittedly, the Party I was working in the canteen of Party II however there is, nothing on record including appointment letter that she was recruited through well laid down procedure like advertisement, written test, interview etc by Party II as posts with Party II are filled up through above recruitment process. There is no dispute that Party I was not recruited by Party II through Employment Exchange. It has not been brought on record that she was recruited by CSIR or NIO or that she had applied for the post and that she was issued an appointment letter. Party I Smt. SugandhaShirodkar has admitted in the cross examination that she was not employed with Party II through employment exchange. She claimed that she was told that Party II had issued an advertisement for filling up the posts of canteen works; however, no such copy of advertisement has been produced. She claimed that she was called for the interview by Shanti Almeida, but no such call letter for the interview has been produced nor it is explained that said Shanti Almeida had authority to issue such a letter. She claimed that her salary was directly credited in her account but feigned ignorance whether her salary bill was prepaid by Party II. The Statement of account at Exh. 20 colly do not show that she was employed by Party II and was paid the salary by Party II.

17. The Party I, Smt. Sugandha has admitted that she had not signed day to day attendance register and that her signature was obtained only once in a month for having attended the duties for the said months by said Smt. Shanti Almeida. The Party I has not produced any documents indicating that she made application for the job or that she was selected by due process of law or that she was working in the canteen managed and run by the Party II or that that she was terminated by Party II, which fortifies the case of Party II that there was no employer-employee relationship between them and that she was never on the rolls of NIO as an employee. The Party I has produced on record a Certificate dated 07.02.2006 at Exh. 21 issued by Secretary, NIO, Departmental Canteen stating that Party I was working on contract as Office Assistant in the NIO Departmental Canteen for National Institute of Oceanography. The said certificate has been disputed by Party II. Even it is considered that she was working for the canteen, there is nothing on record that she is the employee of Party II and was appointed by it by following prescribed procedures. The Party I failed to show that she has been paid by Party II and that her work was supervised and controlled by Party II. It has not been shown by her that Party II was running the said canteen. If the canteen is run by the canteen committee consisting of the employees of NIO and that she was working in the said canteen, the Party I cannot claim any reliefs against Party II in the absence of employer- employee relationship between the two.

18. The Party I has thus failed to overcome the test laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Workmen of Nilgiri Co-op. Mkt. Society Ltd., supra nor shown that she was appointed by Party II or that she was paid salary/remuneration by it or that the disciplinary action was initiated by Party II and therefore the contention of Learned SuhaasNaik as stated above cannot be accepted having any merits. The Party I having failed to show that she was employed by Party II and was posted in the canteen of Party II from 02.02.2004 till 31.07.2006, either as casual labourer or otherwise, drawing salary from Party II, it cannot be said that the termination of her services was effected by Party II or that it is illegal and unjustified. Hence, the above issues are answered in the negative.

ISSUE NO. 4, 5 AND 6 :

19. Learned Adv. Shri SuhaasNaik for Party I has submitted that the action of Party II in terminating the services of Party I workman is illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law and that prior to her illegal termination of services, the Party II has failed to conduct any enquiry of whatsoever nature nor Party I was paid any wages or compensation nor she was given any prior notice or pay in lieu of notice. He further submitted that no notice, notice pay has been served by the employer NIO and as such there is complete violation of the statutory provisions of law as required under section 25-F or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence the Party I workman named in the schedule or reference is entitled for immediate reinstatement, full back wages and continuity in service with Party I employer.

20. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri K. P Anilkumar for Party II has submitted and rightly so that NIO is one of the National Laboratories set up by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and is under administrative Control of CSIR which is under the Ministry of Science and Technology as stated by Shri Mohan Ganesh Dalvi in his affidavit. He also stated that the object of the council of the Scientific Research is for the promotion; guidance and coordination of the scientific and industrial research in India including the institution and the financing of specific research, etc. The CSIR or any its Laboratories including NIO have not indulged in any activity of business, trade or manufacture. It is merely a Research Institute. It is also not a commercial enterprise. The research conducted by NIO is for the benefit of India as a Nation and also for the benefit of mankind. Thus, NIO does not come within the scope of definition of the term 'Industry' as defined under Section 2(j) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and therefore the present dispute is not maintainable. It is also held by the Apex Court in the case of Physical Research Laboratory vs. K. G. Sharma passed on08.04.1997 that CSIR is not an Industry as defined under Industrial Dispute Act as the Institute is doing only physical research and are governed by Central Civil Service Rules and was performing such activities for the betterment of scientific knowledge which cannot come in the purview of Industry. It is therefore Party II is not an Industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to decide the reference as the dispute is not an industrial dispute. Hence, the issues no. 4, 5, and 6 are answered in the negative.

5692 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ISSUE NO. 7:

21. The Party I has failed to prove that she was working as an Office Assistant in the canteen of Party II and that the termination of her services by Party II is illegal and unjustified and hence, the Party I is not entitled for any reliefs.

22. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) It is hereby held that there was no employer-employee relationship between the Party I and the Party II and that the termination of services of Party I was not effected by the management of Party II i.e. National Institute of Oceanography.

(ii) Party I /workman Smt. SugandhaShirodkar is therefore not entitled to any relief.

(iii) No order as to costs.

(iv) Inform the Government accordingly.

VINCENT D'SILVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1341134113411341....————राष्ट्रपित, /ी राधा मोहन चतुवEदी, पीठासीन अिधकारी, के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योिगक अिधकरण सह /म न्यायालय, जयपुर को दिनांक 15.07.2019 से छ: माह तक की अवधि अथवा नियमित आधार पर पद के भरे जाने तक अथवा अगले आदेश तक के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योिगक अधिकरण सह /म न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पीठासीन अिधकारी के पद का अतिरिक्त प्रभार सLपते हैं।

[सं. अ-11016/04/2017-सीएलएस-II]

संजीव नंदा, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2019

S.O. 1341.—The President is pleased to entrust the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad to Shri Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur for a period of six months with effect from 15.7.2019 or till the post is filled on regular basis or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[No. A-11016/04/2017-CLS-II]

SANJEEV NANDA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1342134213421342....————vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,e@,l gkaxdkax vkSj 'ka?kkbZ cSafdax dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM izca/krarz 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 dksydrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 01@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la ,y-12025@01@2019&vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½] ch- ,l- fc'V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019

S.O. 1342.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.01/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.07.2019.

[No. L-12025/01/2019-IR (B-1)]

B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5693

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Application No. CGIT-01 of 2012

(Under Section 2A of the I.D. Act, 1947)

Parties: Shri Saptarshi Mukherjee, 41, Babubagan Lane, P.S. Dhakuria, Kolkata – 700031

…Applicant

- Vs –

M/s. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., 31 Binoy Badal Dinesh Bag, Kolkata – 700001

…Opp. Party

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Applicant : Mr. Suvodip Bhattacharya, learned counsel

On behalf of the Opposite Parties : Mr. S.H. Quader, learne counsel

State: West Bengal. Industry: Banking

Dated: 10th July, 2019

AWARD

This is an application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act of 1947 for convenience) filed by the concerned workman, Shri Saptarshi Mukherjee challenging his termination order dated 20th February, 1997 as illegal and also praying for his reinstatement with full back wages including promotional allowance. The Opposite Party has filed its reply in which the maintainability of application under Section 2A of the Act of 1947 has been challenged on the ground of limitation.

2. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party has contended that the Act of 1947 prescribes limitation of only three years to file application under Section 2A. He relied on Swapan Adhikari V. State of West Bengal, 2014(4) CHN 435(CAL) in support of his contention.

3. Learned counsel for the Applicant relied on Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another, 2018 LLR 150 has submitted that where the workman has raised dispute at belated stage, even after several years, the application under Section 2A of the Act of 1947 has been held to be maintainable.

4. Admittedly the termination order was passed on 20th February, 1997 and this application under Section 2A of the Act of 1947 was moved on 13th February, 2012, i.e., approximately 15 years from the date of his termination. Section 2A(3) of the Act of 1947 prescribes period of limitation for filing application to challenge dismissal or termination under this section which reads as follows:

"2A(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1)."

5. From the above quoted provision it is established that the application under Section 2A of the Act of 19 can only be filed before the expiry of three years from the date of termination of service which is admittedly not done in the present case. Learned counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the workman had challenged his termination before the civil court and after conciliation proceeding before the Regional Labour Commissioner the Opposite Party has gone before the Hon'ble High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 640 of 2000. It is also submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in Writ Petition No. 388 of 2003 has given liberty to the Applicant to file his application before the appropriate authority under the Act of 1947. The learned counsel has relied on paragraphs quoted below from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the above writ petition on 20th May, 2011 -

"I am, accordingly, of the view that the petitioners have not made out any case for invoking the Constitutional

Writ Jurisdiction of this Court seeking invalidation of the proceeding, which has been instituted before the

authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners shall be entitled to raise the points on the strength

5694 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of which the present petition has been filed in course of the proceeding before the authorities under the said Act.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. All interim orders passed in this matter shall stand dissolved.

Since the writ petition itself is being dismissed, connected application being GA No. 1299 of 2003 for all

practical purpose becomes infructuous and shall stand disposed of.

The interim order passed in this writ petition shall stand dissolved. Let the appropriate authority under the

Industrial Disputes Act take further steps in this matter expeditiously so that the controversy could be resolved

at an early stage. I however make it clear that the forum constituted under the said Act shall examine the

question of maintainability of the dispute on its own merit. I have refrained from addressing the said issue on

merit for the reasons indicated in the earlier part of this judgment."

6. After perusal of above quoted paragraphs I have failed to find out any liberty given to the Applicant to file this application condoning delay in filing the application or condoning the period consumed in litigation before the Hon'ble High Court.

7. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the Applicant, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur (supra) has no applicability to the facts of the instant case and the same is distinguishable on facts and law. In the above quoted case law the workman has not raised any demand disputing his termination. Therefore, the corporation contended that the termination order was acceptable to the workman concerned. The Court held that the dispute comes into existence when any demand is raised by the workman and refused by the management and when the demand was not raised by the workman, no dispute came into existence. The relevant portion of the judgment is worth quoting –

"42.3 Since there is no period of limitation, it gives right to the workman to raise the dispute even belatedly.

However, if the dispute is raised after a long period, it has to be seen as to whether such a dispute still

exists?Thus, notwithstanding the fact that law of limitation does not apply, it is to be shown by the workman that

there is a dispute in praesenti. For this purpose, he has to demonstrate that even if considerable period has

lapsed and there are latches and delays, such delay has not resulted into making the industrial dispute cease to

exist. Therefore, if the workman is able to give satisfactory explanation for these latches and delays and

demonstrate that the circumstances disclose that issue is still alive, delay would not come in his way because of

the reason that law of limitation has no application. On the other hand, if because of such delay dispute no

longer remains alive and is to be treated as "dead", then it would be non-existent dispute which cannot be

referred."

8. In above cited case law the matter was alive even after lapse of considerable period of time and the workman submitted the reference before conciliation officer after inordinate delay of 4 years from the date of accrual of cause of action, i.e., raising of dispute. Moreover it was a case of reference under Section 10 of the Act of 1947. Hence ratio of the case has got no bearing to the instant case under Section 2A of the Act of 1947.

9. In the instant case, it appears that the workman was regularly pursuing his case before the Regional Labour Commissioner and also before the Civil Court which was denied by the Opposite Party. Then the dispute had arisen the moment the demand was made by the workman challenging the illegality of his termination order dated 20th February, 1997 when it was denied by the management. Filing case before the Civil Court by the workman and filing writ petition by the management before the High Court show that the parties contested their respective cases by tooth and nail. So, it cannot be said that the dispute did not come into existence and the application is filed within three years when it arose.

10. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Swapan Adhikary case (supra) has held that right conferred under Section 2A of the Act of 1947 lapses immediately preceding the date of three years of the date of dismissal. It has also been held that provision of Section 2A(3) of the Act of 1947 operates independently, no matter conciliation proceedings are pending.

11. In view of above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the application under Section 2A of the Act of 1947 is highly time barred. Therefore, rejected.

Dated, Kolkata

10 July, 2019

JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.1343134313431343....————vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/krarz 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 ua- II, p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 93@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-07-2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la ,y-12025@01@2019&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½] ch- ,l- fc'V] voj lfpo[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5695

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019

S.O. 1343.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 93/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No –II Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.07.2019.

[No. L-12025/01/2019-IR (B-1)]

B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer

ID No. 93/2014

Registered on:-01.07.2014

Sh. Ajay Sood, S/o Late Sh. Amar Singh, Village & Post Office,
Bhawarna, District Kangra (HP)                                                                 …Workman
                                           Versus
1.    State  Bank  of  India,  through  its  Deputy  General  Manager  (Business  &  Operations),  State  Bank  of  India  Zonal
      Office 40, SDA Commercial Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla-171009(HP).
2.    Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Officer,
      Centre Point Building, Civil Lines, Dharamshala, District Kangra (HP)                   … Management

AWARD

Passed on:-09.07.2019

1. The workman has directly filed this claim petition under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with the averment that he was an employee of the State Bank of India, right from the year 1979 up to the date of his illegal termination from 06.11.2013. Aggrieved with the order of dismissal dated 06.11.2013 followed by an appellate- authority order dated 03.01.2014, workman has preferred this industrial dispute after failure of the conciliation proceedings, for setting aside the order of dismissal. Initially workman was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the management/respondent-bank on 25.06.1979 and subsequently promoted as Senior Assistant, Special Assistant and finally Senior Special Assistant in the year 2011. Though, he was to superannuate on 31.01.2012 however, he was granted extension of two years and as such, his date of superannuation happened to be 31.01.2014. During the long service, he had excellent service record and annual confidential reports securing 10 out of 10 marks and 8 out of 10 marks for the year 2012-13. The workman was served with a memorandum dated 05.01.2013, whereby the disciplinary- authority decided to initiate proceedings for the imposition of major penalty on account of alleged gross misconduct based on totally false and baseless grounds through charge-sheet mentioning 9 charges (Annexure P-1). The workman submitted the reply(Annexure P-2) of charge-sheet vide letter dated 09.02.2013. It is pertinent to mention that while submitting the charge-sheet, the list of witnesses or documents were not given to the workman even without considering the reply of the workman, disciplinary-authority vide its order dated 04.03.2013(Annexure P-3) ordered the instigation of enquiry. The disciplinary authority appointed enquiry officer as well as presenting officer and the date of first hearing was fixed for 11.04.2013 of which date, the list of witnesses and documents were given to the workman. The witnesses were examined by the enquiry officer separately with respect to the separate parties but copies of the statement of witnesses and day to day proceedings were not given to the workman. The workman requested to the enquiry officer vide its letter dated 26.03.2013(Annexure P-6) for supplying of the documents which were very vital for defence of the workman but it was refused by the enquiry officer. After concluding the enquiry, the next date for examination of defence witnesses was fixed on 03.09.2013. The workman supplied the list of witnesses who were examined by him but due to suffering from liver cirrhosis and treatment at different hospitals including FORTIS Hospital, request was made by the workman for postponing the enquiry through letters(Annexure P-8, P-9, P-10, P-11, P-12, P-13, P-14 and P-15) with respect to grant of leave but working of the enquiry officer was not impartial as such, a legal notice dated 08.10.2013(Annexure P-16) was sent by the workman to the disciplinary authority for change of enquiry officer on various grounds along with copy to the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer did not consider the request of the workman for postponement of the enquiry proceedings or the change of enquiry officer despite the fact that workman was seriously ill resulting the ex parte enquiry vide order dated 11.10.2013 by the enquiry officer. Enquiry officer did not issue summon to the defence witnesses and enquiry officer choose to proceed ex parte and submit his5696 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] enquiry report(Annexure P-18) holding that all the charges have been proved against the workman. Disciplinary authority issued show cause notice dated 22.10.2013 concurring findings of the enquiry officer with proposed punishment of dismissal from service. The workman requested for supply of the copies of the enquiry report and grant him time for reply to the show cause notice but of no use, resulting appearance of the workman for personal hearing on 05.11.2013 but on the said date, the officer discharging the duties of disciplinary authority was on leave and ultimately without giving opportunity of being heard disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 06.11.2013 in haste manner. It is alleged that the impugned order of dismissal has been passed without giving reasonable opportunity for examining defence witnesses and submission of enquiry report to the workman with mala fide intention which is liable to be set aside and the workman be ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits including salary etc.

2. Management of State Bank of India have filed written statement, alleging therein that workman was dismissed from service vide order dated 06.11.2013 which was upheld by the appellate-authority vide order dated 03.01.2014. After due consideration as a result of fair and proper enquiry proceedings the workman was given full opportunity to prove his innocence, applying the principles of natural justice. The opportunity of personal hearing was also afforded to the workman by appellate-authority. After duly considering the facts and finding of the enquiry report has rejected the appeal preferred by the workman vide its order dated 03.01.2014. In fact, the workman while posted in Palampur Branch, committed a grave misconduct as per service conditions governing him on 05.01.2013 with specific charges. The workman has neither got any cause of action to prefer the present reference nor case on merit thus, the same is declined at the very outset. The list of witnesses and documents were given to the workman on the very first date of enquiry during the enquiry proceedings which has been admitted by the workman himself in the opening line of Para 8 of the statement of claim. It is also admitted that the disciplinary authority has correctly considered the evidence on record and also after analyzing the evidence and facts of the case passed the order of punishment. It is averred that workman did not allow the enquiry officer to proceed with the enquiry proceedings on one pretext or the other with the mala fide intentions to delay the enquiry proceedings. The opportunity of hearing is fully afforded to the workman by the enquiry officer and even public notice was published in the daily news paper The Tribune on 04.10.2013 to put up his defence if any. The copy of the enquiry report was dully supplied to the workman and after proper and legal enquiry the workman was terminated from the services as such, workman is not entitled for any relief prayed in the claim petition.

3. The workman has filed its rejoinder, reiterating the same facts alleged in the claim petition as such, it does not required to be repeated again.

4. The Tribunal after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence on fairness of enquiry passed an order dated 11.02.2016, holding that enquiry is not conducted in fair and reasonable manner against the principle of natural justice. The order is not challenged by the management and it has gain the finality.

5. After passing the order regarding the fairness of enquiry, parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence. Management has examined Sh. D.C. Jagotra, Branch Manager, who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1 along with documents Ex.M-1 to M-34, Arjun Singh, Deputy Manager as MW2 and Miss Amita Saini, Branch Manager as MW3, who are cross-examined by the workman-counsel. Witness Arjun Singh Dogra MW2 has accepted during cross-examination that he does not remember that he was present in the chamber of the Branch Manager when the alleged incident took place. Similarly, witness Amita Saini MW3 has alleged that the occurrence of 28.05.2012 took place between 11 am to 12 pm, which is against the version of the management as such, her presence on the day of incident became doubtful.

6. Workman Ajay Sood filed his affidavit Ex.WW1/A along with documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/5 and affidavit of witness Dharmender as Ex.WW2/A. During the course of cross-examination witness Dharmender has accepted that he has not read the affidavit before making his signature on it as he is not aware with the English. He has also accepted that he does not know anything mentioned in the affidavit filed as evidence. Thus, statement of Dharmender has become irrelevant in the eye of law as he is not aware with the facts alleged in his affidavit.

7. Evidence of the workman Ajay Sood and management witness D.C. Jagotra, Branch Manager shall be discussed at relevant time during the course of discussion.

8. Heard the learned counsel of the workman Sh. S.C. Gupta and management counsel Sh. S.K. Gupta and perused the file as well as written arguments submitted by both the parties.

9. Learned counsel of the workman during the course of argument submitted that perusal of the evidence on record goes to show that management has not been able to prove the charges leveled against the workman. It is further submitted that even if it is presumed that charges are proved even then they relates to be minor misconduct for which extreme penalty of dismissal is not required by law. Learned counsel has submitted that workman has already rendered more than 32 years of unblemished service in the management-bank and the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the claimant/workman vide impugned order dated 03.01.2014 is very harsh and disproportionate against the charges leveled against him. Learned counsel also submitted that workman has good service record throughout his career. Learned counsel submitted that workman was a trade union leader and in order to harass the workman for raising grievances of the employees of the bank he is terminated from the service in mala fide manner on the basis of enquiry report which is held by this Tribunal against the principle of natural justice without giving opportunity to the workman to defend himself vide order dated 25.09.2018. Learned counsel for the workman has also contended that the punishment of[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5697 dismissal from service is discriminatory in nature and this Tribunal has got power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to alter or modify the impugned order of dismissal by taking lenient view while exercising power under Section 11-A of the Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance to the case of M/s Firestone Tyre Vs. Management (1973)1 SCC page 813 and Ramakant Mishra Vs. State of U.P. (1982)3 SCC page 346, Vikram Aditya Pandey, 2013 page 423.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the management argued that action of the disciplinary authority in passing the dismissal order is commensurate with the gravity of misconduct proved against the workman. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the management that role of the Court in departmental proceedings is very limited and the Court cannot substitute its own views and finding arises on the basis of the record available. It is further argued that in the matter of imposition of sentence power of the Court is very limited to exceptional cases and punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority cannot be established to disciplinary view. Learned counsel would submit that being the union leader the conduct of the workman on fateful day amounts to gross misconduct where he not only challenged the authority of Branch Manager for issuing a letter for the leave already availed by the workman but also created riotous atmosphere which is not conducive to the working of the bank. It is further argued that the charges framed against the accused are proved by the evidence of the witnesses of the management examined on oath as well as documentary evidence filed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel argued that charges proved against the workman amounts to gross misconduct for which one of the prescribed punishment is termination which is awarded by the authority-concerned within its jurisdiction. Conclusively it is contended that workman is not entitled to any lenient view by the Tribunal in the light of the power conferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned counsel of the management has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble apex court in the cases of P.D. Aggarwal Vs. State Bank of India and Oths. 2006(4) SLR Page 47, Supreme Court, Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Management of Usha Breco and Anr., 2008(5) SLR page 214, Supreme Court and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B. Naravade, 2005 LLR 360. The order of the Tribunal regarding the fairness of enquiry has become final as it is not challenged by the management.

11. It is fairly settled that in departmental enquiry or proceeding before the Tribunal, disciplinary authority is required to prove charges on preponderance of probability and not of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Reference may be made of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur(1974)4 SCC 618, R.S Singh Vs. State of Punjab and other(1999)8 SCC page 90, State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Pandey, Civil Appeal No.263/2013 dated 14.01.2013. Before appreciating the evidence on record regarding the proof of charges submitted by both the parties it will be desirable to mention all the charges framed against the workman to illustrate the evidence in respect of the concerned charges. The charges framed against the workman are as follows:-

"Charge No.1:- You created nuisance in the Branch premises during the business hours and disrupted

smooth and normal functioning of the Branch on 28.05.2012 when a letter bearing No.Br/AWS/1 regarding

your unauthorized absence was served on you. You misbehaved with the Branch Manager, tore the Letter

No.Br/AWS/1 Dated 28.05.2012 into pieces, while shouting "No Branch Manager has dared to issue me

letter prior to this".

Charge No.2:- You did GALI-GLOCH and threatened the Branch Manager on 28.05.2012 while using

abusive language.

Charge No.3:- You demonstrated before Palampur ADB Branch on 28.05.2012 without giving prior notice to

the Bank with regard to demonstration. Subsequently, you organized lunchtime demonstration from

08.06.2012 to 18.06.2012 again without giving any prior notice.

