221 GI/2026

(7)

रजजस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजधकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजहक

WEEKLY

सं. 2]

नई ददल् ली, जनवरी 18—जनवरी 24, 2026, िजनवार/पौष 28—माघ 4, 1947

No. 2]

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 18—JANUARY 24, 2026, SATURDAY/ PAUSHA 28––MAGHA 4, 1947

इस भाग में जभन् न पृ्‍ सं्‍ या दी जाती हज जजससे दक यह पृथक संकलन के प प में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी दकए गए सांजवजधक आदेि और अजधसूचनाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(व्यय जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 19 जनवरी, 2026

का.आ. 7.—केन् र सरकार, एतद् द्वारा राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयमावली, 1976

के जनयम 10 के उप-जनयमों (2) एवं (4) के अनुसरण में, भारतीय लेखापरीक्षा एवं लेखा जवभाग के कायाालय प्रधान

जनदेिक लेखापरीक्षा (केन्रीय), कनााटक, बेंगलूरु जजसमें अस्ट् सी प्रजतित से अजधक अजधकाररयों/कमाचाररयों ने हहदी का

कायासाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया हज, को अजधसूजचत करती हज।

[फा. सं. ए-12034/01/2026-ईजी]

रामेश् वर कुमार, अवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-29012026-269639

CG-DL-W-29012026-269639

8

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 24, 2026/MAGHA 4, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Expenditure)

New Delhi, the 19th January, 2026

S.O. 7.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rules (2) and (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages

(Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the office of the

Principal Director of Audit (Central), Karnataka, Bengaluru under the Indian Audit and Accounts Department

wherein eighty per cent. of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. A-12034/01/2026-EG]

RAMESHWAR KUMAR, Under Secy.

सहकाररता मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 13 जनवरी, 2026

का.आ. 8.—केंरीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10 के

उपजनयम (4) के अनुसरण में सहकाररता मंत्रालय के अधीन रा्‍ रीय सहकारी प्रजिक्षण पररषद के जन नजलजखत अधीनस्ट् थ

कायाालय में 80% से अजधक कमाचारीवृंद को हहदी का कायासाधक ज्ञान हो जाने के फलस्ट् वप प एतद् द्वारा अजधसूजचत

करती हज:

सहकारी प्रबंध संस्ट् थान

कण्णुर, केरल

[फा. सं. ई-14018/1/2024- सहकाररता मंत्रालय/098]

अफसर अहमद, जनदेिक

MINISTRY OF COOPERATION

New Delhi, the 13th January, 2026

S.O. 8.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976; the Central Government hereby notifies the under mentioned subordinate office of National

Council for Cooperative Training under the Ministry of Cooperation wherein more than 80% of the staff have

acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:

Institute Of Cooperative Management

Kannur, Kerala

[F. No. E-14018/1/2024-MoC/098]

AFSAR AHMED, Director

पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 12 जनवरी, 2026

का.आ. 9.—पेरोजलयम और खजनज पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उपयोग के अजधकार का अजधग्रहण) अजधजनयम, 1962

(1962 का 50), (इसके बाद उक्त अजधजनयम कहा जाएगा) की धारा 2 की उपधारा (क) के अनुसरण में, केंर सरकार उक्त

अजधजनयम के अधीन नीचे दी गई ताजलका के कॉलम (1) में उजल्लजखत व्यजक्त को कॉलम (2) में उजल्लजखत क्षेत्रों के संबंध

में कॉलम (3) में उजल्लजखत इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के पररचालन पेरोजलयम पाइपलाइनों के जलए सक्षम

प्राजधकारी के कायों को करने के जलए अजधकृत करती हज।

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 24, 2026/माघ 4, 1947

9

व्यजक्त का नाम एवं पता

क्षेत्राजधकार क्षेत्र

पेरोजलयम पाइपलाइनों का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

श्री सुकान्ता मण्डल,

प्रचालन प्रबंधक,

इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड,

पूवी क्षेत्र पाइपलाइन्स,

दुगाापुर

पजिम बंगाल

राज्य

1. हजल्दया

मौरीग्राम

राजबंध

पाइपलाइन

(एचएमआरबीपीएल)

2. हजल्दया बरौनी पाइपलाइन (एचबीपीएल)

3. गुवाहाटी जसलीगुड़ी पाइपलाइन (जीएसपीएल)

4. कोलकाता एटीएफ पाइपलाइन (के-एटीएफ लाइन)

5. पारादीप हजल्दया बरौनी पाइपलाइन (पीएचबीपीएल)

6. पारादीप

सोमनाथपुर

हजल्दया

पाइपलाइन

(पीएसएचपीएल)

7. 30" हजल्दया बरौनी पाइपलाइन (30" एचबीपीएल)

8. पारादीप हजल्दया बरौनी मोजतहारी पाइपलाइन

(पीएचएमबीपीएल)

इससे पुबा एस.ओ. सं्‍या 1810 ददनांक 20.11.2023 के अंतगात भारत के राजपत्र में ददनांक 25.11.2023 प्रकाजित

पजिम बंगाल राज्य में इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के जलए पहले अजधसूजचत सक्षम प्राजधकारी, जयदेव मन्ना,

महाप्रबंधक (अनुरक्षण), इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, पूवी क्षेत्र पाइपलाइन्स, कोलकाता को डी- नोरटफ़ाइड

समझा जाए।

यह अजधसूचना इसके जारी होने की तारीख से प्रभावी होगी।

[फा. सं. आर -11025(11)/19/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27024]

िजि िेखर हसह, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 12th January, 2026

S.O. 9.—In Pursuance of sub section (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of

Right of Users in Land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter called the said act), the Central Government hereby

authorizes the person mentioned in column (1) of the table given below to perform the functions of the Competent

authority under the said Act for IndianOil Corporation Limited in respect of areas mentioned in column (2) for its

operational petroleum pipelines laid under the said Act mentioned in column (3) of the said Table:

Name & Address of Person

Area of

Jurisdiction

Name of Petroleum Pipelines (s)

(1)

(2)

(3)

Shri Sukanta Mondal

Operations Manager,

Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

Eastern Region Pipelines, Durgapur

West Bengal

State

1. Haldia Mourigram Rajbandh Pipeline (HMRBPL)

2. Haldia Barauni Pipeline (HBPL)

3. Guwahati Siliguri Pipeline (GSPL)

4. Kolkata ATF Pipeline (Kol-ATF Line)

5. Paradip Haldia Barauni Pipeline (PHBPL)

6. Paradip Somnathpur Haldia Product Pipeline

(PSHPL)

7. 30" Haldia Barauni Pipeline (30" HBPL)

8. Paradip Haldia Barauni Motihari Pipeline

(PHBMPL)

10

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 24, 2026/MAGHA 4, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Earlier notified Competent Authority for Indian Oil Corporation Limited in West Bengal State, Shri Jayadeb Manna,

General Manager (Maintenance), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Eastern Region Pipelines, Kolkata., vide S.O. No.

1810 dated 20.11.2023 published in the Gazette of India dated 25.11.2023 stands de-notified.

The Notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. R -11025(11)/19/2018-OR-I/E-27024]

SHASHI SHEKHAR SINGH, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2026

का.आ. 10. — isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½

vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ds fu;e 2 ¼d½ ds varxZr eSllZ fjyk;al bZFksu ikbiykbu fyfeVsM ¼vkj-bZ-

ih-,y½ ds }kjk egkjk’V jkT; esa bZFksu ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkus gsrq l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds —R;ksa dk fuoZgu djus

ds fy,] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izk—frd xSl ea=ky; dh] Hkkjr ds jkti= fnukad 6 vxLr] 2022

dks izdkf”kr vf/klwpuk dk-vk- 3719 ¼v½ fnukad 4 vxLr] 2022 }kjk izkf/k—r] esSa] vfuy ukFkwjke lkoar] mi

lekgrkZ ¼lsokfuo`Rr½] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ fu;ekoyh]