Charge No.4:- On 29.05.2012, you disrupted the smooth working of the Branch by insisting that the box

containing remittance be taken out by the Branch Manager. When an officer namely Shri Surjeet Singh

volunteered to lift the box, you came along with Shri Madan Bhandari Senior Special Assistant and shri

Ram Mal Guard up to the entrance of the Branch and while Shri Surjeet Singh was carrying the remittance

box. While Shri Surjeet Singh was trying to engage the services of canteen boy to carry the box up to the

vehicle, this was prevented by you and above employees.

Charge No.5:- You deliberately flouted system and procedures on several occasion in the past with an

intention to undermine the authority of the Branch Manager in the Branch and in the process seriously

increasing operational risk of the branch. One instance is given as under:

When the Branch Manager asked you for special leave application already availed of from 05.04.2012 to

11.04.2012, you instead of giving leave application, superimposed with remarks 'Special Central Committee

Meeting' in the attendance register in gross violation of service rules.

Charge No.6:- You unauthorizedly absented yourself from duty on 23.05.2012 and 26.05.2012 without any

intimation or application.

Charge No.7:- You disobeyed office order dated 17.07.2012 and 18.07.2012 and did not work as case

Manager from 17.07.2012 to 19.07.2012.

5698 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Charge No.8:- You proceeded on medical leave from 26.07.2012 again without producing relevant medical

certificate.

Charge No.9:- You issued a cheque bearing No.043887 dated 20.08.2012 amounting to Rs.375000/- in favour

of Sh. Sarvesh Arora from account No.11358897046 without having sufficient balance in the account which

was returned on 01.09.2012.

12. As regards, charges framed against the workman, there is no evidence at all regarding the charge no.2 and 5 while charge no.9 is beyond consideration of Tribunal as it relates to the criminal offence for issuing a cheque without having sufficient balance in the account which was returned subsequently. There is no complaint by Sh. Suresh Arora as is admitted by the management witness MW1 D.C. Jagotra during the cross examination. Similarly, the first part of the charge no.5 is certainly vague while subsequent part of charge no.5 has not been supported by any of the witness of the management Sh. D.C. Jagotra, Branch Manager, MW1, Arjun Singh, Deputy Manager MW2 and Miss Amita Saini, Branch Manager as MW3.

13. So far charge no. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned. There is no sufficient evidence on record to observed that charges are proved in the light of principle of preponderance of probability because the fact of demonstration from 8.6.2012 to 18.6.2012 does not find support from the evidence of witness of the management MW2 Arjun Singh, MW3 Amita Saini. Even the witness of the management D.C. Jagotra has not stated anything in his affidavit filed as evidence. Similarly, regarding the charge no.4 witnesses examined by the management have admitted that Surjeet Singh was not authorized to carry cash-box. Even Branch Manager D.C. Jagotra has admitted during the course of cross-examination that Surjeet Singh was not authorized to pick the cash box and workman has made objection because there is likelihood of untoward incident. Witness MW2 Arjun Singh has alleged in his affidavit that Surjeet was stopped by the workman along with M.L. Bhandari and Guard-Rajmal. It was M.L. Bhandari who was cashier on that day and the responsibility to carry cash-box was with workman who was assigned for cash remittance to be sent to Palampur main-branch. The CCTV footage Ex.R-1 also does not indicate any such riotous incident at relevant time as alleged in the charge.

14. Charge number 6, 7 and 8 relates with the unauthorized absent and disobedience of the Branch Manager order regarding the duty of workman as assigned for cash manager. Undoubtedly, workman was absent on 23.05.2012, 25.05.2012 and 26.05.2012 from duty. MW1 witness D.C. Jagotra has alleged that workman had not taken leave but this fact is denied by the workman in his affidavit by saying that he always informed the Manager or Accountant before proceeding on any type of leave in writing or telephonically. The version of the Branch Manager, MW1 D.C. Jagotra becomes conspicuous when he accepts that he does not remember that he has noted down the absence of workman on 25.05.2012 or 26.05.2012 in the attendance register and he may have written "absent without information" afterwards. Thus, Branch Manager himself is not sure about the endorsement made by him regarding the absence of the workman in attendance register for relevant dates.

15. For the sake of argument, if it is presumed that workman has not informed to the Branch Manager for the leave even then it comes within the minor misconduct vide Rule 7(d) of the award staff settlement 2012 relied by both the parties. Similarly, charge no.8 relates to medical leave. Branch Manager D.C. Jagotra has admitted in his cross- examination that workman was on leave on 26.05.2019 and he continuously submitted leave application along with improper medical certificate. He has further admitted that he does not remember as to how medical certificate was improper. Learned counsel of the workman contended that utmost Branch Manager was entitled to refer the matter to the medical board rather to decide the genuineness of medical certificate without knowing anything about its validity. I am of the opinion that contention of the workman-counsel is justified to the extent that Branch Manager without enquiring genuineness of the medical certificate and referring the matter to the medical board has wrongly observed that medical certificate submitted was improper. Thus, I am of the opinion that contention of the workman-counsel is justified in given circumstances and it cannot be observed that workman made himself absent without sufficient reason on medical grounds.

16. The most contentious charge no.1 against the workman relates to creation of nuisance during business hour of the bank and disrupting functioning when letter dated 28.05.2012 Ex.M-1. Regarding his unauthorized absence is served to him and he in a threatening gesture said to the Manager that "no Branch Manager has dare to issue letter prior to me" and tore the letter. The learned counsel of the claimant/workman would contend that these facts are not proved by the statement of management-witness MW2 Arjun Singh and MW3 Amita Saini as Arjun Singh has submitted that he did not remember his presence in the chamber of Branch Manager at the time of the alleged incident while Amita Saini has alleged that occurrence took place between 11 am to 12 pm while occurrence is alleged to be happened at 4 pm onwards. I am of the opinion that contention of the learned counsel of workman has no force in the light of the admission of the workman himself during the cross-examination. He has clearly admitted that he uttered words "No Branch Manager has dare to issue letter prior to me." Legally speaking admitted facts need not be proved in view of Section 58 of the Evidence Act. Though, workman has clearly denied that he did not tear the letter issued by the Branch Manager about his absence. In fact, the incident of tearing of letter is not clearly visual in pendrive of CCTV footage but, I am of the opinion that this specific facts has found place in charge no.1 framed against workman and he was in possession of the letter issued to him by Branch manager which could be placed on record to substantiate the version of non-tearing of letter but workman has not submitted the letter for the reason best known to him. So, adverse inference is plausible[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5699 conclusion against the workman on this issue. The CCTV footage also reveals the indicant conduct of the workman which was not upto the mark as a disciplined-employee of bank at relevant time.

17. Learned counsel of the workman while placing reliance in the case of Rama Kant Mishra Vs. State of UP (1982)3 SCC page 346 argued that the behavior of the workman in chamber of Branch Manager could not be treated as misconduct as there was no intention of the workman to defy the authority of Branch Manager or challenge the authority by doing insubordination through such acts. As per learned counsel of the workman, Hon'ble Supreme Court has treated such act in above mentioned case as use of indiscreet language or may be said to be indecent or may be disclosing a threatening posture and misconduct attributed to the workman is not subversive of discipline. I am not convince with the argument of the learned counsel as case relied by the counsel is distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand. Language used by the concerned workman in above case disclosed through posture and occurrence took place during the conversation/discussion between the workman and senior officers. Contrary to this, there is sufficient evidence, in case in hand, regarding the subsequent conduct of the workman in tearing the letter issued by the Branch Manager, shouting and making the offensive gesture towards Branch Manager which evidently prove the misconduct of the workman was to not only defy the order of the Branch Manager but showing his authority as union leader by calling other employees through telephone in chamber of Branch Manager.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Government of N.C.T. Delhi & Ors. Civil Appeal No.1815/2007 decided on 5.4.2007, has held that misconduct arising from ill-motive or intention and not an act of negligence and errors of judgment are innocent mistake do not constitute such misconduct. It is pertinent to mention that motive or intention is abstract things which may be inferred from the conduct, gesture, demeanors or works done during the course of incident. After receiving the letter workman entered in the chamber of the Branch Manager used the indecent words, challenging the authority of the Branch Manager, indulging in heated discussion and subsequently calling of other employees through phone in chamber of the Branch manager is indicative of his motive or bad intention to challenge the authority of the Branch Manager which comes within the purview of gross misconduct under Rule 5 sub-Clause (c) and (e) of Award Staff Settlement dated 14.04.2012 relied by the parties and punishable with dismissal/removal from service or compulsory retirement etc.

19. There is no dispute that Section 11-A of the Act empowers this Tribunal to interfere with the quantum of punishment in appropriate cases(see decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Versus Rawel Singh, 2008 AIR (SCW) 2099; of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case/s of Punjab National Bank Vs. The Presiding Officer, CGIT & another 2012(2) SLR 631; Harnek Singh Versus State of Haryana & others 2010(3) SLR 276 and Joginder Lal Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala & another 1996 SCT 436. The discretion is to be exercised judiciously in such cases where order of punishment is quite harsh & disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct of the official concerned on the basis of evidence on record.

20. Next question remains to be seen whether the punishment awarded to the claimant/workman is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. Considering the scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment and referring to various cases in Jai Bhagwan Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors., 2013(4) S.C.T. 607: (2013) 11 SCC 187, the Apex Court held as under:-

"What is the appropriate quantum of punishment to be awarded to a delinquent is a matter that primarily rests in the discretion of the disciplinary authority. An authority sitting in appeal over any such order on punishment is by all means entitled to examine the issue regarding the quantum of punishment as much as it is entitled to examine whether the charges have been satisfactorily proved. But when any such order is challenged before a Service Tribunal or the High Court the exercise of discretion by the competent authority in determining and awarding punishment is generally respected except where the same is found to be so outrageously disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct that the Court considers it be arbitrary in that it is wholly unreasonable. The superior courts and the Tribunal invoke the doctrine of proportionality which has been gradually accepted as one of the facets of judicial review. A punishment that it so excessive or disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience of the Court is seen as unacceptable even when courts are slow and generally reluctant to interfere with the quantum of punishment. The law on the subject is well settled by a series of decisions rendered by this Court….."

21. Learned counsel of the management Sh. S.K. Gupta placing reliance in the cases of P.D. Aggarwal Vs. State Bank of India and Oths. 2006(4) SLR Page 47, Supreme Court, Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Management of Usha Breco and Anr., 2008(5) SLR page 214, Supreme Court and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B. Naravade, 2005 LLR 360, has contended that if the charges framed against the delinquent employee or found to be proved then Tribunal has got no power under Section 11(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to minimize the punishment given by the disciplinary authority. It is further contended that this is a case in which charges framed against the accused are fully proved as such, he is not entitled to any leniency by this Tribunal on the pretext that punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. I have gone through the cases of the Supreme Court relied by the learned counsel of the management. In the case of P.D. Aggarwal Vs. State Bank of India and Oths.(supra), Hon'ble Full Bench of the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that even if the charges which have been proved justified imposition of punishment of dismissal from service the Court or Tribunal may not exercises its power of judicial review. Similarly, in the case of5700 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Management of Usha Breco and Anr.(supra), Hon'ble Court has held that decision of the Court should not to rest on mere hypothesis. It cannot overturn a decision of the management on ipse dixit. According to Hon'ble Court on his jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act although is a wide one must be judiciously exercised. Judicial discretion, it is trite cannot be exercised either whimsically or capriciously it may analyze the evidence but what is important is how it does so. Similarly in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B. Naravade, 2005 LLR 360, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 20 of the judgment has held as follows:-

"20. It is no doubt that after introduction of Section 11A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount of

discretion is vested with the labour court/Industrial, Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment

awarded by the management where the concerned workman is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of

discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of this Court referred to herein above and it is

certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can

be exercised under Section 11A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being

disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the court, or the existence of any

mitigating circumstances which requires the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman

which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. In the absence of any such factor existing, the

Labour Court cannot by way of sympathy alone exercise the power under Section 11A of the Act and reduce the

punishment.

21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court apart from the judgment relied by the learned counsel of the management in catena of cases has held that Tribunal or Court has power to interfere with the punishment only when punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscious of the Court. Admittedly, workman was in the employment of the bank from the year 1979 since the date of termination i.e. 06.11.2013 meaning thereby that he had put more than 33 years of service. Workman was Secretary of the workmen-union. There is nothing on record to prove that there was no blameworthy conduct of the workman during the period of 33 years of service he rendered prior to the incident of gross misconduct in question. The perusal of the documents filed by the workman reveals that his work was outstanding throughout his career and he was given extension for 2 years which is not disputed by the management. Hence, in my opinion punishment must be for misconduct proved. To some extant misconduct is a civil crime which is vested with sufficient civil and pecuniary situation. In this case it has resulted in dismissal from service in order to avoid the charge of vindictiveness justice equity and fairplay demand with punishment may be always be commensurate with the gravity of charge. To my mind before exercising the discretion confirmed, the Court has to be satisfied with the order of discharge or dismissal was justified in the facts and circumstance of the case. Thus, it is clear that for misconduct of workman penalty has to be imposed but extreme penalty of dismissal does not appear to be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. I am of the opinion that extreme penalty of dismissal from service is too harsh to commensurate with the punishment of dismissal while workman has unblemished career of more than 33 years of service and was at the end of superannuation of extended period of his service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case is State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nami Chand Nalwaya Civil Appeal No.5861 of 2007 dated 01.03.2011, has held that in cases where proven charge did not involve either misappropriation or fraudulent conduct and other circumstances of the case are favourable to the extent of substituting the punishment the Court may substitute the punishment according to the nature of charge proved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has substituted the punishment of dismissal by compulsory retirement in that case. The case in hand is not related with the misconduct of fraud, cheating or misappropriation of the bank-property. The work and conduct of the workman-claimant has been remained outstanding throughout his career and resulting his extension of service for two years. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal uphold the finding of guilt regarding the proven charge discussed above and the punishment of dismissal is modified to compulsory retirement with all consequential benefits.

22. The reference is answered accordingly. Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.

A.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1344134413441344....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार मेसर्स

साऊथ इOिडया माइन्स एOड मिनरल इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब+ नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध

में नि-दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं /म न्यायालय, गुवाहाटी के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या

74/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार को 16.07.2019 को प्राप्त 7आ था।

[सं. एल-29011/5/2017-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5701

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019

S.O. 1344.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 74/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s South India Mines & Mineral Industries Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16.07.2019.

[No. L-29011/5/2017-IR(M)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M. Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 74/2017

Monday, the 8th July,2019

Sri G. Mariappan S/o (Late) P. Ganapathy Konar 5/11, Yadava North Street Pudur PO Tirunelveli-627905 : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Executive Director M/s. South India Mines & Mineral Industrial Ltd. 315, Narayana Nagar, Sankar Nagar Tirunelveli-627357 : 2nd Party/Management

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner               :        None
For the 2nd Party/Management               :        Sri A. Krishnamoorthy, Authorized  Representative

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-29011/5/2017 (IR(M) dtd. 27.06.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of South India Mines & Minerals Industries Ltd., Sankar Nagar in

terminating Sri G. Mariappan, an ex-mazdoor/worker from service w.e.f. 01.01.2015 is just, legal and fair? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the above reference from the appropriate Government, the dispute on reference is registered in ID No. 74/2017 and notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to 21.07.2017. Since then, the case is dragged for such a long period till 02.07.2019 intervening almost 17 adjournments i.e. 5 adjournments in the year 2017, 6 adjournments in the year 2018 and thereafter again the case posted to several dates i.e. 22.01.2019, 12.02.2019, 04.03.2019, 25.03.2019, 13.05.2019 and then to 02.07.2019.

It appears even if sufficient opportunities were made available to the petitioner, did not turn up. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the appropriate government due default in appearance and participation of the petitioner. On the other hand, it deems there is non-existence of any Industrial Dispute for adjudication. Hence the Final order .

In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.

An Award is passed accordingly.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer5702 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1345134513451345....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार मेसर्स ओ०एन०जी०सी० लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब+ नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि-दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं /म न्यायालय, गुवाहाटी के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 03/2016) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार को 17.07.2019 को प्राप्त 7आ था।

[सं. एल-30011/68/1999-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019

S.O. 1345.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/LabourCourt, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s O.N.G.C. Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17.07.2019.

[No. L-30011/68/1999-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Present: Shri Mrinmoy Kumar Bhattacharjee, M.A., LL.B. Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

Ref. Case No.03 of 2016

i/c Ref. 05/2015 ( Ref. No.8(C)/2000

Arising out of W.P(C) No. 2139 of 2008

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-

Smti. Tulu Borah & 19 Ors, Sibsagar, Assam. …Claimants/ Workmen

-Vrs-

The Management of O.N.G.C., Nazira, Sibsagar …O.P./Management APPEARANCES

For the Workmen : Mr. A.Dasgupta, Sr. Advocate.

For the Management. : Mr. G.N.Sahewalla, Sr. Advocate.

Ms. S.Senapati, Advocate.

Date of Award: 11.07.2019

AWARD

1. The present industrial dispute between management of the ONGC and workers (as per list) was referred to this Tribunal by the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, New Delhi vide Notification No. L-30011/68/99/IR(M) dt.16.3.2000 with the following schedule:-

"Whether the services of the workmen (list enclosed) working directly under ONGC management in the first

phase of service and later engaged on contract basis can be reinstated and regularized? If so, to what relief

they are entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, notices were issued to the relevant parties. The parties appeared and filed their respective written statements.

3. The case of the concerned workers was that 19 of them (as per list enclosed) were serving as Typists, Khalasi, Office Assistant in various establishments/offices of ONGC at Sibsagar. Initially they were directly engaged by the ONGC in the year 1985-86 and they worked in that capacity till 1992 though on record it was shown that they had been working as contract labourers under a Contractor named T.Phukon since 1987. The concerned workers claimed that since[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5703 the Contractor Mr. T.Phukan obtained his license only in the year 1992 so they could not be considered as contract labourers under Mr. T.Phukan since 1987. It was also claimed that till 1992 these workers were directly paid by the ONGC and they also worked along with regular employees. It was further stated that Shri Khirod Ch. Keot, Smti Tulu Bora and Smti. Santi Prabha Das were engaged as Typists by the ONGC in the year 1985 and till December, 1996 they were shown as the employees of ONGC Ltd. Subsequently they were shown as contract labourers engaged through the contractor. It was also stated that engagement of contract labour in the job of typing in the establishment of ONGC Ltd. was prohibited by the Government of India vide their Notification dated 08.01.1994 under CLR Act and hence, these employees should be treated as casual employees directly under ONGC. It was further claimed that they ought to have been regularized in the job. But, the management, on the contrary, suddenly dis-engaged them from the month of December,1996. Shri Lalit Changmai, Sri Hira Nath Mahanta were engaged as Office Assistants in the Office of Central Store at ONGC, Nowapukhuri Store. They performed the duties of carrying and maintenance of file in the office where they worked. It was further claimed that these types of jobs cannot be performed through a contract labour. It was also stated that these workers were directly engaged by the ONGC in the year 1985 and they worked under ONGC till 1992 though subsequently in the year 1997 they were dis-engaged and no notice of disengagement was issued and no retrenchment compensation was given to them. It was also stated that one of the concerned workmen Sri Jatin Rajkonwar preferred a Writ Application being Civil Rule No. 3366/95 on behalf of 21 contract labourers for regularization of service and the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court called for a report from the concerned Assistant Labour Commissioner. Accordingly, an enquiry was held and the concerned Assistant Labour Commissioner submitted his report before the Hon'ble High Court wherein the concerned Assistant Labour Commissioner stated that the job performed by the workers were perennial in nature and even after their disengagement another set of labours were engaged to perform the same nature of job as was performed by them. It was further claimed that Hon'ble High Court on perusal of record and other relevant documents came to a conclusion that these workers were directly engaged by the ONGC Ltd. and continued till 1992 and subsequently they were engaged as contract labours. Ultimately the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 24.8.1998 directed the authorities of ONGC to consider the case of the workers for regularization within a period of 3 months. It was further ordered by the Hon'ble High Court that if the workers were still aggrieved they might approach the appropriate authority for relief in accordance with law. Since the management did not favorably consider the matter, these workers raised an Industrial Dispute.

4. The management side in its written statement stated that the reference itself was bad in law and unsustainable.

According to them they concerned workers were never under the control and supervision of the management and as such, they were not "workmen" under the management of ONGC. According to the management these workers were engaged through contractors for execution of certain works mentioned in the contracts. It was also stated that the settled position of law was that while exercising power under Section 10(1) of the I.D.Act, 1947 the function of the Central Government is an administrative one and in performance of such administrative function, the Government could not deal with the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the litigation. It was further stated that on the basis of the principle laid down in various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there can be no doubt that the Government was not justified in deciding the issue whether the persons raising the dispute, were workmen or not. The management categorically submitted that at no point of time the concerned workers were directly under ONGC as stated above. It was also stated that the job contract, for which the workers were engaged through contractor, came to an end. It was also claimed that the concerned workers were never directly engaged by the ONGC.

5. Both parties examined witnesses and on conclusion of proceeding, the Tribunal, Guwahati (constituted by the Government of Assam) disposed of the matter vide Award dated 31.12.2005. The Tribunal granted relief of reinstatement and regularization to three workers while no relief was granted to the remaining 17 workers.

6. After passing of the aforesaid award, the aggrieved parties i.e. the management of the ONGC and the workmen who were not granted relief preferred Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court being No. W.P(C) No..2139/2008 and W.P(C) No. 5446/06. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of the aforesaid Writ Petitions by common judgment dated 04.09.2015. By the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble High Court set aside the aforesaid award by holding it "perverse" and remanded back the matter for "fresh decision by taking into account the existing and fresh evidence as may be adduced by the parties". After remand the reference was renumbered as Reference Case No. 03 of 2015.

7. After remand of the matter, the worker side submitted examination in-chief of six more witnesses namely W.W.5 to W.W.10. Those witnesses were cross-examined by the management side. It may be mentioned here that during the earlier proceeding workmen side examined 4 witnesses. Hence, evidence of 10 witnesses i.e. W.W.1 to W.W.10 shall be considered as evidence of the workmen side in this matter. The management side earlier examined 3 witnesses and5704 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] after the remand, they did not adduce any further evidence. I have heard argument from learned Senior Counsels representing the workers and the management side. I have also gone through the materials on record.