1963 ds fu;e 4 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds uhps nh xbZ ifjHkk"kk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr vf/kdkjksa ds vuqikyu esa] eSllZ

vkj-bZ-ih-,y-] ftlesa ;FkkfLFkr] ml {ks= esa Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj fufgr fd;k x;k gS vkSj ml {ks= esa

ikbiykbu dk LokfeRo fufgr gS] ds ijke”kZ ls layXu vuqlwph ds LrEHk 4 esa egkjk’Vª jkT; ds ftyk jk;xM

esa izpkyu dh lekfIr dh rkjh[ksa ?kksf’kr djrk gw¡A

1

'ksMk'kh

1397¼v½

fnukad

07&04&2016

30&04&2018

1749¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

30&04&2018

2

xkxksns cqnzqd

1397¼v½

fnukad

07&04&2016

27&01&2023

2675¼v½

fnukad

08&08&2016

27&01&2023

1747¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

27&01&2023

1749¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

27&01&2023

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

27&01&2023

3

ikusM

1397¼v½

fnukad

07&04&2016

25&07&2024

1747¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

25&07&2024

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

25&07&2024

2530¼v½

fnukad

25&06&2024

25&07&2024

4

dkekyhZ

1397¼v½

fnukad

07&04&2016

31&03&2018

5

dqjeqjyh

1909¼v½

fnukad

25&05&2016

31&03&2018

1747¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

31&03&2018

1749¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

31&03&2018

6

vk/kj.ks

1909¼v½

fnukad

25&05&2016

27&01&2023

2675¼v½

fnukad

08&08&2016

27&01&2023

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

27&01&2023

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 24, 2026/माघ 4, 1947

11

7

rGoyh

1909¼v½

fnukad

25&05&2016

25&07&2024

2675¼v½

fnukad

08&08&2016

25&07&2024

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

25&07&2024

2530¼v½

fnukad

25&06&2024

25&07&2024

8

”ks.ks

1909¼v½

fnukad

25&05&2016

27&01&2023

1749¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

27&01&2023

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

27&01&2023

9

cksjxkao

1909¼v½

fnukad

25&05&2016

25&07&2024

2675¼v½

fnukad

08&08&2016

25&07&2024

1747¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

25&07&2024

1749¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

25&07&2024

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

25&07&2024

2530¼v½

fnukad

25&06&2024

25&07&2024

10

is.k xzkeh.k

1911¼v½

fnukad

25&05&2016

27&01&2023

3266¼v½

fnukad

20&10&2016

27&01&2023

1748¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

27&01&2023

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

27&01&2023

11

jksMs

1397¼v½

fnukad

07&04&2016

31&03&2018

12

ft.ksZ

1910¼v½

fnukad

25&05&2016

31&03&2018

2207¼v½

fnukad

21&06&2016

31&03&2018

2675¼v½

fnukad

08&08&2016

31&03&2018

1747¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

31&03&2018

1749¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

31&03&2018

1750¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

31&03&2018

1752¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

31&03&2018

13

dyn

1910¼v½

fnukad

25&05&2016

27&01&2023

2207¼v½

fnukad

21&06&2016

27&01&2023

1749¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

27&01&2023

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

27&01&2023

14

fuxMs

1909¼v½

fnukad

25&05&2016

30&06&2018

2207¼v½

fnukad

21&06&2016

30&06&2018

15

vkeVse

2206¼v½

fnukad

13&06&2016

30&06&2018

1747¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

30&06&2018

16

rGs[kkj

2206¼v½

fnukad

13&06&2016

27&01&2023

2675¼v½

fnukad

08&08&2016

27&01&2023

1747¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

27&01&2023

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

27&01&2023

17

eqa<k.kh

1910¼v½

fnukad

25&05&2016

27&01&2023

12

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 24, 2026/MAGHA 4, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2675¼v½

fnukad

08&08&2016

27&01&2023

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

27&01&2023

18

>ksrhjikMk

2001¼v½

fnukad

02&06&2016

11&07&2024

136¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

11&07&2024

2283¼v½

fnukad

11&06&2024

11&07&2024

isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e]1962 dh /kkjk 17 ds varxZr lajfpr

isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ fu;e] 1963 ds fu;e 4 ds varxZr Hkkjr ljdkj

ds jkti= esa izdk'kukFkZ

[Qk- la- ,y--14014/49/2018-th-ih-&II(bZ%&44293)]

jketh yky ehuk, voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2026

S.O. 10.—In pursuance of powers conferred by Explanation 1 below sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Petroleum

and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Lands) Rules, 1963, I, Anil Nathuram Sawant, Deputy

Collector (Retired), authorized by Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas vide Notification

S.O.3719 (E) dated 4th Aug, 2022 (published in the Gazette of India on 6th Aug, 2022) under Section 2(a) of the

Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962(50 of 1962) to perform the

functions of Competent Authority for laying Ethane Pipeline by M/s Reliance Ethane Pipeline Limited (REPL) in the

State of Maharashtra, in consultation with M/s REPL, to whom the Right of User in the land in that area has been

vested and in whom the ownership of the pipeline in that area vests, hereby declare the dates, mentioned in Column 4

of the Schedule annexed herewith, as the dates of Termination of Operations in District Raigad in the State of

Maharashtra.

SCHEDULE

Mandal/Tehsil/Taluk: Pen

District : Raigad

State : Maharashtra

Sl.

No.

Village

S.O. No. and Date of Notification under sub-

section (1) & (4) of Section 6

Date of Termination

of Operation

1

2

3

4

1

Shedashi

1397(E)

Date

07-04-2016

30-04-2018

1749(E)

Date

18-04-2018

30-04-2018

2

Gagode Budruk

1397(E)

Date

07-04-2016

27-01-2023

2675(E)

Date

08-08-2016

27-01-2023

1747(E)

Date

18-04-2018

27-01-2023

1749(E)

Date

18-04-2018

27-01-2023

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

27-01-2023

3

Paned

1397(E)

Date

07-04-2016

25-07-2024

1747(E)

Date

18-04-2018

25-07-2024

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

25-07-2024

2530(E)

Date

25-06-2024

25-07-2024

4

Kamarli

1397(E)

Date

07-04-2016

31-03-2018

5

Kurmurli

1909(E)

Date

25-05-2016

31-03-2018

1747(E)

Date

18-04-2018

31-03-2018

1749(E)

Date

18-04-2018

31-03-2018

6

Adharne

1909(E)

Date

25-05-2016

27-01-2023

2675(E)

Date

08-08-2016

27-01-2023

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 24, 2026/माघ 4, 1947

13

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

27-01-2023

7

Talavali

1909(E)

Date

25-05-2016

25-07-2024

2675(E)

Date

08-08-2016

25-07-2024

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

25-07-2024

2530(E)

Date

25-06-2024

25-07-2024

8

Shene

1909(E)

Date

25-05-2016

27-01-2023

1749(E)

Date

18-04-2018

27-01-2023

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

27-01-2023

9

Borgaon

1909(E)

Date

25-05-2016

25-07-2024

2675(E)

Date

08-08-2016

25-07-2024

1747(E)

Date

18-04-2018

25-07-2024

1749(E)

Date

18-04-2018

25-07-2024

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

25-07-2024

2530(E)

Date

25-06-2024

25-07-2024

10

Pen Gramin

1911(E)

Date

25-05-2016

27-01-2023

3266(E)

Date

20-10-2016

27-01-2023

1748(E)

Date

18-04-2018

27-01-2023

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

27-01-2023

11

Rode

1397(E)

Date

07-04-2016

31-03-2018

12

Jirne

1910(E)

Date

25-05-2016

31-03-2018

2207(E)

Date

21-06-2016

31-03-2018

2675(E)

Date

08-08-2016

31-03-2018

1747(E)

Date

18-04-2018

31-03-2018

1749(E)

Date

18-04-2018

31-03-2018

1750(E)

Date

18-04-2018

31-03-2018

1752(E)

Date

18-04-2018

31-03-2018

13

Kalad

1910(E)

Date

25-05-2016

27-01-2023

2207(E)

Date

21-06-2016

27-01-2023

1749(E)

Date

18-04-2018

27-01-2023

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

27-01-2023

14

Nigade

1909(E)

Date

25-05-2016

30-06-2018

2207(E)

Date

21-06-2016

30-06-2018

15

Amtem

2206(E)

Date

13-06-2016

30-06-2018

1747(E)

Date

18-04-2018

30-06-2018

16

Talekhar

2206(E)

Date

13-06-2016

27-01-2023

2675(E)

Date

08-08-2016

27-01-2023

1747(E)

Date

18-04-2018

27-01-2023

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

27-01-2023

17

Mundhani

1910(E)

Date

25-05-2016

27-01-2023

2675(E)

Date

08-08-2016

27-01-2023

14

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 24, 2026/MAGHA 4, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

27-01-2023

18

Jhotirpada

2001(E)

Date

02-06-2016

11-07-2024

136(E)

Date

28-12-2022

11-07-2024

2283(E)

Date

11-06-2024

11-07-2024

Published in the Official Gazette of India under Rule 4 of the P&MP (ARUL) Rules 1963, framed under Section 17 of

P&MP (ARUL) Act, 1962

[F. No. L-14014/49/2018-GP-II(E:-44293)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA , Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2026

का.आ. 11. — isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½

vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ds fu;e 2 ¼d½ ds varxZr eSllZ fjyk;al bZFksu ikbiykbUk fyfeVsM ¼vkj-bZ-

ih-,y½ ds }kjk egkjk’V jkT; esa bZFksu ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkus gsrq l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds —R;ksa dk fuoZgu djus

ds fy,] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izk—frd xSl ea=ky; dh] Hkkjr ds jkti= fnukad 6 vxLr] 2022

dks izdkf”kr vf/klwpuk dk-vk- 3719 ¼v½ fnukad 4 vxLr] 2022 }kjk izkf/k—r] esSa] vfuy ukFkwjke lkoar] mi

lekgrkZ ¼lsokfuo`Rr½] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ fu;ekoyh]

1963 ds fu;e 4 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds uhps nh xbZ ifjHkk"kk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr vf/kdkjksa ds vuqikyu esa] eSllZ

vkj-bZ-ih-,y-] ftlesa ;FkkfLFkr] ml {ks= esa Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj fufgr fd;k x;k gS vkSj ml {ks= esa

ikbiykbu dk LokfeRo fufgr gS] ds ijke”kZ ls layXu vuqlwph ds LrEHk 4 esa egkjk’Vª jkT; ds ftyk iky?kj

esa izpkyu dh lekfIr dh rkjh[ksa ?kksf’kr djrk gw¡A

1

miyV

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

27&08&2023

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

27&08&2023

2

ojokMk

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

28&01&2023

138 ¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

28&01&2023

3

rykljh

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

28&01&2023

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

28&01&2023

138 ¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

28&01&2023

4

bZHkkMikMk

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

5

lqrkjikMk

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

6

BkdjikMk

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

31&10&2017

7

oMoyh

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

28&01&2023

138 ¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

28&01&2023

1

foy'ksr

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

3393¼v½

fnukad

27&10&2016

31&10&2017

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

31&10&2017

2

dksaMxko

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

25&07&2024

3393¼v½

fnukad

27&10&2016

25&07&2024

1609¼v½

fnukad

12&04&2018

25&07&2024

2529¼v½

fnukad

25&06&2024

25&07&2024

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 24, 2026/माघ 4, 1947

15

3

rGoyh rQsZ lkrdksj

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

25&07&2024

3393¼v½

fnukad

27&10&2016

25&07&2024

1609¼v½

fnukad

12&04&2018

25&07&2024

2156¼v½

fnukad

28&04&2022

25&07&2024

2529¼v½

fnukad

25&06&2024

25&07&2024

4

Hkksiksyh

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

5

f'ky

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

6

Egljksyh

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

25&07&2024

2860¼v½

fnukad

29&08&2016

25&07&2024

352¼v½

fnukad

20&01&2017

25&07&2024

1609¼v½

fnukad

12&04&2018

25&07&2024

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

25&07&2024

138 ¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

25&07&2024

2529¼v½

fnukad

25&06&2024

25&07&2024

7

dq>sZ

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&05&2018

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

31&05&2018

isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e]1962 dh /kkjk 17 ds varxZr lajfpr isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut

ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ fu;e] 1963 ds fu;e 4 ds varxZr Hkkjr ljdkj ds jkti= esa izdk'kukFkZ

[Qk- la- ,y-- 14014/49/2018-th-ih-&II (bZ%-44293)]

jketh yky ehuk, voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2026

S.O. 11.—In pursuance of powers conferred by Explanation 1 below sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Petroleum

and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Lands) Rules, 1963, I, Anil Nathuram Sawant, Deputy

Collector (Retired), authorized by Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas vide Notification

S.O.3719 (E) dated 4th Aug, 2022 (published in the Gazette of India on 6th Aug, 2022) under Section 2(a) of the

Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962(50 of 1962) to perform the

functions of Competent Authority for laying Ethane Pipeline by M/s Reliance Ethane Pipeline Limited (REPL) in the

State of Maharashtra, in consultation with M/s REPL, to whom the Right of User in the land in that area has been

vested and in whom the ownership of the pipeline in that area vests, hereby declare the dates, mentioned in Column 4

of the Schedule annexed herewith, as the dates of Termination of Operations in District Palghar in the State of

Maharashtra.

SCHEDULE

Mandal/Tehsil/ Taluk: Talasari

District : Palghar

State : Maharashtra

Sl.

No.

Village

S.O. No. and Date of Notification under

sub-section (1) & (4) of Section 6

Date of Termination

of Operation

1

2

3

4

1

Uplat

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

27-08-2023

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

27-08-2023

2

Varvade

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

28-01-2023

138 (E)

Date

28-12-2022

28-01-2023

3

Talasari

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

28-01-2023

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

28-01-2023

138 (E)

Date

28-12-2022

28-01-2023

4

Ibhadpada

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

5

Sutarpada

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

16

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 24, 2026/MAGHA 4, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6

Thakarpada

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

31-10-2017

7

Vadavali

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

28-01-2023

138 (E)

Date

28-12-2022

28-01-2023

Mandal/Tehsil/Taluk: Vikramgad

District : Palghar

State : Maharashtra

1

Vilshet

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

3393(E)

Date

27-10-2016

31-10-2017

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

31-10-2017

2

Kondgaon

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

25-07-2024

3393(E)

Date

27-10-2016

25-07-2024

1609(E)

Date

12-04-2018

25-07-2024

2529(E)

Date

25-06-2024

25-07-2024

3

Talavali Tarf Satkor

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

25-07-2024

3393(E)

Date

27-10-2016

25-07-2024

1609(E)

Date

12-04-2018

25-07-2024

2156 (E)

Date

28-04-2022

25-07-2024

2529(E)

Date

25-06-2024

25-07-2024

4

Bhopoli

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

5

Shil

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

6

Mhasroli

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

25-07-2024

2860(E)

Date

29-08-2016

25-07-2024

352(E)

Date

20-01-2017

25-07-2024

1609(E)

Date

12-04-2018

25-07-2024

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

25-07-2024

138 (E)

Date

28-12-2022

25-07-2024

2529(E)

Date

25-06-2024

25-07-2024

7

Kurze

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-05-2018

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

31-05-2018

Published in the Official Gazette of India under Rule 4 of the P&MP (ARUL) Rules 1963, framed under Section 17 of P&MP (ARUL)

Act, 1962

[F.No. L-14014/49/2018-GP-II (E:-44293]

RAMJI LAL MEENA , Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2026

का.आ. 12. — isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½

vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ds fu;e 2 ¼d½ ds varxZr eSllZ fjyk;al bZFksu ikbiykbu fyfeVsM ¼vkj-bZ-

ih-,y½ ds }kjk egkjk’V jkT; esa bZFksu ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkus gsrq l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds —R;ksa dk fuoZgu djus

ds fy,] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izk—frd xSl ea=ky; dh] Hkkjr ds jkti= fnukad 6 vxLr] 2022

dks izdkf”kr vf/klwpuk dk-vk- 3719 ¼v½ fnukad 4 vxLr] 2022 }kjk izkf/k—r] esSa] vfuy ukFkwjke lkoar] mi

lekgrkZ ¼lsokfuo`Rr½] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ fu;ekoyh]

1963 ds fu;e 4 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds uhps nh xbZ ifjHkk"kk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr vf/kdkjksa ds vuqikyu esa] eSllZ

vkj-bZ-ih-,y-] ftlesa ;FkkfLFkr] ml {ks= esa Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj fufgr fd;k x;k gS vkSj ml {ks= esa

ikbiykbu dk LokfeRo fufgr gS] ds ijke”kZ ls layXu vuqlwph ds LrEHk 4 esa egkjk’Vª jkT; ds ftyk Bk.ks esa

izpkyu dh lekfIr dh rkjh[ksa ?kksf’kr djrk gw¡A

1

fn?kk'kh

2669¼v½

fnukad

24&09&2015

05&05&2024

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 24, 2026/माघ 4, 1947

17

137¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

05&05&2024

655

fnukad

05&04&2024

05&05&2024

2

nyksaMs

2669¼v½

fnukad

24&09&2015

31&07&2018

3

[kfjoyh

2669¼v½

fnukad

24&09&2015

31&07&2018

4

xksUnzkoyh

2669¼v½

fnukad

24&09&2015

31&07&2018

5

tkafHkoyh

2669¼v½

fnukad

24&09&2015

28&01&2023

137¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

28&01&2023

6

nkHkkM

2669¼v½

fnukad

24&09&2015

31&07&2018

3391¼v½

fnukad

27&10&2016

31&07&2018

7

fdjoyh

2669¼v½

fnukad

24&09&2015

05&05&2024

353¼v½

fnukad

20&01&2017

05&05&2024

137¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

05&05&2024

655

fnukad

05&04&2024

05&05&2024

8

yki cqnzqd

2669¼v½

fnukad

24&09&2015

05&05&2024

137¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

05&05&2024

655

fnukad

05&04&2024

05&05&2024

9

[kkfyax cqnzqd

2669¼v½

fnukad

24&09&2015

25&07&2024

137¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

25&07&2024

2527¼v½

fnukad

25&06&2024

25&07&2024

10

nYgsikMk

2669¼v½

fnukad

24&09&2015

05&05&2024

137¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

05&05&2024

655

fnukad

05&04&2024

05&05&2024

11

dq:an

2669¼v½

fnukad

24&09&2015

28&01&2023

137¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

28&01&2023

12

vtqZuyh

2669¼v½

fnukad

24&09&2015

05&05&2024

655

fnukad

05&04&2024

05&05&2024

13

iM?ks

2669¼v½

fnukad

24&09&2015

31&01&2018

14

Hkknk.ks

2669¼v½

fnukad

24&09&2015

31&01&2018

isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e]1962 dh /kkjk 17 ds varxZr lajfpr

isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ fu;e] 1963 ds fu;e 4 ds varxZr Hkkjr ljdkj

ds jkti= esa izdk'kukFkZ

[Qk-la- ,y--14014/49/2018-th-ih-&II(bZ%&44293)]

jketh yky ehuk, voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2026

S.O. 12.—In pursuance of powers conferred by Explanation 1 below sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Petroleum

and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Lands) Rules, 1963, I, Anil Nathuram Sawant, Deputy