8. During argument Sri A. Dasgupta, learned Sr. Counsel for the workers referred to the evidence on records and submitted that in exercise of the power conferred u/s10 of the CLR Act, 1970, the Government prohibited engagement of contract labour in store keeping or helper of storekeeper vide Notification dated 08.01.1994, but the management still continued with the practice and disengaged them between the year 1995 to 1996. According to him the concerned workers should, therefore, be deemed as the casual employees of the ONGC and in that event the management was bound to comply with the provision in respect of retrenchment under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. He also referred to the Standing Order of the ONGC certified under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 wherein the contingent employees were classified in two categories namely temporary and casual. He also referred to Civil Rule No.3366/95 moved before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in which vide order dated 12.08.97 the Hon'ble High Court asked for an enquiry report from the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C), in respect of the status of the concerned workers. It was also stated that as per the report which was exhibited as Exhibit-F, the concerned employees were casual employees of the ONGC and completed not less than 240 days of work in a year. The Hon'ble High Court on perusal of the report of the Assistant Labour Commissioner directed the ONGC to consider the case of the concerned workers and also observed that if the concerned workers were still aggrieved they could move appropriate authority as per law. He further argued that since the management did not consider the matter favourbly, they ultimately raised the Industrial Dispute which remained unresolved in conciliatory stage and ultimately the present reference was made by the appropriate Government. He also submitted that on 31.12.05 an Award was passed by the Tribunal directing regularization of three numbers of workmen namely Sri Khirod Keot, Smti Tulu Bora and Smti Shanti Probha Das while relief was refused to the remaining workmen. Thereafter the aforesaid Award was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in two different Civil Rule Nos. W.P(C) No.5446/2006 and W.P.(C) No.2139 of 2008. He also drew the attention of this Tribunal that both the aforesaid Civil Rules were disposed of in a common judgment dated 04.09.2015 whereby the Hon'ble High Court remanded the matter back to this Tribunal. Admittedly after the remand of the matter workmen side examined six numbers of additional witnesses. According to the learned Sr. Counsel for the workers, the contract between the principal employer and the contractor through whom the workers were engaged was nothing but a paper arrangement and hence, they should be considered as casual employees. Learned Sr. Counsel for the workers further argued that from 1985/1986 to 1992 they were directly engaged by the ONGC and from 1992 to 1995/1996 they were shown to have been engaged through contractor.

9. Learned Sr. Counsel for the management side Mr. G.N. Sahewalla argued that at the time of their disengagement, the petitioners were admittedly contract labourers engaged through contractor for working in the offices of the principal employer. By referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "International Airport Authority of India---vs--- International Air Cargo Workers Union and another reported in (2009) 13 SCC 374" he submitted that to find out the nature of employment it is essential to determine the following points among others- (1) who pays the salary, (ii) Who has the power to remove or dismiss from the service or initiate disciplinary action, (iii) who can tell the employee the way in which the works should be done. By referring the aforesaid, Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sahewalla submitted that wages were paid by the contractor and ONGC did not enjoy any power to remove and dismiss them since they were not in the pay role of ONGC. He went on to submit that ONGC had only limited control over them in execution of day to day work. It was submitted that in the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the labours supplied by the contractor will work under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer and such control of the principal employer does not render a right of casual employee to the concerned workers because if the salary is paid by the contractor the ultimate supervision is with the contractor. According to the learned Sr. Counsel for the management the workers therefore cannot be held to be casual employees directly under ONGC. He referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors---vrs--- National Union Waterfront Workers and others as reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1" where it was held that "…even if a contract is found to be not genuine that could not automatically lead to regularization of the contract labour and if such process of operation of work as was used and done by the concerned contract labourers were in operation and the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen for such works, then the workmen who were working as contract labourers can be given preference."

10. Referring to the report of Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), learned Senior Counsel for the management submitted that since the concerned ALC was not brought as witness, his report could not be accepted as credible evidence in as much as the management had been denied to examine the veracity of the report through cross-examination. He further submitted that mere fact that the contractor did not have a license at the commencement of the contract cannot per se render the contract invalid. He emphasized that the concerned workers were under the employment of the contractor[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5705 and it was the contractor who paid them their wages and this fact has been admitted by the concerned witnesses.

Referring to certain certificates issued by some officers of the ONGC, he submitted that those officers were not competent to issue such certificates as would be evident from the evidence of Management Witness No. 3

11. Let me now briefly consider the evidence adduced by the parties in the matter. Workmen witness No.1, Sri Khirod Chandra Keot, deposed that he was directly engaged by the ONGC as Typist along with two others namely Smti Tulu Bora and Smti Shanti Probha Das in the year 1985 and he worked as Typist till 1992. But subsequently they were shown to have been engaged through contractor since 1989 under one Tuni Ram Phukan, who had no contractor license at that time. He exhibit a copy of the said license of the contractor as Ext-A. He further stated that after issuance of Notification u/s 10 of CLRA the Company was prohibited to appoint any Typist as contract labour. According to him he and other workers were illegally and arbitrarily removed. During cross-examination he admitted that he did not submit any appointment letter issued to him by ONGC. He admitted that Exhibit-H is a payment voucher but denied that it is a document of the contractor. W.W.2 Sri Jotin Rajkanwar stated that he worked in ONGC from 1985 to 1995 and that though he was a direct employee of the ONGC he was shown as contract labour engaged through a contractor named Tuni Ram Phukan who did not have any valid license for the year 1989. The evidence of workmen witness No.1 to 4 are more or less similar in nature.

12. After the remand of the matter the workmen side examined six more witness, namely, W.W.5 to W.W.10.

W.W.5 Sri Aswani Borthakur deposed that he was directly engaged by ONGC in the Central Store in the month of January,1985 and continued to work so till July, 1995 without any break. He further stated that gate passes were issued to him by the Central Industrial Security Force which would indicate that he was continuously in service from 20.5.1993 to 10.06.1995. He exhibited such gate pass as Exhibit-U. He further deposed that his continuity of service from January, 1985 to December, 1986 and from January, 1987 to July 1995 was established by Exhibit-F which is a report submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C). He also proved several gate passes issued in favour of another worker named Jatin Rajkanwar. He however deposed that though he and others were engaged under direct payment system of ONGC subsequently they were shown as contract labourers under Contractor Tuni Ram Phukan. He also deposed that while discharging their duties they were under complete and direct control of the ONGC. He also exhibited certain certificates through Exthibit-X and Exhibit-X(1) showing that concerned official of the ONGC issued a certificate to him showing him as a regular contingent worker. During cross-examination it appears that at the time of deposition he was 61 years old. Admittedly, he did not submit any appointment letter issued to him by ONGC engaging him as casual employee. He also admitted that no salary slips were ever issued to them at the relevant time and he further admitted that in the gate pass Exhibit-V(1), to V(5), the pass holders were stated as contract labour and it was a "non-employee pass". He further stated during cross-examination that later on they came to know that they have been shown to work under contractor Tuniram Phukan. Exhibit-X is a certificate issued by an Officer of ONGC stating him to be regular contingent worker from 1985 to 1993.

13. Evidence of Workmen Witness No.6 Sri Nilamoni Dutta was more or less similar and in the same line as that of W.W No.5. During cross-examination he stated that he left ONGC in the year 1995 because ONGC did not keep him in service thereafter. He also admitted that when wages were given no salary slip was given to them. He however denied that they ever worked under contractor named Tuni Ram Phukan. W.W.7Sri Anil Borah also stated that he worked directly under ONGC from 1983 to 1995 as Khalasi and he was never appointed through contractor. He was also issued gate pass. He was also issued a certificate Exhibit-Y © by an Officer of ONGC stating that he was an employee of ONGC. During cross-examination he admitted that he did not submit any appointment letter. He also admitted that Exhibit-Y(a) is a gate pass wherein signature of contractor Tuni Ram Phukan is there and in Exhibit-Y(b) it was written that he was a contract labour. The W.W.8 Sri Bhabani Gogoi also claimed to have worked directly under ONGC from 1986 to 1995 and gate pass (Exhibit-Y(e) was proved. He also proved a certificate issued to him by an Officer of ONGC as Exhibit-Y(f) showing him as an employee of ONGC. During cross-examination the witness admitted that no appointment letter was ever issued to him and that to enter in the ONGC premises everybody requires a pass to be issued by the CISF. He also proved Exhibit-Y(f), a certificate wherein it was mentioned that he has been working since April 1986. He also admitted that no salary slip was issued to them. He further admitted that when ONGC made any appointment, the employees are given salary slip showing disbursement of the salary by the ONGC. W.W.9 Sri Abdul Rahman also deposed that he worked under ONGC as Kahlasi upto 1995 without any break which can be proved by the gate pass issued by CISF. He also stated that they were engaged under direct payment system and subsequently were shown as contract labour under a contractor Tuni Ram Phukan which according to him was nothing but a paper arrangement. During cross-examination he admitted that he knew that when ONGC made any appointment the employees are issued salary slip and no such sheet was ever given to him. W.W.10 Sri Ranjan Borah also claimed that he was directly engaged by ONGC from 1985 to 1995 and gate passes were issued to him by the CISF. He also stated that5706 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] he and others were engaged under direct payment system but subsequently were shown as contract labour under a contractor Sri Tuni Ram Phukan which is nothing but a paper arrangement. He also proved a certificate Exhibit-Y(m) issued to him by an officer of ONGC mentioning that he was a regular contingent worker. During cross-examination he stated that in Exhibit-Y(J) the word "cont. Labour" has been mentioned and that after 1992 there was a break and he joined in 1994. He however admitted that he was working under contractor Tuni Ram Phukan which he came to know lateron.

14. The gist of the evidence of the management side was as under. They examined 3 witnesses. M.W No.1 Sri Ranjit Borgohain, a manager in rank, stated that the contract workers were engaged by the contractor to execute certain works namely, lifting, shifting, cleaning, stocking,& preservation of materials in godown, opening of boxes for inspection. He proved the contract tender as Ext-1 and Ext-1A as job specification. He also exhibited the work orders as Ext-2 series wherein the jobs mentioned were same as in tender (Ext-1). He also proved the bills submitted by the contractors to ONGC in respect of the execution of the work mentioned in work order. He also exhibited a letter issued by the contractor stating that after expiry of the contract on 31.03.1996, he had not engaged any contract labour since 1.4.1996.

He also exhibited licences issued to contractor T. Phukan by the competent authority under CLR Act, 1970 from 29.9.1989.

15. The contractor Sri Tuniram Phukan was examined by the management as M.W. No.2. He stated that the concerned workers were engaged under him from 1987 to 1995. He also proved the payment register as Ext-12. He also stated that loading, shifting, box opening, stocking were the kinds of jobs that were done by the concerned workers. He further stated that he used to pay their wages. In this connection if we look at Ext 18, it would appear that names of the workers as well as their wages and the signature of the contractor were there. It was also countersigned by an ONGC official as per requirement.

16. The management side examined M.W No.3 Syed Abdul Khalek mainly to show that only a handful of very senior officers in ONGC are authorized to issue certificates and if any certificate is issued by an officer who is not authorized, action may be taken against him. It may be recalled here that several workmen witnesses exhibited certificates issued by officers of ONGC stating that they were working in certain capacities directly under ONGC. M.W. No.3 proved Ext-15 along with enclosures showing that such certificates cannot be issued by anyone other than those mentioned therein. He also stated that such unauthorized issuance of certificated would attract actions against the erring officials. Ext-16 also indicated that process of actions were being initiated against those officers who issued such certificates unauthorizedly.

17. The concerned workers claimed that they were initially appointed directly by the ONGC but subsequently they were shown to have been engaged through contractor which was nothing but a mere paper arrangement. But, there was no evidence to show as to how they were directly appointed by ONGC. Admittedly, no appointment letter was produced.

Mere issuance of a certificate by an officer of the establishment could not make the workers direct casual workers under ONGC. Another issue raised by the workers was that the contractor did not have a proper license when they were shown to have been engaged through this contractor. Yet another issue raised was that the report of the Assistant Labour Comissioner (C), Guwahati which claimed that they were being engaged by ONGC for a very long period and most of such works done by them were perennial in nature which could not have been executed through contract labours.

Another issue was continuation of their engagement even after notification by the Government in the year 1994 prohibiting engagement of contract labours in ONGC in certain works. They also proved certain gate passes to show their employment in ONGC. The claim of the concerned workers was that in view of above facts they were entitled to be reinstated and regularized in service with consequential benefits.

18. In this matter the management side raised the fundamental issue of non existence of employer- employee relationship among them and the concerned workers. According to them the concerned workers were contract labours engaged through contractors and the management was nothing but the principal employer. Further contention of the management was that though for some initial period the contractor did not have the license, this per se could not render the contract invalid. It was also contended that issuance of notification under CLR Act,1970 for prohibition of contract labours in the year 1994 did not cover the works done by the concerned workers. Lastly it was emphasized that the concerned ALC who submitted the report narrating the nature of work of the concerned workers had not been brought as witness. As a result, the veracity of the report could not be checked through cross-examination. According to the management side such report therefore, could not be acted upon.

19. To establish employer- employee relationship, among others, the following facts need to be established by the party claiming such relationship:- (i) who appoints the workers, (ii) who pays the wages, (iii)who has the authority to[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5707 dismiss, (iv) who can take disciplinary action, (v) extent of control of supervision, (vi) whether there is continuity of service.

20. Coming to the question of payment of wages, it has been established that the wages were paid by the contractor in presence of an officer of the principal employer as was required. There was absolutely nothing in the record to even suggest that the concerned workers received their wages directly from the principal employer. It was established through evidence that it was the contractor who used to pay the wages to the concerned workers according to number of their working days. Ext-2 & Ext-18 are relevant in that matter. The gate passes proved by the concerned workers admittedly were issued to facilitate their entry into the premises of the ONGC which was a protected area. But in those passes, as discussed earlier, the words "c..labour" and "non-employee" pass was mentioned. There was not even an iota of evidence to show that the concerned workers were appointed by the ONGC directly. It was therefore, clear that the ONGC did not appoint the concerned workers directly and their wages etc were directly paid by the contractor.

21. In regard to control on the concerned workers, it would be natural that the institution where the workers would be engaged by the contractor, would have some basic control because ultimately it was the institution's work which was being executed through the contract. The real test is one of total control including the power of removal or initiation of disciplinary matters. There was absolutely nothing on record to show that the management of the ONGC had such absolute control over the concerned workers. It was the contractor who used to pay the wages and it was he who had ultimate control.

22. The claim of the workers that the "contract" was a mere paper arrangement also did not appear to be wholly acceptable. The concerned contractor was examined as M.W No.2. He proved that he used to engage them and also used to pay their wages. He also proved the contracts/agreements with the ONGC regarding execution of certain works for which he engaged the concerned workers. He further stated that once the contract finally expired, he disengaged the concerned workers. Admittedly, at the time of the first agreement he did not have a valid license though he acquired the license soon after. But, non availability of license by the contractor cannot per se render the contract invalid.

23. Reliance of the workers on certain certificates, as discussed earlier, issued by some ONGC officials to claim their direct engagement in the ONGC appeared to be misplaced in as much as those officers were not authorized to issue such certificates. Evidence of the M.W. No.3 would show that actions were being taken such officers. That apart, if employment of a person in an establishment is held to be proved only by issuance of a certificate by any officer of the establishment, it would only lead to a chaotic situation. To prove any employment- permanent or casual- there has to be some kind of appointment or engagement letter or at least, some document to show that the concerned establishment was directly paying the wages to the workers. Admittedly, none could prove or produce any such document. On the contrary, the documents proved by the management side, as discussed earlier, would categorically indicate that the concerned workers were engaged through the contractor (M.W No.2). Coming to the notification issued by Government of India under section 10 of the CLR Act,1970 on 8.1.1994, certain categories of jobs such as typist, storekeeping or helper of a store keeper etc were prohibited to be executed through contract labours. But the nature of works mentioned in the tenders (Ext-1 & 1A) did not seem to have such nature of jobs as mentioned in the notification. Another aspect argued by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sahewalla was that substantial work of ONGC is exploration of Rigs, and when certain Rigs are abandoned, the contract for engagement of workers also come to an end. He submitted that some Rigs in the relevant localities had long been abandoned. He also submitted that the establishment was already suffering the burden of being over-staffed for which voluntary retirement scheme was introduced. He referred to Ext-17 & Ext-18 to prove that point.

24. In view of the above discussion, it appears to me that the concerned workers failed to prove that there was employer- employee relationship between the ONGC and them (concerned workers) within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The concerned workers are, therefore, not entitled to any relief. The reference is, accordingly, disposed of with a no relief Award.

Given under the hand and seal of this Tribunal, this 11th day of July, 2019

MRINMOY KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE, Presiding Officer5708 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SHRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1346134613461346....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार मैसर्स ओ.एन.जी.सी. िलिमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब$ नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि)दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं ,म न्यायालय, गुवाहाटी के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 04/2016) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार को 17.07.2019 को प्राप्त 5ए था ।

[सं. एल-30011/69/1999-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019

S.O. 1346.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 04/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Guwahati, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Limited and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 17.07.2019.

[No. L-30011/69/1999-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Present: Shri Mrinmoy Kumar Bhattacharjee, M.A., LL.B. Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

Ref. Case No.04 of 2016

(Old number: Ref. No.4(C)/2000)

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-

Smti. Banti Baruah, Sibsagar, Assam. … Claimant/ Workman

-Vrs-

The Management of O.N.G.C., Nazira, Sibsagar, …O.P./Management

APPEARANCES :

For the Workmen. : Mr. P.K.Baruah, Advocate

For the Management. : Mr. G. N.Sahewalla, Sr. Advocate

Ms. S. Senapati, Advocate

Date of Award: 11.07.2019

AWARD

1. The present industrial dispute was referred by the appropriate government vide Notification No. L-30011/69/99/IR(M) dt.15.3.2000 with the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the claim for regularization of Smti. Banti Baruah is justified or not on the ground that Smti. Banti Baruah served on the post of typist during 1985 to 1990 and then worked under contractor during 1990 to 1995? If yes, to what relief Smti. Banti Baruah is entitled ?"

2. On receipt of the reference, both the parties were notified and in response to the notices they appeared and filed their respective written statements.

3. The case of the claimant was that she being a matriculate and a qualified Typist was appointed as a Typist by the ONGC from December,1985 as a casual employee and she was also directly paid her wages by the ONGC. Her[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5709 wages was Rs.2/- per page of typing and in the similar manner she continued to work till 1995. She also claimed that management issued Identity Card No.2051 on 28.4.1986 to her. It was also claimed that management was contemplating to regularize her service and in that respect there were correspondences between the management of ONGC and the Headquarters where she was working. According to her, as she was working on contingent basis she was entitled to be regularized as regular employee on the basis of the Standing Order of ONGC as she had put in more than 240 days of work per year during that period. On the basis of the above alleged facts the claimant prayed for an award in her favour for regularization of her service with all consequential benefits.

4. By filing W.S. ONGC denied that the concerned workman was ever appointed by the management. According to them all appointments in the ONGC are done as per the concerned Recruitment Rules which are in force. The management also claimed that they did not engage any workman directly who did the job as alleged by the claimant and hence there was no question of regularization or absorption. It was further alleged that there is no procedure of regularization without following the prescribed Rules of the ONGC. It was also stated that the Identity Card was issued to all including the contract labours to facilitate their entry into the premises of the ONGC for security reasons, the premises being protected area. It was also stated that Hon'ble High Court in C.R. No. 3366/95 only directed the management to examine the cases of the workers in respect of the regularization and accordingly the case of the petitioner was examined by the management but after such examination she was informed that she could not be absorbed in contravention of the Rules and Regulation of the ONGC. She was also informed that in case of any future vacancy she could apply for such post as per the advertisement.

5. After hearing the matter the Tribunal vide Award dated 01.12.2005 held that the claim of the workman was justified and the management was directed to re-engage her in the concerned post form the date of her termination and also directed to regularize her service from the date of her re-employment. The matter was taken before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 10.09.2015 passed in W.P.(C) 2816/2006 quashed the award passed in Reference No.4(C)/2000 and remanded back the matter to this Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court held as under:- " Therefore the impugned award dated 1.12.2005 (Annexure-6) in the Reference No.4(C) of 2000 is set aside and quashed. The case is thus remanded back to the learned Tribunal to decide afresh, in terms of the direction given in the judgement dated 4.9.2015 in the WP(C) No.5446/2006. Since both the references are connected with each other, it would be convenient to the Tribunal, if the two References are analogously heard." Accordingly, the reference has been heard analogously along-with the reference No.03/2016 (Old no. 8(C) of 2000).

6. In the first round of proceeding before the Tribunal, Workman side examined 3 witnesses including the workman. After remand of the matter the claimant re-examined herself and also examined another witness. The management side however, did not examine any further witness.

7. During argument the learned counsel for the workman side submitted that the management gave some artificial break in her job and if all the working days are counted it will come to 1449 days within a period of 3 years 9 months which will indicate that net working days were far more than 240 days in a year. He argued that from the evidence on the record it would appear that the workman rendered typing services under the ONGC, in Eastern Region, O.T. Complex, Sibsagar and hence there was employer and employee relationship between the ONGC and the workman. He further argued that there was continuity in service from 1985 to 1995 and the management illegally deprived the workman and without regularizing her service discontinued her from service. He further argued that from the materials on record it would appear that the engagement of the workman in 1985 could be irregular but since she had requisite qualification for the job at the relevant time, her service ought to have been regularized. According to the learned Counsel for the workman there was employer and employee relationship between the ONGC and the workman and hence the workman could not have been arbitrarily dismissed from service without following the relevant provisions in the I.D.Act, 1947.

8. The gist of the argument made by the workman side was that the workman Smti Banti Barua was directly engaged in ONGC for typing job from 1985 to 1989 and thereafter she along with other similarly situated employees were shown to have been engaged through a nominal contract which was nothing but a camouflage. It was further argued that after continuous service in ONGC from 1985 to 1989 the management illegally discontinued her service and hence, she is entitled to reinstatement on regular basis along with all consequential benefits.

9. Management's argument on the other hand was that the concerned claimant Smti Banti Barua was in a job contract and before her engagement as contract labour she used to do some typing work in ONGC @ Rs.2/- per page which are proved by her own exhibits. It was also argued that since the concerned worker was on a job contract she cannot be considered to be a casual employee under ONGC. It was further argued that the claim of the employee for regularization was completely illegal. In that respect learned Sr. Counsel of ONGC referred to para 47 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 in "Secretary, State of Karnataka and others...vrs.... Umadevi(3) and Others". The concerned paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is as under :

"47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is5710 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post."

It was further argued that no appointment letter was issued to the concerned worker at any point of time by the management of ONGC and that is the reason for which the employee also could not submit any appointment letter. That apart, it was further argued that before her engagement as contract labour under the contractor, she was on job contract of typing at the time of necessity at the rate of Rs.2/- per page. It was also argued that the claimant was neither a direct employee under ONGC nor was she eligible for regularization in as much as automatic regularization of service in a Public Enterprise like ONGC is/was not permissible.