Collector (Retired), authorized by Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas vide Notification

S.O.3719 (E) dated 4th Aug, 2022 (published in the Gazette of India on 6th Aug, 2022) under Section 2(a) of the

Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962(50 of 1962) to perform the

functions of Competent Authority for laying Ethane Pipeline by M/s Reliance Ethane Pipeline Limited (REPL) in the

State of Maharashtra, in consultation with M/s REPL, to whom the Right of User in the land in that area has been

18

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 24, 2026/MAGHA 4, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vested and in whom the ownership of the pipeline in that area vests, hereby declare the dates, mentioned in Column 4

of the Schedule annexed herewith, as the dates of Termination of Operations in District Thane in the State of

Maharashtra.

SCHEDULE

Mandal/Tehsil/ Taluk: Bhiwandi

District : Thane

State : Maharashtra

Sl.

No.

Village

S.O. No. and Date of Notification under sub-

section (1) & (4) of Section 6

Date of Termination

of Operation

1

2

3

4

1

Dighashi

2669(E)

Date

24-09-2015

05-05-2024

137 (E)

Date

28-12-2022

05-05-2024

655

Date

05-04-2024

05-05-2024

2

Dalonde

2669(E)

Date

24-09-2015

31-07-2018

3

Kharivali

2669(E)

Date

24-09-2015

31-07-2018

4

Gondravali

2669(E)

Date

24-09-2015

31-07-2018

5

Jambhivali

2669(E)

Date

24-09-2015

28-01-2023

137 (E)

Date

28-12-2022

28-01-2023

6

Dabhad

2669(E)

Date

24-09-2015

31-07-2018

3391(E)

Date

27-10-2016

31-07-2018

7

Kiravali

2669(E)

Date

24-09-2015

05-05-2024

353(E)

Date

20-01-2017

05-05-2024

137 (E)

Date

28-12-2022

05-05-2024

655

Date

05-04-2024

05-05-2024

8

Lap Budruk

2669(E)

Date

24-09-2015

05-05-2024

137 (E)

Date

28-12-2022

05-05-2024

655

Date

05-04-2024

05-05-2024

9

Khaling Budruk

2669(E)

Date

24-09-2015

25-07-2024

137 (E)

Date

28-12-2022

25-07-2024

2527(E)

Date

25-06-2024

25-07-2024

10

Dalepada

2669(E)

Date

24-09-2015

05-05-2024

137 (E)

Date

28-12-2022

05-05-2024

655

Date

05-04-2024

05-05-2024

11

Kurund

2669(E)

Date

24-09-2015

28-01-2023

137 (E)

Date

28-12-2022

28-01-2023

12

Arjunali

2669(E)

Date

24-09-2015

05-05-2024

655

Date

05-04-2024

05-05-2024

13

Padgha

2669(E)

Date

24-09-2015

31-01-2018

14

Bhadane

2669(E)

Date

24-09-2015

31-01-2018

Published in the Official Gazette of India under Rule 4 of the P&MP (ARUL) Rules 1963, framed under Section 17 of

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 24, 2026/माघ 4, 1947

19

P&MP (ARUL) Act, 1962

[F. No. L-14014/49/2018-GP-II(E:-44293)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA , Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2026

का.आ. 13.—isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½

vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ds fu;e 2 ¼d½ ds varxZr eSllZ fjyk;al bZFksu ikbiykbUk fyfeVsM ¼vkj-bZ-

ih-,y½ ds }kjk egkjk’V jkT; esa bZFksu ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkus gsrq l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds —R;ksa dk fuoZgu djus

ds fy,] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izk—frd xSl ea=ky; dh] Hkkjr ds jkti= fnukad 6 vxLr] 2022

dks izdkf”kr vf/klwpuk dk-vk- 3719¼v½ fnukad 4 vxLr] 2022 }kjk izkf/k—r] esSa] vfuy ukFkwjke lkoar] mi

lekgrkZ ¼lsokfuo`Rr½] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ fu;ekoyh]

1963 ds fu;e 4 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds uhps nh xbZ ifjHkk"kk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr vf/kdkjksa ds vuqikyu esa] eSllZ

vkj-bZ-ih-,y-] ftlesa ;FkkfLFkr] ml {ks= esa Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj fufgr fd;k x;k gS vkSj ml {ks= esa

ikbiykbu dk LokfeRo fufgr gS] ds ijke”kZ ls layXu vuqlwph ds LrEHk 4 esa egkjk’Vª jkT; ds ftyk iky?kj

esa izpkyu dh lekfIr dh rkjh[ksa ?kksf’kr djrk gw¡A

1

czkEg.kxko

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&05&2018

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

31&05&2018

2

lqiksaMk

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&05&2018

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

31&05&2018

3

dyae[kkaM

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&05&2018

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

31&05&2018

4

ekaMs

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&07&2018

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

31&07&2018

5

Hkksfioyh

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

25&07&2024

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

25&07&2024

138¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

25&07&2024

2529¼v½

fnukad

25&06&2024

25&07&2024

6

[kjhoyh rQsZ dksgkst

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

25&07&2024

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

25&07&2024

138¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

25&07&2024

3446¼v½

fnukad

27&07&2023

25&07&2024

2529¼v½

fnukad

25&06&2024

25&07&2024

7

vkafcLVs [kq-

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

28&01&2023

20

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 24, 2026/MAGHA 4, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

28&01&2023

138¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

28&01&2023

8

vkafcLVs cqnzqd

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

28&01&2023

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

28&01&2023

138¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

28&01&2023

9

[kkfuoyh

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

30&04&2018

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

30&04&2018

10

fcyks'kh

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

27&03&2023

2459¼v½

fnukad

05&07&2016

27&03&2023

2863¼v½

fnukad

24&08&2016

27&03&2023

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

27&03&2023

5725¼v½

fnukad

05&12&2022

27&03&2023

1041¼v½

fnukad

27&02&2023

27&03&2023

11

[kjhoyh rQsZ

ikSyckj

1281¼v½

fnukad

23&03&2016

27&03&2023

2863¼v½

fnukad

24&08&2016

27&03&2023

2155¼v½

fnukad

25&04&2022

27&03&2023

267¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

27&03&2023

1041¼v½

fnukad

27&02&2023

27&03&2023

12

fpap?kj

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

25&07&2024

1281¼v½

fnukad

23&03&2016

25&07&2024

2863¼v½

fnukad

24&08&2016

25&07&2024

1743¼v½

fnukad

17&04&2018

25&07&2024

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

25&07&2024

1041¼v½

fnukad

27&02&2023

25&07&2024

2528¼v½

fnukad

25&06&2024

25&07&2024

13

fot;xM

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

27&03&2023

1281¼v½

fnukad

23&03&2016

27&03&2023

1041¼v½

fnukad

27&02&2023

27&03&2023

14

eqlkj.ks

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

27&08&2023

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

27&08&2023

138¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

27&08&2023

3446¼v½

fnukad

27&07&2023

27&08&2023

15

?kksulkbZ

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&07&2018

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

31&07&2018

16

esV

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&07&2018

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

31&07&2018

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 24, 2026/माघ 4, 1947

21

isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e]1962 dh /kkjk 17 ds varxZr lajfpr

isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ fu;e] 1963 ds fu;e 4 ds varxZr Hkkjr

ljdkj ds jkti= esa izdk'kukFkZ

[Qk-la- ,y--14014/49/2018-th-ih-&II(bZ%&44293)]

jketh yky ehuk, voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2026

S.O. 13.—In pursuance of powers conferred by Explanation 1 below sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Petroleum

and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Lands) Rules, 1963, I, Anil Nathuram Sawant, Deputy

Collector (Retired), authorized by Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas vide Notification

S.O.3719 (E) dated 4th Aug, 2022 (published in the Gazette of India on 6th Aug, 2022) under Section 2(a) of the

Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962(50 of 1962) to perform the

functions of Competent Authority for laying Ethane Pipeline by M/s Reliance Ethane Pipeline Limited (REPL) in the

State of Maharashtra, in consultation with M/s REPL, to whom the Right of User in the land in that area has been

vested and in whom the ownership of the pipeline in that area vests, hereby declare the dates, mentioned in Column 4

of the Schedule annexed herewith, as the dates of Termination of Operations in District Palghar in the State of

Maharashtra.

SCHEDULE

Mandal/Tehsil/ Taluk: Wada

District : Palghar

State : Maharashtra

Sl.

No.

Village

S. O. No. and Date of Notification under sub-

section (1) & (4) of Section 6

Date of Termination

of Operation

1

2

3

4

1

Brahmangaon

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-05-2018

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

31-05-2018

2

Suponda

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-05-2018

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

31-05-2018

3

Kalamkhand

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-05-2018

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

31-05-2018

4

Mande

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-07-2018

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

31-07-2018

5

Bhopivali

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

25-07-2024

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

25-07-2024

138 (E)

Date

28-12-2022

25-07-2024

2529 (E)

Date

25-06-2024

25-07-2024

6

Kharivali Tarf Kohoj

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

25-07-2024

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

25-07-2024

138 (E)

Date

28-12-2022

25-07-2024

3446(E)

Date

27-07-2023

25-07-2024

2529 (E)

Date

25-06-2024

25-07-2024

7

Ambiste Kd

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

28-01-2023

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

28-01-2023

138(E)

Date

28-12-2022

28-01-2023

8

Ambiste Bk

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

28-01-2023

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

28-01-2023

138 (E)

Date

28-12-2022

28-01-2023

9

Khanivali

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

30-04-2018

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

30-04-2018

22

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 24, 2026/MAGHA 4, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10

Biloshi

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

27-03-2023

2459(E)

Date

05-07-2016

27-03-2023

2863(E)

Date

24-08-2016

27-03-2023

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

27-03-2023

5725(E)

Date

05-12-2022

27-03-2023

1041 (E)

Date

27-02-2023

27-03-2023

11

Kharivali Tarf Poulbar

1281(E)

Date

23-03-2016

27-03-2023

2863(E)

Date

24-08-2016

27-03-2023

2155 (E)

Date

25-04-2022

27-03-2023

267 (E)

Date

28-12-2022

27-03-2023

1041(E)

Date

27-02-2023

27-03-2023

12

Chinchghar

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

25-07-2024

1281(E)

Date

23-03-2016

25-07-2024

2863(E)

Date

24-08-2016

25-07-2024

1743(E)

Date

17-04-2018

25-07-2024

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

25-07-2024

1041(E)

Date

27-02-2023

25-07-2024

2528 (E)

Date

25-06-2024

25-07-2024

13

Vijaygad

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

27-03-2023

1281(E)

Date

23-03-2016

27-03-2023

1041 (E )

Date

27-02-2023

27-03-2023

14

Musarne

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

27-08-2023

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

27-08-2023

138(E)

Date

28-12-2022

27-08-2023

3446(E)

Date

27-07-2023

27-08-2023

15

Ghonsai

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-07-2018

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

31-07-2018

16

Met

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-07-2018

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

31-07-2018

Published in the Official Gazette of India under Rule 4 of the P&MP (ARUL) Rules 1963, framed under Section 17 of

P&MP (ARUL) Act, 1962

[F. No. L-14014/49/2018-GP-II(E:-44293)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA , Under Secy.

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 27 नव बर, 2025

का.आ. 14.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj आरआरएल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–सह–

] जबलपुर dsiapkV(केस आर/39//2006 और 49/2014

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-42012/212/2005-आई.आर.(सी.एम-II)]

[सं. एल-42012/22/2014-आई.आर.(डीयू)]

सलोनी, उप जनदेिक/हलक अजधकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2025

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Case R/39//2006And 49/2014) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of RRL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/11/2025.

[No. L-42012/212/2005– IR (CM-II)]

[No. L-42012/22/2014– IR (DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director/Link Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 24, 2026/माघ 4, 1947

23

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

1. NO. CGIT/LC/ R/39/2006

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

The President,

R.R.L.Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmachari Sangh,

LIG-SR-541 Katara Hills, Bagh Mughalia,

Bhopal (M.P.)

Workman

Vs

The Director,

Regional Research Laboratory,

(at present,

Advanced Material & Processes Research Institute)

Habibganj Naka, Bhopal (M.P.)

Management

WITH

2. NO. CGIT/LC/ R/49/2014

Bhavani Deen Shuklware,

S/o Shrikrishna Shuklware,

Shed No. 171/5, B-Sector, 100 Quarters,

Piplani, Bhopal (M.P.)

Workman

Vs

The Director,

Advanced Material & Processes Research Institute,

(Previously Regional Research Laboratory)

Hoshnagabad Road, Habibganj Naka,

Bhopal (M.P.)

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 26^th day of September- 2025)

In case R/39/2006,

As per letter dated 31/07/2006 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference

has been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act’) as per

Notification No.L-42012/212/2005-IR(CM-II) dt. 31/07/2006. The dispute under reference relates to:-

“Whether the demand of Shri Awadhesh Kumar Sisodia for his reinstatement and issuing of appointment

letters to him and 94 others (as per list enclosed) by the Regional Research Laboratory and declaration of

them as permanent employees is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief they are entitled?”

In case R/49/2014:-

As per letter dated 27/05/2014 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference has

been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act’) as per Notification

No.L-42012/22/2014-IR(DU) dt. 27/05/2014. The dispute under reference relates to:-

24

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 24, 2026/MAGHA 4, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the demand of Shri Bhavani Deen Shuklware for his reinstatement alongwith backwages by

AMPRI previously RRL, is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief they are entitled for?”

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were issued to the parties. They appeared and

filed their respective statement of claim in defense.

According to the workman Union, the Applicant workman No.1 who is also the President of the Union

along other 94 applicant workmen are working continuously from the date of their first appointments for more than

240 days in every year and have attained the status of permanent employees. The Management did not Award them

permanent status nor did the Management regularize their services. They formed an Association in the year 2004 and

raised their demand but in order to desist the applicant workmen from raising their lawful demands, the applicant

workman No.1 who is also the President of the Association, was orally terminated by the management. He raised a

dispute in this respect. He was informed that he and other workmen have been terminated from Regional Research

Laboratory i.e. Management i.e., R.R.L. and transferred to C.M.C. i.e., Outsourcing Security Agency. According to

the Workman Union, they are employees of the Management of Regional Research Laboratory and not of any

Security Agency. When a dispute was raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner by workman Union, the

Management took a stand that these workman are contractor‘s employees which is factually incorrect. The workmen

are engaged as helpers, peons, Technical Assistants, Chowkidars, Gardeners, Waterman, Drivers, Lab Assistants,

Sweepers, Plumber etc. by the Management of Regional Research Laboratory. According to the workman Union, the

termination of the services of the applicant workman No.1 Avdesh Kumar Sisodiya, who is also the President of the

Union, is against law because no notice or compensation was given to him. Further, the action of the Management in

not classifying and declaring the applicant workmen as their permanent employees is also against law. Accordingly, it

has been prayed that the reference be answered in favour of the applicant workmen Union.

In its written statement of defense, the case of the management is firstly, that the Management of Regional

Research Laboratory is not an ‗Industry‘ under Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, hence the reference is not maintainable

before this Tribunal. Secondly, the workmen were not employed by the Management of Regional Research

Laboratory, hence there is no question of termination of their services by the management and their reinstatement.

According to the Management, there is no relationship of workman and employer between the parties. Thirdly, that

the Union has no locus standi to raise the present dispute and Fourthly, the present dispute has been raised only with

a view to secure appointment through back door entry. According to the management, the applicant workmen are

contractor employees engaged through contractor and Management has no role to play in this respect. Accordingly

the Management has prayed that the reference be answered against the workman Union.

In case R/49/2014, the workman has additionally alleged that he was disengaged by the management from

01.03.2011 without any notice or compensation which is in violation of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Act and also in

violation of Section 33 (1)(A) inspite of the fact that he was also one of the claimants/applicants in the case R/39/2006

and was disengaged without any approval from the Tribunal, during the pendency of that case. Rest of the allegations

are the same as in R/39/2006.

These two cases have been consolidated and are being disposed by a common Judgment and Award.

The management has additionally admitted in R/49/2014 that the workman Shri Bhawani Deen is one of the

applicants in R/39/2006. Rest of the pleadings are the same as in R/39/2006.