10. Let me now briefly discuss the evidence available on record. From the evidence of the concerned claimant Smti Banti Baruah (W.W No.1) it appeared that initially she was appointed on job contract for typing @ Rs2/- per page by the management. She also stated that she used to get payment on submission of bills by her. Such sanction orders were also exhibited by her as Ext-1, 2, 3, 4 &5. She also exhibited some bills as Ext 6 to 8. Exhibit-12 which is a document by which the then Additional Director (TPT) of ONGC, Sibsagar made a recommendation for continuing the job contract in respect of the concerned workman. During cross-examination she admitted she had submitted her bill for payment of her wages. During cross-examination she also stated that she did not know whether there was any appointment letter issued to her and whether any such appointment letter is in the record. She also admitted that she used to work in an area which was a protected area and for that purpose she was issued an Identity Card. In the re-examination she stated that in her earlier examination in-chief she exhibited photo copy of "regularization of job contract personnel" issued by ONGC on 25.01.1990 as Exhibit-12 and now she has collected certain copy of the aforesaid documents and hence she exhibited the same as Exhibit-12(1). She also proved a document as Exhibit-13(1) and also proved her educational qualification certificate which shows that she was a matriculate and had a vocational training diploma in typing. She has also proved a temporary identity card issued on 28.1.86 and medical certificates in respect of her treatment as Exhibit-17. She also exhibited Exhibit-18 and Exhibit-18(1) which are certain documents relating to her employment in ONGC as contract labour. After her re-examination she was again cross-examined by the learned Sr. Counsel of the ONGC in which she admitted that she got Rs.2/- per page for typing from the year 1985 and that she used to type 2 and ½ page in an hour. She also admitted that in Exhibit-12 it was mentioned that she was engaged in Planning Cell of TPT Section of ONGC on job contract basis. She further admitted that for the period 03.05.1988 to 14.06.1988 she used to submit a bill for Rs.950/- for typing 42 copies @ Rs.2/- per copy. She also admitted that she was used to be paid on the basis of her actual work i.e. the number of sheets typed at the prevailing rate. She also admitted that later she was shown to have worked under a contractor named Tuni Ram Phukan. She further stated that every person has to obtain identity card for security reasons for which the identity card was issued. She however denied the suggestion that she was engaged through a contractor and that she was on job contract of ONGC. She denied that she was not entitled for regularization. She also admitted that she has no appointment letter issued to her by the ONGC. W.W.2, Sri Dilip Kumar Borkakoty, a retired employee of the ONGC, stated that she knew the claimant who was on job contract as Typist in ONGC. He stated that he could identify the signature of Additional Director in Exhibit-12. W.W.3, Arun Chandra Borthakur, retired employee of ONGC, also proved the signature of the ONGC official on Exhibit-12 and 13. After the remand of the matter before this Tribunal, workman side also examined another witness named Sri Jatin Rajkonwar (W.W No.4) who introduced himself as Union Secretary of the ONGC Contractual Workers' Union. He stated that initially he filed a Writ petition on 11.08.1995 to assist a total 21 ONGC workers including himself in a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court which was registered as Civil Rule No.3366 of 1995. He further stated that as per order dated 12.08.1997 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Guwahati conducted an enquiry and submitted a report dated 05.01.1998 stating that the job of loading, unloading, handling as well as typing for which the work force were deployed were jobs of perennial nature. During his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he did not depose earlier in the matter. He also admitted that he was the Secretary of the Union only in the year 2005 although he knew Smti Banti Barua since 1985.

11. Management side examined 4 witnesses. M.W.1 Sri Girish Chandra Dutta was functioning as Sr. Personal & Administrative Officer of the Department of Transport in ONGC, Sibsagar in the year 1993 and prior to that he was posted at Planning Logistic Department since 1986 at Sibsagar. He stated that in the year 1986 the concerned claimant Smti Banti Barua came to their Office seeking job of typing. He further stated that the Company did not enter into any written contract with her for regular job but during exigency of works they used to give her typing job @ Rs.2/- per page. He further stated after taking the work order she used to type the papers outside their office and he did not know where she typed. He further stated that they got their permanent Typist and there was no vacancy in the office for Typist. He[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5711 further stated that there were Social Welfare Schemes in ONGC for maintaining a healthy relation with the local people and one such scheme was to help the needy people by giving medical aid and such medical camps were also held in nearby villages. He further stated that ONGC has their own Recruitment Rules and they used to advertise when there is vacancy through newspapers and also through Employment Exchange. He further stated that there is no vacancy of Junior Assistant. He also stated that for filling up any regular post in ONGC the concerned Recruitment Rules was applicable. He also exhibited certain documents from Exhibits-A to Exhibit-I. During cross-examination he admitted that the concerned workman never worked directly under him and he joined in 1991 in the present post. The witness also admitted that he exactly did not know that when Banti Barua was working. He further stated that there was provision for punishment of the concerned officer of the ONGC for issuing unauthorized certificates. Action is taken for violation of Rules and for issuance of such unauthorized certificates. Management witness No.2, Sri Tuni Ram Phookon stated that he was a contractor of the ONGC. He knew Smti Banti Barua and she was under him as contract labour. He exhibited Exhibit-J the payment voucher Register and Exhibit-J(1) and J(2) being the relevant entries. He further stated that as per the payment vouchers he used to make payment to the labourers including the workman Smti Banti Barua. He exhibited his contractor license as Exhibit-K. During cross-examination he stated that he was contractor from 1987 to 1995. He further admitted that he has not brought any specific document to show that he was a contractor from 1987 to 1990. He further admitted that Exhibit-6, Exhibit-7 and Exhibit-8 which are the documents of bills of typing were not made by him. He further stated that the concerned workman never worked as Typist under him. He further denied the suggestion that Smti. Banti Barua never cleared the file or stacked. He denied the suggestion that Smti Banti Barua never worked under him as contract labour. Management witness No.3, Md. Sayed Abdul Khalique stated that he worked as Manager Stores in ONGC, Sibsagar from 1985 to 1995. He also stated that he knew Smti Banti Barua who worked in ONGC under contractor in the Central Store of ONGC. He also stated that the contract labour used to do work of stacking and cleaning of the files. He also stated that the work done by the claimant under contractor was of temporary nature. He further stated that in 1997 since there was no need of work of stacking, shifting and cleaning, number of contract labour were reduced because of non availability of such works in ONGC. He further stated that because of reduction of number of Rigs in ONGC, Shibsagar, number of contracts were also reduced. He also stated that the works related to present Rigs are done by the regular employees. He further stated that at the time of his giving evidence the number of workers were more than the required available works. He also stated that because of overstaffing, ONGC introduced a Voluntary retirement scheme. He exhibited the Scheme as Ext-P. During cross-examination the witness admitted that while he was posted in OT Complex in 1999 to 2002 he did not find Smti Banti Barua there. He further stated that he never worked with Smti Banti Barua in Office and she never worked under him. Management Witness No.4 Sri Putul Chandra Sarma, the then Manager, Logistic, ONGC, Sibsagar stated that he joined in ONGC in 1967 and that he came to know Smti Banti Barua in the year 1989 while he was working as Transport Officer in Transport and Planning and Provisioning Cell. He also stated that Smti Banti Barua used to visit the office sometime and they used to give her some typing job whenever there were excessive works. She typed the papers and delivered to us @ Rs.2/- per page. During cross- examination he stated the he was working as Transport Officer since 1989. He further stated that Smti Banti Barua was not an employee of the ONGC. He also stated during cross that payment of Smti Banti Barua for typing was made from contingency fund.

12. From the evidence of the concerned claimant Smti Banti Baruah (W.W No.1) and remaining witnesses of the workman side, as discussed earlier, it appeared that initially she was appointed on job contract for typing @ Rs2/- per page by the management. She also stated that she used to get payment on submission of bills by her. Such job contract could not be termed as direct casual employment under the ONGC. It appeared from the evidence on record that initial engagement of the claimant on job contract of typing job as and when required, in any case, could not be said to be direct employment. The claimant could not reasonably prove that she was a direct casual employee of the ONGC at any point of time. Later, she was engaged through contractor for performing the works mentioned in the contract and the contractor in his evidence, as discussed earlier, specifically mentioned that she never worked as typist under him. There was absolutely nothing on record to show that at the time of her disengagement she was under direct employment of ONGC. Even her initial engagement was on job contract and payment was made @ Rs.2/- per page of typing. Later, she was engaged by a contractor and it was the contractor who used to pay the wages. In such circumstances it cannot be held that there was a distinct employee-employer relationship between her and ONGC. Hence there was no question of discontinuation of her services by the ONGC. The aforesaid fact was further reinforced by the evidence adduced by the management side. From the evidence of management side it appeared that when she approached the concerned authorities for some job she was given job contract of typing whenever there was excessive works because regular typists were also there in the office. It was also proved that no further regular vacancy of typist was there in the office. That apart, at some point of time, due to closure of some Rigs, some regular staffs became surplus for which the management brought VRS scheme. In regard to issue of identity card, the management brought on record that such cards are issued to all employees including contract labours to facilitate their entry into the premises of the ONGC which is admittedly a protected area. Hence the identity card was issued to the claimant to facilitate her entry into the premises when required. The claimant, therefore, could not be termed as a "workman" within the meaning of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

5712 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Accordingly, the claimant does not appear to be entitled to any relief. The reference accordingly, is disposed of with a no relief Award.

Given under the hand and seal of this Tribunal this 11th day of July, 2019.

MRINMOY KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1347134713471347....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार

मैसर्स इ8िडयन ऑयल काप<रेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब$ नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि)दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं ,म न्यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 09/2018) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार को 19.07.2019 को प्राप्त 5ए था ।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019

S.O. 1347.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Kolkata, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 19.07.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Application No. CGIT-09 of 2018

(Under Section 2A of the I.D. Act, 1947)

…. Applicant Parties: Shri Babulal Halder, S/o. Late Gopal Chandra Halder, B-1, 5/1A, New BBT Road, Sarangabad, Kolkata – 700137 - Vs –

M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division), Eastern Region, Indian Oil Bhavan, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Dhakuria, Kolkata – 700068

2. IBP Company Ltd., Acting through Indian Oil Corporation (Marketing Division) Eastern Region, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Dhakuria, Kolkata – 700068

3. IBP Co. Ltd. (An Indian Oil Group Company), Regional Office, Kolkata, Shanti Niketan (12th Floor), 8, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700017

…Opp. Parties

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Applicant : Mr. S. Mukherjee, Learned counsel with Mrs. P. Shaw, Learned counsel

On behalf of the Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Karmakar, Learnd counsel with Mr. R. Talukder, Learned counsel

State: West Bengal. Industry: Petroleum.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5713

Dated: 12th July, 2019.

AWARD

This is an application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act of 1947 for convenience) filed by the concerned workman, Shri Babulal Halder challenging his termination order dated 12.09.2008/15.09.2008 as illegal and also praying for his reinstatement with full back wages. The Opposite Party has filed its reply in which the maintainability of application under Section 2A of the Act of 1947 has been challenged on the ground of limitation.

2. When the case was taken up today for hearing, an application has been moved on behalf of the Applicant to withdraw the application moved under Section 2A of the Act of 1947. Though technical mistake in the application has been made a aground to withdraw the application, but the learned counsel has failed to demonstrate any technical lacunae in the application.

3. In the circumstances of the case, Applicant is permitted to withdraw the application. The application under Section 2A of the Act of 1947, however, shall be treated to have been dismissed as withdrawn.

Award is passed accordingly.

Dated, Kolkata, The 12th July, 2019

JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1348134813481348....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार

मैसर्स इ8िडयन ऑयल काप<रेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब$ नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि)दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं ,म न्यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 11/2018) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार को 19.07.2019 को प्राप्त 5ए था ।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019

S.O. 1348.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 19.07.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Application No. CGIT-11 of 2018

(Under Section 2A of the I.D. Act, 1947)

Parties: Shri Gyan Prakash Balmiki, S/o. Late K. Balmiki, 219/03/1, Dharamtala Road, Kolkata – 700137

… Applicant

- Vs –

M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division), Eastern Region, Indian Oil Bhavan, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Dhakuria, Kolkata – 700068

2. IBP Company Ltd., Acting through Indian Oil Corporation (Marketing Division) Eastern Region, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Dhakuria, Kolkata – 7000685714 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3. IBP Co. Ltd. (An Indian Oil Group Company), Regional Office, Kolkata, Shanti Niketan (12th Floor), 8, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700017

…Opp. Parties

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Applicant : Mr. S. Mukherjee, Learned counsel with Mrs. P. Shaw, Learned counsel.

On behalf of the Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Karmakar, Learnd counsel with Mr. R. Talukder, Learned counsel.

State: West Bengal. Industry: Petroleum.

Dated: 12th July, 2019.

AWARD

This is an application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act of 1947 for convenience) filed by the concerned workman, Shri Gyan Prakash Balmiki challenging his termination order dated 11.09.2008 as illegal and also praying for his reinstatement with full back wages. The Opposite Party has filed its reply in which the maintainability of application under Section 2A of the Act of 1947 has been challenged on the ground of limitation.

2. When the case was taken up today for hearing, an application has been moved on behalf of the Applicant to withdraw the application moved under Section 2A of the Act of 1947. Though technical mistake in the application has been made a aground to withdraw the application, but the learned counsel has failed to demonstrate any technical lacunae in the application.

3. In the circumstances of the case, Applicant is permitted to withdraw the application. The application under Section 2A of the Act of 1947, however, shall be treated to have been dismissed as withdrawn.

Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1349134913491349....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार मैसर्स एयरपोर्ट अथॉरिटी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब$ नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि)दष्ट

औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं ,म न्यायालय-1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 68/2011) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार को 22.07.2019 को प्राप्त 5ए था ।

[सं. एल-11012/4/1997-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019

S.O. 1349.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 68/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22.07.2019.

[No. L-11012/4/1997-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5715

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT No.1,

NEW DELHI

ID No. 68/2011

Shri Anil s/o. late Shri Jagdish Qr.No. 5/6, TSF Near Base Hospital, Sumiron Lines, Delhi 110010.

……Workman/Claimant

Versus

Airport Authority of India (National Airports Division) Through its Executive Director (Personnel), Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, New Delhi 110003.

…Management/Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-11012/4/97-IR(M) dated 31.12.1997 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:

'Whether the action of the management of Airport Authority of India (National Airports Division) New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Anil, Book Binder w.e.f. 14/12/1996, is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date?'

2. Both parties were put to notice and the claimant Anil filed his statement of claim, with the averments that on 1/7/1989 he was engaged as a Book Bider by the National Airports Authority Printing Press & was initially paid an amount of Rs.500/- per month which was subsequently revised and his drawn wags for the month of September, 1996 was Rs.1700/- per month. Though the workman served the above Press owned and run by the Management for the subsequent period from 1/10/1996 to 13/12/1996 but he was not paid wages for the same despite numerous requests to the Manager of the Press and other superior authorities at his own and through Airports Authority Kamgar Union (NAAKU) of which he was a Member but to no avail. Thereafter the aforesaid Union approached the Conciliation Officer but to no success. It is pleaded that the Manager of the Press or the Management of Airport Authority of India did not give any appointment letter, identity card, medical facility etc. to the workman. The Management sealed the Printing Press in the evening of 13th December, 1996 when the workman and his fellow colleagues left the press after performing duty and when they reported for work in the morning of 14/12/1996 at 9.30 AM, they came to know about the wrongful/illegal lock out of the Press and in this way the services of the workman/claimant who had worked for more than 240 days with the Management, were terminated without giving any notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation and as such action of the Management is illegal and wrong. Prayer has been made for reinstatement with full back wages in the industrial pay-scale of Rs.2550-3660 w.e.f. 14/12/1996 and continuity of services and all consequential benefits vis-à-vis grant of next higher pay scale of Rs. 2720-4400 on completion of 8 years service w.e.f 1/7/1997. He has also claimed interest @ 18% per annum on the entitled amount, as a matter incidental to the main dispute.

3. Management resisted the claim of the Claimant Union, by filing written reply and took preliminary objections that the claim is not maintainable as there is no employer and employee relationship between the parties because the claimant/applicant was never the employee of the Management and as such no industrial dispute existed between the parties Even no valid/prior demand notice was served upon the Management. The claim is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary party viz contractor . While denying all the allegations of the claimant, it has been pleaded that the Management had never engaged any such person including the claimant and completion of 240 days by him is a mere concoction for creating a claim and the Management never terminated the services of any workman. It is alleged that the printing press was closed perfectly in a legal manner as per terms and conditions of the contact between the contractor Shri N.Lall and the Management. Prayer has been made for rejection of claim petition.

4. The claimant/workman filed rejoinder/replication, reiterating his own case and denied the allegations made in the written statement.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 27/5/2011 :-

5716 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1) Whether there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties ?

(2) Whether the press was being run by the Management through a contractor, who employed the claimant in the said Press ?

(3) As in terms of reference ?

(4) Relief.

6. Perusal of the record shows that number of opportunities were granted to the claimant to lead evidence to prove his case but he failed to do so and on 21/7/2011 Shri H.S. Vats, A/R for the claimant had stated that the claimant was not in his contact and as such he closed his evidence.

7. On the other hand, the Management examined two witnesses namely Shri O.P. Chamoli, Asstt. General Manager (HR) and Shri Girish Kumar, Manager (Personnel), who filed their respective affidavits as Ex.MW2/A and Ex.MW3/A and they placed reliance on the documents Ex,.MW1/1 and Ex.MW2/1 to Ex.MW2/7.

6. I have heard Shri Manish Sherawat and Shri Digvijay Rai, A/R for the Management since none appeared on behalf of the claimant. I have also gone through the record carefully. My findings on above issues are as follows.

Issue No.1 to 3 :-

7. All these issues are taken up together as they can be disposed of conveniently by common discussion.

8. Onus to prove the case that the claimant had been working as Book Binder in the Printing Press of the Management from 1/7/1989 till 13/12/1996 either directly or through the contractor or that his services were illegally terminated by the Management on 14/12/1999, lies on the workman/claimant. He has not led any oral or documentary evidence to discharge the onus or to prove that he was engaged by the Management. On the other hand, the Management has examined two witnesses namely MW2 OP Chamoli and MW3 Girish Kumar. It would be a futile exercise to discuss and analyse the testimony of the witnesses examined by the Management, inasmuch as the claimant has not led any evidence to show that he was engaged by the Management at its printing press or that there existed relationship of employee-employer between the parties or that his services were illegally terminated by the Management on 14/12/1989. In the circumstances, this Tribunal has no option but to hold that the claimant has failed to prove his case. These issues are accordingly decided against the workman/claimant.

Issue No.4/Relief :-

9. In view of my findings on issue No.1 to 3 above, this Tribunal is constrained to hold that the claimant is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. Accordingly, no dispute Award is passed.

Date : 15.7.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1350135013501350....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार मेसर्स एयरपोर्ट अथॉरिटी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब$ नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि)दष्ट

औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं ,म न्यायालय-1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 69/2011) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार को 22.07.2019 को प्राप्त 5ए था ।

[सं. एल-11012/5/1997-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019

S.O. 1350.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 69/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22.07.2019.

[No. L-11012/5/1997-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5717

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT No.1,

NEW DELHI

ID No. 69/2011

Shri Baldev Singh s/o. late Shri Ram Singh , Qr.No. RZ-69 Bindapur Extension, Near Uttam Nagar, New Delhi 110059.

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

Airport Authority of India (National Airports Division) Through its Executive Director (Personnel), Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, New Delhi 110003.

...Management/Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-11012/5/97-IR(M) dated 31.12.1997 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:

'Whether the action of the management of Airport Authority of India (National Airports Division) New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Baldev Singh, Machine Man, w.e.f. 14/12/1996, is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date?'

2. Both parties were put to notice and the claimant Baldev Singh filed his statement of claim (dated 26/3/1988), with the averments that in the first week of January, 1989 he was engaged as a Machine-man by the National Airports Authority Printing Press & was initially paid an amount of Rs.1200/- per month which was subsequently revised and his drawn wags for the month of September, 1996 was Rs.2500/- per month. Though the workman served the above Press owned and run by the Management for the subsequent period from 1/10/1996 to 13/12/1996 but he was not paid wages for the same despite numerous requests to the Manager of the Press and other superior authorities at his own and through Airports Authority Kamgar Union (NAAKU) of which he was a Member but to no avail. Thereafter the aforesaid Union approached the Conciliation Officer but to no success. It is pleaded that the Manager of the Press or the Management of Airport Authority of India did not give any appointment letter, identity card, medical facility etc. to the workman. The Management sealed the Printing Press in the evening of 13th December, 1996 when the workman and his fellow colleagues left the press after performing duty and when they reported for work in the morning of 14/12/1996 at 9.30 AM, they came to know about the wrongful/illegal lock out of the Press and in this way the services of the workman/claimant who had worked for more than 240 days with the Management, were terminated without giving any notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation and as such action of the Management is illegal and wrong. Prayer has been made for reinstatement with full back wages in the industrial pay-scale of Rs.2720-4400 w.e.f. 14/12/1996 and continuity of services and all consequential benefits vis-à-vis grant of next higher pay scale of Rs. 2950--5270 on completion of 8 years service w.e.f 1/1/1997. He has also claimed interest @ 18% per annum on the entitled amount, as a matter incidental to the main dispute.

3. Management resisted the claim of the Claimant Union, by filing written reply and took preliminary objections that the claim is not maintainable as there is no employer and employee relationship between the parties because the claimant/applicant was never the employee of the Management and as such no industrial dispute existed between the parties Even no valid/prior demand notice was served upon the Management. The claim is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary party viz contractor . While denying all the allegations of the claimant, it has been pleaded that the Management had never engaged any such person including the claimant and completion of 240 days by him is a mere concoction for creating a claim and the Management never terminated the services of any workman. It is alleged that the printing press was closed perfectly in a legal manner as per terms and conditions of the contact between the contractor Shri N.Lall and the Management. Prayer has been made for rejection of claim petition.

4. The claimant/workman filed rejoinder/replication, reiterating his own case and denied the allegations made in the written statement.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 27/5/2011 :-

(1) Whether there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties ?

5718 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2) Whether the press was being run by the Management through a contractor, who employed the claimant in the said Press ?

(3) As in terms of reference ?

(4) Relief.

6. In order to prove the case, Smt. Nirmala Devi wife of Shri Baldev Singh appeared in the witness box as WW1.

7. On the other hand, the Management examined two witnesses namely Shri O.P. Chamoli, Asstt. General Manager (HR) and Shri Girish Kumar, Manager (Personnel), who filed their respective affidavits as Ex.MW2/A and Ex.MW3/A and they placed reliance on the documents Ex,.MW1/1 and Ex.MW2/1 to Ex.MW2/7.

6. I have heard Shri Manish Sherawat and Shri Digvijay Rai, A/R for the Management since none appeared on behalf of the claimant. I have also gone through the record carefully. My findings on above issues are as follows.

Issue No.1 and 2 :-

7. Both these issues being inter-related are taken up together and they can be disposed of conveniently by common discussion.

8. At the outset I may mention that case of the claimant/workman is that he had been working as Machine-Man in the Printing Press of the Management from 1st week of 1989 till 13/12/1996 and that his services were illegally terminated on 14/12/1996, whereas contention of the Management is that the workman/claimant was never engaged by it and there existed no relationship of employer-employee between the parties.

9. According to the testimony of Smt. Nirmala Devi wife of the claimant WW1 (which was recorde4d on 4/7/2011), her husband Baldev Singh used to work as Machine-Man under Airport Authority. He was engaged under the Management on 1.1.1989. He was getting Rs.1400 to Rs.1500/- per month as wages She deposed that it was Saturday on 14/12/1996 when her husband had gone for duty but he returned home at 5 PM and informed her that the press was locked. Her husband had have orally requested the Management for regularization of his services but same was not accepted rather his services were terminated without any notice. Her husband had made efforts to search job but he was not given any job by any employer, saying that he has been terminated from government job and as such her husband was unemployed since after termination of his services. Whereabouts of her husband are not known since 29/5/1999 and she had made a complaint to the police in this regard and copy of the same is Ex.WW1/10. She has also filed on record copy of the application made to the SDM, Punjabi Bagh (as Ex.WW1/9) regarding verification of death of her husband Shri Baldev Singh who was missing since 29/5/1999. She had also submitted an application to the Management for giving appointment on compassionate ground to her son Sandeep kumar and copy of the same is Ex.WW1/1. In cross examination she deposed that she does not have any document of PF and ESI benefits availed by her husband. She denied the suggestion that her husband had disclosed her that he was a contractual employee and was working in the office of the Management through the contractor Mr. Lall.

10. According to the testimony of MW2 OP Chamoli, the Printing Press owned by Airport Authority of India was run by Shri N. Lall – a contractor on monthly consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/- initially and the said Press ran upto 31st December, 1996. Copy of the letter of Award of contract dated 1/1/1989 (Ex.MW2/1) has been filed on record. In cross examination MW2 Shri O.P. Chamoli admitted that document Ex.MW2/3 accords sanction for payment of printing contract charges for a period of three years. He showed his ignorance if there were seven machines installed in the printing press or that out of those seven machines, five machines were power driven and remaining two machines were manual driven. He failed to affirm or deny whether there were 17 to 21 employees working in the printing press or that Ex.MW2/W-3 is the job card which was being used in the printing press. He showed his ignorance whether any document has been filed by the Management to show that N.Lal was awarded contract to run the press. He denied the suggestion that Shri N.Lal was working as Manager in the press and was not a contractor. It is noteworthy to mention here that in the document Ex. MW2/3 (dated 14.10.1992) the designation of Shri N.Lall has been described as Manager, NAA (National Airport Authority) Printing Press. Though this witness had taken time to produce record relating to pay bill receipts and muster roll, however he failed to produce the same and simply stated that the record is not available.

11. MW3 Girish Kumar in his testimony/affidavit Ex.MW3/A also tried to support the version of the Management that contract/agreement Ex.MW2/1 was awarded to Shri N.Lal and that the workers including the claimant were engaged by the contractor. He also stated that the printing press was closed by the Management and the assets of the printing press had been sold out. In cross examination this witness stated that the Management did not have documents to show that the workman/claimant was in the employment of the contractor. He showed his ignorance whether the Management was duly registered under Section 7 of CLRA Act or the contractor had obtained licence under Section 12 of CLRA Act.

12. The Management has neither examined Mr. Lall –the contractor nor produced any other document to show that the claimant/Baldev Singh was working in the Printing Press through the contractor Mr.Lall. Even perusal of the contract Ex.MW2/1 shows that the award/contract was primarily for running of the printing press with required[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5719 manpower to be provided by the contractor at Headquarter of National Airports Authority. The contract/agreement was valid for three years, that is upto 31st December, 1991. There is nothing on record to suggest that the contract/award ExMW2/1 which expired on 31/12/1991 was renewed / extended in favour of the said contractor or any fresh contract/agreement was executed in favour of some other contractor for running the Printing Press of the Management, which was run upto 31st December, 1996. It is manifest from the reading of contract Ex.MW2/1 that machinery, space/accommodation, electricity and paper used for printing were supplied by the Management and role of the contractor or the Manager Shri N.Lal was just to supply or supervise the manpower for printing of the printing material of the Management at the AAI Printing Press. It emerges that workers including the claimant were hired by Airport Authority of India through the contractor/ Manager M/s N.Lall for doing the printing work. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Management had awarded contract to M/s N.Lal for completion of any project or that the said contractor himself was fully responsible for carrying out the project of the Management.

13. It is fairly settled that the ID Act as well as Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 are essentially social and beneficial legislations. The main purpose of the CLRA Act, 1970 is to regulate the conditions of workers under the contract labour system and to provide for its abolition by the appropriate government as provided under Section 10 of the said Act. Section 12 of the said Act bars a contractor from undertaking or executing any work through contract labour, except under and in accordance with a licence issued. Section 23, 24 and 25 of the Act makes contravention of the provisions of Act punishable thereunder. There is also requirement for the principal employer of the establishment to get itself registered under the CLRA Act so as to avail the benefit of provisions of the Act.

14. Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 notices the following circumstances under which contract labour would be held to be the workmen of the principal employer :-

"107. An analysis of the cases, discussed above, shows that they fall in three classes :

(i) Where contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment establishment and employment of contract labour is prohibited either because the Industrial Adjudicator/Court ordered abolition of contract or because the appropriate Govt. issued notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment was ordered.

(ii) Where the contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which case the contract labour working in the establishment of the principal employer, were held in fact and in reality, the employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed such cases do not relate to abolition of contract labour but present instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood prohibited.

(iii) Where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a canteen in an establishment, the principal employer availed the services of a contractor, the Courts have held that the contract labour would indeed be the employees of the principal employer.

15. In the case of Management of Ashok Hotel Vs. the Workmen (W.P. –Civil No.14828/2006 – decided on 19/2/2013), similar issue was involved and it was a case where various workmen were working continuously as safaiwala/housemen in the kitchen department etc. and they were alleged to be working directly under the contractor who had entered into a contract with the principal employer i.e. Ashok Hotel. Contention of the Management to the effect that workmen were employees of the contractor was rejected and contract in the said case was held to be sham and camouflage so as to deny direct relationship of employer (Ashok Hotel ) and the workmen.

16. I may mention that situation in the instant case is not distinct. It is evident from the evidence adduced on record that the contract Ex.MW2/1 awarded to the contractor was for supply of workforce/manpower to the Management Airport Authority of India for doing the printing work at the Printing Press of the Management. Even control and supervision over the work of the claimant/workman was that of the Management. Thus, it emerges from the record that the workman/claimant had not been hired in connection with the work of a contractor rather he had been hired by the contractor for the work of the Management, that is to say for doing the printing work at the Printing Press of the Management/Airport Authority of India. This is indicative of the fact that contract/s between the Management and N.Lall was a sham and mere camouflage so as to deny relationship of employer and employee between it and the claimant herein. It is manifest from the evidence adduced on record that the workman Baldev Singh had been working regularly without any breaks from January, 1989 till 13/12/2014 whereas his services were terminated w.e.f.14/12/1996. As such, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that there existed relationship of employer –employee between the Management/Airport Authority of India and the workman/ claimant herein. Both these issues are decided accordingly in favour of the claimant and against the Management.

5720 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Issue No.3 :-

17. It is the case of the claimant that his services were terminated without issuing any notice or without any notice pay/compensation. It is a matter of record that the Management has not filed on record any document to show that any notice or retrenchment compensation has been paid to the claimant prior to his termination. Thus it can be inferred that no notice or compensation in lieu of notice period was given to the claimant by the Management and termination of the claimant/workman by the Management was in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. This goes to show that the Management terminated the services of the claimant/workman in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

18. I may mention that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act which provides for conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen, are absolute and inexorable and it reads as under :-

"25-F : Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen –

No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until –

(a) The workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;

(b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed years of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette."

The above provision makes it clear that the employer is required to give notice to the appropriate Government apart-from giving one month's notice in writing or one month's wages in lieu of the notice and payment of retrenchment compensation to the concerned workman. There is nothing on record to show that either any notice was issued by the Management or notice pay/compensation was paid to the workman/claimant prior to his termination. As such, the Management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

19. There is long line of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the Management to be illegal and void under the law.

20. Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the Management to the workman at the time of termination of his services 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 w.e.f. 14.12.1996 is held to be illegal and void.

21. 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 stands proved on record that claimant was continuously in the employment of the Management from January, 1989 to 13.12.1996. His last drawn wages were Rs.1400- 1500/- per month. Services of the claimant were illegally terminated on 14.12.1996. Thereafter the claimant approached the Conciliation Officer but to no avail and ultimately the matter was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication under Section 10 of the Act vide letter dated 31.12.1997. Onus was upon the claimant/workman to plead and prove that he is unemployed since after his termination. Although it was not pleaded in the statement of claim that the workmen was/is unemployed since after termination of his services, however WW1 Smt Nirmala Devi –wife of the workman deposed that after termination her husband had tried for job but was not granted. It would not be out of place to mention here that the workman Baldev Singh has been missing and untraceable since 29.5.1999 as per testimony of WW1 which fact finds support from the documents Ex.WW1/9 and Ex.WW1/0 – as referred to above, There is nothing on record to suggest that the workmen Baldev Singh was selected through due process of selection or he was a regular / permanent employee of the Management.

22. 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

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5721

or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it 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."

23. Latest trend itself discernable from the various pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that when a person has been engaged on daily wage basis or for doing temporary kinds of work, in that situation full back wages are not to be awarded. There are number of factors which are required to be considered by the Tribunal while considering the question of reinstatement with back wages. It has been held in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 as under :-

" Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. An order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, automatically be passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly daily wages has not been found to be proper by the Supreme Court and instead compensation has been awarded. The Supreme Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal, because of non payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation.

24. Having regard to the recent judicial trends coupled with aforesaid peculiar facts & circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the opinion that an amount of Rs. One lakh (Rupees One Lakh) as compensation would be just and reasonable, and the same is awarded in favour of the workman/claimant herein. The amount would be payable to the legal heirs of the workman in case they file requisite certificate/declaration to the effect that the workman Baldev Singh (being not traceable since 29/5/1999) is presumed to have died. In case this compensation amount is not paid by the Management within one month from the date of publication of this Award, then the claimant will be entitled to recover the same alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization of the amount. Award is passed accordingly in favour of the claimant and against the Management..

Date : 18.7.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1351351351351111....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार मैसर्स एयरपोर्ट अथॉरिटी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब$ नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि)दष्ट

औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं ,म न्यायालय-1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 70/2011) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार को 22.07.2019 को प्राप्त 5ए था ।

[सं. एल-11012/3/1997-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019

S.O. 1351.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 70/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22.07.2019.

[No. L-11012/3/1997-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

5722 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1,

NEW DELHI

ID No. 70/2011

Shri Ganga Singh s/o. Shri Diwan Singh, Qr.No T-3/2-4 INA Colony, New Delhi 110023.

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

1-Airport Authority of India (National Airports Division) Through its Executive Director (Personnel), Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, New Delhi 110023.

…Management/Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-11012/3/97-IR(M) dated 06.01.1998 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:

'Whether the action of the management of Airport Authority of India (National Airports Division) New Delhi in terminating the services f Shri Ganga Singh, Machine Man, w.e.f. 14.12.1998, is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date?'

2. Both parties were put to notice and the claimant Ganga Singh filed his statement of claim, with the averments that he was initially engaged as a Machine Man by the National Airports Authority Printing Press w.e.f. 1st week of July, 1989 an was paid an amount of Rs.500/- per month which was subsequently revised and his drawn wags for the month of September, 1996 was Rs.2200/- per month. Though the claimant/workman served the above Press owned and run by the Management for the subsequent period from 1.10.1996 to 13.12.1996 but he was not paid wages for the same despite numerous requests to the Manager of the Press and other superior authorities at his own and through Airports Authority Kamgar Union (NAAKU) of which he was a Member but to no avail. Thereafter the aforesaid Union approached the Conciliation Officer but to no success. It is pleaded that the Manager of the Press or the Management of Airport Authority of India did not give any appointment letter, identity card, medical facility etc. etc; to the workman. The Management sealed the Printing Press in the evening of 13th December, 1996 when the workman and his fellow colleagues left the press after performing duty and when they reported for work in the morning of 14.12.1996 at 9.30 AM, they came to know about the wrongful/illegal lock out of the Press and in this way the services of the workman/claimant who had worked for more than 240 days with the Management, were terminated without giving any notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation and as such action of the Management is illegal and wrong. Prayer has been made for reinstatement with full back wages in the industrial pay-scale f Rs2720-4400 w.e.f. 14.12.1996 and continuity of services and all consequential benefits vis-à-vis grant of next higher pay scale of Rs.2950-90-3850-100- 4850-110-5270 on completion of 8 years service w.ef 1.7.1997. He has also claimed interest @ 18% per annum on the entitled amount, as a matter incidental to the main dispute.

3. Management resisted the claim of the Claimant Union, by filing written reply and took preliminary objections that the claim is not maintainable as there is no employer and employee relationship between the parties because the claimant/applicant was never the employee of the Management and as such no industrial dispute existed between the parties Even no valid/prior demand notice was served upon the Management. The claim is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary party viz contractor. While denying all the allegations of the claimant, it has been pleaded that the Management had never engaged any such person viz claimant Ganga Singh and completion of 240 days by him is a mere concoction for creating a claim and the Management never terminated the services of any workman. It is alleged that the printing press was closed perfectly in a legal manner as per terms and conditions of the contact between the contractor and the Management. Prayer has been made for rejection of claim petition.

4. The claimant/'workman filed rejoinder/replication, reiterating his own case and denied the allegations made in the written statement.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 27.5.2011 :-

(1) Whether there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties ?

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5723

(2) Whether the press was being run by the Management through a contractor, who employed the claimant in the said Press ?

(3) As in terms of reference ?

(4) Relief.

6. In order to prove his case, the workman examined himself as WW1 & reiterated the averments as mentioned in the claim petition.

7. On the other hand, the Management examined two witnesses namely Shri O.P. Chamoli, Asstt. General Manager (HR) and Shri Girish Kumar, Manager (Personnel), who filed their respective affidavits as Ex.MW2/A and Ex.MW3/A and they placed reliance on the documents Ex.MW2/1 to Ex.MW2/7 and Ex.MW3/1.

6. I have heard Shri Radhey Shyam Soni, A/R for the workman./claimant and Shri Manish Sherawat & Shri Digvijay Rai, A/Rs for Management. I have also gone through the record carefully. My findings on above issues are as follows.

Issue No.1 and 2 :-

7. Both these issues being inter-related are taken up together and they can be disposed of conveniently by common discussion.

8. At the outset I may mention that case of the claimant/workman is that he had been working as Machineman in t.e Printing Press of the Management w.e.f. 1.7.1989 till 13.12.1996 and that his services were illegally terminated w.e.f. 14.12.1996 as the Press was locked out, whereas contention of the Management is that the workman/claimant was never engaged by it and there existed no relationship of employer-employee between the parties.

9. In his oral testimony, the claimant has testified that he worked as Machineman under the Management from 1.7.1989 till 13.12.1996 continuously and without any break. On 14.12.1996 the Management locked out and he was illegally terminated from service without any notice. He explained that he used to do job of card printing and paper printing . His last drawn wages were Rs.2200/- per month and wages used to be paid to him by the Management through vouchers duly signed by me. In cross examination, he admitted that the Management had not issued any appointment letter to him. He has got no document to show that the Management used to pay wages to him. He has also got no document to show that his PF and ESI contributions used to be deducted by the Management. He has got no proof to show he used to get his attendance marked with the Management. He denied the suggestion that he did not mark his attendance in the register of the Management. He explained that he used to work under Shri Lal, Manager. He showed his ignorance that Shri Lal was the contractor. He admitted that the Press has been lying closed since 14.12.1996. He denied the suggestion that the Management never terminated his services. He, however, admitted that he is presently working in NOIDA and earning around Rs3500/- to Rs.4000/- per month.

10. As per the testimony (affidavit Ex.MW2/A) of MW2 OP Chamoli, the Printing Press owned by Airport Authority of India was run by Shri N. Lall – a contractor on monthly consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/- initially and the said Press run upto 31st December, 1996. He has filed on record copy of the Award letter dated 1.1.1989 (Ex.MW2/1). There is nothing on record to suggest that the contract/award ExMW2/1 which expired on 31.12.1991 was renewed/extended in favour of the said contractor or any fresh contract/agreement was executed with some other contractor for running the Printing Press of the Management, which was run upto 31st December, 1996. In cross examination MW2 Shri O.P. Chamoli showed his ignorance whether N.Lal was awarded contract to run the press. He denied the suggestion that Shri N.Lal was working as Manager in the press and was not a contractor. It is noteworthy to mention here that in the document Ex.MW2/3 ( dated 14.10.1992) the designation of Shri N.Lall has been described as Manager, NAA (National Airport Authority) Printing Press. Though this witness had taken time to produce record relating to pay bill receipts and muster roll, however he failed to produce the same and simply stated that the record is not available. He showed his ignorance if there were seven machines installed in the printing press or that out of those seven machines, five machines were power driven and remaining two machines were manual driven. He failed to affirm or deny whether there were 17 to 21 employees working in the printing press or that Ex.MW2/W-3 is the job card which was being used in the printing press.

11. MW3 Girish Kumar in his testimony/affidavit Ex.MW3/A also tried to support the version of the Management that contract/agreement Ex.MW1/1 was awarded to Shri N.Lal and that the workers including the claimant were engaged by the contractor. He also stated that the printing press was closed by the Management and the assets of the printing press had been sold out. In cross examination this witness stated that the Management did not have documents to show that the workman/claimant was in the employment of the contractor. He showed his ignorance whether the Management was duly registered under Section 7 of CLRA Act or the contractor had obtained licence under Section 12 of CLRA Act.

12. Perusal of the contract Ex.MW2/1 shows that the award/contract was primarily for running of the printing press with required manpower to be provided by the contractor at Headquarter of National Airports Authority. The5724 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] contract/agreement was valid for three years, that is upto 31st December, 1991. It is manifest from the reading of contract Ex.MW2/1 that machinery, space/accommodation, electricity and paper used was supplied by the Management and role of the contractor or the Manager Shri N.Lal was to supply the manpower for printing of the printing material at the AAI Printing Press. It emerges that workers including the claimant were hired by Airport Authority of India through the contractor/Manager M/s N.Lall for doing the printing work. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Management had awarded contract to M/s N.Lal for completion of any project or that the said contractor himself was fully responsible for carrying out the project of the Management.

13. It is fairly settled that the ID Act as well as Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 are essentially social and beneficial legislations. The main purpose of the CLRA Act, 1970 is to regulate the conditions of workers under the contract labour system and to provide for its abolition by the appropriate government as provided under Section 10 of the said Act. Section 12 of the said Act bars a contractor from undertaking or executing any work through contract labour, except under and in accordance with a licence issued. Section 23, 24 and 25 of the Act makes contravention of the provisions of Act punishable thereunder. There is also requirement for the principal employer of the establishment to get itself registered under the CLRA Act so as to avail the benefit of provisions of the Act.

14. Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 notices the following circumstances under which contract labour would be held to be the workmen of the principal employer :-

"107. An analysis of the cases, discussed above, shows that they fall in three classes :

(i) Where contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment establishment and employment of contract labour is prohibited either because the Industrial Adjudicator/Court ordered abolition of contract or because the appropriate Govt. issued notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment was ordered.

(ii) Where the contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which case the contract labour working in the establishment of the principal employer, were held in fact and in reality, the employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed such cases do not relate to abolition of contract labour but present instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood prohibited.

(iii) Where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a canteen in an establishment, the principal employer availed the services of a contractor, the Courts have held that the contract labour would indeed be the employees of the principal employer.

15. In the case of Management of Ashok Hotel Vs. the Workmen (W.P. –Civil No.14828/2006 – decided on 19.2.2013), similar issue was involved and it was a case where various workmen were working continuously as safaiwala/housemen in the kitchen department etc. and they were alleged to be working directly under the contractor who had entered into a contract with the principal employer i.e. Ashok Hotel. Contention of the Management to the effect that workmen were employees of the contractor was rejected and contract in the said case was held to be sham and camouflage so as to deny direct relationship of employer (Ashok Hotel ) and the workmen.

16. I may mention that situation in the instant case is not distinct. It is evident from the evidence adduced on record that the contract Ex.MW2/1 awarded to the contractor was for supply of workforce/manpower to the Management Airport Authority of India for doing the printing work at the Printing Press of the Management. Even control and supervision over the work of the claimant/workman was that of the Management. Thus, it emerges from the record that the workman/claimant had not been hired in connection with the work of a contractor rather he had been hired by the contractor for the work of the Management, that is to say for doing the printing work at the Printing Press of the Management/Airport Authority of India. This is indicative of the fact that contract/s between the Management and N.Lall was a sham and mere camouflage so as to deny relationship of employer and employee between it and the claimant herein. It is manifest from the evidence adduced on record that the workman had been working regularly without any breaks since 4/7/2008 till 5/7/2013 when his services were terminated. As such, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that there existed relationship of employer –employee between the Management/Airport Authority of India and the workman/ claimant herein. Both these issues are decided accordingly in favour of the claimant and against the Management.

Issue No.3 :-

17. It is the case of the claimant that his services were terminated without issuing any notice or without any notice pay/compensation. Admittedly the Management has not filed on record any document to show that any notice or retrenchment compensation has been paid to the claimant prior to his termination. Thus it can be inferred that no notice or compensation in lieu of notice period was given to the claimant by the Management and as such termination of the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5725 claimant/workman by the Management was in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. This goes to show that the Management terminated the services of the claimant/workman in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

18. I may mention that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act which provides for conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen, are absolute and inexorable and it reads as under :-

"25-F : Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen –

No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until –

(a) The workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;

(b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed years of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette."

The above provision makes it clear that the employer is required to give notice to the appropriate Government apart-from giving one month's notice in writing or one month's wages in lieu of the notice and payment of retrenchment compensation to the concerned workman. There is nothing on record to show that either any notice was issued by the Management or notice pay/compensation was paid to the workman/claimant prior to his termination. As such, the Management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

19. There is long line of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the Management to be illegal and void under the law.

20. 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 w.e.f. 14.12.1996 is held to be illegal and void.

21. 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 stands proved on record that claimant was continuously in the employment of the Management from July, 1989 to 13.12.1996. His last drawn wages were Rs.2200/- per month. Services of the claimant were illegally terminated on 14.12.1996. Thereafter the claimant approached the Conciliation Officer but to no avail and ultimately the matter was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication under Section 10 of the Act vide letter dated 6/1/1998. In his testimony recorded on 4.7.2011 the claimant had admitted that he had been working in NOIDA and earning around Rs.3500/- to Rs.4000/- per month. Thus, it is evident from the testimony of the claimant that presently he is gainfully employed.

22. Latest trend itself discernable from the various pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that when a person has been engaged on daily wage basis or for doing temporary kinds of work, in that situation full back wages are not to be awarded. There are number of factors which are required to be considered by the Tribunal while considering the question of reinstatement with back wages. It has been held in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 as under :-

" Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. An order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly daily wages has not been found to be proper by the Supreme Court and instead compensation has been awarded. The Supreme Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal, because of non payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation.

5726 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

23. Having regard to the recent judicial trends and duration of service rendered by the claimant, an amount of Rs. 2 lakh (Rupees Two Lakhs) appears to be just and reasonable, and the same is payable to the claimant herein by the Management. In case this compensation amount is not paid within one month from the date of publication of this Award, then the claimant will be entitled to recover the same alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization of the amount. Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 15/7/2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1352135213521352....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार मेसर्स एयरपोर्ट अथॉरिटी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब$ नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि)दष्ट

औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं ,म न्यायालय-1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 111/2011) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार को 22.07.2019 को प्राप्त 5ए था ।

[सं. एल-11012/7/1997-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019

S.O. 1352.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 111/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22.07.2019.

[No. L-11012/7/1997-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT NO. 1

NEW DELHI

ID No. 111/2011

Shri Virendra Kumar s/o. Shri Charan Singh , Qr.No.443 Chaudharana Pana, Vill. Badli, District Jhajjar (Haryana).

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

Airport Authority of India (National Airports Division) Through its Executive Director (Personnel), Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, New Delhi 110003.

…Management/Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-11012/7/97-IR(M) dated 31.12.1997 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:

'Whether the action of the management of Airport Authority of India (National Airports Division) New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Virender Kumar, Paper Man, w.e.f. 14/12/1998, is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date?

2. Both parties were put to notice and the claimant Virender Kumar filed his statement of claim, with the averments that he was initially engaged as a Paperman by the National Airports Authority Printing Press w.e.f. 2nd week of November, 1990 and was initially paid an amount of Rs.600/- per month which was subsequently revised and his drawn wags for the month of September, 1996 was Rs.1700/- per month. Though the claimant/workman served the above Press owned and run by the Management for the subsequent period from 1/10/1996 to 13/12/1996 but he was not paid wages for the same despite numerous requests to the Manager of the Press and other superior authorities at his own and through Airports Authority Kamgar Union (NAAKU) of which he was a Member but to no avail. Thereafter the aforesaid Union approached the Conciliation Officer but to no success. It is pleaded that the Manager of the Press or[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5727 the Management of Airport Authority of India did not give any appointment letter, identity card, medical facility etc. etc; to the workman. The Management sealed the Printing Press in the evening of 13th December, 1996 when the workman and his fellow colleagues left the press after performing duty and when they reported for work in the morning of 14/12/1996 at 9.30 AM, they came to know about the wrongful/illegal lock out of the Press and in this way the services of the workman/claimant who had worked for more than 240 days with the Management, were terminated without giving any notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation and as such action of the Management is illegal and wrong. Prayer has been made for reinstatement with full back wages in the industrial pay-scale of Rs.2550-3660 w.e.f. 14/12/1996 and continuity of services and all consequential benefits vis-à-vis grant of next higher pay scale of Rs. 2720- 4400 on completion of 8 years service w.ef 1/7/1998. He has also claimed interest @ 18% per annum on the entitled amount, as a matter incidental to the main dispute.

3. Management resisted the claim of the Claimant Union, by filing written reply and took preliminary objections that the claim is not maintainable as there is no employer and employee relationship between the parties because the claimant/applicant was never the employee of the Management and as such no industrial dispute existed between the parties Even no valid/prior demand notice was served upon the Management. The claim is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary party viz contractor . While denying all the allegations of the claimant, it has been pleaded that the Management had never engaged any such person including the claimant and completion of 240 days by him is a mere concoction for creating a claim and the Management never terminated the services of any workman. It is alleged that the printing press was closed perfectly in a legal manner as per terms and conditions of the contact between the contractor Shri N.Lall and the Management. Prayer has been made for rejection of claim petition.

4. The claimant/'workman filed rejoinder/replication, reiterating his own case and denied the allegations made in the written statement.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 27/5/2011 :-

(1) Whether there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties ?

(2) Whether the press was being run by the Management through a contractor, who employed the claimant in the said Press ?

(3) As in terms of reference ?

(4) Relief.

6. In order to prove his case, the workman himself appeared in the witness box as WW1 & reiterated the averments as mentioned in the claim petition.

7. On the other hand, the Management examined two witnesses namely Shri O.P. Chamoli, Asstt. General Manager (HR) and Shri Girish Kumar, Manager (Personnel), who filed their respective affidavits as Ex.MW2/A and Ex.MW3/A and they placed reliance on the documents Ex,.MW1/1 and Ex.MW2/1 to Ex.MW2/7.

6. I have heard Shri Radhey Shyam Soni, A/R for the workman./claimant and Shri Manish Sherawat and Shri Digvijay Rai, A/R for the Management. I have also gone through the record carefully. My findings on above issues are as follows.

Issue No.1 and 2 :-

7. Both these issues being inter-related are taken up together and they can be disposed of conveniently by common discussion.

8. At the outset I may mention that case of the claimant/workman is that he had been working as Paper-Man in the Printing Press of the Management from 1/11/1990 till 13/12/1996 and that his services were illegally terminated on 14/12/1996, whereas contention of the Management is that the workman/claimant was never engaged by it and there existed no relationship of employer-employee between the parties.

9. In his oral testimony, the claimant WW1 has testified that he was engaged under the Management on 1.11.1990. Initially he was getting Rs.500/- per month as wages which were revised to Rs.550/- per month after six months of his service. In December, 1996 his wages were Rs.900/=- per month. He claimed to have orally requested the Management in March, 1996 for regularization of his services but same was not accepted. Thereafter he filed his claim before Labour Authority/conciliation officer. However, on 14th December, 1996 his services were terminated by the Management without any notice or notice compensation. In cross examination, he deposed that Shri Lal Sahib who was the Manager of the Printing Press used to pay him wages. His uncle Shri Shiv Chran who ws employee of Airport Authority had got him employed under the Management, for which he had not given any application or interview. He got the job on recommendation of his uncle. He clarified that he was getting bonus every year and payment of the same was paid through voucher duly signed by him. He denied the suggestion that Mr. Lal Sahib was the contractor who used to run the printing press. He denied the suggestion that he did not work under the Management from 1/11/1990 till 13/12/1996. He admitted that the printing press was closed after 13/12/1996 and that is why his employment came to an end.

5728 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10. According to the testimony of MW2 OP Chamoli, the Printing Press owned by Airport Authority of India was run by Shri N. Lall – a contractor on monthly consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/- initially and the said Press ran upto 31st December, 1996. Copy of the letter of Award of contract dated 1/1/1989 (Ex.MW2/1) has been filed on record. In cross examination MW2 Shri O.P. Chamoli admitted that document Ex.MW2/3 accords sanction for payment of printing contract charges for a period of three years. He showed his ignorance if there were seven machines installed in the printing press or that out of those seven machines, five machines were power driven and remaining two machines were manual driven. He failed to affirm or deny whether there were 17 to 21 employees working in the printing press or that Ex.MW2/W-3 is the job card which was being used in the printing press. He showed his ignorance whether any document has been filed by the Management to show that N.Lal was awarded contract to run the press. He denied the suggestion that Shri N.Lal was working as Manager in the press and was not a contractor. It is noteworthy to mention here that in the document Ex.MW2/3 ( dated 14.10.1992) the designation of Shri N.Lall has been described as Manager, NAA (National Airport Authority) Printing Press. Though this witness had taken time to produce record relating to pay bill receipts and muster roll, however he failed to produce the same and simply stated that the record is not available.

11. MW3 Girish Kumar in his testimony/affidavit Ex.MW3/A also tried to support the version of the Management that contract/agreement Ex.MW2/1 was awarded to Shri N.Lal and that the workers including the claimant were engaged by the contractor. He also stated that the printing press was closed by the Management and the assets of the printing press had been sold out. In cross examination this witness stated that the Management did not have documents to show that the workman/claimant was in the employment of the contractor. He showed his ignorance whether the Management was duly registered under Section 7 of CLRA Act or the contractor had obtained licence under Section 12 of CLRA Act.

12. Perusal of the contract Ex.MW2/1 shows that the award/contract was primarily for running of the printing press with required manpower to be provided by the contractor at Headquarter of National Airports Authority. The contract/agreement was valid for three years, that is upto 31st December, 1991. There is nothing on record to suggest that the contract/award ExMW2/1 which expired on 31/12/1991 was renewed/extended in favour of the said contractor or any fresh contract/agreement was executed with some other contractor for running the Printing Press of the Management, which was run upto 31st December, 1996. It is manifest from the reading of contract Ex.MW2/1 that machinery, space/accommodation, electricity and paper used for printing were supplied by the Management and role of the contractor or the Manager Shri N.Lal was just to supply or supervise the manpower for printing of the printing material of the Management at the AAI Printing Press. It emerges that workers including the claimant were hired by Airport Authority of India through the contractor/Manager M/s N.Lall for doing the printing work. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Management had awarded contract to M/s N.Lal for completion of any project or that the said contractor himself was fully responsible for carrying out the project of the Management.

13. It is fairly settled that the ID Act as well as Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 are essentially social and beneficial legislations. The main purpose of the CLRA Act, 1970 is to regulate the conditions of workers under the contract labour system and to provide for its abolition by the appropriate government as provided under Section 10 of the said Act. Section 12 of the said Act bars a contractor from undertaking or executing any work through contract labour, except under and in accordance with a licence issued. Section 23, 24 and 25 of the Act makes contravention of the provisions of Act punishable thereunder. There is also requirement for the principal employer of the establishment to get itself registered under the CLRA Act so as to avail the benefit of provisions of the Act.

14. Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 notices the following circumstances under which contract labour would be held to be the workmen of the principal employer :-

"107. An analysis of the cases, discussed above, shows that they fall in three classes :

(i) Where contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment establishment and employment of contract labour is prohibited either because the Industrial Adjudicator/Court ordered abolition of contract or because the appropriate Govt. issued notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment was ordered.

(ii) Where the contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which case the contract labour working in the establishment of the principal employer, were held in fact and in reality, the employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed such cases do not relate to abolition of contract labour but present instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood prohibited.

(iii) Where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a canteen in an establishment, the principal employer availed the services of a contractor, the Courts have held that the contract labour would indeed be the employees of the principal employer.

15. In the case of Management of Ashok Hotel Vs. the Workmen (W.P. –Civil No.14828/2006 – decided on 19/2/2013), similar issue was involved and it was a case where various workmen were working continuously as safaiwala/housemen in the kitchen department etc. and they were alleged to be working directly under the contractor who[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5729 had entered into a contract with the principal employer i.e. Ashok Hotel. Contention of the Management to the effect that workmen were employees of the contractor was rejected and contract in the said case was held to be sham and camouflage so as to deny direct relationship of employer (Ashok Hotel ) and the workmen.

16. I may mention that situation in the instant case is not distinct. It is evident from the evidence adduced on record that the contract Ex.MW2/1 awarded to the contractor was for supply of workforce/manpower to the Management Airport Authority of India for doing the printing work at the Printing Press of the Management. Even control and supervision over the work of the claimant/workman was that of the Management. Thus, it emerges from the record that the workman/claimant had not been hired in connection with the work of a contractor rather he had been hired by the contractor for the work of the Management, that is to say for doing the printing work at the Printing Press of the Management/Airport Authority of India. This is indicative of the fact that contract/s between the Management and N.Lall was a sham and mere camouflage so as to deny relationship of employer and employee between it and the claimant herein. It is manifest from the evidence adduced on record that the workman had been working regularly without any breaks from 1/11/1990 till 13/12/2014 whereas his services were terminated w.e.f.14/12/1996. As such, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that there existed relationship of employer –employee between the Management/Airport Authority of India and the workman/ claimant herein. Both these issues are decided accordingly in favour of the claimant and against the Management.

Issue No. 3 :-

17. It is the case of the claimant that his services were terminated without issuing any notice or without any notice pay/compensation. It is a matter of record that the Management has not filed on record any document to show that any notice or retrenchment compensation has been paid to the claimant prior to his termination. Thus it can be inferred that no notice or compensation in lieu of notice period was given to the claimant by the Management and termination of the claimant/workman by the Management was in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. This goes to show that the Management terminated the services of the claimant/workman in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

18. I may mention that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act which provides for conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen, are absolute and inexorable and it reads as under :-

"25-F : Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen –

No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until –

(a) The workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;

(b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed years of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette."

The above provision makes it clear that the employer is required to give notice to the appropriate Government apart-from giving one month's notice in writing or one month's wages in lieu of the notice and payment of retrenchment compensation to the concerned workman. There is nothing on record to show that either any notice was issued by the Management or notice pay/compensation was paid to the workman/claimant prior to his termination. As such, the Management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

19. There is long line of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the Management to be illegal and void under the law.

20. Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the Management to the workman at the time of termination of his services 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 w.e.f. 14/12/1996 is held to be illegal and void.

21. 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 stands proved on record that claimant was continuously in the employment of the Management from 1/11/1990 to 13/12/1996. His last drawn wages were Rs.900/- per month. Services of the claimant were illegally terminated on 14/12/1996. Thereafter the claimant approached the Conciliation Officer but to no avail and ultimately the matter was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication under Section 10 of the Act vide letter dated 31/12/1997. Onus was upon the claimant/workman to plead and prove that he is unemployed since after his termination. Although the claimant has prayed for reinstatement of his services alongwith back wages, however he has neither pleaded nor adduced any evidence to show that he is unemployed since after termination of his5730 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] services. The claimant has also not filed on record any document to show that he having been selected through due process of selection, was a regular or permanent employee of the Management.

22. 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 it 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."

23. Latest trend itself discernable from the various pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that when a person has been engaged on daily wage basis or for doing temporary kinds of work, in that situation full back wages are not to be awarded. There are number of factors which are required to be considered by the Tribunal while considering the question of reinstatement with back wages. It has been held in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 as under :-

" Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. An order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, automatically be passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly daily wages has not been found to be proper by the Supreme Court and instead compensation has been awarded. The Supreme Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal, because of non payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation.

24. Having regard to the recent judicial trends coupled with aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case , this Tribunal is of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 2 lakh (Rupees Two Lakhs) would be just and reasonable, and the same is awarded in favour of the claimant herein. In case this compensation amount is not paid by the Management within one month from the date of publication of this Award, then the claimant will be entitled to recover the same alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization of the amount. Award is passed accordingly in favour of the claimant and against the Management..

Date : 15.7.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 23 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1353135313531353....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार मेसर्स डबलू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब$ नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में नि)दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में

के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-,म न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 14/2009) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार को 15.07.2019 को प्राप्त 5ए था ।

[सं. एल-22012/136/2008-आईआर (सी एम-II)]

राजेन्(cid:29) सिह, अनुभाग अिधकारी[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5731

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2019

S.O. 1353.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of M/s W.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.07.2019.

[No. L-22012/136/2008-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No.CGIT/NGP/14/2009 Date: 11.06.2019

Party No.1 : The Sub Area Manager, Rayatwari Sub Area of WCL, Post- Rayatwari, Yabatmal (MS)- 445307.

Versus

Party No.2 : Vice President, Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union, Dadmahal Ward, Hanuman Khidki, Chandrapur (MS)

AWARD

(Dated: 11th June, 2019)

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 Rayatwari Sub Area of WCL and the Union, Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/136/2008-IR (CM-II) dated 31.03.2009, with the following schedule:-

"Whether the action of the management of M/S WCL in denying employment to the dependent of late

Shri Ramdhari Mukaram is legal and justified? To what relief the claimant is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the union "Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union ("the union" in short) filed the statement of claim on behalf of the applicant, Shri Dinesh Ramdhari Mukaram ("the applicant" in short) and the management of WCL (here-in-after referred to as the "Party No. 1") filed its written statement.

The case of the applicant as projected by the union in the statement of claim is that the deceased father of the applicant, Ramdhari Tukaram was appointed as a loader by party No.1 on 19. 10. 1972 and he worked with party No.1 till 22.07.2001, the date of his death and deceased Ramdhari was a permanent employee of party No.1 and after the death of Ramdhari, his widow applied for compassionate appointment for her son, the present applicant by submitting applications dated 15.01.2005 and 11.11.2006, but the party no.1 deliberately and illegally avoided to give employment to the applicant by applying illegal parameter, which is clear cut discrimination towards the applicant and as in the mean time, mother of the applicant died, the applicant approached it (union) and authorized it to pursue the matter before the concerned authority on his behalf and though it raised the issue before the party No.1, on behalf of the applicant, to provide him compassionate employment, party No.1 failed to take cognizance of its application.

It is further pleaded by the union that the deceased workman had discharged his duty for 24 years as a permanent employee till his death and as per the provisions of Coal Wages Agreements, the applicant is entitled for employment on the basis of compassionate and the claim of the applicant was rejected by the party No.1 saying that deceased Ramdhari , the late father of the applicant was a "Badli" worker, but "Badli' worker also falls within the definition of "workman" and "Badli" worker is also entitled to the benefits under all industrial laws and the applicant is entitled for employment on compassionate ground and as party No.1 refused to give employment to the applicant, the union raised the dispute before the ALC and ultimately, the dispute was referred by the Central Government to this Tribunal for adjudication.

Prayer has been made by the union to direct the management to provide employment to the applicant with all consequential benefits.

5732 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded inter-alia that the present reference is vague, as the establish in which, the workman was working, his designation etc have not been mentioned and hence, the reference is not maintainable and the dispute has been raised by the union, but the union has not produced any material on record to show that deceased Ramdhari Mukaram was a member of the union and the union is not competent to raise an industrial dispute of this nature and the dispute is not an industrial dispute as defined under section 2 (k) of the Act.

It is further pleaded by party no.1 that deceased Ramdhari was appointed as a loader on 19.10.1972 at Ballarpur Pit no. 3 & 4 and as Ramdhari was unauthorisedly absent from duty, the management vide its communication No. 373 dated 06.05.1996 advised him to join duties and also informed him that in case of his failure to join duties, he would be treated as a 'Badli' worker and as Ramdhari did not join duties, vide letter 489 dated 12/15.06.1996, he was made a Badli worker and the placement/ conversion of Ramdhari as a Badli worker was not protested by the workman or his union and Ramdhari joined at Mahakali colliery as a Badli worker w.e.f. 15.06.1996 and worked as such till his death on 21.07.2001 and due to his death, his name was removed from the roll of Badli workers of Mahakali colliery and Ramdhari did not complete 240 days as Badli worker in any calendar year and wife of deceased workman after a gap of 4/5 years, requested the management to consider the case of her son for employment vide applications dated 15.01.2005 and 11.11.2006 and there was inordinate delay on the part of the applicant requesting the management to appoint him on compassionate ground and the applications were rejected by the competent authority on the grounds that deceased workman, Ramdhari Mukaram was not a permanent employee and he was on Badli roll at the time of his death, which was in tune of the prevailing policy and therefore, its action is justified and legal and interestingly, the applicant, Dinesh did not make any application himself for employment, soon after the death of his father, even though he was already a major at that time and it is obvious that he was not interested in securing the employment and the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

4. Both the parties have adduced oral evidence in support of their respective claim, besides placing reliance on documentary evidence. The union has examined Shri Kishore Potanwar, the Vice-President of the union as a witness in support of the claim. Shri Shrikrishna Shelke, the Senior Personnel Manager of Rayatwari Sub Area has been examined as a witness by the party no.1. On considering the evidence of both parties and argument, my predecessor passed an award on 13.01.2014. After that, the Hon'ble High Court on considering argument of both parties in Writ Petition No. 6027/2014, remitted back this case to this Tribunal "To record finding on the claim of Respondent and then proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law".

5. This Tribunal gave opportunities to the both parties afresh as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. On behalf of the union, they filed additional affidavit of Vice President of the union, Shri Kishor Potanwar and on behalf of the Party No. 1, they filed evidence on affidavit of Shri Ramkrishna Singh (MW-2) and Shri Naresh Bahadur Singh (MW-3), both are the Personnel Manager of Party No. 1. All these witnesses were cross-examined by the opposite party.

6. Point of determination:

i. Whether Ramdhari was Badli worker or under regular employment?

ii. Whether his dependent, Dinesh is entitled to compensatory appointment?

iii. Whether the action of the Party No. 1 is legal & justified?

Or

iv. Whether denying the employment is illegal and unjustified?

v. Whether the applicant is entitled to any other relief?

Reason of determination:

7. On behalf of the union, it was argued that, Shri Ramdhari Mukaram was in employment of Party No. 1 as a loader from 19.10.1972 to 09.01.1997 as permanent employee, Shri Dinesh Mukaram is the son of Ramdhari Mukaram, according to the union, the applicant i.e. Shri Dinesh is entitled for employment on compensatory ground. They relied on case laws: Employees in relation to the management of Bhowra (N) colliery of BCCL Vs Their workmen Case No. 93 of 1987 Hon'ble Patna High Court dated of order 10.10.1991(1991 Law Suit (PAT) 317) and Panyam Cements employees Union, Kurnool Vs Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad. That argument was denied by the Party No. 1 by asserting that, Badli worker is not covered by the definition of workman as contemplated U/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act and also argued that, applicant is not entitled for compensatory appointment. They relied on case laws: WCL Vs. Shri Lomesh W.P. No. 3203/2012 date of order 22.07.2013, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport corpn. Vs. T.V. Aanndappa (2009) 17 SCC 473, K.S.R.T.C. Vs. S.G. Kotturappa 2005 II LLJ SC 161, U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Vs. P.O. 2013 III LLJ All 213, Shri Munnalal Batham Vs. Regional Manager CGIT Jabalpur Case No. 2/92 date of award 11.06.2013, M.P. State Agro Industries Development Vs. S.C. Pandey (2006) 2 SCC 716, Surendranagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh (2005) 8 SCC 750 and Post Master General Vs. Tutu Das (2007) 5 SCC 317.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5733

8. On perusal of the record, it appears that, my predecessor decided this case on merit on 13.01.2014 and Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 6027/2014, WCL Vs. Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union, remanded this case with the directions that, "Tribunal to record finding on the claim of the respondent and then proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law". The Hon'ble High Court also directed that, "The deceased employee had acquired the status of permanent employee after 12.06.1996 though initially he was appointed as Loader ……. Without recording any finding on this aspect of the matter – the petitioner is directed to give employment to the respondent on compassionate ground". Now I see the legal position.

9. In case 2004 I CLR 872 Panyam Cements Employees, Hon'ble High Court of A.P. held that, "Denial of right of Badli worker to join Trade Union amounts to unfair labour practice …….any dispute between Badli workers and management is a trade dispute", but in case laws, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, K.S.R.T.C, U.P. State Warehouse Corporation and U.P. State Agro Industrial Development, The Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court held that:-

i. Daily wager does not hold a post as he is not appointed in terms of the provisions of the Act and Rules framed there under and therefore he does not derive any legal right.

ii. "Requirement of 240 days continuous service --- Onus to prove --- Evidence to be led --- Held, burden of proof lies on workman ------ It is for workman to adduce evidence apart from examining himself ------- Workman has failed to discharge the burden ---- It is improbable that a workman claiming to have been in employment for ten years would not posses any documentary evidence to prove nature of his employment and period of work undertaken with his employer".

iii. "Equality is a positive concept and cannot be invoked where any illegality has been committed or where no legal right is established".

iv. Held that, "Their service as Badli workers, the Supreme Court held, gave them no status, their services were not protected by any statute and they did not hold any civil post".

v. "Standing Order encourage a Badli worker to complete240 days attendance in a calendar year and thereafter enjoy all the benefits ----------NCWA makes no difference between the Badli workman and permanent workman ---------While reading agreement, one has to keep in mind the difference between status of Badli and Permanent worker ------- suggestion by the learned counsel for the respondent is not acceptable".

This order is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by SLP No. 11902—11903/2014 date of order 19.08.2014. Now I want to see the evidence of the union.

10. On behalf of the union, they examined Shri Kishor Potanwar as a Vice President of the union. He admitted that, their union is registered at Jharkhand, but copy of the Constitution of Union, Registration Certificate and Authority Letter has not been filed by the union. He also admitted that, he did not file any document, which shows that, union has authorized to him to raise such dispute before this Tribunal. He also did not file any document, which shows that, Ramdhari was a member of their union. In this way, union did not file any document, which shows that, Kishor Potanwar is authorized by the union to raise this dispute before this Tribunal or regarding the membership of Ramdhari.

11. Shri Kishor Potanwar in para 7 of his cross-examination admitted that, Ramdhari was died on 22.07.2001 but he was working in WCL as a Badli worker. He also admitted that, Ramdhari was not attending his duty at the time of his death. He also admitted that, gratuity and other benefits of Ramdhari have already been paid to the legal heirs. He also admitted that, Ramdhari's wife Smt. Jagwanti Devi applied for compensatory appointment before the ALC(C), Chandrapur on 15.02.2007. In second time, this witness was examined on 13.04.2018. At that time, he filed three documents, which were marked as W-1 to W-3. He also admitted that, these documents were provided by the family member of Ramdhari. He also admitted that, their union maintained attendance register and membership register of their members, but they did not file any document regarding the attendance of Ramdhari. In this way, he rebutted his examination in chief regarding Ramdhari's working in WCL and nature and period of the work. Now I see the evidence of the Party No. 1.

12. On behalf of the Party No. 1, Shri Shrikant Shelke, MW-1, Shri Ramkrishna Singh, MW-2 and Shri Naresh Bahadur Singh, MW-3 were examined in support of their written statement as well as their defence.

13. Shri Shrikant Shelke, MW-1 in para 11 of his cross-examination, admitted that, Ramdhari was working in WCL from 1972 to 2001. He also admitted that, he was working as a permanent loader from 19.10.1972, but they did not file any order, which shows that, Ramdhari was converted from permanent loader to badli worker. He also admitted that, Party No. 1 did not file any document showing the attendance of Ramdhari prior to 1997. He also admitted that, in NCWA-VII there was a provision of compensatory appointment but based on conditions. In this way, he admitted some facts in cross-examination without proving any document, which shows that, he is deposing his evidence on the basis of documents, but he admitted some facts without documents.

5734 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14. Shri Ramkrishna Singh, MW-2 was working as Sr. Personnel Officer at Mahakali Colliery in the period from 02.06.2002 to 12.08.2008. He gave some details regarding attendance of Ramdhari from 1997 to 2001. He also admitted that, Ramdhari was not working with him and in mines, there is a Attendance Register i.e. 'C' Register. On perusal of his statement, he is giving his statement on the basis of documents, but he has no knowledge that, M-10 document was received by Ramdhari or not? He is not in position to say that, Ramdhari was continuous in service from 1972 till death, but he admitted that, he was Badli worker. In this way, his statement is based purely on documents without personal knowledge.

15. Shri Naresh Bahadur Singh, MW-3 was also a Personnel Manager, who was posted at Mahakali Colliery in the period from 17.01.1995 to 26.05.1999. In para 15 of his cross-examination, asserted that, order was issued on 06.05.1996 to Ramdhari regarding unauthorized absenteeism, but he admitted that, letter is not produced on record i.e. this is a part of order of badli. On perusal of his statement, shows that, mostly his statement is based on record. In this way, he remained unrebutted his statement. So, his evidence appears to be true.

16. In para 34 of the case of BCCL, Hon'ble Patna High Court held that, "In Yogendra Pal Singh Vs. Union of India, reported in 1987 SC page 1015, the Supreme Court while striking down rules 12.14 and 12.15 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, however stated while it may be permissible to appoint a person who is the son of a police officer who dies in service or who is incapacitated while rendering service …….. The children or wards or other relatives of such police officers would be contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution".

17. But Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand on the basis of Case law, Yogender Pal Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1987 SC 1015, in case Employers in relation to the management of Bhowra Area No. XI of Ms BCCL, Dhanbad Vs. the Presiding Officer, Dhanbad W.P. (L) No. 2412 of 2002 dated 26.07.2012, in which Hon'ble Court laid down the following principles:-

i. "There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the state".

ii. "No dependent of an employee of the State or its instrumentality is entitled to claim preference in the matter of on public employment on the basis of the service of his father/parent is no longer res integra in view of the specific provision contain in Part III of the Constitution of India and also laid down in the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in number of cases".

iii. "Article 16, cl. (1), guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State: and cl. (2) prohibits discrimination on certain grounds in respect of any such employment or appointment …………….. We do not see any reason why the full ambit of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 16 in the matter of employment or appointment to any office under the State should be cut down by a reference to the provisions in Part XIV of the constitution which relate to services or to provisions in the earlier Constitution Acts relating to the same subject".

iv. "The new offices which were created for the new village or villages should be filled up by the Collector by selecting the persons whom he considered best qualified ………………… Collector to dull up the said new offices by selecting persons from among the families of the last holders of the offices was opposed to Article 16 of the constitution".

Ongoing above discussions and principles laid down in the above case laws, with regard and full respect of above case laws, my humble opinion is that, the principle laid down in cases, Yogender Pal Singh and Employers in relation to the management of Bhowra Area cases, is more appropriate in regard to the fact and circumstances of this case.

18. Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles as mentioned above, my humble opinion is that, union fails to prove that, Ramdhari was a permanent employee as a loader or he worked for 240 days in a calendar year as a badli worker. Union also fails to prove that, union authorized Shri Kishor Potanwar to raise this dispute before this Tribunal. Union also fails to prove through its reliable evidence, that Ramdhari was fulfilled the condition as a compensatory appointment as per NCWA. Union also fails to prove that, applicant is covered under particular NCWA, which was prevailed at the time of retirement of Ramdhari. So, Party No. 1 i.e. management in denying the employment to Dinesh/applicant appears to be legal and justified. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of M/S WCL in denying employment to the dependent of late Shri Ramdhari Mukaram is legal and justified. The applicant is not entitled to any relief.

S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5735

नई दिल्ली, 23 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1354135413541354....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार असिस्टेंट कमिश्नर के न्(cid:29)ीय विद्यालय के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब$ नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में नि)दष्ट

औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-,म न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 5/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार को 17.07.2019 को प्राप्त 5आ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/33/2005-आईआर (सी एम-II)]

राजेन्(cid:29) सिह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2019

S.O. 1354.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.07.2019.

[No. L-42012/33/2005-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

अनुबंध

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj

lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 5@2006

jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

jsQjsUl ua--L-42012/33/2005–IR(CM-II)fnukad 06@12@2005

'kadjyky iq= Jh dUgS;k yky

fuoklh&ykxfMk okl] iks0 lk;iqjk]

rg0 teokjkex<+] ftyk t;iqjA

v/s

1- vflLVsaV dfe'uj] dsUnzh; fo|ky;] 92] xka/kh uxj ekxZ] ctkt uxj] t;iqj A 2- izkpk;Z] dsUnzh; fo|ky;] C;koj ftyk vtesjA 3- izkpk;Z] dsUnzh; fo|ky;] vtesj A

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh dq.kky jkor & vfHkHkk"kd

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh gok flag & vfHkHkk"kd

% vf/kfu.kZ; %

fnukad % 14- 06- 2019

1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 6-12-2005 dks fuEukafdr ,d fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼?k½ ds vUrXkZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;kA

**D;k izkpk;Z] dsUnzh; fo|ky;] dkWyst jksM+] C;koj }kjk vius deZdkj Jh 'kadjyky iq= Jh dUgS;kyky] nSfud Hkksxh deZpkjh dks ekg ekpZ 1997 ls lsok ls c[kkZLr djuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa fof/k lEer gS\ ;fn ugha rks deZdkj vius fu;kstd ls fdl jkgr dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\**

2- bl lUnHkZ ds izkIr gksus ij mHk;i{k dks vkgwr fd;k x;k rFkk izkFkhZ dks funsZ'k fn;s x;s fd og vius nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djsaA bl funsZ'k ds vuqikyu esa izkFkhZ us fnukad 27-2-2006 dks vius nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;kA izkFkhZ ds vuqlkj fnukad 1-7-1993 dks vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 us vizkFkhZ laaa[;k 2 ds ;gka mls prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :i esa fu;qDr fd;kA fnukad 2-9-1995 dks vizkFkhZ laaa[;k 2 }kjk izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ laaa[;k 3 ds ;gkaaa LFkkukUrfjr dj fn;kA izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa fnukad 1-7-1993 ls ekpZ 1997 rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZ dks ekpZ 1997 esa vizkFkhZ }kjk ekSf[kd :i ls lsokeqDr dj5736 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] fn;k x;kA rRi'pkr izkFkhZ us dbZ ckj vizkFkhZ ls mls dke ij ysus gsrq fuosnu fd;k fdUrq mls vk'oklu ds vfrfjDr dqN ugha feykA bl ij izkFkhZ us le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k ifjokn fd;kA le>kSrk okrkZ vlQy gksus ij dsUnzh; ljdkj us ;g fookn lanfHkZr fd;kA lsokeqfDr ds iwoZ izkFkhZ dks u rks dksbZ vkjksi i= fn;k vkSj uk gh uksfVl] uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh izfrdj dk Hkqxrku fd;kA izkFkhZ us ,d dSys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gS fdUrq vizkFkhZ us /kkjk 25 (,Q) vf/kfu;e rFkk fu;e 77 ,oaa 78 dk vuqikyu ugha fd;kA vr% vizkFkhZ }kjk dh x;h lsokeqfDr dks voS/k ?kksf"kr djrs gq, lsok dh fujUrjrk] cdk;k osru ,oa ifjykHkksa lfgr izkFkhZ dks cgky fd;k tkosA

3- vizkFkhZx.k us izfrmRrj esa izkFkhZ ds dFkuksa dks vLohdkj fd;kA mudk dFku gS fd foi{khx.k ^*m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk dh ifjf/k esaa ughaa vkrsA izsf"kr fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr vf/kfu.khZr ughaa fd;k tk ldrkA vizkFkhZ laLFkku ,d 'kSf{kd laLFkku gSA izkFkhZ dks nSfud ikfjJfed ij dk;Z dh miyC/krk ds dkj.k vLFkk;h :i ls fu;ksftr fd;k x;k FkkA mldk dHkh LFkkukUrj.k ugha fd;k D;ksafd og LFkk;h deZpkjh ugha FkkA izkFkhZ us fnukad 1-7-1993 ls ekpZ 1997 rd yxkrkj dk;Z ugha fd;k vkSj u gha mls vizkFkhZ }kjk lsokeqDr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dh dfFkr lsokeqfDr NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrh] blfy;s vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku fd;s tkus dk dksbZ volj ugha vk;kA izkFkhZ us tqykbZ 93 ls Qjojh 94 rd dqy 125 fnu nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i eas dk;Z fd;k vr% nkok vLohdkj fd;k tkosaA

4- izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa Loa; 'kadjyky dks ifjf{kr fd;k rFkk izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ&MCYw 1 i= iznf'kZr fd;kA

5- foi{khx.k us vius lk{; esa Jherh m"kk fdj.k jkBh dks ijhf{kr fd;k ,oa izyss[kh; lk{; izLrqr dhA

6- fnukad 30-1-2014 dks bl vf/kdj.k }kjk iapkV ikfjr djrs gq, izkFkhZ dks dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk dksbZ vf/kdkjh ugha ekuk x;k vkSj ;g fu"df"kZr fd;k fd izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr U;k;ksfpr ,oa fof/k lEer gSA

7- bl iapkV ds fo:) izkFkhZ us ekuuh; jktLFkku mPPk U;k;ky; ds le{k ,l-ch- flfoy fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 11]210@2014 'kadjyky cuke vflLVsUV dfe'uj dsUnzh; fo|ky;] ,oa vU; izLrqr dhA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPPk U;k;ky; us fnukad 10-12-2018 dks fjV ;kfpdk dks vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj djrs gq, bl vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr iapkV 30-1-2014 dks vikLr dj fn;k vkSj vf/kdj.k dks ;g funsZ'k fn;k fd og ekuuh; mPPk U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;s x;s rF;ksa ,oa i{kdkjksa }kjk izLrqr fd;s tkus okys izys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij fookn dk iqu%ijh{k.k djsa vkSj lUnfHkZr fookn dk 4 ekg dh vof/k esa fofu'p; djsaA

8- bl vkns'k ds izkIr gksus ij mHk;i{k dks ;g volj fn;k xk;k fd os tks Hkh lk{; izLrqr djuk pkgsa izLrqr djsaA fnukad 5-3-2019 dks mHk;i{k us vfHkys[k izLrqr fd;sA izkFkhZ us dksbZ vfrfjDr lk{kh ijhf{kr ugha fd;k tcfd foi{kh us vius vfrfjDr lk{; esa xksfoUn flag esgrk dks ijhf{kr fd;kA rRi'pkr mHk;i{k us nks LFkxu cgl gsrq fy;s vUrr% 28-5-19 dks eSusa mHk;i{k ds rdZ&fordZ lqus vkSj lk{; dk ifj'khyu fd;kA

9- izkFkhZ ds vfHkHkk"kd dk ;g rdZ gS fd izn'kZ&MCYw1 foi{kh dk i= gSA bl i= esa Li"V :i ls izkFkhZ dks xqzi *Mh* laoxZ esa fu;qfDr fd;k tkuk of.kZr gSA dsUnzh; fo|ky; C;koj o vtesj ,d gh lgk;d vk;qDr ds v/khu fo|ky; gSA izkFkhZ us fnuakd 1-7-1993 ls 1-9-96 rd dsUnzh; fo|ky; C;koj esa dk;Z fd;kA rRi'pkr 2-9-96 ls ekpZ 97 rd dsUnzh; fo|ky; vtesj 2 esa dk;Z fd;kA mudk ;g izcy rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh ds :i esa Hkh vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr ,d deZdkj gSA foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks dksbZ fu;qfDr i= ,oa lsok lekfIr i= ugha fn;k x;kA dsoy mifLFkfr iaftdk ¼eLVj jksy osru½ vkSj iaftdk gh ,sls vfHkys[k gS tks izkFkhZ dh lsok dk izek.k gks ldrs gS fdUrq foi{kh us tkucw>dj izkFkhZ ds C;koj ds dk;Z ds mifLFkfr jftLVlZ izkFkhZ }kjk ryc djokus ij Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;sA blfy;s foi{kh ds fo:) izfrdwy mi/kkj.kk dh tkuh pkfg;sA vkSj ;g izekf.kr eku fy;k tkuk pkfg;s fd ftl vof/k ds mifLFkfr jftLVlZ foi{kh us izLrqr ugha fd;s ml vof/k vFkkZr fnukad 1-7-1993 ls ekpZ 1997 rd izkFkhZ foi{kh ds v/khu lsokjr jgk gSA mifLFkfr dk vfHkys[k j[kuk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼ch½ ds vUrxZr j[kuk vfuok;Z gSA blfy;s foi{kh ;g ugha dg ldrk gS fd bl vof/k ds mifLFkfr vfHkys[k la/kkfjr ugha fd;s x;sA vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa izkFkhZ }kjk fuEukafdr fof/kd n`"VkUr izLrqr fd;s x;s %&

¼1½ ,- vkbZ- vkj- 2006 lqizhe dksVZ dSlst 355 ¼1½ vkj- ,e- ;sYykV~Vh cuke vflLVsUV ,DthD;wVho bUthfu;j

¼2½ ,- vkbZ- vkj- 2011 lqizhe dksVZ dSlst 2532 nsosUnz flg cuke E;wufliy dkSafly lkukSj

¼3½ ,- vkbZ- vkj- 2015] lqizhe dksVZ 357 rkWi'k dqekj ikWy cuke ch-,l-,u-,y- o vU;

¼4½ ,- vkbZ- vkj- 2007 lqizhe dksVZ 1370 Jh jke bUM+LVªh;y ,UVjizkbZtsal fy- cuke egd flag o vU;

10- blds foijhr vfHkHkk"kd foi{kh dk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ us tqykbZ 93 ls Qjojh 94 rd 125 fnu rFkk vDVwcj 96 ls Qjojh 97 rd 70 fnu VqdM+ksa esa nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa dk;Z fd;k gSA /kkjk 25 ¼ch½ vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr mlus lsoklekfIr ds ,d o"kZ iwoZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk lEikfnr dk;Z ds mifLFkfr ,oa Hkqxrku dk vfHkys[k mUgksusa izLrqr dj fn;k gSA ftl vof/k esa dk;Z gh ugha fd;k ml vof/k dk vfHkys[k miyC/k uk gksus ls is'k ugha fd;k tk ldk gSA izkFkhZ dks bl] izdkj 240 fnu dk;Z djus dk rF; Loa; dh gh lk{; ls gh izekf.kr djuk gksxkA izkFkhZ] foi{kh ij ;g fl)hHkkj vUrfjr ugha dj ldrk gSA izn'kZ&MCYw 1 i= lgk;d vk;qDr }kjk tkjh vukifRRk i= gS] fu;qfDr i= ughaA ;g i= Li"V n'kkZrk gS fd izkFkhZ fnukad 27-9-1996 dks foi{kh dh lsok esa ugha Fkk rHkh mls lsok esa j[kus dh vuqefr nSfud osru ij nh xbZ FkhA vr% nkok fujLr fd;k tkosA mUgksusa vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fu.kZ; 2002 ¼3½ ,l-lh-lh- 25 jsaUt QkjsLV vkfQlj cuke ,l- Vh- gkfnekuh izLrqr fd;kA[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5737 11- mHk;i{k ds rdksZa ,oa fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr fof/k ij euu ds i'pkr bl fookn esa fuEukafdr fcUnq fopkj.kh; gS % &

fcUnq la[;k & 1%& D;k izkFkhZ us fnukad 1-7-1993 ls 1-9-96 rd dsUnzh; fo|ky;] C;koj rFkk 2-9-96 ls ekpZ 97 rd foi{kh dh lsok esa jgrs gq, lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ ,d dSys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu dh lsok iw.kZ dh gS \

fcUnq la[;k & 2%& D;k foi{kh }kjk ebZ 1997 esa izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr *NVuh* gS tks izkFkhZ dks ,d ekg dk uksfVl ;k uksfVl ds LFkku ij uksfVl osru rFkk NaVuh izfrdj u fn;s tkus ds dkj.k voS/k gS \

fcUnq la[;k & 3 vuqrks"k %& D;k gks \

12- lk{;] mHk;i{k ds rdZ ,oa izLrqr dh xbZ fof/k ij fopkj ds mijkUr izR;sd fcUnq ij fofu'p; bl izdkj gSA

13- fcUnq la[;k & 1 izkFkhZ 'kadjyky us vius lk{; 'kiFk i= esa vfHkopuksa dks iq"V djus dk ;|fi iz;kl fd;k gS fdUrq vfHkopu ,oa lk{; esa fojks/kkHkkl Li"V n`f"Vxr gksrk gSA izkFkhZ us vius nkos ds vfHkdFku ds pj.k la[;k 3 esa vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 }kjk 2-9-95 dks vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 ds ;gka LFkkukUrfjr djuk fy[kk gSaA tcfd lk{; 'kiFk i= ds pj.k la[;k 3 esa izkFkhZ us fnukad 1-7-1993 ls 1-9-96 rd dsUnzh; fo|ky;] C;koj esa dk;Z djuk dgk gS rRi'pkr 2-9-96 ls ekpZ 97 rd dsUnzh; fo|ky;] la[;k 2 vtesj esa dk;Z djuk dgk gSaA bl fLFkfr esa dsUnzh; fo|ky;] C;koj esa izkFkhZ ds lsokdky ds lEcU/k esa vfHkopu vkSj lk{; esa Li"V fojks/kkHkkl izdV gksrk gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us fu.kZ; vkj- ,e- ;sYykV~Vh cuke vflLVsUV ,DthD;wVho bUthfu;j esa ;g dgk gS fd foxr ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu dh lsok iw.kZ djus dk rF; dks izekf.kr djus dk flf)Hkkj nkok djus okys izkFkhZ ij gh gS& mls bl rF; dks izekf.kr djus ds fy;s fo'oluh; ekSf[kd ,oa izys[kh; lk{; izLrqr djuh gksxhA Loa; ds 'kiFki= vkSj Loa; lefFkZr foojf.k;aka i;kZIr ugha gSA tc foi{kh ls bl lECkU/k esa okfUNr eLVjjksy tks HkwriwoZ vflLVsUV ,DthD;wfVo bfUtfu;j }kjk tkjh lsok izek.k i= ds lUnHkZ esa gksa] izLrqr djus dks dgk x;k gks vkSj foi{kh dh vkSj ls ,sls izys[k fcuk fdlh Lohdk;Z Li"Vhdj.k ds izLrqr ugha fd;s x;s gksa] rks bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ ds i{k esa tkjh izek.k i= ds vuq:i 240 fnu lsok iw.kZ djuk izekf.kr ekuk tkosxk] D;ksafd foi{kh izcU/ku ,sls vfHkys[k dks izLrqr djus ds fy;s dRrZO;k/khu FkkA bl fu.kZ; esas ikfjr fof/k ftu rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr gS os rF; gLrxr fookn esa fo|eku ugha gSa D;ksafd izkFkhZ ds 240 fnu lsok iw.kZ djus ds lk{; Lo:i foi{kh us dksbZ izek.k i= tkjh ugha fd;k gS] ftlds leFkZu esa lEcfU/kr vof/k ds eLVjjksy izLrqr djus dk funsZ'k foi{kh dks fn;k x;k gksA ekuuh; mPPkre U;k;ky; us blh fu.kZ; ds iSjk 18 esa ;g Li"V dgk gS fd bl fu.kZ; dks fl)hHkkj vUrj.k rFkk izfrdwy mi/kkj.kk fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa LFkkfir ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA blh fu.kZ; esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us foi{kh }kjk voyafEcr iwoZorhZ fu.kZ; jsaUt QkjsLV vkfQlj cuke ,l- Vh- gkfnekuh esa O;Dr vfHker dks iq"V djrs gq;s ;g] vf/ker O;Dr fd;k gS fd 240 fnu dh lsok izekf.kr djus dk fl)hHkkj izkFkhZ ij gh vkjksfir gSA

14- vc ;g n`"VO; gS fd D;k bl fookn esa izkFkhZ }kjk dfFkr lsok vof/k ls lEcfU/kr rFkk dfFkr vfHkys[k dks foi{kh ls izLrqr djok;s tkus ,oa foi{kh }kjk izLrqr u fd;s tkus dk rF; izekf.kr gqvk gS \ ;fn gqvk gS] rks D;k ;g fLFkfr foi{kh ds fo:) izfrdwy mi/kkj.kk dk vk/kkj gS \

15- bl lEcU/k esa tSlk fd eSusa iwoZorhZ foospu esa of.kZr fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ ds vfHkopu ,oa lk{; esa fojks/kkHkkl gaS] blh dze esa izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr i= izn'kZ&MCYw 1 dk foospu visf{kr gSA izn'kZ&MCYw 1 i= foi{kh ds lgk;d vk;qDr t;iqj }kjk fnukad 27-9-96 dks izkpkZ;] dsUnzh; fo|ky; uEcj 2 vtesj dks lEcksf/kr i= gSA bl i= dh vUrZoLrq ds iBu ek= ls ;g i=] fdlh izdkj fu;qfDr i= ugha dgk tk ldrk gSA D;ksafd] bl i= }kjk izkFkhZ dks xqzi *Mh* deZpkjh ds in ij nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa rc rd fu;ksftr djus ds lEcU/k esa vukifRr izek.k i= (NOC) fn;k x;k gS tc rd dksbZ mi;qZDr xqzi *Mh* deZpkjh dk p;u uk gks tkosA bl i= ls ;g rF; HkyhHkkafr Li"V gS fd 27-9-96 dks ¼i= dh frfFk½ izkFkhZ dsUnzh; fo|ky; laxBu esa fdlh Hkh in ij rFkk fdlh Hkh LFkku ij fu;ksftr ugha FkkA ;fn izkFkhZ Loa; ds l'kiFk dFku ds vuq:i fnukad 2-9-96 ls dsUnzh; fo|ky; la[;k 2 vtesj esa fu;ksftr gksrk rks ,sls fu;kstu ds 25 fnu mijkUr vFkkZr 27-9-96 dks mls nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa xqzi *Mh* ds in ij fu;ksftr djus ds lEcU/k esa lgk;d vk;qDr dks vukifRr izek.k i= tkjh djus dh dksbZ vko';drk gh mRiUu ugha gksrhA bl i= ls ;g Hkh Li"V gks tkrk gS fd fnukad 27-9-96 dks tkjh fd;s x;s vukifRr izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij gh izkFkhZ dks nSfud osru ij vDVwcj 96 ls fu;ksftr fd;k x;kA bl rF; dh iqf"V izn'kZ&,e 1 mifLFkfr o Hkqxrku ds vfHkys[k ls Hkh gksrh gSA

16- vc eSa izkFkhZ ds dsUnzh; fo|ky; C;koj ds lsokdky ds lEcU/k esa lk{; dk foospu d:xkA izkFkhZ us 1-7-93 ls 1-9-96 rd dsUnzh; fo|ky; C;koj esa yxkrkj dk;Z djuk dgrs gq,] rRlEcU/kh eLVj jksy@mifLFkfr jftLVlZ foi{kh ls vkgwr djok;s gSA foi{kh us tqykbZ 93 ls ek= Qjojh 94 rd izkFkhZ }kjk dqy 125 fnu dk;Z dsUnzh; fo|ky; C;koj esa djuk dgk gS] ftldk Hkqxrku Hkh izkFkhZ dks dj fn;k x;k gSA foi{kh dk ;g Li"Vhdj.k gS fd ekpZ 94 ls ekpZ 97 rd ds mifLFkfr jftLVlZ] iSesUV jftLVlZ ,oa okmPklZ mUgksusa bl dkj.k izLrqr ugha fd;s gS fd izkFkhZ bl vof/k esa muds v/khu dk;Zjr gh ugha jgk rFkk bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ nLrkost miyC/k ugha gSA bl ifjizs{; esa izkFkhZ 'kadjyky }kjk 21-12-2011 dks izfrijh{kk esa fd;k x;k fuEukafdr dFku vR;Ur egRoiw.kZ gS %&

** eSusa C;koj dsUnzh; fo|ky; esa dksbZ nj[okLr ugha nhA C;koj dsUnzh; fo|ky; esa ftrus fnu dk;Z fd;k mldk Hkqxrku gks x;k]** izkFkhZ us izn'kZ&,e 1 ls ,e 9 izys[kksa ij Loa; ds gLrk{kj gksuk Lohdkj djrs bu izys[kksa esa of.kZr vof/k dk Hkqxrku izkIr dj ysuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA ¼foi{kh lk{kh xksfcUn flag esgrk ds fnukad 2-5-19 dks fd;s x;s ijh{k.k ds nkSjku iznf'kZr izys[kksa dks izn'kZ&,e 1ls ,e 5 rd Hkwyo'k vafdr dj fn;k x;k gS blfy;s iwoZ esa iznf'kZr foi{kh ds izys[kksa izn'kZ&,e 1 ls ,e 9 ds mijkUr i'pkrorhZ izys[kksa dks izn'kZ ,e 10 ls ,e 14 rd i<+k tkos½ A5738 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 17- izkFkhZ us bl izdkj izn'kZ&,e 1 ls ,e 9 esa of.kZr izys[kksa dh vof/k esa dk;Z djuk vkSj Hkqxrku izkIr djuk Lohdkj djus ds ckn gh ;g dgk gS fd mlus C;koj dsUnzh; fo|ky; esa dksbZ nj[okLr ugha nhA C;koj dsUnzh; fo|ky; esa ftrus fnu dk;Z fd;k mldk Hkqxrku gks x;kA blfy;s ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk tqykbZ 93 ls Qjojh 94 rd fd;s x;s dk;Z fnolksa ds ikfjJfed dk Hkqxrku izkIr dj fy;k x;k FkkA blhfy;s mlus ;g dFku fd;k fd ftrus fnu C;koj dsUnzh; fo|ky; esa dk;Z fd;k mldk Hkqxrku gks pqdk gSA izkFkhZ us blds ckn Hkqxrku 'ks"k jgus ds lEcU/k esa foi{kh dks dksbZ vkosnu vFkok ifjokn gh ugha fd;kA bl izdkj ;g Hkh Li"V gks tkrk gS fd ;fn izkFkhZ ds dFkukuqlkj ekpZ 94 ls flrEcj 96 rd dsUnzh; fo|ky; C;koj esa izkFkhZ }kjk dk;Z fd;k x;k gksrk rks izkFkhZ mDr vof/k ds osru Hkqxrku gsrq foi{kh ls ekax vo'; gh djrkA bl vof/k ds osru dh izkFkhZ }kjk dksbZ ekax u djuk vkSj ;g Lohdkj djuk fd ftrus fnu dk;Z fd;k mldk Hkqxrku gks x;k] ;g n'kkZrk gS fd mDr vof/k esa dsUnzh; fo|ky; C;koj esa izkFkhZ }kjk dksbZ dk;Z ugha djuk] izyf{kr :i ls izkFkhZ us Lohdkj fd;k gSA lk{; dh bl fLFkfr esa foi{kh }kjk ;g dguk fd ekpZ 94 ls flrEcj 96 rd ds vfHkys[k izLrqr u djus dk dkj.k izkFkhZ }kjk bl vof/k esa foi{kh ds v/khu dk;Zjr u gksuk gS] ,d lUrq"Vhizn Li"Vhdj.k gS] tks izkFkhZ ds izfrijh{kk esa fd;s x;s dFku ds izdk'k esa Lohdk;Z gSA fdlh i{kdkj dss fo:) izfrdwy mi/kkj.kk fd;k tkuk izR;sd izdj.k ds rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij U;k;ky; ds foosdkf/kdkj ij fuHkZj djrk gSA eSa bl izdj.k esa foi{kh ds fo:) izfrdwy mi/kkj.kk fd;s tkus dk dksbZ leqfpr vk/kkj fo|eku ugha gksuk ikrk gw¡A lk{; ds bl foospu ls ;g fu"df"kZr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us tqykbZ 93 ls Qjojh 94 rd 125 fnu dsUnzh; fo|ky; C;koj esa foi{kh ds v/khu dk;Z fd;kA rRi'pkr ekpZ 94 ls flrEcj 96 rd izkFkhZ foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa jgkA izn'kZ&MCYw 1 i= tks fd izkFkhZ ds vuqlkj rRdkyhu lgk;d vk;qDr Jh vkj-ds- tSu] ¼tks izkFkhZ ds xkao ds gh gSa½] us izkFkhZ dks xqzi *Mh* ds in ij nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa fu;qDr djus gsrq vukifRr i= tkjh djrs gq;s dsUnzh; fo|ky; laxBu 2 vtesj dks funsZ'k fn;kA bl i= ds izHkko ls dsUnzh; fo|ky; vtesj 2 us izkFkhZ ls nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa vDVwcj 96 ls Qjojh 97 rd dk;Z fy;k tks dqy 70 fnu FkkA bl izdkj lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ¼tks fd of.kZr ,oa izekf.kr ugha gS] fdUrq ekpZ 97 fy[kh xbZ gS½ ds iwoZorhZ ,d o"kZ dh vof/k esa] izkFkhZ foi{kh ds v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k tkuk izekf.kr djus esa lQy ugha gqvk gSA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA

18- fcUnq la[;k 2 %& bl fcUnq ds vUrxZr ;g fopkjf.k; gS fd D;k foi{kh }kjk ekpZ 97 esa dh xbZ izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrh gS tks voS/k gS\

19- fcUnq la[;k 1 ls izkIr fu"d"kZ ds izdk'k esa izkFkhZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ch ds vUrxZr lsok lekfIr ds iwoZorhZ ,d dSys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu dk;Z djuk izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gSA blfy;s vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼vks-vks-½ esa ifjHkkf"kr izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr] **NaVuh** dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrh gSA bl fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij foi{kh ls vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds vUrxZr micfU/kr uksfVl fn;s tkus vFkok mlds LFkku ij uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh izfrdj ds Hkqxrku dh fof/kd vis{kk ugha dh tk ldrh gSA foi{kh }kjk dh xbZ izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr oS/k izekf.kr gksrh gS vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:) fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA

20- fcUnq la[;k 3 %& fcUnq la[;k 1 o 2 izkFkhZ ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;k x;k gSA bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fu.kZ; nsosUnz flag cuke E;wufliy dkmfUly lkukSj] rki'kdqekj ikWy cuke ch-,l-,u-,y- o vU; Jh jke bUM~LVªh;y ,UVjizkbZtsl izkbZosV fyfeVsM cuke egd flag o vU; esa ekuuh; mPPkre U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr fof/k dks eSa lLkEEkku izkFkhZ ds i{k esa lgk;d gksuk ugha ikrk gw¡A izkFkhZ bl nkos ds vfHkdFku eSa izkfFkZr dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh] mldh lsoklekfIr oS/k izekf.kr gksus ds dkj.k] ugha gSA bl lUnHkZ dk mRrj blh izdkj fn;k tkrk gSA

vkns'k

21- vf/kfu.kZ; rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA Je eU=ky; }kjk bl ekeys esa U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lanfHkZr fookn dk mRrj mi;qZDrkuqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA

22- vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosA

jk/kk eksgu prqoZsnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

नई दिल्ली, 23 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1355135513551355....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार मेसर्स डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब$ नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में नि)दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में

के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-,म न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 17/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार को 15.07.2019 को प्राप्त 5ए था ।

[सं. एल-22012/140/2012-आईआर (सी एम-II)]

राजेन्(cid:29) सिह, अनुभाग अिधकारी[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5739

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2019

S.O. 1355.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of M/s W.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.07.2019.

[No. L-22012/140/2012-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No.CGIT/NGP/17/2012-13 Date: 21.06.2019

Party No.1 : The Sub Area Manager, Bhatadi O/o Mines of Chandrapur Area of WCL, Post Bhatadi, Distt. Chandrapur, Maharashtra.

Versus

Party No.2 : The Joint General Secretary, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress, Vaidhay Nagar, Near Ayyappa Mandir,

Tukum Ward No. 2,

Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.).

AWARD

(Dated: 21st June, 2019)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited and their Union, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/140/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 06.11.2012, with the following schedule:-

"Whether the action of the management of Bhatadi Open Cast Sub Area of Chandrapur Area of Western

Coalfields Ltd., in denying employment to Shri HariOm, the dependant son of Shri Radhe Shyam Dubey,

Foreman I/C who has already put in 35 years service, which is contrary to the provisions of Para 9.4.4 of

NCWA is legal & justified? To what relief is the workman entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the union "Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress ("the union" in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of WCL (here-in-after referred to as the "Party No. 1") filed its written statement.

The case of the union as projected in the statement of claim is that, Shri Radhe Shyam Dubey has retired after completing the service of 35 years from 16.05.1976 to 31.07.2011 and Hari Om is son of Radhe Shyam Dubey. According to the union, NCWA-III Clause 9.4.4 provides service of one dependent. According to the union, Party No. 1 wrongfully denied the appointment of Hari Om, which is against the provisions of NCWA-III and circular issued by Coal India Limited on 16.01.2010. According to the union, these provisions clarify that, employment of at least one of the dependants of such employee, who retire or die after putting at least 35 years of service.

3. According to the union, on the basis of above provisions, they demand service of Hari Om as per Instruction and Circular of NCWA and Agreement between CIL and the union. According to them, provisions of NCWA-III is applicable and effective even after enforcement of NCWA-IV or subsequent NCWAs i.e. in this way, son of the employees is eligible and qualified according to the terms of WCL, but Party No. 1 rescinded this provisions arbitrarily. In this way, they prayed that, reference is decided in favour of the workman and direction may be issued to the Party No. 1 that, son of the petitioner may be allowed to get employment as per above provisions.

4. By filing written statement on behalf of the Party No. 1, denied all material facts by asserting that, these provisions are not applicable in present circumstances, because 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2016, NCWA-IX came into existence, but they admitted that, Circular issued by the Coal India Limited on 22.06.1977 and NCWA-III came into existence on 20.03.1984 between union and Party No. 1. Party No. 1 asserted that, para no. 9, 11 to 16 are the matter of5740 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] records, paras 18 & 19 of statement of claim need no comments, because they are irrelevant. But according to the Party No. 1, above NCWA is no more in existence.

5. According to the Party No. 1, provision mentioned in NCWA-III as Clause 9.4.4 was deleted or expunged from new provisions of NCWA-IV to NCWA-IX, so from 01.01.1987 till today, no dependant of workers was employed by the Party No. 1. The Party No. 1 also admitted that, Radhe Shyam Debey was a Foreman I/C, who retired from services on 31.07.2011. According to the Party No. 1, outside appointment are made by giving notice to the public and after due selection, as per prevalent practice and procedure. According to them, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi Vs. State of Karnataka held that, "No unconstitutional appointment can be made now in the matter of public employment by the state ……… It violates article 14 & 16 of the Constitution". So, they prayed that, this reference be answered in the negative in favour of Party No. 1 and also prayed that, action of the Party No. 1 i.e. WCL declared legal and justified.

6. Point of determination:

i. Whether Hari Om is entitled for employment under NCWA-III?

ii. Whether he is entitled to any other relief?

Reasons for determination:

7. On behalf of the union, Shri Radhe Shyam Dubey and on behalf of the Party No. 1, Shri Dhananjay B. Gondane filed their evidence on affidavit. They were cross-examined by the opposite party. The union argued that, above NCWA-III provides service of dependant after completing 35 years of service; they base their argument on the Circular of Coal India Limited and other provisions of Party No. 1. They also argued that, Agreement was covered with all categories of employees in the Coal Industry, who were covered under National Coal Wages Agreement I to VII. So, they argued that, Hari Om is entitled to employment in WCL and Party No. 1 denied his legal rights. In support of their argument, they examined Shri Radhe Shyam Dubey. Now I want to discuss the evidence part.

8. Radhe Shyam Dubey in para 7 of his cross-examination admitted that, he worked in WCL for more than 35 years, when he retired from services, at that time, NCWA-IX was applicable, but he received retiremental benefits as per NCWA-VIII. He also asserted that, he filed this case on the basis of NCWA-II & III. According to him, he received all retiremental benefits except E.L. encashment and bonus, but he did not file any case in this regard to recover this amount. According to him, his son, Hari Om Dubey has passed B.E, Mechanical and applied different job, but he did not get any job.

9. Shri Radhe Shyam Dubey in his cross-examination admitted that, he has no knowledge that, how many L.Rs of the employees have been engaged on service as a retirement benefits, but according to him, in Dhanbad, 4 L.Rs of employees have got job as retirement benefit after completion of 35 years of service. According to him, he is not in position to say that, whether he filed the appointment letters of above 4 L.Rs. In this way, it appears that, he gave statement on the basis of hearing of some facts i.e. above statement is based on hearsay evidence. Now I want to see the evidence of the Party No. 1.

10. Party No. 1 examined his Personnel Assistant Manager, Shri Dhananjay B. Gondane in support of their defence. In para 16 of his cross-examination, he admitted that, father of Hari Om was working in WCL. Shri Radhe Shyam Dubey was appointed on 16.05.1976 and superannuated on 31.07.2011. He has worked for 35 years. NCWA-I to X are applicable to WCL. Document W-1(This document related to Coal India Ltd.), which is applicable to WCL from 1975 to 1978. N He denied that, NCWA-III & IV are applicable forever. He admitted that, Party No. 1 follows the Standing Orders and NCWA I to X are applicable to all subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. including WCL, but according to him he has no knowledge about, whether during the pendency of the case in CGIT, Shri Radhe Shyam Dubey was forced to handover quarter and dues were not paid to him and regarding document no. W-2, which is concerned with Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. This witness remained unrebutted in his cross-examination, he gave statement in Court on the basis of documents as well as personal knowledge and nothing shows that, he prejudice to the workman. He gave a fair statement and it appears to be reliable. Now I want to see the legal position.

11. Case laws:- Yogender Pal Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1987 SC 1015 and Employers in relation to the management of Bhowra Area No. XI of Ms BCCL, Dhanbad Vs. the Presiding Officer, Dhanbad W.P. (L) No. 2412 of 2002 dated 26.07.2012, in which Hon'ble Court laid down the following principles:-

i. "There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the state".

ii. "No dependent of an employee of the State or its instrumentality is entitled to claim preference in the matter of on public employment on the basis of the service of his father/parent is no longer res integra in view of the specific provision contain in Part III of the Constitution of India and also laid down in the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in number of cases".

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 27, 2019/श्रावण 5, 1941 5741

iii. "Article 16, cl. (1), guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State: and cl. (2) prohibits discrimination on certain grounds in respect of any such employment or appointment …………….. We do not see any reason why the full ambit of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 16 in the matter of employment or appointment to any office under the State should be cut down by a reference to the provisions in Part XIV of the constitution which relate to services or to provisions in the earlier Constitution Acts relating to the same subject".

iv. "The new offices which were created for the new village or villages should be filled up by the Collector by selecting the persons whom he considered best qualified ………………… Collector to dull up the said new offices by selecting persons from among the families of the last holders of the offices was opposed to Article 16 of the constitution".

12. Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles as mentioned above, my humble opinion is that, union fails to prove his case. So, union/workman is not entitled to any relief. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of Bhatadi Open Cast sub Area of Chandrapur Area of Western Coalfields Ltd., in denying employment to Shri HariOm, the dependant son of Shri Radhe Shyam Dubey, Foreman I/C who has already put in 35 years service, which is contrary to the provisions of Para 9.4.4 of NCWA is legal & justified The workman is not entitled to any relief.

S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 23 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1356135613561356....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार स्थल निदेशक राजस्थान परमाणु िबजलीघर, कोटा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब$ नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में

नि)दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-,म न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 56/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:29)ीय सरकार को 17.07.2019 को प्राप्त 5ए था ।

[सं. एल-42012/109/2002-आईआर (सी एम-II)]

राजेन्(cid:29) सिह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2019

S.O. 1356.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of The Station Director, Rajasthan Atomic Power, Kota and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.07.2019.

[No. L-42012/109/2002-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

अनुबंध

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj

lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 56 @ 2015

jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

jsQjsUl ua--L-42012/109/2002–IR(CM-II) fnukad 02/06/2015

egklfpo] jktLFkku v.kq'kfDr ifj;kstuk deZpkjh la| ¼baVd½ jkorHkkVkA

cuke

LFky funs'kd jktLFkku ijek.kq fctyh?kj] jkorHkkVk jktLFkku lkbV] U;qfDy;j ikWoj dkWiksZjs'ku vkWQ bfUM;k iksLV& v.kq'kfDr 323303 ok;k&dksVk jktLFkku5742 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % dksbZ ugha

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh /kesZUnz tSu &izfrfuf/k

% vf/kfu.kZ; %

fnukad % 26- 06- 2019

1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 02-06-2015 dks fuEukafdr fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxkeh pj.kksa esa vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼2A½ o ¼1½ ¼d½ ds vUrXkZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa bl vf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr fd;k x;k %&

"Whether the action of the management of RAPS, NPCIL, Rawatbhata in degrading Shri Khemraj and Sh. Rajsingh, Tractor Trailer Operator from Tradesman 'B' to Tradesman 'A' on implementation of Anand Committee Report is correct and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date."

2- miZ;qDr lanfHkZr fookn izkIr gksus ij vf/kdj.k }kjk mHk;i{k dks vkgwr fd;k x;k vkSj izkFkhZ dks funsZ'k fn;s x;s fd og vius nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djsaA

3- bl funsZ'k ds vuqikyu esa fnukad 16-5-2016 dks izkFkhZ us nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;kA izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ egklfpo jktLFkku v.kq 'kfDr ifj;kstuk deZpkjh la?k ¼baVd½ jkorHkkVk ok;k dksVk] jktLFkku ijek.kq fctyh?kj 1 ls 8 ds deZdkjksa dk izfrfuf/kRo djrk gSA jktLFkku v.kq 'kfDr ifj;kstuk deZpkjh la?k ¼baVd½ jftLVªkj vkWQ VªsM ;wfu;u ,oa la;qDr Je vk;qDr] t;iqj ls iathd`r laLFkk gSA izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds deZpkjh loZ Jh [ksejkt vkSj jktflag us foi{kh dks izkFkZuk i= nsdj viuh osnuk O;Dr dhA ftlesa izcU/ku }kjk izkFkhZx.k dks ,d xzsM Mkmu dj nsuk U;k;laxr u gksuk dgrs gq, mudks iqu% dk;Zn{k ch dh fu;qfDr iznku djus dk fuosnu fd;kA izcU/ku }kjk izkFkhZ la?k dks dksbZ jkgr iznku ugah dh xbZA vr% izcU/kd ijek.kq fctyh?kj ls nksuksa deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;qfDr frfFk ls osru J`a[kyk :i;s 4000&6000 ¼dk;Zn{k ch½ esa izFke fu;qfDr dh frfFk ls fu;qfDr] ,fj;j lfgr fnyk;h tkosaA

4- fnukad 28-3-2016 dks foi{kh dh vkSj ls Jh jktsUnz xqIrk mifLFkr gq, vkSj vf/kdkj i= izLrqr djus gsrq volj pkgkA

5- fnukad 20-3-2017 dks Jh /kesZUnz tSu us foi{kh dh vkSj ls vf/kdkj i= izLrqr dj tokc nkos gsrq le; pkgkA

6- fnukad 29-11-2017 dks foi{kh ds vdkj.k vuqifLFkfr jgus ij foi{kh ds tokc dk volj lekIr djrs gq, izkFkhZ dh ,d i{kh; lk{; gsrq izdj.k dks fu;r fd;k x;kA rnqijkUr fnukad 18-12-2017 ls fnukad 14-3-2019 rd izkFkhZ i{k vuqifLFkr jgk] blfy;s fnukad 14-3-2019 dks ,di{kh; lk{; izkFkhZ dk volj Hkh lekIr dj fn;k x;kA

7- vkt fnukad 26-6-2019 dks Hkh izkFkhZ vuqifLFkr gS vkSj dksbZ lk{; vius nkos ds leFkZu esa izLrqr ugha dh gSA bl fLFkfr esa ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ dh lk{; ds vHkko esa ;g vf/kdj.k lanfHkZr fookn dk vf/kfu.kZ;u xq.kkxq.k ds vk/kkj ij djus esa l{ke ugha gSA

8- vr% Je eU=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr mi;qZDr vkS|ksfxd fookn dk vf/kfu.kZ;u izkFkhZ dh lk{; ds vHkko esa fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gSA blfy;s bl lUnHkZ dk mRrj blh izdkj fn;k tkrk gSA

vkns'k

9- vf/kfu.kZ; rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA Je eU=ky; }kjk bl ekeys esa U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr jsQjsUl dk mRrj mi;qZDrkuqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA

10- vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosA

jk/kk eksgu prqoZsnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

Cite this issue. Weekly Gazette of India, Government of India, 27 July 2019. Indian Gazettes, https://egazette.servantsofknowledge.in/details/in.gazette.central.w.2019-07-27.210266/. Archive identifier in.gazette.central.w.2019-07-27.210266.