The workman side has filed affidavit of 37 witness out of which only applicant workman witness Shri

Avdesh Kumar Sisodiya, President of the Union, Shri Ramesh Chandra Rajkumar,Shri Chandrakant Bhat, have been

cross-examined by management. Rest of the witness did not appear for the cross-examination. The workman Union

has further filed job card for workshop Exhibit W-1 four papers and also filed I.D. cards, some photographs.

The Management filed and proved documents, Exhibit M-1, letter of Director of the Management dated

31-10-2005 to Assistant Labour Commissioner seeking direction to contractor to obtain necessary license from

Management in Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. Exhibit M-2 is the certificate of Registration of

contractors Exhibit M-3 is annual Report of Management as Principal Employer sent to Registering Office as per

contract rules. Exhibit M-4 is Annexure of annual returns. Exhibit M-5 is work order dated 5-12-2006 to Contractor

M/s Bharat Security Services for housekeeping services in the laboratory. Exhibit M-6 to M-11 are job contracts for

providing man power for horticulture, cleaning, guest house and canteen services issued to M/s Shramik Kalyan

Samiti and M/s Bharat Security Services for the year 2005-2006. Exhibit M-12 is work agreement for cleaning with

M/s Bharat Security Services executed in the year 2006 for one year. Exhibit M-13 to M-16 are letters awarding

contract to M/s Bharat Security Services for housekeeping, security services, horticulture services, cleaning, guest

house and canteen services respectively. Exhibit M-18 is another letter by Director of the Management to the

Assistant Labour Commissioner seeking direction to the Contractors to get necessary licences ExhibitM-18 to M-20

and Exhibit M-21, M-22, M-23 to M-30 are different documents of M/s Bharat Security Services showing that they

deposited employees provident fund dues of their employees and raised bills in the year 2006-2007.

The Management has filed affidavit of its witness Shri S.K. Gupta, controller of Administration who never

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 24, 2026/माघ 4, 1947

25

appeared for cross-examination, hence his affidavit cannot be read in evidence in support of management The

Management has filed another Affidavit of its witness Shri Somnath Majumdar, Administrative Officer. He has been

cross-examined by workman side. The Management has further examined its another witness Shri Radheshyam

Namdeo Waghmare, Administrative Officer, Shri Hemant Kumar Malviya, Proprietor of M/s Bharat Security

Services. These witness have also been cross-examined by the Workman Union.

Following issues were framed on the basis of pleadings-

1. Whether the Management of Regional Research Laboratory is Industry as defines under Section

2-J of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947??

2. Whether the workman Union has locus standi to raise the present dispute?

3. Whether there exists a relationship of workman and employer between the applicant workman

and Management of Regional Research Laboratory?

4. Whether the action of Management in retiring the services of the applicant workman Mr. Avdesh

Kumar Sisodiya, the President of the Union is legal?

5. Whether the applicant workmen are entitled to be given status of permanent employee of the

Management of Regional Research Laboratory?

Issue No. 1, was answered against the management, holding the management industry as defined under

the Act.

Issue No. 2, was also in favour of the workmen.

Issue No. 3 and 4, were answered in favour of the workmen, holding their disengagement by the

management without any notice or compensation, bad in law.

Issue No. 5, the management was directed pay lump sum compensation of Rs. 2 Lac per workmen with

interest as mentioned in the judgment and award.

The management preferred a W.P. No. 19485/2023 and workmen side filed W.P. No. 12020/2023, before

Hon‘ble High Court of M.P. against the judgment and award which was decided by a Single Bench of Hon‘ble High

Court, vide order dated 22.08.2023, with following observations:-

“The reference was made as to whether a declaration can be made that employees are permanent

employees. It is the case of the parties that none of the employee except the President of Union was

removed and all the 94 employees were working. However, with passage of time, 10 expired and at present

only 64 are working. So far as other employees are concerned, it is the case of the parties that their

services have already been terminated which is not the subject matter of the present litigation. Thus, when

the services of 64 employees have not been terminated and they are still working, then the CGIT should

have considered as to whether those workmen are entitled for the status of permanent employee or not.

But the Tribunal has awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement, under a belief that they are also out

of job. Therefore, such a finding cannot sustain.

Under these circumstances, the findings recorded by CGIT on these issues are set aside. The matter is

remanded back to CGIT to decide as to whether the respondent/laboratory is the principal employer or

not, and accordingly shall also decide as to whether the workman are entitled for the status of permanent

employee or not.

Let entire exercise be completed within a period of 6 months from today.”

It is in compliance of this remand order, the matter again proceeded before this Tribunal. Workman filed

documents vide list dated 22.02.2024, which he proved as Ex-W/2 to Ex-W/12, he was cross-examined by

management. Management did not file any affidavit.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for the workman Mr. Swapnil Khare, and Learned Senior

Counsel Mr. Anoop Nair, assisted by Learned Counsel Mr. Neeraj Kewat for Management. Workman side has filed

written arguments, also which are part of record. I have gone through the record as well.

As it comes out from the perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court, finding of this

Tribunal on the issue No. 1 and 2 have been affirmed. Findings on issue No. 3, 4 and 5 have been setaside, this

Tribunal has been directed to decide as to whether the respondent/laboratory is Principal Employer or not and whether

the workmen are entitled to status of permanent employee or not, hence, in light of these directions, issue No. 3, 4 and

5 become redundant and following issues are framed for determination.

(A)

Whether the respondent/laboratory is Principal Employer or not?

(B)

Whether the services of the workmen Avdesh Kumar Sisodiya and Bhawani Deen Shuklware

26

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 24, 2026/MAGHA 4, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

were terminated by the management in violation of the Act?

(C)

Whether the workmen are entitled for permanent status or not?

Issue (A),

The case of the workmen Union is that since 1989 till 1992, the members of the Union have been working as

contract labour on daily wages with the management of R.R.L., thereafter, they were shown to be working as

employees of security agencies who were engaged to supply manpower for different jobs, after 2005. The

management witness has filed and proved different work agreements originating in the year 2006, which are Ex-M/7,

Ex-M/8, for guest house and canteen management, Ex-M/9 for providing manpower for housekeeping, Ex-M/10 for

security, Ex-M/11 for Horticulture, Ex-M/12 for cleaning, Ex-M/13 to M/17, filed and proved by management are

letters dated 26.09.2006 issued by them to the different outsourcing agencies informing that they have been awarded

contract. There is on record the registration certificate of the management as Principal Employer issued on 14.02.1996

which shows that the contract labour is to be employed in watch and ward of the properties of the Laboratory,

maintenance, sanitation deputing skilled labour and supply of unskilled labour total 69 + 47 = 116. Ex-M/1 is the

letter of the Labour Commissioner dated 31.10.2005 informing the management regarding the amendments in the

Principal Employer, registration certificate issued on 14.02.1996, number of employees have been changed now 25 in

security services, 15 each in Horticulture, cleanliness, guest house and canteen and 100 in housekeeping. The

management witness has further filed and proved documents with respect to payment to different contractors and also

the licenses issued by the concerned Licensing Authority to the management, registering them as Principal Employer,

which are Ex-M/1 to Ex-M/4, relating to the year 2006.

The word ‗Principal Employer‘ is defined in the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970

(the Act), Section 2(g) which is as follows:-

“principal employer means—

(i)

in relation to any office or department of the Government or a local authority, the head of

that office or department or such other officer as the Government or the local authority, as

the case may be, may specify in this behalf,

(ii)

in a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory and where a person has been named as

the manager of the factory under the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), the person so

named,

(iii)

in a Mine, the owner or agent of the mine and where a person has been named as the

manager of the mine, the person so named,

(iv)

in any other establishment, any person responsible for the supervision and control of the

establishment.”

The word ‗Workman‘ is also defined, under Section 2(i) of the ‗Act‟, which is as follows:-

―workman means,

any person employed in or in connection with the work of any establishment to do any skilled, semi-

skilled or un-skilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the

terms of employment be express or implied, but does not include any such person--

(A)

who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

(B)

who, being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding five hundred

rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or

by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature; or

(C)

who is an out-worker, that is to say, a person to whom any articles or materials are given

out by or on behalf of the principal employer to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered,

ornamented, finished, repaired, adapted or otherwise processed for sale for the purposes of

the trade or business of the principal employer and the process is to be carried out either

in the home of the out-worker or in some other premises, not being premises under the

control and management of the principal employer.”

It is established that the management has been issued license as Principal Employer under Contract Labour

(Regulation & Abolition )Act 1970, the outsourcing agreements of 2006 have been filed and proved, hence, the

management is held to be a Principal Employer as defined under Section 2(g) of the Contract Labour

(Regulation & Abolition ) Act1970.

Issue (A) stands answered accordingly.

Issue (B) & (C)-,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 24, 2026/माघ 4, 1947

27

Since, these two issues are interrelated, they are being taken together.

According to the allegations in the statement of claim, the workmen have been working since 1989 till 1992

and up to 2005 as contract employees on daily wages, engaged by the management directly and thereafter they have

been shown to be outsourcing employees sent by the outsourcing agencies for different works as mentioned, to work

on the sites of the management.

Further the case of the workmen side is that these outsourcing contracts are sham and bogus, a camouflage

adopted by management just to deprive the workmen of their legally admissible claims with respect to permanent

status and regularization. It has been submitted from the side of workmen Union that this action of management is

unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) of the Act r/w Fifth Schedule, which prohibits the management

to engage Badli or Contract Workers for years with the object to deprive them of the status and privileges of

permanent workman. This act is prohibited under Section 25-T of the Act and even is a crime as provided under

section 25-U of the Act. It has further been submitted that it will be in the interest of justice to undo the mischief

committed by management by way of adopting unfair labour practice under sham and bogus outsourcing contracts.

Section 2(ra), Fifth Schedule, Section 25-T and 25-U are being reproduced as under:-

―Section 2 (ra) which defines unfair labour practice is being reproduced as follows:-

“(ra)

“unfair labour practice” means any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule;”

Schedule 5 of the Act which enumerates unfair labour practice is

also being reproduced as follows:-

THE FIFTH SCHEDULE

See section 2(ra) UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES

I.—On the part of employers and trade unions of employers

1.

To interfere with, restrain from, or coerce, workmen in the exercise of their right to organise, form, join or

assist a trade union or to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other

mutual aid or protection, that is to say:—

(a)

threatening workmen with discharge or dismissal, if they join a trade union;

(b)

threatening a lock-out or closure, if a trade union is organised;

(c)

granting wage increase to workmen at crucial periods of trade union organisation, with a view to

undermining the efforts of the trade union organisation.

2.

To dominate, interfere with or contribute support, financial or otherwise, to any trade union, that is to say:—

(a)

an employer taking an active interest in organising a trade union of his workmen; and

(b)

an employer showing partiality or granting favour to one of several trade unions attempting to

organise his workmen or to its members, where such a trade union is not a recognised trade union.

3.

To establish employer sponsored trade unions of workmen.

4.

To encourage or discourage membership in any trade union by discriminating against any workman, that is

to say:—

(a)

discharging or punishing a workman, because he urged other workmen to join or organise a trade

union;

(b)

discharging or dismissing a workman for taking part in any strike (not being as trike which is

deemed to be an illegal strike under this Act);

(c)

changing seniority rating of workmen because of trade union activities;

(d)

refusing to promote workmen to higher posts on account of their trade union activities;

(e)

giving unmerited promotions to certain workmen with a view to creating discord amongst other

workmen, or to undermine the strength of their trade union;

(f)

discharging office-bearers or active members of the trade union on account of their trade union

activities.

5.

To discharge or dismiss workmen—

(a)

by way of victimisation;

28

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 24, 2026/MAGHA 4, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(b)

not in good faith, but in the colourable exercise of the employer's rights;

(c)

by falsely implicating a workman in a criminal case on false evidence or on concocted evidence;

(d)

for patently false reasons;

(e)

on untrue or trumped up allegation of absence without leave;

(f)

in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of domestic enquiry or with

undue haste;

(g)

for misconduct of a minor or technical character, without having any regard to the nature of the

particular misconduct or the past record or service of the workman, thereby leading to a

disproportionate punishment.

6.

To abolish the work of a regular nature being done by workmen, and to give such work to

contractors as a measure of breaking a strike.

7.

To transfer a workman mala fide from one place to another, under the guise of following

management policy.

8.

To insist upon individual workmen, who are on a legal strike to sign a good conduct bond, as a pre-

condition to allowing them to resume work.

9.

To show favouritism or partiality to one set of workers regardless of merit.

10.

To employ workmen as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years,

with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen.

11.

To discharge or discriminate against any workman for filing charges or testifying against an

employer in any enquiry or proceeding relating to any industrial dispute.

12.

To recruit workmen during a strike which is not an illegal strike.

13.

Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement.

14.

To indulge in acts of force or violence.

15.

To refuse to bargain collectively, in good faith with the recognised trade unions.

16.

Proposing or continuing a lock-out deemed to be illegal under this Act.”

Section 25 (T & U) of the Act reads as follows:-

5T. Prohibition of unfair labour practice.—No employer or workman or a trade union, whether registered

under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (18 of 1926), or not, shall commit any unfair labour practice.

25U. Penalty for committing unfair labour practices.—Any person who commits any unfair labour practice

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to

one thousand rupees or with both.

From perusal of Schedule and provisions mentioned above, Act of engaging contract labours, casual or

temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of status, privileges of

permanent workman is unfair labour practice adopted by management which have been prohibited under section 25-

T of the Act, section 25-U of the Act provides penal consequences for such an unfair labour practice too.

The Act may have civil penal consequences same is the case with unfair labour practice, the penal

consequences of unfair labour practice is provided in the Act but civil consequences are not provided. This fact does

not denude the Courts and Tribunals under the Act to undo the effects of such Act like unfair labour practice which is

prohibited by the Act.

It requires to be seen, whether the outsourcing contracts are sham and bogus and just with a view to

deprive workmen of their legally admissible claims. As stated above, the claim of the workmen is that before being

shown as outsourcing employees, they were working as employees of management on contract basis right since 1992

and thereafter till 2005, their this case gets support from the statement of witnesses examined by the workmen side,

the workman Shri Avdesh Kumar Sisodiya, who happens to be an office bearer of the Union states that he and other

94 workers mentioned in the list to the schedule of the reference have continuously been working since 1989 till

16.09.2004 with the management. He further states that there was no contractor engaged for outsourcing from 1989 to

2004. There is nothing in his cross-examination to discredit him on his this stand, same is with the other witness Shri

Ramesh Chandra Raikwar, who states that he has been working since last 10 years with the management, and his

affidavit was filed in 2009, which implies that he has been working since 1999 according to him. Similarly, witness,

Shri Chandrakant Bhatt, has stated that he has been working since 1997, he was issued an appointment letter also. The

workman Shri Bhawani Deen Shuklware who is in the list of the workman in the case R/39/2006, has stated on oath

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 24, 2026/माघ 4, 1947

29

in his statement in the case R/49/2014, that he has continuously been working since 02.10.1993 with the management

in its Engineering Department as Plumber/Helper. They raised a claim for their regularization which is pending as

R/39/2006. He was disengaged by the management on 01.03.2011. He has filed and proved photocopy of overtime

allowance, job card, gate card and another job card which have been issued in the year 1999, 2002-2003, they contain

his name. This establishes and corroborates his case that he was working even before 2006, when the management

awarded work contract to outsourcing agencies. Same is the case with workman Shir Avdesh Kumar Sisodiya as well

other workers.

The management has flatly denied engagement of Shri Avdesh Singh Sisodiya or any workmen by them at

any point of time, by them. The management witnesses have stated that these workmen have been working as

outsourcing employees, supplied by the outsourcing security agencies for different works as mentioned. The first

work contract filed and proved is effective from 2006 thus, it is established that before 2006, these workmen were

working as contract labourers engaged by the management directly and thereafter they worked as outsourcing

employees, supplied by the outsourcing agencies under work agreement executed between the management and

outsourcing agencies, since 2006 and thereafter.

This is also established that these workmen have been working at the sites of management and under control

and directions of the management officers, thus Ex-M/3 is the work agreement between the management and

contractor entered into on 01.10.2006, which is mentioned at Page 2, first paragraph that this contract is for providing

manpower for housekeeping at the Regional Research Laboratory. Ex-M/8 is also the work agreement dated

01.10.2006, shows that it was for providing guest house and canteen arrangement. Ex-M/10 executed on 01.10.2006,

is for security arrangement. Ex-M/11 also executed on 01.10.2006, is for Horticulture purpose. Ex-M/12 executed on

01.10.2006, is for cleaning purpose. Thus, from the statements of management witnesses as well the aforesaid

documents, coupled with registration certificates of Principal Employer, issued by Licensing Authority, as mentioned

above, establish that the contracts have been for supply of manpower for Horticulture, Security, Cleaning, Canteen,

etc.

Since, this fact is also established that these works existed even prior to the outsourcing agreements and were

done by these workmen before its services were outsourced to outsourcing agencies and also the fact that these

workers have been outsourced to the outsourcing agencies since 2006 and thereafter, it shows that these workers are

of permanent and perennial nature. Since, these works are of permanent and perennial nature, the management was

under obligation to employ regular employees for these works. By engaging contract workers/daily wagers for the

job, which are of permanent and perennial nature for years and changing the contract workers employed by

management to outsourced workers, the management is held to adopted unfair labour practice.

Since, the aforesaid outsourcing contracts have been executed with sole purpose of defeating the law or for

doing an act which is forbidden by law, they are ‗Void Agreements‟ as mentioned in Section 2(h), 2(j) & Section 23 of

The Indian Contract Act, 1872, which are being reproduced as under:-

“2(h)

An agreement enforceable by law is a contract;

2(j)

A contract which ceases to be enforceable by law becomes void when it ceases to be enforceable.

10. What agreements are contracts.—All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of

parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not

hereby expressly declared to be void. Nothing herein contained shall affect any law in force in India

and not hereby expressly repealed by which any contract is required to be made in writing or in the

presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the registration of documents.

23.

What considerations and objects are lawful, and what not.—The consideration or object of an

agreement is lawful, unless—

it is forbidden by law; or

is of such a nature that if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or

is fraudulent; or

involves or implies injury to the person or property of another; or

the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy.

In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful.

Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.

From the above description and discussion, following proposition of facts and law are established:-

i.

The work was of permanent and perennial nature.

ii.

The work was being taken by management directly till 2005 and thereafter through outsourcing

agencies.

iii.

The work agreements were, for purpose to defeat the legally admissible claims as mentioned in

Fifth Schedule to the Act.

30

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 24, 2026/MAGHA 4, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

iv.

The workers worked at the sites of the management under control and directions of the

management.

Hence, in light of these findings, the work contracts are declared sham and bogus, just a camouflage to

deprive the workmen of their legally admissible claims.

Now it is established that in the case in hand, the management has adopted unfair labour practice and

that the work agreements with outsourcing agreements are sham and bogus, just a camouflage to deprive the

workmen of their legally admissible claims, the question arises at to what will be its consequences?

Even if, it is assumed that the outsourcing agreements are not sham and bogus, the situation does not

change, still the management is guilty for adopting unfair labour practice by employing contract labours

firstly, directly and thereafter through outsourcing agencies for years and years right before 2000 till date, with

the sole purpose of depriving the workmen of their legally admissible claims.

Unfair labour practice is an offence in the Act, this is criminal consequence of the Act, and the civil

consequence of the Act is not mentioned in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Courts and Tribunals are not

without powers to undo the civil consequence of the Act, which is prohibited in law.

Learned Counsel for management has referred to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of Joint Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education v/s Raj Kumar Mishra & Ors. 2025 Live Law

(SC) 343, wherein it has been held that if there is no employer-employee relation between the parties, no

claim regarding permanency or regularization will be added in this bill.

Learned counsel as further referred to following paragraphs of the judgment referred Sudarshan

Rajpoot v/s U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (2015) II, SCC 317 which are being reproduced as

follows:-

11. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant workman that the High Court has

erred in placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi

(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , which was distinguished inasmuch as the said case is not

applicable to the case on hand for the reason that the appellant workman is a “workman” as defined under

Section 2(z) of the UPID Act and the respondent is the statutory corporation which is an undertaking of the

State Government and therefore, as it is an instrumentality of the State Government, it will come within the

definition of “industry” as defined under Section 2(k) of the UPID Act. Therefore, the said provisions of the

UPID Act are applicable to the appellant workman as he is a “workman” as defined under Section 2(z) of

the UPID Act and Section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947.

12. Further, it is contended that the High Court has failed to consider the “unfair labour practice”

as defined under Section 2(ra) of the ID Act, 1947 read with Sections 25-T and 25-U and Schedule V of the

ID Act. Item 10 of Schedule V of the ID Act prohibits the employer to employ workmen as badlis, casuals or

temporaries and to continue them as such for years in the Corporation, with the object of depriving them of

the status and privileges of permanent workmen is prohibited. It is further contended that the respondent

Corporation is liable for penal action under the provisions of Section 25-U of the ID Act. In support of the

above contention, reliance was placed on the three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Chief Conservator

of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare [Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare,

(1996) 2 SCC 293 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 500] .

13. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation

sought to justify the correctness of the finding and reasons recorded by the High Court in the impugned

judgment [U.P. SRTC v. Sudarshan Rajpoot, Writ-C No. 21553 of 2005, order dated 5-3-2008 (All)] .

Alternatively, it is contended that even if the order of termination is bad in law, the workman who is working

on the contract basis is not entitled for reinstatement with full back wages as per the view taken by this Court

in several decisions. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that the

impugned judgment [U.P. SRTC v. Sudarshan Rajpoot, Writ-C No. 21553 of 2005, order dated 5-3-2008

(All)] and order need not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

14. With reference to the abovesaid rival legal contentions the following substantial questions would

arise for our consideration:

14.1.

(i) Whether the High Court is justified in passing the impugned judgment [U.P.

SRTC v. Sudarshan Rajpoot, Writ-C No. 21553 of 2005, order dated 5-3-2008 (All)] , order

and reversing the award passed by the Labour Court?

14.2.

(ii) Whether the order of termination passed against the appellant workman amounts to

retrenchment as defined under Section 2(s) of the UPID Act, 1947?

14.3. (iii) Whether non-compliance with the statutory provisions under Sections 6-N and 6-Q of the

UPID Act which are analogous with Sections 25-F and 25-H, respectively, of the ID

Act, 1947 renders the order of termination void ab initio in law?

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 24, 2026/माघ 4, 1947

31

14.4. (iv) What relief is the appellant workman entitled to?

15. To answer the above substantial questions of law it is necessary for this Court to extract the

order of termination passed by the Assistant Regional Manager of the Corporation, which reads thus:

“OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REGIONAL MANAGER,

U.P. TRANSPORT CORPORATION, AZAD NAGAR DEPOT

Letter No. ARM/A. Ngr/Bus Accident 0582/2000/3591 dated 29-7-2000

OFFICE ORDER

On 7-6-1999 vehicle bearing No. 8582 which had met with an accident which was being driven on

7-6-1999 by Shri Sudarshan Rajpoot, contractual driver and conductor Shri Kamta Prasad on Deoria to

Kanpur route and accident occurred on the way at 1.30 a.m. in the night at Village Palhari, Barabanki near

Police Station Safdarganj and due to negligent driving of the driver, department suffered heavy loss.

Hence, in order to meet departmental loss, forfeiting security of driver Shri Sudarshan Rajpoot, I

pass the order to strike off his name from the contract roll with an immediate effect. His name be struck off

from contract roll.

sd/-

(Illegible)

(Sad Sayed)

Assistant Regional Manager,

Azad Nagar, Depot”

(emphasis supplied)

In the aforesaid order of termination it is specially mentioned that the appellant workman was

appointed as a driver on contractual basis. It has been further stated that the accident occurred on 7-6-1999

due to the negligent driving of the appellant workman resulting in heavy loss to the Department of the

respondent Corporation. In order to meet the departmental loss, security amount of driver was forfeited and

Assistant Regional Manager had struck off the name of the appellant workman from the contract employees

roll with immediate effect.

16. The respondent Corporation has neither produced documentary evidence nor showed before the

Labour Court that the appellant workman was appointed on contract basis. The fact that he deposited Rs

2000 towards security amount with the respondent Corporation indicates that he was working as a driver on

a permanent basis. In view of Schedule V, Item 10 of the ID Act, 1947 the respondent Corporation is

prohibited from engaging the appellant workman as a badli, casual or temporary workman to work on

permanent basis. The fact that he had been continuously working for more than 3 years and he had rendered

more than 240 days of service as the driver in a calendar year until his termination order and yet he is being

engaged on a contractual basis in the respondent Corporation is statutorily prohibited. The same amounts to

an unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) read with Section 25-T, which action of the

Corporation is punishable under Section 25-U of the ID Act. This legal position is settled by this Court

in Chief Conservator of Forests case [Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, (1996) 2

SCC 293 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 500] wherein it was held as under : (SCC pp. 302-03, para 22)

“22. … In our opinion, it would be permissible on facts of a particular case to draw the inference

mentioned in the second part of the item, if badlis, casuals or temporaries are continued as such for years.

We further state that the present was such a case inasmuch as from the materials on record we are satisfied

that the 25 workmen who went to the Industrial Court of Pune (and 15 to the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar)

had been kept as casuals for long years with the primary object of depriving them of the status of permanent

employees inasmuch as giving of this status would have required the employer to pay the workmen at a rate

higher than the one fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. We can think of no other possible object as, it may

be remembered, that the Pachgaon Parwati Scheme was intended to cater to the recreational and

educational aspirations also of the populace, which are not ephemeral objects, but par excellence

permanent. We would say the same about environment-pollution-care work of Ahmednagar, whose need is on

the increase because of increase in pollution. Permanency is thus writ large on the face of both the types of

work. If, even in such projects, persons are kept in jobs on casual basis for years the object manifests itself;

no scrutiny is required. We, therefore, answer the second question also against the appellants.”

25. This Court in the later judgment in Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India [Hari

Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 408] , after

adverting to the law laid down in U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh [(2007) 5 SCC 755 :

(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 258] and Maharashtra SRTC [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan