रजिस्ट्री सं . डी. एल. (एम ) 04/0007 /2003-05
REOD. NO. D. L. - ND04/0007/2003-05
सत्यमेव जयते
भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं० 23 ]
No. 23.]
नई दिल्ली, मई 30 जून 5, 2004, शनिवार ज्येष्ठ 9-ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926 NEW DELHI , MAY 30- JUNE 5, 2004, SATURDAY/ JYAISTHA JYAISTHA 15, 1926 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्क दी जाती है जिससे कि यह अलग 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 मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालयों को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)
मंत्रिमण्डल सचिवालय नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2004
CABINET SECRETARIAT New Delhi , the 21st May, 2004
S.O. 1219. 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 Jaminu and Kashmir, Home Department Notification No. Home/219-2003/ISA, dated 17-02-2004-hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Jammu and Kashmir for investigation of offence punishable under Section 302 /498- A/120-B of State Ranbir Penal Code , Samvat 1989 arising out of FIR No. 105/2003 , dated 18-07-2003 registered at Police Station Nawabad , Jammu regarding death of Ms. Romika Sharma and any other offence in relation to or in connection with the said offence committed in the course ofthe same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
का.आ. 1289.-केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 सपठितःधारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए जम्मूऔर कश्मीर राज्य सरकार के गृह विभाग की अधिसूचना सं. होम/219/2003/आईएसए, दिनांक 17-02-2004 द्वारा प्राप्त जम्मू और कश्मीर राज्य सरकार की सहमति से सुश्री रोमिका शर्मा की मृत्युके संबंध में पुलिस स्टेशन नवाबाद, जम्मू में दर्ज एफआईआर सं. 105/2003 दिनांक 18-7-2003 से उद्भूत राज्य रणवीर दंड संहिता , संवत्1989 की धारा 302/498 - ए/ 120- बी केअधीन दंडनीय अपराध और उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत उक्त अपराध से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त किसी अन्य अपराध के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण खम्मूऔर कश्मीर राज्य पर करती है । [सं. 228/18/2004- डीएसपीई] शुभाठाकुर, अवर सचिव
[No. 228 /18/2004-DSPE] SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.
1633 GI/2004
(2659) 2660
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई , 2004
का.आ. 1290.-केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए निम्नलिखित अपराधों को दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषित किए जाने वाले अपराधों के रूप में विनिर्दिष्ट करती है : -
(क) उत्तर प्रदेश गिरोह बन्द और समाज विरोधी कार्यकलाप (निवारण) अधिनियम, 1986 ( 1986 का उत्तर प्रदेश अधिनियम सं. 2 ) के अधीन दंडनीय अपराध ।
(ख) उपर्युक्त खंड ( क ) में उल्लिखित अपराधों से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षड्यंत्रों तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत कोई अन्य अपराध।
[सं . 228/105 /2003 -डीएसपीई ] शुभा ठाकुर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 27th May, 2004
S.O. 1290. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946 ) , the Central Government hereby specifies the following offences which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment namely :-
(a) Offences punishable under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti - Social Activities ( Prevention ) Act , 1986 (Uttar Pradesh Act No. 7 of 1986 ) .
(b) Attempts , abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the offences mentioned in clause (a ) above and any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .
[No. 228 / 105/2003 - DSPE ] SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.
वित्त मंत्रालय
(राजस्व विभाग )
केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड नई दिल्ली, 24 मई , 2004
(आयकर)
का.आ. 1291.- सामान्य जानकारी के लिए यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अधोलिखित संगठन को उसके नामके सामने उल्लिखित अवधि के लिए आयकर नियमावली , 1962 के नियम 6 के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ " संस्था " श्रेणी के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुमोदित किया गया है :
( i ) अधिसूचित संगठन अपने अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों के लिए अलग लेखा बहियों का रख - रखाव करेगी;
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] ( ii ) अधिसूचित संगठन प्रत्येक वित्तीय वर्ष के लिए अपनी वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान गतिविधियों की वार्षिक रिटर्न प्रत्येक 31 मई को अथवा उसे पहले सचिव , वैज्ञानिक और औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग, टेक्नालॉजी भवन, न्यू महरौली रोड, नई दिल्ली-110016 को प्रस्तुत करेगा;
( iii ) अधिसूचित संगठन केन्द्र सरकार की तरफ से नामोद्दिष्ट निर्धारण अधिकारी को आयकर की विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने के अतिरिक्त अपने लेखा परीक्षित वार्षिक लेखों की एक प्रति तथा अपने अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों, जिसके लिए आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत छूट प्रदान की गई थी, के संबंध में आय एवं व्यय खाते की लेखा परीक्षा की भी एक प्रति संगठन पर अधिकार क्षेत्र वाले ( क ) आयकर महानिदेशक ( छूट ) आयकर भवन , 9वां और 10वां तल, सैक्टर 3 , वैशाली, गाजियाबाद ( ख ) सचिव, वैज्ञानिक एवं औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग तथा ( ग) आयकर आयुक्त/आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) को प्रत्येक वर्ष 31 अक्तूबर को अथवा उससे पहले प्रस्तुत करेगी ।
क्रम सं. अनुमोदित संगठन का नाम
अवधिजिसके लिए अधिसूचना प्रभावी है
1-4-2001 से 1.
31-3-2004 मैसर्स दि इन्टीट्यूशन आफ इंजीनियर्स ( इंडिया) 8, गोखले रोड, कलकत्ता -700020
टिप्पणी ( i ) उपर्युक्त शर्त ( i ) " संघ " 'के रूप में श्रेणीबद्ध संगठन पर लागू नहीं होगी ।
(ii ) अधिसूचित संघ को सलाह दी जाती है कि वह अनुमोदन के नवीकरण के लिए तीन प्रतियों में और पहले ही अधिकार क्षेत्र वाले आयकर आयुक्त/आयकर निदेशक (छूट ) के माध्यम से केन्द्र सरकार को आवेदन करें । अनुमोदन के नवीकरण के लिए आवेदन पत्र की तीन प्रतियां सचिव, वैज्ञानिक और औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग को सीधे भेजी जाएंगी ।
[अधिसूचना सं. 151/2004 फा.सं. 203/16/2004- आयकर नि.- II ] संगीता गुप्ता , निदेशक ( आयकर नि.- II ) MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue)
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES New Delhi , the 24th May, 2004 (INCOME TAX)
S.O. 1291. It is hereby notified for general information that the organisation mentioned below has been approved by the Central Government for the period mentioned below, for the purpose of clause (ii ) of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income tax Act, 1961 , read with Rule 6 of the Income tax Rules , 1962 under [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
the category " Institution " subject to the following conditions :-
( i) The organization shall maintain separate books ofaccounts for its research activities;
(ii) The notified organization shall furnish the Annual Return of its scientific research activities to the Secretary, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, ' Technology Bhawan ' , New Mehrauli Road , New Delhi - 110016 for every financial year on or before 31stMay of each year ;
(iii ) The notified organization shall submit, on behalf of the Central Government, to ( a) the Director General of Income Tax (Exemption ) , Aayakar Bhawan, 9th & 10th Floor, Sector 3 , Vaishali , Ghaziabad (b) the Secretary, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, and (c) the Commissioner of Income tax/Director of Income tax (Exemptions) having jurisdiction over the organisation, on or before the 31st October each year , a copy of its audited Annual Accounts and also a copy of audited Income & Expenditure Account in respect of its research activities for which exemption was granted under Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of Income tax Act, 1961 in addition to the return of income tax to the designated assessing officer.
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/जयेष्ठ 15, 1926
2661 कथित अधिसूचना में, तालिका के नीचे क्रम सं. 1 तथा उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के लिए निम्नलिखित का प्रयोग किया जायेगा, अर्थात्:-
क्रम अधिकारी का नाम सं. और पदनाम' (1)
सार्वजनिक परिसरों की श्रेणियां और अधिकार- क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमाएं (2)
" 1. श्री बी.एम. सिंह उप- प्रबंधक (विधि) टाण्डा थर्मल स्टेशन , उत्तर प्रदेश
नैशनल थर्मल पावर कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड, टाण्डा थर्मल पावर स्टेशन, पो.ओ. विद्युतनगर, जिला, अम्बेडकर नगर, उत्तर प्रदेश के स्वामित्व वाली/ पट्टे वाली और किराये की सभी भूमियों, क्वार्टरों, एस्टेट संपत्तियां और अन्य आवास"
[एफ सं. 8/6/1992- थर्मल- I ] अरविन्द जाधव, संयुक्त सचिव पादटिप्पणी- मुख्य अधिसूचना सं. एसओ 2649 दिनांक 12 सितम्बर, 2001 भारत के राजपत्र दिनांक 6 अक्टूबर , 2001 के भाग II खण्ड 3 , उप - खंड ( ii ) में प्रकाशित हुई थी । MINISTRY OF POWER New Delhi , the 24th May, 2004
Notification is effective
S.No. Name of the organisation Period for which approved
1.
1-4-2001 to 31-3-2004
M/sThe Institution of Engineers ( India ) , 8 , Gokhale Road, Calcutta- 700020
Notes : ( i) Condition ( i ) above will not apply to the organization categorized as " Association".
(ii) The notified Association is advised to apply in triplicates as well in advance for further renewal of the approval , to the Central Government through the Commissioner of Income tax/Director of Income tax (Exemptions) having jurisdiction . Three copies of the application for renewal of approval should also be sent directly to the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research .
[Notification No. 151/2004/F . No. 203/ 16/2004- ІТА- ІІІ SANGEETA GUPTA, Director ( ITA- II)
विद्युत मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 24 मई, 2004
का.आ. 1292.- सार्वजनिक परिसर ( अनाधिकृत अधिभोक्ताओं की बेदखली ) अधिनियम 1971 (1971 का 40 ) के खण्ड-3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा विद्युत मंत्रालय में भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना संख्या एसओ 2649 दिनांक 12 सितम्बर, 2001 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है ;
S.O. 1292. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3. of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants ) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Power No. S.O. 2649 , dated the 12th September, 2001 , namely;
Inthe said notification, below the Table, for serial number 1 and the entries relating thereto , the following shall be substituted, namely :-
Categories of public premises and local limits ofjurisdiction Sl . No. Name and designation ofofficer
(I) (2)
" 1. Shri B.M. Singh , Deputy Manager (Law) , Tanda Thermal Power Station, Uttar Pradesh
All lands , quarters , estate pro- perties and other accommoda- tions owned/leased and rented by National Thermal Power Corporation Limited , Tanda Thermal Power Station , P.O. Vidyut Nagar , district Ambedkar Nagar , Uttar Pradesh ."
[F. No. 8 /6/ 1992-Th. -I ] ARVIND JADHAV, Jt. Secy.
Foot Notes: Principal notification number S.O. 2649 dated the 12th September , 2001 was published in the Gazette of India , Part II , Section 3 , Sub - section ( ii ) dated the 6th October, 2001.
2662
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
[ PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] पैट्रोलियम ओर प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 31 मई, 2004
का.आ. 1293.- केन्द्रीय सरकार , को लोक हित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है की उड़िसा राज्य मे पारादीप से पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में हल्दिया तक कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए .
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है की ऐसी भूमि जिसके भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है ओर जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , मे उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए .
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम ओर खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि मे उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त. शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है .
कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा ३ की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियॉ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के अन्दर पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबध में श्री अशोक कुमार दास , सक्षम प्राधिकारी पारादीप हल्दिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमीटेड , इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड मार्केटिंग डिविजन हाउसिंग कम्पलेक्स , मेघदम्बारा , डाकघर कुरुदा , बालासोर 756056 , ( उड़िसा ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926.
2663
अनुसूची
भद्रक
जिला :
राज्य : उड़िसा
क्षेत्रफल
तहसील का नाम गाँव का नाम खसरा संख्या
हेक्टेयर
वर्ग मीटर
एयर
1
2
3
4
5
6
J
चान्दबाली
0
कूली
18
31
581
0
652
04
36
0
81
00
10
82
0
00
78
83
0
08
10
गोलाडिहा
217
0
06
94
225
0
00
76
224
0
00
67
218
0
00
62
219
0
00
98
220
0
00
15
320
0
03
36
309
0
00
49
308
0
02
72
307
0
01
25
305
0
04
08
304
0
00
25
306
0
00
61
302
0
01
79
300
0
01
50
301
0
00
10
298
0
01
78
0
297
04
09
265
0
00
38
296
0
00
10
294
0
05
3
76
293
0
03
59
269
0
01
40
292
0
00
80
272
0
02
28
273
0
04
21 2664
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
4
3
2
1
0
270
0
274
0
276
0
588
0
587
0
584
0
586
0
585
0
583
0
608
0
579
0
609
0
577
0
573
0
576
0
574
0
575
0
561
0
628
0
560
0
629
0
559
0
558
0
557
0
556
0
495
0
555
0
496
0
497
0
498
0
552
0
549
0
548
0
546
0
547
0
543
0
537
0
538
0
541
[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ] 5
6
12
00
00
69
01
89
02
02
83
03
01
20
10
00
02
54
:
00
10
10
48
00
10
00
10
06
96
66
01
00
45
02
08
25
03
02
35
05
44
00
33
00
84
84
00
73
00
74
00
02
54
12
98
01
25
09
03
03
94
03
25
00
76
00
82
43
02
10
00
60
05
06
93
08
10
03
80
00
28 2665
भारत का राजपत्र : जूम 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
1
0
542
0
539
0
540
0
27
0
945
बालीगण
0
946
0
947
0
948
0
949
0
3548
0
5486
0
3521
0
3520
0
3519
0
3522
0
3492
0
3523
0
3491
0
3485
0
3486:
0
3490
0
5505
0
3494
0
3467
0
3464
0
3466
0
3465
0
3434
0
3433
0
3428
0
3427
0
3426
3416
0
0
3415
0
3414
0
5050
0
3417
0
3418
0
3377 5
6
00
15
96
00
01
19
06
05
00
95
94
03
86
03
01
72
36
05
10
00
02
97
57
05
01
73
90
03
28
02
10
00
17
06
49
06
00
10
10
00
47
00
32
02
89
02
19
02.
04
61
22
01
14
02
92
03
52
00
02
05
17
05
44
04
97
01
05
01
10
00
40
12
48
01
16
00
82
02 2666
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
3376
0
3382
0
3385
0
3383
0
3384
0
3364
0
3365
0
3764
0
3771.
0
3772
0
3773
0
3770
0
5526
0
3767
0
3776
0
5501
0
3777
0
3824
0
3825
0
3823
0
3826
0
3833
0
3832
0
3831
0
3852
0
3850
0
3849
0
3848
0
3975
0
3974
0
3973
0
3971
0
3972
0
3977
0
3978
0
5286
0
3219
0
3218
0
3217
0
[PART II-SBC . 3(ii)] 5
6
01
97
03
93
01
96
01
81
00
90
12
37
00
10
00
77
03
25
:
02
35
05
44
00
33
00
84
01
30
00
63
02
83
00
58
01
42
02
23
03
08
00
10
03
77
02
99
02
14
02
68
02
07
02
28
12
94
04
98
02
37
02
47
00
17
00
56
02
03
01
68
02
00
01
83
03
11
04
03 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2667
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
5
6
5037
0
00
10
3211
0
01
71
3212
0
01
51
3216
0
01
36
3215
0
01
48
5334
0
01
57
3214
0
01
81
5300
0
01
33
3081
0
01
66
0
3080
00
83
3082
0
02
10
0
3079
00
89
3089
0
00
18
3078
0
07
15
3090
0
00
10
3074
0
66
03
5135.
0
03
15
3091
0
00
10
0
00
13
3095
3097
0
02
17
3096
0
01
30
5404
0
01
43
5122
0
00
13
2451
0
00
10
2890
0
03
83
2891
0
02
68
2889
0
03
67
2894
0
00
54
0
2895
00
67
2888
0
09
29
5026
0
01
15
2901
0
01
20
0
2887
02
37
2886
0
03
47
5085
0
02
78
2470
0
03.
96
2475
0
00
99
2474
03
0
23
2476
0
08
07
1633 GI/04-2 2668
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
1
2
3
4
2477
0
0
2479
2482
0
0
2487
0
5009
0
2486
2483
0
5010
0
0
2485
2484
0
2352
0
0
2348
2237
0
0
2347
2346
0
0
2345
2344
0
2343
0
0
2340
5250
0
0
2338
2337
0
0
2334
2335
0
2336
0
2331
0
5241
0
2333
0
0
2249
0
2260
0
2259
2261
0
0
बड़ाओस्तीया
1101
0
1102
0
1100
0
1103
0
1104
0
1105
0
1056
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
00
10
06
88
88
03
03
20
00
11
03
17
00
16
00
10
37
04
03
65
01
56
00
51
00
30
00
89
07
28
00
10
04
20
03
41
03
36
02
09
01
08
01
08
00
46
02
42
00
10
03
26
95
03
31
12
08
14
26
03
02
24
00
26
06
23
00
10
00
91
29
06
74
04
03
88
01
48 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
2669
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
4
1
2
3
0
1053
0
1052
0
1051
0
1054
0
1050
0
1047
0
1048
0
970 4
0
967
0
969
0
968
0
966
0
965
0 .
964
0
963
0
917
0
919
0
921
0
922
0
925
0
924
0
927
0
909
0
928
0
908
0
902
0
904
0
905
0
906
0
886
695
0
694
0
696
0
731
0
711
0
0
712
713
0
725
0
724 5
6
01
26
01
74
49
12
04
56
00
10
01
03
00
11
31
09
04
63
17
01
00
88
03
45
01
06
01
11
03
40
02
75
02
93
03
52
03
70
04
33
00
10
86
08
00
10
00
23
03
90
02
68
01
19
03
18
01
07
01
83
08
07
01
27
10
96
04
35
10
00
02
01
02
00
00
10
00
10 2670
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
2
1
3
4
722
0
721
0
714
0
715
0
603
0
0
602
0
599
264
0
0
269
274
0
275
0
283
0
286
0
285
0
284
0
288
0
287
0
0
1459
289
0
290
0
0
295
1460
0
1461
0
296
0
294
0
293
0
306
0
305
0
307
0
0
308
309
0
310
0
311
0
312
0
314
0
0
318
320
0
0
321
0
322
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 5
6
00
88
00
92
05
10
05
04
14
14
10
00
10
00
11
51
:
06
26.
00
10
14
46
00
11
00
51
03
08
01
57
01
81
00
10
00
93
00
36
00
10
01
72
02
23
02
60
00
28
04
78
00
14
00
14
04
35
90
03
02
05
03
38
01
20
00
63
00
63
05
26
06
13
00
84
10
11
00
96 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
1
2
3
4
332
0
333
0
972
0
पणसपाड़ा
971
0
945
0
969
0 0
946
0
947
0
948
0
950
0
955
0
968
0
967
0
966
0
965
0
956
0
919
0
920
918
915
0
914
0
512
0
513
0
516
0
517
0
912
0
518
0
520
0
911
0
910
0
1005
0
909
0
908
0
536
0
529
0
535
0
0
537
538
0
539
0
2671 5
6
00
14
11
54
04
53
03
23
00
20
06
27
00
10
03
22
00
72
00
10
00
10
00
26
01
49
02
55
02
77
04
07
01
31
00
27
02
26
05
14
03
71
01
00
04
92
00
32
01
22
01
57
01
01
00
37
02
79
05
34
05
69
00
76
00
10
01
21
45
01
02
56
00
87
01
38
01
98 2672
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
4
2
3
1
0
557
0
559
0
558
0
543
0
555
0
556
0
564
0
565
0
566
0
983
0
567
0
568
0
574
0
640
0
639
0
638
0
636
0
637
0
627
0
628
0
629
0
626
0
625
0
619
0
618
0
621
0
620
0
615
0
616
0
617
0
984
0
610
0
609
0
612
0
611
0
661
0
भाटपाड़ा
1722
0
1723
0
1721
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
6
5
03
35
01
97
40
00
00
10
07
46
00
25
02
54
00
83
34
01
00
10
67
02
00
61
00
52
85
00
00
83
45
03
47
00
23
00
34
02
02
22
00
10
14
05
01
01
35
04
37
00
00
83
51
01
00
11
01
59
34
00
11
00
93
01
16
00
00
18
86
00
01
98
48
03
78
02
22
05 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
1
2
3
4
0
1726
0.
4412
0
1730
0
1731
0
1745
0
1743
0
1737
0
1738
0
1740
0
1741
0
1779
0
4352
0
1778
0
1796
0
1797
0
1793
0
1791
0
1790
0
1810
0
1811
0
1867
0
1865
0
1866
0
1870
0
1952
0
1947
0
1948
0
1949
0
1950
0
1943
0
1941
0
1940
0
1939
0
2400
0
4441
0
2390
0
2327
0
2389
0
4579
2673 5
6
03
50
00
85
07
83
08
97.
04
66
02
82
00
10
02
69
02
57
03
74
01
56
06
38
06
05
05
01
01
71
12
56
01
37
00
10
07
79
03
37
13
24
02
04
10
09
03
78
05
62
03
62
06
04
04
38
00
10
12
61
04
87
01
02
01
36
12
29
05
63
02
53
00
17
11
91
00
43 2674
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
0
2391
0
2393
2399
0
2397
0
2398
0
2396
0
2404
0
2472
0
2405
0
4508
0
2449
0
2450
0
2447
0
2437
0
2446
0
2445
0
4411
0
2590
0
2632
0
4582
0
4351
0
2630
2631
0
0
2629
2628
0
0
4350
2627
0
0
2635
0
2636
2637
0
2721
0
2719
0
2720
0
2723
0
0
2724
2718
0
2725
0
2715
0
2713
0
[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
05
50
01
49
00
17
07
73
00
40
06
78
02
34
07
89
03
37
00
10
14
08
01
91
09
41
04
04
02
88
02
17
03
13
01
86
01
23
06
02
03
58
00
90
34
06
03
75
06
29
00
10
06
05
18
05
02
86
04
10
06
01
04
70
04
19
00
10
03
62
05
00
00
40
13
09
06
03 2675 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
4
5
2
3
6
13
02
0
2714
0
07.
2712
25
06
0
2709
00
0
05
14
2706
2705
0
03
84
01
28
0
2750
12
29
0
2694
79
621
0
06
0
622
00
19
07
620
0
01
0
631
03
19
0
17
634
09
0
10
619
00
0
01
641
01
640
0
05
13
01
0
77
642
0
643
08
08
11
646
0
52
0
03
57
658
05
657
0
26
0
00
650
42
0
14
38
656
0
01
92
4306
0
33
655
04
560
0
02
15
06
0
84
4303
336
0
12
87
0
07
47
4252
0
02
63
341
92
14
340
0
0
00
56
337
0
08
339
18
0
338
42
04
0
31
4285
05
0
02
61
4282
06
91
0
25
जयकृष्णपुर
0
02
86
26
0
00
67 न्वगरडा
39
1633G1/04-3 2676
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
1
2
3
4
0
41
0
40
34
0
42
0
0
43.
44
0
46
0
55
0
54
0
57
0
56
0
76
0
11
0
10
0
9
0
8
0
6
0
7
0
41
0
चसाखण्ड
0
55
54
0
50
0
51
0
52
0
49
0
43
0
42
0
44
0
17
0
0
18
15
0
12
0
मोत्तो
466
0
467
0
471
0
470
0
469
0
484
0
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] 5
6
04
65
02
23
01
67
05
78
01
61
07
51
04
22
17
70
04
95
04
48
00
14
07
60
04
66
29
04
00
32
07
15
00
75
12
90
05
32
25
43
00
20
02
31
05
93
00
10
09
39
15
53
01
94
05
17
10
84
00
10
07
63
07
05
00
57
01
68
01
89
10
17
00
10
30
03 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
4
3
1
2
485
0
486
0
0
561
0
496
487
0
495
0 A
0
454
504
0
0
547
0
505
0
511
546
0
0
512
519
0
514
0
0
516
518
0
517
0
0
428
0
421
0
423
0
424
0
158
0
1.56
0
185
186
0
0
187
0
150
0
189
146
0
0
145
0
144
142
0
138
0
0
216
0
137
0
217
0
136
337
0
प्रतापपूर
2677 5
6
04
85
01
06
01
41
00
24
12
52
05
11
05
18
10
88
01
08
10
24
14
85
00
10
05
05.
00
.78
01
26
15
64
02
56
03
15
02
37
08
19
22
10
46
11
:
51
16
00
10
11
67
12
64
03
86
11
45
11
99
00
55
15
10
06
34
06
18
16
47
11
71
03
26
06
63
06
38
00
55 2678
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
0
338
340
0
341
0
0
344
342
0
343
0
365
0
366
0
367
0
369
0
368
0
370
0
1438
0
373
0
375
0
379
0
380
0
392
0
382
0
1431
0
393
0
394
0
0
405
396
0
401
0
400
0
0
399
439
0
440
0
441
0
437
0
442
0
434
0
432
0
431
0
430
0
0
445
0
446
311
0
नालगुण्डा
[PART II SEC . 3( ii ) ] 5
6
09
08
05
02
03
38
11
92
03
68
09
97
01
37
10
30
05
42
11
98
00
10
06
00
04
29
00
55
00
35
05
66
00
42
06
97
00
10
02
67
04
95
00
17
00
18
04
71
00
57
03
12
04
19
06
47
02
02
04
15
00
10
30
08
03
35
00
10
13
02
04
96
03
36
01
32
16
11 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2679
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
2
1
3
4
0
289
0
290
0
291
303
0
304
0
302
0 A
0
301
300
0
321
0
324
0
325
0
104
0
96
0
95
0
0
1736
0
88
93
0
89
0
90
0
77
0
85
0
84
0
78
0
82
0
0
79
80
0
81
0
0
73
65
0
64
0
56
0
61
0
57
0
60
0
0
59
58
0
51
0
423
0
0
49 5
6
56
05
21
02
01
88
20
04
36
02
01
19
09
28
00
60
03
87
00
85
27
06
09
84
04
60
04
69
00
11
06
08
00
10
00
66
07
08
02
52
00
77
06
78
02
12
00
10
07
03
86
06
01
44
08
29
02
68
03
63
07
68
05
41
01
64
02
31
07
64
06
13
17
10
00
10
11
02 2680
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
1
2
4
3
424
0
0
48
46
0
47
0
45
0
1
0
637
0
कावपूनी
0
351
352
0
357
0
356
0
0
355
354
0
374
0
592
0
0
591
590
0
589
0
587
0
588
0
0
390
0
389
394
0
0
404
0
403
402
0
400
0
401
0
0
399
156
0
0
412
413
0
155
0
416
0
0
151
0
150
0
152
0
149
153
0
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii )] 5
6
76
01
00
10
07
00
00
10
03
25
06
01
06
28
07
29
07
27
01
97
16
49
02
59
08
47
07
73
04
87
05
83
05
91
04
88
02
46
07
76
00
10
05
08
00
37
00
12
06
73
05
14
00
79
08
15
12
45
05
69
00
10
05
74
06
29
00
97
00
23
35
00
02
61
00
95
02
03 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4
3
2
1
0
148
0
154
0
147
0
146
0
145
0
140
0
143
0
142
0
89
नूवागन
0
87
0
90
0
91
92
0
0
97
0
106
0
103
0
104
0
102
0
101
0
99
0
100
0
145
0
157
0
156
0
159
0
155
0
160
0
154
0
153
0
152
0
151
0
167
0
168
0
174
0
175
0
179
0
180
0
173
0
181
2681:
6
5
87
02
04
07
02
69
96
04
75
01
01
75
29
01
04
26
12
08
29
00
01
73
63
05
80
04
06
03
01
38
37
17
93
05
25
02
10
63
10
00
60
00
10
57
18
02
83
09
01
53
15
04
70
03
10
00
64
06
06
72
53
03
92
06
78
01
53
01
45
04
57
00
12
05
23
00
16
03 2682
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
1
2
3
4
182
0
183
0
202
0
203
0
खेरंग
509
0
510
0
511
0
526
0
524
0
525
0
527
0
523
0
522
0
533
0
521
0
534
0
551
0
553
0
548
0
433
0
430
0
431
0
423
0
422
0
349
0
348
0
350
0
343
0
344
0
335
0
336
0
324
0
337
0
323
0
322
0
295
0
320
0
296
0
297
0
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] 5
6
00
67
01
44
19
30
03
44
04
66
13
37
03
27
08
10
00
60
01
28
11
81
06
34
11
71.
00
49
01
35
06
11
12
26
14
63
01
84
01
36
01
51
09
70
02
37
10
59
06
73
05
35
06
68
14
69
00
10
02
28
03
32
11
34
00
22
03
63
07
42
06
32
06
32
02
94
03
55 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
2683
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
4
3
2
1
0
299
0
313
310
0
0
311
0
312
0
309
314
0
275
272
0
0
271
0
269
0
252
0
139
0
77
76
0
0
81
0
83
0
82
0
84
0
85
0
19 .
0
18
16
0
22
0
0
20
21
0
0
30
0
33
0
1
0
495
बहारपाल
तिहीड़ी
0
493
0
492
0
491
0
488
0
480
0
485
0
481
0
482
0
479 1633 GI/04-4
6
5
75
09
03
88
10
00
56
08
00
80
89
02
01
05
39
04
06
15
24
01
01
44
08
01
18
02
02
55
00
10
85
00
85
00
12
69
15
01
25
01
37
02
04
92
67
00
00
97
14
02
02
73
02
59
83
10
17.
06
72
10
10
00
57
05
37
09
06
02
91
10
34
00
00
10
05
02
31
05 2684
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
4
2
3
1
0
483
0
452
0
450
0
449
0
138
0
139
0
134
0
141
142
0
0
1628
144
0
0
131
0
130
0
129
0
80
0
81
82
0
0
78
75
0
0
77
0
72
0
71
0
70
0
52
0
54
0
45
0
53
0
37
0
36
0
35
0
34
28
0
0
29
0
323
लक्ष्मीप्रसाद
0
335
0
324
0
320
0
325
0
326 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]
6
5
37
00
03
09
04
08
28
09
10
00
11
15
00
24
81
16
17
00
73
01
46
10
10
00
12
86
05
09
03
61
06
07
10
00
36
05
27
24
25
03
84
04
04
81
45
10
10
00
88
08
57
00
00
10
44
11
44
00
02
04
88
09
96
03
67
10
03
99
10
00
60
00
31
08
72
02
31
00 2685
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
3
4
2
1
0
260
0
319
0
263
0
262
0
297
0
296
264
0
0
270
0
271
0
275
0
272
0
276
0
277
0
274
0
280
0
278
0
167
0
166
0
165
0
163
0
164
0
संतरापूर
1749
0
1355
0
1358
1356
0
1357
0
1345
0
1361
0
1340
0
1339
0
1332
0
1333
0
1334
0
1330
0
1328
0
1768
0
1203
0
1202
0
6
5
55
00
00
83
36
04
00
34
27
00
71
03
35
00
11
00
00
91
02
13
00
10
01
87
18
04
03
85
00
17
67
03
68
01
94
01
14
05
00
10
60
04
10
00
67
07
00
10
07
76
29
10
03
51
00
10
14
48
25
03
00
10
06
56
10
26
00
03
49
13
07
49
43
09
72
01 2686
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
2
3
4
1
5
6
1163
03
0
79
1765
0
00
22
1159
0
23
03
1162
0
09
60
1165
0
00
60
1161
0
36
05
1166
0
21
06
1149
0
07
08
1148
0
00
21
1170
0
05
45
1171
01
90
0
1172
0
01
23
1179
0
11
91
1146
0
82
05
1082
33
09
0
1083
0
12
20
0
10
00
855
हरीसिंहपूर
0
12
854
15
0
23
856
29
0
878
07
11
876
0
10
0
06
875
98
874
03
0
47
873
02
65
0
0
00
61
872
870
0
09
59
0
05
900
18
0
13
99
901
902
0
09
06
0
02
903
89
917
0
00
18
04
904
0
26
0
02
74
905
906
0
02
61
909
0
00
52
908
0
04
40
0
03
907
09
0
01
831
78
0
832
00
89 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
4 1
2
3
0
833
0
839
0
185
भानूपुर
186
0
0
188
0
187
190
0
0
194
0
193
0
192
0
196
0
197
0
198
0
128
0
127
0
126
125
0
0
124
123
0
0
36 ♡
0
35
0
398
कान्हूपुर
0
399
400
0
0
401
0
403
404
0
0
405
0
406
0
408
0
415
0
412
0
414
0
413
366
0
0
369
370
0
0
365
2687
6
5
97
00
05
56
31
05
78
01
00
86
02
21
00
36
00
10
07
00
00
42
24
03
16
01
00
97
00
96
00
87
00
93
00
68
01
13
32
74
10
80
00
35
11
00
00
10
06
68
06
69
70
05
20
04
00
82
00
56
02
20
05
64
03
80
02
82
01
57
46
12
10
00
01
77
17
04 2688
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
4
3
2
1
0
371
0
358
0
357
0
356
0
351
0
339
0
335
0
334
326
0
0
327
0
328
0
308
0
307
306
0
34
0
33
0
0
74
0
31
0
3
13
0
0
14
0
15
0
12
0
115
सन्डंकपुर
0
123
0
99
0
47
0
48
49
0
0
52
51
0
0
50
0
31
0
30
0
33
0
28
0
59
मोमानीपुर
0
616
ताराचन्दबिन्धा
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
52
03
05
85
00
76
06
40
16
25
73
00
14
03
24
05
00
10
05
68
10
01
05
45
16
15
01
04
00
66
23
35
49
01
00
73
06
10
12
09
45
02
05
74
02
33
12
72
55
00
12
64
10
57
44
02
05
02
06
17
20
05
00
10
05
35
10
00
13
13
01
81
59
02
00
27 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
4
3 1
2
0
590
584
0
0
581
0
551
0
552
0
555
0
554
0
557
573
0
0
572
0
571
0
570-
0
1314
बबनबिन्धा
0
2406
1310
0
0
1311
0
1309
1306
0
1307
0
0
1302
0
1291
0
1288
0
1287
0
1301
0
1285
0
1286
0
1272
1273
0
1265
0
0
1263
0
1262
0
1261
0
1053
0
1054
0
1062
1061
0
0
1058
1057
0
1047
0
2689 5
6
22
41
00
44
03
01
00
52
10
57
12
54
19
66
00
86
00
10
02
17
60
06
02
33
10
00
07
25
01
54
01
08
07
14
07
22
01
08
10
87
02
62
00
65
06
95
13
00
11
11
02
74
16
04
04
85
05
64
78
07
02
55
04
33
00
59
01
37
03
76
57
06
41
02
74
00
04
28 2690
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
1043
0
1045
0
1044
0
1034
0
1033
0
1032
0
1030
0
1005
0
1006
0
1007
0
1009
0
1008
0
970
0
942
0
944
0
943
0
917
0
0
916
902
0
903
0
904
0
905
0
907
0
906
0
162
0
हाबुडासिंह
159
0
160
0
156
0
155
0
158
0
124
126
0
127
0
129
0
91
0
143
0
165
0
134
0
135
0
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
02
33
01
55
02
16
00
10
03
53
02
74
17
69
10
00
07
24
03
88
00
93
01
42
00
10
14
66
00
10
02
87
09
96
00
94
16
76
02
25
01
17
01
72
11
26
05
47
08
44
01
70
04
08
06
07
00
88
00
92
01
66
05
97
13
30
00
85
00
61
06
58
02
78
09
87
01
83 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जूम 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
4
2
3
142
0
0
136
0
141
0
138
0
139
0
39
38
0
0
1183
साहपुर
0
1182
0
1165
0
1164
0
295
0
300
0
299
0
298
0
256
304
0
0
305
0
255
0
251
0
253
252
0
0
250
0
151
0
154
0
155
0
156
0
127
0
112
111
0
0
113
0
88
0
89
0
91
0
93
0
94
95
0
0
97 1633 GI/04-5
2691 5
6
00
89
01
14
01
58
00
61
01
23
01
28
04
02
10
29
23
00
12
27
10
92
44
04
04
54
14
13
70
06
00
10
00
10
09
48
08
73
00
45
05
96
57
06
03
46
00
13
10
50
33
00
13
75
56
07
10
51
01
71
84
05
10
21
02
96
10
15
03
52
17
02
94
02
00
50 2692
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii)] 1
2
3
4
5
6
11
11
1326
0
कबीरपुर
0
01
66
1327
0
1240
00
19
0
05
21
1238
0
03
93
1239
1265
0
20
00
01
1241
0
12
0
10
1242
16
0
05
1264
07
0
00
1245
10
0
02
1247
84
04
0
98
1248
0
56
124
05
71
1225
0
05
0
13
43
1222
0
1210
05
98
0
11
1483
03
01
1208
0
03
0
07
30
1207
1195
0
62
03
0
00
10
1196
0
23
1194
02
0
00
50
1193
82
1116
0
07
0
01
97
1431
0
08
03
1115
0
06
1114
79
07
515
0
71
जाफाबाद
90
0
03
514
0
04
61
512
513
06
93
0
63
0
03
1142
1143
0
02
66
0
02
23
511
00
0
509
34
13
10
0
1144
0
55
00
526
0
01
35
508 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
0
506
0
504
0
494
0
557
0
559
0
485
0
483
0
1139
0
477
0
478
0
479
0
475
0
450
0
327
0
448
0
330
0
443
0
442
0
336
0
337
0
441
0
338
0
440
0
1120
0
354
0
1184
0
356
0
1183
0
355
0
1182
0
421
0
397
419
0
0
400
0
407
0
408
0
282
नव्हुनीपाल
0
142
0
266
2693
6
5
1 09
27
44
21
58
00
04
56
07
56
4
01
99
00
10
73
01
04
98
85
06
00
69
14
10
13
04
01
92
72
01
14
10
03
79
11
05
00
48
02
82
00
60
47
05
70
09
39
02
02
03
00
10
92
00
74
01
10
09
77
03
01-
83
00
71
18
02
91
01
14
01
15
04
16
02
08
23
23
04 2694
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
2
3
4
0
265
155
0
0
161
162
0
0
160
0
159
0
163
0
158
0
165
164
0
0
187
35
0
22
0
0
13
12
0
23
0
24
0
0
25
10
0
0
'289
1506
0
बहाबलपुर
1505
0
0
1494
1493
0
1237
0
0
1241
1982
0
1242
0
0
1231
1248
0
1250
0
1252
0
1249
0
1457
0
1248
0
0
1251
1961
0
1260
0
0
1451
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 5
6
00
10
16
89
06
61
00
37
02
56
09
91
01
11
00
10
00
10
05
43
00
10
18
96
01
08
02
11
01
87
00
75
02
58
03
97
03
49
09
52
03
94
02
90
04
54
04
02
02
85
06
25
01
12
13
00
15
32
00
10
02
43
00
71
09
52
00
15
00
10
07
77
06
80
10
64
00
10 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
2
1
3
4
0
1259
0
1448
1276
0
0
1275
1273
0
1279
0
1280
0
1281
0
0
1283
0
1284
1285
0
0
1107
1105
0
1108
0
1106
0
1104
0
1101
0
0
1102
461
0
कोरबाटीयाबड़ा
बासुदेबपूर
462
0 G
466
0
463
0
0
465
467
0
456
0
468
0
455
0
451
0
412
0
418
0
417
0
416
0
271
0
244
0
247
0
0
246
245
0
0
249
0
243
2695 5
6
05
63
03
63
01
19
00
18
09
36
00
82
01
82
01
95
10
59
96
00
02
60
01
50
02
88
00
10
02
28
06
18
13
77
05
50
03
94
00
45
03
42
00
57
02
05
06
02
01
14
00
41
06
49
13
12
00
95
02
14
09
08
06
21
07
48
07
27
01
01
00
10
10
00
00
52
09
54 2696
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
4
3
2
1
0
250
0
253
0
255
0
257
0
269
0
268
0
267
0
33
0
28
0
30
0
27
0
41
0
46
0
15
0
14
0
13
0
10
5
0
116
0
मबादिला
115
0
0
113
0
117
0
112
0
118
0
121
122
0
0
123
0
124
0
128
0
254
0
255
0
253
0
252
0
150
0
149
0
151
0
146
0
156
0
157
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 5
6
79
03
02
15
13
03
87
16
00
10
10
00
20
01
20
09
16
56
43
08
33
01
00
51
00
10
10
00
12
16
11
55
62
06
23
04
10
06
17
01
34
00
01
11
21
00
53
08
18
04
37
10
10
09
04
09
46
01
01
37
13
17
61
18
00
10
20
10
13
03
02
80
07
29
35
09
95
05 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
2697
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
5
6
163
0
71
01
0
1973
40
जगन्नाथप्रसाद
06
0
1974
05
81
1976
0
01
23
0
1977
10
11
1376
0
03
82
0
1375
01
88
0
1343
41
06
0
1342
05
18
1341
0
48
08
0
00
1344
10
0
1347
74
00
1350
0
08
24
0
02
1349
56
0
1355
05
69
0
1356
09
65
0
1354
00
24
1252
10
0
29
في
0
1251
04
16
0
01
1253
78
ن
0
04
1254
97
0
01
1255
81
0
14
1257
06
0
1250
05
77
0
265
05
94
0
269
04
83
264
0
00
63
0
270
03
94
0
262
00
69
0
247
04
53
0
15
261
01
248
0
08
71
0
255
10
68
0
196
24
02
07
195
0
45
0
46
194
03
0
193
95
09
0
13
51
09
0
53
54
05 2698
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
4
2
3 1
0
56
0
57
0
55
0
58
0
68
0
67
0
66
65
0
0
64
0
75
76
0
95
0
0
90
0
83
0
85
0
89
0
86
0
88
87
0
93
0
0
94
0
103
0
97
0
96
0
जयकृष्णपुर
609
0
610
0
593
0
592
0
586
0
585
0
587
0
561
0
562
0
558
0
507
0
564
0
506
0
503 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
5
6
28
08
36
09
00
10
38
05
00
62
40
01
02
83
07
82
10
00
32
09
05
13
04
34
01
45
01
45
00
60
01
39
30
02
01
07
30
01
12
66
i 06
33
01
38
00
31
03
69
11
71
10
00
07
21
61
04
00
96
24
00
03
81
01
66
02
95
12
29
06
10
00
10
10
27
13
55 2699
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[भाग 1Ⅱ- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
4 1
2
3
0
496
0
497
0
495
0
473
0
474
0
476
0
475
0
467
0
438
0
439
0
440
0
429
0
426
0
423
0
422
0
421
0
420
0
419
0
417
0
416
0
414
0
411
0
68
0
77
0
71
0
73
0
72
0
60
0
206
0
59
0
18
0
19
0
9
0
10
0
8
0
6
0
22
0
24
0
25 1633 GI/04-6
5
6
03
15
00
10
67
04
14
03
26
02
10
00
15
08
30
00
00
52
07
70
11
45
02
54
24
12
02
53
02
62
04
68
07
02
63
08
07
74
04
60
04
50
02
01
09
87
08
15
04
95
05
39
17
12
06
49
01
04
02
58
59
00
42
08
03
90
04
02
71
05
77
02
60
04
22
04
46
01 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
2700
4
3
2
1
0
5
0
4
0
2
0
97
काशीअभिराम
0
96
0
95
0
90
0
23
0
21
0
20
0
17
0
27
0
16
0
6
0
3
0
4
0
2
0
1
0
3753
कामारगन
0
3751
0
3752
0
3749
0
3738
0
3739
0
3736
0
3742
0
3712
0
3697
0
3696
0
3679
0
3676
0
3744
0
3668
0
3667
0
3666
0
3665
0
3664
0
3660
[PART II-SBC, 3 (ii )]
6
5
66
00
66
02
99
17
68
10
99
05
26
00
43
11
97
00
38
12
63
02
15
03
21
00
98
02
07
24
66
10
18
00
04
10
18
04
53
02
35
02
48
00
35
01
29
00
03
58
89
12
06
03
11
02
73
08
95
05
10
00
85
13
86
03
48
00
28
04
79
11
00
05
87
08
23
09 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
2701
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
2
1
4
3
3661
0
3662
0
3014
0
2973
0
2972
0
2968
0
2971
0
2969
0
2967
0
2962
0
2963
0
2964
0
3944
0
2933
0
0
2924
2925
0
2929
0
2926
0
0
2927
0
2928
0
2912 ♡
0
2934
2935
0
2884
0
चिरोल
0
1451
0
1450
0
1449
1448
0
0
1447
1438
0
0
1446
1441
0
0
1445
1407
0
1406
0
0
1409
0
1408
0
1411
1404
0 5
6
00
61
05
38
09
34
07
52
11
06
05
81
03
69
06
37
07
54
02
95
87
03
05
53
04
11
05
10
04
33
06
76
03
54
00
10
02
28
05
87
04
37
05
52
05
53
02
21
00
74
22
97
08
73
02
44
10
65
03
16
00
17
01
65
11
29
03
48
00
83
05
50
05
85
06
29
62
01 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926 2702
4
3
2
1
0
1403
0
1400
0
1402
0
1414
0
1415
0
1416
0
1386
0
1396
0
1388
0
1395
0
1393
0
1390
0
1391
0
1272
0
1271
0
1270
0
1275
0
1267
0
1266
0
1264
0
1265
0
1212
0
1730
बेलासाँवलिया
0
1713
0
1711
0
1667
0
1710
0
1674
0
1675
1676
0
0
1677
0
1678
0
1693
0
1692
0
1694
0
1695
0
1696
0
1697
0
1698 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
6
5
42
05
08
05
45
13
55
02
67
05
50
01
92
00
52
11
29
03
61
20
70
01
24
01
03
04
53
08
76
03
95
00
59
02
61
00
15
12
10
00
06
55
00
05
53
04
26
00
01
32
02
75
14
33
01
42
00
19
04
56
03
10
00
01
35
07
21
23
00
16
00
90
06
10
01
22
03 2703
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6
4
5
2
3
1
51
01
0
3378
खारिड़ाबिनायकपुर
46
0
01
3067
04
36
3040
0
07
78
0
3039
38
0
02
3038
02
02
0
3037
07
1430
0
08
32
0
08
1438
18
0
18
1442
13
0
00
1449
12
87
0
1450
61
00
0
1422
00
10
1462
0
10
1451
0
08
75
00
0
1452
00
53
0
1459
07
36
0
1456
03
86
0
1453
06
48
0
1454
0
10
1223
16
10
00
0
1221
45
1222
0
01
10
0
00
1100
06
0
52
1099
05
87
0
1098
00
35
0
1097
11
70
0
970
01
31
0
998
53
0
02
976
01
21
0
975
00
10
0
974
00
77
0
977
40
06
0
967
63
00
0
980
65
01
0
963
52
01
0
964
20
00
0
965
53
0
01
962
0
97
07
961.
2704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
4
3
2
1
0
909
0
910
0
911
0
912
0
914
0
921
0
920
0
919
0
918
922
0
0
933
0
923
0
932
0
924
0
925
0
714
0
927
0
3871
0
401
0
398
0
397
0
396
0
384
0
386
0
347
0
348
0
349
0
350
0
351
0
361
0
360
0
359
0
355
0
356
0
357
0
275
0
274
273
0 .
0
24-1 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]
6
5
06
01
75
01
64
00
59
03
17
03
77
13
26
02
10
00
58
01
01
25
05
61
01
62
01
09
64
06
86
01
00
04
35
21
70
08
12
07
07
02
83
02
21
07
10
00
15
09
45
01
10
00
22
03
03
39
35
01
22
02
04
18
22
03
02
40
02
99
10
02
58
02
01
97
04
05
16
06 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
2705
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
4
2
3
1
0
242
243
0
244
0
0
245
0
247
246
0
0
227
0
224
226
0
0
225
0
216
217
0
0
219
0
218
147
0
0
148
0
149
0
145
144
0
0
142 D
0
121
0
122
123
0
125
0
126
0
0
129
130
0
0
13
14
0
0
3834
0
15
16
0
17
0
0
18
9
0
0
7
1.
0
0
4352
बासुदेबपूर
0
4398
6
5
00
10
00
10
02
85
03
19
00
10
03
44
00
90
01
60
02
78
03
62
00
10
02
03
34
00
04
14
03
01
04
63
10
00
04
80
03
82
07
88
23
00
01
93
01
33
00
62
00
10
00
23
22
52
07
19
01
47
04
09
92
02
01
44
00
48
00
10
26
87
01
64
07
90
28
25
06
69 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
2706
5
6
4
3
2
1
82
0
02
4397
22
0
02
4396
03
99
0
4395
01
26
0
4393
17
00
0
4394
59
05
0
4392
10
00
0
4391
52
0
06
2264
बागदाबिनायकपुर
10
0
00
2263
92
0
04
2261
53
01
0
2260
0
02
24
2259
00
90
0
2255
01
93
0
2256
01
81
0
2257
01
09
2241
0
63
01
0
2240
09
0
48
2239
23
00
0
3453
-66
14
0
2222
01
23
0
542
सुखदेबपुर
72
02
0
529
14
00
528
0
66
02
0
527
41
01
1472
0
02
0
26
526
01
73
0
522
77
0
01
524
00
0
523
06
06
09
520
0
51
0
01
517
24
0
08
516
01
98
0
502
11
02
0
505
0
00
60
1473
32
0
02
506
70
01
504
0
0
00
59
507 2707
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
3
4
2
1
0
369
370
0
371
0
0
33
0
34
0
35
0
37
36
0
0
182
साबरपुर
0
186
0
183
0
185
0
184
0
199
0
200
0
235
0
234
0
210
0
209
0
130
0
128
0
129
0
124
0
117
0
118
0
93
0
115
0
116
0
112
0
111
0
104
0
102
0
101
0
100
0
99
0
674
सुगुंडा
0
675
0
676 1633GI/04-7
6
5
09
01
39
01
00
82
30
05
42
06
06
03
05
69
18
03
05
05
87
00
02
04
01
74
42.
09
06
56
57
06
16
00
00
13
59
07
49
00
04
87
00
86
36
06
10
00
76
08
00
37
86
09
07
42
45
05
01
01
77
03
00
59
26
03
02
01
15
02
84
02
31
05
76
00
57
05 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
2708
4
3
2
1
0
685
0
686
0
687
0
698
0
696
0
694
0
704
0
705
0
709
0
551
0
550
0
552
0
549
0
548
0
546
0
723
0
520
0
521
0
516
0
302
0
301
0
300
0
73
74
0
0
76
0
83
0
93
0
92
0
97
0
98
0
100
0
110
0
112
0
109
0
108
0
115
0
114
0
126
0
127
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii)]
6
5
53
08
10
02
07
08
15
11
55
08
91
02
60
01
14
13
79
05
60
06
47
00
32
01
59
05
18
00
74
09
26
00
05
73
15
04
30
22
01
50
01
66
76
01
00
72
10
00
50
12
83
17
76
09
07
60
05
74
04
15
30
07
11
11
00
10
41
05
01
87
97
04
67
00
52
07
01
60 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
2
3
4
128
0
132
0
133
0
135
0
136
0
5
0
कलासिया
131
0
137
0
136
0
132
0
0
133
134
0
130
0
192
0
187
0
111
0
150
0
151
0
153
0
152
0
156
0
155
0
154
0
200
0
157
0
158
0
164
0
165
0
166
0
585
0
गुआगन
582
0
586
0
587
0
607
0
680
0
610
0
611
0
678
0
2709 5
6
02
85
06
70
00
94
00
52
02
25
08
04
04
44
00
62
00
10
06
29
01
12
45
03
00
48
04
68
10
39
05
03
00
10
00
88
02
30
01
40
00
10
00
18
58
04
51
03
37
01
57
10
40
05
41
00
78
08
13
03
57
01
61
01
08
10
38
11
46
00
10
02
25
09
24 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
2710
4
3
2
1
0
679
0
675
0
661
0
658
0
657
0
696
0
697
0
698
0
719
0
718
0
717
0
722
0
908
0
907
0
906
0
911
0
912
0
913
0
914
0
921
0
922
0
920
0
932
0
930
0
931
0
2031
0
2027
0
2028
0
2029
0
2024
0
2001
0
1897
0
1760
0
1761
0
1782
0
1781
0
1783
0
1780
0
1774
[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii )]
6
5
66
00
39
13
07
05
60
11
28
01
47
01
96
01
24
01
46
03
94
08
82
05
50
00
02
05
54
00
18
09
91
01
86
01
39
01
07
02
25
05
62
00
29
04
10
00
82
05
34
07
93
04
65
03
77
04
18
00
50
00
91
12
50
08
65
00
84
03
82
06
49
08.
53
01
53
07
38
01 2711
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
3
4
2
1
1778
0
0
1775
0
1776.
0
1709
0
1707
0
1706
0
1652
0
1651
0
1629
0
1631
0
1650
0
1648
0
1647
0
1646
0
1642
0
1643
0
1638
0
1641
0
1640
0
1639
0
1584
0
1578.
0
1577
0.
1576
0
1575
0
1574
0
1573
0
1572
0
1571
0
1552
0
1554
0
1551
0
1547
0
1542
0
1541
0
1540
0
1537
0
1536
0
1535 5
6
06
53
57
11
00
45
07
81
13
57
18
00
03
48
02
61
29
00
05
86
15
00
50
06
10
00
21
04
29
06
62
02
07
45
79
01
71
00
00
18
00
52
02
82
36
02
14
04
00
18
31
02
02
13
42
02
26
04
85
10
17
42
06
65
38
19
90
02
30
09
00
10
68
01
50
12
25
03 2712
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
1
2
3
4
1534
0
0
1572
0
1475
0
1530
1432
0
0
1434
0
1435
1436
0
1437
0
0
1454
0
1470
1477
0
0
1476
1474
0
1473
0
151
0
बाखरपुर
0
152
140
0
0
141
142
0
127
0
0
123
0
126
0
125
113
0
114
0
बासहत्ती
348
0
349
0
0
351
362
0
363
0
352
0
356
0
360
0
358
0
359
0
0
357
324
0
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
6
5
20
39
10
00
06
88
06
35
01
85
06
74
07
78
08
31
03
03
16
32
20
94
00
51
03
49
13
25
03
98
06
74
03
51
00
15
12
31
00
24
02
00
03
30
04
93
05
60
00
13
08
03
03
98
06
22
02
42
01
06
25
02
01
32
00
10
08
41
04
93
00
10
03
10
00
63 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
4
2
3 1
0
257
0
280
281
0
0
278
0
276
0
275
0
273
272
0
0
270
269
0
0
148
149
0
0
147
0
145
150
0
144
0
0
143
0
142
0
30
31
0
32
0
0
29
0
23
0
27
0
24
25
0
0
21
0
26
0
8
0
11
9
0
0
10
0
1994
सुदर्शनपुर
0
1993
0
1099
सुआंन
0
1100
0
1101
0
1106
2713
6
5
00
62
03
02
33
03
01
24
11
95
06
48
42
03
27
05
00
76
00
45
33
00
20
00
05
77
03
07
10
00
83
02
15
13
48
05
44
09
10
00
87
09
10
00
18
07
10
00
04
07
85
03
76
01
02
30
00
58
11
62
00
10.
01
00
65
30
10
00
22
07
00
44
01
47
24
10 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926 2714
4
3
2
1
0
1102
0
1107
0
2603
0
2604
0
1105
0
1119
0
1118
0
1110
0
1117
0
1116
0
1115
0
1175
0
1174
0
1173
0
1171
0
1172
0
1166
0
1180
0
1181
0
1182
0
1183
0
1184
0
1189
0
1188
0
1190
0
1194
0
1193
0
1196
0
2606
0
2605
0
1199
0
1197
0
1232
0
1230
0
1231
0
1204
0
1216
0
1215
0
1214
-
[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)]
6
5
10
00
47
02
10
00
15
05
47
00
75
09
00
20
10
00
40
03
01
08
16
01
48
00
83
03
15
01
63
00
74
04
33
04
12
05
36
03
64
02
28
00
41
03
33
07
10
00
90
00
06
25
48
04
91
00
10
00
47
00
10
00
26
09
06
01
18
04
55
00
65
01
74
08
10
00
01
46 2715 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (1 )
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926.
6
5
4
1
2
3
0
02
1213
68
0
00
45
1212
0
01
70
1209
0
1210
04
38
0
10
00
1211
0
01
00
1297
0
63
06
1369
0
00
1367
33
0
05
46
1370
0
05
1371
65
37
08
1397
0
00
10
0
1379
0
01
06
1380
46
0
1395
05
10
0
50
1392
0
07
1394
51
0
00
65
1393
0
03
17
1534
0
1535
03
58
00
49
0
1533
1536
0
04
62
43
1538
0
00
0
03
39
1545
0
05
44
1546
07
13
1543
0
0
00
10
1542
0
02
1550
92
02
40
1551
0
02
60
1567
0
0
00
23
1562
05
1565
0
24
30
0
1564
05
0
1563
05
08
35
0
03
1170
01
06
0
2623
66
0
03
1574
0
15
52
1581
06
1614
1613
1633 GI/04-8 2716
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
1616
0
1617
0
1608
0
1607
0
1606
0
1627
0
1631
0
0
1653
0
1654
1655
0
1656
0
1658
0
1657
0
1659
0
778
अरतुंग
0
670
0
671
0
673
0
677
0
679
0
676
0
523
0
522
0
511
0
510
0
0
512
513
0
514
0
496
0
495
0
516
0
0
391
493
0
0
494
0
492
392
0
394
0
323
0
322
0
[PART II- SBC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
04
00
00
10
12
49
02
98
04
39
10
61
08
58
02
92
04
94
01
90
04
04
03
55
02
62
04
16
16
15
00
20
00
10
01
91
00
35
00
85
00
50
03
19
03
60
01
96
01
76
10
63
04
99
02
18
01
44
02
83
01
24
01
98
00
10
02
55
00
10
00
78
05
94
00
57
02
37 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4
3
2
1
0
324
0
321
0
322
326
0
0
260
0
265
0
261
0
262
0
3929
0
254
266
D
206
3994
0
252
0
207
0
208
0
210
0
209
0
122
0
160
0
181
0
159
0
3711
0
123
0
133
0
91
0
92
0
3818
0
93
0
3817
83
0
0
84
0
88
0
85
0
87
0
73
0
86
0
74
0
28
717
6
5
00
19
02
66
24
03
44
07
65
01
74
05
66
00
10
00
00
10.
06
23
10
00
01
79
01
37
00
74
01
86
02
02
93
70
04
78
11
09
01
10
00
53
02
10
00
00
10
48
09
10
00
01
79
05
02
20
04
10
00
21
02
42
02
91
00
01
64
22
03 :
10
00
01
45
07
87
82
02 2718
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004 /JYAISTHA 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
26
0
27
0
46
0
दामोदरपुर
47
0
48
0
49
0
50
0
51
0
45
0
39
0
37
0
32
0
36
0
35
0
33
0
34
0
812
0
17
0
18
0
19
0
0
मारूंहा
131
0
133
0
132
0
130
0
129
0
40
0
39
0
41
0
126
0
127
0
92
0
91
0
89
0
87
0
88
0
84
0
3929
0
85
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
03
35
05
97
05
86
00
37
00
75
01
52
01
60
01
96
02
02
06
59
08
75
02
42
05
94
01
66
02
43
02
92
04
51
02
99
11
04
05
86
01
28
01
78
02
57
01
51
01
18
06
06
00
10
10
11
00
32
00
10
02
73
01
79
06
40
00
62
07
61
00
10
01
90
02
61 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2719
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
2
1
3
4
0
86
0
3927
0
3928
0
79
0
58
0
60
0
59
10
67
()
62
C
63
0
65
973
0
राधामोहनपुर
0
972
0
978
985
0
986
0
0
987
0
983
0
988
0
993
992
0
994
0
995
0
1001
0
1000
0
1007
0
0
1005
1011
0
1012
0
922
0
0
886
884
0
0
882
883
0
835
0
877
0
876
0
875
0
870
0 5
6
01
92
00
12
14
03
13
69
01
88
00
37
00
85
05
09
00
10
06
84
06
84
06
86
11
70
04
74
03
57
00
86
00
43
05
19
06
02
00
45
05
74
62
01
02
31
00
68
43
05
74
09
02
46
11
69
00
55
29
02
10
00
00
96
03
05
05
68
03
02
77
07
00
88
70
04
02
68 2720
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
1
2
4
3
0
869
0
851
0
865
0
864
0
866
0
855
854
0
0
790
0
789
787
0
0
786
0
256
0
255
257
0
0
1564
0
267
0
264
0
266
0
269
0
270
0
1633
0
271
0
272
0
273
0
486
0
1611
0
481
478
0
0
477
0
475
0
476
0
473
0
1714
472
0
303
0
467
0
469
0
0
468
0
463
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
6
5
03
71
36
00
03
36
01
43
01
58
04
55
02
16
05
34
04
36
35
03
09
85
00
03
03
83
04
59
01
08
00
44
05
18
05
88
02
41
08
13
00
10
01
14
09
48
01
33
05
18
04
45
00
42
10
00
15
26
03
40
01
88
10
76
00
10
02
10
01
79
00
10
04
68
83
06
06
69 2721 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
4
5
6
1
2
3
0
06
79
461
05
29
460
0
0
24
04
459
10
0
00
376
10
36
0
449
07
94
0
448
06
444
0
33
10
0
451
00
0
03
91
443
00
10
0
433
02
0
44
428
04
427
0
18
0
01
29
425
0
03
20
426
02
62
419
0
17
420
0
01
0
69
02.
424
421
0
02
11
422
0
52
01
423
03
82
0
408
0
01
89
627
0
02
55
[फा. सं. आर-25011/11/2004- ओ.आर-1 ]
रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव 2722
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ] Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
New Delhi , the 31st May, 2004
S.O. 1293.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crudeoil from Paradip in the State of Orissa to Haldia in the State of West Bengal , a pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification.
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Rightof User in Land ) Act- 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein .
Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri . Ashok Kumar Dash , Competent Authority, Paradip Haldia Pipeline Project, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indian Oil Corporation Limited Marketing Housing Complex, Meghadambara , Postoffice- Kuruda , Balasore - 756 056 ( Orissa ) .
723 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
Schedule
District:Bhadrak
State: Orissa Name of Tehsil Nameof Village Khasra No.
Hectare
Area Are Sq.mtr. 1
2
3
4
5
6
Kuli
Chandbali
581
0
18
31
0
652
36
04
0
00
81
10
82
0
00
78
0
83
08
10.
Goladiha
217
0
06
94
0
225
00
76
0
224
00
67
218
0
00
62
219
0
00
98
220
0
00
15
320
03
0
36
309
0
00
49
308
0
72
02
307
0
01
25
0
305
04
08
0
304
00
25
306
00
0
61
0
302
01
79
300
0
01
50
301
00
0
10
01
298
78
297
04
0
09
265
0
00
38
0
00
296
10
294
0
05
76
293
0
03
59
0
269
01
40
0
292
00
80
272
0
02
28
273
0
04
21
270
0
00
12
274
0
00
69
0
01
276
: 89
0
02
02
588
0
587
03
83
0
01
20
584
586
0
00
10
0
585
02
54
00
0
10
583
608
0
10
48 1633 G1/04-9 2724
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
2
3
4
0
579
-0
609
0
577
573
0
576
0
0
574
575
0
561
0
628
0
0
560
629
0
559
0
558
0
557
0
0
556
495
0
555
0
0
496
497
0
0
498
0
552
0
549
548
0
546
0
547
0
543
0
537
0
538
0
541
0
542
0
0
539
540
0
27
0
945
0
Baligan
946
0
947
0
0
948
949
0
3548
0
5486
0
3521
0
3520
0
3519
0
3522
0
3492
0
0
3523
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 5
6
00
10
00
10
06
96
01
66
00
45
02
08
03
25
02
35
05
44
33
00
00
84
00
84
00
73
00
74
02
54
12
98
01
25
03
09
03
94
03
25
00
76
00
82
02
43
00
10
05
60
06
93
08
10
80
03
00
28
00
15
00
96
01
19
06
05
00
95
03
94
03
86
01
72
05
36
10
00
02
97
05
57
01
73
03
90
02
28
00
10
06
17 2725
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
6
2
3
4
5
1
0
49
06
3491
0
00
10
3485
0
10
3486
00
0
47
3490
00
0
02
32
5505
0
89
3494'
02
0
02
3467
19
0
04
61
3464
22
01
0
3466
३९
0
14
3465
02
0
3434
92
03
00
3433
0
52
0
3428
02
05
05
3427
0
17
3426
04
44
0
01
0
97
3416
0
01
05
3415
0
10
3414
00
5050
0
12
40
3417
0
01
48
0
00
3418
16
0
02
82
3377
3376
0
0197
0
03
3382
93
01
3385
0
96
00181
3383
00
3384
0
90
3364
37
0
12
00
10
0
3365
0
3764
00
77
0
03
3771
25
0
3772
02
35
0
05
3773
33
3770
0
00
00
0
84
5526
01
3767
0
30
0
00
63
3776
83
0
5501
02
3777
0
58
00
42
3824
01
0
0
23
3825
02
08
3823
0
03
00
10
3826
0
0
77
03
3833
0
99
3832
02
02
14
0
3831 2726
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
1
2
3
4
3852
0
3850
0
3849
0
3848
0
3975
0
3974
0
3973
0
3971
0
3972
0
3977
0
3978
0
5286
0
3219
0
3218
0
3217
0
5037
0
3211
0
3212
0
3216
0
3215
0
5334
0
3214
0
0
5300
3081
0
3080
0
3082
0
3079
0
3089
0
3078
0
3090
0
3074
0
5135
0
3091
0
3095
0
3097
0
3096
0
5404
0
5122
0
2451
0
2890
0
0
2891
2889
0
0
2894
2895
0
2888
0
0
5026
[PART II-SBC. $ ( ii)] 5
6
02
68
02
07
02
28
12
94
04
98
02
37
02
47
00
17
00
56
02
03
01
68
02
00
01
83
03
11
04
03
00
10
01
71
01
51
01
36
01
48
01
57
01
81
01
33
01
66
00
83
02
10
00
89
00
18
07
15
00
10
03
66
03
15
00
10
00
13
02
17
01
30
01
43
00
13
00
10
03
83
02
68
03
67
00
54
00
67
09
29
01
15 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
2
3
4
0
2901
2887
0
2886
0
5085
0
2470
0
2475
0
2474
0
2476
0
2477
0
2479
0
2482
0
2487
0
5009
0
2486
0
2483
0
5010
0
2485
0
2484
0
2352
0
2348
0
2237
0
:
0
2347
2346
0
2345
0
2344
0
2343
0
2340
0
5250
0
2338
0
2337
0
2334
0
2335
0
2336
0 .
2331
0
5241
0
2333
0
2249
0
2260
0
2259
0
2261
0
Baraostia
1101
0
0
1102
1100
0
0
1103
0
1104
1105
0
2727 5
6
01
20
02
37
03
47
02
78
96
03
00
99
03
23
08
07
00
10
06
88
03
88
03
20
00
11
03
17
00
16
00
10
04
37
03
65
01
56
00
51
00
30
00
89
07
28
00
10
04
20
03
41
03
36
02
09
01
08
01
08
00
46
02
42
00
10
03
26
03
95
12
31
08
14
03
26
02
24
00
26
06
23
00
10
00
91
06
29
04
74
03
88 2728
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
3
4 1
2
0
1056
0
1053
0
1052
0
1051
0
1054
0
1050
0
1047
0
1048
0
970
0
967
0
969
0
968
0
966
0
965
0
964
0
963
0
917
0
919
0
921
0
922
0
925
0
924
0
927
0
909
0
928
0
908
0
902
0
904
0
905
0
906
0
886
0
695
0
694
0
696
0
731
0
711
0
712
0
713
0
725
724
0
0
722
0
721
714
0
715
0
0
603
602
0
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 5
6
48
01
01
26
74
01
12
49
56
04
10
00
01
03
00
11
09
31
63
04
01
17
00
88
03
45
01
06
01
11
03
40
75
02
02
93
52
03
03
70
33
04
10
00
08
86
00
10
23
00
03
90
02
68
01
19
03
18
07
01
01
83
07
08
27
01
10
96
04
35
00
10
02
01
02
00
00
10
10
00
00
88
00
92
10
05
04
05
14
14
00
10 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र ": जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
2
3
4
0
599
0
264
269
0
274
0
0
275
0
283
0
286
285
0
0
284
0
288
287
0
0
1459
289
0
0
290
0
295
0
1460
0
1461
296
0
294
0
293
0
306 బ
0
305
307
0
0
308
0
309
0
310
0
311
0
312
0
314
0
318
0
320
0
321
322
0
0
332
0
333
0
972
Panaspada
971
0
0
945
0
969
0
946
0
947
0
948
0
950
0
955
0
968
0
967
2729
6
5
00
10
11
51
26
06
00
10
14
46
00
11
00
51
03
08
01
57:
01
81
00
10
00
93
36
00
10
00
01
72
02
23
02
60
28
00
04
78
14
00
00
14
04
35
03
90
02
05
03
38
20
01
00
63
00
63
26
05
13
06
00
84
10
11
00
96
00
14
11
54
04
53
23
03
00
20
27
06
10
00
03
22
72
00
00
10
00
10
00
26
01
49 2730
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
966
0
965
0
956
0
919
0
920
0
918
0
915
0
914
0
0
5,12
513
0
516
0
517
0
912
0
518
0
520
0
911
0
910
0
0
1005
909
0
908
0
536
0
529
0
0
535
537
0
538
0
539
0
557
0
0
559
558
0
543
0
555
556
0
564
0
565
0
566
0
983
0.
567
0
568
0
574
0
640
0
639
0
638
0
0
636
637
0
627
0
0
628
[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ] 5
6
02
55
02
77
04
07
01
31
00
27
02
26
05
14
03
71
01
00
04
92
00
32
01
22
01
57
01
01
00
37
02
79
05
34
05
69
00
76
00
10
01
21
01
45
02
56
00
87
01
38
01
98
03
35
01
97
00
40
00
10
07
46
00
25
02
54
00
83
01
34
00
10
02
67
00
61
00
52
00
85
83
00
03
45
00
47
00
23
02
34
02
22 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
2731
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
0
629
0
626
625
0
0
619
0
618
621
0
620
0
0
615
616
0
0
617
0
984
0
610
0
609
612
0
0
611
661
0
0
1722
Bhatpara
0
1723
0
1721
0
1726
0
4412
0
1730
0
1731
0
1745
0
1743
0
1737
0
1738
0
1740
0
1741
0
1779
0
4352
0
1778
0
1796
0
1797
0
1793
0
1791
0
1790
0
1810
0
1811
0
1867
0
1865
0
1866
0
1870
0
1952
0
1947
0
1948 1633 GI04-10
5
6
00
10
14
05
01
01
04
35
00
37
83
00
01
51
00
11
01
59
00
34
00
11
01
93
00
16
00
18
00
86
01
98
03
48
02
78
05
22
50
03
00
85
07
83
97
08
04
66
82
02
00
10
02
69
02
57
03
74
01
56
06
38
06
05
05
01
01
71
12
56
01
37
00
10
07
79
03
37
13
24
02
04
10
09
03
78
05
62
62
03
04
06 2732
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
0
1949
1950
0
0
1943
0
1941
0
1940
0
1939
0
2400
0
4441
0
2390
:
2327
0
0
2389
0
4579
0
2391
2393
0
2399
0
0
2397
2398
0
0
2396
0
2404
2472
0
0
2405
0
4508
0
2449
2450
0 .
0
2447
2437
0
0
2446
0
2445
0
4411
0
2590
2632
0
0
4582
0
4351
0
2630
2631
0
2629
0
2628
0
4350
0
2627
0
2635
0
2636
0
2637
0
2721
0
2719
0
0
2720
0
2723
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
04
38
00
10
12
61
04
87
01
02
01
36
12
29
05
63
02
53
00
17
11
91
00
43
05
50
01
49
00
17
07
73
00
40
06
78
02
34
07
89
03
37
00
10
14
08
01
91
09
41
04
04
02
88
02
17
03
13
01
86
01
23
06
02
03
58
00
90
06
34
03
75
06
29
00
10
06
05
05
18
02
86
:
04
10
01
06
04
70
04
19
00
10 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
3
4
2
0
2724
0
2718
2725
0
2715
2713
0
0
2714
0
2712
2709
2706
0
0
2705
0
2750
2694
0
621
0
622
620
0
0
631
0
634
619
0
641.
0
640
0
642
0
643
0
0
646
658
0
657
0
650
0
656
0
4306
655
0
0
560
0
4303
0
336
0
4252
341
0
340
0
337
0
0
339
338
4286
0
4282
0
Jayakrushnapur 25
0
26
0
39
Naugorada
41
0
0
40
0
34
2733 5
6
03
62
05
00
00
40
09
13
03
06
02
13
07
25
06
00
14
05
03
84
01
28
12
29
06
79
19
00
07
01
19
03
17
09
00
10
01
01
05
13.
77
01
08
08
11
52
57
03
05
26
00
42
14
38
01
92
04
33
02
15
06.
84
12
87
47
07.
02
63
14
92
00
56
18
08
04
42
31
05
02
61
91
06
02
86
67
00
04.-
65
23
02
01
67 2734
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
2
3
4
42
0
43
0
44
0
46
0
55
0
54
0
57
0
56
0
0
76
0
11
10
0
9
0
0
8
6
0
7
0
Chasakhand
41
0
55
0
54
0
50
0
51
0
52
0
49
0
43
0
42
0
44
0
17
0
18
0
15
0
12
0
Motto
466
0
467
0
471
0
470
0
469
0
484
0
485
0
486
0
561
0
0
496
487
0
495
0
454
0
504
0
547
0
505
0
0
511 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
5
6
05
78
01
61
07
51
04
22
17
70
104
95
04
48
00
14
07
60
04
66
4 04
29
00
32
07
15
00
75
12
90
05
32
25
43
00
20
02
31
05
93
00
10
09
39
15
53
01
94
05
17
10
84
00
10
07
63
07
05
00
57
01
68
01
89
10
17
00
10
03
30
04
85
06
01
01
41
00
24
12
52
11
05
18
05
10
88
01
08
10
24
85
14 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
2735
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
3 1
2
4
0
546
512
0
0
519
514
0
0
516
518
0
517
0
428
0
421
0
423
0
0
424
158
0
156
0
0
185
0
186
187
0
0
150
189
0
0
146
0
145
144
0
142
0
0
138
0
216
0
137
0
217
136
0
337
0
Pratappur
338
0
0
340
341
0
0
344
0
342
0
343
365
0
366
0
367
0
0
369
0
368
0
370
0
1438
0
373
375
0
379
0
0
380
0
392 5
6
00
10
05
05
00
78
26
01
15
64
56
02:
15
03
37
02
08
19
10
22
11
46
16
51
00
10
11
67
12
64
03
86
11
45
11
99
00
55
15
10
06
34
18
06
16
47
11
71
26
03
06
63
06
38
00
55
09
08
05
02
03
38
11
92
03
68
97
09
37
01
10
30
05
42
11
98
10
00
06
00
04
29
00
55
00
35
05
66
00
42
97
06 2736
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
382
0
1431
0
393
0
394
0
405
0
396
0
401
0
400
0
399
0
439
0
440
0
441
0
437
0
442
0
434
0
432
0
431
0
430
0
445
0
446
0
311
0
Nalgunda
289
0
290
0
291
0
303
0
304
0
302
0
301
0
300
0
321
0
324
0
325
0
104
0
96
0
95
0
1736
0
88
0
93
0
89
0
90
0
77
0
85
0
84
0
78
0
82
0
79
0
[PART II-SEC . 36 5
6
00
10
02
67
04
95
00
17
00
18
04
71
00
57
03
12
04
19
06
47
02
02
04
15
00
10
08
30
03
35
00
10
02
13
04
96
03
36
01
32
16
11
05
56
02
21
01
88
04
20
02
36
01
19
09
28
00
60
03
87
00
85
06
27
09
84
04
60
04
69
00
11
06
08
00
10.
00
66
07
08
02
52
00
77
06
78
02
12
00
10
07
03 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
2737
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
0
80
81
0
73
0
65
0
64
0
56
0
61
0
57
0
60
0
59
0
58
0
51
0
423
0
49
0
424
0
48
0
46
0
47
0
45
0
1
0
637
0
Kaupuni
351
0
352
0
0
357
356
0
0
355
354
0
374
0
592
0
591
0
590
0
0
589
587
0
588
0
390
0
389
0.
394
0
404
0
403
0
402
0
400
0
401
0
399
0
156
0
412
0
0
413 5
6
06
86
01
44
08
29
02
68
03
63
07
68
05
41
01
64
02
31
07
64
06
13
10
17
00
10
11
02
01
76
00
10
07
00
00
10
03
25
06
01
06
28
07
29
07
27
01
97
16
49
02
59
08
47
07
73
04
87
05
83
05
91
04
88
02
46
07
76
00
10
05
08
37
00
00
12
06
73
05
14
00
79
08
15
12
45
05
69
00
10
05
74 2738
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
2
1
4
3
155
0
416
0
151
0
150
0
0
152
0
149
153
0
0
148
154
0
147
0
0
146
0
145
140
0
143
0
142
0
89
0
Nuagan
87
0
90
0
0
91
92
0
0
97
106
0
103
0
104
0
102
0
101
0
99
0
100
0
145
0
0
157
0
156
0
159
155
0
160
0
154
0
0
153
152
0
151
0
167
0
168
0
174
0
175
0
179
0
0
180
173
0
181
0
[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] 5
6
06
29
00
97
00
23
00
35
02
61
00
95
02
03
02
87
07
04
02
69
04
96
01
75
01
75
01
29
04
26
08
12
00
29
01
73
05
63
80
04
06
03
01
38
17
37
93
05
02
25
10
63
00
10
00
60
10
57
02
18
09
83
01
53
04
15
03
70
00
10
06
64
72
06
53
03
06
92
01
78
01
53
04
45
00
57
12
05
23
00
03
16 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/पेष्ठ 15, 1926
2
3
4
182
0
183
0
202
0
0
203
509
Kherang
0
510
0
511
0
526
0
524
0
525
0
527
0
523
0
522
0
533
0
521
0
534
0
551
0
553
0
548
0
433
0
430
0
431
0
423
0
422
0
349
0
348
0
350.
0
343
0
344
0
335
0
336
0
/
324
0
337
0
323
0
322
0
295
0
320
0
296
0
297
0
299
0
313
0
310
0
311
0
312
0
0
309
0
314 1633 G1/04-11
2739 5
6
00
67
01
44
19
30
03
44
04
66
13
37
03
27
08
10
00
60
01
28
11
81
06
34
11
71
00
49
35
01
06
11
12
26
14
63
01
84
01
36
01
51
09
70
02
37
10
59
06
73
05
35
06
68
14
69
00
10
02
28
03
32
11
34
00
22
03
63
07
42
06
32
06
32
02
94
03
55
09
75
03
88
00
10
08
56
00
80
02
89
01.
05 PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
2740
6
5
4
3
2
1
1
04
39
0 .
275
15
06
0
272
3
24
0
01
271
44
01
0
269
08
01
0
252
02
16
0
139
55
02
0
77
10
76
0
00.
85
00
81
85
00.
.0
83
12
0
69
82
15
01.
0
84
25
01
0
85
37
02
0
19
92
0
04
18
00
67
0
16
97
00
22
0
14
02.
0
20
73
0
02
21
59
02
0
30
83
0
10.
33
17
06
0
1
10
72..
0
495
Tihidi
Baharpal
10
00
0
493
05
57
0
492
37
0
09
491
06
02
0
488
10
91
0
480
34
00
0
485
: 10
00
0
481
05
02
0
482
31
05
0
479
37
00
0
483
09
0
03 .
452
04
08
0
450
28
0
09
449
10
00
0
138
15
11
0
139
24
00
0
134.
81
16
0
141
17
00
0
142.
73
01
0
1628
46
10
144
0
10
00
131
0
86
12
0
130
05
09
0
129 2741
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
6
5
3
2
1
61
0
03
80
06
07
0
81
1.0
00
0
82
36
05
0.
78
27
24
0
75
03
25
0
77
84
0
04
72
81
0
04
71
45
0
10
70
10
00
52
0
0
08
88
54
00%
57
0
45
0
00
10
53
44
11
37
0
00
44
0
36
02.
04
0
35
09
88
0
34
96
0
03
28
67
0
10
29.
0
99
03
323
Laxmiprasad
10
0
00
335
00
60
0
324
31
0
08
320
0
02
72
325
00
31
0
326
255
00
260
83
0
00
319
0
04
36
263
00
34
262
0
27
0
00
297
71
0
03
296
35
00
0
264
00
11
270
0
00
0
91
271
13
0
02
275
10
0 .
00
272
01
87
0
276
04
18
0
277
85
0
03
274
17
000
280
67
03
278
01
68
0
167
94
0
01
166
14
05
0
165
10
00
0
163
60
04
0
164 2742
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
Santarapur
1749
0
1355
0
0
1358
1356
0
1357
0
1345
0
1361
0
1340
0
1339
0
1332
0
1333
0
1334
0
1330
0
1328
0
1768
0
1203
0
1202
0
1163
0
1765
0
1159
0
1162
0
1165
0
1161
0
1166
0
1149
0
1148
0
1170
0
1171
0
1172
0
1179
0
1146
0
1082
0
1083
0
855
0
Harsinhapur
854
0
856
0
878
0
876
0
0
875
874
0
873
0
872
0
870
0
900
0
901
0
902
0
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
00
10
07
67
00
10
07
76
10
29
03
51
00
10
14
48
03
25
00
10
06
56
10
26
03
00
13
49
07
49
09
43
01
72
3
79
22
23
60
60
05
36
06
21
07
08
00
21
05
45
01
90
01
23
11
91
05
82
09
33
12
20
00
10
15
12
23
29
07
11
00
10
06
98
03
47
02
65
00
61
09
59
18
05
13
99
09
06 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
2
3
4
903
0
917
0
904
0
0
905
906
0
909
0
908
0
0
907
831
0
832
0
833
0
839
0
185
0
Bhanupur
186
0
188
0
187
0
190
0
194
0
0
193
192
0
196
0
197
0
198
0
128
0
127
0
126
0
125
0
124
0
123
0
36
0
35
0
398
0
Kanhupur
0
399
400
0
0
401
403
0
404
0
405
0
0
406
408
0
415
0
412
0
414
0
0
413
366
0
0
369
2743 5
6
02
89
00
18
04
26
02
74
02
61
00
52
04
40
03
09
01
78
00
89
00
97
05
56
05
31
01
78
00
86
02
21
00
36
00
10
07
00
00
42
03
24
01
16
00
97
00
96
00
87
00
93
00
68
01
13
32
74
10
80
00
35
00
11
00
10
68
06
06
69
05
70
04
20
00
82
00
56
02
20
05
64
03
80
02
62
01
57
46
12
00
10 2744
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
4
2
3 1
370
0
0
365
0
371
0
358
357
0
356
0
351
0
339
0
0
335
0
334
326
0
0
327
0
328
0
308
0
307
306
0
0
34
33
0
74
0
0
31
3
0
0
13
0
14
0
15
0
12
0
115
Sandakpur
0
123
0
99
0
47
0
48
0
49
52
0
0
51
0
50
0
31
0
30
33
0
0
28
0
59
Momanipur
0
616
Tarachandbindha
0
590
0
584
0
581
0
551
0
552
0
555
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]
6
5
77
01
17
04
52
03
85
05
76
00
40
06
16
25
73
00
14
03
24
05
00
10
05
68
10
01
05
45
15
16
04
01
00
66
23
35
01
49
00
73
10
06
12
09
02
45
74
05
02
33
72
12
00
55
64
12
10
57
02
44
02
05.
17
06
20
05
00
10
05
35
10
00
13
13
01
81
02
59
27
00
22
41
44
00
01
03
52
00
10
57
12
54 2745
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
3
4
2
1
0
554
0
557
573
0
0
572
0
571
0
570
0
1314
Babanbindha
0
2406
0
1310
0
1311
0
1309
0
1306
0
1307
0
1302
0
1291
1288
0
1287
0
0
1301
0
1285
0
1286
0
1272
0
1273
0
1265
0
1263
1262
0
0
1261
0
1053
1054
0
0
1062
0
1061
0
1058
0
1057
0
1047
0
1043
0
1045
0
1044
0
1034
0
1033
0
1032
1030
0
0
1005
0
1006
0
1007
0
1009
0
1008
0
970
6
5
66
19
00
86
10
00
17
02
06
60
33
02
10
00
25
07
54
01
08
01
14
07
22
07
08
01
10
87
62
02
65
00
95
06
13
00
11
11
74
02
16
04
85
04
64
05
78
07
55
02
04
33
59
00
37
01
76
03
57
06
41
02
00
74
28
04
33
02
55
01
16
02
10
00
53
03
74
02
17
69
00
10
24
.07
88
03
93
00
42
01
10
00 2746
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
942
0
944
0
943
0
917
0
916
0
902
0
903
0
904
0
905
0
907
0
906
0
162
Habudasingh
0
0
159
160
0
156
0
155
0
158
0
124
0
126
0
127
0
129
0
91
0
143
0
165
0
134
0
135
0
142
0
136
0
141
0
138
0
139
0
39
0
38
0
1183
0
Sahapur
1182
0
1165
0
1164
0
295
0
300
0
299
0
298
0
256
0
304
0
305
0
255
0
251
0
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
14
66
00
10
02
87
09
96
00
94
16
76
02
25
01
17
01
72
11
26
05
47
08
44
01
70
04
08
06
07
00
88
00
92
01
66
05
97
13
30
00
85
00
61
06
58
02
78
09
87
01
83
00
89
01
14
01
58
00
61
01
23
01
28
02
04
10
29
00
23
12
27
10
92
04
44
04
54
13
14
06
70
00
10
00
10
09
48
08
73
00
45 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
2747
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
1
2
3
4
253
0
252
0
250
0
151
0
154
0
155
0
0
156
0
127
112
0
111
0
113
0
88
0
89
0
91
0
93
0
94
0
95
0
0
97
1326
0
Kabirpur
1327
0
1240
0
1238
0
1239
0
1265
0
1241
0
1242
0
1264
0
1245
0
1247
0
1248
0
124
0
0
1225
1222
0
1210
0
1483
0
1208
0
1207
0
0
1195
1196
0
0
1194
1193
0
1116
0
1431
0
0
1115
1114
0
Jafrabad
0
515 1633 G1/04-12
6
5
05
96
06
57
03
46
13
00
10
50
00
33
13
75
07
56
10
51
01
71
05
84
10
21
02
96
10
15
03
52
02
17
02
94
00
50
11
11
01
66
00
19
05
21
03
93
00
20
01
12
10
16
07
05
00
10
02
84
04
98
05
56
05
71
13
43
05
98
03
11
03
01
07
30
03
62
00
10
02
23
00
50
07
82
01
97
08
03
06
79
07
71 2748
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
1
2
3
4
514
0
0
512
513
0
0
1142
0
1143
511
0
509
0
1144
0
526
0
508
0
0
506
504
0
494
0
0
557
0
559
0
485
483
0
0
1139
477
0
478
0
0
479
475
0
0
450
0
327
448
0
330
0
443
0
442
0
336
0
0
337
0
441
338
0
440
0
1120
0
354
0
1184
0
356
0
1183
0
355
0
0
1182
0
421
0
397
419
0
400
0
407
0
0
408
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
03
90
04
61
06
93
03
63
02
66
02
23
00
34
13
10
00
55
01
35
09
27
44
21
00
58
04
56
07
56
01
99
00
10
01
73
04
98
06
85
00
69
10
14
13.
04
92
01
72
01
14
10
03
79
11
05
00
48
82
02
00
60
05
47
09
70
02
39
03
02
00
10
00
92
01
74
09
10
77
03
01
83
00
71
02
18
01
91
14
01
04
15 2749 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
56
1
1
:
282
0
02
16
Nahunipal
142
0
23
08
266
0
04
23
0
00
265
10
:
0
16
155
89
161
0
06
61
0
162
00
37
0
02
160
56
0
09
159
91
163
01
0
11
0
158
00
10
165
0
10
00
0
164
43
05
167
10
00
0
35
18
96
0
01
22
08
0
02
11
13
01
12
0
87
23
0
00
75
0
24
02
58
0
25
03
97
0
10
03.
49
0
289
09
52
0
03
94
1506
Bahabalpur
0
02
90
1505
0
54
04
1494
0
1493
02
04
1237
02
85
0
1241
25
006
1962
0
01
12
0
13
00
1242
0
32
15
1231
0
00
10
1248
0
02
1250
43
0
71
00
1252
0
09
52
1249
0
00
15
1457
10
1248
00
07
77
0
1251
0
1961
06
80
0
10
64
1260
0
00
10
1451
63
0
05
1259
0'
63
1448
03
0
19
1276
01
0
18
00
1275 2750
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
2
3
4 1
1273
0
0
1279
0
1280
0
1281
0
1283
0
1284
0
1285
1107
0
0
1105
0
1108
0
1106
1104
0
1101
0
0
1102
461
0
Korabatiabara
Basudevpur
0
462
466
0
0
463
465
0
467
0
456
0
0
468
0
455
0
451
412
0
0
418
0
417
0
416
0
271
0
244
0
247
0
246
0
245
0
249
0
243
0
250
0
253
0
255
0
257
0
269
0
268
0
267
0
33
0
28-
30
0
0
27
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
09
36
00
82
01
82
01
95
10
59
00
96
60
02
01
50
02
88
00
10
02
28
18
06
13
77
05
50
03
94
45
00
42
03
00
57
02
05
06
02
01
14
00
41
06
49
12
13
95
00
02
14
09
08
21
06
07
48
07
27
01
01
00
10
00
10
00
52
54
09
79
03
15
02
03
13
87
16
10
00
10
00
01
20
20
09
56
16
43
08
33
01 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
2
3
4
41
0
46
0
15
0
14
0
13
0
10
0
5
0
Mabadilla
116
0
115
0
113
0
117
0
112
0
118
0
121
0
122
0
123
0
124
0
128
0
254
0
255
0
253
0
252
0
150
0
149
0
151
0
146
0
156
0
157
0
163
0
1973
0
Jagannathprasad
1974
0
1976
0
1977
0
1376
0
1375
0
1343
0
1342
0
1341
0
1344
0
1347
0
1350
0
1349
0
1355
0
1356
0
1354
0
1252
0
2751 5
6
00
51
00
10
00 :
10
16
12
11
55
06
62
04
23
06
10
01
17
00
34
01
11
00
21
08
53
04
18
10
37
09
10
09
04
01
46
01
37
17
13
18
61
00
10
10
20
03
13
02
80
07
29
09
35
05
95
01
71
06
40
05
81
01
23
10
11
03
82
01
88
06
41
05
18
08
48
00
10
00
74
24
08
02
56
05
69
09
65
00
24
10
29 2752
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
4
3 1
2
0
1251
0
1253
0
1254
0
1255
0
1257
0
1250
0
265
0
269
0
264
0
270
0
262
0
247
261
0
0
248
0
255
0
196
0
195
0
194
0
193
0
51
0
54
0
56
0
57
0
55
0
58
0
68
0
67
0
66
0
65
0
64
0
75
0
76
0
95
0
90
0
83
0
85
0
89
86
0
0
88
0
87
0
93
0
94
0
103
0
97
0
96
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 5
6
16
04
01
78
04
97
01
81
14
06
77
05
94
05
83
04
63
00
03
94
00
69
04
53
01
15
08
71
10
68
02
24
07
45
03
46
09
95
09
13
05
53
08
28
36
09
00
10
05
38
00
62
40
01
02
83
07
82
10
00
32
09
13
05
04
34
01
45
45
01
60
00
01
39
30
02
01
07
01
30
66
12
33
06
01
38
00
31
03
69 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
0
Jayakrushnapur 609
610
0
0
593
0
592
0
586
0
585
0
587
561
0
562
0
0
558
507
0
0
564
0
506
503
0
0
496
0
497
0
495
0
473
0
474
0
476
0
475
0
467
0
438
0
439
0
440
0
429
0
426
423
0
0
422
0
421
420
0
0
419
0
417
416
0
0
414
0
411
0
68
77
0
71
0
73
0
0
72
0
60
0
206
0
59
0
18
0
19
2753
5
6
11
71
00
10
07
21
04
61
00
96
00
24
03
81
01
66
02
95
12
29
10
06
00
10
10
27
13
55
03
15
00
10
04
67
03
14
02
26
00
10
15
08
00
30
00
52
07
70
11
45
02
54
12
24
02
53
02
62
04
68
07
02
08
63
07
74
04
60
04
50
01
02
09
87
15
08
04
95
05
39
12
17
06
49
04
01
02
58
00
59
08
42
1 2754
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
4
2
1
3
0
9
0
10
0
8
0
6
0
22
0
24
0
25
0
5
0
4
0
2
0
97
Kasiabhiram
0
96
0
95
0
90
23
0
0
21
20
0
0
17
0
27
0
16
0
6
0
3
0
4
0
2
1
0
0
3753
Kamargan
0
3751
0
3752
0
3749
0
3738
0
3739
0
3736
3742
0
0
3712
0
3697
0
3696
0
3679
3676
0
3744
0
3668
0
0
3667
0
3666
0
3665
0
3664
0
3660
0
3661
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
6
5
03
90
04
02
71
05
77
02
60
04
22
04
46
01
00
66
66
02
17
99
10
68
05
99
00
26
11
43
00
97
12
38
63
02
03
15
00
21
02
98
07
24
10
66
18
00
10
04
18
04
53
02
02
35
48
00
01
35
00
29
58
03
12
89
06
03
02
11
73
08
95
05
10
00
13
85
03
86
48
00
28
04
11
79
00
05
87
08
23
09
61
00 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
2755
भारत का राजपत्र : जूम 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
4
2
3 1
3662
0
0
3014
0
2973
0
2972
0
2968
0
2971
0
2969
0
2967
0
2962
0
2963
0
2964
0
3944
0
2933
0
2924
2925
0
0
2929
0
2926
0
2927
0
2928
0
2912
0
2934
0
2935
0
2884
0
1451
Chirol
0
1450
0
1449
0
1448
0
1447
0
1438
0
1446
0
1441
0
1445
0
1407
0
1406
0
1409
0
1408
0
1411
0
1404
1403
10
0
1400
0
1402
0
1414
0
1415
0
1416
0
1386
0
1396 1633 GI/04-13
5
6
38
05
09
34
52
07
11
06
05
81
03
69
06
37
07
54
02
95
03
87
53
05
04
11
10
05
04
33
76
06
54
03
00
10
02
28
87
05
37
04
05
52
53
05
21
02
74
00
97
22
73
08
44
02
10
65
16
03
00
17
01
65
11
29
48
03
83
00
05
50
85
05
29
06
01
62
42
05
08
05
:
45
13
55
02
67
05
01
50
00
92
52
11 2756
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
3
4
2
0
1388
0
1395
0
1393
0
1390
0
1391
0
1272
0
1271
0
1270
0
1275
0
1267
0
1266
0
1264
0
1265
0
1212
0
1730
Belasaunlia
0
1713
0
1711
0
1667
0
1710
0
1674
0
1675
0
1676
0
1677
0
1678
0
1693
0
1692
0
1694
0
1695
0
1696
0
1697
0
1698
0
3378
Kharidabinyakpur
0
3067
0
3040
0
3039
0
3038
0
3037
0
1430
0
1438
0
1442
0
1449
0
1450
0
1422
0
1462
0
1451
0
1452
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
6
5
29
03
20
61
01
70
01
24
03
04
53
08
76
03
95
00
59
02
61
-00
12
15
00
10
55
06.
00
05
53
04
00
26
01
66
32
02
14
75
33
01
42
00
19
04
03
56
00
10
35
01
07
21
00
23
16
00
90
06
10
01
22
03
51
01
01
46
04
36
78
07
38
02
02
02
07
08
32
08
18
18
13
00
87
12
00
61
10
00
10
08
75
00 [भाग II- 3(ii)]
2757
राजपत्र जून 5, 2004/15, 1926
1
2
3
4
0
1459
1456
0
0
1453
1454
0
1223
0
1221
0
1222
0
0
1100
0
1099
0
1098
1097
0
0
970
0
998
0
976
0
975
974
0
0
977
967
0
980
0
963
0
964
0
965
0
962
0
961
0
0
909
0
910
0
911
0
912
914
0
921
0
0
920
0
919
918
0
922
0
0
933
923
0
0
932
0
924
0
925
0
714
927
0
0
3871
401
0
398
0
0
397
396
0 5
6
00
53
07
36
03
86
06
48
10
16
10
00
01
45
00
10
06
52
05
67
00
35
11
70
01
31
02
53
01
21
00
10
00
77
06
40
00
63
01
65
01
52
00
20
01
53
07
97
01
06
01
75
00
64
03
59
03
17
13
77
02
26
00
10
58
01
01
25
05
61
01
62
01
09
06
64
01
86
04
00
21
35
08
70
12
07
02
07
02
83
07
21 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
2758
3
4
2
1
0
384
0
386
0
347
0
348
0
349
0
350
0
351
0
361
0
360
0
359
0
355
0
356
0
357
0
275
0
274
0
273
0
241
0
242
0
243
0
244
0
245
0
247
0
246
0
227
0
224
0
226
0
225
0
216
0
217
0
219
0
218
0
147
0
148
0
149
0
145
0
144
0
142
0
121
0
122
0
123
0
125
0
126
129
0
0
130
0
13
0
14
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
6
5
00
10
15
09
01
45
00
10
03
22
39
03
01
35
22
02
18
04
22
03
02
40
99
02
10
02
58
02
01
97
04
05
16
06
10
00
10
00
85
02
19
03
10
00
44
03
90
00
60
01
02
78
62
03
1.
00
03
02
34
00
04
14
03
01
04
63
10
00
04
80
82
03
88
07
23
00
93
01
33
01
62
00
10
00
23
00
52
22
19
07
47
01 [भांग II- वष्ध 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
2
3
4
0
3834
0
15
16
0
17
0
0
18
9
0
7
0
1
0
0
4352
Basudebpur
0
4398
0
4397
0
4396
4395
0
4393
0
4394
0
0
4392
0
4391
2264
0
Bagdabinyakpur
0
2263
2261
0
0
2260
2259
0
0
2255
2256
0
2257
0
0
2241
2240
0
2239
0
3453
0
2222
0
0
542
Sukdevpur
529
0
528
0
0
527
0
1472
526
0
522
0
524
0
0
523
520
0
517
0
0
516
0
502
505
0
1473
0
0
506
6 5
04
09 02
92 01
44 00
48 00
10 26
87 01
64 07
90 28
25 06
69
82 02
02
22 03
99 01
26
:
00
17 05
59 00
10 06
52 00
10 04
92 01
53
24 02
00
90 01
93 01
81 01
09 01
63 09
48 00
23
66 14
01
23 02
72
14 00
02
66 01
41 02
26 01
73 01
77 06
00
09 06
01
51 08
24 01
98 02
11 00
60 02
32 2760
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
4
3
2
1
504
0
0
507
0
369
0
370
0
371
33
0
0
34
0
35
37
0
0
36
0
182
Sabarpur
0
186
0
183
0
185
0
184
0
199
0
200
0
235
234
0
0
210
0
209
0
130
0
128
0
129
0
124
0
117
0
118
0
93
0
115
0
116
0
112
0
111
0
104
0
102
0
101
0
100
0
99
0
674
Sungura
0
675
0
676
0
685
0
686
0
687
0
698
0
696
0
694
[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii)]
6
5
70
01
00
59
01
09
01
39
00
82
05
30
42
06
06
03
69
05
03
18
05
05
87
00
04
02
74
01
42
09
56
06
06
57
16
00
00
13
07
59
49
00
87
04
00
86
36
06
10
00
76
08
37
00
09
86
07
42
45
05
01
01
03
77
00
59
03
26
02
01
15
02
84
02
05
31
76
00
57
05
53
08
10
02
08
07
15
11
55
08
91
02 [भाग II-अण्ड 3(ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/श्रेष्ठ 15, 1926
1
2
3
0
704
0
705
0
709
0
551
0
550
0
552
549
0
548
0
0
546
723
0
0
520
0
521
0
516
302
0
0
301
300
0
0
73
0
74
76
0
0
83
0
93
0
92
0
97
0
98
0
100
110
0\
112
0
0
109
0
108
0
115
114
0
0
126
0
127
0
128
0
132
0
133
0
135
0
136
0
5
131
0
Kalasia
137
0
0
136
0
132
0
133
0
134
0
130 01
60 13
05
06
60
47 00
32 01
59 05
18 00
09
74 00
26
73 05
04
15 22
30
50 01
66 01
76 01
00
72 00
10 12
50 17
83
76 09
07
60
74 05
04
15
30 07
11
11
10 00
41 05
87 01
04
97 00
07
01
02
06
00
52 00
25 02
04 08
04
44 00
62 00
10
29 06
01
12
45 03
48 00 2762
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
4 1
2
3
0
192
0
187
111
0
0
150
0
151
0
153
152
0
0
156
0
155
0
154
0
200
157
0
158
0
0
164
0
165
0
166
0
585
Guagan
582
0
0
586
0
587
607
0
0
680
0
610
611
0
0
678
0
679
0
675
661
0
658
0
0
657
0
696
697
0
0
698
0
719
718
0
717
0
0
722
0
908
0
907
0
906
0
911
0
912
0
913
0
914
0
921
0
922
I
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ]
6
5
68
04
39
10
05
03
10
00
00
88
30
02
40
01
10
00
00
18
58
04
03
51
03
37
01
57
10
40
41
05
00
78
13
08
03
57.
61
01
01
08
38
10
46
11
10
00
02
25
09
24
66
00
13
39
07
05
11
60
01
28
01
47
96
01
24
01
46
03
94
08
82
05
50
00
05
02
54
00
18
09
01
91
01
86
39
01
07
02
05
25
00
62 2763
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
2
3 1
920
0
0
932
0
930
0
931
0
2031
0
2027
0
2028
0
2029
C
2024
2001
1897
1760
1761
1782
0
1781
1783
0
1780
0
1774
0
1778
0
1775
0
1776
0
1709
0
1707
0
1706
0
1652
0
1651
0
1629
0
1631
0
1650
0
1648
0
1647
0
1646
0
1642
0
1643
0
1638
0
1641
0
1640
0
1639
0
1584
0
1578
0
1577
0
1576
0
1575
0
1574
0
1573
0
1572 1633 GI/04-14
6
5
04
29
10
00
82
05
34
07
93
04
65
03
04
77
00
18
50
00
12
91
50
08
65
00
84
03
82
06
08
49
01
53
07
53
38
01
53
06
57
11
45
00
81
07
57
13
00
18
48
03
61
02
29
00
86
05
15
00
50
06
10
00
21
04
29
06
62
02
45
07
79
01
00
71
00
18
52
00
82
02
36
02
14
04
18
00
31
02
13
02
42
02 2764
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
4 1
2
3
0
1571
0
1552
0
1554
0
1551
0
1547
0
1542
0
1541
C
1540
0
1537
0
1536
0
1535
0
1534
0
1572
1475
0
1530
0
0
1432
0
1434
0
1435
0
1436
0
1437
0
1454
1470
0
1477
0
0
1476
0
1474
1473
0
0
151
Bakharpur
0
152
0
140
0
141
0
142
0
127
0
123
0
126
0
125
113
0
114
0
0
348
Bashathi
0
349
0
351
0
362
0
363
0
352
0
356
0
360
0
358
[PART II -SEC. 3 (ii) ] 5
6
26
04
10
85
17
42
06
65
19
38
02
90
30
09
10
00
68
01
12
50
03
25
20
39
00
10
88
06
06
35
01
85
74
06
07
78
08
31
03
03
32
16
20
94
51
00
03
49
13
25
03
98
06
74
03
51
15
00
12
31
24
00
00
02
03
30
04
93
05
60
13
00
03
08
98
03
06
22
42
02
01
06
25
02
32
01
00
10
41
08
93
04 2765
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
4
3
2
1.
0
359
0
357
0
324
0
257
0
280
0
281
0
278
0
276
0
275
0
273
0
272
0
270
0
269
0
148
0
149
0
147
0
145
0
150,
0
144
0
143
0
142
0
30
0
31
0
32
0
29
0
23
0
27
0
24
0
25
0
21
0
26
0
8
0
11
0
9
0
10
0
1994
Sudarsanpur
0
1993
0
1099
Suan
0
1100
0
1101
0
1106
0
1102
0
1107
0
2603
0
2604
0
1105
6
5
10
00
10
03
63
00
62
00
02
03
33
03
24
01
95
11
48
06
42
03
27
05
76
00
45
00
33
00
20
00
77
05
07
03
10
00
83
02
13
15
48
05
44
09
00
10
87
09
10
00
18
07
10
00
07
04
85
03
76
01
30
02
58
00
62
11
10
00
00
01
30
65.
10
00
22
07
44
00
47
01
24
10
10
00
47
02
10
00
15.
05
47
00 2766
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
2
3
4 1
0
1119
1118
0
1110
0
0
1117
0
1116
1115
0
1175
0
0
1174
0
1173
1171
0
1172
0
0
1160
0
1180
0
1181
0
1182
0
1183
0
1184
0
1189
0
1188
1190
0
1194
0
0
1193
1196
0
0
2806
0
2605
0
1199
0
1197
0
1232
1230
0
0
1231
1204
0
1216
0
1215
0
1214
0
1213
0
1212
0
0
1209
0
1210
1211
0
0
1297
1369
0
1367
0
70
0
1371
0
0
1397
0
1379
[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ] 5
6
09
75
00
20
00
10
03
40
01
08
01
16
00
48
03
83
01
15
00
63
04
74
04
33
05
12
03
36
02
64
00
23
41
03
33
07
10
06
03
90
06
25
04
48
00
91
00
10
00
47
10
00
09
26
06
01
04
18
00
55
01
65
74
08
00
10
01
46
02
68
00
45
01
70
04
38
10
00
01
00
63
06
00
33
46
05
05
65
08
37
00
10 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii)]
4
3
2
0
1380
0
1395
0
1392
0
1394
0
1393
0
1534
0
1535
0
1533
1536
0
0
1538
0
1545
0
1546
0
1543
0
1542
0
1550
0
1551
0
1567
1562
0
0
1565
0
1564
0
1563
0
1170
0
2623
0
1574
0
1581
0
1614
0
1613
0
1616
0
1617
0
1608
0
1607
0
1606
0
1627
0
1631
0
1653
0
1654
0
1655
0
1666
0
1658
0
1657
0
1659
0
778
Artung
0
670
0
671
0
673
0
677
2767
6
5 1
01
06
05
46
50
10
07
51
65
00
03
17
03
58
00
49
04
62
00
43
39
03
44
05
07
13
00
10
02
92
02
40
60
02
00
23
24
05
30
05
08
05
35
03
01
06
03
66
52
15
24
06
67
04
04
00
00
10
49
12
02
98
39
04
10
61
58
08
92
02
04
94
90
01
04
04
55
03
62
02
16
04
15
16
20
00
10
00
91
01
35
00 2768
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
679
0
676
0
0
523
0
522
0
511
510
0
512
0
513
0
514
0
0
496
0
495
516
0
0
391
493
0
0
494
492
0
392
0
0
394
323
0
322
0
324
0
321
0
0
322
326
0
0
260
265
0
261
0
262
0
0
3929
254
0
266
0
206
0
0
3994
0
252
207
0
208
0
0
210
0
209
122
0
160
0
0
161
0
159
3711
0
123
0
133
0
91
0
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 5
6
00
85
00
50
03
19
03
60
01
96
01
76
63
10
04
99
18
02
01
44
83
02
24
01
01
98
00
10
02
55
00
10
00
78
05
94
00
57
02
37
00
19
02
66
24
03
07
44
01
65
05
74
66
00
00
10
10
00
06
23
00
10
01
79
84
01
00
37
74
01
86
02
02
93
04
70
11
78
01
09
00
10
02
53
10
00
00
10
48
09
00
10 2769
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[भाम II- खष्ठ 3 ( ii) ]
4
3
2
1
0
92
0
3818
0
93
0
3817
0
83
0
84
0
88
0
85
0
87
0
73
0
86
0
74
0
28
0
26
0
27
0
46
Damodarpur
0
47
0
48
0
49
0
50
0
51
0
45
0
39
0
37
0
32
0
36
0
35
33
0
0
34
0
812
0
17
0
18
0
19
0
131
Parhuan
0
133
0
132
0
130
0
129
0
40
0
39
0
41
0
126
0
127
0
92
0
91
0
89
6
5
79
01
05
02
20
04
00
10
21
02
02
42
91
00
64
01
22
03
10
00
45
01
07
87
82
02
35
03
97
05
86
05
37
00
75
00
52
01
60
01
96
01
02
02
59
06
75
08
42
02
94
05
66
01
43
02
92
02
51
04
99
02
11
04
86
05
28
01
78
01
57
02
51
01
18
01
06
06
10
00
11
10
32
00
10
00
73
02
79
01
40
06 2770
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
1
4
2
3
0
87
0
88
0
84
0
3929
0
85
0
86
0
3927
0
3928
0
79
0
58
0
60
0
59
67
0
62
0
0
63
0
65
0
973
Radhamohanpur
0
972
0
9781
985
0
0
986
987
0
0
983
988
0
0
993
0
992
994
0
995
0
1001
0
0
1000
1007
0
1005
0
1011
0
1012
0
922
0
0
886
0
884
882
0
0
883
0
835
0
877
876
0
0
875
870
869
0
851
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
00
62
07
61
00
10
01
90
02
61
01
92
00
12
03
14
13
69
01
88
00
37
00
85
05
09
00
10
06
84
06
84
06
86
11
70
04
74
03
57
00
86
00
43
05
19
06
02
00
45
05
74
62
01
02
31
00
68
05
43
09
74
02
46
11
69
00
55
02
29
00
10
00
96
03
05
05
68
03
02
07
77
00
88
04
70
02
68
03
71
00
36 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
0
865
0
864
0
866
0
855
0
854
0
790
0
789
0
787
0
786
0
256
0
255
0
257
0
1564
267
0
0
264
0
266
0
269
0
270
0
1633
0
271
272
0
0
273
0
486
0
1611
0
481
0
478
0
477
0
476
0
476
0
473
0
1714
0
472
0
303
0
467
0
469
0
458
0
463
0
461
0
400
0
450
0
376
0
449
0
448
0
444
0
451
0
443 1633 G1/04-15
2771
6
5
36
03
43
01
58
01
55
04
16
02
34
05
36
04
35
03
85
09
00
03
83
03
59
04
08
01
44
00
18
05
88
05
41
02
13
08
10
00
14
01
48
09
33
01
18
05
45
04
42
00
10
00
26
15
40
03
88
01
76
10
10
00
10
02
79
01
10
00
68
04
83
06
69
06
79
06
29
05
24
04
10
00
36
10
94
07
33
06
10
00
91
03 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2772
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
6
5
4
3
2
10
0
00
433
44
428
0
02
04
18
0
427
01
29
0
425
20
03
426
0
0
02
62
01
17
420
02
0
69
424
11
0
421
01
52
0
422
82
03
423
0
01
89
0
408
55
02
627
0
[F. No. R-25011/11 /2004- Q.R. -I ] RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 31 मई, 2004
क का. आ. 1294.- केन्द्रीय सरकार , को लोक हित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है की उड़िसा राज्य मे पारादीप से पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में हल्दिया तक कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए .
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है की ऐसी भूमि जिसके भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है ओर जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची मे वर्णित है , मे उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए .
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम ओर खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि मे उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है .
कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियॉ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के अन्दर पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री अशोक कुमार दास , सक्षम प्राधिकारी पारादीप हल्दिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमीटेड , इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड मार्केटिंग डिविजन हाउसिंग कम्पलेक्स , मेघदम्बारा , डाकघर कुरुदा, बालासोर - 756056 , ( उड़िसा ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 2773
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[ भाग - खण्द 3 (ii ) ]
अनुसूची जिला : केन्द्रपाड़ा
राज्य : उड़िसा
क्षेत्रफल
खसरा संख्या
तहसील का नाम गाँव का नाम
2
1
3
आखरासाली
454 महांकालपाड़ा
455
576
635
472
474
473
$125
4485
486
85
84
99
487
83
600
554
و
542
$ 54
53
a
602
603
49
507
45
ن
505
504
38
39
वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टेयर एयर
4
6
5
71
75
0
0
93
48
06
0
03
0
34
02
77
0
07
0
05
86
0
00
24
0
06
76
0
96
06
0
01
03
13
11
0
0
02
51
08
0
02
00
10
0
0
02
41
03
0
15
0
77
09
11
24
0
55
0
10
10
40
0
33
08
0
0
10
00
00
14.
0
0
10
91
91
01
0
95
03
0
07
85
0
10
00
0
38
0
08 2774
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
4
3
2
1
0
499
34
0
0
500
0
33
0
32
0
30
0
31
0
622
0
494
0
493
0
24
0
621
0
20
0
492
0
21
0
18
0
520
0
19
0
17
0
11
16
0
0
12
0
13
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
114
भारगड़ोबारान्ड़ा
0
115
0
116
0
117
0
113
104
0
0
180
राजेन्द्रनगर
181
0
0
182
0
900
[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)]
6
5
57
02
28
11
71
04
52
01
44
02
02
04
13
11
10
02
02
31
18
04
38
02
38
02
26
02
37
01
27
05
28
02
98
01
00
52
50
03
18
01
37
00
06
80
34
07
05
19
72
00
43
07
15
24
91
13
79
01
29
05
10
00
48
18
40
19
65
14
96
02
47
00 2175 मायाका रात्र : जुड़ 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
4
3
2
1
0
183
0
184
0
185
0
168
0
167
0
166
0
165
0
164
0
163
0
162
0
190
0
191
0
149
148
0
147
0
146
0
145
0
144
0
143
0
142
0
141
0
135
0
134
0
133
0
132
0
916
208
0
200
0
207
0
880
0
205
0
231
0
232
0
952
0
233
6
5
06
31
94
01
07
04
00
33
61
01
59
02
29
04
75
01
53
02
39
03
77
06
60
08
10
00
21
00
52
00
66
01
01
89
82
02
03
40
61
03
92
02
21
03
12
03
45
03
64
03
15
12
11
29
43
10
73
01
54
02
71.
03
04
04
54
02
46
01
23
03 2776
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
4 1
2
3
234
0
235
0
0
236
0
237
0
879
230
0
0
238
0
239
834
0
0
241
0
242
0
229
0
243
0
227
0
228
0
221
0
222
0
226
0
896
223
0
0
225
0
268
0
901
0
269
270
0
0
271
0
272
0
273
0
274
0
275
276
0
0
278
0
281
0
899
0
283
[PART II-SBC . 3(ii) ] 5
6
04
68
48
03
04
07
02
06
01
44
00
10
04
49
01
65
01
96
04
52
04
04
00
10
04
54
02
03
02
02
02
88
01
17
00
10
01
89
92
00
06
74
10
00
03
73
01
00
00
85
00
69
74
00
00
84
00
61
00
67
00
53
03
23
01
96
00
10
11
96 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ पेष्ठ 15 , 19261001SAN HD
[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii)]
3
4
2
1
0
42
0
41
0
949
0
40
0
286
0
287
957
0
0
926
0
289
0
288
0
296
0
297
0
299
0
861
0
300
0
302
0
803
0
335
0
805
0
804
934
0
0
169
गुप्तागिरि
0
171
0
19
0
168
0
170
0
167
0
164
0
160
0
165
0
159
0
10
0
18
0
11
0
17
0
14
277
6
5
01
20
95
11
35
08
11
01
95
05
45
06
34
06
06
12
76
10
49
04
69
13
34
30
44
02
10
00
04
09
46
07
14
00
24
01
30
03
50
08
48
03
23
14
32
03
10
00
10
00
05
03
34
11
59
08
63
01
45
01
20
08
54
07
09
01
03
74
50
05
55
02 2778
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCÆUH 1 , 2003 /PHALGUN 10, 1924
4
2
3
1
0
कोचिला
505
504
0
0
400
402
0
0
407
0
386
0
698
0
367
0
328
0
697
0
696
0
372
0
822
0
370
0
701
0
222
369
0
0
221
0
219
0
220
0
705
217
0
0
171
0
172
0
204
195
0
0
194
0
177
0
450
बाचुरिआ
0
439
0
452
441
0
442
0
0
444
0
495
[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)]
6
5
17
03
00
69
07
13
10
00
10
41
56
02
00
70
12
43
01
90
02
11
00
10
03
50
05
38
05
04
81
04
00
21
01
95
04
91
60
02
80
03
70
00
18
54
24
15
00
85
00
20
20
46
00
30
22
21
04
31
12
03
00
20
09
06
73
02
10
00
00
93 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
2
3
4
0
437
0
348
0
466
0
589
0
590
0
588
0
345
0
587
0
346
0
331
614
0
0
329
0
612
0
498
0
325
0
21
0
831
अरोई
0
832
0
817
0
847
0
1002
0
818
:
0 .
814
0
819
0
1065
0
798
0
554
0
582
0
560
0
561
0
581
0
569
0
572
0
571
0
573
0
570 1633 GI/04-16
2779
6
5
56
02
21
07
10
00
74
02
27
02
72
01
66
00
00
15
22
01
30
02
45
02
35
01
51
14
05
59
56
55
27
25
17
43
07
25
03
21
03
20
07
10
00
06
12
20
00
36
01
42
32
23
00
04
13
64
03
23
03
03
70
10
00
98
03
25
02
84
01.
46
03 2780
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
2
4
3
0
574
550
0
0
549
0
0
546
537
0
468
0
470
0
991
0
990
0
423
0
422
0
421
417
416
0
0
41
425-
0
0
427
0
428
0
429
0
430
431
0
426
0
414
0
410
0
409
0
411
0
407
374
0
376
0
377
0
378
0
0
375
368
0
0
344
0
345
[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii )]
6
5
01
65
00
89
20
02
16
11
57
08
07
11
21
33
05
52
00
08
12
00
10
19
00
00
00
71
10
00
44
00
21
13
50
02
02
38
22
02
02
14
18
00
10
00
01
90
76
00
44
01
06
53
71
01
43
01
31
01
00
10
01
24
15
20
17
01
71
21
05
48 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926 [ भाग II -खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
1
0
1029
0
346
0
333
0
332
0
347
0
331
0
330
0
329
0
326
0
964
0
324
0
1055
0
1039
0
1038
0
250
0
1040
0
259
0
869
0
258
0
257
0
871
0
872
0
253
0
254
0
255 :
0
256
0
663
मालादिहि
0
662
0
664
0
638
0
637
0
568
परेश्वरपूर
0
567
0
566
0
570
2781
6
5
10
00
51.
05
18
32
11
01
61
01
79
00
62
16
09
04
38
04
26
01
72
02
01
16
62
06
91
23
28
00
38
16
90
01
10
00
15
12
20
00
10
00
10
08
10
00
10
00
22
09
39
06
54
08
85
09
44
09
93
02
63
01
10
00
51
00
52
07
10
00 2782
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
3
1
2
4
0
565
571
0
0
564
0
478
0
479
477
0
0
592
597
0
596
0
475
0
451
0
452
0
484
0
535
0
386
0
385
0
384
0
383
0
380
0
348
0
345
0
347
0
346
0
510
0
354
0
339
0
340
0
335
0
336
0
334
0
331
0
330
0
538
0
328
0
327
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
6
5
17
00
24
00
01
06
23
03
10
00
13
15
10
00
10
00
14
07
36
04
10
00
01
02
20
12
02
97
37
06
57
02
81
02
30
03
41
12
30
05
01
28
02
23
05
15
25
04
00
37
06
08
02
78
10
79
00
34
01
44
22
10
03
03
10
00
04
83
08
06 भारत का राजपत्र : জুদ जून 5 , 2004/ ज्येष्ठ: 15, 1928 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4
3
2
0
326
0
323
0
324
0
325
0
282
0
281
0
1006
नन्तर
0
972
0
973
0
974
0
975
0
1381
0
976
0
1047
0
1377
0
86
0
85
0
84
0
83
0
82
0
1438
0
81
0
546
बारादनग
0
547
0
605
0
606
0
607
0
608
0
609
0
545
0
1357
0
530
0
529
0
528
0
527
2783
6
5
00
03
54
00
04
26
46
03
15
62
75
04
11
14
67
76
02
04
00
02
33
03.
37
03
06
06
29
04
00
02
04
51
11
53
01
68
55
00
59
04
03
18
24
07
21
06
13
18
02
03
02
76
68
00
46
12
02
03
04
83
77
01
12
02
73
03
26 2784
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
4
3
2
1
0
513
0
514
0
1424
0
1425
0
510
0
509
0
508
0
506
0
505
1423
0
0
496
0
498
0
497
0
490
0
493
0
491
0
492
0
486
0
290
0
289
0
288
0
287
0
286
0
285
0
284
0
296
0
276
0
262
0
263
0
272
0
271
0
265
0
266
0
1184
बाहरसूबला
0
1160
0
1161
[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)]
6
5
06
11
06
90
09
68
04
05
06
75
07
04
22
05
05
03
17
01
26
04
00
36
92
05
00
10
05
05
05
91
85
01
0
14
00
03
03
33
08
64
06
44
03
95
03
03
28
61
04
44
03
36
64
00
16
63
26
16
03
10
00
15
07
65
05
99
03
57
03
73
02 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926 [ भाग 1Ⅱ- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4
2
3
1
0
1164
0
1165
0
1166
0
1168
1167
0
0
1170
1171
0
0
547
546
0
545
0
549
0
0
544
0
541
0
542
0
536
535
0
0
534
0
520
0
514
0
519
0
1317
466
0
0
464
0
465
0
454
452
0
453
0
0
438
448
0
0
449
0
450
0
1286
0
1200
289
0
0
288
0
1196
2785 5
6
03
45
03
41
70
02
83
03
10
00
04
41
63
00
00
87
01
04
22
00
01
64
62
06
02
30
02
41
03
24
01
37
03
75
20
00
51
57
06
53
00
16
10
00
38
04
75
03
11
26
00
01
34
79
00
00
41
83
01
38
00
41
03
03
89
10
00
13
05
52
00 2786
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
1
2
3
4
0
290
0
291
294
0
0
293
292
0
0
1407
0
306
0
334
0
315
314
0
313
0
312
0
385
0
0
74
73
0
0
1326
76
0
0
78
0
1339
79
0
1
0
0
652
एकलपूर
0
247
233
0
0
243
0
234
224
0
235
0
222
0
219
0
220
0
0
218
103
0
0
104
0
106
0
100
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]
6
5
06
46
10
00
09
08
05
88
00
93
04
44
06
65
00
78
01
78
10
36
02
96
01
58
02
20
00
8
03
80
34
06
00
19
00
71
01
80
00
10
22
17
00
18
06
74
08
46
00
10
09
36
67
04
03
18
83
00
04
74
01
68
96
08
04
81
00
10
09
61
00
43
!
2787
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
1
0
99
0
98
:
0
97
0
118
0
684
0
68
0
91
0
67
0
66
0
69
0
65
0
73
0
62
0
215
बढ़ाबईन्चा
0
216
0
213
0
210
0
209
0
208
0
169
0
1767
बारादिहि
0
1768
0
1756
0
1758
0
1729
0
267
खोलानाई
0
401
0
269
0
271
0
273
0
276
0
413
0
274
0
275
0
255 1633G1/04-17
6
5
05
15
21
03
00
95
88
02
22
02
95
03
19
01
54
01
05
19
61
01
21
08
89
07
22
05
97
03
47
02
07
17
08
03
59
05
64
10
23
16
29
26
60
01
01
04
01
03
32
04
71
02
00
31
94
05
44
02
45
02
15
05
33
02
30
02
49
02
93
02 2788
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
7
3
4
0
254
0
380
247
0
0
242
0
278
0
240
239
0
236
0
0
235
232
0
231
0
223
0
222
0
279
0
221
0
0
215
280
0
0
384
291
0
288
0
0
289
0
290
294
0
365
0
364
0
351
0
354
0
0
353
352
0
343
0
339
0
0
340
341
0
342
0
[PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
02
83
01
07
03
51
06
56
06
66
00
10
06
02
99
04
25
01
03
17
01
90
01
02
02
39
25
08
26
03
01
62
06
72
10
70
23
97
00
10
03
75
16
16
06
44
02
85
10
02
20
62
03
64
08
10
02
33
03
40
03
21
01
17
01
77
33
02 278 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
6
5
4
3
2
1
02
13
0
338
07
28
0
1
गुलुड़िआ
33
12
0
306
काकटपूर
60
17
0
305
25
00
0
307
82
13
0
308
01
02
0
311
09
08
0
309
60
02
0
310
50
00
0
363
10
00
0
364
07
02
0
502
84
07
0
694
10
00
0
503
70
03
0
693
74
12
0
510
79
06
0
513
26
17
0
524
65
07
0
523
60
00
0
280
बन्धपारा
74
:
05
0
279
99
10
0
277
46
01
0
278
38
02
0
272
35
10
0
271
53
09
0
257
26
02
0
252
00
10
0
88
07
0
06
87
42
0
03
92
65
0
03
91
31
05
0
93
02
35
0
94
11
0
06
366
83
-0
16
103 2790
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
3
4 1
2
0
206
0
352
207
0
0
351
0
344
0
194
0
195
0
196
0
190
0
175
0
52
0
36
0
35
0
34
0
33
0
350
0
810
गोगुआ
0
808
0
809
807
0
0
805
0
804
0
874
0
875
0
877
0
803
0
802
801
0
0
590
0
589
0
588
0
592
0
587
0
583
0
582
[PART.II-SEC. 3(ii)]
6
5
20
03
18
03
17
04
62
05
15
04
79
04
05
84
03
20
29
00
14
68
62
06
72
02
05
99
07
49
16
19
12
65
07
89
13
08
10
00
03
07
02
18
03
14
21
00
10
00
00
10
61
01
49
00
01
23
05
03
10
17
76
07
40
01
75
15
03
78
03
09 2791
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
1
0
581
0
580
0
565
0
562
0
563
0
564
0
561
0
560
0
559
0
516
0
455
0
415
0
454
0
453
0
416
0
445
0
441
0
440
0
439
0
479
0
1022
0
186
0
168
0
169
0
162
0
170
0
171
0
172
0
128
0
1065
0
127
0
1091
0
137
0
1021
6
5
96
03
96
02
03
71
40
08
01
45
00
10
60
08
64
00
90
02
34
02
38
02
74
03
00
84
10
00
91
05
13
78
19
00
98
04
00
10
90
05
73
01
00
06
12
08
18
02
08
02
82
05
96
08
10
00
63
02
87
03
34
04
37
04
25
02
23
02 2792
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
497
0 पट्टामुन्ड़ई
संगकृपा
493
0
492
0
4.88
0
206
0
0
650
649
0
203
0
202
0
200
0
196
0
0
198
197
0
0
195
190
0
0
बलि आपाली
263
262
0
272
0
273
0
261
0
260
0
0
257
259
0
258
0
238
0
232
0
233
0
235
0
236
0
212
0
211
0
207
0
206
0
0
194
0
28
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
17
81
09
45
03
48
03
37
06
63
02
23
00
10
05
50
03
12
02
21
05
26
04
20
07
15
00
10
08
98
00
10
10
23
60
03
27
06
00
53
06
49
00
10
03
21
02
79
10
56
06
04
04
65
06
29
03
02
06
19
00
10
07
06
04
98
47
08
9
26 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
0
29
0
30
0
611
0
613
612
0
0
34
0
35
0
36
0
60
0
59
0
58
0
57
0
56
0
62
0
63
0
64
0
67
0
66
0
68
0
627
0
69
0
70
0
72
0
6
0
229
तेरोई
0
179
0
178
0
190
0
189
0
188
0
193
0
1338
0
192
0
1585
0
149
2793.
6
5
56
00
04
95
47
04
10
00
46
05
10
00
18
08
27
13
00
10
00
10
11
05
32
05
71
06
43
04
65
06
33
06
29
04
00
10
07
73
02
80
21
05
40
02
10
06
62
03
24
02
20
00
10
00
02
09
03
88
00
27
07
18
01
50
02
94
92
03
13
94 2794
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
1
2
4
3
150
0
0
136
0
151
134
0
0
133
103
0
76
0
80
0
0
82
78
0
0
1489
0
83
0
81
0
63
0
84
0
60
0
1536
34
0
0
1503
35
0
0
36
0
1601
0
38
0
40
0
39
0
1364
0
1363
0
18
17
0
1492
0
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
12
11
0
[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
46
1303
02
29
06
98
13
09
75
04
00
08
03
74
02
06
00
57
00
10
04
83
10
00
41
08
06
05
18
00
14
75
02
55
00
10
04
32
03
46
03
96
96
01
21
03
01
90
03
38
01
13
04
66
10
55
03
30
04
51
02
02
02
55
10
31
02
94
66
01 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : खून 5, 2004/पेष्ठ 15, 1926
4
3
2
0
308
0
168
बलिआजोरी
0
167
0
165
0
164
0
163
0
150
0
151
0
152
0
507
0
153
0
154
0
155
148
0
0
568
137
0
138
0
0
145
0
144
0
139
140
0
0.
141
0
142
0
143
0
123
0
607
122.
0
0
120
0
536
0
121
0
518
0
95
0
96
0
99 1633 G1/04-18
2795 5
6
62
04
73
01
30
09
08
01
53
01
10
00
65
08
13
02
06
69
02
31
13
05
41
08
01
59
03
82
46
02
27
03
01
65
01
48
00
10
10
.00
39
02
89
00
53
02
00
42
96
03
03
18
00
10
12
01
53
02
04
82
32
04
15
00
03
96
97
02 2796
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
1
2
3
4
100
0
101
0
102
0
522
0
0
521
525
0
47
0
526
0
0
460
459
0
12
0
0
8
9
0
0
458
565
0.
0
7
6
0
0
453
0
5
2
0
553
0
3
0
1
0
आपदा
1907
0
2018
0
0
1906
0
837
821
0
0
820
0
819
774
0
807
0
806
0
0
1977
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] 5
6
00
38
05
94
02
05
10
09
00
03
27
00
65
09
06
09
00
52
07
02
06
00
10
19
65
01
43
00
20
94
03
06
26
03
89
08
90
83
05
04
05
02
89
16
66
00
60
14
56
00
12
03
92
01
65
07
44
00
28
88
09
00
11
05
22
00
10 2797 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र जून 5, 2004/ पेष्ठ 15, 1926 10
UHT
SITEMAD
6
4
5
1
2 ?
3
0
47
01
804
01
11
0
803
0
01
52
802
14
02
0
2058
56
783
002
23
00
0
1976
30
0
01
785
87
0
10
784
0
20
07
769
38
0
06
770
03
0
18
2047
03
63
0
771
0
00
37
766
رال
03
62
765
00
764
06
62
0
0
03
40
763
03
0
06
762
0
02
21
759
37
0
03
760
75
03
0
761
C
20.
96
08
720
06
18
0
08
719
0
12
0
01
718
72
13
0
717
74
0
16
716
28
00
688
21
0
06
715
51
0
07
00
43
03
0
00
713
06
31
00
0
712
04
17
0
0
711
10
00
0
584
06
85
0
592
01
61
0
591
0
57
0
09
0
585 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
2798
4
3
2
1
0
586
0
587
0
538
0
6
0
609
सानगरा
0
608
0
574
0
573
0
570
0
575
0
563
0
577
0
569
0
567
0
568
0
542
0
819
0
543
0
789
0
541
0
604
बड़गरा
0
296
0
294
0
293
0
291
0
971
दळबड़ा
0
970
0
969
0
974
0
968
0
966
963
0
0
962
0
965
964
0
[PART II SBC . 3( ii)] 5
6
42
04
83
00
95
01
08
04
00
01
33
02
04
01
63
03
74
30
86
03
17
04
53
05
61
05
15
00
77
05
35
03
23
00
59
03
48
02
25
09
01
39
05
08
44
11
64
01
82
12
35
02
30
08
09
24
10
00
43
00
06
35
03
84
17
00
24
00
23
02 [भान II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का उपचार : कृ 5, 2004/15, 1926
1
4
2
3
0
961
0
951
950
0
0
906
0
946
907
0
0
904
894
0
0
891
0
893
883
0
0
884
3371
0
संसारफल
0
3351
0
3352
0
3350
0
3354
0
3358
3347
0
0
3353
3346
0
0
3355
3356
0
0
3345
0
3359
0
3360
0
3195
0
3194
3738
0
0
3209
0
3210
0
3650
0
3599
0
3211 5
6
48 06
00
15 05
77 03
73 02
64
34 11
01
36 05
78 00
23 04
04 05
74 01
08
49 03
01
99 02
33 00
10 00
10 00
19 03
44
10 00
03
61 03
37 02
99
28 06
11 04
47 08
06
42
80 02
07
91 04
71 07
97 01
62
67 03 2800
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1928
4
3
2
1
0
3214
0
3215
0
3216
0
3218
0
3217
0
2889
0
2887
0
2886
0
2885
0
2853
0
2852
0
2851
0
2850
0
2854
0
2844
0
2858
0
2859
0
2860
0
2862
0
2861
0
2864
0
2840
0
2834
0
2841
0
2829
0
2445
0
3589
0
3588
0
3587
0
2444
0
2826
0
2446
0
2824
0
2825
0
2485
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
03
92
00
10
87
05
56
01
10
04
10
00
03
08
03
11
75
02
04
48
02
49
77
00
00
57
12
13
35
03
75
05
05
05
03
64
10
00
92
01
10
00
04
89
34
02
14
09
10
00
20
00
02
79
02
22
05
92
00
19
01
24
12
12
00
55
65
07
02
61 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
0
2476
0
2455
0
2456
0
2457
0
2458
0
2475
0
2474
0
1900
0
1901
0
1902
0
1904
こしい
0
1905
AA
0
1983
0
1906
0
1989
0
1907
0
1908
0
1917
0
1918
0
1916
0
1915
0
1923
0
1921
0
1922
0
1864
0
1855
0
1856.
0
1873
0
1872
0
1871
0
1844
0
3477
0
1845
1833
0
0
1384 5
6
88 05
51 00
10 00
21 00
31 00
12 07
14
52
29 00
78 00
44 00
14 02
55 04
13 00
10 00
10 00
05 11
10 00
93 04
46 01
44 05
10 00
00
80
97 06
66 06
94 02
16 00
10 00
10 00
02
99
79 05
00
83
41 05
37 02
97. 06
70 00 2802
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1928
1
2
3
4
1383
0
1382
0
295
0
546
0
547
0
548
0
543
0
544.
0
542
0
444
0
442
0
0
445
0
443
448
0
447
0
0
449
412
0
413
0
0
411
410
0
0
406
402
0
0
407
408
0
400-
0
3461
0
0
399
398
0
0
396
0
397
0
355
3707
0
356
0
0
358
359
0
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 5
6
00
82
02
43
16
59
02
30
02
67
00
21
00
70
05
80
03
63
02
16
00
41
01
95
07
95
80
00
03
20
06
92
05
83
00
10
00
10
06
89
02
05
00
10
01
23
00
37
04
24
02
36
00
51
12
24
43
02
06
02
05
48
38
04
03
23
02
68
02
69 2803
भारत का राजपत्र : जूम 5 , 2004/श्रेष्ठ 15, 1926
[भाग - खण्ड 3(ii ) ]
6
4
5
3
2
1
41
01
0
360
02
79
0
204
10
00
0
367
27
0
08
203
71
00
0
202
80
04
0
148
54
05
0
147
58
01
0
146
43
00
0
345
अधाड़ेउरा
42
04
0
346
02
04
0
380
90
04
0
320
04
90
0
318
89
01
0
315
14
00
0
317
09
02
0
316
16
00
0
314
74
08
0
297
89
16
0
282
46
00
0
281
29
16
0
267
11
00
0
265
03
06
0
266
10
00
0
244
25
03
0
261
72
04
0
262
40
08
0
243
32
05
0
241
43
03
0
242
24
03
0
228
59
01
0
1275
राजनगर
फिरकीदान्ड़ी
37
02
0
1241
88
06
0
1239
26
02
0
1237
10
00
0
1240
1633 GI/04-19 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1928
1
2
3
4
1230
0
1232
0
1231
0
1210
0
0
121,
1201
1205
0
1206
0
1204
0
1346
0
0
1207
1176
0
1171
0
1309
0
1172
0
1166
0
1173
0
1174
0
1132
0
0
1163
1133
0
1136
0
1137
0
1135
0
0
1138
0
1140
1141
0
1150
0
1152
0
1153
0
992
0
993
0
994
0
995
0
999
0
[PART II SBC, 3 (ii) ] 5
6
38
08
05
87
00
10
04
50
00
10
08
80
48
04
68
02
15
08
03
07
64
04
74
01
21
01
74
06
94
00
10
03
06
00
10
05
21
00
57
02
33
12
45
00
10
01
23
08
54
05
12
07
23
01
20
20
53
07
52
00
17
08
95
02
40
07
32
02
24 [ भाग-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2805
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
4
2
3
1
0
1000
0
1291
1001
0
0
1003
0
990
0
989
0
988
0
979
0
946
0
976
0
977
0
975
0
972
0
968
0
969
0
971
0
970
0
963
0
962
0
958
0
957
0
956
0
955
0
952
0
316
दक्षिणदान्डी
0
294
0
292
0
263
262
0
0
261
0
260
0
259
264
0
0
258
0
257 5
6
32
02
33
02
06
02
16
00
39
05
03
19
04
10
00
82
10
00
01
44
11
58
07
04
00
52
01
21
00
52
16
02
01
82
01
05'
39
01
00
91
35
01
00
02
33
00
00
25
14
55
93
00
32
00
22
35
57
02
04
19
02
50
57
00
01
12
33
09
10
00 2806
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1928
4
3 1
2
266
0
0
514
0
270
0
249
248
0
0
243
242
0
0
239
0
158
0
159
0
156
155
0
0
154
0
511
0
150
0
510
0
152
0
151
0
126
0
127
0
128
0
125
0
129
0
121
0
175
0
176
0
178
0
180
0
181
0
182
0
89
0
88
0
536
0
87
95
0
[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] 5
6
66
01
05
73
27
07
02
53
21
03
09
53
73
12
01
74
37
09
00
15
20
04
05
64
00
10
03
06
03
59
02
85
24
01
87
05
76
10
00
10
00
10
62
02
10
00
67
09
77
05
71
05
06
43
92
00
05
69
62
06
31
03
21
05
81
03
02
79
06
10 [भात II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926 1
2
3
4
501
0
96
0
534
0
0
61
60
0
0
530
49
0
0
531
46
0
36
0
38
0
39
0
45
0
40
0
37
0
897
गोबिन्दपूर
896
0
895
0
894
0
893
0
899
0
892
0
900
0
0
891-
890
0
886
0
0
887
885
0
884
0
589
0
520
0
1336
0
0
296
0
1413
298
0
2807 5
6
03
25
08
06
06
87
15
15
00
63
02
34
09
82
02
92
05
08
00
10
13
61
00
86
00
10
00
10
09
78
03
95
02
11
02
38
01
92
00
95
07
09
01
29
06
37
00
74
06
17
01
53
03
57
03
60
00
10
02
24
03
06
02
41
13
59
44
02
02
52 2808
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1928
3
4 1
2
5
0
00
299
300
0
00
301
0
00
00
302
0
15
297
0
306
0
02
150
0
03
1293
0
03
151
0
03
0
157
02
156
0
00
0
01
1294
158
02
0
00
159
0
164
0
02
05
0
1295
165
03
0
07
166
0
0
06
167
00
168
0
03
0
171
06
172
0
06
173
0
0
04
174
06
66
0
00
67
0
02
65
0
68
0
00
15
69
0
0
00
71
00
0
70
00
57
0
0
00
58
01
59
0
0
00
60
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] 6
10
10
85
64
97
10
69
24
99
38
58
94
12
67
90
17
57
36
24
38
55
29
27
94
10
40
03
40
90
10
10
54
99
54
41 2811
भारत को राजपत्र 1 जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
1
0
360
0
333
0
334
0
332
0
936
0
937
0
335
0
246
0
251
0
247
0
248
249
0
866
0
920
0
240
0
250
0
867
0
238
0
907
0
237
0
934
0
236
0
933
0
233
0
234
0
231
0
232
0
906
230
0
0
932
0
229
0
931 5
0
130
0
151
0
152 1633 GI/04-20
6
5
72
05
20
01
15
01
33
04
74
00
46
00
10
00
24.
03
20
00
57
01
47
02
01
06
67
01
65
02
10
00
70
04
33
01
90
00
19
02
53
02
84
00
25
01
08
01
61
04
10
00
10
00
14
05
80
00
62
00
10
01
74
05
97
01.
77
01
96
03
42
02 2812
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1928
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]
2
4
3
6
5
बन्धपाटना
645
0
00
27
नळदिआ
990
0
02
44
1003
0
09
29
988
0
01
19
0
05
89
50 .
832
10
00
833
0
61
834
0
10
986
0
00
34
03
985
0
13
0
978
16
61
0
979
36
04
543
0
04
05
बेलपालड़िआ
542
0
21
84
0
98
544
08
0
06
541
13
539
0
00
52
0
545
01
73
546
0
00
10
482
0
01
33
0
77
475
03
0
06
951
66
0
473
00
10
190
0
01
34
191
0
06
70
996
0
30
02
03
997
0
34
0
192
04
64
0
193
04
75
0
02
993
60
0
194
01
01
274
0
00
10
195
0
02
07
272
0
01
51
271
0
01
38 2813
भाग्री का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4 1
2
3
0
270
0
269
268
0
0
267
0
266
0
209
0
261
0
243
245
0
0
244
0
239
0
238
226
0
0
227
0
228
0
1552 औल
साहूपड़ा
0
1553
0
1554
1556
0
0
2362
0
2361
1576
0
0
1574
1577
0
0
1580
0
1581
0
1582
0
1583
0
1573
0
1568
0
1569
0
1570
0
1614
0
1613
0
2437 5
6
94
01
38
01
00
76
14
00
00
10
93
02
27
13
01
11
00
98
21
03
22
01
01
49
56
04
76
11
95
00
89
04
02
09
01
89
92
01
52
06
42
03
31
00
10
00
40
02
73
02
02
29
15
06
00
90
14
01
01
25
36
04
13
01
05
02
87
02
78
00 2814
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1928
2
3
4 1
0
1610
1632
0
1668
0
0
1669
0
1667
1666
0
0
1662
0
1663
0
1664
0
1660
0
1656-
0
1655
0
1654
1417
0
0
अटला
936
0
925
0
926
0
937
0
914
915
0
0
924
0
923
0
1034
0
892
0
1019
0
894
0
893
0
887
0
885
0
884
883
0
881
0
0
880
876
0
0
878
[PART II-SBC. 3(ii)]
6
5
08
08
62
04
02
08
00
19
37
04
13
00
03
04
03
03
05
83
40
08
82
00
07
41
00
43
01
49
67
01
03
88
47
01
10
00
00
10
06
04
02
49
01
50
04
01
15
69
10
00
00
10
08
85
01
36
47
02
02
29
01
28
01
24
03
67
29
01
07
85 2815
भारत का राजपत्र: जूम 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
4
3
2
1
0
872
0
1017
0
868
0
867
0
865
0
860
0
864
0
863
0
862
0
848
847
0
0
848
0
845
0
844
0
833
0
832
0
829
0
830
0
826
0
828
0
827
0
819
0
821
0
817
0
820
0
816
0
815
0
812
0
813
0
803
0
802
0
801
0
800
0
799
0
784
6
5
35
00
52
04
58
01
24
03
90
05
10
00
31
03
63
00
16
01
52
01
04
96
73
03
62.
09
10
00
18
04
36
00
84
01
00
14
01
01
05
05
01
05
22
06
59
00
56
00
55
00
52
08
10
00
84
02
24
05
01
05
83
03
10
00
05
01
03
85
10
00 2816
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1928
1
2
3
4
789
0
785
0
786
0
0
394
787
0
395
0
0
398
399
0
400
0
401
0
407
0
408
0
410
0
0
406
0
405
412
0
425
0
433
0
430
0
431
432
0
0
429
437
0
436
0
533
0
402
0
216
0
217
0
218
0
209
0
208
0
207
0
0
219
खन्दाल
21
0
22
0
[PART II SBC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
00
10
07
60
65
00
00
27
05
21
04
95
01
72
03
79
02
65
00
99
02
38
06
16
00
28
07
85
00
73
02
87
01
31
07
24
00
10
00
38
62
06
00
54
03
73
03
61
06
20
01
68
01
84
08
77
01
88
00
56
00
49
06
64
09
51
02
79
03
11 2817 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जूम 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
5
6
23
0
00
52
केनागं
0
01
50
398
760
0
93
01
396
0
04
02
776
0
46
00
395
0
03
11
394
0
16
02
0
404
02
17
405
0
04
85
0
392
06
13
407
0
02
50
745
0
00
94
408
0
02
30
787
0
02
04
44
732
0
02
0
409
61
02
413
0
04
03
414
02
06
0
415
0
01
05
416
0
03
01
00
417
0
57.
0
418
02
38
0
16
01
419
0
420
03
85
421
0
00
59
0
422
04
20
0
01
439
63
0
436
00
18
757
0
04
49
01
437
0
43
0
06.
16
438
440
0
04
66
3
03
553
0
14
02
0
16
296
पुरिल्लो
317
0
11
43 2818
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1928
1
2
3
4
297
0
316
0
379
0-
0
308
315
0
404
309
0
0
310
285
0
236
0
235
0
241
0
0
234
228
0
242
0
223
0
243
0
0
244
0
245
0
194
0
189
187
0
185
0
186
0
418
0
0
384
118
0
0
119
0
395
117
0
116
0
0
115
377
0
106
0
0
107 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]
5
6
01
71
07
18
00
73
!
05
85
00
10
01
32
05
70
01
99
01
26
06
68
88
02
01
85
17
21
00
14
09
61
00
10
01
41
00
48
01
13
01
95
02
18
02
49
00
10
07
18
02
66
02
30
00
10
08
50
00
54
10
34
04
55
10
74
04
24
01
51
04
96 2819
जून 5, 2004/ पेष्ठ 15, 1926
राजपत्र
[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
भारत
6
5
4
3
2
1
14
00
0
110
10
00
0
405
32
0
04
59
गोपीनाथपूर
30
0
00
258
41
0
00
58
41
04
0
16
74
01
0
223
19
00
0
222
82
03
0
221
16.
01
0
247
47
06
0
18
06
83
0
19
93
01-
0
33
37
02
0
32
14
06
0
34
10
00
0
38
85
05
0
35
77
02
0
36
10
00
0
37
31
00
0
2603
बड़ान्को
88
03
0
2607
90
09
0
2608
24
00
0
2606
10
00
0
2605
55
02
0
2476
08
08
0
1486
46
00
0
1493
46
00
0
2828
33
01
0
1492
93
00
0
1491
51
11
.0
1487
07
03
0
1485
10
00
0
1494
47
00
0
2843
39
00
0
2842
1633 GI/04-21 2820
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1928
[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii)] 1
2
3
4
5
6
0
2841
00
46
2840
0
00
49
2839
00
0
41
1434
0
93
02
0
2772
02
59
04
36
1483
1472
71
0
01
1471
0
81
0
01
54
1469
42
0
01
1468
1465
0
01
57
0
68
1464
02
03
0
20
2643
01
0
71
1462
02
38
1441
0
01
78
2968
0
1440
66
0
02
02
1439
0
65
01
72
0
1437
0
01
1438
75
11
1181
0
24
0
56
2718
02
04
0
43
1432
07
0
07
1403
0
04
33
1402
0
04
35
1401
35
1400
0
03
0
48
08
1397
0
02
52
1398
0
66
1399
02
24
1395
0
04
00
10
1390
0
0
04
59
1391
12
23
1388
0
04
1387
0
94 2821
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
1
0
1187
0
1186
0
1185
0
1184
0
2799
0
1183
0
2800
0
1182
0
1229
0
2804
0
2672
0
1230
0
1228
0
1177
0
1176
0
1175.
0
1169
0
1170
0
1172
0
1171
0
1161
0
2621
0
1147
0
1131
0
1130
0
2825
0
1129
0
1123
0
2981
0
1122
0
1124
0
2699
0
2960
0
1034
0
1035 5
6
95
05
32
02
02
06
01
17
16
02
84
03
01
85
76
09
93
01
87
02
00
96
54
05
10
00
45
04
30
02
30
03
97
00
29
02
10
00
24
00
60
01
21
00
66
01
60
01
17
00
59
00
44
01
05
01
84
02
01
39
47
01
31
01
54
10
00
07
01 2822
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1928
1
2
3
4
1036
0
1028
0
1033
0
1029
0
1030
0
1026
0
सनान्को
22
0
21
0
20
0
19
0
18
0
15
0
17
0
10
0
16
0
11
0
0
13
12
0
387
0 राजकनिका
दाळीकेन्दा
2514
0
2510
0
0
2454
2322
0
0
2319
991
0
0
2309
2314
0
0
2313
2311
0
2310
0
0
2312
0
2316
2300
0
0
2299
0
2301
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
02
20
02
68
00
15
64
01
10
00
00
73
04
23
05
35
02
00
03
11
00
20
00
11
01
95
00
53
03
20
33
01
01
08
00
95
39
28
12
83
06
29
02
69
09
60
09
79
92
01
01
00
00
60
65
01
00
63
00
10
02
34
00
38
03
47
26
02
08
60 भारत का रामपत्र : जूम 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ji ) ]
4
2
3
0
2305
0
2304
0
2303
0
2302
0
2789
0
2571
0
2297
0
1038
0
1041
0
2296
0
1042
0
2292
0
1048
0
1047
0
1050
0
1049.
1051
0
0
1052
1055
0
0
1056
0
1060
0
1059
0
1061
0
1143
0
1144
0
2620
0
1106
0
1105
1142
0
0
1109
0
1134
0
1135
0
1130
0
1188
0
1206 5
6
10 00
40 00
01
18 01
28 00
48 00
24
47 01
00
85
13 05
00
37 06
22
67 08
41 08
36 04
01
67
36 08
05
05 01
23 13
89 01
81
54 02
01
48 03
17
68 06
10 00
05
29
16 03
10 00
00
69 00
10
88 12
13 01
17
27
51 05
99 02 2824
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1928
1
2
3
4
1205
0
1204
0
1202
0
1121
मंगलपूर
0
1223
0
1224
0
1151
0
1150
0
754
0
753
0
752
0
751
0
750
0
1125
0
653
0
654
0
711
0
655
0
709
0
708
0
707
0
706
0
705
0
1133
0
704
0
667
0
6.68
0
669
0
675
0
674
0
673
0
0
676
677
0
0
563
0
683
[PART II SBC. 3(ii) ] 5
6
04
87
02
17
06
07
01
73
03
94
04
75
02
57
05
11
04
61
05
.62
01
90
01
83
02
04
03
78
00
51
02
23
00
59
04
24
01
04
00
66
01
22
00
23
00
69
00
10
01
22
00
10
03
10
03
47
00
48
01
77
00
10
17
17
02
52
00
83
02
57 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
2
3
1
0
1141
0
1185
0
1184
0
481
0
490
0
491
0
492
0
493
0
494
0
496
495
0
0
509
0
1140
0
394
392
0
391
0
360
0
362
0
390
0
389
0
388
0
387
0
386
0
384
0
385
0
337
0
334
0
336
0
297
0
298
0
299
0
294
0
293
0
85
0
84 5
6 00
17 03
89
10 02
69 07
10 00
57 01
82 00
21 02
91 00
01
89
07 13
10 00
02
66
10 00
05
06 02
20 00
10
10 00
23 08
53 06
06
54
50 07
02
93 01
00
15 02
92 09
00
10
53 04
02
42
42 02
00
10
38 02
10 00
10 00
02
81 2826
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004 /JYAISTHA 15, 1928
1
2
4
3
0
1101
83
0
82
0
0
81
80
0
79
0
66
0
0
67
0
65
0
68
63
0
0
62
0.
64
0
केशनगर
179
0
180
0
181
0
182
202
0
203
0
0
220
0
995
222
0
221
0
966
0
0
965
964
0
0
218
0
217
246
0
273
0
274
0
275
0
276
0
278
0
279
0
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
00
10
42
03
03
19
02
70
55
02
02
75
05
97
66
04
02
19
02
60
03
00
00
69
12
00
03
52
02
18
02
86
04
05
26
04
07
09
07
02
01
26
03
18
03
99
02
85
02
83
10
00
04
85
11
75
01
05
04
97
01
34
01
40
74
00
00
85
23
00 2827
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
11- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
2
3
4
281
0
0
282
0
272
0
283
0
284
0
285
0
286
0
464
0
47
0
1780
अच्चूतपूर
0
1771
0
1770
0
1768
0
1707
0
1774
0
1865
0
1755
0
1761
0
1849
0
1764
0
1762
0
1714
0
1713
0
1712
0
1711
0
1698
0
1699
0
1697
0
1694
0
1700
0
1701
0
1696
0
1695
0
1558
0
1567 1633 GI/04-22
6
5
00
10
00
10
27
04
11
10
10
00
98
11
75
01
02
06
10
00
01
78
05
01
32
06
03
68
10
00
28
06
10
00
10
00
73
01
40
00
40
00
62
01
02
99
85
01
14
02
02
35
08
12
22
00
51
00
10
00
88
00
10
00
58
06
74
00
84
03
49
01 2828
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1928
1
2
3
4
1569
0
1901
0
1566
0
1570
0
0
1560
1571
1796
0
1572
0
0
1552
1553
0
0
1845
1786
0
1025
0
1024
0
128
0
129
0
130
0
131
0
127
0
133
0
0
132
118
0
116
0
114
0
60
0
626
बरुनाड़िआ
0
1003
0
1002
0
1001
0
1000
0
1004
0
999
0
998
0
997
0
996
0
[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
00
10
00
10
02
09
01
21
05
72
00
25
69
07
48
07
66
04
16
00
12
01
31
00
98
01
25
01
58
03
94
00
89
02
35
70
00
00
99
04
40
07
45
00
84
00
71
04
09
04
69
00
28
00
99
02
38
02
97
00
10
01
54
02
00
01
91
17
02 2829
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
4
2
1
3
0
995
0
994
0
993
0
975
0
925
0
924
0
923
0
920
919
0
0
4035
0
922
0
921
918
0
0
926
0
869
0
873
0
874
0
875
0
876
0
877
0
878
0
879
0
880
0
881
0
882
0
883
0
885
0
884
0
895
0
686
0
685
0
684
0
683
0
682 5
6
01
15
00
40
14
00
01
66
00
15
00
75
01
97
00
46
00
10
46
00
00
89
00
89
00
31
00
10
00
33
01
48
01
68
02
85
01
89
01
43
01
22
62
02
40
00
27
00
00
26
10
00
10
00
06
13
03
06
10
00
00
35
00
91
74.
01
88
01 2830
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1928
1
2
4
3
666
0
665
0
664
0
663
0
0
662
670
0
669
0
668
0
661
0
660
0
0
659
0
658
0
672
0
654
0
673
0
489
4069
0
0
491
0
492
0
493
0
496
0
497
510
0
511
0
0
512
0
513
3986
0
0
516
0
519
526
0
527
0
0
528
0
566
0
567
0
571
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii)]
6
5
01
64
59
01
04
05
24
01
47
00
01
08
00
44
10
00
48
00
63
00
12
00
00
10
07
44
03
63
46
01
10
00
00
59
01
90
04
88
02
21
89
01
02
24
03
12
12
03.
10
00
04
50
12
01
27
01
01
80
02
24
22
01
27
01
05
01
35
01
10
00 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ण्येष्ठ 15 , 1926 [ भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
4
2
3
1
0
570
0
569
0
572
0
3871
0
573
0
574
0
575
0
3814
0
576
0
577
0
578
0
3832
0
579
0
580
0
581
0
585
0
586
0
587
0
588
0
589
0
590
0
591
0
565
0
592
0
460
0
256
0
254
0
3933
0
247
0
246
0
245
0
244
0
239
0
240
0
237
2831
6
5
17
01
32
01
03
36
01
05
01
71
01
18
51
01
00
89
24
01
29
01
45
01
92
01
32
01
65
02
54
05
03
40
03
78
04
14
47
01
46
02
29
01
63
01
01
09
12
03
02
08
11
90
02
83
00
29
83
00
73
01
01
43
90
01
58
06
61
04
10
00 2832
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1928
2
3
4
236
0
235
0
234
0
233
0
0
232
231
0
230
0
3744
0
छदेश
0
1852
2232
0
गुन्जा
1220
0
0
1219
0
1218
1217
0
1221
0
1222
0
1223
0
0
1228
2338
0
0
1229
0
2512
1237
0
1238
0
1239
0
1240
0
1241
0
0
1242
0
1243
1246
0
1247
0
0
1248
0
1249
0
1152
0
1262
1151
0
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii )] 5
6
01
15
01
14
02
56
03
12
35
02
02
23
12
48
02
70
00
74
01
68
02
21
03
45
07
73
02
33
01
29
01
10
03
59
05
89
40
03
02
81
00
87
02
20
02
52
00
97
01
10
02
34
02
35
83
01
01
61
01
39
01
62
03
13
00
10
06
51
04
96 2833
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ15 , 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
4
2
3
1
0
1263
0
1150
0
1149
0
1147
1100
0
0
1101
0
1116
0
1117 수
0
1118
0
1130
0
1129
0
2526
0
1137
0
1138
0
1139
0
1127
1140
0
0
1317
0
1318
0
1319
0
2371
0
672
0
673
0
671
0
667
0
2052
0
2321
0
678
0
659
0
2322
0
2521
0
657
0
658
0
656
0
642
6
5
29
01
46
03
49
00
02
25
01
06
10
05
03
13
28
10
10
00
00
10
06
19
33
01
48
00
33
04
82
06
78
02
03
29
28
02
02
79
03
99
10
00
00
10
47
00
04
99
40
03
37
01
01
78
11
02
01
61
10
00
00
10
41
01
02
57
38
03
07
95 2834
[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii )) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5, 204/JYAISTHA 15, 1928
1
2
3
4
6
5
0
01
654
03
0
650
02
99
649
0
05
69
0
03
643
95
0
644
01
09
02
645
0
92
0
561
12
07
01
560
0
86
0
565
00
10
0
564
00
19
20
563
0
00
562
0
13
06
0
01
44
533
536
07
0
25
00
0
10
537
05
0
15
535
536
0
12
87
519
0
13
54
0
518
02
25
0
00
517
91
0
06
516
82
0
10
00
513
0
514
02
24
0
2362
05
54
507
0
05
98
0
2367
02
94
400
01
99
0
503
03
0
03
401
0
28
04
402
47
0
05
69
502
0
03
501
03
85
0
0
35
499
03
10
497-
0
60
0
01
08
496 2835
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ पेष्ठ,15 , 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (월) ]
4
3
2
1.
0
495
0
494
0
478
0
1555
0
1556
0
479
0
1502
0
613
गोबिन्दपूर
0
612
0
610
C
611
0
597
0
598
0
599
0
569
0
570
0
566
567
0
565
0
556
0
557
0
558
0
1458
0
559
0
1496
0
545
0
546
0
544
0
543
0
542
0
541
0
717
0
718
0
540
0
721 1633 GI/04-23
6
5
45
11
99
03
88
00
08
07
49
07
47
02
44
02
24
01
35
00
10
00
28
09
87
14
83
00
04
01
73
01
53
07
46
00
:
89
00
12
06
27
00
35
00
66
03
35
00
21
13
10
00
82
07
15
00
28
10
45
05
23
02
55
02
47
02
59
02
17
04
09
01 2836
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1928
1
2
3
4
722
0
539
0
724
0
0
1326
727
U
726
0
1270
0
743
0
744
0
732
0
1429
0
731
0
733
0
734
0
730
0
1269
0
अचिन्ता
134
0
131
0
130
0
366
0
161
0
129
0
169
0
170
0
171
0
172
0
173
0
127
0
178
0
179
0
180
0
370
0
181
0
863
0
जागुलीआपाड़ा
[PART II SBC. 3( ii) ] 5
6
00
85
06
09
02
66
01
90
01
34
00
10
55
02
36
01
24
05
04
51
01
48
02
50
02
76
00
26
00
47
04
20
01
75
12
24
00
22
05
75
00
10
07
69
00
79
00
86
04
25
00
16
02
28
09
48
00
91
02
86
04
87
02
22
02
40
06
93 2837
भारत काराजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
3
4
2
1
0
862
864
0
0
893
0
106.1
0
1543
0
1540
0
1541
0
1539
1538
0
0
1536
0
1535
0
1534
1533
0
1528
0
1527
0
1526
0
1525
0
0
1520
0
1519
1716
0
0
1717
1721
0
1722
0
1723
1726
0
1725
0
1729
0
1728
0
1732
U
1731
0
1735
0
1736
0
1507
1505
0
0
1495 5
6
10
00
02
00
10
00
34
50
00
50
05
28
00
79
27
06
10
00
66
08
02
17
43
02
04
32
66
03
04
48
04
20
46
03
78
03
22
00
11
00
00
72
02
82
03
02
15
02
94
02
00
20
53
00
02
20
00
10
73
06
03
71
73
06
10
00
05
07
14
02 2838
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1928
4
3
2
1
0
1494
0
1498
1496
0
1493
1492
0
0
1488
0
1489
0
1490
1810
1812
9
1811
1813
0
1814
0
1815
0
1458
1824
0
0
1457
0
2259
0
2591
2258
0
0
1848
0
1849
1847
0
2212
0
0
1850
0
1851
0
2173
0
2172
0
1853
0
1915
0
1916
527
0
1897
0
0
1896
0
1895
0
1894
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( 1 ) ]
6
28
00
01
11
01
44
65
01
01
91
02
25
72
05
25
01
20
01
08
20
01
02
18
43
01
04
81
10
05
16
19
10
00
23
00
91
00
29
09
49
08
64
01
15
00
00
52
00
51
08
23
95
01
16
01
41
03
01
24
03
16
69
01
01
36
01
01
96
62
00 राजपत्र जून , 2004/ पेष्ठ 15, 1926
3
4
2
1
0
1879
0
1881
1882
0
0
1880
0
1884
0
1883
0
1877
0
1886
0 एकतला
558
0
301
584
362
0
365
0
0
360
0
359
0
358
0
357
0
585
559
0
367
Q
0
308
0
309
0
310
0
323
0
267
270
0
0
271
0
279
0
276
0
615
0
275
0
274
0
282
0
281
0
280
5
6
25 00
00
53 04
63 00
49
17 00
42 01
00
10
29 04
01
30 06
44 03
25
87 05
00
10 01
89 05
68 03
27 00
34 00
10 03
45
10 00
50 05
00
93 00
23 03
15 01
88 02
64
71 03
00
10 01
02
12 01
38 03
03 01
69 00
31 03
05
59 2840
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1928
[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii) ]
4
1
2
3
6
5
0
10
287
00
296
0
02
94
01
0
47
297
0
02
76
298
0
00
436
86
0
1718
01
02
माटिआ
1706
0
01
89
1704
05
09
0
0
00
10
1648
1656
0
05
10
0
1655
02
42.
1654
0
01
99
00
1652
0
10
0
06
56
1653
0
00
1657.
64
0
02
10
1658
0
04
73
1514
0
03
23
1515
0
00
1517
53
05
1516
0
83
0
1518
04
04
0
01
23
1258
0
00
10
1505
01
71
0
1504
0
07
21
1503
0
01
51
1799
1270
23
0
01
0
01
1271
95
1272
0
03
41
48
1269
0
00
03
1273
0
51
00
1274
0
10
01
1144
0
29
0
00
1143
08
00
1146
0
93 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का रामपत्र : खून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
2
3
4 1
0
1147
0
1136
1148
0
1063
0
1065
0
679
0
0
1064
678
0
677
0
0
668
0
667
666
0
669
0
663
0
670
0
671
0
658
0
0
645
641
0
0
643
0
644
542
0
540
0
543
0
539
0
1826
0
0
377
0
385
374
0
378
0
372
0
0
371
583
0
0
370
0
369
2841 5
6
00
10
08
19
01
41
12
52
00
10
01
26
01
51
00
49
00
39
01
57
27
00
00
24
27
06
00
10
02
35
01
90
01
00
02
65
01
32
00
42
06
38
06
94
02
88
00
67
03
39
06
48
16
10
00
10
00
27
02
58
67
08
01
47
04
18
04
42
00
10 2842
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1928
4
2
3
362
0
363
0
0
361
0
364
0
360
0
232
0
359
0
358
0
357
0
238
0
1798
0
239
0
240
0
237
0
215
214
0
212
0
0
213
0
210
0
205
0
206
165
0
0
172
173
0
0
174
1756
0
0
167
0
166
0
171
0
169
168
0
170
0
0
154
0
155
0
156
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] 5
6
03
94
82
05
50
02
01
50
04
11
00
10
80
01
47
03
00
96
04
70
01
28
73
05
01
25
00
43
41
03
64
02
05
31
01
83
00
92
00
98
17
04
02
16
46
02
01
28
00
10
22
03
01
56
00
10
01
77
99
01
00
10
77
04
35
05
02
16
00
45 43 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
1
2
4
5
3
6
0
11
81
143
144
0
71
0
01
30
138
0
136
04
1.1
0
13
135
06
0
27
145
00
28
457
0
12
[फा. सं. आर-25011/12/2004- ओ.आर-1 ]
रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 31st May, 2004
S.O. 1294.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crudeoil from Paradip in the State of Orissa to Haldia in the State of West Bengal , a pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited .
And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification .
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act- 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein.
Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public , object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri . Ashok Kumar Dash , Competent Authority, Paradip Haldia Pipeline Project , Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indian Oil Corporation Limited Marketing Housing Complex, Meghadambara, Postoffice- Kuruda , Balasore - 756 056 ( Orissa ) .
1633 G1/04-24 [PART II SBC . 3 (ii) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1928
Schedule
State: Orissa
District:Kendrapada
Name of Tehsil NameofVillage Khasra No.
Area Are
Hectare
Sq. mtr.
5
6
3
4
1
2
71
454
75
0
Akharasali
Mahakalpada
0
93
455
48
06
0
03
576
0
02
34
635
07
0
77
472
0
05
86
474
24
0
00
473
76
0
06
125
0
06
96
485
0
01
03
486
11
13
0
85
0
02
51
84
0
02
99
08
0
00
10
487
41
0
02
83
0
15
03
600
77
0
09
554
0
24
542
11
10
55
0
54
10
40
0
53
33
08
0
602
10
0
00
603
00
14
49
0
91
0
10
507
0
01
91
45
95
03
505
0
85
07
504
0
00
10
38
38
08
0
39
02
57
0
499
28
0
11
34
71
500
0
04
52
01
33
0
44
0
02
32
02
0
04
30 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/पेठ 15, 1926 II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
2
3
4
31
0
622
0
0
494
0
493
24
0
621
0
20
0
0
492
21
0
18
0
0
520
0
19
17
0
0
11
16
0
12
0
13
0
0
1
0
2
3
0
114
0
Bhargadobaranda
115
0
116
0
117
0
0
113
104
0.
0
180
Rajendranagar
0
181
182
0
0
900
0
183
0
184
0
185
0
168
0
167
166
0
0
165
164
0
0
163
0
162
0
190 5
11 13
10 02
31 02
04
18 02
38 02
38
26 02
01
37 05
27
28 02
01
98 00
52 03
50
18 01
37 00
06
80
34 07
19
05
72 00
07
43 24
15 13
91 01
79 05
29 00
10 18
48 19
40 14
65
96 02
47 00
31 06
01
94 04
07 00
33 01
61 02
59
29 04
01
75
53 02
39 03
06 2846
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1928
4
3 1
2
0
191
0
149
0
148
0
147
0
146
0
145
0
144
0
143
142
0
0
141
0
135
0
134
0
133
0
132
0
916
0
208
0
200
0
207
0
880
0
205
0
231
0
232
0
952
0
233
0
234
0
235
0
236
0
237
0
879
0
230
0
238
0
239
0
834
0
241
0
242
0
229
0
243
0
227
0
228
0
221
0
222
[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ]
6
5
60
08
10
00
00
21
52
00
01
66
01
89
02
82
40
03
61
03
92
02
03
21
12
03
03
45
03
64
12
15
11
29
10
43
01
73
02
54
71
03
04
04
54
02
46
01
23
03
68
04
48
03
07
04
06
02
01
44
10
00
04
49
65
01
01
96
04
52
04
04
00
10
54
04
02
03
02
02
02
88
17
01 [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii)] ,
2847
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
1
4
2
3
226
0
896
0
223
0
0
225
268
0
0
901
0
269
0
270
0
271
272
0
0
273
0
274
0
275
0
276
0
278
281
0
0
899
0
283
0
42
0
41
0
949
0
40
286
0
0
287
0
957
926
0
0
289
0
288
0
296
297
0
299
861
0
0
300
302
0
0
803
0
335
0
805
0
804
0
934
0
169
Guptagiri
0
171 5
6
00
10
01
89
00
92
74
06
00
10
73
03
01
00
00
85
00
69
00
74
00
84
00
61
00
67
00
53
03
23
01
96
00
10
11
96
20
01
11
95
08
35
01
11
95
05
06
45
06
34
06
12
76
10
04
49
69
13
30
34
02
44
00
10
04
09
46
07
00
14
24
01
30
03
50
08
48
03
23
14
32
03 2848
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1928
2
3
4 1
0
19
0
168
0
170
0
167
0
164
0
160
0
165
0
159
10
0
0
18
11
0
17
0
0
14
0
505
Kochila
0
504
0
400
0
402
0
407
0
386
0
698
367
0
0
328
0 .
697
0
696
372
0
0
822
370
0
0
701
222
0
0
369
221
0
219
0
0
220
705
0
217
0
0
171
0
172
0
204
0
195
0
194
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ]
6
5
10
00
10
00
03
05
34
11
08
59
01
63
01
45
20
08
07
54
01
09
03
74
50
05
02
55
03
17
00
69
13
07
00
10
41
10
02
56
00
70
12
43
90
01
11
02
00
10
50
03
38
05
05
04
04
81
00
21
01
95
91
04
60
02
03
80
00
70
18
54
15
24
85
00
20
00
46
20
00
30 [भाल II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
177
0
450
Bachuria
0
0
439
452
0
441
0
0
442
444
0
495
0
0
437
0
348
466
0
0
589
590
0
0
588
345
0
587
0
346
0
331
0
614
0
329
0
612
0
0
498
325
0
321
0
831
0
Aroi
832
0
817
0
847
0
1002
0
818
0
814
0
0
819
1065
0
798
0
0
554
582
0
0
560
561
0
0
581
0
569
572
0 5
6 22
21 04
31 03
12 00
20 09
06 02
73 00
10 00
93 02
56 07
21 00
10 02
74 02
27 01
72 00
66 00
15 01
22 02
30 02
45 01
35 14
51 05
59 22
58 27
55 25
17 07
43
25 03
03
21 07
20 00
10 12
06 00
20 01
36 32
42 00
23 13
04 03
64
23 03
70 03
00
10 03
98 2850
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1928
3
4
2
1
0
571
0
573
0
570
0
574
0
550
0
549
0
545
0
546
0
537
0
468
0
470
0
991
0
990
0
423
0
422
0
421
0
417
0
416
0
415
425
0
0
427
0
428
0
429
0
430
0
431
0
426
0
414
0
410
0
409
0
411
0
407
0
374
0
376
0
377
0
378
0
375
0
368
0
344
0
345
0
1029
0
346
[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)]
6
5 1
02
25
01
84
03
46
01
65
00
89
02
20
11
16
08
57
07
11
15
21
05
33
52
00
12
08
10
00
00
19
32
00
00
71
10
00
44
00
21
13
50
02
02
38
02
22
14
02
00
18
10
00
01
90
76
00
01
44
53
06
01
71
43
01
31
01
10
00
24
01
20
15
01
17
71
21
48
05
10
00
51
05 5/2004 /
522851 ( भाग - खणक )]
a
La
333
0
32
18
Ar
TO
0
332
0
01
11
зе
0
04
347
0
01
61
00
0
10
421
0
00
331
79
10
05
0
425
0
16
62
330.
OS
15
0
0
04
329
60
re
05
232
04
0
38
326
20
380
0
01
26
964
23
0
382
72
0
02
324
18
05
0
384
16
0
01
1055
30
0
03
383
0
06
62
1039
St
0
380
0
23
91
1038
30
0
00
28
250
0
85
10
0
342
16
0
38
1040
ες
05
0
TAE
0
90
01
259
12
20
0
10
0
00
869
as
0
210
04
15
0
12
258
τε
00
0
324
00
20
0
257
20
80
0
338
00
10
871
0
SO
0
85
340
0
10
08
872
0
ет
332
00
10
0
253
AS
00.
0
330
10
0
254
00
0
10
44
334
22
60
255
0
SS
0
τεε
0
06
39
256
03
03
0
330
0
54
08
663
00
0 Maladihi8ca
0
85
60
662
83
0
358
44
0
60
664
80
0
20
351
02
93
0
638
00
03
0
ase
63
0
01
637
00
0
24
353
00
10
0
568.
as
Pareshwarapo
04
51
00
567
0
0
03
352
07
52
0
566
sa
0
585
10
0
00
570
40
0
185
17
00
0
ヤマ
5651вови 0
24
0
00
571
ат
0
STE
06
01
0
564
05
0
04
23
0
03
478
00
0
ATE
10
0
00
479
33
03
0
are
15
0
13
477
31
0
03
1881
10
00
0
20
592
0
ате
10
0
597
es
0
04
1633 GI/04-25 2852
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1928.
3
4
2
0
596
0
475
451
0
452
0
104
0
535
386
0
385
0
384
0
383
0
380
0
348
0
345
0
347
0
346
0
510
0
354
0
339
0
340
0
335
0
336
0
334
331
0
0
330
0
538
0
328
0
327
326
0
323
0
0
324
0
325
282
0
0
281
0
1006
Nantar
0
972
0
973
0
974
0
975
0
1381
0
976
0
1047
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] 5
6
07
14
04
36
00
10
01
02
12
20
97
02
06
37
57
::
81
02
30
03
41
12
05
3u
28
01
02
23
05
15
04
25
00
37
06
08
02
78
10
79
34
00
01
44
10
22
03
03
00
10
04
83
06
08
03
00
54
00
26
04
46
03
62
15
04
75
14
11
67
76
02
04
02
00
03
33
37
03
06
06
29
04 2853 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ पेष्ठ 15, 19240
ОТТЕКАO ANT
1
2
3
5
6
1377
0
02
00
86
0
04
51
85
0
11
53
84
0
01
68
83
0
00
55
82
0
04
59
1438
0
03
18
81
0
07
24
1: 546
0
06
21
Baradang
e
547
0
13
18
0
605
02
03
606
0
02
76
607
0
00
68
608
0
12
46
609
03
0
02
545
0
04
83
1357
0
01
77
530
0
02
12
529
0
03
73
0
528
00
42
0
26
527
51
0
513
06
11
514
0
06
90
1424
0
09
68
1425
0
04
05
510
0
06
75
509
0
07
04
0
508
05
22
0
506
03
05
0
505
17
01
1423
0
04
26
0
496
00
36
498
0
05
92
497
0
00
10
490
0
05
05
493
0
05
91
0
491
01
65
492
0
00
40
0
00
14
486
0
03
03
290
Jagati
0
08
33
280 [Parit) Be. Bi ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 5, 200WJYAISTHA 1519928
3
2 1
SO
00
S
6
5
64
0
06
٢٢٤٢ 288
44
03
0
88 287
2
95
03
0
28 286
30
28
03
0
A8 285
00
20
61
04
0
88 284
0
20
44
03
0
$8 296
0
81
64
36
0
BEAT 276
16
00
0
18 262
80
26
63
Эрд 263
16
03
0
TAC 272
00
10
0
208 271
e
15
07
0
008 265
0
65
05
0
108 266
15
99
03
0
808 1184
Baharsubala 50
57
03
0
200 1160
73
02
0
242 1161
N
10
45
0
03
12811164
S
41
03
0
088 1165
50
70
02
0
1166
83
03
0
851168
0
00
10
TS 1167
20
41
0
04
Era 1170
0 00
63
0
Ad 1171
82
87
0
00
ASA 547
0 20
04
01
0
2546
0
22
0
00
Ora 545
64
01
0
202 549
62
06
0
802 544
60
02
30
0
800 541
го
41
02
0
202.542
24
03
0
EST 536
00
37
01
0
204 535
75
03
0
804 534
00
00
20
0
TEA 520
20
51
00
0
004 514
20
re
57
06
0
ΕΡΑ 519
53
00
0
TOP 1317
00
16
10
0
SEA 466
40
284 464
14
38
00
0
75
04
100 465
285 454
00
itspel
03
11
0 R a 1
0
2850285 ε 3
26
0
00
055 452
10
88
949
0
01
34
81 453
0
80
ae
0
00
79
εor 438
0 18
0 Or
00
41
00
0
POT 448
01
83
0
80г 449
0 ra
00
0 EA
0
00
38
001 450
0
03
41
0
ee 1286
20
ar
0
00
0 ге
0
SO
88
SS
SO
0
89
03
0
80 1200
10
00
0
TO 289
13
05
0
Str 288
52
00
0
4881196
£0
0
0 er
0
10
er
02
0
10
ra
0
0
80
0 e8
20
0 SS
06
46
0
88 290
00
0
10
re 291
0
09
08
Tô 294
0
88
05
28 293 .
0
00
93
28 292
04
44
0
20 1407
06
65
0
٤٢ 306
78
00
0
S8 334
0 ve
TA
SO
0
78
01
srdonis sbsa
ars 315
36
10
0
ars 314
0
Tr
96
02
0
8 313
0 80
0
01
58
Ors 312
0 ег
20
0
0 ες
ar
02
20
002 385
0
00
87
0
80 74
03
80
0
ear 73
as
0 es
34
ilibeisa
06
T011326
0 08
0
00
19
885 76
10
0
40
10
0
0 SE
0
SO
00
71
00
22 78
0
80
0
01
10
00
0
79
22
17
Tas 1
18
00
0
ГОД 652
Ekalpur
0 Ae
02
SO
0 44
0
SO
06
74
0
eas 247
46
08
0
TS 233
00
10
0
٤٢ 243
라
0
09
36
0
ATS 234
02
εε
0
67
04
0
ETA 224
σε
SO
0
18
03
0
ATS 235
SO
0 eA
83
00
0
25 222
0 εε
74
0
04
22 219
SO 2856
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1928
1
2
3
4
220
0
218
0
0
103
104
0
0
106
100
0
0
99
98
0
0
97
0
118
684
0
68
0
91
0
67
0
66
69
0
65
0
73
0
62
0
215
Badabaincha
0
216
0
213
0
210
0
0
209
0
208
169
0
Baradihi
1767
0
1768
0
1756
0
1758
0
0
1729
Kholanai
267
0
401
0
269
0
271
0
0
273
0
276
0
413
0
274
0
275
0
255
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 5
6
01
68
08
96
04
81
00
10
09
61
00
43
15
05
03
21
00
95
02
88
02
22
03
95
01
19
01
54
05
19
01
61
08
21
07
89
05
22
03
97
02
47
17
07
03
08
05
59
10
64
16
23
26
29
01
60
04
01
03
01
04
32
02
71
00
31
05
94
02
44
45
02
15
05
02
33
02
30
49
02
02
93 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2004/पेष्ठ 15, 1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
2
3
4
254
0
380
0
0
247
0
243
0
242
0
278
0
240
0
239
0
236
0
235
0
232
0
231
ว
0
223
0
222
0
279
221
0
0
215
0
280
0
384
0
291
0
288
0
289
0
290
0
294
0
365
364
0
0
351
0
354
0
353
0
352
0
343
0
339
0
340
0
341
0
342
0
338
0
1
Guludia
0
306
Kakatpur
0
305
0
307
0
308 5
6
02
83 01
07 03
51 06
56
66 06
10 00
04
06 02
99 04
25 01
36、 03
17 01
90
01 02
02
39
25 08
03
26 01
62 06
72
70 10
97 23
10 00
75 03
16
16
44 06
02
85 02
10 20
62
64 03
10 08
33 02
03
40
21 03
17 01
77 01
02
33 13
02 28
07-
33 12
60 17
00
25 13
82 2858
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004 /JYAISTHA 15, 1928
[([PART -Stong (ji ) ] 10
2
3 14
6
5
311
0
01
02
0
309
08
09
310
0
02
60
363
0
00
50
0
00
364
10
S
0
502
02
07
0
07
694
84
0
00
503
10
03
0
70
693
0
74
510
12
0
06
513
79
0
524
17
26
523
0
07
65
0
00
280
60
Bandhapara
279
0
05
74
277
0
99
10
0
01
46
278
0
38
272
02
0
10
271
35
257
0
09
53
0
02
252
26
0
00
10
88
0
87
06
07
92
0
03
42
91
0
03
65
108
0
05
93
31
384
94
02
35
0
366
0
06
11
83
103
16
0
६६
0
206
03
20
352
0
03
18
03
0
04
207
17
05
0
62
351
0
344
04
15
33
(03
04
0
194
79
50
43
0
05
195
84
10
85
03
20
196 sibuiu 0
S
100
29
00
1900
0
14
175
68
62
52
0
06
0
72
36
02 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
2
3
0
35
0
34
0
33
0
350
0
810
Gogua
0
808
0
809
0
807
0
805
0
804
0
874
0
875
0
877
0
803
0
802
0
801
0
590
0
589
0
588
0
592
0
587
0
583
0
582
0
581
0
580
0
565
0
562
0
563
0
564
0
561
0
560
0
559
0
516
0
455
0
415
0
454
0
453
0
416
0
445
0
441 1633 GI/04-26
2859
6
5
05
99
07
49
16
19
12
65
07
89
13
08
10
00
03
07
18
02
03
14
21
00
00
10
10
00
61
01
00
49
23
01
03
05
17
10
76
07
40
01
75
15
78
03
03
09
96
03
96
02
71
03
40
08
45
01
00
10
60
08
64
00
90
02
34
02
38
02
03
74
84
00
10
00
91
05
13
78
00
19 2860
[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5, 2904/JYAISTHA 15, 1928
1
2
3
4
440
0
439
0
479
0
1022
0
186
0
0
169
162
0
170
0
171
0
172
0
0
128
1065
0
127
0
1091
0
137
0
1021
0
497
0 Pattamundai
Sangkrupa.
493
0
492
0
488
0
206
0
0
650
649
0
203
0
202
0
200
0
196
0
198
0
197
0
195
0
190
0
263
0
Baliapali
262
0
272
0
273
0
261
0
0
260
257
0
0
259
0
258 5
6
04
98
00
10
05
90
01
73
06
00
08
12
02
18
08
82
05
08
96
00
10
02
87
03
04
34
04
37
02
25
02
23
17
81
45
09
03
48
03
37
06
63
02
23
00
10
05
50
03
12
02
21
05
26
04
20
07
15
00
10
08
98
00
10
10
23
03
60
06
27
00
53
06
49
00
10
21
03
79
02 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926 1
2
3
4
0
238
232
0
233
0
0
235
0
236
212
0
211
0
207
0
206
0
0
194
0
28
29
0
30
0
611
0
613
0
612
0
34
0
0
35
0
36
60
0
59
0
58
0
0
57
56
0:
62
0
63
0
64
0
67
0
0
66
0
68
627
0
0
89
70
0
72
0
6
0 0
0
Teroi
229
0
179
178
0
0
190
0
189
0
188
2861
6
5
10
56
06
04
04
65
06
29.
03
02
06
19
00
10
07
06
04
98
08
47
9
26
00
56
04
95
04
47
10
00
46
05
00
10
08
18
13
27
00
10.
10
.00
11
05
32
05
06
71
43
04
65
06
06
33
04
29
10
00
73
07
02
80
05
21
02
40
06
10
03
62
02
24
20
00
00
10
02
09
03
88
27
00 2862
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1928
3
4
2
1
0
193
0
1338
0
192
0
1585
0
149
0
150
0
136
151
0
0
134
0
133
0
103
0
76
0
80
0
82
78
0
0
1489
0
83
0
81
0
63
0
84
0
60
0
1536
34
0
0
1503
0
35
0
36
0
1601
0
38
0
40
0
39
0
1364
0
1363
0
18
0
17
0
1492
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
12
0
11
0
308
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
6
5
07
18
01
50
02
94
92
03
13
94
46
1303
02
29
98
06
99
13
04
75
08
09
03
74
06
02
57
00
10
00
83
04
00
10
41
08
06
05
00
18
75
14
55
02
10
90
32
04
03
46
03
96
96
01
21
03
90
01
38
03
01
13
66
04
55
10
03
30
04
51
02
02
55
02
31
10
94
02
66
01
62
04 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
3
2
1
4
168
0
Baliajori
0
107
165
0
164
0
0
163
0
150
-0
151
152
0
507
0
0
153
0
154
155
0
0
148
0
568
137
0
138
0
0
145
0
144
139
0
140
0
141
0
0
142
0
143
0
123
0
007
0
122
120
0
0
536
121
0
0
518
0
95
0
96
99
0
0
100
0
101
0
102
522
0
71
0
0
521
0
525
0
47 5
6 01
73
30 09
01
08 01
53 00
10 08
65 02
13 06
69
31 02
05
13
41 08
59 01
82 03
02
46 03
27 01
65 01
48
10 00
10 00
39 02
89 00
02
53
42 00
96 03
03
18 00
10
12 01
02
53
82 04
32 04
00
15 03
96 02
97
38 00
05
94 05
02
09 10
00 03
27 00
65 10
10
09 2864
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1928
1
2
4
3
526
0
460
0
459
0
12
0
8
0
9
0
0
458
565
0
0
7
6
0
453
0
5
0
2
0
0
553
3
0
1
0
0
1907
Oupada
2018
0
1906
0
0
837
0
821
820
0
0
819
0
774
0
807
0
806
1977
0
0
804
803
0
0
802
2058
0
0
783
0
1976
785
0
784
0
769
0
0
770
0
2047
0
771
766
0
0
765
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
6
5
06
09
00
52
07
81
02
06
00
10
19
65
01
4'3
00
20
03
94
06
26
03
89
08
90
05
83
04
05
02
89
16
66
00
60
.14
56
00
12
03
92
01
65
07
44
00
28
09
88
00
11
05
22
00
10
01
47
01
11
01
52
14
02
56
02
00
23
01
30
10
87
07
20
06
38
03
18
03
63
37
00
62
03 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
2865
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
0
764
0
763
10
762
759
0
760
0
761
720
0
0
719
718
0
717
0
0
716
688
0
0
715
0
714
713
0
712
0
0
711.
0
584
0
592
0
591
0
585
0
586
587
0
0
538
6
0
0
609
Sanagara
0
608
0
574
573
0
0
570
0
575
0
563
0
577
0
569
567
0
0
568
0
542
0
8:19
0
543
0
789
0
541 56
06
62
03
40
06
03
02
21
03
37
03
75
08
96
06
18
01
12
13
72
16
74
00
28
06
21
07
51
03
43
06
31
04
17
00
10:
85
06
01
61
57
09
04
42
00
83
01
95
04
08
01
00
02
33
01
04
03
63
30
74
03
86
04
17
05
53
05
61
00
15
05
77
03
35
00
23
03
59
48
02
25
09 2866
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1928
[PART II-SBC. 3(ii)]
4
5
6
1
2
3
01
0
39
604
Badagara
0
08
05
296
11
0
44
294
64
01
0
293
82
12
0
291
35
0
02
971
Dalabada
08
30
0
970
09
0
24
969
10
00
974
0
00
0
43
968
35
06
0
966
03
84
0
963
00
17
0
962
00
24
0
965
23
0
02
964
06
48
961
0
00
15
0
951
77
05
0
950
73
03
0
906
64
02
0
946
34
0
11
907
36
0
01
904
78
0
05
894
23
0
00
891
04
04
0
893
05
74
0
883
01
99
884
0
19
08
0
3371
Sansarphal
03
49
0
3351
01
99
0
3352
02
33
0
3350
00
10
0
3354
00
10
0
3358
19
00
0
3347
44
03
0
3353
10
0
00
3346
61
03
0
3355
0
03
37
3356
99
02
0
3345
0
28
06
3359 2004/15, 1926 [Ⅱ]
0
3560
0
3195
0
3194
0
3738
0
3209
0
3210
0
3650
0
3599
0
3211.
0
3214
0
3216
0
3216
0
3218
0
3217
0
2889
0
2887
0
2886
0
2885
0
2853
0
2852
0
2861
0
2850
0
2854
0
2844
0
2858
0
2859
0
2860
0
2862
0
2861
0
2864
0
2840
0
2834
0
2841
0
2829
0
2445
0
3589
0
3588
0
3587
0
2444
0
2826
0
2446 1633 G1/04-27
11 04
47 08
42 06
80 02
91 07
71 04
97 07
62 01
67 03
92 03
10 00
87 05
01
56
10 04
10 00
08 03
11 03
75 02
48 04
49 02
77 00
57 00
13 12
35 03
75 05
05 05
64 03
10 00
92 01
10 00
89 04
34 02
14 09
10 00
20 00
79 02
22 02
92 05
19 00
24 01
12 12 2868
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2.04/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1928
4
2
3 1
0
2824
0
2825
0
2485
0
2476
0
2455
0
2456
0
2457
0
2458
0
2475
0
2474
0
1900
0
1901
0
1902
0
1904
0
1905
0
1983
0
1906
0
1989
0
1907
0
1908
1917
0
0
1918
0
1916
0
1915
0
1923
0
1921
0
1922
0
1864
0
1855
0
1856
1873
0
1872
0
0
1871
0
1844
0
3477
0
1845
0
1833
0
1384
0
1383
0
1382
0
295
[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
00
55
07
65
61
02
05
88
00
51
10
00
21
00
31
00
07
12
14
52
00
29
00
78
00
44
02
14
04
55
00
13
10
00
00
10
11
05
10
00
04
93
01
46
44
05
00
10
00
80
97
06
66
06
94
02
16
00
00
10
10
00
02
99
05
79
00
83
05
41
37
02
06
97
00
70
00
82
02
43
59
16 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
3
546
547
0
0
548
543
0
544
0
542
0
444
0
0
442
445
0
443
0
448
0
0
447
449
0
:
412
0
0
413
411
0
410
0
406
0
402
0
407
0
408
0
400
0
3461
0
0
399
398
0
396
0
397
0
:
355
0
3707
0
356
0
0
358
0
0359
0
360
0
204
367
0
203
0
202
0
148
0
147
0
0
146
345
0
Adhadeuria
2869
6
5
02
30
02
67
00
21
00
70
05
80
03
63
02
16
00
41
01
95
07
95
80
00
03
20
06
92
05
83
00
10
00
10
06
89
02
05
00
10
01
23
00
37
04
24.
02
36
00
51
12
24
43
02
06
02
48
05
04
38
03
23
02
68
02
69
01
41.
02
79
00
10
08
27
00
71
80
04
05
54
58
01
00
43 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1928
2870
4
3
2
1
0
346
0
380
0
320
0
318
0
315
317
0
0
316
0
314
0
297
0
282
0
281
0
267
0
265
266
0
0
244
261
0
0
262
0
243
241
0
0
242
0
228
0
1275
Firkidandi
Rajanagar
0
1241
0
1239
0
1237
0
1240
0
1230
0
1232
0
1231
0
1210
1211
0
1201
0
1205
0
1206
0
1204
0
1346
0
1207
0
1176
0
1171
0
1309
0
1172
[PART HSBC. 3 )
6
5
42
04
04
02
04
90
:
04
90
01
89
14
00
02
09
00
16
74
08
16
89
46
00
16
29
00
11
06
03
00
10
03
25
72
04
08
40
32
05
43
03
03
24
01
60
37
02
88
90
02
26
10
00
38
08
87
05
00
10
50
04
10
00
89
06
48
04
15
02
08
03
64
07
74
04
21
01
74
01
94
06 भारत का राजपत्र 5, 2004/ज्योत 15, 1926
4
3
0
1166
1173
0
1174
0
1132
0
1163
1133
0
1136
1137
0
1135
0
1138
0
1140
0
1141
0
1150
0
1152
0
1153
0
992
0
993
0
994
0
995
0
999
0
1000
1291
0
1001
0
1003
0
990
0
989
0
988
0
979
0
946
0
976
0
977
0
975
0
972
0
968
0
969 や
971
0
970
0
0
963
0
962
958
0
0
957 5
6
10 00
03
06
10 00
05
21
57 00
02
33 12
45
10 00
01
23 08
54
12 05
07
23 01
20
53 20
52 07
17 00
08
95
40 02
32 07
02
24 02
32
33 02
06 02
00
16.
39 05
03
19
10 04
82 00
10 00
44 01
11
58 07
04
52 00
21 01
52 00
16 02
82 01
01 05
39 01
91 00
35 01 2872
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1928
1
2
3
4
956
0
0
955
0
952
316
0
Dakshindandi
0
294
0
292
0
263
0
262
0
261
0
260
0
259
0
264
0
258
0
257
266
0
0
514
0
270
249
0
0
248
0
243
0
242
0
239
0
158
0
159
0
156
0
155
154
0
0
511
0
150
0
510
0
152
0
151
0
126
0
127
0
128
0
125
0
129
0
121
0
175
0
176
0
178
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] 5
6
02
00
00
33
25
00
14
55
00
93
00
32
22
35
57
02
04
19
02
50
00
57
12
01
09
33
00
10
66
01
05
73
07
27
02
53
21
03
53
09
73
12
74
01
37
09
00
15
04
20
05
64
10
00
03
06
59
03
02
85
01
24
87
05
10
76
00
10
10
00
62
02
00
10
67
09
77
05
05
71
43
06 भारत का राजपत्र : खून 5, 2004/पेष्ठ 15, 1926
4
3
2
0
180
0
181
182
0
0
89
0
88
0
536
87
0
0
95
0
501
0
96
0
534
0
61
0
60
0
530
0
49
0
531
0
46
0
36
0
38
0
39 *
45
0
0
40
37
0
0
897
Gobindpur
0
896
0
895
0
894
0
893
0
899
0
892
0
900
891
0
0
890
0
886
0
887
0
885
0
884
589
0
520
0
1336
0
296
2873 5
6
92
00
69
05
62
06
03
31
21
05
03.
81
79
02
06
10
03
25
06
08
87
06
15
15
00
63
02
34
09
82
92
02
08
05
10
00
13
61
00
86
00
10
00
10
09
78
03
95
11
02
02
38
01
92
00
95
07
09
29
01
37
06
74
00
17
06
53
01
03
57
03
60
10
00
24
02
03
06
41
02
59
13 2874
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1928
4
2
3 1
0
1413
0
298
0
299
0
300
0
301
0
302
0
297
0
306
150
0
0
1293
0
151
157
0
0
156
0
1294
0
158
0
159
0
164
0
1295
0
165
0
166
0
167
0
168
0
171
0
172
0
173
0
174
0
66
0
67
0
65
0
68
0
69.
0
71
0
70
0
57
0
58
0
59
0
60
0
61
62
0
0
63
0
513
Santhapara
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]
6
5
44
02
02
52
10
00
10
00
85
00
00
64
97
15
02
10
03
69
24
03
03
99
02
38
58
00
94
01
12
02
67
00
02
90
17
05
57
03
07
36
24
06
00
38
03
55
06
29
06
27
94
04
10
06
00
40
02
03
40
00
90
15
10
00
00
10
54
00
99
00
54
01
41
00
11
06
34
04
07
09
44
05 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926 1
2
3
512
0
0
514
0
453
730
0
0
451
0
454
445
0
0.
258
Nagar
0
958
Ostia
0
702
0
954
977
0
0
959
704
0
0
995
0
996
705
0
0
709
710
0.
0
717
0
711
0
955
715
0
0
713
0
718
714
0
0
956
675
0.
0
668
0
667
0
963
0
953
0
657
0
656
0
998
0
655
0
1002
0
951
0
952
0
654
660 1633 G1/04-28
2875 5
06
27
34
00.
70
06
05
80
03
08
19
25
01
94
02
27
03
04
08
65
07
16
47
03
77
00
03
15
01
80
00
10
00
93
09
30
06
56
02
54
10
13
10
00
90
03
05
01
00
10
06
35
08
68
10
25
11
78
32
13
55
01
16
02
18
01
53
03
02
58
53
07
i
40
02
57
01
06
03
16
09
07
14 2876
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1928
4
2
3 1
0
646
640
0
0
645
0
641
0
642
0
1003
0
643
0
592
0
593
0
910
0
539
595
0
636
0
0
598
0
597
0
599
0
600
0
602
0
603
0
604
0
610
0
615
0
861
0
364
0
361
0
360
0
333
0
334
0
332
0
936
0
937
0
335
0
246
0
251
0
247
0
248
0
249
0
868
0
920
0
240
0
250
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
38
04
30
04
01
35
02
17
05
70
01
61.
05
02
41
00
00
94
11
01
10
00
04
01
06
52
00
97
25
89
03
41
03
74
61
01
10
28
04
58
28
08
00
80
03
01
73
15
03
41
72
05
01
20
15
01
33
04
00
74
46
00
00
10
24
03
20
00
57
01
47
02
01
06
01
67
65
02
00
10
70
04 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
4
2
3
0
867
238
0
0
907
0
237
0
934
0
236
0
933
0
233
0
234
0
231
0
232
0
906
0
230
0
932
0
229
0
931
130
0
0
151
0
152
645
0
Bandhapatna
0
Naldia
990
1003
0
0
988
0
987
0
832
0
833
0
834
0
986
0
985
0
978
0
979
0
543
Belpaldia
0
542
0
544
0
541
0
53
0
54
0
546
0
482
0
475
0
951. 5
01
33 00
90 02
19 02
53 00
84 01
25
:
08 01
61 04
00
10 00
10
14 05
00
80 00
62
10 01
05
74 01
-97 01
7.7 03
96 02
42 00
27
44 02
29 09
01
19. 05
89 00
10 02
61 00
10 00
34 03
13 16
61 04
36 04
05 21
84 08
98 06
13 00
52 01
73 00
10. 01
33 03
77:
06
66 2878
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1928
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 1
2
4
3
5
6
473
0
00
10
0
01
190
34
0
191
06
70
0
02
996
30
0
03
34
997
0
04
64
192
193
04
75
0
02
60
993
0
0
01
194
01
00
10
274
0
0
02
07
195
0
01
272
51
0
271
01
38
0
270
01
94
01
269
0
38
0
00
76
268
0
00
267
14
266
0
10
00
0
209
02
93
0
261
13
27
0
11
01
243
0
245
00
98
244
21
0
03
0
22
01
239
01
0
49
238
226
0
04
56
76
227
0
11
0
95
228
00
0
04
89
1552
Sahupara
Aul
0
02
09
1553
0
01
89
1554
0
01
1556
92
06
2362
0
52
0
2361
03
42
31
1576
0
00
10
00
0
1574
0
1577
40
02
73
02
1580
0
02
0
29
1581
0
06
1582
15
90
0
00
1583 2879
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4
3 1
2
0
1573
0
1568
0
1569
0
1570
0
1614
0
1613
0
2437
0
1610
0
1632
0
1668
0
1669
0
1667
0
1666
1662
0
0
1663
0
1664
1660
0
0
1656
0
1655
0
1654
0
1417
0
936
Atala
0
925
0
926
0
937
0
914
0
915
0
924
0
923
0
1034
0
892
0
1019
0
894
0
893
0
887
0
885
0
884
0
883
0
881
0
880
0
876
6
5
14
01
25
01
36
04
13
01
05
02
87
02
78
00
08
08
04
62
08
02
19
00
37
04
00
13
04
03
03
03
83
05
40
08
82
00
41
07
43
00
01
49
67
01
03
88
47
01
00
10
10
00
06
04
02
49
50
01
01
04
69
15
10
00
10
00
08
85
01
36
47
02
29
02
28
01
24
01
67
03
29
01 2880
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1928
1
2
3
4
878
0
872
0
1017
0
0
868
867
0
865
0
860
0
864
0
863
0
862
0
848
0
847
0
846
0
845
0
844
0
833
0
832
0
0
829
830
0
826
0
828
0
827
0
819
0
821
0
817
0
820
0
816
0
815
0
812
0
813
0
803
0
802
0
801
0
800
0
799
0
784
0
0
789
785
0
0
786
0
394
787
0
[PART II SBC . 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
07
85
00
35
04
52
01
58
03
24
05
90
00
10
03
31
00
63
01
16
01
52
04
96
03
73
62
09
00
10
04
18
00
36
01
84
00
14
01
01
05
05
05
01
06
22
00
59
00
56
00
55
08
52
00
10
02
84
05
24
05
01
03
83
00
10
01
05
03
85
00
10
00
10
60
07
00
65
00
27
05
21 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
395
0
398
0
399
0
400
0
401
0
407
0
408
0
410
0
406
0
405
0
412
0
425
0
433
0
430
0
431
0
432
0
0
429
437
0
436
0
533
0
0
402
216
0
217
0
0
218
209
0
208
0
207
0
219
0
21
0
Khandol
0
22
23
0
0
398
Kenang
760
0
0
396
0
776
0
395
394
0
404
0
405
0
392
0
407
0
6 5
04
95 01
72 03
79 02
65 00
99 02
38 06
16 00
28 07
85 00
73 02
87 01
31 07
24 00
10 00
38 06
62 00
54 03
73
61 03
06
20 01
68 01
84 08
77 01
88 00
56 00
49 06
64 09
51 02
79 03
11 00
52 01
50 01
93 02
04 00
46 03
11 02
16 02
17 04
85 06
13
50 02 2882
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1928
1
2
3
4
0
745
0
408
0
787
0
732
0
409
0
413
414
0
0
415
0
416
417
0
418
0
0
419
420
0
0
421
422
0
0
439
436
0
0
757
0
437
0
438
0
440
0
553
0
Purillo
296
317
0
297
0
0
316
0
379
0
308
315
0
0
404
0
309
0
310
0
285
0
236
0
235
0
241
234
0
0
228
0
242
0
223
0
243
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] 5
6
00
94
02
30
02
04
44
02
61
02
04
03
02
06
01
05
01
03
00
57
38
02
01
16
03
85
00
59
20
04
63
01
00
18
49
04
43
01
16
06
66
04
03
14
16
02
11
43
01
71
07
18
00
73
05
85
10
00
32
01
05
70
01
99
26
01
06
68
02
88
01
85
21
17
14
00
61
09
10
00
41
01 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ण्येष्ठ 15, 1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
1
3
4
2
244
0
0
245
0
194
189
0
187
0
185
0
186
0
0
418
0
384
118
0
0
119
395
0 .
0
117
116
0
0
115
377
0
0
106
0
107
110
0
405
59
0
Gopinathpur
258
0
58
0
16
0
223
0
222
0
221
0
247
0
0
18
19
0
33
0
32
0
34
0
38
0
0
35
0
36
0
37
2603
0
Badaanko
2607
0
0
2608
0
2606 1633 G1/04-29
5
6
48 00
13 01
95 01
02
18 02
49 00
10 07
18 02
66 02
30 00
10
50 08
00
54 10
34
55 04
10
74 04
24. 01
51 04
96
14 00
00
10
32 04
00
30 00
41
41 04
01
74 00
19 03
82 01
16
47 06
83 06
01
93
37 02
14 06
10 00
05
85
77 02
00
10
31 00
03
88
90 09
24 00 2884
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1928
2
3
4
0
2605
0
2476
0
1486
0
1493
2828
0
0
1492
0
1491
1487
0
0
1485
1494
0
0
2843
2842
0
2841
0
2840
0
0
2839
0
1484
0
2772
0
1483
0
1472
0
1471
1469
0
0
1468
1465
0
0
1464
2643
0
1462
0
0
1441
0
2968
0
1440
0
1439
0
1437
0
1438
0
1181
2718
0
1432
0
0
1403
1402
0
1401
0
1400
0
1397
0
1398
[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ]
6
5
00
10
02
55
08
08
46
00
00
46
01
33
00
93
11
51
03
07
00
10
00
47
00
39
00
46
00
49
00
41
02
93
02
59
04
36
03
71
01
81
01
54
01
42
57
01
02
68
20
03
ة
01
71
38
02
01
78
02
66
02
65
72
01
01
75
24
11
02
56
04
43
07
07
04
33
35
04
03
35
48
08
02
52 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जूम 5, 2004/व्येष्ठ 15, 1926
4
3
2
0
1399
0
1395
0
1390
0
1391
0
1388
0
1387
118
0
0
1186
0
1185
0
1184
0
2799
0
1183
0
2800
0
1182
1229
0
0
2804
0
2672
0
1230
0
1228
0
1177
1176
0
1175
0
0
1169
1170
0
0
1172
0
1171
0
1161
0
2621
1147
0
1131
0
0
1130
0
2825
0
1129
1123
0
0
2981
0
1122
0
1124
0
2699
0
2960
0
1034
0
1035
6 5
66 02
24 04
10 00
04
59
23:
12
04
94
95 05
32 02
06
02 01
17
16 02
03
84 01
85 09
76 01
93
87 02
00
96
54 05
00
10 04
45 02
30
30 03
00
97 02
29 00
10 00
24 01
60 00
21 01
66 01
60
17 00
00
59
44 01
01
05 02
84
39 01
47 01
31 01
54 00
10 00
07 01 2886
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1928
3
4
5
6
1
2
20
0
02
1036
02
68
0
1028
0
00
15
1033
0
01
64
1029
0
00
10
1030
73
0
00
1026
04
23
0
Sanaanko
22
05
35
21
0
02
00
0
20
03
11
0
19
00
20
18
0
00
11
0
15
01
95
0
17
53
0
00
10
20
03
0
16
33
01
0
11
01
0
08
13
0
00
95
12
28
39
0
387
83
12
0
2514
Dalikenda
Rajkanik
29
0
06
2510
69
02
0
2454
60
0
09
2322
0
09
79
2319
01
92
0
991
01
00
0
2309
60
00
0
2314
0
65
01
2313
63
0
00
2311
10
00
0
2310
34
02
0
2312
00
38
0
2316
47
0
03
2300
26
02
0
2299
60
08
0
2301
10
00
0
2305
40
00
0
2304
18
01
0
2303
01
28
0
2302
00
48
0
2789
00
24
0
2571 [भाग H- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: खून 5, 2004/प्येष्ठ 15, 1926
3
4 1
2
0
2297
0
1038
0
1041
0
2296
0
1042
2292
0
0
1048
0
1047
0
1050
0
1049
0
1051
0
1052
1055
0
1056
0
0
1060
1059
0
0
1061
0
1143
0
1144
0
2620
0
1106
1105
0
1142
0
0
1109
0
1134
1135
0
0
1130
0
1188
0
1206
1205
0
0
1204
0
1202
0
1121
Mangalpur
0
1223
0
1224
1151
0
0
1150
0
754
0
753
0
752
0
751 6
5 1.
01
47
00
85
13
05
00
37
06
22
08
67
08
41
36
04
01
67
36
08
05
05
01
23
13
89
01
81
02
54
48
01
1 17
03
06
68
10
00
29
05
16
03
10
00
00
69
00
10
12
88
01
13
17
27
51
05
99
02
87
04
17
02
07
06
73
01
94
03
04
75
02
57
11
05
61
04
05
62
01
90
83
01 2888
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1928 1
2
3
4
5
750
0
02
1125
0
03
0
653
00
654
0
02
711
0
00
04
655
0
709
0
01
708
00
0
707
0
01
706
0
00
705
0
00
1133
0
00
704
0
01
0
00
667
668
03
0
0
669
03
00
0
675
674
0
01
00
673
0
0
17
676
0
677
02
00
0
563
0
02
683
00
1141
0
0
03
1185
0
02
1184
0
07
481
0
00
490
0
01
491
0
00
492
0
02
493
0
00
494
0
01
496
0
13
495
0
00
509
0
02
1140
0
00
394
0
05
392
0
02
391
0
00
360
362
0
00 [PART II-SBC . 3 (ii)] 6
04
78
51
23
59
24
04
66
22
23
69
10
22
10
10
47
48
77
10
17
52
83
57
17
89
10
69
10
57
82
21
91
89
07
10
66
10
06
20
10
10 [भंग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
पार का राजपत्र जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
2
3
4
390
0
389
0
388
0
387
0
386
0
384
0
0
385
337
0
334
0
0
336
0
297
0
298
0
299
294
0
0
293
0
85
84
0
1101
0
0
83
82
0
0
81
80
0
0
79
0
66
67
0
0
65
68
0
63
0
0
62
64
0
179
0
Keshnagar
180
0
0
181
182
0
0
202
203
0
0
220
0
995
0
222
221
0.
0
966 5
6
23 08
06
53 06
54 07
50 02
93 01
00 02
15 09
92 00
10 04
53 02
42 02
42 00
10 02
38 00
10 00
10 02
81 00
10 03
42 03
19 02
70 02
55 02.
75 05
97 04
66 02
19 02
60 03
00 00
69 12
00 03
52 02
18 02
86 05
04 04
26 07
09 07
02 01
26 03
18 03
99 02
85 2890
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1928
4
3
2
1
0
965
0
964
0
218
0
217
0
246
0
273
0
274
0
275
0
276
0
278
0
279
0
281
0
282
0
272
0
283
0
284
0
285
0
286
0
464
0
47
0
1780
Acchutpur
0
1771
0
1770
0
1768
0
1767
0
1774
0
1865
0
1755
0
1761
0
1849
0
1764
0
1762
0
1714
0
1713
0
1712
0
1711
0
1698
0
1699
0
1697
0
1694
0
1700
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) )
6
5
83
02
10
00
85
04
75
11
05
01
97
04
34
01
40
01
74
00
85
00
23
00
10
00
00
10
27
04
10
11
10
00
11
98
75
01
06
02
10
00
78
01
05
01
32
06
03
68
10
00
28
06
10
00
10
00
73
01
40
00
00
40
62
01
99
02
85
01
14
02
35
02
12
08
22
00.
51
00
10
00
88
00 2891
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
2
3
4
0
1701
0
1696
0
1695
0
1558
0
1567
0
1569
1901
0
0
1566
0
1570
0
1565
0
1571
0
1796
1572
1552
0
1553
0
1845
0
1786
0
1025
0
1024
0
128
0
129
0
130
0
131
0
127
0
133
132
0
0
118
0
116
0
114
0
60
0
626
nadia
0
1003
0
1002
0
1001
0
1000
0
1004
0
999
0
998
0
997
0
996
0
995 1633 GI/04-30
6
5
00
10
06
58
00
74
03
84
49
01
00
10
10
00
02
09
21
01
72
05
25
00
00
69
07
48
66
07
16
04
00
12
31
01
00
98
01
25
58
01
94
03
00
89
35
02
70
00
00
99
40
04
07
45
84
00
71
00
04
09
04
69
00
28
99
00
02
36
97
02
10
00
54
01
00
02
91
01
17
02
15
01 2892
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1928
2
3
4
0
994
0
993
975
0
925
0
924
0
923
0
920
0
919
0
0
4035
922
0
0
921
0
918
0
926
0
869
0
873
0
874
0
875
876
0
0
877
0
878
0
879
0
880
0
881
882
0
0
883
885
0
0
884
0
895
0
686
0
685
0
684
0
683
0
682
666
0
0
665
0
664
663
0
0
662
670
0
0
669
0
668
[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] 5
6
00
40
00
14
66
01
00
15
00
75
01
97
00
46
00
10
00
46
00
89
00
89
00
31
00
10
00
33
48
01
68
01.
02
85
01
89
01
43
01
22
62
02
00
40
27
00
00
26
10
00
00
10
13
06
06
03
00
10
35
00
00
91
01
74
01
88
01
64
01
59
04
05
01
24
47
00
01
08
44
00
00
10 2893
भारत का राजपत्र : जूम 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
1
0
661
0
660
0
659
0
658
0
672
0
654
0
673
0
489
0
4069 0
0
491
0
492
0
493
0
496
0
497
0
510
0
511
0
512
0
513
0
3986
0
516
0
519
0
526
527
0
0
548
0
566
0
567
0
571
0
570
0
569
0
572
0
3871
0
573
0
574
0
575
0
3814
0
576
0
577
0
578
10
3832
0
579
0
580
6
5
48
00
63
00
12
00
10
00
44
07
63
03
46
01
10
00
59
00
90
01
88
04
21
02
89
01
24
02
12
03
12
03
10
00
50
04
12
01
27
01
80
01
24
02
22
01
27
01
05
01
35
01
10
00
17
01
32
01
03
36
01
05
71
01
18
01
51
01
89
00
24
01
29
01
45
01
92
01
32
01
65
02 2894
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004 /JYAISTHA 15, 1928
1
2
3
4
581
P
0
585
0
586
587
0
0
588
589
م
590
591
565
592
460
0
0
256
254
0
3933
0
247
0
0
246
245
0
244
0
239
240
237
236
235
$ 234
233
232
231
0
230
3744
0
0
chhadesh
1852
2232
0
Gunja
0
1220
0
1219
1218
0
0
1217
1221
0
0
1222
1223
0
0
1228
2338
1229
0
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
05
54
03
40
03
78
04
14
01
47
02
46
01
29
01
63
01
09
03
12
02
08
11
99
02
83
00
29
00
83
73
01
43
01
01
90
06
58
61
04
10
00
01
15
01
14
02
56
03
12
02
35
23
02
12
48
02
70
74
00
01
68
02
21
03
45
07
73
02
33
01
29
01
10
59
03
05
89
40
03
02
81 जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
0
2512
1237
0
0
1238
0
1239
0
1240
0
1241
0
1242
1243
0
0
1246
1247
0
1248
0
1249
0
1152
0
1262
1151
0
1263
0
1150
0
1149
0
0
1147
0
1100
0
1101
1116
0
0
1117
0
1118
0
1130
0
129
0
2526
1137
0
1138
139
127
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
2895
6
00
87
20
02
02
52
00
97
01
10
02
34
02
35
01
83
01
61
01
39
01
62
13
03
00
10
06
51
04
96
01
29
03
46
00
49
25
02
01
06
05
10
03
13
28
10
00
10
10
00
06
19
33
01
00
48
33
04
82
06
02
78
03
29
28
02
79
02
03
99
00
10
10
00
00
47
99
04.
40
03
01
37 2896
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2034/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1928
2
4 1
3
5
0
2321
01
0
02
678
0
01
659
0
2322
00
00
0
2521
0
01
657
02
658
0
0
656
03
07
0
642
01
654
0
0
02
650
05
0
649
643
03
0
0
01
644
02
645
0
12
0
561
01
0
560
00
565
0
00
564
0
0
00
563
06
562
0
01
0
533
07
0
536
00
0
537
05
0
535
12
0
536
13
0
519
02
0
518
00
0
517
0
06
516
00
513
0
02
0
514
05
0
2362
05
0
507
02
0
2367
01
0
400
03
0
503
04
0
401
05
0
402
03
0
502
03
0
501
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 6
78
11
61
10
10
41
57
38
95
03
99
69
95
09
92
07
86
10
19
20
13
44
25
10
15
87
54
25
91
82
10
24
54
98
94
99
03
28
47
69
85 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
3
4
2
0
499
0
497
0
496
0
495
0
494
0
478
1555
0
1556
0
479
0
1562
0
613
Gobindpur
2
0
0
610
0
611
0
597
0
598
0
599
0
569
0
570
0
566
0
567
0
565
556
0
0
557
0
558
1458
0
0
559
0
1496
0
545
0
546
0
544
0
543
542
0
0
541
717
0
0
718
0
540
0
721
722
0
0
539
0
724
2897
6
5
35
03
60
10
01
08
11
45
99
03
00
88
07
08
49
07
47
02
44
02
01
24
00
35
00
10
28
09
14
87
00
83
01
04
01
73
07
53
46
00
00
89
06
12
00
27
00
35
03
66
00
35
13
21
00
10
07
82
00
15
10
28
05
45
23
02
55
02
47
02
59
02
17
04
09
01
00
85
09
06
02
66 2898
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1928
3
2
1
0
725
0
1326
0
727
726
0
1270
743
744
732
1429
0
731
0
733
0
734
0
730
0
1269
0
134
Achinta
0
131
0
130
0
366
0
161
0
129
0
169
0
170
0
171
0
172
0
473
0
0
78
0
179
0
180
0
370
0
181
0
863
Jaguliapada
0
862
0
864
0
893
0
1061
0
1543
0
1540
0
1541
0
1539
0
1538
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
01
90
34
01
10
00
00
55
36
02
24
01
51
05
04
51
48
01
02
50
76
02
00
26
47
00
20
04
75
01
12
24
00
22
05
75
10
00
07
89
00
79
00
88
04
25
00
18
28
02
48
09
00
91
02
86
04
87
22
02
40
02
08
93
00
10
00
02
10
00
34
50
50
00
05
28
79
00
27
06
10
00 2899
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
4
3
2
0
1536
0
1535
0
1534
0
1533
0
1528
0
1527
0
1526
0
1525
0
1520
0
1519
0
1716
0
1717
0
1721
0
1722
0
1723
0
1726
0
1725
0
1729
0
1728
0
1732
0
1731
0
1735
0
1736
0
1507.
0
1505
0
1495
0 :
1494
0
1498
0
1496
0
1493
0
1492
0
1488
0
1489
0
1490
0
1810
0
1812
0
1811
0
1813
0
1814
0
1815
0
1458 1633 G1/04-31
08
66
02
17
43
02
04
32
66
03
48
04
20
04
46
03
78
03
22
00 .
11
00
00
72
82
02
03
02
15
02
02
94
20
00
00
53
20
02
10
00
73
06
71
03
73
06
10
00
05
07
14
02
28
00
11
01
44
01
01
65
91
01
25
02
72
05
25
01
20
00
08
01
20
01
18
02
43
01
81
04
10
05 2900
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA, 15, 1926
1
2
3
4
1824
0
1457
0
2259
0
0
2591.
0
2258
0
1848
1849
0
1847
0
2212
0
1850
0
1851
0
0
2173
0
2172
1853
0
0
1915
1916
0
0
1897
1896
0
1895
0
0
1894
0
1879
0
1881
0
1882
1880
0
0
1884
0
1883
1877
0
0
1885
0
Ektala
556
0
361
584
0
362
0
365
0
0
360
0
359
358
0
357
0
0
585
0
559
0
367
0
308
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
19
15
00
10
00
23
00
91
00
29
08
49
01
64
00
15
00
52
00
51
08
23
01
95
01
16
03
41
01
24
15
03
01
69
36
01
01
95
00
62
00
25
00
53
04
63
00
49
00
17
01
42
00
10
04
29
01
30
06
44
03
25
05
87
00
10
01
89
05
68
03
27
34
00
10
00
03
45
10
00
05
50 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
4
3
2
0
300
0
310
0
323
0
267
0
270
0
271
0
279
0
276
0
615
0
275
0
274
0
282
0
281
0
280
0
287
0
296
0
297
0
298
0
436
0
1718
Matia
1706
0
0
1704
0
1648
0
1656
0
1655
0
1654
0
1652
0
1653
0
1657
0
1658
0
1514
0
1515
0
1517
0
1516
0
1518
0
1258
0
1505
0
1504
0
1503
0
1799
1270
0
0
1271
2901
6
5 1
93
00
23
00
15
03
88
01
64
02
71
03
10
00
02
01
01
12
38
03
03
01
69
00
31
03
59
05
10
00
94
02
47
01
76
02
86
00
02
01
01
89
05
09
10
00
10
05
42
02
99
01
10
00
56
06
64
00
02
10
73
04
23
03
53
00
05
83
04
04
23
01
10
00
71
01
21
07
51
01
23
01
95
01 2902
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
1
2
3
4
1272
0
1269
0
0
1273
1274
0
1144
0
1143
0
1146
0
1147
0
0
1136
0
1148
1063
0
1065
0
679
0
1064
0
678
0
0
677
0
668
667
0
666
0
669
0
663
0
0
670
0
671
658
0
0
645
0
641
643
0
644
0
542
0
0
540
543
0
539
0
1826
0
377
0
0
385
0
374
0
378
372
0
371
0
0
583
0
370
0
369
362
0
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] 5
6
03
41
00
48
03
51
00
10
01
29
00
08
00
93
00
10
08
19
01
41
12
52.
10
00
01
26.
01
51
00
49
00
39
01
57
00 .
27
00
24
06
27
00
10
02
35
01
90
01
00
02
65
32
01
42
00
06
38
06
94
02
88
00
67
39
03
48
06
16
10
10
00
00
27
02
58
67
08
01
47
04
18
04
42
10
00
94
03 2903
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
5
6
3
2
1
05
82
0
363
50
02
0
361
50
01
10
364
11
04
0
360
10
00
C
232
80
01
0
359
0
47
03
358
96
0
00
357
70
04
0
238
28
01-
0
1798
Q
05
73
239
0
25
0
01
240
43
0
00
237
41
03
0
215
64
02
214
0
31
05
0
212
83
01
0
213
92
00
0
210
98
00
20
205
17
04
$ 0
206
16
02
0
165
46
02
172
0
01
0
28
173
00
10
0
174
22
03
1756
0
01
167
40
56
0
10
166
00
0
77
01
171
0
01
169
99
3
10
168
0
00
0
04
77
170
154
0
05
35
16
0
02
155
0
156
00
45
0
81
143
11
71
13
144
0
0
01
30
138
04
136
0
11
13
0
06
135
0
27
00
145
28
0
12
457
[F. No. R-25011/12/2004- O.R.-I ]
RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.
2904
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] श्रम मंत्रालय
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, the 22nd April , 2004
नई दिल्ली , 11 मई , 2004
AWARD
का. आ. 1295.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , धनवाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 280/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
By order No. L -20012/ 414/2001-1.R. (C -I) dated the 23rd October, 2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
[सं. एल.- 20012/414/2001- आई . आर. ( सी -1 ) ] एस. एस . गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
"Whether the denial of regularisation of Sri Chandrabhan Harizan as Loading Clerk by the management ofKharkharee Colliery Govindpur Area ofM/ s . BCCL is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from what date ? " New Delhi . the 11th May, 2004
2. Record shows that inspite of giving sufficient opportunities and also inspite of issuance of notices neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared totake any step for filing written statement on their part . It therefore appears that the parties are not interested to proceed with the hearing of this case .
S.O. 1295. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 280/ 2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court II . Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 7-5-04 .
3. In such circumstances I render a ' No Dispute Award ' in the present case presuming non -existence of any industrial dispute between the parties .
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer [No. L - 20012/414 / 2001 - IR (C - 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 11 मई , 2004
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2. DHANBAD
In the matter of a reference under Sec . 10 ( 1 ) ( d) (2A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Reference No. 280 of 2001
का. आ. 1296.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी एम पी डी आई एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 211/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था । PARTIES:
[सं. एल.- 20012/586/98- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव Employers in relation to the management of Kharkharee Colliery Govindpur Area of BCCL .
New Delhi , the 11th May, 2004 AND
Their Workmen
PRESENT:
Slari B. Biswas , Presiding Officer
Appearances:
S.O. 1296. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 211/99) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court II , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CMPDIL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 7-5-04.
Shri D. K. Verma . Advocate
Forthe Employer
Forthe Workman
[No. L-20012/586/98 - IR ( C- 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
: None.
[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
2905
भारत काराजपत्र: जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, DHANBAD Inthe matter of a reference under Sec. 10( 1 ) (d) (2A) ofIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Reference No. 211 of 1999
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the management ofC.M.P.D.I. Ltd.
AND
Their Workmen
PRESENT:
Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Shri A. K. Mishra, Personnel Officer.
For the Workman
:None.
State: Jharkhand
Industry: Coal Dated, the 22nd April, 2004
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/586/98 - I.R. ( C-I) dated the 17th May, 1999 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"KYA SHRI BIJU LOHAR VIDHAI CANTEEN KEY KARMAKAR HONEY KENATEY C.M.P.D.LL. KEY SIDHEY KARMKAR MANEY JANEY CHAHIYA ? YADI HA TOIS SAMBHANDH MEY KYA DINANK 15-6-98 SEY THEKE KI SAMPATI PAR UNKI SEVAYA SAMAPTA KIYA JANA VIDIBAT EVAM NAYASANGAT HAI YADI NAHI TO KARMKAR KIS RAHAT KEY PATRA HAI ? "
2. This reference case is pending since 1999. It transpires from the record that sufficient opportunities were givento the parties for filing written statement but inspite ofgiving ample opportunities they have failed to file written statement on their behalf. Gesture of the parties shows clearly that they are not interested to proceed with the hearing of this case .
3. Under such circumstances I render a 'No Dispute Award' in this present case presuming non -existence of any industrial dispute between the parties .'
B.BISWAS , PresidingOfficer नईदिल्ली, 11 मई, 2002
47 का. आ. 1297.-औद्योगिक विवाद आ का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकारमा. का. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 206/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल.- 20012/82/83- आई. आर. (सी-1 ) ] एस. एस अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 11th May,
S.O. 1297. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 206/99) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court II, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 7-5-04.
[No. L-20012/82/83 -IR(C- I )] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2 AT DHANBAD PRESENT:
Shri B. Biswas, PresidingOfficer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Sec 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 .
Reference No. 206 of 1999
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the management of Putki Balihari Colliery ofM/s . BCCL and their workmen.
Appearances :
Onbehalf of the workmen : None .
Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. B. M. Prasad, Advocate 2906
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
State : Jharkhand
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
Industry: Coal
Dated , Dhanbad , the 22nd April , 2004
AWARD
The Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the 1.D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L -20012 (82)/ 83- (C-I) dated, the 26th April, 1999 .
SCHEDULE
"KYA DHANBAD COLLIERY KARMCHARI SANGH KA DABA KI PRAGATTISHIL COOPERATIVE SAHAYOG SAMITY KE TATWADHAN MEY KARYARATA KARMAKARO S / SHRI DEVRAJ MISHRA , HAREY KRISHNA MISHRA. DEVKUMAR, HARERAM SINGH, VRAJ RAJ MISHRA EVAM TARKESHWAR SINGH KO B.C.C.L. , PUTKI BARIHARI KSHETRA KA SIDHA KARMAKAR MANTEY HUA UKTA PRABANDHAN MEY NIYAMATA KIYA JAYAKYUKI BEY HEKA MAZDOORI ADHINIYAM KEY ANTGART PRATI VANDHIT SHRENI KEY KARYA PAR KARYARAT HAI , MANYA HAI , YADI HAN TO UKT KARMAKAR KIS RAHAT KEY PATRA HAI TATHA KIS TARIKH SEY ? "
2. The case of the concerned workman according to written statement submitted by the sponsoring Union on their behalf in brief is as follows :
The sponsoring Union submitted that the management employed the concerned workman at 5/6 Hydromines Balihari colliery in the year 1998 for performing the jobs of Tyndal roof supporting , coal cutting, lime packing, line fittings etc. They submitted that all the aforesaid jobs in which the concerned workmen were engaged falls under the prohibited category under Contract Labour ( Regulation & Abolition) Act , 1970 , as because the same arc incidental and prennial in nature and are done ordinarily through regular workmen . They submitted that those workmen put in 190 days attendance in each calendar year. They disclosed that the concerned workmen were inembers of Co - operative Society named Progatisheel Cooperative Sahyog Samity and the management engaged that society to undertake various contractual jobs knowing fully well that they had no licence as required under the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970. They submitted that for doing the said job management used to supply all necessary equipments to the concerned workinen and they used to perform the jobs under direct supervision and control of the officials of the management . They alleged that in spite of getting service of the concerned workmen like regular workmen management never paid their wages as per N.C.W.A. They further alleged that in order to avoid proper payments and consequential benefits viz . bonus and P.F. contribution the management used to prepare bills for payment of wages in the name of the contractor though they used to pay wages directly to them as well as through Cooperative Bank . In spite of showing such high- handedness by the management the concerned workmen used to accept wages not as per N.C. W.A. with the expectation that they would be regularised in future. They disclosed that as the management did not consider necessary to regularise the concerned workmen in spite of their rendering continuous service, they submitted representation requesting them to regularise but to no effect and for which they raised an industrial dispute before ALC(C), Dhanbad for conciliation which ultimately resulted in reference to this Tribunal for adjudication.
Accordingly, they submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to regularise the concerned workmen with retrospective effect along with consequential benefits.
3. Management on the contrary after filing written statement- cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring Union asserted in the written statement . They categorically submitted that the. alleged concerned workmen were never engaged by them orby the person to whom work was allotted through open tenders to supply small number of workers for a limited period to meet the exigency of work . They submitted that the persons who supplied his inen for a limited period has duly been paid as per agreement for the work done . They also categorically denied the fact of engagement of the concerned workmen with a view to carry on jobs of prohibited category as per contract labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970. They disclosed that for employment of any workman they are to follow the rules of recruitment applicable there . Accordingly they submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the concerned workmen..
4. Points to be decided.
"Kya Dhanbad Colliery Karmchari Sangh Ka Daba Ki Pragatishil Cooperative Sahayog Samity Ke Tatwadhan Mey Karyarata Karmakaro S /Shri Devraj Mishra , Harey Krishan Mishra, Devkumar, Hareram Singh , Vraj Raj Mishra Evam Tarkeshwar Singh Ko B.C.C.L. Putki Harihari Kshetra Ka Sidha Karmakar Mantcy Hua Ukta Pravandhan Mey Niyamata Kiya Jaya kyu Ki Bey Theka Mazdoori Adhiniyaın Key Antgart Prativandlit Shreni Key Karya Par Karyarat Hai , Manya Hai , Yadi Han To Ukt Karmkar Kis Rahat Key Patra Hai Tatha Kis Tarikh Sey. "
5. Finding with Reasons
It transpires from the record that in spite of getting sufficient opportunities the sponsoring Union in course of [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
2907 भारत काराजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
failed to produce their membership card. They have also failed to produce any paper to show that management engaged that society to undertake the jobs of prohibited category. It is the specific claim of the sponsoring Union that the said society was nothing but a camouflage one and the management in disguise of that society actually engaged the concerned workmen to undertake the jobs of prohibited category.
The allegations which the sponsoring Union have brought against the management in the matter ofexploitation of the services of the concerned workmen is no doubt serious and accordingly initial onus absolutely was on them to establish the same but I find no hesitation to say that they have lamentably failed to establish the same .
Facts disclosed in the written statement cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence until and unless it is substantiated by cogent evidence . Accordingly relying on the facts disclosed in the written statement there is no scope to uphold the contention of the sponsoring Union and for which they are not entitled to get any benefit.
In the result , the following award is rendered
"The claim of Dhanbad Colliery Karmachri Sangh that S/Shri Deoraj Mishra, Hare Krishna Mishra, Deo Kumar, Hare Ram Singh , Brajraj Mishra and Tarkeshwar who had been working under Progatisheel Co -operative Sahyog Samittee skald be treated as directly employed workmen of B. CCL Pootki Balihari Area and they should be regularised because they have been working in Prohibited. Category of Jobs as per Contract Labour (Regulation &Abolition) Act, is not acceptable. Consequently, the concerned workmen are not entitled to get any relief."
B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer
नई दिल्ली, 11 मई, 2004
hearing did not come forward to adduce evidence with a view to substantiate the claim of the concerned workmen. In the circumstances management also declined to adduce any evidence excepting pleadings of both sides on material evidence is forthcoming before this Tribunal to consider whether the claim of the sponsoring Union has any material value or not .Accordingly, relying on the facts disclosed in the writtenstatements ofboth sides let me consider whether the concernedworkmen are entitled to get award in view of their prayer . It is the specific contention of the sponsoring Union that management employed the concerned workmen in the year 1988 at 5/6 Hydromines Balihari Colliery to undertake thejobs ofTyndals , roof supporting, coal cutting, lime packing, lime fittingetc. They disclosed that in the said capacity they worked continuously and put in 190 days attendance in each year. It is their further contention that the work which they used to perform were prohibited category of job as per Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970. It is their further contention that the concerned workmen were members of Progatisheel Co- operative Sahyog Samity who had no licence at all under the said act to undertake any such work. They disclosed that the said society was a camouflage one and the management in disguise of that camouflage society actually exploited the service of the concerned workmen and compelled them to perform prohibited cateogry of job paying less wages violating the provision of N.C.W.A. Management on the contrary denying the claim of the sponsoring Union submitted that as their organisation is a public sector undertaking organisation they are to abide by the recruitment policy for employment of any worker under them. They disclosed that in case of any exigency they engage contractor as per tender to undertake certain job ofpurely temporary in nature . Disclosing this fact they further submitted that question of using any worker of the contractor to undertake any job of prohibited category, never arose . They emphatically submitted that they never engaged the concerned workmen at 5/6 Hydro Mining Balihari colliery in the year 1988 and accordingly there was no scope of these workmen to put in their attendance for more than 190 days in a year .
का. आ. 1298.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को, को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 208/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल.- 20012/193/2001- आई. आर. (सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव The claim of the sponsoring union is absolutely based on documentary evidence . Considering record I have failed to find out an iota ofevidence relying on which there is scope to draw conclusion that the concerned workman were employed by the management in the year 1988. The sponsoring Union neither have been able to produce any letter ofappointment, identity card nor a scrap of wage slip to show that they were actually employed by the management and they paid wages for less wages as that of the regular workmen violating the provision of N.C.W.A.
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2004
S.O. 1298. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 208/2001 ) It is the specific claim of the sponsoring Union that the concerned workmen were members of unrecognised cooperative society under the name and style Progatisheel Sramik Sahyog Samity but in spite of claiming so they have
1633 G1/0432 2908
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court II , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 7-5-04 .
2.Fromthe record it appears that in spite of issuing notices to the parties and giving opportunities to the parties neither the concened workman nor the representative of the concerned workman appeared and filed written statement. It, therefore, appears that the parties are not interested to proceed with the case .
[No. L- 20012/193/2001 - IR (C- 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
3. In such circumstances I render a ' No Dispute Award' in the present case presuming non -existence of industrial dispute between the parties.
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 AT DHANBAD
नई दिल्ली, 11 मई, 2004
In the matter of a reference under Sec . 10( 1 ) ( d ) ( 2A) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 .
Reference No. 208 of 2001
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the management ofKustore Area ofM/ s . B.C.C. Ltd.
का. आ. 1299.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 75/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
AND
Their Workmen .
[सं. एल.- 20012/76/98- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव PRESENT:
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2004
Shri B. Biswas , PresidingOfficer .
Appearances :
: Shri H. Nath, Advocate
For the Employers
:None.
For the Workman
State : Jharkhand.
Industry: Coal.
S.O. 1299.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 75/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court II , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 7-5-04.
Dated, the 22nd April , 2004.
[No. L - 20012 /76/98 - IR (C- 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
AWARD
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 AT DHANBAD By Order No. L - 20012/ 193 / 2001 - I.R ( C - 1 ) dated the 11th July, 2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Sec . 10 (1 ) ( d) (2A) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947.
SCHEDULE
Reference No. 75 of 1999
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the management of Govindpur Area No. III of M/ s . BCCL .
AND
"KYA BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED KEY PARVANDHTANTRA DWARA SHRI JITAN YADAV, MECHANICAL FITTER, BHALGORA, CENTRAL WORKSHOP KO SHRENI - 6 MEY PADOUNNAT NA KARNA KANUN, NAYA EVAM TARK KI DRISHTI SEY UCHIT HA ? YADI NAHI TO KARMAKAR KIS LABH KO ΡΑΝΕΥ ΚΑ HAKDAR HAI TATHA KIS TARIKH SEY ? "
Their Workmen.
2909
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 11th May, 2004 PRESENT:
Shri B. Biswas, PresidingOfficer.
Appearances:
:None.
For the Employers
: None:
For the Workman
S.O. 1300.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 126/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court II, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofBCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-5-04.
Industry: Coal
State : Jharkhand
[No. L- 20012/308/96- IR (C - 1 )] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
Dated, the 22nd April , 2004.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2 ) AT DHANBAD AWARD
PRESENT:
Shri B. Biswas, PresidingOfficer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1 ) (d) ofthe 1.D. Act, 1947.
Reference No. 126 of 1996 .
By Order No. L- 20012/76/98-1.R. (C- I ) dated the 27-1-99 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the management of Lodna Arca No. 10 of M/ s . BCCL and their workman .
"Whether the action of the management in dismissal from service of Shri Babshidhar Bauri is justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"
Appearances:
Onbehalfof the workmen Mr. N.G. Arun , Authorised Representative , RCMS.
Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D.K. Verma, Advocate.
Industry : Coal .
State: Jharkhand .
2. Record shows that in spite of issuance ofrepeated notices to the parties neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared and filed writtten statement on their behalf. None appeared on behalf of the management also . The case is pending since 1999. The gesture of the parties if looked into it will expose clearly that they are not interested to proceed with the case .
Dated, the 22nd April , 2004.
AWARD
3. Accordingly, I render a ' No Dispute Award ' in thepresent case presuming non -existence of any industrial dispute between the parties.
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer
The Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 (1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this. Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/308/ 96-IR (Coal -I ) dated, the 4th October, 1996.
नई दिल्ली, 11 मई, 2004
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of South Tisra Colliery of M/s . BCCL in dismissing the workman Shri Govind Bouri is justified ? If not, to wl at relief is the said workman entitled ?" का. भा. 1300.-औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 126/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
2. The case of the concerned workman according to written tatement submitted by the sponsoring union on his beha in brief is as follows:
It has been submitted by the sponsoring union that the concerned workman was a casual worker at South Tisra [सं. एल. - 20012/308/96- आई. आरसी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
の 2910
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
Colliery. They submitted that as he was not provided with regular job he went to his native village during his idle period and at that time he fell ill . After rcovery he came to his place of duty with the expectation to get job but management without providing him any job handed over a chargesheet bearing No. BCC/ STC/ 87 / 1048 dt . 4-4-87 after one month from the date of reporting for duty and thereafter held a domestic enquiry against him almost ex parte and relying on the report of the Enquiry Officer dismissed him from service vide letter No. BCC / STC/88 / 140 dt . 12-1-88 . Accordingly they submitted representation to the management for reinstatement of the concerned workman recalling the order of dismissal but to no effect and for which they raised an industrial dispute before the ALC(C) , Dhanbad for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication.
Accordingly, they submitted prayer to pass award directing management to reinstate the concerned workman in his service recalling the order of dismissal with other consequential relief.
3. Management on the contrary after filing written statement- cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring Union asserted in the written statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman.
They submitted that cerned workman was a casual worker of South Tisra Colliery since 1982. They submitted that in the year 1982 1983 and 1984 he put his attendance for 145 days, 125 did 69 days respectively and thereafter feft the colliery wat giving any intimation. Accordingly, on 4-4-87 for con atting misconduct on the ground of absenteeism a chargesheet was issued to him and on reccips of the chargesheet he gave his reply. They submitted that as the reply given by him was not satisfactory the disciplinar authority appointed Enquiry Officer to hold domestic enquiry against him. In course of domestic enquiry not only the concerned workman participated but also full opportunity was given to him to defend his casc . During hearing of the enquiry proceeding concerned workman failed to produce any medical paper to show that he was actually lying ill . Accordingly the Enquiry Officer after completing enquiry submitted his report holding the concerned workman guilty to the charges . They submitted that the disciplinary authority after considering all aspects and also considering the report of the Enquiry Officer dismissed the concerned workmen from his service with effect from 18-1-88 . They submitted thatby dismissing the concerned workman from his service neither committed any illegality nor took any arbitrary decision violating the principle of natural justice . In the circumstances they submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman/ sponsoring union.
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 4. Points to be decided
"Whether the action of the management of South Tisra Colliery of M/ s BCCL in dismissing the workman Shri Govind Bouri isjustified ? If not, to what reliefis the said workman entitled ? "
5.Findings with reasons
It transpires from the record that before taking up final hearing of this case on merit it was taken into consideration if domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle ofnaturaljustice . The issue on preliminary pointwas disposed of vide Order No. 27 dt. 29-1-04 and it was decided that domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice. Accordingly, at this stage there is no scope further to rediscuss that point again. Here the point for consideration is whether the management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman and if so whether the concerned workman is entitled to get any relief according to Sec . 11A ofthe I.D. Act.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there is no dispute to hold that the concerned workman was a casual worker at South Tisra Colliery. It is the specific allegation of the management that in the month of Sept. , 1984 he left the colliery without giving any intimation to them and thereafter he did not turn up and for which a chargesheet was issued to himdt. 4-4-87 with the allegation ofcommitting misconduct on the ground of absenteeism. The chargesheet during evidence ofMW - 1 was marked as Ext. M-2 . Concerned workman after filing W.S. admitted the fact of his remaining absent from duty since 1989 but he disclosed that as he fell ill he could not attend his duty. He submitted that after recovery from his ailment when he cametohis place of work with a view to resume his duty he was not allowed to work there. On the contrary management issued chargesheet to him. It is seen that in response to that chargesheet he gave his reply marked as Ext . M- 3 . Management submitted that as reply given by the concerned workman was not satisfactory they decided to hold domestic enquiry against him . MW- 1 during his evidence disclosed that the concerned workman participated the enquiry proceedings during hearing and full opportunity was given to him to defend his case . Considering the enquiry report (Ext. M- 6) as well as chargesheet it transpires that the concerned workman remained himself absent from duty without giving any intimation to the management from September, 1984 to 30-3-87 continuously. On 31-3-87 he came to his place of work tojoin his duty while chargesheet was issued to him. During enquiry proceeding management examined three witnesses including senior compounder of the hospital. Mr. Sailendra Kumar, Senior Compounder during his
ف [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
2911
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
Now the point for consideration is whether the concerned workman is entitled to get any relief U/s . 11A of the 1.D. Act . Sec . 11 -A speaks as follows:
"Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication, and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings , the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require . "
examination categorically disclosed consulting colliery dispensary record that the concerned workman was not sick w.e.f. Sept. 84 and he was not referred any where for his treatment . Concerned workman on the contrary gave his statement to the Enquiry Officer to the effect that as he was very much mentally set back on hearing the death news ofhis mother he went to his native village at Adra and after performing rituals etc. of his mother he fell ill owing to tuberculosis and remained under Jori -buti treatment for two years and for which he could not attend to hisplace of duty for work. Considering his statement it isclear that on receipt of the death news of his mother he become mentally upset left the place of his duty. It is un- becoming that a son will not be upset mentally on receiving death news of his mother. It is also not unbecoming if a sonrushed to his native village to participate in the funeral function ofhis mother and also to perform the last rites of his mother. But no cogent explanation is forthcomingwhy he did not consider necessary to inform this fact to the management for getting sanction ofhis leave . He disclosed that thereafter he fell ill owing to tuberculosis and received treatment ofjori -buti but did not disclosed from which date andmonth he fell ill.
Therefore, according to this Section it is to be looked into ifthe order of dismissal issued against the concerned workman was justified or not . It is seen that the concerned workman remained absent from duty unauthorisedly for more than 2½ years and he did not consider necessary to giveanyintimation to the management to that effect. Ground assigned by him in support of his remaining absent from dutywas far from satisfactory and for which management issued letter of dismissal to him . Such conduct of the concerned workman definitely should be considered as most indisciplined act . A workman cannot avoid his responsibility to maintain discipline in the Industry not only for the sake of administration but also for the growth of the industry. If such gross indiscipline act is viewed leniently inthat case it will create an example which definitely will indulge the other workmen to follow his course and if it is so done it will not only create a serious impact in maintaining discipline in the Industry but also its growth willbe affected seriously.
Accordingly, after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances 1 find no scope to say that management committed any unjustified act illegally or arbitrarily violating the principle of natural justice in dismissing the concerned workman from service. I, therefore , hold that the concerned workman is not entitled to get any reliefin view of his prayer.
Inthe result, the following award is rendered:
" The action of the management of South Tisra Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing the workman Shri Govind Bouri is justified . Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. " He also has failed to assign any reason at all what circumstances prevented him to inform the management about his ailment. He had ample scope to get medical treatment free of cost from the management for his ailment buthe did not consider necessaty to take any such medical aid. Moreover, he inspite of giving ample opportunity did not consider necessary to establish that actually he received Jori - buti treatment for his aliment . It is seen that the concerned workman remained himself absent from duty for more than 2½ years unauthorisedly and without giving any intimation to the management . Accordingly, onus absolutely rests on the concerned workman to establish that as situation was beyond his control he did not get any opportunity to intimate the management about reasons of his absence. The plea taken by the concerned workman is far from satisfactory for its acceptance. As per certified Standing order management is very much entitled to issue chargesheet if a workman remains absent for more than 10 days without prior sanction or without giving any intimation. Here in the instant case the concerned workman remained himself absent unauthorisedly continuously for more than 22 years without giving any short of information to the management . Accordingly, there is no scope to draw anyadverse view that management committed any illegality or took any arbitrary decision in issuing chargesheet to the concerned workman . Onus was on the concerned workman tojustify that his enjoyment of unauthorised leave for such long period was not illegal but he has lamentably failed to justify his claim. On the contrary considering all materials on record it is clear that management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman.
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5. 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
2912
नई दिल्ली, 11 मई. 2004
determination to the Apex Medical Board under I. 1. No. 76 isjustified ? If not , to what relief the said workman is entitled to ? "
2. The case of the concerned workman according to the written statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf, in brief, is as follows.:
का. आ. 1301.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्यागिक अधिकरण- 11. धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 37/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल.- 20012/451/96- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ]
एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 11th May, 2004
S.O. 1301. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) . the Central Government hercby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 37/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court II , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was reccived by the Central Government on 7-5-04 .
[No. L-20012/451 /96 - IR (C -1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2. DHANBAD
In the matter of a reference under Sec . 10 ( 1 ) ( d) ( 2A) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947
Reference No. 37 of 1998
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the management of Kustore Area of M/ s . BCCL .. AND Their Workmen
The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman was originally appointed as permanent workman on 17-10-1971 at Kustore Colliery and at the time of entry in the service his age was recorded as 30 years as on 17-10-1971 . They disclosed that on the basis of recording ofage in the Form ' B ' Register of the management Identity Card was issued to him wherein also his date of birth was recorded as 30 years as on 17-10-71 . Thereafter from Kustore Colliery the concerned workman was transferred to Ena Colliery and in the L.P.C. his date of birth was also recorded as 30 years as on 17-10-71 . In the year 1979 the said workman again was transferred back to the Kustore collieryand at that time in the L.P.C. the same date ofbirth was recorded . They disclosed that without assigning any reason the management recorded the age of the concerned workman as 35 years as on 17-10-71 in the Service Excerpt issued to the concerned workman . On receipt of the said service excerpt the concerned workman submitted representation to the management for illegal recording of his age in the service excerpt but to no effect and for which through the sponsoring union he raised industrial dispute before the A.L.C. (C ) , Dhanbad for conciliation which ultimately resulted in reference to this Tribunal for adjudication. The sponsoring union accordingly submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to accept his age as 30 years as on 17-10-71 or alternatively his age be determined by Apex Medical Board and to reinstate him in service with all arrear of wages and consequential benefits .
PRESENT:
Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES :
Shri H. Nath . Advocate
Shri D. Mukherjee . Advocate .
For the Employers For the Workman :
Industry: Coal
State : Jharkhand
Dated, the 22nd April , 2004 AWARD
By Order No. L- 20012 / 451 / 96- IR (Coal -I ) dated 19th/ 27th February, 1998 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
"Whether the action of the management of Kustore Area of M/s . BCCL in not altering the date of birth of Shri Ram Parikha Singh in accordance with his L.P.C. or not refer the case of age
3. The management, on the contrary, after filing written statement have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the written statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman . They submitted that the concerned workman was initially appointed on 17-10-71 at Kustore colliery and at that time he declared his age as 35 years at the time of recording his bio-data in the Form ' B ' Register maintained under Sec .48 of the Mines Act, 1952 , as prescribed under the Mines Rules, 1955. In the year 1987 the management issued service excerpt to the concerned workman wherein his date of birth was recorded as 35 years as on 17-10-71 . The concerned workman was advised to fill up the blank columns in the service excerpt and to indicate any inaccuracy in the particulars mentioned in the service records of the company so that necessary steps can be taken for correction of the same if there was any error. They disclosed that the concerned workman without raising any objection relating to entry in the service excerpt 2913 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजयंत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
including his age recorded therein returned back the same duly signed by him. They submitted that as per provision of Certified Standing Order of the company the date of birth/age recorded in the service record becomes conclusive for deciding the time of supernanuation but where the age has been recorded instead of date of birth , the date of birth is required to be taken as 1.7 of that particular year. Accordingly, the concerned workman superannuated on attaining 60 years ofage as per records of the company/ management . They alleged that after superannuation the concerned workman has raised the present dispute for correction of his date of birth/age and accordingly it is not maintainable in the eye of law. They alleged that the demand of the concerned workman for correction of his age on the basis of some fabricated documents purported to be L.P.C. is without any merit and the same was not acceded to by the management . As there was no inconsistencies in the age/date of birth recorded in different records of the company the question of getting the age assessed by the Apex Medical Board didnot and cannot arise. The procedure contained in I.I. 76 of JBCCI are applicable only when the management takes up the case for review of correction of age of a workman on some genuine ground, otherwise the circular has no application in all cases merely on the ground that aworkman disputes the recorded age of the company's recordas incorrect at the fag end of his retirement or after his retirement . Accordingly, they submitted that the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief and for which his prayer is liable to be rejected .
Points to be decided :
4. "Whether the action of the management of Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL in not altering the date of birth of Shri Ram Parikha Singh in accordance with his L.P.C. or not refer the case of age determination to the ApexMedical Board under I.I. No. 76 is justified ? If not , to what relief the said workman is entitled to ?"
Finding with reasons :
management issued L.P.C. wherein his date ofbirth was recorded as 30 years as on 17-10-71 . He disclosed that in the year 1987 the management issued service excerpt to him wherein his date ofbirth was recorded as 35 years as on17-10-71. He disclosed that though without raising any objection he returned back the service excerpt to the management duly signed by him. Subsequently he raised dispute and submitted representation to the management to rectify his age recorded in the service excerpt . But as the management did not rectify his age he raised industrial dispute before the A.L.C. ( C) , Dhanbad . During cross- examination this witness categorically denied that his age was recorded as 35 years as on 17-10-71 by the management in Form ' B ' Register. Considering his evidence it is clear that he relied on Form ' B' Register wherein his date of birthwas recorded as 30 years at the time of his entry in service. Therefore, according to him the date of birth recorded in Form ' B ' Register at the time ofentry in service is to be considered as index to count his age. It is fact that the concerned workman during his evidence relied on L.P.C. and Identity Card issued by the management. He disclosed that not only in the L.P.C. issued by the management but also in the Identity Card his age was recorded as 30 years as on 17-10-71 . The L.P.C. and xerox copy of Identity Card during his evidence were marked Exts . W- 1 , W- 2 , W-4/2 and W -4/3 . It is the specific contentionofthe management that the copy of L.P.C. and Identity Card which the concerned workman relied on are fabricated and cannot be accepted in any circumstances . At the time ofhearing the concerned workman submitted xerox copy of the Identity Card without producing its original . No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming on the part of the sponsoring union why they have failed to produce the original Identity Card at the time of hearing particularly when the same are lying with the workman concerned. This witness i.e. the concerned workman during his evidence submitted that he read upto Class- VIII . In spite ofclaiming so he has failed to produce school leaving certificate to prove his date of birth.
5. It transpires from the record that the sponsoring union in order to substantiate their claim examined the concerned workman as WW- 1 . The management also with a view to substantiate their claim examined one witness as MW- 1 . It is the specific contention of the concerned workman that he got his appointment at Kustore colliery on 17-10-71 . At the time of entry in service he submitted that his age was recorded as 30 years as on 17-10-71 by the management in Form ' B' Register . He disclosed that thereafter the management issued Identity Card to him and in the said Identity Card his age also was recorded as 30 years as on 17-10-71 . He submitted that thereafter in the month of December, 1976 , he was transferred to Ena Colliery from Kustore Colliery and in the L.P.C. issued by the management his age was recorded as 30 years as on 17-10-71 .. In the year 1979 he was transferred back to Kustore colliery from Ena colliery and at that time the
6. It is admitted fact that the concerned workman was served with service excerpt in the year 1987. The service excerpt during evidence of the concerned workman wasmarked Ext . M-4/4 , wherein his age was recorded as 35 years as on 17-10-71 . The concerned workman returned back the said service excerpt duly signed by him and filled up required columns without raising any dispute relating to the age recorded therein . It is not the fact that the concerned workman was illiterate person and for which outof ignorance he returned back the service excerpt just putting his L.T.I. The concerned workman read upto Class- VIII . Naturally it is expected that he was fully aware about the contents recorded in the service excerpt . This fact he admitted in his written statement disclosing that he without raising dispute returned back the service excerpt duly signed by him though subsequently he raised dispute and submitted representation to the management for 2914
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
[PART II- SEC. 3(ii)] rectification of his age . The concerned workman during recorded in the Form ' B ' Register signed the same in respective column meant for the employees . This Form 'B' Register is very old one and it clearly shows that his age was recorded as 35 years on the date of his entry i.e. on 17-10-71 . I have failed to find out any sign of interpolation in the figure ' 35 ' recorded in the age and sex column of the employee , it is clear and distinct. Therefore , onus absolutely rests on the concerned workman to substantiate that the age recorded in the original Form ' B ' Register was either wrong or it was interpolated by the management .
his cross - examination admitted that in the year 1995 he for the first time submitted petition before the management for rectification of his age. The concerned workman superannuated from his service in the year 1996 , on attaining the age of 60 years . Therefore , it is seen that only one year before his superannuation he submitted representation for rectification of his age . The service excerpt was given to the concerned workınan in the year 1987 and he submitted representation for rectification of his age in the year 1995 just at the fag end of his superannuation . No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming on his part why he made such long delay in raising his dispute relating to his agc . It is the specific contention of the concerned workman that at the time of his entry in service his age was recorded as 30 years as on 17-10-71 in the Form 'B ' Register. From the evidence of MW - 1 it transpires that the name of the concerned workman was recorded in Serial No. 1108 in the Form ' B ' Register. The Form ' B ' Register during his evidence was marked Ext. M - 1 . The concerned workman also relied on the photo copy of Form ' B ' Register which also was inarked Ext . W- 3. Considering the Form ' B ' Register it transpires that the age of the concerned workman was recorded as 35 years as 17-10-71 . It is the specific claim of the management that before 8-6-1995 the concerned workman never raised any dispute relating to wrong recording of his age in the Form 'B ' Register . It is not the case of the concerned workman that at the time of his entry in the service the management instead of recording his age as 30 years recorded his age as 35 years as on 17-1t ) -71 . It is also not the case of the concerned workman that the management with malafide intention interpolated the figure 30 to 35 as his age in the Form 'B ' Register. The Form B ' Register should be considered as statutory register as per Section 48 of the Mines Act . Therefore , all entries therein are binding upon the parties if any gross mistake is not traced out . It is the contention of the concerned workman that his age recorded in L.P.C. as well as in the Identity Card was recorded as 30 years as on 17-10-1971 . Accordingly, he submitted that as per JBCCI Circular No. 76 the management ought to have sent him to the Apex MedicalBoard for determination of his age . The concerned workman instead of producing original Identity Card relied on its xerox copy and for which I do not find any scope to accept its credibility. MW - 1 categorically disclosed that the service particulars isued by Ena Colliery in favour of the concerned workman was wrong and cannot be acted upon . Service particulars recorded in L.P.C. cannot be considered as statutory document to prove the age of the workman. Therefore, relying on wrong recording of age in L.P.C. there is no scope to say that there was material ground for referring (he concerned workman to Apex Medical. Board for determination of his age. I have carefully considered the Form ' B ' Register and it transpires that the concerned workman being satisfied with the entries
The learned Advocate of the concerned workman submitted in course of hearing argument that the Tribunal should confine within the ambit ofthe reference and not beyond that and in support of that claim he submitted a decision reported in 1967 ( I) LLJ page 423. In the said decision Their Lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Tribunal cannot widen the scope of the enquiry beyond the terms of reference . Ido not find any scope at all to say anyting in this regard. It is admitted fact that Form ' B ' Register is a statutory register under theMines Act . The L.P.C. issued by the management cannot be considered as statutory document . Inspite of the fact the onus absolutely rests on the concerned workman to establish that the age recorded in the L.P.C. was correct . I have no hesitation to say that the concerned workman inspite of getting opportunity could not produce any such cogent paper relying on which the authenticity of age recorded in L.P.C. can be relied on . It is the specific claim of the management that the age in the L.P.C. was wrongly recorded and for which it cannot be relied and in support of their claim they relied on Form ' B ' Register . The concerned workman too relied on Form ' B ' Register. If the age recorded in Form ' B'Register is taken into consideration there is sufficient scope to say that age recorded in L.P.C. was incorrect. The quesion of sending the concerned workman to. Apex Medical Board for determination of age only can be considered as per JBCCI circular ifany material mistake of gross amount is detected relating to recording the age of the workman in different registers maintained by the management . No evidence is forthcoming to the effect that the age of the concerned workman was recorded differently at different register and for which there was scope to say which age will be considered as correct one . Here in the instant case the picture isdifferent. Not only the management but also the concerned workman absolutely relied on the age recorded in the Form ' B ' Register . It is specific contention of the concerned workman that the age recorded in L.P.C. and Identity Card issued to him were at par with the age recorded in the Form ' B' Register. He disclosed that the age recorded in the service excerpt was wrong and not in conformitywith the age recorded in Form ' B ' Register. In this regard 1 have discussed everything in details above and for which there is need for further discussion . It is clear that the age of the concerned workman was recorded 2915 [भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the management of ChiefGeneral Manager of M/s . BCCL, Katras Area No. IVand their workman.
APPEARANCES :.
Onbehalf of the : Mr. P. R. Shukla, Authorised
Workman
Representative.
: Mr. U. N. Lall, Advocate.
Onbehalfofthe
in the Form 'B ' Register as 35 years and not 30 years . Therefore, he made a wrong statement in support of his claim. The concerned workman got ample scope to raise dispute in the year 1987 when the service excerpt was handed over to him . On the contrary, it transpires thatjust at the fag end of his service he raised the disputewithout assigning any satisfactory explanation. Therefore , the age dispute at such belated stage cannot be accepted at all, apart from the facts discussed above.
Employers
Industry: Coal
State: Jharkhand
Dated,Dhanbad, the 21st April , 2004
AWARD
7.Accordingly, after careful consideration ofall the facts and circumstances I hold that the concerned workman/sponsoring union has failed to establish that his age was recorded as 30 years as on 17-10-1971 at the time of his entry in service and acccordingly he is not entitled to get any relief in view of his prayer.
8. In the result, the following award is rendered-
TheGovt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 )(d) of the I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following disputeto thistribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 324/2001 - IR(C -I ) , dated, the 24th September, 2001.
SCHEDULE
The action of the managment of Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL in not altering the date of birth of Shri Ram Parikha Singh in accordance with his L.P.C. or not refer the case ofage determination to the Apex Medical Board under I.I. No. 76 is justified and hence , the concerned workman isnot entitled to any relief.
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer
"Whether the action of the management of Ram Kanali Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in dismissing Sri Mundrika Bhuia from the services of the company w.e.f. 22-1-1999 is justified ? If not , towhat relief is theconcerned workman entitled ?"
नई दिल्ली, 11 मई, 2004
2.The case of the concerned workman according to Written statement submitted by the sponsoring Union on his behalf in brief is as follows:-
का. आ. 1302.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 274/2001 ] को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल.- 20012/324/2001- आई. आर. (सी-1 ) ]
एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 11th May, 2004
S.O. 1302. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 274/ 2001) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court II , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 7-5-04.
[No. L-20012/324/2001 -IR (C- 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) , AT DHANBAD. PRESENT:
Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer
Inthematter of an Industrial Distpute under Section 10(1) (d) ofthe 1.D. Act, 1947 .
Reference No. 274 of2001
Thesponsoring Union submitted that the concerned workmanwas apermanent General Mazdoor at Ram Kanali Colliery. They submitted that the management of the said colliery issued Chargesheet No. RKC/PD/97/ 132/ dt. 22-12-1997 to the concerned workman with the allegation of committing misconduct under clause 26: 1: 1 of the certified standing order on the ground of his remaining unauthorised absence without any intimation tothem. The concerned workman after receipt ofthe said chargesheet submitted his reply stating the ground ofhis absence but the mangement without accepting his reply started domestic enquiry against him through enquiry officer appointed by them. They alleged that during hearing ofenquiry proceeding Enquiry Officer did not give the concerned workman any opportunity to defend his case with the assistance of co - worker. They alleged that the Enquiry Officer arbitrarily conducted the enquiry proceedingand after completion of its hearing submitted his report to the disciplinary authority holding him guilty to the charges. And on the basis of that report the disciplinary authority dismissed him from his service vide order No. RKC/CME/Dismissal /99/2553 dt . 22-1-1999 illegally and violating the principle ofnatural justice. They alleged that though by letter No. RKC/chargesheet/ enquiry, dis./98/2292 dt. 19-12-1998 informed him the proposed action of the management to consider his dismissal they did not consider necessary to hand over a copy ofthe enquiry report to him. They disclosed that in spite he submitted his reply on 28-12-1998 with a prayer to 1633 GI/04-33 2916
THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)]
Bhuia from the services of the company w.e.f. 22-1-1999 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?"
consider his application as mercy appeal in the light ofthe decision of the Central Consultative Committee but that too was not taken into any consideration by them .
5.Finding with Reasons
They alleged that action of the management was not fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice and for which they raised an industrial dispute before the ALC(C) for conciliation which ultimately resulted in reference to this Tribunal for adjudication . The sponsoring Union accordingly submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to reinstate the concerned workman to his service with full back wages and other consequential relief setting aside his order of dismissal .
It transpires from the record that before taking up hearing of this case on merit it was taken into consideration as preliminary issue whether domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice . It is seen that the said issuewas disposed of vide order No. 6 dt . 30-7-2003 ( later ) and observed by this Tribunal that domestic enquiryheld against the concerned workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of naturaljustice.
3.Management on the contrary after filing written statement-cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring Union asserted in the written statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman.
Accordingly, here the point for consideration is whether the management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman and if so whether the concerned workman is entitled to get any relief U/s . 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .
They alleged that the concerned workman was a habitual absentee from his duty without taking any prior permission or giving any information to the management and for his such action previously he was chargesheeted on one occasion and atleast on four occasions warning letters were issued to him. They submitted that during the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 he attended to his duty for 197 days , 57 days and 93 days respectively. In spite of such conduct the concerned workman again started himself absenting from duty unauthorisedly w.e.f. 18-11-1997 and for which a chargesheet vide No. RKC/D /97/ 132 dt . 22-12-1997 under clause 26.1.1 of the certified standing order was issued to him . He submitted his reply to the chargesheet but as his reply was not satisfactory disciplinary authority appointed enquiry officer to hold domestic enquiry against him . They disclosed that during enquiry charge brought against the concerned workman was established and for which a second show cause notice was sent to him vide letter No. RKK/ charge/Enquiry/ Proceeding/ 98/ 2299 dt . 19-12-1998 and thereafter , Disciplinary Authority dismissed the concerned workman from his service vide letter No. RKC/ CME/Dismissal/99 / 2553 dt . 21 /22-1-1999 . They submitted that the concerned workman did not put in at least 125 days attendance in the past three years prior to his dismissal from service . They disclosed that for the years 1996 and 1997 attendance of the concerned workman was very bleak and for which there was no scope to review his case for reinstatement as per decision of Central Consultative Committee. They sumbmitted that in dismissing the concerned workman from his service the Disciplinary Authority neither committed any illegality nor took any arbitrary decision violating the principle of natural justice .Accordingly, they submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim ofthe concerned workman/ sponsoring Union.
4. Points to be decided
It is the specific allegation of the management that the concerned workman was in the habit of remaining himself absent from duty unauthorisedly and also without giving any intimation to the management. They disclosed that for his remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly during the period from 11-11-1996 to 25-2-1997 a chargesheet was issued to him . Thereafter in the year 1997 prior to his remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly with effect from 18-11-1997 four warning letters were issued to him for enjoying his unauthorised leave in between the period from 8-4-1997 to 7-6-1997 . It is the specific allegation of the management that during the years 1995 , 1996 and 1997 he attended to his duties for 197 days , 57 days and 93 days respectively. They alleged that in spite of issuance of previous chargesheet and warning letters on four consecutive occasions the concerned workman did not consider necessary to mend his attitude. On the contrary againhe started remaining himself absent from duty with effect from 18-11-1997 without giving any intimation or taking prior permission and for which chargesheet bearing No. RKC/PD/97/ 132 dt. 22-12-1997 was issued to him. The concerned workman admitting the receipt of the chargesheet disclosed that he submitted his reply but the management without accepting that reply started domestic enquiry against him . Reply given by the concerned workman during hearing was marked as Ext. M - 1/4 . In the reply instead of assigr.ing reason of his absence submitted thatas per decision of the Central Consultative Committee in the year 1998 a workman with 125 days attendance in a yearduring the preceding three years is to be reinstated in service in case he has already been dismissed. It transpires from the record that the concerned workman fully participated in the enquiry proceeding with a view to defend his case. Considering the enquiry proceeding papers I have failed to find out any credible evidence to show that the concerned workman either raised objection against the enquiry officer to hold domestic enquiry or he "Whether the action of the management of Ram Kanali Colliery ofM/ s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Mundrika [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ⅱ ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
2917
hasbeen referred to a Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and , in the course of the adjudication proceedings , the Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal , as the case may be , is satisfied that the order ofdischarge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions , if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal, as the circumstances of the case may require." submitted any prayer before the enquiry officer with a prayer for allowing him to defend his case through co- workers. During hearing the enquiry proceedings it has been exposed clearly what was the conduct of the concernedworkman in the matter of enjoying unauthorised leave without intimation to the management . The concernedworkman in course ofhearing neither challenged the allegation brought against him nor made anywhisper about issuance of chargesheet and warning letters to him consecutively prior to issuance of chargesheet dt . 22-12-1997 . No incriminating material is forthcomingto establish that the charge brought against him was false. I have carefully considered all the materials on record and I find sufficient reason to hold that the management has well established the charge brought against him and for which there is no reason to consider that the proceedings pending against him is liable to be rejected.
Therefore, before giving any relief under this provision it is to be looked into if the order of dismissal issuedby the management was unjustified or not . I have carefully considered all materials facts in the record and I find nohesitation to say that before passing the order of dismissal management gave ample opportunity to the concernedworkman to mend his habit but he ignored the opportunity given to him in a very reckless manner. Accordingly I hold that management by dismissing the concerned workman did not commit any act which maybe called as 'unjustified ' , and for which he is not entitled to get any reliefU/s . 11A ofthe I.D. Act, 1947. In the result, the followingAward is rendered:
It is seen that in view of enquiry report Ext. M- 1 submitted by the Enquiry Officer the Disciplinary Authority took up the matter for consideration . The disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report and also considering all other aspects decided to dismiss the concerned workman from service and accordingly order ofdismissal was issued to him vide letter dt. 21 /22-1-1999 Ext. M- 1/7.
"The action of the management of Ram Kanali Colliery ofM/s . BCCL in dismissing Sri Mundrika Bhuia from the services of the company w.e.f. 22-1-1999 is justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief."
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 11 मई , 2004
का. आ. 1303, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , धनबाद के पंचाट( संदर्भ संख्या 24/98 ] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-20012/8/97 - आई. आर. (सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 11thMay, 2004
S.O. 1303.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 24/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court II, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement ofBCCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 7-5-04.
It is the contention of the concerned workman that as perdecision ofthe Central Consultative Committee in the year 1998 management is liable to recall his order of dismissal as he attended to his work for more than 125 days in a year. During the preceding three years before his order of dismissal. The order of dismissal was issued by order dt . 21/22-1-1999, There is no allegation that he was suspended from his duty by the management while enquiry proceeding was going on. Therefore, there is suffcient reason topresume that he was in service during 1998. The concerned workman did not consider necessary to show that during 1998 he worked for more than 125 days. In the year 1996 and 1997 he put his attendance only for 57 days and 93 days apart from his deplorable attendance previously. It has been exposed clearly that althrough the concerned workman grew up the habit of remaining himself absent from duty unauthorisedly. He wanted to get his relief referring the decision of Central Consultative Committee but did not consider necessary to show any reason for remaining himself absent from duty unauthorisedly for years together . It cannot be accepted atall that decision of the Central Consultative Committee accrges any right to a workman to get his relief without showing cogent ground of his absence. If this decision according to workman is taken into consideration in that caseas a matter ofright all workmen will get the libertyto enjoyunauthorised leave as of choice and to maintain the discipline in the industry and its production the management shall be debarred from taking any step. Section I1A of the I.D. Act speaks clearly that "Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal ofa workman
[No. L-20012/8/97 -IR (C- 1 ) ] . S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2918
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
ANNEXURE
to reinstate the concerned workman to his service with full back wages and other consequential relief.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2 ), DHANBAD
PRESENT:
Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer .
3. Management on the contrary after filing written statement -cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring Union asserted in the written statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman.
In the matter of an Indistrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) ofthe 1.D. Act . , 1947
Reference No. 24 of 1998
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the management of M/s , BCCL and their workman .
APPEARANCES :
None
Onbehalfofthe workman :
Mr. D. K. Verma ,
Onbehalf of the employers :
Addvocate ,
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dhanbad, dated the 21st April, 2004
AWARD
They submitted that the concerned workman entered into employment of the management fraudulently impersonating himself as Bircha Bhuiyan, They disclosed that in the year 1981 concerned workman got his appointment at Sendra Bansjora colliery as Miner/loader and subsequently he was tranferred to Nichitpur colliery. They disclosed that they received a complaint to the effect that the concerned workman who was working at Nichitpur colliery taking the name of Bircha Bhuiyan was not the realBirchaBhuiyan, They disclosed that on receipt ofthe said complaint they issued two letter to the concerned workmanviz. letter No. N/ 1240/87 dt. 17-7-1987 and letter No. 1527/87 dt . 5-9-1987 asking him to submit his identification duly certified by B.D.O./Mukhiya to establish that he was genuine Bircha Bhuiyan.
TheGovt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/ 8/97 - IR (Coal - I) , dated the 20th/27th February, 1998 .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Nichitpur Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in dismissing the services of Shri Bricha Bhuia S/o . Shri Gangu Bhuia , Miner / Loader of Nichitpur Colliery w.e.f. 7-10-1989 is justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"
2. The case of the concerned workman according to written statement submitted by the sponsoring Union on his behalf in brief is as follows .
They disclosed that full opportunity was given to the concerned workman to submit relevant paper in support of his identification that he was actual Bircha Bhuiyan but in spite of giving sufficient opportunity as he failed to submit any genuine paper to establish his identity a chargesheet was issued to him vide letter No. N/ 139/98 dt , 21-1-88 for committing misconduct on the ground ofgiving false information regarding his name, age, father's name and qualification etc. As the concerned workman failed to give any satisfactory reply to the chargesheet Disciplinary authority decided to hold domestic enquiry against him and for which appointed enquiry officer . They disclosed that the enquiry officer after holding domestic enquiry submitted his report holding the concerned workman guilty to the charges and accordingly he was dismissed from his service . They submitted that in dismissing the concerned workman from his service neither they committed any illegality nor they took any arbitrary decision violating the principle of natural justice . Accordingly, management submitted their prayer to pass award rejecting the claim ofthe concerned workman.
4. Points to be Decided
The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman was appointed at Sendra Bansjora Colliery in the year 1981 as Miner/loader after he made the management fully satisfied as to his identity . Thereafter he was transferred to Nichitpur colliery. They alleged that after rendering long and satisfactory service management raising the question of fresh identity stopped him from workwith effect from 22-9-1987 followed by a chargesheet bearing No. N/ 139/88 Dt. 21-1-1988 . They alleged that the said chargesheet was vague , unspecific and also it did not reveal the nature of misconduct alleged to have been committed by the concerned workman .
"Whether the action of the management of Nichitpur Colliery of M/ s BCCL in dismissing the services of Shri Brichha Bhuia Sie Shri Gangh Bhuia , Miner/Loader ofNichitpur colliery w.e.f. 7-10-89 is justified ? If not , to what relief is the said workman entitled?"
5. Finding with Reasons
It transpires from the record that before taking up bearing ofthis case on merit it was taken into consideration ifdomestic enquiry held against the concerned workman by the Enquiry officer was fair, proper and in accordance They submitted that over suspension of the concerned workman in view of chargesheet issued to him they raised an industrial dispute before the ALC ( C) Dhanbad and management thereafter held domestic enquiry against him ex parte and thereafter dismissed him from service by letter dt . 7-10-1989 illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice . Accordingly, they submitted prayer to pass award directing the managment [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत की राजपत्र: जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
2919
Ref. No. N/139/88 dt. 21-1-88
Sl . No. Name
Father'sName Address
2 Sri Brichha Ganga Bhuia Bhuia
P.O. Lalganj,
Vill: Ramapur Barana, P. S. Dengarh, Distt.:Azamgarh
CHARGESHEET
with the principle ofnatural justice . It is seen that by order No.23 dt : 11-2-2004 the said issue on preliminary point was disposed of with the finding that domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice . In the circumstances , at this stage there is no scope at all to reopen the said issue again .. Here the point for consideration is if the charge brought against the concerned workman for committing misconduct on the allegation of false impersonification by the management has been fully substantiated or not and if proved whether the concerned workman is entitled to get any relief U/ s 11A of the I.D. Act .
It has come to our knowledge that you had got employment at Sendra Bansjora colliery in 1981 impersonating some other person , and after working in Sendra Bansjora Colliery for more than three years you got transferred to this Colliery.
You were directed to submit fresh identification/ verification by B.D.O. or by competent authority. But even after expiery of four months you have not submitted the documents in proof of your genuineness .
Above shows that you have committed misconduct under clause 17 (1 ) (0 )(Q) of Model Standing Order applicable to coal Mining industry which read as under:
17 (1) (0)-giving false information regarding one's name, age, father's name, qualification or previous Service atthe time ofemployment.
17(1)( Q)-Any breach of the Mines Act, 1952 or any other Act or any rules , regulations or byelaws thereunder or of any standing orders .
You are therefore directed to submit show cause within 48 hours of the receipt of this Chargesheet why disciplinary action should not be taken against you .
Sd/-Illegible Manager.
Copy to ( 1 ) Dy. C.M.E. Nichitpur colliery. (2) Dy. C.P.M. SijuaArea. (3) Dy. P.M. Nichitpur colliery." Itisadmitted fact that the concerned workman got his employment as minor/loader at Sendra Bansjora colliery under the management in the year 1981. It transpires that subsequently he was transferred to Nuchitpur colliery. It is the contention of the management that while the concernedworkman was posted at Nichitpur colliery they received a complaint to the effect that the concerned workman who got his employment in the name of Bircha Bhuiyan was not the actual person in the said name. Accordingly, they issued two consecutive letters to him viz. letter No. N/ 1240/87 dt . 17-7-87 and letter No. 1527/87 dt. 5-9-87 asking him to submit relevant papers relating to his genuine identification diuly certified by the B.D.O. or Mukhia . They alleged that in spite of receiving the said two letters the concerned workman did not consider necessary to submit any relevant papers duly certifiedby the B.D.O. or Mukhiya in support of his identification . Accordingly they issued a chargesheet to him bearing No. N/ 139/98 dt . 21-1-88. It has been disclosed by them that as the concerned workman did not submit any reply, Disciplinary authority decided to hold domestic enquiry against the concerned workman and accordingly appointed Surendra Kumar, Deputy personnel manager, Nichitpur Colliery as Enquiry Officer who was examined asMW- 1 by the management, as MW - 1 during hearing before this Tribunal .
Considering the charge it transpires that management has brought allegation of false impersonification against the concerned workman in getting his service of miner /loader at Sendra Bansjora colliery.
MW- 1 during his evidence disclosed that on taking charge of the enquiry proceeding he issued notices to the concerned workman by registered post but as the said notices were returned back with the comments of the postal Peon ' Not found ' he started hearing of the enquiry proceeding ex parte. He disclosed that in the midst of hearing on one occasion the concerned workman appeared but thereafter he stopped his appearance and for which again he issued notice to him but he did not turn up and for which he took up hearing ofthe enquiry proceeding ex parte and submitted his report holding him guilty to the charges. The copy of the chargesheet during evidence of MW- 1 was marked as Ext . M-2. The charge brought against the concerned workman speaks as follows:
"Bharat Coking Coal Limited (A Subsidiary ofCIL)
Nichitpur Colliery P.O.Bansjora, Dhanbad.
MW- 1 during his evidence disclosed that the concerned workman evaded his appearance in course of hearing of the enquiry proceeding though he submitted petition with a prayer for staying further hearing as criminal case was pending against him, marked Ext . M-6 / 12 . It transpires that enquiry officer gave reply to his petition which during his evidence was marked as Ext . M-6/ 14 . By the said letter Enquiry officer asked him to bring necessary stayorder from the Court . No cogent paper is forthcoming before this Tribunal to show that the concerned workman approached te Court for stay operation of the enquiry proceeding during pendency of the criminal case. Accordinglythe enquiry officer proceeded with the hearing of the enquiry proceeding . However, considering this situation there is sufficient scope to draw conclusion that [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
2920
has committed misconduct as per clause 17 (1 )(6) of the Model Standing Order applicable to him.
Considering all aspects carefully, I therefore , hold that management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concenred workman. Accordingly, there is no scope to say that management have illegally and arbitrarily dismissed the concerned workman from his service violating the principle of naturaljustice.
Now the point for consideration is whether the concerned workman is entitled to get any relief U/s . 11A of the I. D. Act, 1947. Section 11 -A speaks as follows:-
the concerned workman wilfully evaded his appearance before the Enquiry Officer in course of hearing. It is seen from the enquiry proceeding paper that before issuance of chargesheet management issued two letters to the concernedworkman Ext . M-6/15 and M-6/ 16 asking him to produce certified photograph with identification as a proof ofhis genuinity duly certifiedby B.D.O. within seven days . It is seen that the concerned workman did not consider necessary to comply the direction of the management in the matter of production of his photograph with identification duly certified by B.D.O. as a proof of his genuinity. No satisfactory explanation on his part caine before the Tribunal in course of hearing in this regard. It is seen that not only the concerned workman wilfully evaded his appearance before the Enquiry Officer but also evaded his appearance before this Tribunal in course of hearing though on his behalf sponsoring Union submitted his reply.
"Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings , the Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal , as the case maybe , is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu ofdischarge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require . " The report of the Enquiry Officer during his evidence was marked as Ext . M-7 . Considering the report it transpires that the Enquiry Officer in arriving to his conclusion that theconcernedworkman committed misconduct by way of false impersonification relied on the police report and submitted that during checking of the photo of the concerned workman it was detected that the said photograph belonged to Sri Ramfal Chouhan S/ o Ganga Chouhan, resident of Rampur Barlane , P. S. Mepnager, Distt . Azamgarh and not of the concerned workman . The allegation brought against the concerned workman was no doubt serious. Police report exposed that the concerned workman used the photograph of different person for getting his employment knowing fully well about ingenuinity of his claim.
For application of Section 11 -A it is to be looked into whether punishment inflicted on the concerned workman was justified or not. Here in the instant case serious allegation of misconduct was brought against the concerned workman. It is seen that before starting domestic enquiry full opportunity was given to him by the management for submission of papers duly attested by B.D.O. to establish his genuinity. Inspite of getting sufficient scope he did not consider necessary to comply the said directions. On the contrary considering record there is sufficient reason to believe that he evaded wilfully to co-operate the management in this regard. During enquiry the Enquiry Officer relied on the police report which went absolutely against him and for which he had to submit adverse report against him relying on which Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service.
Inthe written statement the sponsoring union alleged that the charge brought against the concerned workman was vague and unspecific but inspite of claiming so they did not consider necessary to assign reason to that effect. There was ample scope on the part of the concerned workman to disprove the claim of the management by adducing cogent paper but he did not only consider necessary to do so but also cvaded his appearance . No satisfactory explanation is also forthcoming to show the ground of his non - appearance before this Tribunal in course of hearing . He had the scope to submit papers to counter the allegations of the management but with utter surprise I noticed that he did not consider necessary to do so.
In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above and also considering gravity ofthe allegation which has been established I find no scope to invoke the provision of Sec . 11 -A of the I. D. Act with a view to consider the order of dismissal passed against him.
In the result, the following award is rendered:-
"The action of the management of Nichitpur Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in dismissing the services of Shri Brichha Bhuia S/o Shri Gangu Bhuia, Miner/Loader ofNichitpur Colliery w.e.f. 7-10-89 is justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. "
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer I have carefully considered all material papers on record and I find no hesitation to show that simultaneous responsibility also was with the sponsoring Union to submit genuine papers for identification of the concerned workman with a view to disprove the charge as reference in dispute is of quasi Civil in nature . As the concerned workman fully non - cooperated with the Enquiry Officer, theEnquiry Officer had to rely on police report and other circumstances evidence to arrive into the finding that he [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
2921 नई दिल्ली , 11 मई, 2004
Dhanbad, dated the April, 2004
AWARD
TheGovt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conrerred on them under Section 10( 1 )(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 55/97-IR-Coal-Idated, the 13th April, 1998.
का. आ. 1304.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार टिस्को के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक बिवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 106/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
SCHEDULE
[सं. एल.- 20012/55/97- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
NewDelhi, the 11th May, 2004
"Whether the action of the management of Sijua Colliery ofM/ s . TISCO in not promoting Shri Chotelal Paswan, T. No. 57805 as Pump Operator in Cat. III w.e.f. 25-5-90 instead of 21-2-92 and subsequent promotion as Pump Operator in Cat . IV is justified ? Ifnot, what relief the concerned workman, Sri Chotelal Paswan is entitled to?"
The case of the concerned workman according to Written statement submitted by the sponsoring Union on his behalf in brief is as follows :-
S.O. 1304.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 106/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court II. Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of TISCO and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-5-04 .
[No. L- 20012/55/97 - IR(C-1 )]
S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, DHANBAD
PRESENT :
The sponsoring Union submitted that the concerned workmanwas employed in the capacity ofPump Operator at Sijua Colliery by the management . He got his employment in 1979 on the basis ofhis father's length of service asper Company's rules/practice. They submitted that initially though he was engaged as temporary pump operator in the underground mines and was paid Cat . 1 rate ofwages was regularised as Pump Operator Cat . II with effect from 25-5-90 and thereafter he was upgraded asCat. III Pump Operator with effect from 21-2-92.
Shri B. Biswas, PresidingOfficer.
Inthe matter ofan Industrial Dispute under Sec. 10(1 ) (d) ofIndustrial DisputesAct, 1947.
Reference No. 106 of 1998
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the management of M/ s . TISCO.
They submitted that rate of wages payable to the workman of Sijua colliery is governed by N.C.W.A. The N.C.W.A. provides for time bound promotion/upgradation and under that condition the concerned workman ought to have been placed in Cat . III as Pump Operator instead ofCat. II effective from 25-5-90 and subsequently to Cat. IV. They alleged that at the management ignored to follow the provision of N.C.W.A. in the matter of promotion to workman he became sufferer not only in scale ofpay since 25-5-90 but also lost his seniority within the cadre ofpump operator.
AND
Their Workmen
APPEARANCES :
Onbehalfofthe workman : None
Onbehalfof the employers : Mr. D. K. Verma,
Accordingly not only the concerned workman submitted representation to the management but they also onhis behalf submitted representation to the management for consideration of his claim but the management didnot consider necessary to give any importance to the same. In the circumstances they raised an Industrial Dispute before ALC( C) , Dhanbad for conciliation which ultimately resulted in reference to this Tribunal for adjudication.
Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
They accordingly, submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to treat the concerned workman
1 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
2922
asPump Operator Cat . III w.e.f. 25-5-90 and Cat . IV with effect from 21-2-92 with other consequential reliefs and difference ofwages .
3.Management on the contrary after filing written statement-cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring Union asserted in his written statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman.
as stone dusting and cleaning mazdoor with effect from 5-3-90. According to service sheet it further transpires that the concerned workman was placed as Pump Operator Cat. II with effect from 22-5-90 . The concerned workman during his evidence disclosed that as he used to operate pump machine of 60 H.P. he was promoted to Cat . VPump Operatorbut in the year 1989 he was demoted to Cat . I and posted in the underground . During hearing the concerned workman has failed to produce a single scrap of paper to show that he used to operate pump machine of 60 H.P. and for which management promoted him to Cat . V as Pump Operator . He also has failed to produce any document to show that he was demoted to Cat . I. He has failed to assign reason of his demotion in service . Evidence of the concerned workman appears to be contradictory. I have failed to understand while in the year 1992 he got his promotion in Cat. II as Pump Operator how he got his promotion in Cat. V as Pump Operator in the year 1989 .
They submitted that the concerned workman was appointed as Cat. I mazdoor at Sijua colliery on 1-4-83 . Не got his promotion in Cat. II with effect from 21-5-90 and thereafter he was promoted in Cat. III with effect from 21-2-92. They submitted that the concerned workman was attached to water softening plant on the surface and was given the chance to learn operating the pump during leave and sick vacancy. He was posted as pump operator on the surface during 1988-89 . He operated the pump on the surface inplace of Sri Tetal Bhuia who became sick during the period from April, 1988 to 20-7-89 and accordingly difference of wages as per the company's procedure for working as pump operator during the said period was paid to him. Subsequently he was promoted in Cat . II Pump Operator w.e.f. 21-5-90 with capacity of below 30 Н.Р. Thereafter, he was given opportunity for operating pumps of higher capacity during leave and sick vacancies to observe his performance and also to give him opportunity to acquire skill on operating such pumps . As he was found suitable promotion was given to him as Cat . III pump operatorwith effect from 21-2-92.
It is clear considering his service record that in the month of March, 1990 his designation was dusting and cleaning mazdoor and not as Pump Operator. It is the contention of the management that they have opportunity to learn operating pump machine during the year 1988-89 on the surface during leave and sick vacancy. From April, 88 to 20-7-89 as Pump Operator Tetal Bhuia was sick the concerned workman was allowed to operate pump in his place and for that service they paid difference of wages to him and thereafter being satisfied with his work they gave promotion to him as Cat. II pump operator with effect from 21-5-90 to operate pump with capacity below 30 H.P. Thereafter, with effect from 21-2-92 he was given promotion in Cat . III pump operator.
They submitted that the claim of the sponsoring union for promotion of the concerned workman to Cat . III witheffectfrom 25-5-90 has no basis at all and for which his claim is liable to be rejected.
4. Points to be Decided
"Whether the action of the management of Sijua colliery of M/ s . TISCO in not promoting Shri . Chotelal Paswan, T. No. 57805 as Pump Operator in Cat . IV is justified ? If not, what relief the concerned workman , Shri Chotelal Paswas is entitled to ? "
5. Findings with Reasons
It transpires from the record that the sponsoring Union in order to substantiate their claim examined one witness as WW-1 . Management too with a view to substantiate their claim examined one witness as MW- 1 .
MW- 1 during his evidence disclosed that pump operator who operates pumps with capacity of below 30 H.P. falls within Cat. II . It is the contention of the concernedworkman that management ought to have been placed him in Cat . III Pump Operator with effect from 25-5-90 but did not disclose the reason of his entitlement inthe said category. He also has failed to explain actually when he got his promotion as Cat. II Pump Operator because of the fact that without enjoying Cat. II there is no scope to enjoy Cat. III wages of Pump Operator. Management during evidence relied on certain correspondence between them and the concerned workman Ext. M -2 to M - 6. Considering all these letters I have failed to find out any material to consider that officially he was promoted to the post ofPump Operator. It transpires from these correspondence that on certain occasion he was to work as Pump Operator on leave and sick vacancy and for rendering such service he was paid difference ofwages. Such part time work as Pump Operator during leave and sick vacancy ipso facto did not create any entitlement to claim upgradation of his category as Pump Operator. MW- 1 during his evidence categorically disclosed that promotion from Cat. II to Cat. III as is not Considering the pleadings of both sides and also considering evidence of the concerned workman as well as of the management I find no dispute to hold that the concernedworkman got his appointment as mazdoor in Cat. I on 1-4-83. Considering service sheet of the concerned workman Ext . M- 1 it transpires that he was redesignated *
2923
भारत का राजपत्र : जूम 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[ भाग 1 -सखंड 3 ( ii) ]
based on time scale . The concerned workman cannot claim his promotion after completing his job for a particular period. However, in view of the claim placed by the concerned workman he cannot avoid responsibility to substantiate the same . I find no hesitation to say that excepting placing his claim the concerned workman has failed to produce a single scrap of paper. Accordingly just relying on such claim it is impracticable to draw any conclusion that management illegally and arbitrarily withheld his promotion , 1, therefore , hold no merit in the stibmission ofthe concerned workman and for which he is not entitled to get any relief.
In the fesult, the following Award is rendered:---
"The action of the management of Styus Colliery of M/s . TISCO, if not promoting Shri Chotelal Paswan, T. No. 57805 as Pump Operator in Cat. Iti we.f. 25-5-90 Instead of 21-2-92 and subsequent promotion as Punte Operator in Cat. IV is justified . Consequently, the concernedworkman is not entitled to get any relief."
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 11 मई, 2004
काः भा. 1305.-औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 को 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार टिस्को के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधौगिक अधिकरण- II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 140/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-5-04 की प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल.- 20012/373/98 - आई. अरि (सी-1 ) ]
एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 11thMay, 2004
$.O. 1305.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 140/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court II , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of TISCO and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 7-5-04.
[No. L-20012/373/96-IR(C-1)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, DHANBAD PRESENT:
Shri B. Biswas, PresidingOfficer
1633 G1/0434
In thematter of an Industrial Dispute under Sec . 10(1 )( d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
ReferenceNo. 140 of 1997
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the management of Jamadoba Colliery of M/S. TISCO Ltd. AND
TheirWorkmen .
APPEARANCES:
Onbehalfofthe workman : Mr. S. Singh, Advocate
Onbehalf ofthe employers : Mr. D. K. Verma, Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st April, 2004
AWARD
TheGovt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of thepowers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 373/96 -IR-Coal - I dated, the 25th November, 1997.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Union for the promotion of Shri Bishu Barhi in Category-V w.e.f. 21-4-1977 and in Category-VI w.e.f. 24-3-1983 on the basis of his claim of the date of appointment being 3-1-1957 is legal and justified ? If so, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?"
The case of the concerned workman according to written statement submitted by the sponsoring Union on hisbehalf in briefis as follows :-
The sponsoring Union submitted that the concerned workman got appointment as Carpenter in Cat . IV on 3-1-1957 at 6 & 7 Pit Colliery in the underground . They submitted that on and from 21-4-77 management placed him on the surface as a Carpenter without paying him higher grade and pay. Accordingly he placed his demand forhis promotion in Cat. V with effect from 21-4-77 but the management refused to consider his claim. On the contrary under cadre scheme they promoted him in Cat. Vwith effect from 24-8-88. They submitted that the concerned workman completed 35 years of service in the year 1992. Theydisclosed that management as per its scheme offers its employees long service reward who completed 35 years 2924
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
of service. As per the said scheme when the concerned workman claimed that reward management refused to award him taking the plea that this date of appointment waschanged from 3-1-57 to 4-11-61 as his name was struck offfrom the rolls for his unauthorised absence from duty. On receiving the said information concerned workman raised his protest . It has been submitted by the sponsoring union that management neither issued any chargesheet nor any letter asking him to show cause for his unauthorised absence . He was also not informed that his date of appointment was changed . They disclosed that after getting intimation he wrote letters to the management to record his correct date of appointment as 3-1-57 instead of4-11-61 but they did not pay any heed to his appeal . On the contrary they, issued promotional order in favour of Janki Mistry in Cat . VI who was junior to him and got his appointment on 31-12-59 and in this way management deprived him from all benefit which he was legally entitled to get including the benefit for employment of his second son . They submitted that the concerned workman is entitled to get his promotion in Cat . V with effect from 21-4-77 and in Cat . VI w.e.f. 24-3-88 with difference of wages . He is entitled to get his promotion at least at par with his junior Sri Janki Ministry along with other consequential relief but as the management neglected and refused to give promotion as per his demand he through sponsoring union raised an industrial dispute before the ALC( C) which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication .
Accordingly sponsoring Union on behalf of the concerned workman submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to give him promotion with all consequential relief in view of his claim.
3. Management on the contrary after filing written statement-cum- rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegation which the sponsoring Union asserted in the written statement on behalf of the concerned workman.
They submitted that originally the concerned work man was appointed as General Mazdoor in Cat . I on 3-1-57 . His name was struck off from the roll as per the provision of clause 9 of the certified standing order on 2-5-61 as he remained absent beyond the period of leave originally granted and did not return to his duties . On the expiry of the leave and continued absent for a pretty long period without any suitable explanation . Thercafter on request made by the recognised Union, his case was reviewed and he was reappointed on 4-11-61 and a fresh service record was opened from 4-11-61.
They submitted that date of birth of the concerned workman as per his declaration was recorded as 2-1-32 but subsequently in view of his prayer and as per report of the Apex Medical Board his date of birth was recorded as 25-7-37 in his service book . They further disclosed that
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] the concerned workmen not only accepted his fresh appointment with effect from 4-11-61 but also he did not raise any Industrial Dispute at that time. They submitted that the concerned workman as found suitable was given promotion to the post of Timber Mistry in Cat . IV at 6 & 7 pit colliery from 1-9-63 from Timber Mazdoor. They further submitted that in the year 1977 a vacancy arose on the surface in Cat. IV and accordingly, he was given chance to work on the surface in the post of Carpenter in Cat. IVwith effect from 21-4-77 and thereafter he was given promotion in Cat . Vwith effect from 24-3-88 and he was placed in Town Maintenance Deptt. with effect from 20-5-92 . They submitted that promotion to any Carpenter in Cat. IV, V and VI are given purely on merit considering their skill on thejob of Carpentry. They disclosed that workman Janki Mistry got his appointment on 31-12-69 as Carpenter in Cat. Vwhen the concerned workman was TimberMazdoor and accordingly question of making his service at par with the said person finds no basis at all . Disclosing all these facts management submitted that claim of the concerned workman finds no basis and for which he is not entitled to get any relief in view of his prayer Accordingly management submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman,
4. Points tobe Decided
"Whether the demand of the Union for the promotion ofShri Bishu Barhi in Category- V w.e.f. 21-4- 1977 and in Category-VI w.e.f. 24-3-1983 on the basis of his claim of the date of appointment being 3-1-1957 is legal and justified? If so, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?"
5. Finding with Reasons
It transpires from the record that the concerned workman in order to substantiate his claim examined himself as WW- 1 while management also in support of their claim examined one witness as MW- I . Considering the evidence of both sides I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman got his appointment at 6 & 7 Pits Colliery in the underground on 3-1-57. It is also evident that the concenred workman was reappointed on 4-11-61 and his seniority in the service started counting from that date.
It is the contention of the concerned workman that he got his appointment as Timber Mistry in the underground in Cat . IV. It is admitted that the concerned workmanwas deployed in service on the surface with effect from 21-4-77. The specific allegation of the concerned workmanthat inthe year 1977 when he was taken to surface he was entitled to get wages as per Cat . VI but the management refused to pay him wages in the said category. He alleged that one Janki Mistry though was junior to him providedwith wages ofCat . VI by the management ignoring [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
2925 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
his claim without assigning any reason. For such discrimination he submitted representation to the management with a prayer for providing him wages inCat. V and Cat . VI with effect from 21-4-77 and 24-3-83 respectivelybut to no effect . The representations which ⚫he submitted to the management during his evidence were marked as Ext . W-3 , W-3 / 1 and W-3/2 and W-4 andW-4/1 . Onthe contrary from the submission of the management it reveals that the concerned workman got his appointment asTimber Mazdoor in Cat . I in the underground on 3-1-57. His name was struck off from the roll as per provision of Cl. 9 of the Certified Standing Orders on 2-5-61 as he remained absent beyond the period of leave and also as he did not return to his duties on the expiry of the leave and remained absent for a long period without any explanation orjustification.
Cat. VI in the year 1990 , ignoring his claim. He submitted representation in this regard to the management but to no effect. Accordingly he demanded for his placement in Cat.Vwith effect from 21-4-77 and in Cat. VI w.e.f. 24-3-83 . Onthe contrary it is the contention of the management that said Janki Mistry was directly selected and recruited as Carpenter in Cat. V with effect from 31-12-59. The concerned workman on the contrary was appointed as Timber/Carpenter Mazdoor with effect from 3-1-59 . Disclosing this fact it has been submitted by the management that demand of the concerned workman cannotbe equated with Janki Mistry. To rebut this claim concerned workman has failed to adduce any cogent evidence. Management on the contrary produced the service sheet of Janki Mistry (Ext. M-2) with a view to substantiate their claim. The service record speaks clearly that Janki Mistry was placed in Cat. VII with effect from 14-2-71 and got his confirmation in Cat. V with effect from 15-8-62. The service sheet ofthe concerned workman on the contrary shows that he was placed in Cat. IV on 15-8-67 . Therefore, if the service conditions of these two workmen are taken into consideration there is sufficient scope to say that claim of equal benefit of the concerned workmanwith that of Janki Mistry finds nobasis at all.
From the service record it transpires that the concernedworkman passed the Trade Test for Carpenter Cat . Von 4-4-88 . The concerned workman was upgraded tothepost ofCarpenter Cat. V with effect from 24-3-88 in viewofhis passing the Trade Test.
Before taking into consideration of the fact it is to be looked into if the concerned workman got his appointment on 3-1-57 as Timber Mistry in Cat. IV or Timber Mazdoor in Cat. I. The concerned workman in support of his claim relied on the Identity Card and bonus card issued by the management . Inboth the documents marked asExt . W-1 and W- 1 /1 designation of the concerned workman was noted as Timber Mistry but it cannot be ascertained onwhich date the same were issued. Concerned workman incourse ofhearing has failed to produce his appointment letter to show that he was actually appointed as Timber Mistry in Cat . IV and not as Timber Mazdoor in Cat. I. On the contrary management with a view to substantiate their claim relied on the service sheet ofthe concerned workman Ext. M- 1 which speaks clearly that he was engaged as Timber /Carpenter Mazdoor . The service sheet of a workman is considered as a very important document and it preserves by the management in official capacity wherein all service particulars are noted for future reference and also for the interest of the workman. Concerned workman also had the scope to produce his wage slip to show that he received wages from the management since the timeof his appointment in Cat . IV but he has failed to produce a single scrap ofpaper with a view to substantiate his claim. When service record of the concerned workman speaks clearly that he was appointed as Timber/Carpenter Mazdoor there is no scope to uphold his claim relying on his designation recorded in the Identity Card and bonus card as Timber Mistry particularly when it cannot be ascertained under whose signature those two documents were issued to him . Therefore, the claim ofthe concerned workman that he was appointed as Timber Mistry in Cat. IV finds no basis at all .
Itisadmitted fact that the concerned workman was placed on the surface as Carpenter with effect from 21-4-77. It is the allegation of the concerned workman that management refused to pay him wages in Cat. V inspite of his placement on the surface . He alleged that one Janki Mistry who was junior to him provided with the post of
It is the contention of the management that the concerned workman was given chances to work on the surface when a vacancy arose in his post in the year 1977. They further submitted that promotion of carpenters in Cat. IV, andV and VI are considered on merit and skill on thejob of carpentary and for which seniority factor is not counted. They submitted that promotion was given to the concerned workman in Cat . V as soon as he passed the Trade Test. The service record ofthe concerned workman definitelyhas supported this fact . Therefore , onus is on the concerned workman to establish that management neglected and refused to give him promotion in Cat. V with effect from 21-4-77 and in Cat. VI with effect from 24-3-88. In course of heating the concerned workman has failed to establishthat inspite of his establishing skill and merit in the Trade test management not only deprived him from giving promotion but also he was superseded by his junior. I find no hesitation to say that inspite of getting ample scope the concerned workman has failed to produce any cogent paper to show that management acted arbitrarily in denying his promotion in Cat. V and VI as per the duties mentioned by him . Every administration maintain its own independent policy to consider promotion of his employees to higher grade obviously abiding by the principle as laid down in N.C.W.A. It is the specific claim ofthe management that they consider merit and skill [PART I-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2926
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
NewDelhi , the 11thMay,2004
S.O. 1306. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 109/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court II . Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of BCCL, and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 7-5-94.
ofthe workman instead of his seniority in giving promotion to the workman in Cat . V and as Carpenter . No evidence is forthcoming on the part of the concerned workman to show that the said policy which the management follows to consider promotion of a Carpenter in higher grade is contrary to the provision of NCWA. Concerned workman also has failed to give any satisfactory explanation what was the basis of his demand for promotion in Cat . V and VI from particular duties . Accordingly, I consider that the claim ofthe concerned workman finds no basis at all .
[No. L-20012/ 178/98-IR(C- 1)] 8. S, GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, DHANBAD
PRESENT:
Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.
The concerned workman has raised a dispute relating to his reappointment with effect from 4-11-1961 and exposed how he was seriously prejudiced for such arbitrary and illegal decision of the management . No doubt management to counteract the claim of the concerned workman has assigned reason . However, it is clear that for the said issue though there was sufficient scope to raise industrial dispute at that relevant time the concerned workman did not consider necessary to do so . However, as this issue is not the subject matter of reference I find little scope to discuss this issue in details.
Inthe matter of a reference under Sec . 10 ( 1 )(d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
ReferenceNo. 109 of 1999
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the management of General Manager, Katras Arca of M/8 . BCCL
AND
Their Workmen
APPEARANCES:
Onbehalfof the workman : None
Here the moot question as per reference is whether the claim of the concerned workman to get his promoition in Cat. V and VI with effect from 21-4-77 and 24-3-83 is cogent and justified. I have discussed in details above relating to claim of the concerned workman and I have come to a clear finding that the concerned workman lamentably has failed to substantiate his claim. Accordingly, there is no scope to arrive into any conclusion that management arbitrarily and illegally violating the principle of natural justice deprived the concerned workman from his legitimate claim of promotion. In view of the fact and circumstances discussed above 1 hold that the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief.
Onbehalfof the employers : Mr. H. Nath, In the result , the following Award is rendered:-
Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 22nd April, 2004
AWARD
"The demand of the union for the promotion of Shri Bishu Barhi in Category V w.e.f. 21-4-77 and in Category - VI w.e.f. 24-3-1983 on the basis of his claim of the date of appointment being 3-1-1957 is not legal and justified . Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. "
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 मई, 2004
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 17IR (CM- I) , dated, the 27th January, 1999 .
का. आ. 1306.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947
SCHEDULE
का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 109/99 ) क़ो प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल.- 20012/178/ 98- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ]
"Whether the action ofthe management ofKeshalpur Colliery ofM/ s . BCCL in dismissing Sh. Arjun Bhuia, M/Loader w.c.f. 12/ 14-3-96 from the services of the company only on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty w.e.f. 3-9-94 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"
एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव 2927 [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/पेष्ठ 15, 1926
The case ofthe concerned workman according to Written statement submitted by the sponsoring Union on his behalf in brief is as follows
to the charges . The Disciplinary Authority after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer and also considering all other material facts dismissed the concerned workman from his service. They submitted that the concerned workman during 1992, 1993 and 1994 attended to his duties for 84 days , 18 days and 32 days respectively Referringthis statistic they submitted that no management can run any Industry if such absenteeism is allowed without any punishment and further submitted that any punishment short of dismissal would have encouraged the other workmen to indulge in such absenteeism and in such case not only the progress of the industry would be paralysed but also its growth would be at a stake . Disclosing this fact they submitted that neither they committed any illegality nor took any arbitrary decision violatingtheprinciple ofnatural justice in dismissing the concernedworkman from his service. Accordingly, thay submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the concernedworkman/sponsoring union.
4.Points to be Recided
"Whether the action of the management of Koshalpur Colliary ofM/s BCCL in dismissing Sh. Arjun Bhuia, M/Loader we.f. 12/14-3-96 from the services of the company only on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty we.f. 3-9-94 isjustified ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ?"
The sponsoringUnion submitted that the concerned workman was a permanent Miner /loader at Keshalpur Colliery. They submitted that the concerned workmanwas amental patient and for which he could not attend tohis duties which was duly brought to the notice of the management but the management with vindictive attitude, arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice issued chargesheet to him with the allegation ofcommitting misconduct on the ground ofabsenteeism. They sumbitted thatat that relevant time the concerned workman was under specialised treatment of the doctor. They alleged that the concerned workman neither received any chargesheet nor any notice ofenquiry. Even he did not receive any letter of dismissal. They sulsubmitted that after recovery from his ailment the concerned workman when came to his place of work with a view to resume his duty instead of allowing him to join the management dismissed him from service with effect from 12/14-3-96. Accordingly, the concerned workman raised an Industrial dispute through his sponsoring Union before the ALC (C) for conciliation whichultimately resulted in reference to this Tribunal for adjudication . The sponsoring Union accordingly, submitted prayer for passing award directing the management to reinstate the concerned workman to his service with other consequential relief and full back wages after recalling the order ofdismissal.
5. Finding with Reasons
3.Management on the contrary after filing written statement -cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the written statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman.
It transpires from the record that before taking up hearing of this case on merit it was taken up for consideration if domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman in view of order issued by the management was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle ofnatural justice . It transpires from the record that the said issue was disposed of vide order No. 15 dt. 14-11-03 by this Tribunal to the effect that domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle ofnatural justice. In the circumstances , at this stage there is no further scope to discuss this issue again. Here the moot point for consideration is whether the management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman and if so whether the concerned workman is entitled to get any relief as per provision laid down U/ s 11A of the I.D. Act.
It is admitted fact that the concerned workman was Miner/loader at Keshalpur colliery under the management.
It is the allegation of the management that concerned workman started remaining himself absent from dutyw.e.f. 3-9-94 without giving any intimation or taking any prior permission fromthe authority. They further Alleged that the concerned workman was habitualitual alabsentee and during They submittedthat the concerned workman while posted at Keshalpur colliery as Miner/loader started himself absenting from duty w.e.f. 3-9-94 without giving any information or taking any prior permission. They alleged that the concerned workman was a habitual absentee.Accordingly, they issued a chargesheet to him vide letter No. 96/116 dt. 13-1-96 for committing misconduct on the ground of absenteeism. The concerned workman submitted his reply to the chargesheet but as his reply was not satisfactory Disciplinary authority decided to hold domestic enquiry against him and appointed O.P. Dubey, St. Personnel Officer as Enquiry Officer. They further submitted that the concerned workman fully participated in the enquiry proceeding started against him and full opportunity was given to him to defend his case and also to cross -examine the witness of the management. They further submitted that the Enquiry Officer conducted hearing of the domestic enquiry proceeding fairly and properly and after completing the said enquiry he submitted his report holding the concerned workmanguilty 2928
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 1992, 1993 and 1994 he put his attendance for only 34 consideration I hold that the plea taken by the concerned workman is not at all tenable in the eye of law. Clause 26.1.1 ofthe certified standing order has clearly mentioned under which circumstances absence of the workman will be amounted to misconduct . It is seen that the concerned workman started remaining himself absent from duty with effect from 3-9-94 without giving any intimation or taking any prior permission from the Authority. It is seen that management issued chargesheet on 13-1-96 i.e. after one year and three months continuous absence . The sponsoring union have taken the plea that cause of absence ofthe concerned workman was duly intimated to the management but excepting making such claim they have failed to produce any cogent paper to that effect . Therefore , the plea taken by the sponsoring Union/ workman cannot be considered sufficient for its acceptance .Accordingly, after careful consideration ofall the facts and circumstances I hold that the management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman.
It is seen that the disciplinary authority after considering the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and also after considering all material aspect decided to dismiss the concerned workman from his service and accordingly issued letter of dismissal to him bearing No. KP /BCC/DYCME/PD/ 96/630 dt . 12/ 14-3-96 to the concerned workman (Ext. M-7) .
Now the point for consideration is if the concerned workman is entitled to get any relief U/s . 11A of the I.D. Act speaks as follows:-
"Whether an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings , the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal , as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge ordismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions , ifany, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal asthe circumstances, ofthe case may require . '
Therefore , it is to be taken into consideration whether punishment inflicted on the concerned workman was unjustified or not. I have already discussed above in detailhow the concerned workman remained himself absent from duty for years together. During the period of three years in total he attended his duty for a period of only 84 days . He has failed to justify the reason ofhis absence for such long period . Management submitted that in the days , 18 days and 32 days respectively. They submitted that as absence from duty for more than 10 days without taking prior permissin or giving intimation to the authority amounts to misconduct they issued chargesheet to him vide letter No. 96/116 dt. 13-1-96 . The copy of the chargesheet during evidence of MW- 1 was marked as Ext. M- 1. It is the contention of the sponsoring Union on the contrary is that as the concerned workman was a mental patient and remained under treatment of the specialised doctor he could not attend to his duties and to that effect due information was given to the authority. They further disclosed that the chargesheet which was issued by the management was not received by the concerned workman . This submission on the part of the sponsoring Union finds no basis at all as the concerned workman after receipt of the chargesheet submitted his reply which during evidence of MW- 1 was marked as Ext . M -2 . MW - 1 during his evidence disclosed that the concerned workman fully participated in course of hearing of domestic enquiry proceeding and signed all the proceeding papers . The enquiry proceeding papers during evidence of MW - 1 were marked as Ext . M - 4 series. The Enquiry Officer after completing enquiry submitted his report holding the concernedworkmari guilty to the charges . Ext. M- 5. The enquiry officer in his report has clearly assigned the grounds why the concerned workman was found guilty to the charge brought against him . It is the contention ofthe concerned workman as per his reply that owing to his illness he could not attend to his duty. It is seen that inspite of taking this plea he in course of hearing failed to submit any cogent medical papers in support of his claim before the enquiry officer . In the chargesheet specific allegation was brought against him that during the years 1992, 1993 and 1994 he performed his duties for 34 days , 18 days and 32 days respectively. During enquiry full opportunity was given to him to give satisfactory explanation for remaining himself absent for such long period during the years in question but he has failed to give any satisfactory explanation to that effect . It is the contention ofthe sponsoring Union that during the period in question the concerned workman was a mental patient and for which he remained under treatment of specialised doctor. When such plea was taken onus absolutely shifted upon the concerned workman /sponsoring Union tojustify the claim in question . Accordingly, 1 hold that management havebeen able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman. I have carefully considered all proceeding papers and I find no hesitation to say that they have failed to produce a single medical paper with a view to subsantiate their claim. They have also failed to assign any explanation for non -production of such medical papers before the enquiry officer . It is really astonishing to note that the concerned workman being a mental patient remained in treatment under specialised doctor without having a single medical paper . Accordingly, after careful [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
instant case if any lenient view is taken in favour of the concerned workman in spite of committing such gross misconduct in that case they will face extreme difficulty to maintaindiscipline amongst other workman and as a result there will be a serious impact in the production and economy. Before invoking the provision of Sec . 11A the concernedworkman/sponsoring Union cannot avoid their responsibility to assign cogent reason in support of their claim. The record shows clearly that inspite of giving sufficient opportunity neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring Union came forward with a view to substantiate the claim . They have also failed to assign reason why application of Sec . 11A in the instant case in favour of the concerned workman is necessary for the ends ofjustice. Conduct ofthe concerned workman if taken into consideration it will expose clearly how he violated the discipline ofthe management . There is sufficient reason to consider that the concerned workman did not care to abide by the discipline of the industry for the interest of its production . As of right he considered to violate the discipline and for which did not care even to intimate the ground ofhis absence to the management. Accordingly, I find substantial merit in the submission of the management against reconsideration of the punishment inflicted on him invoking Sec . 11A ofthe I.D. Act .
Inthe result, the following award is rendered :-
"The action of the management of Keshalpur Colliery ofM/s . BCCL in dismissing Sh. Arjun Bhuia, M/Loader w.e.f. 12/ 14-3-96 from the services of the company only on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty w.e.f. 3-9-94 isjustified. Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief."
B. BISWAS, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 13 मई, 2004
का. आ. 1307.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. 11 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. 23/92 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल.-12012/338/91- आई. आर. (बी-1 ) ]
अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th May, 2004
S.O. 1307.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( 1. D. No. 23/92)
2929 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court II, NewDelhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and theirworkman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-5-2004.
[No. L- 12012/338/91 -IR (B- 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , RAJENDRA BHAWAN , GROUND FLOOR , RAJENDERA PLACE , NEW DELHI Presiding Officer: R. N. Rai
L D. No. 23/92
Inthe matter of Anand Kumar
Versus
State Bank of India
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L/ 12012/ 338/91 - IR(B- II) Central Govt. dt. 20-02-1992 has referred the following point for adjudication. The point runs as hereunder:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Anand Kumar ( 1) w.e.f. April , 1985 and (2) w.e.f. 27-03-1990 as Canteen Boy, having engaged him w.e.f. November, 1985 was justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ? "
The claimant has filed statement of claim . In his statement of claim, he has stated that he was appointedat the post Peon/Waterman w.e.f. 1-5-1984 and his last salary drawn was Rs . 325 per month . The workman performedhis duties continuously since the inception of his appointment and thereby the workman continously performed his duties as defined under Section 25B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The management was not providing the legal benefits such as ESI, PF, EL and CL andwhen the workman demanded for the same, the management instead of giving the aforesaid benefits , terminated the services ofthe workman w.e.f. 27-3-1990. It is further stated that the management has also not paid the earned wages for the month of February, 1990.
2930
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2004 /JYAISTHA 15, 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
admission of the bank. He was not appointed by Local Implementation Committee . He was appointed by the bank management.
That the management has adopted an anti - labour practice to deprive the due entitlement of the workman and because of that reason, the management kept the workman on daily wages . It is stated that the workman performed the duties continuously without interruption.
That the termination of the services of the workman on 27th March , 1990 is really illegal and in violation to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act . Because the present termination is nothing but retrenchment as defined under Section 2( 00) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 . The workman against illegal termination sent demand notice demanding his reinstatement with full back wages continuity of service but the management did not consider it.
Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record . The workman has filed papers . It was argued by the learned counsel from the management that the payment was not made directly by the bank but through an agency so he is not an employee ofthe bank. The agreement has been entered into by Anand Kumar and he has put his signature . In this agreement , it has beenwritten that he will supply the fresh water and he will fillup the water cooler and desert coolers and he will do it weekly and he will get money according to his labour from 1984 to 1990 at the rate of Rs . 75 per month and in 1990, Rs . 125 per month and from October, 1990 to 31st October, Rs. 75 per month and he absents, the expenditure incurred inthe work regarding water will be realized from him . In case the management is not satisfied, then he may be removed. This letter has not been denied by the workman. It indicates that Shri Anand Kumar has been engaged by the bank on contractual basis for supplying water at various rates . He has not been appointed as an employee ofthe bank . It was stated by the management that there is no post of waterman in the bank . The same work is done by a peon at present. He was paid Rs . 2 per day. The workman has himself accepted that he was a waterman and not a peon. He was not given any appointment letter by the bank from 1-5-1984 . He was paid Rs . 2 per day for filling the water . He has also admitted in his evidence that he used to be paid for extra work got done from him occasionally. As such , in his oral evidence , the workman has accepted that he was a waterman and not a peon and he did not know whether he was appointed by the bank or the Local Implementation Committee . He was not appointed by the bank . He has also admitted that he has paid for extra work and he paid Rs . 2 per day for filling water . This indicates that he was not an employee of the bank and he was not appointed by the bank as he has admitted in his cross -examination so the workman is not entitled to get any relief.
The award is given thus :-
The management has filed written statement. In the written statement , it has been stated that Shri Anand Kumar is not a workman. He has been engaged by the bank on contractual basis for supply of drinking water @ Rs . 75 per month . He is not governed by the provision of Industrial Dispute Act and he is not entitled to any benefits. He has no right to raise the dispute . It has been further stated that he was appointed as canteen boy from May, 1984 to February, 1985 by the Local Implementation Committee at the Kirti Nagar Branch of the Bank located at Ist floor of the same building . The local implementation committee is an independent and voluntary body formed at each branch/office by the members of all categories of staffworking there, constituted to implement staffwelfare activities . The workman agreed to bring drinking water from the ground floor and store it on the second floor premises of the Bank in P.P.G. Department at a mutually agreed rates on daily basis . He was engaged by the Local Implementation Committee of the P.P.G. Deptt . of the bank located at the second floor in Noveinber, 1985. From June, 1987 , he was again engaged by the P.P.G. Deptt. of the bank for bringing water from the ground floor to the 2nd floor at the rate of Rs. 2 per day. The charges were revised and he was to be paid at the rate of Rs . 75 p.m. w.e.f. November , 1989 to March , 1990, Rs . 125 per month w.e.f. April, 1990 to September, 1990 and Rs . 75 per month from 1-10-1990 to 31-10-1990. He was not employed by the bank . He was employed by the Local Implementation Committee so he is not entitled to get any benefit of the 25B of the I.D. Act . As such, it is clear from the written statement that the duty ofthe workman was bringing water from the first floor and storing it on the second floor .
The action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Anand Kumar (1) w.e.f. April , 1985 and (2) w.e.f. 27-03-1990 as canteen boy, having engaged him w.e.f. November, 1985 is justified. The workman is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
The award is given accordingly.
Dated:06-05-2004
R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer The workman has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder, he has stated that he is a workman under the Industrial Dispute Act and his last drawn salary was Rs . 325 per month . He was not only a waterman but he was an employee of the bank . He was appointed by the Bank Management w.e.f. May, 1984. He has completed 240 days by the 2931 [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
नईदिल्ली , 13 मई, 2004
not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"
का.आ. 1308.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भाईन रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. 35/95 ) की प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल. - 41012/98/93- आई: आरः ( बी-1 ) ]
अजय कुमार, डेस्कअधिकारी
NewDelhi, the 13thMay, 2004
S.O. 1308, In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Contral Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. I.D. 35/95) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in, the Industrial Dispute between the empyers in relation tothe management of Northem Railway and their workinan, which was received by the Central Government on 7-5-04.
[No. L-41012/98/93- IR (B- 1 )]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT , NEW DELHI
PresidingOfficer : Shri B.N. Pandey
I. D. No. 35/95
Shri Bhupinder Kumar
S/o Shri Rohtas Kumar
Through The President,
RailCoach Factory Karmachari Sangh,
RamNaresh Bhawan , Tilak Gali ,
-Workman
Pahar Ganj , New Delhi -55
Versus
The General Manager,
Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala Camp,
TilakBridge,
NewDelhi- 110002.
-Management
2. The workman, Shri Bhupender Kumar through union filed his claim statement alleging that he was appointed in the K Rail Coach Factory) , Kapurthala as a Clerk on 28-4-87 and was sent to Stores office at Tilak Bridge, NewDelhi and worked there for nearly 4years with his ability, sincerity and faithfulness. That on 11-1-90, after taking casual leave for 11 & 12th January, 1990 suffixing 13 &14th January, 1990 i.e. Saturday and Sundaywhich was sanctioned on 10-1-90, went to his native place for four days. That during the leave period unfortunately he fell ill andwas forsed to over stay there, as such he informed the office through a registered letter with an application coupledwith sick certificate requesting extension ofleave. The application was received in the office on 24-1-90 and it was entered in the receipt register at Sr. No. 2897, That his sickness prolonged and he could resume his duties only on 18-2-91 . He produced sick and fitness certificate covering whole period of sickness from a private doctor. The RCF administration diverted the workman to the DMO, Delhi Kishan Ganj to get private sick certificate Countersignedby the Railway doctor. That explanation was called for by the RCF administration from his for his absence, attributing the absence as unauthorised which was explained by him and he also claimed that his absence on account of sickness could not be termed as unauthorized absence. That, thereafter an inquiry was initiated for the alleged misconduct of unauthorized absence. During the inquiry relevant documents were not furnished to him for his defence causing prejudice to him. He could not be properlydefended. Proper procedures of inquiry were not adopted by the iriquiry officer. Ultimatelythe inquiry officer formed the charge levelled against the workman as proved and the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of his removal from the services vide order dated 8-1-92 . The workman also filed his appeal against the removal order which was also dismissed vide order dated 24-6-92. Aggrieved the matter was taken to the Assistant Labour Conimissioner(Central) for conciliation proceedings which ended in failure, hence this reference . The workman has challenged validity of the impugned order on several grounds .Ho alleged that the inquiry was conducted against the provisions oflaw and in completeviolation of Principles of Natural Justice. The workman has prayed that the removal orderbeing illegal andunjust is liable to be quashed and the workman is entitled tobe reinstated with continuity in service and all consequential benefits.
AWARD
The Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L -41012/98/93 - IR(B) dated 21-2-95 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
3. The claim of the workman has been opposed by the management by way of filing a written statement . In the written statement, it has been inter- alia alleged that the workman was in the employment of Northern Railway administration and he was removed on 2-1-92 . However, it was not denied that after obtaining leave for 11-1-90 and 12-1-90 suffixing 13-1-90 and 14-1-90 as Saturday and "Whether the action of the management of Northern. Railway in removing the services ofSh . Bhupender Kumar , Sr. Clerk (Store) w.e.f. 2-1-92 is justified? If
1633 Gl/04-35 2932
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
1
i
Sunday the workman left the headquarter. He was due to resume his duty on 15-1-90 but he did not resume and absconded from duty during the period 15-1-90 to 15-2-91 and remained absent unauthorisedly without any permission or sanction . That during the alleged illness of the workman he never contacted any authorized medical attendant nor he informed his ofice except by sending a medical certificate for leave extension on Medical grounds . Ifthe workman has informed the urgency of the situation, railway doctors could have either come to his residence personally or allowed him to consult any govemment hospital nearby. That the workman never tried to inform to any railway doctor regarding his sickness . That the workman committed an act of indiscipline and misconduct by remaining absent from duty during the period from 15- 1-90 to 15-2-91 . That all the relevant and relied upon documents were made available to the workman during the inquiry. That the workman was given full opportunity to defend him and also adduce his defence evidence in enquiry. That there was no illegality or violation of Principle ofNatural Justice . The charge levelled against the workman was found established hence he was removed by the Discipinary Authority. That there is nothing wrong, illegal or unjust in the removed order as well as appellate order. That the claim ofthe workman has no merit and hence it deserves to be dismissed and workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. Rejoinder against the written statement was also filed by the workman denying the contents of the written statement and reiterating the earlier averments made in the claim statement . Both the parties adduced documentary as well as oral evidences .
5. I have heard the learned counsel/A/R of both sides and also perused the file .
was obligatory for him to contact the government doctor or railway doctor only for his treatment . If he had informed the railway authorities regarding his illness through a registered letter which was coupled with sick certificate, the railway authorities at their own accord , if it was necessary, could have or should have sent the railway doctor to do the needful. Therefore, the workman could not be blamed for it . It has also come in evidence that the workman joined soon after his recovery. Although according to the workman himself, initially he was not allowed to sign the attendance register but on 4-4-91 he was allowed to mark attendance. There is nothing on the records to show as to what steps were taken by the management for treatment of the workman during his illness despite receipt of the application for extension of leave on the grounds of illness . If it was not believed by the management , it was obligatory also on the part of the management to give a notice to the workman to join the . duty soon after receipt of the letter and call for explanation about his absence. But no such notice was ever given by the management to the workman . The workman was also allowed to join his duty. The workman WW1 Shri Bhupender Kumar has also stated in his cross examination that he did not receive any letter from the railways in his village . Moreover, if letter dated 15-1-90 coupled with sickness certificate sent by the workman for extension of leave on medical grounds was received in the respondent's office, why it was not disposed off by the management no explanation has been offered by managementtfor itby the management. Notice for joining was given by the management to the workman . The workman himselfjoined the duty after recovery without any notice of the management . The management has not assigned any reason as to why medical leave was not sanctioned particularly when the sick certificate given by a private Doctor was also countersigned by the Railway Doctors . There is nothing on the record to show that no medical leave was due to the workman .
6. There is no dispute that the workman left his station/headquarter after obtaining sanctioned casual leave for 11-1-90 and 12-1-90 suffixing 13-1-90 and 14-1-90being Saturday and Sunday. The management has also admitted the fact of receipt of application for extension of leave on the ground of his own sickness . It was also coupled with a sick certificate given by a private doctor . But at the same time it has also alleged that if the workman had informed the urgency of the situation , a railway doctor could have either come to his residence personally or allowed him to consult any government hospital nearby. It is also to be mentioned that the alleged letter dated 15-1-90 sent by the workman to the Controller of Stores , RCF, Tilak Bridge, New Delhi , seeking extension of his leave on the grounds of his illness has been filed by the workman and its genuineness has also been admitted by the A/R of the management . Therefore , it cannot be expected that the workman had not informed about his sickness to Railway Authorities . The A/R of the management could not show me any provisions under which it was necessary for the workman not to get his treatment done by any private registered doctor; and how and under what provisions it
7. Ifthe workman could not directly inform himself to a railway doctor, the railway authorities could have also informed the railway doctor about his sickness and if it was necessary as per rules , as claimed by the management , the doctor should have gone to visit the workman . Why these steps were not taken by the railway management ? Therefore , it cannot be accepted that the workman has been absenting from duty without any information. In his enquiry report , the inquiry officer has held that if informed ofurgency of the situation, the railway doctor would have either come to his residence personally or allowed him to consult any government hospital nearby. The inquiry officer has also held that even if it is assumed that he was not inposition to write a letter , he could have at least manage to inform about the situation telegraphically or telephonically from time to time which he did not do . Further, he held that it is not understood how can a railway servant ask for the leave extension for an indefinite period as [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
Shri Bhupender Kumar did in his first letter asking for leave extensiontill recovery. It shows that the inquiry officer has drawn his conclusion on certiain assumptions and presumptions which were not built on any evidence.
8. Ifmedical leave was available in his leave account, it could have been granted as per rules. No doubt the workmanwas absent for about 13 months but he had already informedthat due to his sickness he was not in a positionto attend the office, therefore it cannot be said that he was absenting or become absent without any information. Medical leave canbe sanctioned to the employees during his service upto six months and even more with or without pay as the case maybe in accordance with rules. But instead ofdoing the needful , the management adopted the method of punishing the workman in utter disregard to the law and rules ofPrinciples of Natural Justice . It shows that the inquiry proceedings were held arbitrarily and due bias-ness ofthe management against the workman as claimed by him.
9. The management admittedły did not dispose off theapplication of the workman for extension of leave dated 15-1-90. The workman was also not informed by the management as to whether it also allowed or rejected. Therefore, the workman might have presumed that his application would lave been granted. The rule is that if a workman applies for extension of leave and he does not receive any reply to his application from the employer, he is not bound to presume that the leave has been refused. Rather the presumption would be etherwise. An inquiry report, a quasi -judicial inquiry must show the reasons about the conclusionsbut it is waiting in the instant case.
10. The workman has claimed that he was also involved inunionactivities against the management and therefore the management was displeased andbias and the management arbitrarily held the inquiry and punished him with predeterminedmind. It is also remarkable that there was no presenting Officer in the enquiry. The enquiry officer himself also acted the role ofpresenting Officer, which was not proper ina quasi -judicial proceedings ofenquiry. It also shows that the enquiry officer did not act independently. In the circumstance ofthe case, I find that the claim of the workman cannot be ruled out. I find that the inquiry officer has not properlyweighedthe evidence ofthe parties on recordbefore him. He based his conclusions on surmises and conjectures, hence it cannot be sustained as held by the Hon'ble apex court in Shri Anil Kumar Vs. Labour Court, Jullandhur- 1985 (67) FJR85 Supreme Court. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have also not considered these facts in awarding punishment in question, therefore it cannotbejustified.
2933 oftheworkman from his services is liable to be quashed and accordingly it is quashed . In the result, the workman is entitled to be reinstated with continuity in services and all consequential benefits along with full back wages . After reinstatement the management shall also dispose the application of the workman for extension of leave on the groundofhis sickness in accordance with rules, nót affecting his reinstatement in the service and other benefits . The management shall implement this award within two months from thedate ofpublication of the award in the official gazette . Parties shall bear their own costs . Award is given accordingly. Dated:6-5-2004
B.N. PANDEY, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 13 मई, 2004
का. आ. 1309.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्दन रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं.- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. 192/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल.-41012/142/99-आई. आर. (बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्कअधिकारी NewDelhi, the 13th May, 2004
$.O . 1309.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. I.D. 192/99) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- II, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 12-5-2004.
[No. L-41012/142/99 -IR (B - 1 )] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT -II , RAJENDER BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer : Shri R.N. Rai L.D. No. 192/99
IN THE MATTER OF:
SURAJ PARKASH
11. Inview ofthe above discussions, I find that the action of the management of Northern Railways /RCF in removing the workman Shri Bhupender Kumar, Sr. Clerk (Stores) from his services w.e.f. 2-1-92 is completely illegal, improper and against the Principle ofNatural Justice, therefore itcannot be justified, as a result ofwhich the order ofremoval Versus
GENERAL MANAGER,
NORTHERN RAILWAY,
NEW DELHI
[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii )] 2934
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
AWARD
TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 41012/ 142/ 99 /AR(B - 1) dated 14-09-1999 has referred the following point for adjudication . The point runs as hercunder :
he had put his signatures on the register the General Manager has not appointed him , he was stopped from coming to the canteen . It has been further stated that he was not appointed by the General Manager and payment to himwas not made by the railway but it was made by the sale proceeds of the canteen.
"Whether the demand of the Northern Railway Labour Union regarding reinstatement of Shri S. Parkash in the staff canteen Hospital , New Delhi is valid and justified ? And if so to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
That the claimant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder, he has emphatically denied all the allegations ofthewritten statement and has stated that he was a daily wages employee and his services should be regularised.
The claimant has filed statement of claim. In his statement of claim , he has stated that he was appointed on 24-08-1988 as casual employee at Rs . 8 per day as wages and a casual employee service card was also issued to him in Northern Railway staff canteen in Northern Railway ControlHospital .
Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record . It was submitted by the learned counsel ofthe workman that he has worked for 7 years .No compensation has been given to him. No notice has been given to him so there is violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act and he deserves to be reinstated.
That the management of the canteen was handed over to the Managing Committee of the hospital staff presided over by Sr. Divisional Medical Officer ofthe said hospital and the committee was given the power to appoint the staff for canteen and 70 % of wages of such staff of the canteenwere borne by the management and 30 % was taken from the sale proceeds of the canteen .
The workman continued in employment as before in the said canteen right upto 20-03-1986 for a long period of 7 years 5 months . He was also issued identity card . Vide circular letter No. E ( W) 90 - CN - 1-7 ( 11 ) dated 18-05-1990 issued by the Railway Board for implementing the judgement of Supreme Court of India and consequently directed that the staff of such canteen should be treated as Railway servants w.e.f. 1-4-1990 .
That suddenly on 20-03-1996, the canteen manager stopped workman from coming to the canteen for performing his usual duty without any written order and without any reason and justification . So the workman made a representationdt . 29-03-1996 to the Medical Director of the said hospital pointing out the injustice done to him and requested for grant of duty to him . But the duty was not granted to him for the reasons best known to the management . At any rate this non - grant of duty amount to illegal retrenchment of the workman from service.
That it was stated from the side of the management that it is clear vide order dt. 19-9-1998 that a register be maintained of the casual labour . In it, it has been stated that if any person has been engaged by an unauthorized person, after 3-1-1981 that shall be illegal and after 3-1-1981 , the power to engage the fresh persons as casual labour rests with the General Manager only and not with any lower authority. The workman was engaged after 1981 and it is an admitted case that he was not appointed or taken into service by the General Manager but he maintains thatthe Secretary is empowered to appoint him . But this is against the order of the General Manager in which it has beenmentioned that after 3-1-1981 , no person other than theGeneral Manager can engage any person . As such, his engagement is illegal. He was appointed by his own brother and he got salary not from the funds of railway but from the sale proceeds of the canteen and enquiry was held against the Secretary and he was also punished for illegal appointment . As such the appointment of the workman is not legal. He has been appointed by a person who has no right ofengagement . My attention was drawn to 2002 AIHC (Kerala High Court) in which it has been held that order cannotbe interferred with on ground of violation ofnatural justice. In AIR 2001 Supreme Court 201 , it has been held. that any appointment made to post not in consonance with statutoryRules illegal/irregular appointees even if continued for a long period-He is not entitled to be regularised.
That the management has filed written staternent . In their written statement , it has been stated th... in the canteen . 70 % of wages are given by the railway and 30% was given from the sale proceeds .
It is obvious from the above discussion that the applicant workman was not engaged by the General Manager. He was engaged after 3-1-1981 . He was engaged by his ownbrother illegally. In the circumstances , enquiry was also not essential as the person engaged was taken into service illegally by an unauthorized persons and he didnot get 70% wages from the railway and 30 % from the sale proceeds but fraudulently his brother being the Secretary engaged him and paid him wages from the sale That the General Manager, Northern Railway is the appointing authority and none else can appoint any daily wager or adhoc employee or regular employee . The fact is that the real brother of the workman applicar was the Secretary of the canteen and he engaged the applicant unauthorisedly and without power and he paid wages from the sale proceeds of the canteen . When it was noticed that 2935
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926.
[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L/ 12012/274/ 90/IR(B -1 ), Central Government dt. 21-3-1991 has referred the following point for adjudication. The point runs as hereunder:
proceeds ofthe canteen only. 1994 (4) scale is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case . It is apparent that the appointment of the workman was illegal. He was drawing illegal salary so he cannot claim to be regularised and no compensation need to be paid to an employee whose appointment itself is illegal and against the provisions of law. The workman is entitled to no relief as prayed for .
The award is given thus:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in dismissing Shri Ishwar Lal, Clerk- cum-cashier w.e.f. 30-07-1985 was just fair and legal ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? " The demand ofthe Northern Railway Labour Union regarding reinstatement of Shri S. Prakash in the staff Canteen Hospital , New Delhi is neither valid and nor justified. The workman is not entitled to get any relief as claimed.
The award is given accordingly.
Date: 05-05-2004 .
R. N. RAI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 13 मई, 2004
That the workman was offered the post ofclerk-cum- cashier against the reserved quota of war disabled Ex- serviceman, joined SBI w.e.f. 16-09-1981 and was confirmed after 6 months probation expired on 15-3-1982. Rs . 12 lacs was fixed and new accounts arranged within a year by keen efforts ofthe workman and thus he was entitled to be issued a letter of commendation from the Chief General Manager under the existing norms/policies of the bank. Besides, honesty and sincerely working stands proved since the workman had worked beyond business h against no gains as well as excess receipt of cach grado deposited in Sundry A/c are the recorded/admitted facts Hehas been charged and ex -parte enquiry was held and he was dismissed from service. His dismissal is arbitrary against the law and unfair. These charges were levelled against him.
का. आ. 1310.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947) का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं.- II, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. 106/ 91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
CHARGE NO. I
[सं. एल. - 12012/274/90- आई. आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्कअधिकारी
New Delhi , the 13th May, 2004
The management alleged that the workman made some material alterations in an FDR related to his wife Smt. Devki as well as in bank records to derive 1% extra staff rate interest and also attempted to snatch the FDR on 1-2-1984 from the hands ofBM and took away with a torned piece oftheFDR.
CHARGENO, II
S.O. 1310.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. I.D. 106/91) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court - II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-05-2004.
The management contended that the workman had been marked to be on leave in Attendance Register on 20 and 21-7-1983 and later the workman by unauthorized overwriting substituted viz . "Proceeded on deputationto Delhi/New Delhi " .
CHARGENO . Ш
[No. L- 12012/274/90 -IR (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL
The management contended that the workman while working in cash deptt. unauthorisedly detained the cash beyond hours on Saturday 23-7-1983 for want ofpayment of his TA/DA bill on account of his deputation (18 to 21-7-1983 ) to Delhi/New Delhi referred in charge- II above .
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT- II , RAJENDER BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE NEW DELHI
CHARGE NO. IV
2
Presiding Officer: Shri R.N. RAI I. D. No. 106/91
The management's contention is that the workman on 12-12-1983 came late at 12.45 P.M. and left office at 14.40 P.M. is attended office less than 2 hours against full day'spresence (9.45 to 4.45 ) unauthorisedly marked over " leave" had been remarked by the management in attendance register.
IN THE MATTER OF : ISHWAR LAL Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA 2936
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
[PART II-SBC . 3 ( ii)] CHARGE NO . V
not be awarded against him . On that occasion also , he did not turn up.
The management contended here, that a conveyance charges claim for Rs . 220 was tendered by the workraan on 16-7-1983 which was merely acknowledged receipt by the Branch Manager on spare copy where as the workman letter imprinted the pay stamp over the signature of the Branch Manager and by that act and conduct, complete meaning of the bill stands changed to a passed voucher.
CHARGE NO . VI
The managemen't contended that the workman drew three cheques total amounting to Rs . 7,000 against his savings bank account No. 88110/442 at SBI , New Delhi MainBranch, which were presented in local clearing and had to be dishonoured (return/unpaid) on 2 and 5-7-1982 forwants of funds .
Heard learned counsel from both the parties and perused the documents on the record . The learned counsel for the workman submitted that so far charge No. 1 is concerned, there was a STDR for Rs . 6,500 in the name of his wife . There is no question of adding his own name. If he wanted to get 1 % extra interest, then he could have made the account joint and there was no question of forgery onthat account. The original paper, original STDR has not been filed on the record but the photocopies have been filed on the record so there was no tampering in the STDR deposited in the name of his wife of Rs . 6,500. The said STDR was issued at the public rate of interest against the saving bank cheque No. 140362 dt. 25-1-1982 . In the circumstances I would like to mention that on Rs . 6,500, 1% extra interest comes to Rs . 65. It was stated by the learned counsel of the workman that nobody would commit such a forgery for getting the benefit ofRs . 65.
The claimant has stated in his statement of clairn that all the charges are bogus and vague .
The Opposite Party has filed written statement .
In the written statement , the Opposite Party has stated that sis charges framed against the workmari have beenmoved it corey in which principles of natural justice have b sued sufficieni opportunity to the workman has bour great the workman did not turn up . Though the enquiry is ex -fare , but it could not be set aside on the ground of being ex - parte because sufficient opportunity has been given and 10 witnesses have been examined and the workman did not turn up to cross- examine the witnesses . Thereafter the copies of the enquiry report were supplied to him and he was also informed regarding the proposed punishment but still he did not turn up to show- cause that lessor punishment should be awarded.
It wa argued on the second charge by the workman that he was instructed to go to Delhi on 19th July, 1983 for collection ofsome payment advices from Delhi, New Delhi branch and report back on duty on 20-07-1983. When he did not attend the office on 20th and 21st ofJuly, 1983 , the management marked him to be on leave in the Attendance Register on the said dates but on his attending office on 22nd of July, 1983 , he deleted the remarks Leave of Manager and substituted by writing deputed to Delhi/New Delhi . Regarding this charge , it has been submitted by the workman counsel that the letter of the management is on the record and in that letter, it has never been shown that he was directed to come on 20-07-1983 . It took two days to collect payment advices so the workman turned up on 22nd ofJuly, 1983. Since there is no mention regarding the date , the Branch manager ought not to have written on leave as he himself has sent the workman to New Delhi which was contended that it is not possible to go on 19th July and collect payment advices and return on the next date , the letter itself is evident that no time of return has been given.
The claimanthas filed rejoinder and in his rejoinder, he has asserted that all the charges are vague . No paper was supplied to him . No enquiry report was given to him. He was not heard regarding the proposed punishment . He received all the papers and the enquiry report and dismissal order at one and the same time so he was not given opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses .
It was argued on charge No. III that the workman submitted TA Bill for Rs . 206 to the Branch Manager regarding his deputation to New Delhi branches . He did not intentionally make payment upto 3.45 PM till his bill was cleared and he refused to comply with the instructions stating that the cash will not be handed over by him till his bill is not passed by the Branch Manager for payment . Thus, he held cash upto 3.45 PM and adopted pressure tactics . It was argued by the learned counsel of the workman that there is no question of not making payment and there is no sufficient evidence on record . His TA Bill ought to have been granted but the Branch Manager did. not intentionally grant it and he made payments . He did not withheld the cash upto 3.45.PM.
It. is admitted that the equiry is ex-parte but the enquiry report itself shows that sufficient opportunity has been given to the workman but the workman on some ground or the other did not turn up and stateinent of witnesses are taken after giving notice and he was also given time to cross -examine the witnesses but he did not turn up so on the evidence of witnesses , the Enquiry Officer gave a finding and held all the six charges proved and notice was again sent to him and he was asked to show- cause why the proposed punishment of dismissal should
Itwas argued on the IV charge and submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that on 12-12-1983 , he [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
2937
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 1/5, 1926
came late at 12.45 PM . Leave was marked against his name buthe deleted the remark " leave " in the attendance register, marked his arrival time as 9.45 and also deleted his name from the absentee register. He unauthorisedly worked from 12.45 PM to 2.40 PM in the office and marked his departure time as 4.45 . Thus , he tempered the record in an unauthorized manner . In this context, the learned counsel for the workman submitted that the bank directed him to instigatepeople to deposit money with the bank and so he went to the Ex-Servicemen who have got provident fand andpersuaded him then deposit money with the bank and as a result ofthat Rs . 12,00,000 was deposited so he came late.He did not tamper. He worked for the full day. The moneywas deposited accordingly. So he gót Rs. 12 lakhs deposited to the credit of the bank .
and AIR 2001 SC page 2418 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that injudicial review, it is the established law that the court or the Tribunal has no power to trench on the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion. It is quite correct that the Tribunal has got nojudicial power and he cannot replace the finding of the enquiry officer by his own finding but there must be some evidence in support of the case. My attention was drawn toAIR 2001 SC Page 2418 , it has been held by the Hon'ble: High Court that interference by the Tribunal is only permissible when there is tial for the said conclusion: or that on the materi onclusion cannot be that of a reasonable man-Enqui Hicer dealing with Articles ofcharge chronologically and relevant materials on basis of which ultimate conclusion is arrived at- Findings ofEnquiry Officer cannot be held tobe findings based on no evidence-Bias of enquiry officer also not made out. Enquiry cannot be held to be vitiated. This law is recent, so the previous law cited byby thethe managememanagement is not effective in view of the recent decisider of the Hon'ble Suprente Court . My attention was deMáng 10 1979-1, Labour LawGeneral Page 23 , in which it hai bon hand that the tribunal can interfere in those casescoswhere the punishment is soharth as to suggest victimization: In this case, there is no embezzlement . At the wrost, to case all the charges deemed proved, the workman has not embezzled any amount so in my view the punishment of dismissal is not commensurate with the changes proved. gesare Itwas submitted by the learned counsel of the workman that on 16-7-1983 , he submitted TA Bill for Rs . 220 to theBranch manager and obtained acknowledgement onduplicate copy thereof against initials/date of theBranch Manager. As the allowances claimed in his above bill did not set up a valid claim. He was advised by the Branch Managerby letter dt. 23-7-1983. The Branch Manager has put his initials on the photo copy in token of his having received the original bill which continues to be in the custody of the branch Manager but the workman put the "Pay" stamp over the initials which had been put by the BranchManager on the duplicate copy of the bill for the solepurpose ofgiving an acknowledgement of the receipt ofthebill. He did not take any payment . It was argued that ifhe had malafide intention, then he would have got the cashbut he did not cash it is the manipulation in order to falsely involve him.
In1972-SC , page 608 , it has been held that it is not opento a partyto object to the admissibility ofdocuments which are marked as exhibits without any objection from such party. In case the documents are properly admitted, their contents should also be deemed to have been admitted.
My attention was drawn to 2001 LABI.C. NOC 12. This law is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
From the side ofthe workman , over 60 citations have been referred to . II have gone through all the citations. Theyhave no bearing on the facts, and circumstances of the case so I do not deem it proper to mention all the cases which have got nobearing in the facts of the present case .
Itwas argued in respect of the charge No. 6 that the tindernoted cheques drawn on his joint Savings Bank A/ c No. 88110/442 maintained in New Delhi Main Branchwere dishonoured when presented for payment at the above branch due to insufficiency of balance in the account. So far the dishonour of the cheque is concerned, the cheque was not issued to some other person from whom he has taken money. He might be in confusion that he has balance so he has issued the cheques . The dishonour of the cheques by no means constitute any offence as the cheque has not been issued in the name ofany other personbut he himselfwanted to get that amount so there is no question offorgery in this matter.
From the above discussions, it is clear that though the enquiry is ex-parte but it was on the deliberate delay of the workman and the workman cannot get the benefit ofex- parte enquiry when he himself avoided the enquiry so the citations referred to by him are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Now the substantial question which requires adjudication is how far the charges leveled against him have been proved and whether the findings of enquiry officer is based on some evidence on the record or notand whether the punishment is not harsh, in view of thecharges leveled against the workman. In this context , I would like to submit that the first charge is regarding STDR Heard learned counsel for the management . The learned counsel for the management said that though the enquiry is ex-parte, but sufficient opportunity has been given and nine witnesses have been examined . Ex-parte enquiry is as good as a contested enquiry. Ifa person after giving sufficient notice does not turn up subsequently he cannot take the plea that he did not get time to cross- examine the witnesses . The workman deliberately avoided the enquiry as he knew that the charges would stand proved against him. In this connection , AIR 1996 SC page 1232 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
2938
ofRs . 6,500 . The original paper has not been produced so that it may be said that he added his name in order to get 1% extra interest . 1% extra interest amounts to Rs . 65 and no employee would make such a forgery. He could have made the account joint so there is no evidence to substantiate the charge though the witnesses have not been cross-examined .
So far second charge is concerned, it may be true that he came on 22nd July but he ought not to have deleted Leave and overwritten deputed to New Delhi /Old Delhi. He ought to have submitted an application and got the leave cancelled . This is a charge of simple disobediency.
on the facts and circumstances of the case . In this case , it is abundantly proved that the workman was given sufficient time to attend the enquiry but he did not attend the enquiry instead he went to the Civil Court. He has been given the chargesheet and all the papers on which the management has to rely upon. 10 witnesses have been examined but none of the witness have been cross -examined by the workman and ex- parte enquiry is as good as a contested one and in the circumstances of the case this enquiry should also be deemed to be correct . Principles of natural justice have been followed. He has been given ample opportunity tocross-examine the witnesses . Through the enquiry isex- parte one and there is no prayer to get the ex- parte enquiry set aside. Even if there is such a prayer , it cannot be set aside as sufficient opportunity has been given .
So far third charge is concerned , it is regarding TA Bill. This is a simple act of disobedience so payment was made after 3.45 PM.
I have referred to all the charges and have come to the conclusion that some of the charges are baseless and in view of the AIR 2001 SC, interference is permissible. I have already referred to some of the charges to which any reasonable man will not find prove in the citation of the management itself. Annexure ' C' 1977 ILLJ , the Tribunal may interfere where the puni unent is so harsh as it amount to victimization.
So far charge No. IV is concerned it has been argued by the workman counsel that he was sent by the bank to get money deposited in the bank by the cx - servicemen who have got GPF so he came late . It was true that Rs . 12,00,000 have been deposited on the initiation of the workman but still he should not have deleted leave and written 12.45 PM instead of deleting leave , he ought to have brought the reason of his approaching at a delayed time to the Branch Manager but he made overwriting by his own hand. This is also a simple act of disobedience .
In nay view, the punishment inflicted on the workman is very harsh . At the worst , some increments would have been stopped with cumulative effect . The punishment of dismissal for no forgery and no embezzlement , no dishonesty, no disintegrity is not justified by any stretch magination. In view of the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the another Hon'ble High Courts , 1 am ofthe view that four increments of the workman with cumulative effect should be withheld and he should be reinstated from the date of his suspension but he should not get back wages as he himself has admitted that he is in gainful employment .
The reference is replied thus :
The action of the management of State Bank of India indismissing Sh. Iswar Lal Clerk-cum-cashier w.e.f. 30-7-85 is neither just nor fair nor legal .
So far charge.No. V is concerned, that is TA bill for Rs . 220 and it has been said that he put pay stamp over the initials written unauthorisedly but he did not get the bill cashed . Had he had the intention to get the bill encashed, then he would have received payment . So despite the evidence of the witnesses , this charge does not stand proved to the mind of a man of reasonable prudence. This charge also has no sufficient evidence to be proved and the enquiry officer has given finding which has no legs to stand upon. So far charge No. 6 is concerned, that is regarding dishonour of the cheque , the cheque was not issued in the name of some other persons but it was issued inthe name ofthe workman himself so in case the cheques were dishonoured , he has committed no offence. It has been argued also by the learned counsel for the management that the workman has himself admitted that he is in a gainful employment . He has admitted before RLC and other courts and earning his livelihood .
The workman deserves to be reinstated from 1-1-2000 with the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and he is not entitled to get any back wages as he is ingainful employment prior to 1-1-2000. It is clarified that he will get 50% back wages after 1-1-2000 and his two increments will be stopped with cumulative effect.
The award is given accordingly.
R. N. RAI, Presiding Officer
Dated: 05-05-2004
My attention was drawn to 1993 LLR 510 Del , 1992 LLR 694 P&H, 1999 LLR 499 SC, 1999 LLR 1169 , 1999 LLR 874, 1991 LLR 505 , 1996 LLR405 AP, 1993 LLR 114 PAT(DB), 1993 LLR 312 Alld. 1995 LLR 420 KAR, 1975 SLJ 136, 1991 LLR 37 KAR (DB) , and so many other cases . I have gone through all the citations but they do not have any bearing 2939 [भाग II खंड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजमंत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2004
का. आ. 1311.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 क्रां 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार राजकुमारी अमृतकौर कॉलेज ऑफ नर्सिंग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. II, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 81/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जी केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।......
The claimant has filed statement of claim. In her statement of claim , the workman, has stated that she is a scheduled caste girl and was appointed in the post of Aya at Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi- 110024. The college is run under the direction and control ofMinistry of Health and family welfare. On 29-09-1993 , she was appointed on permanent basis . She was getting pay of Rs . 2,010 per month, She declared at the time ofher appointment that she was unmarried as the workman had been divorced and her status was unmarried at the time of filling the form, meas stult hos एल.-42012/60/96 - आई . आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 14th May, 2004
That the workman was married in the year 1988 before Joining the service. There was a son born to the applicant from the marriage in the year 1989 before her joining the service and was divorced thereafter and at the time of filing the declaration , she was unmarried. The respondent No. 1 removed the services of the workman on the flimsy grotind that she committed misconduct
S.O. 1311. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 81/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. II, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the IndustrialDispute between the employers in relation to the management of Rajkumari Amrit Kaur College ofNursing and their workman, which was received bythe Central Government on 14-5-04.
In 1984 LLJ 337 (SC) it has been held that respondent No. 1 is not empowered to decide the complicated question of personal law regarding marriage and divorce . The respondent No. 1 has exercised her powers beyond the purview of law and has passed the order at the instance of Shri Jai Bhagwani redan bloculator [No. L-42012/60/96- IR(DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II , RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI
PresidingOfficer : Shri R. N. Rai
The Opposite Party has filed written statement. In thewritten statement , it has been stated that the workman applicant had declared herself unmarried but she had not having a decree of divorce from any competent couft so her services have been legally terminated in accordance with sub Rule 1 of Rule 5 of the Civil Services Conduct Rules, The Administrative Authority is the appointing authority but at that time there was no administrative authority. The Principal was incharge of the post of Administrative Officer so the termination of service by the Principal is valid.
I. D. No. 81/96
In the matter of
Kamlesh
The workman has filed rejoinder. In her rejoinder, it has been stated that by mutual consent, there was divorce in 1991 whereas she joined duty on 26-10-1993, The divorce Dwas by mutual consent in the Panchay
Versus
Rajkumari Amrit Kaur College ofNursing
AWARD
Heard arguments from both the sides and perised thepapers on the record. It was subihitted from the sideof the workman that in 1995 , a letter was given to her that she was married and was the mother ofa five years old son. Her services were terminated on 26-07-1995 . It was contended by the workman that when an allegation is levelled against the workman, it is necessary to conduct an enquiry. In this case , no enquiry has been conducted.
The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L - 42 /012 / 60/96/IR (DU) Central Govt. dated 28-08-1996 has referred the following point for adjudication. The point runs as hereunder: t
"Whether the action of the management of Rajkumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing , Lajpat Nagar in terminating the servicee of Ms. Kamlesh Ayah is justified and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
My attention was drawn to AIR 1998 SC 327, it has beenheld that the termination of the services ofprobationer without notice or reason is valid. In 1996, LLR 362, is regarding bigamy, it is not applicable in this case. In 1997 LER 164 DHC, it has been held that back wages should also be given and reason should be given why back wages 1633 G1/04-36 2940
THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15, 1926
have not been given . In case the termination of service is found illegal , full back wages should be given. It was argued from the side of the management that her services were terminated without causing any stigma . She was a probationer and her services could be terminated without holding any enquiry.
Aletter has been given to her to show- cause whether she had a five years old son and she was married . In reply to the letter, she has written that she has five years old son and she was married but there was a divorce in the Panchayat in 1991. So far as scheduled castes and scheduled tribes are concerned , there is customary law thatdivorce between the husband and wife can be effected through Panchayat , a decree of civil court is not necessary. She ought to have mentioned the entire facts in the form but she did not do so since divorce had taken place and she considered hereself unmarried . In case , the divorce is effective, she shall be deemed to be unmarried. She has not disclosed the full fact but the reality is that she may be divorced by her husband or she may divorce her husband in Panchayat, she had already taken its stand. As such, in such circumstances , it was necessary to ascertain whether she was a divorced lady or she was a married lady. Her services should not be terminated on the complaint of her so - called husband .
She is a working class lady and she used to do physical work . As such she cannot be sit idle after termination of her services and there were some doubtful grounds for termination of her services . In the facts and circumstances of this case , I deem it expedient in the interest of justice that she should be reinstated with 50% back wages from the date of termination of her services .
The award is replied thus:-
The action of the management of Rajkumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing , Lajpat Nagar in terminating the services ofMs. Kamlesh , Ayah is neither justified and nor legal ? The workman/ applicant deserves to be reinstated at the post of Ayah from the date of termination of the services with 50% back wages,
The award is given accordingly.
Date: 28-04-2004 .
R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 मई , 2004
का. आ. 1312.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ब्यूरो ऑफ सिविल ऐविएशन सिक्यूरिटी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] संख्या 62/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल.-42012/7/92- आई. आर. (डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th May, 2004
S.O. 1312.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 62/93) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-5-04 .
[No. L-42012/7/92-IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT - II, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE , NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer : Shri R. N. Rai
L. D. No. 62/93
Inthe matter of:
M. RAJU
Versus
Management of M/ s . Bureau of Civil Aviation Security
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L/42012/7 / 92/IR(DU) Central Government dt . 26-08-1993 has referred the following point for adjudication. The point runs as hereunder:-
"Whether the action of the management of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security in terminating the services of Shri M. Raju, Farash w.e.f. 1-5-1991 is justified ?" Ifnot, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?
The claimant has filed statement of claim . In his statement of claim, he has stated that he was appointed with the respondent management on 11-4-1988 . Не discharged his duties of Farash in the respondent concern. Thus he is a workman under the provisions of Section 2( s ) ofthe I.D. Act .
That the claimant was paid Rs . 34.60 per day but his services were to be regularised in the respondent concern
;
[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
2941
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
functions ofthe state which are the primary and inalienable rights of a constitutional govt are not workman. Since Bureau of Civil Aviation is not an industry, so the provisions ofSection 2( s) ofthe I.D. Act are not applicable inthe present case.
but the management did not perform this obligation of regularising the services of the petitioner. There was an order from the Ministry of Aviation to regularise the services ofthe employee working since 7-6-1988 . In this order it has also been mentioned that even if the employee has attained over age , his over age conditions shouldbe condoned and his services should be regularised.
That the petitioner used to do the domestic work of the officers who were at the helm of the affairs besides official duty of the petitioner. This domestic work of the officers used to be performed by the petitioner after his duty hours . As ill luck would have it the petitioner became sick and his health did not allow to do the domestic work ofthe officers after duty hours . This very fact irritated the officers who were at the helm of affairs and they planned to terminate the services on 30-04-1991 of the petitioner without any rhyme and reason. No notice was given to him. No compensation was given to him. No charge sheet was issued to him . It has been stated that he committed theft and several officers complained against him so his services were terminated as per rules.
Kwas argued from the side of the management that the Ministry of Civil Aviation has issued order dt. 15-1-1990 that those who are working at dailywages upto 10-04-1990 and completing two years service, they should be regularised. Many people have complained against the workman that the workman has stolen money from the brief pases and the purses . Since the workman was a Farash, so he was concerned with cleaning the room and hehas committed theft . Mr. Raju has given an application dt. 3-5-1991 in which he has written that he should be given permissionto work. He would not commit any mistake in future . It was submitted by the management thatBureau of Civil Aviation Security is not an industry so there is no question of giving prior notice or compensation. My attention was drawn to 1997 LER401 inwhich it has been held that the Department of Space- engaged in pure research in space science Research work wasnot connectedwith production, supply or distribution of material goods or services and is 'not an industry.
In 1997 LLR 793 , it has been held that telecom- munication department is not an industry, therefore, Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute on a reference under Section 10 (1 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
In 1997 LLR-889, it has been held that the Irrigation Department of the State is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Themanagement has filed written statement . In the written statement, was been asserted that the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security is an independent department under the Ministry of Civil Aviation. It is responsible for laying down standards of pre -embarkation security and anti -sabotage measures in respect ofscheduled civil flights at International and domestic airports in India. It was observed that he has committed theft thrice by stealing money and that too from the brief cases/bags of senior police andarmy officers. He was a Farash on daily wage basis is not denied. The respondent is a security organization which deals with a lot of top secret/ confidential nature of information relating to security of international and national airports so the respondent is not an industry. He was a casual employee so his services were dispensed with. He gave an application of apology but it was not considered. It establishes the fact that he committedtheft during his service period.
From the perusal of the aforesaid citations of the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court , it becomes quite apparent that Bureau of Civil Aviation is an organization of an Aviation Ministry and it does not fulfil the criteria of an industry. It is concerned with security measureswhichare essential for saving the life ofa person.
That the workman has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder, ithas been stated that he has denied allthe charges levelled against him and he said that he was working honestly. The application of certain Army Officers and Police officials were taken with malafide intention of removing him from service.
Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.
TheBureau ofCivil Aviation is not concernedwith trade and business activities but it is concerned with the security measures just as telecommunication is concerned with telephones ete and the irrigation department is concerned with the irrigation likewise Civil Aviation isnot aindustrybut it is a department of the government. From the above discussions , it is quite apparent thatBureau of Civil Aviationis not an industry. It is a department ofthe government. As such , the workman is not a workman of industry and he is not entitled to get benefit of 25(F) ofthe Industrial Dispute Act . I find no merit in the statement of claim ofthe applicant workatuan. His claim is liable to be rejected.
It is established law that an employer who is discharging the sovereign functions of the company cannotbe said to be an industry. It has been submitted by the management that in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Kuldip Singh and another, 1983 LAB IC 83 , it was held that the persons performing the sovereign or the legal 2942
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
[PART I-SEC. 3 (ii) ] The award is replied thus :-
referred the following point for adjudication . The point runs as hereunder:-
The action of the management of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security in terminating the services of Shri M. Raju , w.e.f. 1-5-1991 is justified. He is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.
The award is given accordingly.
Dated:-05-05-2004
R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer
"Whether the Executive Engineer Electrical Construction Division No. 4 was justified in not regularising the services of Shri Ram Singh , son of Shri Narain Ram as driver and also terminating his services w.e.f. 1-11-1993 ? If not, what relief the concernedworkman is entitled to ?
नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2004
The claimant has filed statement of claim, In his statement of claim , he has stated that Ram Singh son of Shri Narain Ram was engaged as Driver on 30-09-1990 in the Electrical Construction Division No. 4 and posted in Electrical Construction Division , Sub -Division No. 1 of the above management.
का. आ. 1313.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. पी . डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
That the workman was driving the jeep himselfof Electrical Construction Sub -division No. 1 and no contractor or 3rd party was involved between the management and the workman.
[सं. एल.- 42012/131/93- आई . आर. (डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 14th May, 2004
That the management have regularised the services ofmanyjunior persons to this workman but he has not been regularised. He is entitled to be regularised as driver in the time scale ofRs . 950-1500 and also entitled to the arrears ofwages from the initial date of engagement i.e. 30-09-1990.
That the management finally terminated the services ofthe workman w.c.f. 1-11-1993 with a view to teach the lesson for demanding the lawful claim by the workman for regularising his services in the time scale ofRs . 950-1500 .
S.O. 1313.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court No. II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-5-04.
[No. L -42012/ 131/ 93 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer
That theworkman had completed more than 240 days of service in the years 1991 , 1992 and 1993 and worked continuously without any break.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE , NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer : Shri R. N. Rai
I. D. No. 13/94
That the management has filed written statement . In their written statement , it has been asserted that ID Act, 1947 is not applicable . His job was contractual . He was a contractual driver of the jeep. His services had been admitted . He has worked from 11-7-90 to 31-3-1993 but he was placed with different agencies for the execution of the job of a driver under the management through call of quotations , as per procedure laid down in account code/ CPWD Manual .
In the Matter of:
RAM SINGH
Versus
C.P.W.D
The claimant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder, it has been stated that he was the driver of the jeep and he drove the jeep . The Management supervised the work of the driver. He was driving the jeep of the Executive Engineer. He deserves to be reinstated.
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L/ 42012 / 131/93 /IR(DU) Central Government dt . 21-1-1994 has
Heard arguments from both the parties and perused the papers on the record.
2943 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( 1) ]
1926FTBAADER.
भारत का राजपत्र जूम 5, 2004/प्रमेष्ठ 15,
driver and also terminating his services w.e.f. 1-11-1993 The action of the management is neither legal norjustified. The workman applicant deservesserves to be reinstated from 1-11-1993 . Since he is a driver, he must be driving the vehicles so he is presumed to be inin gainful employment so he is entitled to get only 20% back wages .
It was argued by the workman that Asstt . Engineer has given a certificate that he was driving jeep from 30-09-1990 ση contract basis . There was no person under whom he worked Payment to him was made by the Executive Engineer. He was under the control of the company. The work order is a camouflage to avoid his reinstatement or regularisation .
The award is given accordingly.
Dated: 05-05-2004
R. N. RAI , PresidingOfficer
नई दिल्ली, 14 मई , 2004
The management argued that he worked on Work Order basis and he drove the jeep and he got salary of Rs . 780. Papers have been filed that he received the payment from the engineer and not from any contractor. So he cannot be said to be contractor or contract labour.
That the claimant was never engaged by the management on Muster Roll or on hand receipt nor he worked as such .
का. आ. 1314.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एम, टी. एन. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उसके कर्मकारों के लील अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिकः अधिकरण नं. II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 72/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोजो केन्द्रीयकेन्द्रीय सरकारसरकार कोको 14-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ
[सं. एल. - 40012/89/92 - आई. आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] Sharab alte कुलदीप शर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 14th May, 2004
S.O. 1314.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes " the award ( Ref No. 72/93 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court No. II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of MPNL and their workman, which was received by the Central Governfnent on14-5-04.
[No. L -40012/89/92 - IR, (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer,
ANNEXUR
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE NEW DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: Shri R. N. RaFT
J. D. No. 72/93 рабо пошкод That the claimant was never discriminated nor his services dispensed with in violation of any provision of law. Rather his service was dispensed with after the specific job was carried out and work order therefore lapsed. The claimant cannot be equated with the workmen who are engagedby the management on muster roll or hand receipt and whose services are regularised as per the policy of the management. My attention was drawn to 1957 - SCR Page 152, 1961 (3 ) SCR Page, 160, 1974( 1 ) SCR Page 747 and 1955 SCR Page 1427 and AIR, 1986, it has been held that there should be equal pay for equal work. He was the driver ofthe jeep so he should get pay of the driver . It has been held that if a workman is under the direction and control ofthe management and he received payment from the management, he should be deemed to be the employee of the management. It has been held that if the employer provided place of work for the person then he should be deemed to an employee. 1961 (3 ) SCR, that if a person works at the place of the management and he is not at liberty to work at his house , then he should be deemed to be an employee and there should be contract of service. In case there is a contract of service , the workman should be deemed to be employed and in the present case , the workman applicant was a driver undoubtedly. He received payment from the management . He was under the watch and control of the management . He has been given several certificates of Muster -Roll employee, so he is not a contractor and the work order is smoke screen only to deprive the workman from regularisation. I have gone through the law cited by the workman. Athorough perusal ofthe citations of the Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court, it becomes apparent that the work order is a camouflage to deprive the workman of his due right.
IN THE MATTER OF : 20 The workman deserves to be regularised.
TRIBHUVAN YADAV
The award is replied thus:-
Versus ett helara The Executive Engineer Electrical Construction Division No. 4 was not justified in not regularising the services of Shri Ram Singh, son of Shri Narain Ram as 2944
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L/40012/ 89/ 92/IR(DU) Central Government dt . 24-9-1993 has referred the following point for adjudication . The point runs as hereunder:
"Whether the Divisional Engineer, PCM , New Delhi was justified in terminating the services of Shri Tribhuvan Yadav, son of Shri Sarabjeet Yadav w.e.f. 1-7-1987 ? If not , what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?"
The claimant has filed statement of claim. It has been stated in his statement of claim that he served the management for more than 240 days . The order of termination was invalid. No notice of termination was given, no compensation was paid and the termination is against the principle of natural justice and denial of opportunity to the aggrieved workman to explain the circumstances as against him . He was employed as Casual Mazdoor with the Management w.e.f. November , 1985 and served the management till 30th June , 1987.
That the workman has done more than 240 day work. He fell ill and for that he has filed certificate and on consideration of which he was taken in regular employment on 11-3-1988 .
The management has filed written statement. In their written statement , it has been stated that the workman has unnecessarily raised the frivolous dispute after entering into a settlement dated 19-4-1990 . In the settlement dated 19-04-1990 , the workman had unequivocally and voluntarily agreed to abide by the terms of the settlement . The workman is guilty of unilaterally terminating the settlement and involving the employer in unneces litigation.
The workman has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder, it has been stated that after 5 days of settlement , he wrote letter that the settlement was malafide and it was to victimise him so he is not bound by the settlement which is against his interest .
Heard arguments from both the sidcs and perused the papers on the record . He has been relieved as per the order of the DGM. He has not worked for 240 days in one calendar year. However, before the Conciliation Officer an agreement was signed between the workman and the management . The settlement was reached at on 19-04-1990 . From perusal of the paperdt. 19-04-1990, it is clear that Mr. Yadav has put his signatures and it has been stated that in the settlement that he will be given the compensation of retrenchment and whenever vacancy will arise , he will be taken into service on priority basis . The workman repudiated this settlement . The main question is whether he has right to repudiate the settlement or not . As per Section 18 of the ID Act , a settlement arrived at by
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] agreement between the employer and the workman otherwise than in the course ofConciliation shall be binding ontheparties to the agreement. As such, the settlement is binding on him . After entering into settlement, he cannot go against it. The counsel for the management drew my attention to 1978 AIR SC 806 and 1971 (2) LLJ 222, 1969 LIC 104 (supra), 1973 (2) LLJ 307, AIR 1974 SC 2089,AIR 1989 SC 29 .. From the perusal of the citations of the management , it appears that the citations are not applicable in the present fact and circumstances of the case . The workman has entered into settlement and the settlement is binding according to the section 18 of the ID Act and he has been given cheque by way of compensation of retrenchment. The cheque is on record. It has been argued that the cheque was not sent in time. It has been written in the settlement deed that after calculating the compensation amount, it will be sent to the employee and it was sent on 1-1-1991 but the employee has already retracted and repudiated the settlement but he has put his signatures so it is binding on him. He did not receive the cheque.
The counsel for the workman submitted that according to the settlemeni , the cheque was not sent so he refused the cheque . He repudiated the settlement after 5daysof settlement so that that is not binding on him. He has repudiated the settlement after 5 days so it cannot be said that undue pressure was exercised on him . It was argued from the side of the workman that it is one of the conditions of the settlement that whenever there will be any vacancy, he will be given priority and many persons have been appointed but he has not been given priority and he has not been appointed.
The award is replied thus:-
TheDivisional Engineer, PCM, New Delhi was not justified in terminating the services of Shri Tribhuvan Yadav, son of Shri Sarabjeet Yadav w.e.f. 1-7-1987 but since the workman has reached at settlement before the Conciliation Officer so it is binding on him. However, according to the terms of the settlement , he should be givenre -employment as and when a vacancy arises. If it is not done so by the management, the workman will be entitled to the re - instatement w.e.f. 1-7-1987 with 50% back wages.
The award is given accordingly.
Dated: 29-04-2004
R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2004
का. आ. 1315.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार वाईल्ड लाईफ इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 52, 2945
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
And
L.D. No. 54/94
53, 54, 64/94) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल. - 42012/77 से 79, 99/93- आई. आर. ( डी.यू. ) ]
कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 14thMay, 2004
3. Shri Mukti Prasad Sharma, S/o Shri Vishnu Prasad Sharma, H.No. 150 Village Kaulagarh, P.O. New Forest, Distt. Dehradun-248006.
Workman
Versus
TheDirector, Wildlife Institute of India, Chanderbani, Dehradui-248006.
Management
And
S.O. 1315. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No: 52, 53 , 54, 64/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Wildlife Institute of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-5-04.
L.D. No. 64/94
[No. L-42012/77 to 79, 99/93- IR (DU) ]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
Workman
4.. Shri Hira Lal Sharma, S/o Shri Panchhi Ram Sharma, C/o Lala Mahadeo Prasad, Dhartawala Panditwari- PremNagar-Dehradun-248 007
Versus
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI
TheDirector,
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRIB . N. PANDEY
Wildlife Institute of India, Chanderbani,
L. D. No. 52/94
Dehradun-248 006
Management Shri Om Prakash Pun,
AWARD
Workman
1. S/o Shri Basudeo Pun, NayaGaon, Nai Basti , P.O. Anarwala-Dehradun Cantt.-248003
Versus
TheDirector,
The above mentioned four cases are against the same Management/respondent and involve common question to be decided, Hence with the consent of the parties authorised representatives they were taken and heard together and are being disposed ofby this common award which shall govern all of them. I.D. No. 52/94 is treated as the leading case.
Wildlife Institute ofIndia, Chanderbani , Dehradun -248006.
Management
And
2. In I.D. No. 52/94 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-42012/77/93 -IR (DU) dated 13-4-94/8-5-94 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:, I.D. No. 53/94
Workman
2. Shri Jitender Singh Rawat, S/o Shri Jagat Singh Rawat, 53, New Colony, Ballupur Dehradum-248001 .
"Whether the action of the management ofWild Life Institute of India, Dehradun in terminating the services of Shri Om Parkash Pun, casual daily rated worker w.e.f. 30-4-87/9-5-88 is justified ? Ifnot, what relief is the workman concerned entitled to ?"
And
Versus
TheDirector,
In I.D. No. 53/94 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour vide its Order No. L-42012/78/93-IR dated13-4-94/5-5-94 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
Wildlife Institute of India, Chanderbani, Dehradun -248 006.
Management
2946
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
"Whether the action of the management of Wild Life Institute of India , Dehradun in terminating the services of Shri Jitendra Singh Rawat , casual daily rated worker w.e.f. 30-4-87 is justified ? If not, what reliefthe workman concerned is entitled to ??
In I.D. No. 54/94 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 42012/ 99 /93 - I.R. (D.U. ) dated 19-5-94/9-6-94 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of Wild Life Institute of India, Dehradun in terminating the services of Shri Mukti Prasad Sharma , casual daily rated worker w.e.f. 30-4-87 is justified ? If not, what relief is the work man concerned entitled to ?"
And
In I.D. No. 64/94 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour vide its Order No. L -42012 /79 /93 -IR(DU) dated 19-4-94 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of Wild Life Institute of India, Dehradun in terminating the services of Shri Hira Lal Sharma , casual daily rated worker w.e.f. 30-4-87/ 10-5-88 is justified ? If not , what reliefis the workman concerned entitled to ? " 3. The workmen mentioned above filed their respective claim statements almost on the same grounds challenging their termination from service and praying for their re - instatement with full back wages and all other consequential benefits , alongwith payment of difference in wages on the ground of equal pay for equal work. The workman Shri Om Parkash Pun , Jitender Singh Rawat, Mukti Pd . Sharma and Hira Lal Sharma claimed that they were appointed substantively on the permanent and clear vacant post of Group ' D ' under the management w.e.f. 18-12-85 , 8-11-85 , 8-11-85 and 5-12-85 respectively. It was further alleged that the management did not deliberately issued any letter of appointment to them and kept them on daily wages / casual daily labour thereby depriving them from their legitimate right of getting benefits of permanent regular employee . Their appointment was for indefinite period. They rendered miscellaneous duties of peon, watchman , office attendant, cook and bearer etc. during their employment and they were not allowed any weekly rest or holidays etc. that after completion of their one years continuous service they requested the management for their regularisation and payment of equal wages but with no fruitful result. Again when the management started activities for making fresh recruitments from outside , the workman requested the management during April , 1987 for their absorption but the management acted arbitrarily against the workman , recruited fresh hands in regular
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] appointment in April , 1987 and also terminated their services w.e.f. 30-4-87 (A.N. ) ; that before retrenchment of the workman the management did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F and G of the I.D. Act , 1947 and that even after termination of the services of the workman the management again recruited fresh hands from outside without complying with the mandatory provisions ofSection 25 -Hand Rules 77 and 78 ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 and Central Rules 1957; that in any view of the case the termination/retrenchment ofthe workman is void ab initio; that the workman Om Parkash Pun claimed that he worked with the Management continuously from 18-12-85 to 30-4-87 and accordingly rendered total 503 days continuous service and had also completed more than 240 days in 12 consecutive months immediately preceding the date ofhis termination. Workman Jitender Singh Rawat andMukti Pd . Sharma claimed that they had renderedtotal 539 days continuous service under the management w.e.f. 8-11-85 to30-4-87 and also completed more than 240 days within 12 consecutive months before the date of their termination. Similarly workman Shri Hira Lal Sharma had rendered total 512 days continuous service under the management during 5-12-85 to 30-4-87 and had also completed more than 240 days regular service in 12 consecutive months soon before his retrenchment . Hence it is liable to be quashed and the workmen are entitled to be reinstated and regularised in their services and also for payment ofback wages and other claims.
4. The claim of the workmen have been contested by the Management by way of filing separate written statements in their cases . In the written statement similar grounds have been taken against all the four workmen. However, it was admitted that they were engaged from the dates as claimed by them as a casual , daily labour and their engagement was reviewed and extended from time to time depending upon the exigencies of work . It was also alleged that the services of the workmen were dispensed with and it was not reviewed after 30-4-87 and that there was no need for giving any notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice or compensation etc.; that the termination of the workman does not amount to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(00) of the I.D. Act, 1947. It was further alleged that the workman did not put in continuous service ofone year during any particular year. Hence provisions of Section 25 -F ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 were not applicable in the case . That the casual , daily rated employees are engaged subject to exigencies of work . They do not have any substantive claim; that at the time of appointment against substantive vacancy the applicants claimants had also applied and they were called in interview but the selection committee for interview did not find them fit and eligible. Hence other persons named by the workmen were selected by the selection committee against regular post. That the claim of the workmen is based on false representation of facts . Hence it deserves to be dismissed.
[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
5. The workmen also filed their rejoinders to the written statements of the management/ respondent reiterating their earlier versions.
6. In evidence both the parties filed photo copy of variotis documents genuineness of which have not been denied by the respondent . The workman also failed his own affidavit and was also cross -examinedby the A/R of the respondent . The Management filed affidavit of Shri Ashutosh, Administrative Officer ofthe Institute, affidavit of Shri P. K. Aggarwal Administrative Officer of the oppositeparty institute , Shri S. S. Oberoi, Finance Officer oftheoppositeparty institute and Shri R. S. Rana Internal AuditOfficer out ofwhich Shri P. K. Aggarwal only was cross -examinedby the A/R ofthe wofkirtan and the other witnesses of the management did not appear to prove their affidavit and for cross-examination.
7. I have heard id . Counsel/A.R. of both the sides and perused the file.
8. During arguments a preliminary objection was raisedby the A/R ofthe opposite party management that the opposite party institute is not an industry as it is an autonomous institution under the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forest , Government of India and the institute is registeredunder the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and its main objectives are specified in memorandum and Articles ofAssociation which Trainings matlagers and biologists for Protected Area (PA) , Management and wildlife Research , Training Education and Extension Specialists for PAs to gain public support for Wildlife Conservation, conducting and coordinating applied Wildlife research and evolving relevant techniques suited to Indian conditions. Providing Advisory and consultancy services to Central and State Governments , Universities, Research Institutions and other official and non official agencies ; Providing orientation courses for those involved in land use management and creating a database for building of a wildlife information system employing modern and analytical techniques and computer equipments, Hence the provisions of I.D. Act does not and cannotbe applied in the present case . Reliance was placedby the learned counsel on the case law of State of Gujarat Vs. Pratamsingh Parmar 2001 (89 ) FLR 323 ; and Physical Research Laboratory Vs. K. G. Sharma : 1997 (11) LLJ 625 ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court. On the other hand the A/R of the workman vehemently opposed the contentions ofthe learned counsel of the Management byplacing reliance on the case/decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and SewerageBoard Vs. ARajappa and others 1979 SC page 539 wherein it was held that the absence ofprofit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint private or other sector . The ' Industry ' as defined in Section 2 (J) and explained in B. M. Banerjee Vs. P.D. Mukherjee 1954 (4) SCR502 has awide import, where 1633 G1/04-37
2947
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ ण्ठ 15, 1926
systematic activity, organisedby cooperation between the employer and employee, for production (the direct and substantial element is chimerical) ( iii) for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfyhumanwants and wishes ( not spiritual or religiouς, but inclusive of material things or services geared to celestial bliss viz. making, on a large scale, of ' Prasad or food) prima facie, there is an' Industry' in that enterprise. Itwas further argued by the A/R of the workman that the management has concealed its income out of its activity of' training' for which it recovers 'Training charges ' from PostGraduate Diploma Trainees and from Certificates Trainees. Thus ift view of the definition of ' Industry as explainedby theApex Court in the above mentioned cases the activities of the Wild Life Institute/respondent fall within the ambit of the definition of the term ' Industry' under section 2 ( J) of the I.D. Act . In the Bangalore Water Supply case it was held:
"Does research involve collaboration between employer and employee ? It does. The employer........ Eventhough a research institution may be separate entitydisconnected from the many industries which funded the institute itself, it can be regarded as an organisation, propelled by systematic activity, modelled on cooperation between employer and employee and calculated to throw up discoveries and inventions and useful solutions which benefit individual industries and the nation in terms of goods and services and wealth. If follows that Research Institutes, albeit run without profit motive are' Industry ."
I find that the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the management are not applicable in the instant cases as the facts are not identical . Thus the objection raisedby the counsel of the Management for the first time during arguments is untenable and has no legto stand upon. Accordingly the objection is rejected.
The next objection was raised on behalf of the management that in a suit for injunction filed by the workman, the CivilJudge, Delhi had rejected the application for injunction against the alleged termination , therefore, thepresent dispute is barred by resjudicata. Inthis regard Ido not agree with the arguments ofthe 1d. counel for the management because the Id. Munsif has no jurisdiction to decide an industrial dispute . If the injunction suit/ applicationwas rejected by a Civil Court, its order cannot be said to have effect of res judicata in respect of subsequently raised industrial dispute.
9. The learned counsel for the management also raised an objection that the present dispute/claim of the workman is also barred by limitation. It is admitted by the parties that in areference of the dispute between the patios the U.P. Labour Court , Dehradun has given its finding in . adjudicating case No. 338/1979 on 31-1-90 holding that 2948
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004 /JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
services ofworkman on 30-4-87. Therefore , the action of the management of respondents in terminating the services ofworkmen/claimants cannot bejustified . It is absolutely illegal and against the provisions of law . Hence liable to bequashed andall the workmen claimants mentioned above are entitled to be reinstated with continuity in service and also get all consequential benefits . However, in the facts and circumstances of the cases they are also entitled to get back wages @ 30% only. They shall also be entitled to get the same scale of wages which their counter parts were getting in regular appointment as per rules , and also to be considered for regular appointments in accordance with rules whenever regular vacancy occurs . All workmen mentioned above shall be reinstated and paid the back wages by the management within two months from the date of publication of the award in the official gazette . Party shall bear their own costs .
11. A copy of this award shall be placed on the file ofconnected I.D. No. 53/94, 54/94 , and 64/94 original being placed on the file of the leading case I.D. No. 52/94 . Award isgiven accordingly.
Dated: 5-5-2004
B. N. PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2004
appropriate government in regard with Wild Life Institute ofIndia is the Central Government . It is also admitted that the workman being aggrieved from the action of the management have been preferring their claim which was either found not maintainable or not within the jurisdiction ofthe State Labour Court . Therefore , there was no latches ordeliberate delay on the part of the workman in raising the dispute. Apart from it there is also no period of limitation in industrial dispute cases. Accordingly I reject the objection of the A/R of the Management also on the point of Limitation. Now coming to the merit of the case regarding validity of the termination of the services of the workmen w.e.f. 30-4-87 . I find that the management has repeatedly stated that the workman was engaged for specific term on contract employment and contract of the engagement was not renewed after 30-4-87 but the management has not filed on record any document in support of its contention . On the contrary MW1 Shri P. K. Aggarwal who has filed his affidavit as management's witness has deposed in his cross - examination that " by the term specific mean I mean specific nature of work and not specific period and by words " contract employment" , I mean engagement of labour in absence of any vacancy of post for particular work only. On the other hand workman's contention is that they were appointed for the specific nature of work of Chowkidar for the particular work of chowkidar only. There is no any document on record signifying any stipulation in regard to workman's appointment which could be proved only by way of producing documentary evidence . In the case ofExecutive Engineer , C.P. W.D. , Indore Vs. Madhukar Purshottam Kobarkar and another, 2000 ( 87) FLR 727 " the Supreme Court has held that :
का. आ. 1316.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल शुगर इंस्टिट्यूट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 74/92 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था । " Section 2 ( oo) (bb) proviso- Termination of services of appellant a daily wager engaged on purely temporary basis-In the absence of any fixed term in the order of appointment-proviso to Section 2 (oo) (bb) is not applicable . "
[सं. एल.- 42011/ 18/91-आई. आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्कअधिकारी
New Delhi , the 14th May, 2004
S.O. 1316. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 74/92) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of National Sugar Institute and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-5-04.
[No. L-42011 / 18/91 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer 10. In the instant case admittedly the workmen were not engaged for any specific period . Therefore , their terminationby the management w.e. f. 30-4-87 was nothing but retrenchment and in order to retrench an employee , if the workman had completed 240 days or more , the procedure prescribed under section 25 -F of the I.D. Act has to be strictly complied with. A retrenchment without complying with section 25 -F would be void ab initio. Such action would entitle the workmen to a declaration for continuation in service with all consequential benefits including back wages . Admittedly the present workmen had completed more than 240 days in a block of 12 consequitive months immediately proceeding the date of termination on 30-4-87 . It is also an admitted fact that the management had not complied with the mandatory pre- requirements of Section 25 -F prior to termination of [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
2949
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NEW DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER SHRI B. N. PANDEY
L. D. No. 74/92
The Secretary,
National Sharkari Sanstha Karamchari Sangh, c/o National Sugar Institute , Kalyanpur ,
Workmen Union
Kanpur-208017.
Versus
3 TheDirector, National Sugar Institute, Kalyanpur, Kanpur-208017. Management/Respt .
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its order No. L/42011 / 18 /91 /IR. (DU) dated 4-8-92 read with corrigendum dated 7-8-92 fias referred this industrial dispute to the Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal , New Delhi foradjudication:
"Whether the action ofthe Management ofNational Sugar Institute, Kanpur in not giving actual benefit ofthe revised scale of pay of Draftsman Gr. I , II and III w.e.f. 1-11-83 is justified and legal ? If not to what relief the workmen are entitled ?"
obeythe orders ofthe President of India vide Ministry of Finance O.M. dated 13-3-84 and did not revise the scales of the pay ofDraftsmenGr. II , II and I; that after the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission were acceptedby the Govt, of India the fitment of the pay of Draftsman was made on the basis of pre - revised scales of pay as mentioned in para 4 of the claim petition; that the Department of Personnel and Training ofGovernment of India, New Delhi issued O.M. No. AB - 14012/40/80-Estt. (RR) dated 25-3-87 , thereby Model Recruitment Rules for various categories of Draftsmen were circulated . That the Ministry ofFood & Civil Supplies, New Delhi vide G.S.R. No. 248 dated 27-3-89 made certain amendments in the Draftsmen Recruitment Rules for the National Sugar Institute, Kanpur which were published in the Gazette of India, Part II-Section 3-Sub-section ( 1 ) dated April 8, 1989 and thereafter the management of National Sugar Institute issued office order No. 38 ( 1) /83 dated 8-9-1989 thereby revising the scales of pay of Draftsmen as mentioned in Annexure 'D ' to the claim statement , that according to the benefits which was originally ordered to begivenby thePresident of India vide Ministry of Finance O.M. dated 13-3-84 were allowed w.e.f. 8-4-79 although it was to be allowed w.e.f, 1-11-83 ; that the recruitment qualifications ofDraftsmen Grade III, II and Ist employed in National Sugar Institute, Kanpur at the relevant time were similar to those prescribed in CPWD. Hence the draftsmen employed in National Sugar Institute are entitled to get samebenefits w.e.f. 1-11-83 ; the Management of National Sugar Institute, Kanpur did not allow the revised scales ofpay to the workmen . Hence this dispute .
3. The claim of the workmen - union has been contestedby the Management. In its written statement it has been inter alia allegod that fulfilment of the required qualifications was a condition precedent to revision of pay scale ofdraftsman . As the recruitment qualifications ofDraftsman Grade III , II and 1 National Sugar Institute Kanpur were not similar to those prescribed in the case of Draftsmen in CPWD , they were to continue in the pre- revised scales as provided in the Ministry of Finance O.M. dated 13-3-84. In fact the draftsmen of the various categories ofthis institute were representing to the Govt. forgrant ofhigher pay scalesto them to make it at par with the pay scales given by CPWD which was rejected by the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies vide order dated 26-8-87. However, ultimately the Govt . agreed to revise pay scales of draftsmen after recruitment rules for those posts were changed considering job recruitments to the duties tothe post ofDraftsman . Accordingly office order No. Estt./38(1)/8/83 dated 8-9-90 was issued revising pay scales ofDraftsmen Gr. I, II and III w.e.f. 8-4-89 that the amendment in recruitment rules was effected vide Government Notification No. 27-3-89 notified in the Gazette dated 8-4-89 and accordingly the revision of pay scale was given effect to w.ef. 8-4-89; that the action of the 2. The workmen Union filed a claim statement challenging the validity of the action of the management ofNational Sugar Institute , Kanpur in not giving actual benefit of the revised scale ofpay of Draftsman Grade I , II and III w.e.f. ( 1-11-83 and claiming grant of all the subsequent increments after 13-5-82 in accordance with the revised scales of pay allowing actual benefit thereof w.e.f. 1-11-83 to its present claimants -workmen. It is, inter alia alleged, that the Ministry of Finance , Govt . of India issued O.M. No. F. 5 (59)-Estt . 3/82 dated 13-3-84 under the hand and seal of Shri R.C. Puri , Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of India whereby the revision of pay scales of Draftsmen Gradę III , II and 1 in Offices/Departments of Govt. of India, in view of the Award which was enforced, implemented by pleasure and orders of the President of India. It was mentioned in the notification that " the President is now pleased to decide that the scales of pay ofDraftsmen Grade III , II and I in Offices/departments of the Government of India other than the Central Public Works Department, may be revised as above provided their recruitment qualifications are similar to those prescribed in the case of draftsmen in C.P.W.D. Those who do not fulfil the above required qualifications will continue in the pre- revised scales. The benefit of this revision of scales of pay will be given notionally w.e.f. 13-5-82 , the actual benefit being allowed w.e.f. 1-11-83 ; that the Management of National Sugar Institute did not 2950
[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
Management of Institute cannot be termed to be illegal and unjustified; that the workmen are not entitled to get revision of scale of pay w.e.f. 1-11-83 ; the revised scales were rightly and correctly allowed to them w.e.f. 8-4-89 . Hence the claim is liable to be rejected.
4. Rejoinder was also filed by the Union on behalf of its workmen concerned denying the contents of the management written statement and reiterating their earlier versions .
5. Both the parties filed various documentary evidence in support of their claim and also affidavits of Shri Gian Prakash Gupta, Research Assistant on behalf of the Union and Shri P. P. Guha, Chief Administrative and Finance Officer on behalf of the Management . Both of them were cross -examined.
6. I have heard arguments of both the sides and also perused the file .
7. During the course of arguments , preliminary objections raised on behalf of the Management in its W.S. were not pressed by its A.R. Besides , various case laws were also shown to me and also filed on record by the A/R of the Union of workmen to prove that the National Sugar Institute is an Institute of research in the field of Sugar and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in numerous cases that the research institutes are ' Industry' between the Ambit and Scope of 1.D. Act . Therefore , the objections raised in the written statement of the opposite parties are not tenable and I hold that the National Sugar Institute , Kanpur is an ' Industry' within the meaning of 1.D. Act and this Tribunak has full jurisdiction to decide this dispute.
Grade II and III . The recruitment rules of draftsman, National Sugar Institute Kanpur , 1984 was amended through Amendment Rules 1989 published in theGazette ofIndiadated 11-8-89 . It is admitted fact that a Diploma in Draftsmanship and a certificate in draftsmanship is at par witheach other. It is also important to note that the opposite partyhas not raised any objection in regard to recruitment qualifications of draftsman at National Sugar Institute and inCPWD. Therefore, there seems to be no reason todeny thebenefits ofO.M. dated 13-3-84 to the present claimants draftsmen of National Sugar Institute, Kanpur. The qualifications in recruitment rules at National Sugar Institute Kanpur were similar to that of qualifications in recruitment rules at C.P.W.D. since before and the recruitment rules of National Sugar Institute was also amended in 1989 on the basis of the regular and repeated demands of the workmen of National Sugar Institute claiming their parity in scale of pay to those of C.P.W.D. Draftsman . It was also admitted by the A/R of the Management during the course of arguments before me that the qualifications were similar since before but it was modified and clarified subsequently by the amended Rules . Hence the benefit of equal pay was given to the present claimants w.e.f. 8-9-89 . It was also admitted that the recruitment rules were amended only to make the same benefits available , which were available to the Draftsman ofCPWD and other Central Government Departments , to the Draftsman of National Sugar Institute . In a similar case ofUnion of India and others Vs. Debashish Kar and others reported in 1996 Lab . I.C. page 604 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Revision of pay scales-Draftsman employed in Ordnance Factories and works of E.M.E. in the Ministry ofDefence-are entitled to benefit of revision ofPay Scale on basis of O.M. dated 13-3-84-recruitment qualification for draftsman in Ordnance Factories and those in C.P.W.D. were not dissimilar. Accordingly I also find that the recruitment qualifications for draftsman in National Sugar Institute, Kanpur were similar to that in CPWD. Hence the workmen- claimants are also entitled to get the same benefit of revision of pay scale from the very beginning which were allowed to draftsman of other Central Government .
9. In view of the above discussions I find that the action of the Management of National Sugar Institute, Kanpur in not giving actual benefit of the revised scale of pay of Draftsman Gr . I, II and III w.e.f. 1-11-83 is not justified.Hence it is illegal and liable to be quashed. Hence the claimants - workmen through its Union were also entitled to get the revised scales of pay and other actual benefits w.e.f. 1-11-83 with all other consequential benefits . In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs . Award is given accordingly.
Dated: 5-5-2004
8. The notification dated 6-4-84 ofMinistry ofFood and Civil Supplies , Government of India , it was notified that a committee of the National Council ( Joint Consultative Machinery) was set up to consider the request of the Staff Side that the following revised scale ofpay allowed to the Draftsmen Gr. I, II and III working in CPWD on the basis of the award of Board of Arbitration may be extended to Draftsmen Grade III , II and I in all Government of India Offices . A copy of the notification dated 11-8-87 of Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies , Government of India is placed on the record which is in respect of Revision of Pay scales of Draftsmen at National Sugar Institute , Kanpur shows that the qualifications prescribed for the Draftsmen Grade III , II and Ist ofNational SugarCorporation , Kanpur almost same and similar to the qualifications in recruitment rules at C.P.W.D. for Draftsmen Grade III and the post of Draftsmen Gr. II and Ist of CPWD are to be filled in by 100 % promotion from the Draftsmen
B. N. PANDEY, Presiding Officer भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[भाग II-खरु 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2004
का. आ. 1317.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार साइंटिस्ट इंचार्ज ऑपरेशनल रिसर्च प्रोजेक्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 4/95) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल.-42012/169/93- आई. आर. (डी.यू. ) ]
कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्कअधिकारी NewDelhi, the 14th May, 2004
S.O. 1317. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 4/95 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Scientist Incharge Operational Research Project and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 14-5-04.
[No. L-42012/169/93 - IR (DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NEWDELHI
PresidingOfficer: Siri B.N. Pandey
LD. No. 4/95
1. Shri Lilu Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh R/o Vill . & P.O. Sultanpur, Tehsil & Distt. Gurgaon (Haryana)
Claimant/Workmen 2. Shri Sher Singh S/o Shri Raghuvir Singh Vill . & P.O.JhanjrelaKhera, Tehsil& Distt. Gurgaon (Haryana)
Versus
The Scientist Incharge
Sultanpur, 1. Operational Research Project ,
Tehsil & Distt. Gurgaon
2. The Secretary,
Union of India, Ministry/Deptt. of Agriculture & Irrigation, Krishi Bhawan, NewDelhi .
Management/Respondents
2951
AWARD
No. TheGovt. of India, Ministry of Labour, vide its order L-42012/ 169/93 - IR(DU) dated 2/8-12-94 read with corrigendum dated 8-2-95 has referred the following dispatc to this Tribunal -cum-Labour Court for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management ofScientist Incharge Operational Research Project (Fisheries) Sultanpur, Distt. Gurgaon in terminating the services of Sh. Sher Singh and Sh. Lilu Singh ex-labourers w.e.f. 20-3-89 is proper, legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the workmen are entitled to ?"
2.The workmen Lilu Singh and Sher Singh filed their separate claim statement alleging almost the same facts, grievances and challenging the termination order dated 20-3-89 of the management terminating their services and praying for their reinstatement with continuity of their services and full back wages . They alleged that they were working with the management w.e.f. 25-11-86 as labourer andtheywere drawing salary ofRs . 550 per month. Their work, and conduct was satisfactory and they never gave any chance to the management of any ofthe wrongs: that the management without payment retrenchment compensation, notice pay and other dues in accordance with law terminated their services w.e.f. 20-3-89 . The management neither conducted any domestic inquiry nor gave any opportunity for being heard. On raising industrial dispute before the Labour - cum- Conciliation Officer, Gurgaon, which was wrongly referred by the Govt. of Haryana to Labour Court , Faridabad. Although the appropriate Government was the Central Government. Therefore , the demand notice was withdrawn from the Labour Court , Faridabad before leading any evidence: that a civil suit in the Court of Sub-judge First Class , Gurgaon was also filed by the workmen in which the management took the plea of jurisdiction on the ground that the management is covered under the definition of industry, hence only the Labour court has got the jurisdiction to decide the dispute . No evidence was laid even before the Civil Judge, Gurgaon which also held that the matter can only be decided by the Labour Court : that the workmen had completed more than 240 days of their service in 12 calendar months . Therefore , their termination without complying the provisions of law and principles of natural justice their termination from service is absolutely illegal , malafidely and arbitrarily: that the management has also appointed S/ Shri Gyan Chand, Gyani and Lavesh on the same post on which the workmen were working and the saidjuniors are still working.
3. The claims of the workmen has been contested by the management by way of filing written statement . In the written statement , it was interalia alleged that the Central Institute ofFisheries Education, Bombay, hereinafter calledas CIFE is one of the Institutes of Indian Council of Agricultural Research , New Delhi popularly known as ICAR. ICAR is a Society registered under the Societies Act: that in the year 1985-86 a project known as Operation Research Project (ORP) was set up by the CIFE in collaboration with the State of Haryana at Distt. Gurgaon , for the purpose of utilisation of saline , soil , using ground 2952
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
saline water. The duration of this project was initially for three years which was extended for two years and further extended for another 12 years . As such , the project came to an end on 31-7-92 . The entire infrastructure of the said project belong to the State of Haryana . The workmen were appointed as casual labour in March 1987 purely on temporary and contract basis. An Office Order dated 2-4-88 was issued wherein it was specifically mentioned that the post is purely temporary and other conditions of service were detailed therein: that the workmen left the job on their own volition w.c.f. 19-3-89 & 17-1-89 . A demand notice dated 17-4-89 was also issued by the workmen in which the reinstatement with back wages was demanded . The appointment ofthe workmen was purely on contract basis. However, the assertions made in the claim statements of the workmen were denied . It was also denied that the action of the management is unfair labour practice . It was further alleged that the workmen were directed to appear before a Selection Board on 14-3-91 alongwith other candidates for their re - engagement but they did not respond . The workmen are not entitled to retrenchnient compensation and notice pay as alleged . It was admitted that S/Shri Gyan Chand and Gyani Ram were earlier working in the scheme ofCIFE , Dumdum, which was also in collaboration with the State of Haryana and which scheine has not since been wound up : that Sh.Lavesh was engaged subsequently on casual/ contractual basis that the dispute raised by the workmen is divided on merit and deseves to be dismissed with costs.
4. The workmen also bled rejoinder against the written statement of the management denying with contents of the written staternents reiterating any other earlier versions made in the claim statements .
5. Both the parties adduced documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their case . WW. I Sh . Lilu Singh workmen and Sh . Sher Singh also filed their affidavit and Lilu Singh was also cross - examined. On the other hand, MW.1 Shri N.K. Chadha Scientist Incharge also filed his affidavit on behalf of the management who was also cross- examined by the other side .
6. I have heard learned counsel for both the side and also perused the file . In the documentary evidence the management has itself filed a copy of the letter dated 28-6-88 sent by Shri M.L. Rustagi to Dr. V.R.P. Singh , Director, Central Institute of Fisheries Education , Bombay for regularisation of contract labours working in ORP wherein it has been mentioned that the workmen S/ Shri Sher Singh and Lilu Singh alongwith four others were working as contract labour against the post of Fisherman and that their posts were also sanctioned under ORP Scheme since its inception and against those posts five persons including the two workınen were working at Sultanpur and one at Dumdum . It was further mentioned thatmost of these incumbents including the two workmen have worked more than 240 days continuous service and are eligible for appointment on regular basis as per rules in existence and that they were also found medically fit . It was further alleged that in view of the facts mentioned in
[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] the letter, Director may like to include their names in the seniority list and interviewed them through a duly constituted Board at the earliest . This letter dated 28-6-88 goes to show that the workmen had already worked there than 240 days continuous service till 28-6-88 . The workmen have specifically alleged that they were appointed on 25-11-86 on the other hand no specific date of initial appointment of the workmen was given by the management. In his cross -examination MW. 1 Sh . N.K. Chadha , Scientist Incharge of the management stated that it is incorrect that the date of appointment of the workmen is 25-11-86. Accordingto him , appointment letter was issued inception appointment of the workmen from March 1987 , but no appointment letter for 1987 had admittedly produced. However, it has admitted that their salary was Rs . 550 per month. He has also admitted that Gyani , Gyan Chand and Lavesh who were appointed after the appointment or workmen have been still working. MW. 1 has also admitted that the entire remaining staff is still functioning at Rohtak , but the project was completed earlier. He has also admitted that no notice pay or retrenchment compensation was given to the workmen . Para -5 ofhis affidavit Sh . N.K. Chadha has deposed that vide a letter dt. 14-3-91 , the workmen were directed to appear for interview on 25-3-91 for appointment to the post of Fisherman which they did not attend.
7. From the above evidence it is clearly established that the workmen had already been working continuously since the date of their appointment . They had also completed more than 240 days of their continuous working at the time of their retrenchment/termination. They were also called for interview for their regular appointment for which notice dated 5-3-91 was issued by the management . This fact itself goes to show that the work of the management was not wound up. The remaining staffwas still working. It also goes to show that the management was engaging labourers and taking their services in various projects . Therefore , even if work of certain particular project was completed, it does not mean that the entire business of the industry came to an end. Admittedly the industry/ business of the management/respondent is still working. Juniors to the present workmen are also working. Admittedly certain freah appointments were made even after termination/ retrenchment of the workmen. Admittedly no compliance of the provisions of Sec . 25F of the I.D. Act 1947 was made . If as alleged by the management the workmenhad left their services at their own accord that is why no notice for joining the service was given to them by the management and further why they were called for to appear in the interview on 14-3-91 for their regular appointment . Therefore , the allegations of the management that the workmen themselves had left the service can not be believed and accepted .
8. After considering the entire facts of the case and evidence on record, I find that the action of the management against both the workmen was absolutely arbitrary and against the provisions of law. It was improper and illegal . Hence it cannot be justified . I am of the view that the termination ofboth the workmen from their services by the 2953 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
with corrigendum dated 13-11-97 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the Dy. Director (Horticulture) CPWD , H.D. II, New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Satyapal S/o Shri Balbir Singh w.e.f. 17-9-93 is proper, legal , justified ? If not, to what relief the concernedworkman is entitled to ?"
management/ respondent being absolutely illegal and unjustified, hence it deserves to be quashed and the workmen are entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and all other consequential benefits alongwith 25% only of the back wages in circumstances of the case. Under circumstances of the case, they are also entitled to get the same salary with other allowances equal to other employees working in the same category of work on the basis of equal pay for equal work.
Parties shall bear their own costs . Award is given accordingly.
Dated: 30-04-2004 B.N. PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2004
2. The claim ofthe workman as alleged in his statement ofclaim that he was initially engaged as Motor Lorry Driver (MLD) on daily -wages basis on " Work Order " @Rs . 40.00 per day w.e.f. 30-8-90 and worked continuously upto 16-9-1993 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 13-9-93 without notice or notice pay and compensation etc.; that theworkman was driving the water tanker No. DIG- 373 upto 16-9-93 of CPWD.
का. आ. 1318.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी पी डब्ल्यूडी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 102/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल. -42012/110/94- आई. आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 14th May, 2004
3. The claim of the workman has been contestedby the management; the main stand ofthe management is that due to shortage of Driver in the Division, the work of driving water tanker was being done by the private contractors/parties on contract basis through issue ofWork Order in their favour from time to time and as per requirement ofprincipal sites . It is further alleged that since there was no sanctioned post for this job from the Government, therefore, the management was compelled to adopt this procedure and accordingly, the Work Orders as listed in the enclosed statement were issued in favour of workman from time to time for the purpose of driving the water tariker as per the requirement; that the management totally denied the relationship of the employees between the parties and the workman was never employed as regular employee in theDivision nor his services were terminated at any point oftime by the management .
S.O. 1318. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 102/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 14-5-04.
[No. L-42012/110/94 - IR (DU) ] .
4. The workmen also filed his rejoinder reiterating his earlier version and denied the contents of written statement of the management .
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
5. The workman filed his own affidavit and on the other hand, the management also filed affidavit ofShri Dhan Singh, Dy Director (Horticulture) CPWD.
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT : NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer: Shri B.N. Pandey
L.D. No. 102/94
1. Shri Satya Pal
House No. 120, Bhalsawa
Delhi-42
Workman.
Versus
2. DyDirector (Hort). CPWD -II
13th Floor, MSO Building,
(PoliceHeadquarters) Near I.T.O. , New Delhi . Management
AWARD
:
6. In cross-examination MW - 1 Shri Dhan Singh admitted that the workman had been driving the vehicle till 1993 and also relied upon their evidence as per Director (Admn.) Office Order No. 34-17/93 -ED.X dated 18-8-93 and according to that order the services of the workman were terminated w.e.f. 13-9-93 . Copy of the order dated 18-8-93 was also filed by the workman alongwith statement ofclaim at page- 31; the workman Shri Satya Pal also filed his affidavit in which he has taken the stand that he was performing his duty on daily- wages basis and driving the water tanker of the management and at the time of termination, no compensation , notice or notice pay was served to him. He completed more than 240 days in each of the years . He has also taken the stand that his attendance weremarked in attendance register directly by the concerned officer and hisjuniors S/ Shri Balram Singh and Chandveer were retained in service; that as per the document , the The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. 42012/110/94 -IR(DU) dated 30-9-94 read 2954
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5 , 2004 /JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
order issuedby the Director ( Admn . ) CPWD dated 18-8-93 which proves that the Work Order employee is also daily- rated worker and according to that order only those daily- rated workers including Work Order were terminated who have not completed 240 days of service in two consecutive years.
7. I heard the arguments of learned counsel of both the parties and also considered their submissions and perusedthe file .
8. At the very outset, it is to be mentioned that the workman completed more than 240 days in all the three years and worked directly under the control and supervision of Dy. Director ( Horticulture) and other officers ofthe said Division and his services were terminated without any notice or notice pay, compensation etc. as required under the provisions of Sec . 25 - F of the 1.D. Act 1947. In this regard, the management itself filed various documents which go to show that the workman was employed with the management and working as a Motor Lorry Driver on "Work Order " and the payments were made directly to Shri Satya Pal workman by the officers of CPWD .
9. From the evidence on record , I find that the workman worked continuously w.e.f. 20-8-90 to 16-9-93 in the direct control of Dy. Director ( Horticulture ) and other concerned officers of the Department of CPWD which go to more than 240 days in every year and admittedly prior to termination of his services, no notice , or notice pay and payments of compensation was given to him . It clearly goes to show that the services were terminated in clear violation of Sec . 25 - F of the I.D. Act . Therefore , the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman Shri Satya Pal cannot bejustified . It was improper and illegal and deserves to be quashed and the workman deserves to be reinstated in the same capacity in which he was working at the time of his termination with only 40% of back wages to him as per rules with all other consequential benefits . The award deserves to be implemented by the management within two months from the date ofpublication ofthis award in the official Gazette .
Dated: 30-04-2004
B.N. PANDEY , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2004
का. आ. 1319.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी पी डब्ल्यूडी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 66/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल.- 42012/172/94- आई. आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th May, 2004
S.O. 1319. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) . the Central
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 66/95 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 14-5-04.
[No. L-42012/ 172/94- IR(DU) )
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT : NEW DELHI Presiding Officer: Shri B.N. Pandey I.D. No. 66/95
Shri Veer Bahadur
C/o CPWD Mazdoor Union , E-26 , (Old Qrtrs . ) Raja Bazar, Baba Kharak Singh Marg,
NewDelhi
Workman.
Versus
M/s . Chief Engineer, national Security Guard Project, CPWD, ' B ' Block Curzon Road Baracks , NewDelhi .
...Management
AWARD
The Centrtal Govt . in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L -42012/ 172/ 94 - IR (DU) dated 24/25-5-95 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of CPWD national Security Guard Project in terminating the services of Shri Veer Bahadur , Motor Lorry Driver w.e.f. 31-7-1993 is proper , legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?"
2.The claim of the workman as alleged in his statement ofclaim that he was initially engaged as Motor Lorry Driver (MLD) on Hand Receipt w.e.f. 26-8-87 and worked continuously upto 30-7-1993 and he had been getting the wages in the minimum of time scale ofRs . 950-1500 with all allowances except increments ; that the workman was attached to Superintending Engineer ( Elect. ) , Electrical Circle, National Security Guard Project, CPWD , New Delhi ; that the workman was very laborious and hard working during his employment; that the Superintending Engineer (Elect.) , Electrical Circle , CPWD , New Delhi , suddenly discontinued the services of workman on 31-7-93 without any chargesheet ; that before discontinuation of the services of the workman , management did not serve one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice and compensation; that during the conciliation the management informed that the services of the workman terminated due tohis involvement in eve-teasing offence and the workman 2955
2604/15, 1926ΟΣΤΙΕΣΑΟΥΠΙ
भारत की राजपत्र
[ भाग II- खंड 3 (ii ) ]
admonished u/s 91 ofDelhi Police Act, 1978 for behaving indecently in public and against that penalty is provided u/ s 97 of the shid Act , which is as inder
"97. Penalties for offence under sections 80 to 96, Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of section 80 and 96 (both inclusive ) shall , on conviction, be punished with fino which may extend to one hundred rupees, or, inin default of payment such fine,with imprisonment for a term not exceeding (eigfit days. " SOULOS-
confessed his guilt before Metropolitan Magistrate who had only cautioned and admonished by the order dated 24-7-93 and thể said orderás sinexed as Annexure -Awith the statement of claim; that aditionishing by the Hon'ble Magistrate is not a conviction and not tormed as moral turpitude, that awarning is not a misconduct to terminate the services ofthe workman without holding proper inquiry and deciding the quantum of punishment by the management so the action of the management is violative of the principle of hatural justice , that many junior Motor Lorry Drivers Were retained and still working with the managemem , that the action of the management ofNational Security Guard Prejeet, CPWD, In terminating the services ofShri Veer Bahadur, MED, we. 131-7-93 18 not proper legale or justified. The workman has prayed for reinstatement with full back wages,, continuity in service alongwith alf consequential benefits.
doi mongetested to wigs
3. The claims of the workman has been contested bythemanagement . The appointment of workman as MLD on hand reciept w.e.f. 26-8-87 has been, as claimed by thethe workman, admitted.
4. The management also contended that the C.CS Conduct Rules 1965 is not applicable on the workman and the workman was involved in the act of eve-teasing offence forwhich he was challaned before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate , New Delhi where he confessed his guilt and according to the management the involvement of workman in such a serious offence was unbecoming of Government employees in whatever capacity and it amounted to moralis turpitude/misconduct . The management further stated that since the Competent Authority based his decision on the basis ofof judicial proceedings/ details report, it was not necessary on the part of the management to further charge sheet the workman and conduct separate inquiry, that the management has prayed for dismissing the claim of workman.
5. The workman also filed his rejoinder reiterating earlier versions and denied the contents of written statement of the management: озмони
g. It is also proved that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate did notconvict because the admonition is not for offence u/s 91 ofthe said Act . In Pawan the punishment for Kumar Appellant Versus State ofof Haryana and another respondents reported in ( 1996 ) 4 Supreme Court Cases 17 it waswas heldheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that conviction of the appellant u/ s 294 IPC, per se would not establish moral turpitude unless thethe tests laid down in the police decision are satisfied Need for making provision that punishment of fine up to a certain limit, say up to Rs. 2,000 a summary /ordinary conviction shall not be or so, on a treated as conviction at all forall for any purpose, especially entering Govt. Service. In this case , the similar Section i.e. Section 91 of Delhi Police Act which provides only conviction for fine up to Rs. 100 or in defanit of payment of such fine with imprisonment for a term not extended 10,8 days , but in this case, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not punish the workman and only admonished him for his act. Therefore , he required protection ofprovision of Sec. 25 -F ofI.D. Act 1947. The termination on the ground of admonition by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is illegal as it cannot be treated as1 as conviction at all for any purpose especially for Govt . job and is also against the provision of Sec. 25 -F of I.D. Act as the management did not serve notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice or compensation was given before his termination / retrenchment from his service. It is clearly proved that the services were terminated in clear violation of Sec: 25-F of I.D. Act. Therefore, the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman Shri Voer Bahadur cannot be justified . It was improper and illegal and deserves to be quashed.
6. The workman filed his own affidavit and on the other hand, the management also filed affidavit ofone Shri R.A. Singhal , Executive Engineer (Elect. ) , National Security GuardProject, Electrical Division - I , CPWD
9. The workman has admitted in his cross- examination that after termination he has been doing agriculture works with his father, therefore I am ofthe views. thathe is entitled to only 40% of his back wages . Therefore, Ihold that the action of the management in the instant case in terminating the services ofthe workman Shri Veer Bahadur w.e.f. 31-7-93 was absolutely illegal and unjustified and is liable to be quashed and the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with 40% of back wages w.e.f. 31-7-93 and all consequential benefits within a period of 30 days after the publication of the award.
Parties shall bear their own costs. The terms of reference is answered and award is given accordingly
B.N. PANDEY, Presiding Officer
Dated: 06-05-200407
7. I heard the arguments of learned representatives ofboth the parties and also perused the file. Admitted the workmanwas engaged on 26-8-87 and worked continuously upto 30-7-93 and his services were terminated without any notice , notice pay or compensation as required u/s 25 - F of the I.D. Act. It is also admitted that no inquiry was conducted on the charge of misconduct . As regards the standof the management that the workman was involved in eve -teasing offence as per D.O. 7A dated 23-7-93 u/s 91 / 97, Delhi Police Act that the Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate on 24-7-93 admonished the act ofthe workman...... It is also provedby the evidence of the management who also filed the order of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate which proves that the act of the workman was only
1633 G1/04-38 2956
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] नईदिल्ली, 14 मई, 2004
का. आ. 1320.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी पी डब्ल्यूडी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 30/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल. - 42012/41/92- आई. आर. (डी.यू. ) ]
कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 14th May, 2004
S.O. 1320. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 30/93 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-5-04.
[No. L-42012/41 /92- IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer : Shri B.N. Pandey
L.D. No. 30/93
Shri Jagminder Singh ,
S/ o Shri Surta Ram, H.No. 820 , Type-1 , HN - IV, Faridabad,
Workman.
(Haryana) -121COI
Versus
Singh& OthersVs. Engineer- in-chief, CPWD, he was paid difference ofarrears ofequal pay for equal work in the time scale ofRs . 196-232 with all allowances: that the mother of workmanwas suffering from Paralysis and due to this disease his mother lost her right eye sight and he had written the concerned Junior Engineer for taking permission to grant leave to look after his mother, but he refused to grant written permission on the ground that the muster roll workers are not eligible for any kind of leave, etc.; that after 1½ months the workman reported on 23-9-83 to the concerned Junior Engineer for resuming his duty but he refused to take him on muster rollthathis services were terminated w.e.f. 9-8-83 and in his some other workers were recruited: that the workmanwas also submitted photo copy of medical certificate of his mother's illness /treatment. Copy of the medical certificate is enclosed with the Statement ofClaim as Annexure-A: thathe had also taken up his case for reinstatement and the photo copies ofthe management's letters etc. were also enclosed as Annexure-B, C & D with the Statement of Claim: that after terminating the service of the workman, the management had also recruited new hands like Shri Mahender Singh, Visa Ram and Khem Singh on the post ofBeldar and the workman also alleged that all three persons are relatives to Shri D.R. Rawat, concerned Junior Engineer, that the workman further alleged that before terminating his services, no notice was served to him and termination of the service w.e.f. 9-8-83 is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified; that the workman had not abandoned his job, but he remained absent on compulsion due to illness of his mother and terminating the service of workmanwith retrospective date i.e. 9-8-83 is also wrongful, illegal and unjustified; that the management did not serve notice or notice pay or compensation etc. in accordance with the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act and on this ground also , the termination ofworkman is illegal and unjustified. Hence this reference . The workman has prayed for quashing the order of termination dated 9-8-83 with full back wages , seniority and all other consequential benefits.
M/s Executive Engineer , Faridabad Central Division No. 1 , CPWD,
Faridabad - 121001
...Management
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. 42012/ 41/ 92 -IR( DU) dated 22-3-93 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of CPWD, Faridabad, Central Division- I , Faridabad in ter- minating the service of Shri Jagminder Singh w.e.f. 9-8-83 is justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled to ? "
3. The claim of the workman has been contestedby the management . The appointment of workman on daily wagesbasis as Beldar on muster roll w.e.f. 8-8-83 has been , as claimedby the workman, admitted . It was further alleged that the case of the workman is not governed by the I.D. Act 1947 and as such the provision of said Act be not attracted. It was further alleged by the management that the workman abandoned his job of his own accord and free will and he is not entitled for any protection as he was employed on muster roll as casual/daily wager on daily wages basis having on lien or right on the post as the same was a temporary nature ; that he is not entitled to reinstatement and back wages etc. However, it has been admitted that due to absolute ban was imposed on recruitment of workers on muster roll w.e.f. 19-11-85, instruction issued by the Director General ( Works) CPWD so he cannot be employed on the said post .
4. The workman also filed his rejoinder reiterating his earlier versions and denied the contents of written statement .
2. The claim ofthe workman as alleged in his Statement ofClaim is that he was initially engaged as Beldar on muster roll on 27-5-81 and worked continuously upto 8-8-83 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 9-8-83 : that the workman was initially paid the minimum wages as fixed under the Minimum Wages Act 1948 from time to time by the appropriate Government and after the implementation of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17-1-86 in the matter of Surinder
5. The workman filed his own affidavit and on the other hand, the management also filed affidavit of one Shri J.K. Singhal, Executive Engineer, CPWD.
[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
2957
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 42/90 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल.-42012/168 /89 - डी. 2 ( बी) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 14th May, 2004
S.O. 1321.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 42/90) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of CPWD and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 14-5-04.
[No. L-42012/ 168/89-D-2 (B) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT: NEW DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: Shri B.N. Pandey ED. No. 42/90
1. Shri Lallan Prasad As representedby: CPWD Mazdoor Union E-26, (Old Qrtrs, ) Raja Bazar BabaKharak Singh Marg NewDelhi
Workman
Versuses nodie es
Management
2. M/s Executive Engineer, FaridabadCentral Division No. 1 , CPWD, Faridabad- 121001 AWARD igro sth te gaf
TheCentrtal Govt . in the Ministry ofLabotür vide its Order No. L-42012/168/89- D2 (B) dated 13-5-90 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action ofthe management Executive Engineer, Construction Division - VI , CPWD , I.P. Bhawan, NewDelhi terminating the services of Shri LallanPrasad, Fitter, w.e.f. 21-1-89 was justified ? If not, towhat relief the workman is entitled to ?" 6. I heard arguments of the learned Representatives ofboth the parties and also perused the file . Admittedlythe workmanwas engaged on 27-5-81 and worked continuously upto 8-8-83 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 9-8-83 without any notice etc. Thus , it is admitted and also proved beyond all doubts that the workman completed and worked for more than 240 days in service . Therefore , he required protection ofprovisions of Section 25 -F of I.D. Act 1947. Admittedly no notice, notice pay or compensation was given beforehistermination/ retrenchment from his services which was clear violation ofprovisions of Section 25 -F of I.D.Act . Asregards the stand ofthe management that the workman abandoned his job is not enough to accept the contention of the management as the management witness himelf accepted in his cross examination that no inquiry was conducted regarding the absence ofthe workmenfrom duty. In Madhubananda Jena & Orissa State Electricity Board andothers reported in 1990-I -LLJ-463 , it was held that without holding the inquiry or issuing show cause notice it cannot be treated as abandonment of emloyment and a striking & Mutte ofworkman from muster roll would amount to retrenchment. In another case i.e. in M.C.D. Appellant V. Praveen Kumar Jain and others , reported in 1999 LAB. I.C. 619 at page 621 , it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the discharge from service of a casual worker on account ofmisconduct without enquiry is invalid and further held that ifit was discharged simplicities ofa casual labour without compliance of Section 25 -F, so the retrenchment is illegal andthe workman is entitled to be reinstated. Therefore, it cannotbe accepted as alleged by the management that the workman abandoned his service, I find and hold that the termination/retrenchment of the workman in the instant case was absolutely illegal and is violation of the provision of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. Therefore , the retrenchment/ termination ofworkman cannot be legally and be sustained. As such, it is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The workman deserves to be reinstated in service in the same capacity in which he was working at the time of his termination with full back wages as admissible to him as per fule. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case that the workman has raised the dispute after elapse of more than nine years , so I feel it is not just and properto grant him full back wages . I feel that payment of 25% of backwages to him coupled with his reinstatement willmeet the ends ofjustice . The award shall to be implementedby the management within two months from the date of its publication in the official Gazette.
The reference is answered and award is given accordingly.
Dated:06-05-2004 B.N. PANDEY, PresidingOfficer
नई दिल्ली, 14 मई , 2004
का. आ. 1321.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी पी डब्ल्यूडी के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण,
2.The daim ofthe workman as alleged in his statement ofclaim is that he was initially engaged on 15-5-85 asFitter as skilled artisan, and worked continuously upto the date of terminationice 21-1-09 by the coder No. 5/4/89-CD.VI/6dated 20-1-89 issued by Shri RIK, Jain, Executive Engineer, ConstructionDivision -VI, CFWD , New Delhi; that it was also alleged that Sari Lallan Praand workman was electedas delegate oftheUnion. On this account; he was victimized and his services vere terminated, that it is further alleged that the appointing authority of skilled artisan i.e. Plumber (Fitter) in CPWD is Superintending Engineer and he appointed a two member committee to inquire the allegation ofmisbehavior with Shri N.K. Gupta, Junior Engineer(Civil) on 19-11-88; that during the proposed joint inquiry on 22-12-88 the Executive Engineer, Construction Division -VI 2958
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
did not provide co-worker to the workman to defend his case in the so - called inquiry and there has been violation of principle ofnatural justice on all counts as the workman has been terminated by the order dated 20-1-89 by the subordinate authority to the appointing authority with immediate effect i.e. 21-1-89 which is an unfair labour practice; that the workman had completed much more than 240 days of service as on 20-1-89 but since he has been terminated for alleged misconduct and in violation of principle of natural justice and despite repeated requests by the workman as well as CPWD Mazdoor Union, hehas notbeen reinstated ; that Shri Lallan Prasad has also qualified the trade test for his absorption from muster roll to work charged establishment and his name was appearing at S.No. 84 in the O.M. dated 2-5-89 of Superintending Engineer, Electrical Coordination Circle, CPWD, New Delhi . Hence this reference. The workman has prayed for quashing the order of the management dated 20-1-89 and reinstatement with full back wages , continuity in service andall consequential benefits w.e.f. 21-1-89 , the date from wages, continuity in service and all consequential benefits w.e.f. 21-1-89 , the date from which he has not been taken on job in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500.
6. I heard argument of the learned representative of both the parties and also perused the file and documents . From the evidence , it is proved as per the evidence of workman that no charge sheet was served to the workman and no proper enquiry was held. It is also proved that Shri R.K, Jain , Executive Engineer, Construction Division -VI was one of the enquiry officer and he himself acted as disciplinary authority by issuing the order of termination dated 20-1-89. It is also not disputed that so called enquiry was completed in one day i.e. on 22-12-89 and in cross examination the workman was not allowed. It is also admitted that no notice was given to him and also charge- sheet was not served to him and he denied the procedure of departmental enquiry that he was not givensi full opportunity. In the cross examination of Shri B.K.B.K. Bahal MW- 1 , he said that I cannot say if defence assistant was not provided to him because he was not in the enquiry committee. While, perusing the documents , it is clearly proved that no chargesheet was served to workman and proper enquiry was not conducted. The workman also denied the opportunity of crossaminating of the witnesses. As per the enquiry report submitted by the management , it is mentioned in the report dated 23-12-88 that Shri Lallan Prasad, Mahender Kumar, Lekh Raj Singh, Shiv Prasad, Bindeshwari Sharma and Pappu Singh had beaten to Shri N.K. Gupta , Junior Engineer . In the preliminary enquiry without holding regular enquiry as per law, only Shri Lallan Prasad workman was terminated Strom service is a discriminatory and against the principle ofnatural justice. The stand of the management that daily wages workers have no right for proper departmental enquiry, in accordance with the law. In M.C.D. Appellant Praveen Kumar Jain and others, reported in 1999 LAB . I.C. 619 at page 621 , it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the discharge from service of a casual worker on account of misconduct without holding proper enquiry is invalid and further held that if it was discharge simpliciter of a casual labour without compliance of Section 25 -F, so the retrenchment is illegal and unjustified and therefore the workman is entitled to be reinstated. It therefore , cannot be accepted that as the workman was a daily rated worker, he cannot be chargesheeted or it is not necessary tohold proper enquiry against the workman for misconduct as alleged by the management referred hereinabove.
3. The claim of the workman has been contested by the management. The appointment of workman as Fitter on daily wages w.e.f. 15-5-85, has been , as claimed by the workman, admitted . It is specifically stated in their written statement that on 19-11-88 the workman assaulted the Junior Engineer, who was performing his official duty and due to that he was issued a show cause notice for causing assault on an officer on official duty, so his name was struck off from muster roll w.e. f. 21-1-89 and this order was issued by the Executive Engineer , Construction Division- VI after getting necessary instruction froni the Superintending Engineer, CPWD , New Delhi who gave his decision after finding of the enquiry committee appointed by him for the said purpose. It is further alleged that the Executive Engineer, Construction Division - VI as a member of the Enquiry Committee appointed by the Superintending Engineer for holding an enquiry in the case of misbehaviour of Shri Lallan Prasad with Shri N.K. Gupta, Junior Engineer on 19-11-88 hadbeen calledby the Enquiry Officer and Shri Lallan Prasad appeared before him in the Enquiry Committee. Accordingly, he further alleged that the enquiry was properly held and after holding detailed enquiry by examining the witnesses in his presence which was read out to him and he even signed the same by participating in the said enquiry and he was found guilty and therefore , the action taken by the management is absolutely correct . They also alleged that the enquiry by the subordinate authority to the appointing authority and the same has been terminated in accordance with law; that he is not entitled to be reinstated and there is no question of making payment of any wages or continuity in service of the workman.
7. Therefore , I hold that the action of the management in the instant case in terminating the services of the workman Shri Lallan Prasad w.e.f. 21-1-89 was absolutely illegal and unjustified and can not be sustained. It deserves to be quashed , accordingly it is quashed. The workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with only 50% of back wages w.e.f. 21-1-89 and all other consequential benefits within a period of 30 days after the publication of the award.
4. The workman also filed his rejoinder reiterating his earlier versions and denying the contents of written statement of the management .
Parties shall bear their own costs. The terms of reference is answered and award is given accordingly.
Dated:06-05-2004
5. The workman filed his own affidavit and on the other hand the management also filed affidavit of one Shri B.K. Bahal , Assistant Engineer , CPWD.
B.N. PANDEY, PresidingOfficer 2959
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ पेष्ठ 15, 1926
[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2004
का. आ. 1322, औद्योगिक आधविननिनाद आधनियम, 1947 ( का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी पी. डब्ल्यू ही के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध मैं निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
preted more 240 days ofof serviceservice asa defined inin Section 25 (B) of the I.D. Act; that the workman reported on work 194727-12-84 and onwarda but behe was refuson omployment and his juniors were retained in service. He further alleged that the workman isorkman is entitled for full back wages, contmulty of service and all consequential benefits including regularization as work charged Mali beoanto allpersons junior to him who were retained in scryere retained in service and granted regularization. The termination of workman well as unjustified. The workman has prayed for reinstatement with full back wages , continuity of service and all consequential benefits. is [सं. एल.-42012/139/90 - आई, आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलरीन राय वर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 14th May, 2004
3. The claim of the workman has been contestedby the management. The appointment of worman onDaily Wagos basis at Millwe.f. 18-1-83 and the date oftermination Le 27-12-84, has been, as claimed by the workman, admitted; that the management also contended that the dispute raised bythe workman is belated on the part of the workman, so the claim may be dismissed out rightlys 0.2
fave The workman also filed his rejoinder reiterating his carlier versions andad denying the contents ofwritten statement ( est on RTL in S.O. 1322. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/91) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofCPWD and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-5-04.
[No L-42012/139/90-IR (DU) ]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Offior
Arteon pandorkman filled his own aldeilt and on the other hand the management also filed affidavit of one Shri Brij Raj Singh, Dy. Director ofHorticulture, North Division, CPWD .
GAN . ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI
PresidingOfficer: Shri B,N. Pandey
L.D. No. 15/91
Shri Sant Lal
S /o Shri Ram Asre, as represented
Workman
By CPWD Mazdoor Union, E-26 (Old Ostr.) Raja Bazar, Baba Karak Singh Marg, NewDelhi rogon
Versus
TheDirectorGeneral ofWorks , CPWD, Nirman Bhawan
Management
NewDelhi 1024
AWARD
The Centrtal Govt . in the Ministry of Labourvide its Order No. L-42012/139/90 - IR (DU) dated 15-2-91 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of Director General ofWorks, CPWD Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi interminating the services of Shri Sant Lal , Mali , w.e.f. 27-12-84 is justified ? If not, to what reliefthe workman concerned is entitled to ?"
heardarguments ofthe learned representatives ofboth the parties and also perused the file .Admittedly the workman was engaged on 18-1-83 and worked continuously upto 26-12-84 and his servicewere terminated w.e.f. 27-12-84 without any notice , notice pay, compensation as required u/s 25 -F of I.D. Act . Thus, it is admitted and alsoand also proved beyond all doubts that the workman completed and wesked for more than 240 days in service. Therefore, he required protection of provisions of Section 25 -F of I.D. Act 1947. Admittedly no notice , notice pay or compensation was given before his termination/retrenchiment from his services which was clear violation of provisions of Section 25 -F of I.D. Act . Therefore, the retrenchment/termination of workman cannot be legal and be sustained. As such, it is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed and the workmandeserves to be reinstated in service in the same capacity in which hewas working at the time of his termination, However, in the facts and circumstances of the case that the workman has raised the dispute after elapse ofmore than six years, In Ajaib Singh and Sirhind Co-op . Marketing-cum- Processing Service Ltd. & Another ( 1999-1 -LLJ- 1260 ) held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Article 137 of LimitationAct 1963 is not applicable in the proceedings ofIndustrial Dispute Act and the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed 60% back wages to the workman, so I feel it is not just andproper to grant him full back wages . I feel that payment of 25% of back wages to him coupled with his reinstatementwill meet ends ofjustice; the award shall to be implemented by the management within two months from thedate of its publication in the official Gazette.
The reference is answered and award is given
accordingly
Dated: 30-04-2004 B.N. PANDEY, PresidingOfficer 2. The claim of the workman as alleged in his statement of claim that he was initially engaged as Mali on 18-1-83 and worked continuously upto 26-12-84underDy. Director of Horticulture, South Division , CPWD and 2960
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
नईदिल्ली, 14 मई, 2004
का. आ. 1323.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ऑफिसर कमांडिंग, सीओ वाई, ए एस सी ( एस यूपी ) टाईप ' जी' के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 77/99 से 105/99 , 115/99 से 125/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-5-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल. 14012/44 से 65/98- आई. आर. (डी.यू. ) ] [सं. एल. 14012/72 से78/ 98- आई. आर. (डी.यू. ) ] [सं. एल. 14012/85 से 95/98- आई. आर. ( डी.यू. ) ]
कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14 th May, 2004
S.O. 1323. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 77/99 to 105 , 115/99 to 125/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Office Commanding, COY ASC (SUP) Type ' G' and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-5-04.
[No. L - 14012/44 to 65/98 - IR (DU) ]
[No. L- 14012 /72 to 78/ 98 - IR (DU) ]
[No. L- 14012/ 85 to 95/98 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer : Shri B.N. Pandey 1. Leading Case I. D. No. 77/99
Shri Shiv Kumar Yadav
S/ o Shri Ram Shakal Yadav C/ o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri ,
Delhi
Workman
Versus
The Officer Commanding , 226 , COY ASC ( SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt. , New Delhi -10
Management 2. I.D. No. 78/99
Shri Suresh Yadav
Workman
S/o Shri Sita Ram Yadav, C/ o Shri M. A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi.
Versus
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] TheOfficer Commanding, 226 , COY ASE (SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt. ,
NewDelhi-10
Management 3. L.D. No. 79/99
Shri Ram Vilash Yadav S/o Shri Sumer Yadav, C/o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385,Trilokpuri, Delhi.
Workman
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding, 226, COY ASC ( SUP) Type G, DelhiCantt., NewDelhi-10
...Management 4. I.D. No. 80/99
Shri Kailash Yadav S/o Shri Kalpu Yadav, C/o Shri M.A. Khan, 5/385, Trilokpuri,
Delhi.
Workman
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding, 226, CQY ASC (SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt. ,
NewDelhi .
...Management 5. I.D. No. 81/99
1
ShriUdai Raj -I S/o Kedar Nath , C/o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi.
Workman
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding, 226 , COY ASC ( SUP) Type G,
Delhi Cantt . ,
Management 6. I.D. No. 82/99
Shri Brahm Dev Yadav
S/o Shri Ram ChanderYadav,
C/o Shri M.A. Khan ,
5/385, Trilokpuri ,
Delhi-91 .
Workman
Versus
TheOfficerCommanding,
226, COY ASC ( SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt. ,
NewDelhi - 10
...Management [भाग II-खंड 3 ( i ) ]
7. I.D. No. 83/99
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/प्रपेष्ठ 15, 1926
TheOfficerCommanding, 226 COY, ASC (SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt., NewDelhi-10
Management 12. I.D. No. 88/99
Workman Shri Meva Lal S/o Shri Ram Charan, C/o Shri M.A. Khan, 5/385, Trilokpuri, Delhi-91.
Versus
TheOfficerCommanding, 226 COY, ASC (SUP) TypeG, Delhi Carítt. , NewDelhi.
...Management 8. I.D. No. 84/99
Workman ShriHar Govind Singh
Workman S/o Shri Laxman , C/o Shri M.A. Khan, 5/385, Trilokpuri, Delhi-110091 .
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding, 226 COY, ASC (SUP) TypeG, Delhi Cantt. , NewDelhi -10
Management 13. I.D. No. 89/99
Sh. Shri Kant S/o Shri KrishnaKumar, C/o Shri M.A. Khan, 5/385, Trilokpuri, Delhi-91.
Versus
TheOfficerCommanding, 226 COY, ASC (SUP) TypeG, Delhi Cantt., NewDelhi.
Management 9. I.D. No. 85/99
Shri Jai Govind,
Workman S/o Shri Ram Sajiwan Tiwari, C/o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri, Delhi-110091..
Shri RamDev S/o Shri Shiv Ram, C/o Shri M.A. Khan, 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi-110091.
...Workman
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding, 226 COY, ASC ( SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt. , NewDelhi-10
...Management 14. I.D. No. 90/99
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding, 226 COY, ASC (SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt. , NewDelhi-10.
...Management 10. I.D. No. 86/99
Workman Shri Kameshwar Yadav, S/o Shri Deepa Rai , C/o Shri M.A. Khan, 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi.
Versus
Workman Shri Om Parkash S/o Shri Ram Charan, C/o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi- 110091.
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding, 226 COY, ASC (SUP) Type G, DelhiCantt. , NewDelhi-10
Management 15. I.D. No. 91/99
TheOfficer Commanding, 226 COY, ASC ( SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt., NewDelhi-10
Management 11. I.D. No. 87/99
Workman Shri Sardar Yadav S/o Shri Hardev Yadav, C/ o Shri M.A. Khan, 5/385,Trilokpuri , Delhi-110091.
Versus
Workman Shri Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Ram Khilawan C/o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385,Trilokpuri , Delhi-110091.
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding, 226 COY, ASC (SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt. , NewDelhi-10
...Management 2962
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
16. I.D. No. 92/99
Shri Jai Ram
S/ o Shri Chohergh Prasad
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] TheOfficer Commanding ,
226 COY, ASC (SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt. ,
NewDelhi -10
Management 21. 1.D. No. 97/99
C/o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi -110091 .
Workman
Versus
The Officer Commanding,
226 COY, ASC ( SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi - 10
...Management 17. I.D. No. 93/99
Shri Ram Vachan
Shri Vijay Shankar
S/o Shri Ram Baran Tiwari ,
C/o Shri M.A. Khan
5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi - 110091
Workman
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding,
226 COY, ASC ( SUP) TypeG Delhi Cantt. ,
NewDelhi - 10
S/o Shri Murli , C/o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385 , Trilokpuri , Delhi - 110091 .
Workman
...Management 22. I.D. No. 98/99
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding, 226 COY, ASC ( SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt. ,
New Delhi -10
Management 18. I.D. No. 94/99
Shri Ram Laut
S/ o Shri Mukadum , C/ o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi - 110091 .
Workman Shri Hari Shankar
Workman
S/o Shri Bansi Lal , C/o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi-110091 .
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding, www 226 COY, ASC (SUP) Type G , Delhi Cantt. , NewDelhi - 10
Management 23. I.D. No. 99/99
Versus
The Officer Commanding,
226 COY, ASC ( SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt. ,
New Delhi -10
Management 19. 1.D. No. 95/99
Workman Shri Virender Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Shakul, C/ o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi- 110091.
Versus
Shri Sant Ram Saroj , S/ o Shri Ayadha Prasad, C/ o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi- 110091.
Workman
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding, 226 COY, ASC ( SUP) -Type G , Delhi Cantt. , New Delhi - 10
Management 24. I.D. No. 100/99
The Officer Commanding ,
226 COY, ASC ( SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt. ,
New Delhi - 10
...Management 20. I.D. No. 96/99.
Shri Harish Chander Yadav
Workman S/o Shri Babulal , C/ o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi - 110091.
Versus
Workman Shri Ram Avadh Yadav, S/ o Shri Nakul Yadav C/ o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi- 110091 .
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding, 226 COY, ASC ( SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt., NewDelhi -10
...Management [ भाग -खंड (11 ) 】
भारत का राजपत्र ।
2963 2004/ पेभा 18, 1996
25. I.D. No. 101/99
TheOfficer Commanding,
226 COY, ASC ( SUP) TypeG, Delhi Cantt. , NewDelhi -10
...Management 30. I.D. No. 115/99
Workman Shri Mohinder Prasad- II, 8/0 Shri Chander Dev Singh , C/o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Dothi-110091.
Versur
TheOfficer Commanding, 226 COY, ASC ( SUP) TypeG, Delhi Cantt., NewDelhi -10
...Management 26. I.D. No. 102/99
Workman Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav, C/ o Shri M.A. Khan, 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi-110091.
ShriRaj Kumar,
Workman
S/o Shri Sar Dev, C/ o Shri M. A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi - 110091 ,
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding, 226 COY, ASC (SUP) TypeG, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi -10
...Management 31. I.D. No. 116/99
Versus
The Officer Commanding, 226 COY, ASC ( SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt., NewDelhi -10
...Management 27. I.D. No. 103/99
Workman Shri Sangam Lal Yadav, S/o Shri Siloohan Yadav, C/ o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi- 110091.
Workman
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding, 226 COY, ASC (SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt. ,
NewDelhi-10
Shri Ganga Ram, S/o Shri Moti Ram, C/o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi-110091 .
Versus
Management 32. I.D. No. 117/9
TheOfficer Commanding, 226 COY, ASC ( SUP) TypeG, Delhi Cantt. , NowDelhi -10
...Management 28, I.D. No. 104/99
Workman Shri Sardar Yadav, S /o Shri Nanku Yadav, C/o Shri M. A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi - 110091 .
Versus
Workman
Shri Bechu Prasad, S/o ShriVijay Pal Persia, C/ o Shri M. A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi - 110091,
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding, 226 COY, ASC ( SUP) TypeG, Delhi Cantt., NewDelhi -10
Management 33. I.D. No. 118/99
TheOfficer Commanding, 226 COY, ASC (SUP) TypeG,. Delhi Cantt., Now Delhi 10
Management 29. I.D. No. 105/99
1
Workman Shri Ram Niwas Yadav, S/o Shri Hari Narain Yadav, C/o Shri M.A. Khan, 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi- 110091 .
Versus
1633 GI/04-39
Shri Deleshwar Ram, S/o Shri Agnee Ram, C/o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi-110091 ,
Workman
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding, 226 COY ASC (SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt., NewDelhi -10
Management ba THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 5, 2004/ FYAISTHA 15, 1926
2964
34. I.D. No. 119/99
Shri Chander Bali Yadav - II
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] :
Versus
The Officer Commanding,
226 COY, ASC ( SUP) Type G,
Delhi Cantt. ,
Management
New Delhi-10
Workman S/o Shri Nanku Yadav, C/o Shri M. A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi- 110091 .
39. I.D. No. 124/99
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding ,
226 COY, ASC ( SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt. ,
NewDelhi - 10
Management 35. I.D. No. 120/99
Shri M.C. Pandey,
S/o Shri B.D. Pandey,
Shri Shyam Narain Yadav,
SShri Murli Yadav,
CA Shri M.A. Khan,
5/385, Trilokpuri,
Workman
Delhil -10091.
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding ,
226 COY, ASC (SUP) Type G,
Delhi Cantt. ,
...Management NewDelhi - 10
Workman C/o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi - 110091 .
40. I.D. No. 125/99
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding ,
Shri Chandrika
226 COY, ASC ( SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt. ,
NewDelhi - 10
Management 36. I.D. No. 121/99
Shri Mahender Yadav- I ,
S/o Shri Nanku Yadav,
Workman C/ o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi - 110091 .
Versus
The Officer Commanding,
226 COY, ASC ( SUP) Type G , Delhi Cantt..
...Management New Delhi - 10
37. 1.D. No. 122/99
Workman Shri Gokul Yadav, S/o Shri Bachu Yadav, C/ o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385, Trilokpuri , Delhi -110091 .
Versus
TheOfficer Commanding,
226 COY, ASC ( SUP) Type G , Delhi Cantt . ,
Management New Delhi - 10
38. I.D. No. 123/99
Shri Shankar Dev Dubey,
S/o Shri Ram Shankar Dubey, C/ o Shri M.A. Khan , 5/385 , Trilokpuri ,
Workman Delhi - 110091
Workman
S/o Shri Veg Nath, C/o Shri M.A. Khan, 5/385,Trilokpuri , Delhi- 110091 .
Versus
Management TheOfficer Commanding, 226 COY, ASC (SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt . , NewDelhi -10
AWARD
Since all the 40 cases mentioned above are against the same management - respondents and are based on common footings , they were consolidated on the application of the workman which was un-opposed, heard together and are being disposed ofby this common award which shall govern all of them . I.D. No. 77/99 is treated as the leading case.
2. In I.D. No. 77/99 The Central Governement in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 14012 /50 / 98 - IR (DU) dated 9-3-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the actionoftheofficer Commanding, 226, COY ASC( SUP) Type-G; Delhi Cantt. , in terminating the services of Sh. Shiv Kr . Yadav, S/o Sh . Ram Sakal Yadav is legal & justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
3. In J.D. No. 78/99 The Central Governement in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 14012/50/98 -IR (DU) dated 9-3-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
2965 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
9. D. No. 84/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. 14012/64/98-IR (DU) dated 1/9-3-9 referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribthis Tribal for adjudication
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 226 COYASC( SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt in terminating the services of Shri Suresh Yadav is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
tOY
RI - BAPE 10 the
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 226 SUP) Type G, Dem Cantt., in terminating of Shri Shriram Sto Krishan Kumar is Thuot, to what relief the workman is industrileg
entio
4. In I.D. Noi 79/99 the Central Government in Ministry of Labour vide its Order No L- 14012/52/ 98 - (DU) dated 1-3-99 hab referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudipation i
22610 ,In . No. 85/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-14012/63/98-IR (DUS dal 19-3-99 has referred the following industrial ditoto this Tribunal for adjudication "Whether the action of theOffion Commanding, COYASC( SUP) TypbG, Delhi Cantti , in turininating the services of Shri Ram Vilas Yadav is legal justified ? If not, to what relief the workman entitled ?"
"Wheth the action ofthe Officer Commanding, 226 COYSC ( SUP) Type G, Dethi Canft. , interminating the services of Shri Jai Govind S /o Ram Shivan Tiwari islugeis legil &justified ? If not, to what reffiel the workman is entitled hevetomirote 5. In I.D. No. 80/99 the Guns Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. Lil4012 / 58 / 98 -- (DU) dated 1/9-3-99 has referred the following industritzabni dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication
2289611 il.D. No. 86/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 14012 / 61 /98 - IR walid pu) datelt 1/9999 has referred the following industrial dispute to lounal for adjudication "Whether the action ofthe Officer Commanding, COYASC( SUP) Type G, Delhi Cantt), in terminating the services of Shri Katas Yadav is legal & justifice If not, to what relief the workman is omitted ?"
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication: 6. In I.D. No. 81/99 the Gemur Government in the Ministry of Labour vido Its Order No.L-14012 / 53 / 98 - (DU) dated 9-3.99 has referred the following industrial
"Whether the action ofthe Officer Commanding, 226 the vices of Shri Kameshwar Yadav is legal &juned ? If not , to what relief the workman is COTASC( SUP ) Type-G , Delhi Cantt. , in terminating enti
. No. 87/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 14012/60 /98 - IR (DU) dated 19-3-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to Tribunal for adjudication "Whether the action ofthe Officer Commanding, 226 COYASC (SUP ) Type-C, Delhi Cantt. , in terminating the services of Shry Uday Raj- 1 S /o St. Kedar Nath is legal &justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled تو
"Whether the action ofthe Officer Commanding, 226 COY'ABULEP ) Type -G, Delhi Cantt. , in terminating the so of Shri Sardar Yadav S/o Shri Hardev zubni anyagal & justified ? If not, to what relief the 7. In I.D. No. 82/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 14012 / 56 / 98 - IR (DU) dated 1 /9-3-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication
woman's entitled
terminating.D. No. 88/99 the Central Government inthe Ramoci Mittry of Labour Vide its Order No. L- 14012/59/98-IR (DU) dated 1/9-3-99 has referred the following industrial apipate to this Tribunal for adjudication "Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 226 COYASC( SUP) Type -G, Delhi Cantt. , in the services of Shri Brahm Dev Yadav So Chander Yadav is legal & justified If not to what reliefthe workman is entitled
8. In I.D. No. 83/99 the Central Government in theft Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. 14012/ 57/ 98 -IN -201 (DU) dated 1 /9-3-99 has referred the following industria thispute to this Tribunal for adjudication
"Whether the action ofthe Officer Commanding, 226 COYASC( SUP) Type- G, Delhi Cantt. , in terminating the services of Shri Har Govind S/oSh. Laxman Singh is legal & justified ? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled
. 14. hiD No. 89/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 14012 /76/98 - IR. (DU) dated 19-3-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication "Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 220 COYASC( SUP) Type-G, Delhi Cantt . , in terminating the services of Shri Meva Lal 8/6 Sh. Ram Charan is legal & justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?" 2966
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
PART I-BBC: 3 (ii)
20, In I.D. No. 95/99 the Contral Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 14012/73/98 -IR (DU) dated 1/9-3-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 226 COY ASC (SUP ) Type- G, Delhi Cantt. , in terminating the services of Shri Ram Dey S/o Shiv Ram is legal &justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled?"
15. In I.D. No. 90/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 14012/75/98 - IR (DU) dated 1 /9-3-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of theOfficer Commanding, 226 COY ASC( SUP) Type-O, Delhi Cantt. , in terminating the services of Shri Virender Kr . Yadav B/o Sh. Shakkul is Jagal & justified ? Ifnot, towhat reliof the workman isentitled?"
21. In I.D. No. 06/99 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour vide its Order No. L - 14012/44/98- IR (DU) dated 9-3-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action ofthe Officer Commanding, 226 COY ASC ( SUP) Type-G , Delhi Cantt. , in terminating the services of Shri Om Prakash S/o Sh. Ram Chander is legal & justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
16. In I.D. No. 91/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 14012/74/98 -IR (DU) dated 1/9-3-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of the Officer Commanding, 226 CQY ABC ( SUP) Type -C, Delhi Cantt. , in terminating the services of Shri Harish ChanderYadav 8/0 Sh Babu Lal is legal & justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
22. JAID No. 97/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 14012/48/98 - IR (DU) dated 9-3-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 226 COY ASC( SUP) Type-G, Delhi Cantt. , in terminating the services of Shri Vinod Kumar, S/o Sh . Ramkhilawan islegal & justified ? If not, to what relieftheworkman isentitled ?"
17. In I.D. No. 92/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 14012 /77/98- (DU) dated 9-3-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 226 COV ASC( BUP) Typo -G, Delhi Cantt. , is legal and justified in terminating the services of Shri Vijay Shankar, 8/0 Sh. Ram Baran Tiwari ? If not , towhat relief the workman is entitled "
23. In 1.D. No. 98/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 14012/49/98-1R (DU) dated 1-3-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication!
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 226. COY ASC( SUP ) Type-G , Delhi Cantt. , in terminating the services ofShri Jai Ram S/o Sh. Chohorga Prasad is legal & justified ? If not, to what relief the workman isentitled ?"
18. In I.D. No. 93/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 14012/65/98 - IR (DU) dated 1 /9-3-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 226 COYASC( SUP) Type-C, Delhi Cantt., in terminating the services of Shri Hari Shanker , 8/6 Shri Bansi Lal Pal is Isgal & justified ? If not , te what relief the workman is entitled "
"Whether the action ofthe Officer Commanding, 226 COY ASC ( SUP) Type -G. Delhi Cantt . , in terminating the services of Shri Ram Vachan is legal &justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
24. In 1.D. No. 99/99 the Contral Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No: L= 14012/47/98 - IR (DU) dated 9-3-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
19. In 1.D. No. 94/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 14012/ 72/98 - IR (DU) dated 1/ 9-3-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 226 COY ASC(SUP) Type-G, Delhi Cantt., in terminating the services of Shri Sant Ram Saroj , s/ o Sh . Ayodhya Prasad is legal & justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 226 COY ASC ( SUP) Type- G, Delhi Cantt. , in terminating the services of Shri Ram Laut S/o Mukadum is legal &justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
25. In 1.D. No. 100/99 the Contral Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No : L- 14012/46/98-俱 (DU) dated 1-3-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
2967 [ भाग 11- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004 /ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
31. In 1.D. No. 115/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L = 14012/94/98- IR (DU) dated 19-4-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication
"Whether the action of the management of the Officer Commanding, 226 , COY ABC ( BUP ) Type -0, Delhi Canti , in terminating the services of Shri Ram Adhar Yadav 8/0 Sh. Nanku Yadav is legal & justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled "
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 226, COY ASC(BUP) Type - G , Delhi Cantt. , in terminating the services of Shri Raj Kumar 8/0 Sh. Sar Dov is legal & justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
26. In 1.D. No. 101/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No : L = 14012/45/90 - IR (DU) dated 9-3-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
32. In 1.D. No. 116/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L= 14012/95/98 - IR (DU) dated 19-4-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication
"Whether the action of the management of the Officer Commanding, 226, COY ASC ( SUP) Type - 0, Delhi Cantt. , in terminating Shri Mohinder Prasad- 11 We Sh: Chander Dev Singh is legal & justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
27; In 1.D. No : 102/99 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour vide its Order No. L - 14012 /94/98 - IR DU) dated 1-3-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding , 220 COY ASC (SUP) Type -G, Delhi Cantt. , in terming the services of Shri Sangam Lal Yadav Sh. Shilochan Yadav is legal & justified ? If what relief the workman is entitled ?"
33. In 1.D. No. 117/99 the Contral rnment in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 14012 /93 /98-1 (DU) dated 19-4-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 226 , COVABC(BUP) Type -C , Delhi Cantt . , in terminating the services of Shri Ashok Kr . Yadav Eye Sh : Dwarka Yadav is legal & justified ? If not , to what relic workman is entitled ? "
10. In ID: No. 103/99 the Central Governme Ministry of Labour vide its Order No; L - 14012/ (DU) dated 9-3.99 has referred the following ind dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 226, COY ASC( BUP) Type-G, Delhi Cantt. , in terminating the services of Shri Bechu Prasad Ve Sh .Vijay Pal is legal & justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled "
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 116 , COYARC( BUP) Type -C, Delhi Cantt. , in terminating the services of Shri Ganga Ram , 8/e Sh . Moti Ram is local & tified ? If not, to what relief the workman is
34; In 1.D. No: 118/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 14012/91 /98 - IR (DU) dated 19-4-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication
19: InLD: No. 104/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L= 14012/78/98 - IR (DU) dated 1/9-3.09 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 226, COY ABC(BUP) Type-C, Delhi Cantt , in terminating the services of Shri Daleshwar Ram 8/0 Sh. Agnu Ram is legal & justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
39. In 1.D. No: 119/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 14012/90/98- IR (DU) dated 104-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adin
Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 226, COYABC( SUP) Type-C, Delhi Cantt., in terminating the cervices of Shri Sardar Yadav B/o Sh . Naniku Vadav in legal & justified ? If not, te what relief the workman is entitled ?"
30. In I.D. No: 105/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No : L - 14012/03 /98 - IR (DU) dated 9: 3.99 has referred following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication
"Whether the action ofthe Commanding, o COYABC( BUP) Type-C Cantt . , in terminating the services of Shri Chandra Bali Yadav B/e Sh. Nanky is legal & justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 220, COV ABC(BUP) Type-G , Delhi Cantt . , in terminating the services of Shri Ram Niwas Yadav is legal & justin ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
36. In 1.D. No. 120/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 14012/09/98-1垠 (DU) dated 19-4-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
2968
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 226, COY ASC( SUP) Type -G, Delhi Cantt. , in terminating the services ofShri M.C. Pandey S /o Sh. D.B. Pandey islegal & justified ? If not, to what relief the workman isentitled ?"
37. In I.D. No. 121/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 14012 / 88 /98 -IR (DU) dated 19-4-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action ofthe Officer Commanding , 226 COY ASC(SUP) Type -G, Delhi Cantt. , in terminating the services of Shri Mahender Yadav - I S /o Sh. Nanku Yadav is legal & justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
38. In I.D. No. 122/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 14012 /87 /98 - IR (DU) dated 19-4-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action ofthe Officer Commanding, 226 COY ASC( SUP) Type -G, Delhi Cantt. , in terminating the services of Shri Gokul Yadav S/ o Sh . Bechu Yadav is legal & justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled?"
39. In 1.D. Nc . 123/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 14012 /86/98 - IR (DU) dated 19-4-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding , 226 COY ASC( SUP) Type-G, Delhi Cantt . , in terminating the services of Shri Shakal Dev Dubey, S/o Sh . Ram Shankar Dubey is legal & justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
40. In 1.D. No. 124/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 14012/85/98- IR(DU) dated 19-4-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
C
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 226 COY ASC ( SUP) Type-G, Delhi Cantt. , in terminating the services of Shri Shyam Narain Yadav S / o Sh. Murli Yadav is legal & justified ? Ifnot , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
41. In I.D. No. 125/99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 14012 /92/98- IR (DU) dated 19-4-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the Officer Commanding, 226 COY ASC( SUP) Type-G, Delhi Cantt . , in terminating the services of Shri Chandrika S/ o Sh. Vag Nath is legal& justified ? If not , to what reliefthe workman is entitled ?"
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 42. In all the above- mentioned 40 cases the workmen have filed their separate claim statements almost on the same and similar grounds challenging the order of Management terminating their services on 31-10-97 and claiming their reinstatement and regularisation of their services with all benefits and full back wages for the month ofSeptember and October 1997. They have alleged that they were employed as casual labout by the management . The officer commanding 226 , COY ASC (Sup ) Type-G, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi . That from the very beginning they worked from 8 AM to 5 PM regularly in each month but the management did not pay their actual wages. That on demand of the management the workmen also submitted their identity card issued by the department of Employment Exchange in the Office ofthe management ; that for about 3 months before the date of their termination they had been demanding for regularisation of their services , therefore , the management removed/terminated their services on 31-10-97 orally without giving any notice of compensation to them whereas the management regularised services of some other casual labourers who were juniors to them. That the management also did not pay the wages of September and October, 1997 to the workman at the time of termination of their services. However, the workmen have given separate month, year of their engagement in service separately. The workmen named above have also elleged that they were not paid their actual wages and that they had been working as directed for work in godown or stores as Chowkidar for about many years respectively, from 8 AM to 5 PM.
43. The Management -respondent filed its written statement almost on the common grounds in all the cases separately. It was inter alia alleged that the claim of the workman is false , frivolous and misconceived and not maintainable , and liable to be dismissed. That the workmen have not been in employment of the management and there existed no relationship of casual labour service between theparties . Therefore , their claim is not within the purview of I.D. Act, that the present dispute is covered by the C.A.T. Principal Bench, New Delhi vide judgement dated 16-2-90 in the case of Raj Kamal and others Vs. U.O.I .; that theGuidelines in the matter or recruitment of the person on dailywages basis in Central Government office were issued, vide this department OM No. 49014/2/ 86- Estt . ( C) dated 7-6-1988 . It was further reviewed in the light of Judgement of the CAT, Principal Bench , New Delhi delivered on 10-2-90 in the writ petition filed by Shri Raj Kamal and others Vs. Union of India . That the temporary status would beconferredon all casual labourers , who are in employment on the date of issue of this O.M. and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year , which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days(206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week).
That the letter issued by the Director General of Supplies and Transport on dated 14th March , 1981 vide 2969 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
their letter No. A/99862/O/ST12 has stated that only a casual employee who has put in at least 240 days (206 days in case of 5 days week) of casual service ( including broken period service) during each of the two years of service referred to above will be entitled to the benefit. That the petitioners have not completed 240 days of service in . calendar year as per rules and regulation of the Central Government. Hence their claim is liable to be dismissed.
44. Rejoinderwas also filed by the workmen intheir cases reiterating their averments made in their claim statement and denying the allegations made in the written statement. Both the parties adduced documentary evidence and also filed affidavit of Shiv Kumar Yadav and others for workmen and affidavit of Col. Konickal Satheesh Kumar onbehalf of the management. They were also cross- examined by their respective opposite parties.
45. 1have heard learned counsel for the parties and perusedthefile.
46. As regards the preliminary objections of the management that the present dispute is not an Industrial dispute, hence it is not maintainable in this Court and that it is within the competence of Central Administrative Tribual Principal Bench, New Delhi , I find that the Management has admitted that the workmen were engaged by the Management as casual labourers on daily wages basis and that the Government of India, Ministry ofHome Affairs, Department of Personnel and A/R had also issued aletter that ifcasual labour has put in 240 days of service ineach of the preceding two years, he may be considered eligible for regularisation. It is also worth to be mentioned that according to the Management the workmen claimants are not regular Central Government employees and they were engaged against certain casual works on daily wages basis . The Management/Respondents isDelhi Cantonment . Therefore, in relation to any industrial dispute concerned to it the Central Government is the appropriate Government which has referred the present dispute to this Court. Hence on the basis ofthe facts and evidence on the record I find that the present dispute between the casual labours and themanagement is definitely an industrial dispute within thejurisdiction ofthis Tribunal . The Central Government has also referred the present dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal. I find that, the objections raised by and on behalf of the Management respondent is untenable, Accordingly it is rejected.
bytheManagement 6 to 8 years back and they had been working regularly since then till their removal from service on31-10-97 and thus they claim that they had completed for more than 240 days service in each year of their service preceding their termination . The fact that the workmen were engagedby the management as casual labour is not denied bythemanagement but the management claims that none ofthe workmen had completed 240 days of service in any calendar year as per Rules , before their termination . The burden to prove that the workmen or any workmen from amongst them had completed 240 days regular service as per rules in the preceding year of their or his termination lies on the workman . In order to prove this fact they has adducted no documentary evidence or verbal evidence their own affidavit and copy of Identity Card issued by the Directorate of Employment the Employment Exchange Delhi . These Identity Cards were issued by the Employment Officer on different dates . There is nothing in it to connect it with the management . Moreover, it cannot be read in evidence to prove the factum of service or period ofservice ofthe workmen under any employment of the management. None of the workman has filed or adduced any other documentary evidence to show that he had been working regularly from the date of his engagement with the management till the date of his removal from service. In oral evidence workman Shiv Kumar Yadav admitted in his cross -examination that no appointment letter was given to himbut he was working daily in each year. His wages were paid to him in cash and that he used to sign daily in the attendance register but he has no document in connection withhis appointment with the management . On the other hand the MW1 Col. Konical Satheesh Kumar has stated in his cross-examination that the workmen were doing work of loading and unloading ofbagged supplies coal, L.P.G. Cylenders etc. The work which was being taken from these workmen was not of regular nature for the whole years. The Labourers were employed only when railway racks and wagons were coming to the depot for loading and unloading. From the evidence of the management it is clear that the work for which the workmen were engaged was occasional and not regular. The workmen were engaged whenever the work was required . Therefore, the sole statements of the workman that all the workmen were working daily and regularly cannot be accepted. Besides , the management has also filed in documentary evidence details ofnumber ofworking days ofeach workman which is on the record . It shows that none of the workmen completed two hundred & Forty days in any year, According to them they were removed from service on 31-10-87 . The details of working days given in the list by themanagement in each case of the workman is as under:
47. Now coming to the merits of the case I find that theworkmen-claim that they were employed as casual labour 2970
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 19 , 1926
PART II- SBC: 3 (11) ]
Years
I.D. No. Name of Workman 83-84 84-85 05:06 86-87 87-88
90-91 91-92 92-90 90-94
88-8989-90
94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 ==
=
77/99 Sh . Shiv Kumar Yadav
175 140 72 36 127 60 78/99 Sh. Suresh Kumar
116 89
149 04 16
79/99 Sh : Ram Vilas Yadav
54 10
17 89
80/99 Sh. Kalas Yadav
122 129 158 148
62 177 148 60 57 58 28 Sh. Uday Raj - 1
81/99
198 88 81 168 82/99 Sh. Brahm Dev Yadav
148 88 142 111 76 51 59 06 89/99 Sh. Meva Lal
147 198 175 116 225 215 167 168 156 2
161
84/99 Sh. Shri Kant
102 124 56 48 156 08 85/99 Sh . Jai Govind
116 162 172
99 282 140
20
80 84 85 86/99 Sh . Kameshwar Yadav
58 08 54 87/99 Sh. Sardar Yadav
180 187 186 121
79 197 140
25 88/99 Sh. Har Gebind
66 8040
219 192 175 04 1 층 1
194
89/99 Sh. Ram Dev
147 191 64 82 18 90/99 Sh . Om Parkash
72 86 217 218 88 126 162 41 91/99 Sh . Vinod Kumar
39 48 28 18 92/99 Sh . Jai Ram
120 61 48 3 Sh. Flam Vachan
=
18 82
106 92
94/99 Sh . Ram Laut
24
08 107
95/99 Sh . Virender Kumar Yadav
119 41 อิอิ 60
150
96/99 Sh . Harish Chander
14
48 40 97 13 97/99 Sh. Vijay Shankar
72 88
17
58 178 144 39 88
98/99 Sh . Hari Shankar
17
78 20 97
197 174 78 184 149
Sh . Sant Ram Saroj
20 175 189 192 171 150 141 188 184 117 210 181 78 78 181 Sh: Pam Adhar Yadav
100/99
142 146 142 188 201 162 195 76 219 154 00 70 77 22 101/99 Sh . Mehinder Pl . II
38 50 03
03 112
102/99 Sh . Ashok Kumar
79 186 34
91 169 106 127 180 181
103/99 Sh . Ganga Ram
05 144 70 10 28 12 104/99 Sh . Sardar Yadav
108 174 180 193 101 92 134 06 27 Sh . Pam Niwas Yadav
105/99
66 181 198 174 81 221 166 78 50 60 13 Sh. Raj Kumar
115/99
11 01
118 187 77 119 115 44 80
159
116/99 Sh. Sangam Lal Yadav
64 185 187 42 22 48 8 117/99 Sh. Bechu Prasad
140
26 16
68 36
118/99 Sh . Daleshwar Ram
110
70 80 148 33
79 181 189
108 198 108
119/99 Sh. Chander Bali Yadav
14
100 162 78 看 87
93 142
- 120/99 Sh: M.O: Pandey
95 06 2층
92 108
121/99 Sh . Mahender Yadav-
11 09 81 47 61 90
149
122/99 Sh . Gokul Yadav
95 119 150
66 211 134 き 巻き 01 07
167 118 148 12층
102
Sh . Shakal Dev Dubey
128/99
100
124/99 Sh . Shyam Narain Yadav
32 25 42 00 125/99 Sh . Chandrika
148 128 199 204 60 44 79 27 [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
2971
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
48. From the above details given by the management it is clear that none of the workmen worked for 240 days in the preceding years of his removal from service . The workman could adduce no evidence to rebut this documentary evidence on the record. Thus, I find that the workman utterly failed to discharge their burden andprove that he was in continuous service for not less than one year under the employer as defined under section 25F of the I.D. Act. They have also failed to proveove that during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which conclusion is to be made had actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days . Therefore , they were not entitled to get benefits of protection of section 25 -F of the I.D. Act .
49. In view of the above discussions I find no force in the claim of any one of the workinen. Hence , under the circumstances termination of their service by the management cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. Therefore , I find that they are not entitled to get any relief. Their claim is liable to be dismissed. In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs . Award is givenaccordingly. Acopy ofthis award shall be placed on the file of each connected case original being placed on the file ofleading case No.77/99 .
Dated: 7-5-04.
B.N. PANDEY, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 19 मई, 2004
का. आ. 1324.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम , न्यायालय नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 77/93 एवं 31/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-5-2004. कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल. 12012/124/93- आई. आर. ( बी- II ) , सं. एल. 12012/304/94- आई. आर. ( बी- II ) ]
सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 19th May, 2004
S.O. 1324.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 77/93 and 31/95 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation 1633 G1/04-40
to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on6-5-2004.
[No. L- 12012/ 124/93 - IR (B - II) , No. L- 12012/304/94- IR (B - II))
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI B.N. PANDEY 1. Leading Case I.D. No. 77/93
Shri Ashwani Kumar Aggarwal ,
Flat No. 18, Shubham Apartments ,.
Plot37 , Patparganj ,
Delhi-110091.
Through General Secretary,
Punjab National Bank Employees Union,
W-8, Green Park, New Delhi - 110016
-Applicant/Workman
Versus
The General Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Personnel Division,
HeadOffice,
7,Bhikaji CamaPlace,
New Delhi - 110066. -Management/Respondent
And
2. LD . No. 31/95
Shri Rakesh Kalra,
r/o Sec . II, Pocket E- 2 ,
Group-6, Flat 50,
Rohini, Delhi -85
Through General Secretary,
P.N.B. Sharamik Union ,
1/79, Sunder Vihar,
NewDelhi -41.
--Applicant/Workman
Versus
TheGeneral Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Personnel Division,
HeadOffice,
7, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066. -Management/Respondent 2972
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004 /JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ] AWARD
1. Both the above mentioned cases are against the same management, hence they were taken , heard together and are being disposed of by this common award which shall govern both of them. I.D. No. 77/93 is treated as the leading casc.
unjust, illegal and improper which caused a great prejudice to the workman and adversely affected his career in service. The workman prayed that he be declared as having been promoted to JMG scale I alongwith his batchmates who qualified the written test held in June , 1992 with all consequential benefits of arrears of pay and seniority etc. alongwith costs .
2. In I.D. NO . 77/93 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 12012/ 124/93 - I.R. B- IIdt . 4-10-93 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-
"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank, in denying promotion to Shri A.K. Aggarwal , visually handicapped, is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
3. In I.D. NO . 31/95 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 12012/304/94 -I.R. B-Il dated 17-2-1995 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-
"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank, New Delhi in not allowing Shri Rakesh Kalra, Clerk to appear in the interview for promotion to the post of Officer in Grade - I ( JMG - I) , although he was permitted to appear in the written test (which he has qualified) , is justified ? If not, what relief is the said workman entitled to ?"
5. In the I.D. No. 31/95 the workman Rakesh Kalra filedhis claim statement alleging that he joined the bank service on 13-2-86 as a clerk . He has a very good academic career and M. Sc . in Chemistry with 69.2 % of marks and also 6 months Diploma in Computers; that while on job he was awarded several letters of appreciation for maximum use ofHindi in official work, for excellent performance in training. He also won National Award of best employee from the President of India on 15-3-92 ; That he is a deaf person even then he worked very efficiently with no complaint on any seat . That the workman after acquiring the requisite service of more than 4 years and priority marks appeared in the written test for promotion to the postof JMGE Scale I on 28-6-92 and subsequently qualified but he was not called for interview. He sent a number of representations to ascertain the reasons for denying him to appear in the interview lastly he was informed that he was not medically found fit for promotion; that the workman was not asked for to appear before any medical officer and the employer did not get the requisite medical certificate from medical officer and unilateral decided that the workman was not found eligible for promotion ; that the workman was capable of doing any nature of supervisoryjob despite his deafness . That there have been instances of physically handicapped person working as Officer in the various Nationalised bank, that the workman tried his best to settle the matter but of no avail . Hence he has prayed for issuing a direction to the Management to . promote the workman as Officer with retrospective effects .
6. Inboth the above mentioned cases the management filed its separate written statements almost on the same grounds . It has been inter alia alleged in the written statement that Shri A.K. Aggarwal and Shri Rakesh Kalra were not found medically fit by the Medical Officer ofthe Bank as Shri Aggarwal was totally visually handicapped and Sh. Kalra was deaf. Hence in the opinion of theMedical Officer theywere not foundable to perform the supervisory duties of an officer in JMG scale Ist which involves duties to supervise the work of his subordinates . Therefore , in terms of clause 3 - C of the Conciliation Settlement dated 17-7-90 they were considered not eligible for promotion . That in view of clause 3 - C of the Settlement dated 17-7-90 " an employee who is certified by the Medical Officer of theBank or a Medical Officer not below the rank of Civil Surgeon to be permanently disabled physically or mentally for supervisory duties and responsibilities shall not be eligible for promotion" . That in view of representations 4. In his claim statement in I.D. No. 77/93 the workman Shri A.K. Aggarwal has inter alia alleged that he joined the bank service in the clerical cadre w.c.f. 9-10-87 under the visually handicapped category after passing the requisite skill test. On the time ofjoining service his qualification was M.A. in business economics, from Delhi University in 1986 with 58 marks in aggregate . That he has been performing his duties to the cutire satisfaction of his seniors. He was most efficient employee in his category of visually handicapped employees . He was also awarded President Award in 1991. That in June , 1992 the bank conducted a written test for promotion from clerical cadre to officer cadre in which he also appeared in the written test alongwith other general candidates and he was declared successful in the written test . However, he was denied the opportunity of appearing in the interview process on the plea that the competent authority has not found him eligible for promotion to the officer cadre and vide letter dated 1-10-92 of the bank he was declined to appear in interview for promotion. That the policy and procedure forpromotion from clcrical cadre to officer cadre is contained in settlement dated 17-7-90 arrived at between the management of the bank and representatives of All India P.N. B. Employces Federation. That the appeal ofthe workman also failed. That the act of the management declining the workman to appear in the interview was 2973
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
[भाग II-खंड 3 ( 1 ) ]
medical examination of the two workmen Shri A. K. Aggarwal and Shri Rakesh Kalra . Therefore it cannot be termed as a medical certificate as required. It is also to be noted that there is nothing on the record to show that Dr. K.D. Bhaila was not below the rank ofCivil Surgeon. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said letter/certificate given by Dr. Bhalla was issued by a competent Medical Officer after personal medical examination of the workman. Workman Shri Rakesh Kalra has also filed his affidavit made by theworkman they were allowed to appear in the writtentest held on 28-6-92 on provisional basis subject tothedecision regarding their eligibilitybythe Competent Authority. That ultimately before interview both ofthem were found medically unfit for promotion by the competent authority. Therefore , they were declined to appear in the interview; That there was no illegality in the action ofthe Management . Hence there is no force in the claim ofthe bothworkmen and, therefore , it deserves to be dismissed.
7. A rejoinder was also filed against the written statement of the management by both the workmen in their cases denying the contents of the written statement, reiterating their averments.
6-97 deposing that Shri Arun Kumar presently B.O. Khanpur , New Delhi was allowed to appear Miterview ofpromotion process of clericalto officer cadre in 1992-93 though he is similarly placed as the deponent in as much as both are handicapped and that Shri S. Kulbhushan of Bank ofBaroda, Madras and Shri S.L. Rabhav of Indian Bank, Madras have been working asJMG Scale Ist Officer and MMG Scale IIOfficer, Both of being handicapped.
8.Boththe parties filed their documentary evidence and also affidavits . The witness who filed affidavits on behalf of the management and the workman were also cross-examined.
9. Ihave heard learned counsel/representatives of both the sides and perused the files .
and both of 11. Admittedlyboth the werkmen were employed in handicapped category in the bank since the very beginning of their service. Both of them are highly educated. They also worked for several years in clasical grade. Theywere also rewarded several times . There was no complaint against anyone of them at any point oftime. Theywere also allowed to appear in the exam and themwere declared successful in the written examination.
10. It is undisputed that both the workmen Shri A.Κ. Aggarwal is completely blind and ShShri Rakesh Kalra is completelydeaf. The alleged memorandum ofSettlement dated 17-7-90 although its validity and applicability against both theworkmen has been challenged and it was argued that it has got no binding effect on them because it was one sided and not by all the unions of the employees . It provides in its clause 3 (C) that an employee who is certified bytheMedicalOfficer ofthe Bank or a medical officer not belowthe rank ofCivil Surgeon to be permanently disabled physically or mentally for supervisory duties and responsibilities, shall not be eligible for promotion. The Management has also filed a letter dated 29-9-92 of Dr. K.D. Bhalla written to the Asstt. General Manager (P) HeadOffice, PNB, New Delhi regarding eligibility of physically handicapped employees for promotion from clerical cadre to officer cadre: It reads as under:-
"This is in reference to your letter on above subject Shri Rakesh Kalra is suffering from complete deafness bothsides, While Shri A.K. Aggarwal is suffering from complete blindness as per the job profile for officers in the bank (copy supplied by your dept. ) I feel that the two candidates cannot perform the duties required ofthem.
Thanks
Sd/- K.D. Bhalla"
Themefore, there seems to be no reason as to why they could not perform the supervisory work in the bank No ressonhas been assigned by the Management as to why theycouldnot perform supervisory work although they have beenperforming their clerical work very efficiently since the veryjoining oftheir service. Theywere alsonot got medically examined by the management by any competent medical officer not below the rank of Civil Surgeon. Hence there seems to be no justification in preventing them from appearing in the interview for promotion. It has also come in the evidence that storilar medical handicappedpersons have been perfornsing duties ofsupervisory work in officer cadres in other banks . It has also beenadmitted during the course of arguments that now the said clause of not giving promotionto handicapped in officers grade has been repealed and now theyarebeing promoted as the earlier provisionwas found improper unjustified and against the intention and the provision of the Indian Constitution. It has also been admitted during the course of argument that Shri Rakesh Kalra has been subsoquently promoted tothe officer cadre and is performing his duties efficiently. In the case of Mithilesh Kumari and another Vs. Prem Behari Khare reported in AIR 1989 SC 1287 it was held by the Hon'ble ApexCourtthat:
"the laws made justly and for the benefit of individuals and the community as awhole may relate to a time antecedent to their commencement . The It is worth to be mentioned that the said letter obtainedby the management from Dr. K. D. Bhalla copyof whichhas been filed by the management shows that the doctor had written the said letter without any personal
1633 G1/04-41 2974
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]
New Delhi , the 19thMay, 2004 presumption against retrospectivity may in such cases be rebutted by necessary implications from the language employed in the statute. It cannot be said to be an invariable rule that a statute could not be retrospective unless so expressed in the very terms of the section which had to be construed. The question is whether on a proper construction the legislature may be said to have so expressed its intention. "
S.O. 1325. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 110/99) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-5-2004.
[No. L- 12012/130/99-IR(B- II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
12. Rights of the handicapped employees should not be restricted by way of any settlement which was against the provisions of articles 14 and 16 ( 1 ) of the Constitution of India. Right of equality prohibits the State from making such discrimination among citizens on any such ground.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT " SHRAM SADAN"
III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560022 .
Dated: 22ndApril, 2004
PRESENT
Shri A. R. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDING OFFICER
C.R. NO. 110/99
1PARTY
II PARTY
Shri Shantappa,
S/ o Kallappa Chincholikar,
R/ o Wad Chincholi,
Tq.Aland,
The Zonal Manager, SyndicateBank, Zonal Office, Gandhinagar, BANGALORE-560009
DistrictGulbarga,
13. In view of the above discussions I find that both the workmen were wrongly prevented by the management from appearing in the interview for promotion to officer grade . Therefore, the action of the management cannot bejustified. Accordingly, I hold that the action of theManagement of P.N.B. in denying promotion to Shri A.K. Aggarwal visually handicapped was unjust and illegal and improper. Similarly the action of the management P.N.B. , New Delhi in not allowing Shri Rakesh Kalra to appear in the interview for promotion to the post ofOfficer in grade I JMG Ist although he was permitted to appear in the written test which he had qualified was unjustified. Therefore the action of the Management of P.N.B. against both the workmen deserves to be quashed and both the workmen are entitled to be considered for promotion on the basis of that examination for promotion, with all other consequential benefits with retrospective date . In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs . Award is given accordingly.Acopy of this award be placed on the connected case file I.D. No. 31/95 original being placed in the leading case No. 1.D. 77/93 .
KARNATAKA
Dated: 7-5-2004
B.N. PANDEY, Presiding Officer
AWARD
नई दिल्ली, 19 मई, 2004
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredby clause (d) of sub - section 2A ofthe Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this disputevide order. No. L- 12012/ 130/ 99/IR (B- II) dated 29th September 1999 for adjudication on the following schedule :-
SCHEDULE
का. आ. 1325.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , बैंगलूर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 110/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं . एल. - 12012/130/99- आई. आर. ( बी.- II ) ]
सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव.
"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank Zonal Office , Bangalore is justified in imposing the punishment of Dismissal from service on Shri Shantappa ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
T [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
2975
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15, 1926
2. First Party appeared and filed Claim Statement. The case of the first party as made out in his Claim Statement is as under:-
same.Hewas dismissed from the service ofthe 2nd Party Bank for the proven misconduct of the first party after conducting a fairDomestic Enquiry.
3. The case ofthe 1st party is that he was appointed asPart Time Sweeper in the office of the 2nd Party Bank as perEmployeeNo. 472496 during the year 1985. He worked honestly and sincerely without making any breach offraud against the management or anybody else and he has not committed anyfraud nor cheated any amount as complaint filedby the Management . The management is totallywrong, false andbaseless and the same is denied by the 1st party workman.
8. It is the further case of the 2nd Party that the Bank lodged a complaint before the police and a case w filed against him in the Principal IMFC , Oufbarga is false. Acomplaint was given by the customer of the Bank to the policeandpolice made investigation and a case was filed on that complaint ofthe customer. The Criminal casewas registeredand conducted by an external agency and hot by the management . There is no legal bar to conduct a Domestic Enquiry during the pendency of criminal cand as both stand on different footing. As the management did not file the criminal case, there is no question of withdrawing the criminal case by the 2nd Party.
4. It is the further case of the 1st Party that the Managementhad lodged a complaint before StationBazar Police Station, Gulbarga in Crime No. 233 of 1991 under Sec.468 , 471 , 420 IPC and not mentioned the name ofthe accused as per complaint filed by one Manjula, Teacher. Thereafter the management had submitted the relevant documents before concerned police station. Then the concernedpolice station filed a criminal case against the accused in CC No. 506 of 1994 before the Principal JMFC, Gulbarga and the concerned judicial magistrate first class hasrecorded the statement of the prosecution and after arguments come to the conclusion that the accused had not committed any guilty. Hence the accused was acquitted on 12-8-1996 by the said court (copy of the judgement is filed).
of the 9. The contention of the 2nd party manamanagement is that the first party p in the DomesticEnquiry saythat DomestieEnquiry conducted apsinst him is sesinst the principles ofNatural Justice, The claim ofofthet firstfirst party that the enquiry is not fair and proper isis false and misleading. The Ist Party has voluntarilyvolunta and unequivocally admitted the charges not on beef hearing by the Appellate and Eh evidence the Ist party, berefore,
up for bearing in on substantiate the fact that the enquiry condicio the first party was fair and proper, the mana examined beforebefore thisthis tribunaltribunal one witness Enquiry Officer as MWI and get marked Ex.Mi toM3 and MWI was cross exantin the the 5. It is the further case of the first party that the Departmental Enquiry conducted by the management is not proper and against the principles of natural justice and equity. The workman had appeared before the JMFC, Gulbarga in CC No. 506 of 1994. After full trial , the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused holding the management andcomplainant have failed to prove the prosecution and even though the 1st party had submitted the copy ofthe judgement before the management, the management has not consideredthe same. The action of the management is totally wrong in passing order ofdismissal . Therefore,he requested this Tribunal to allow the reference and direct the management for his reinstatement in service with full backwages and continuity of service etc.
6. The Second Party appeared and filed Written Statement. The 2nd Party however, challenged the various averments made in the Claim Statement dubbing them as false and frivolous . Its contentions are as follows
12. Ex. Mi is the copy of 10-5-1993 the report ofthe Enquiry Offione de said to the letter written and admitting puilty and Ex
7. The 1st Party workman had fraudulently withdrawn the money from the customer's account. Time and again he has voluntarily and unequivocally admitted that he only has resorted to the same to meet some financial commitments .He has forged and falsified the documents and fraudulently withdrawn money from the Saving Bank account of the Bank's Customer and misappropriated the 2976
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
[PART II - SEC . 3 (ii) ) dated 30-10-1993 signed by the workman and his defence representative , wherein , he admitted the fact of reimbursement of the balance amount , he had withdrawn from theBank .
evidence that were produced before the Enquiry Officer, it will be worthwhile to put on record the very reasonings assigned by the Enquiry Officer in recording the findings that the workman was guilty of the misconduct charged against him. Those reasonings ofthe Enquiry Officerunder the heading ' analysis of evidence and my findings' on pages 7, 8 and 9 of the Enquiry Report are as follows:-
17. Analysis of evidence and my findings' :
13.After hearing both the parties with regard to the validity and fairness of the enquiry conducted by the management against the workman, my learned predecessor by order dated 20-12-2002 recorded findigns to the effect that the Domestic Enquiry was fair and proper . Thereupon the case came to be posted for hearing of the arguments on the merits of the case . Now therefore , in the light of the finding recorded by this tribunal , holding that the enquiry conducted againt the first party workman by the second party management is fair and proper, the next point tobe gone into would be ' as to whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer in any way suffered from perversity. '
14. Learned counsel for the first party Shri V. K. Hiremath submitted his written arguments , whereas , the learned counsel of Second Party Shri Ramesh Upadhyaya addressed his oral arguments on the said point . On going through the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the first party, it would appear that the first party once again raised certain points in challenging the vaildity and fairness of the Domestic Enquiry conducted against him rather than making out the case as to how the Enquiry findings suffered from any perversity much less arbitrariness . In his arguments , the first party almost repeated the various averments made by him in his Claim Statement whereby he questioned the fairness and correctness of the enquiry and the enquiry proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer appointed by the management. No where, the contention was raised with regard to the perversity of the findings much less raising contention ofany sort of victimization or any unfair labour practicebeing resorted by the management in dismissing him from his service . Whereas , the learned counsel for the Second Party vehemently argued that the enquiry findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer do not suffer from any perversity much less arbitrariness as they are perfectly based on Voluminous oral and documentary evidence . He submitted that on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record before the Enquiry Officer, the only reasonable and irresistible conclusion to have been drawn by any man of prudence would have been the conclusion in holding the wokman guilty of the charge levelled against him.
15. After having gone through the records , more particulary the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer and the findings recorded by him , I am inclined to uphold the arguments advanced for the Second Party.
"Though the CSE had admitted the charge during the enquiry, I consider it my duty to evaluate all the evidence adduced by the Management . I have to observe that all reasonable and fair opportunities were extended to the CSE todefend his case . In spite of this , he voluntarily chose to admit the charge . The question to be decided is whether Shri K. Shantappa, the CSE fradulently withdrew a sum of Rs . 5000 on 13-7-1991 from SB A/ c No. 21868 of Ms. Manjula at Station Bazar Branch , Gulbarga and recredited to the same account a sum of Rs . 3500 on 15-7-1991 . While admitting the guilt , Shri K. Shantappa had confessed that he had made the above two transactions as alleged in the charge sheet . However, the management representative chose to lead his evidence in support of the allegations against Shri K. Shantappa, as alleged in the charge sheet under enquiry. Accordingly, he produced three witnesses and 11 documents to sustain the charge referred to above. The evidence of MW1 , Ms. Manjula , the complainant conclusively proves that she has not made the transactions in her account on 13-7-1991 and 15-7-1991 respectively as refferred to above . She has also identified her complaint dated 19-7-1991 (MEX 1 ) , The CSE , in his cross - examination could not dislodge the evidence of MW1 . The evidence of MW2 goes to show that the complainant had approached him On 19-7-1991 and submitted MEX 1 which resulted in his going through the records and coming to the conclusions that it was a fraudulent transaction. The handwritings in MEX 3 & MEX 4 were compared by him with the other transactions made by the CSE , which led him to conclude that the CSE was involved in this fraudulent transaction . MW2 also identified the SB Account No. 21868 folio (MEX 2) wherein the above fraudulent transactions were entered. The fraudulent withdrawal of Rs, 5000 and payment thereon is further confirmed by MEX 6 where the entry appears . Further, specimen signature of MW1 in DF 157 (MEX 5) has a marked difference when compared with the signature in MEX 3 & MEX 4. It is also on record that the CSE had made a voluntary admission of the guilt of the above fraudulent transaction before the Sub Inspector ofPolice , Station Bazar Police Station, Culbarga, videMEX 9, which was produced in the enquiry by MW2 . MEX 7 shows that the Bank had lodged a complaint about the above fraudulent transaction to the Station Bazar Police Station , Gulbarga . MEX 8 reveals that the Police Station had sought for certain original documents from the Bank.
16. In order to appreciate his arguments without going to discuss in detail the oral and documentary 2977
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
[ भाग - खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
further evidence so as to make out a case ofvictimization or unfair labour practice by the management in taking extreme action rather imposing the severe punishment of dismissal on him.
19. Therefore, this Tribunal does not find why or legal infirmity with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer holding the workman guilty of the misconduct leveled against him . The fact that the workman had fraudulently withdrawn the money from the customer's account in the custody of the management bank and then converted the same for his own use has been in no un- certainterms established and proved before the Enquiry Officer byway of oral as well as documentary evidence.
Thus it is clear from MEX 8 that certain original documents like MEX 1 , 3 & 4 were seized by the Officials of Station Bazar Area Police Station, Gulbarga . However, this has not hampered the evidentiary value ofMEX 1 , 3 & 4 during the enquiry, because they were properly identified bythe competent persons. The CSE has also not disputed these documents. In fact, the oral submissions made by the CSE before him during the enquiry as well as his statement recorded by the Police as per MEX 9 further strengthens the case of the Management . The cross examination of MW2 was neither favourable to the CSE nor could dislodge the evidence of MW2 . The Evidence ofMW3 who had conducted the investigation into the matter revealed that he had contracted the complainant and other connected persons . His evidence further strengthens the caseoftheManagement because the CSE had admitted of having committed the above fraud before MW3 and had also given the reasons and the financial constraints faced by him which had led to commit the fraud. In fact, the CSE had gone to the extent of seeking time to re-credit the balance amount ofRs . 1500. Further, the evidence ofMW3 reveals that he had made a closer examination ofMEX 3 & 4and compared with other handwriting of the CSE. He had also produced and identified MEX 10 & MEX 11 which when compared with MEX 3 & 4 confirms his conclusion that the CBR was the author of MEX 3 & 4 , which inter alia means that the CSE was responsible for the above fraudulent transaction . The CSE did not cross examine MW3 , I have carefully perused all the materials placed before me and for the reasons stated above, 1 have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the charge against Shri K. Shastappe , part time Sweeper, StationBager Branch, Gulbarge that he had fraudulently withdrawn the money from the customer's account and convertedthe same for his own use and thus , committed the gross misconduct of ' deing acts prejudicial to the interest ofthe Bank' vide clause 19.5 (1 ) of the Bipartite Settlement as appearing in the charge sheet No. CGS/BNG/93 /33 dated 10-5-1993 is proved."
20. Apart from that , the workman in very clear and unambiguous words admitted the guilt by submisting a letter written and signed by him referred to above as Ex M6 during the course of enquiry. He also made an admission of reimbursement of the balance amount oof Rs . 1500 tothe customer concerned by submitting a letter Ex. M7 signedby him and by his defence representative during the course of enquiry. The Enquiry Officer not being contended with the ples of guit made by the workman and tobe on safer side, allowed the management to adduce oral and documentary evidence to substantiats the charges ofmisconduct leveled against him and it is not just on basis ofthe admission of guilt by the workman but on the basis of unquestionable documents and oral evidence of the responsible officers of the bank, the Enquiry Officer recorded the finding of guilt. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the findings ofthe Enquiry Officer were not based on sufficient evidence supported bythe valid reasonings so as to went them as perverse or arbitrary. It also cannot be said that the punishment inflicted by the management in dismissing the workman from service for his above said fraudulent act was in any way resulted out ofvictimization.or unfair labour practice orthat it tantamounts to disproportionate with the gravity ofmisconduct committed by the workman.
21. In the result it must be held that charge of misconduct leveled against the workman has been fully proved against him and the punishment of dismissal imposed upon him is quite reasonable and in commensurate to the gravity of misconduct committed by him. Therefore, the reference must fail . Hence the following Order:
ORDER
3.
The reference is dismissed . Ne cos
(Dictated to PA, transentbed by her, erected and signed by me on 22nd April 2004 )
18. On going through the findings, it is very difficult to dislodge the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Segend Party asserting that these are the findings well supported by valid and sound reasonings, In the light of the reasoning taken support of by the EnquiryOfficer based on unimpeachable documents and orai evidence placed before him, it will be toomuch to say that findings suffered in any way by perversity of arbitrariness. It appears that this was the same reason, which prevented the first party in net raising any such sentention shallenging the findings on the ground of perversity when he submitted his Written Arguments through his learned advocate . As noted above, the workman whe examined himself in court only on the point ofvalidity or otherwise ofthe enquiry conducted against him and he did not avail the opportunity of leading any 2978
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5 , 2004/JYAISTHA 15, 1926
[PART II-SBC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 19 मई, 2004
has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-
"Whether the action of the management of the SyndicateBank in dismissing Shri B. K. Arora, Clerk from the service w.e.f. 15-4-93 is legal&justified ? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to ?" का. आ. 1326.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 189/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल.- 12012/75/97- आई. आर. ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 19th May, 2004
S.O. 1326. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 189/97) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 11-5-2004 .
[No. L - 12012/ 75/97 - IR (B- II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI
2.According to the claim statement the workman was a regular employee ofthe respondent Bank. He joined the bank as probationary clerk on 1-10-84 and worked in various branches of the bank. That he was put under suspension on 30-12-89 and was chargesheeted on 25-5-90 and finally dismissed from services on 17-3-93; that aggrieved with the action ofthe management the union of the workman raised an industrial dispute before the ALC(C) which ended in failure . Hence this reference. The workman has challenged his dismissal order on various grounds including inordinate delay of 24 months in conducting the enquiry against him and arbitrary attitude ofthe disciplinary authority and also conclusion of the enquiry proceedings it was also alleged that the management had also filed an FIR with the police and the police investigated the matter and reached to a conclusion that there was no case against the workman. It was further alleged that the chargesheet against him was vague and the enquiry officer held him guilty on the basis of imagined and cooked story and against the records available to him. It is also alleged that the punishment awarded to him isdisappropriate to the charges levelled against him, and his dismissal is illegal. Hence he is entitled to be reinstated in service with all back wages alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and other consequential benefits.
Presiding Officer : Shri B.N. Pandey
I.D. No. 189/97
Shri B. K. Arora S/o Shri R. P. Arora, R/ o Flat No. 30 , Sector 21 , Poc . 12 , Rohini Delhi through The Zonal Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association , Ram Naresh Bhawan , Tilak Gali , Pahargunj , NewDelhi - 110055 ,
-Workman
Versus
فق The Assistant General Manager , Syndicate Bank, 6 , Bhagwan Dass Road, NewDelhi
-Management
3. The Management respondent filed its written statement contesting the claim of the workman. It was further alleged that while the workman was performing the duties of Cashier at Mori Gate Branch of the Bank he was suspended on 28th December, 1989 for committing gross misconduct under para 19.5 (j ) of the Bipartite Settlement . Enquiry was conducted against him in accordance with the principles of natural justice and ultimately he was dismissed from service on 15th April, 1993. It was further alleged that there was no delay in issuing chargesheet nor therewas any illegality or irregularity or breach ofprinciples of natural justice, in conducting the enquiry. Charges levelled against the workman are found proved and accordingly he was found guilty for commiting gross misconduct . Therefore, he was rightly dismissed from services . His claim petition has no force and is liable tobe dismissed.
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 12012/ 75 / 97 /IR(B - II) dated 11-11-97
4. The workman filed rejoinder against the written statement of management and reiterating his averments made earlier in the claim statement .
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जून 5, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 15 , 1926
2979 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman by Management is fair andproper?
2. As per the term of reference ?
6.Both the parties filed documentary evidence. In oral evidence workman filed his own affidavit. On the other hand Shri K. L. N. Joshi , Enquiry Officer filed his affidavit. Both of them were also cross -examined on behalf of respective opposite parties.
7. Ihaveheard learned counset for the parties and alsoperused the file.
ISSUENO. 1
a sum ofRs . 20,000 and thereby also committed an act of gross misconduct within the meaning ofclause No. 19.5 oftheBipartite Settlement. The chargesheet was replied by the workman and enquiry proceedings were held, the workman participated in the enquiry and also cross- examined the witnesses of the management through his defence representative. He also examined defence witness. Thus I find that there was no procedural error during the enquiry proceedings which can be said to have caused anyprejudice to the workman, but after. going through the facts and evidence of the case I find that the enquiry proceedings were conducted and dismissal order against theworkmanwas passed ignoring the provisions ofparas 19.2, 19.3 and 19.4 of the First Bipartite Settlement. According to the management the workman misappropriated the money, converted it to his ownuse which amounts to an offence of misappropriation and embezzlement punishable in law. According to the management it also amounted to gross-misconduct within the meaning ofpara 19.5, sub clause (j) ofthe Ist Bipartite Settlement. Para 19.2 provides that "By the expression 'offence' shall be meant any offence involving moral turpitude for which an employee is liable to conviction and sentence under any provision of Law"
9. Para 19.3 further provides:
"(a) When in the opinion of the management an employee has committed an offence, unless he be otherwise prosecuted, the bank may take steps to prosecute him or get him prosecuted and in such a case he may also be suspended. "
(b) If he be convicted, he may be dismissed with effect from the date of his conviction or be given any lesser form of punishment as mentioned in Clause 19.6 below.
(c) If he be acquitted, it shall be open to the Management to proceed against him under the provisions set outbelow in Clauses 19.11 and 19.12 infra relating to discharges. However, in the event ofthemanagement deciding after enquiry not to continuehim in service, he shall be liable onlyfor termination ofservice with three months' pay and allowances in lieu ofnotice. Andhe shall be deemed to have been on duty during the period of suspension, ifany, and shall be entitled to the full pay and allowances minus such subsistence allowance as he has drawn to all other privileges for the period of suspension, provided that if he be acquitted by being given the benefit of doubt he may be paid such portion of such pay and allowances as the management may doom proper, and the period ofhis absence shall notbe treated as aperiod spent on duty unless the management so direct.
8. Pending initiation of enquiry into the serious allegations ofmisappropriation of an amount ofRs . 20,000 on 11-12-1989 against the workman at Mori GateBranch, New Delhi he was suspended on 28-12-89 by Shri S.P. Jain, Assistant General Manager . In his reply/explanation against the alleged misappropriation workman expressed his innocence and stated that he had no knowledge about it.He further alleged that he was pressurised and terrorised bythe police at the behest ofthe Bank Officer Shri A. K. Chaudhary to deposit the amount. He beg for getting money from his friends and relatives and could manage Rs.10,000 same day and the rest by 16-12-89 which was deposited in suspense account of the Mori Gate Branch andhis signatures were forcibly taken. In the charge sheet dated25-5-90 it was alleged that on 11-12-89 the workman was performing duties ofthe Cashier and on the saiddate a cheque for Rs . 25.000 drawn on State Bank account No. 8492 ofShri G. D. Luthra was received at his end for payment an amount of Rs. 5,000 was to be adjusted towards O.S.L. 2/88 of Sri G. D. Luthra and the balance of amount ofRs. 20,000was to be paid in cash to Shri A. K. Chaudhary, Asstt. Manager of the Branch that after making an adjustment ofRs . 5,000 out ofthe amount ofRs . 25,000 the balance sum ofRs . 20,000 was not paid by the workman to Shri A. K. Chaudhary and the workman left the branch at about 3,40 P.M. and did not return till late hours on 11-12-89 and he also did not attend the office on 12-12-89 . Thereafter the branch had to lodge a complaint with the police inorder to find out whereabouts of the workman. That the police could trace the workman at Gurgaon on 13-12-89 and he admitted inwriting that he did not make payment of Rs . 20,000 to Shri Chaudhary. However, the workman deposited Rs . 10,000 on 13-12-89 and balance of Rs. 10,000 on 16-12-89 in Bank to reimburse amount of Rs . 20,000 to the Bank. It was further alleged that thereby the workman misappropriated/converted into his ownuse 2980
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 5, 2004/JYAISTHA 15 , 1926
10. Para 19.4 provides that :
misappropriated was to be paid in cash to him. It is also saidthat thebranch had lodged a complaint with the police against the workman and the workman was traced by the police atGurgaon on 13-12-89. Thereafter the said amount was also admittedly deposited with the bank by the workmanwhich was kept in suspense allowance . Thus no pecuniary loss was caused to the Bank. The suspension order was passed after about 17 days ofthe incident in questionwhich was replied by the workman on 11-1-90 and the chargesheet was given on 25-5-90. Enquiry report was given on 26-12-92 and the impugned order of dismissal was passed on 15-4-93 by the Assistant General Manager. There is no explanation regarding delay in holding and completing enquiry. I find that the enquiry was conducted inutter disregard to the provisions ofparas 19.2, 19.3 and 19.4 ofthe Ist Bipartite Settlement and passed the dismissal order arbitrarily against the provisions ofBipartite Settlement paras 19.3 and 19.4 . Therefore , it cannot be said to be fair and proper. The Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 2
" If after steps have been taken to prosecute an employee or to get him prosecuted, for an offence, he is not put on trial within a year of the commission ofthe offence the management may then deal with him as if he had committed an act of " gross- misconduct" or of " minor misconduct" , as defined below; provided that if the authority which was to start prosecution proceedings refuses to do so or come to the conclusion that there is no case for prosecution it shall be open to the management to proceed against the employee under the provisions set out below in Clauses 19.11 and 19.12 infra relating to discharge, but he shall be deemed to have been on duty during the period of suspension, if any, and shall be entitled to the full wages and allowances and to all other privileges for such period. In the event of the management deciding after enquiry, not to continue him in service , he shall be liable only for termination with three months' pay andallowances in lieu of notice as provided in Clause 19.3 supra. Ifwithin the pendency of the proceedings thus instituted he is put on trial such proceedings shall be stayed pending the completion of the trial, afterwhich the provisions mentioned in Clause 19.3 above shall apply. "
13. I have already found above that the enquiry was conducted against the provisions of paras 19.2, 19.3 and 19.4 of the Ist Bipartite Settlement and the dismissal orderwas passed against the provisions of the Biparbetite settlement. Hence, it is vitiated, therefore there is no justification to allow the management for adducing any furhter evidence in support of the charge levelled against the workman. The order of dismissal was illegal and against the provisioas of above mentioned paras of the Bipartite Settlement . The enquiry proceedings were conducted ignoring the provisions ofBipartite Settlement and awarding the punishment of dismissal which vitiated theenquiry proceedings . In view ofthe said provisions of theBipartite Settlements , order ofdismissal could not be legally passed against the workman. Hence , it cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.
11.Admittedly the matter was reported to the Police by the Management Authorities but the police did not take any step toprosecute the workman . There is also no evidence that the management took any other course to prosecute the workman for the offence of misappropriation/embezzlement/breach of trust which involves moral turpitude, the workman was also not put on trial within a year of commission of the offence . Therefore, in view of the provisions of paras 19.3 (c) and 19.4ofthe Bipartite Settlement , even if the charges against the workman were found proved and after enquiry if the Management decided not to continue the workman in service, the workman could only be, at the most, terminated with three months pay and other allowances , balance pay etc. Therefore , I find that the punishment of dismissal could not legally be awarded to the workman in the instant case. Admittedly nothing like three months pay, allowances and other amounts for the period of suspension was paid to the workman . Therefore , the dismissal order being against the provisions of Bipartite Settlement is illegal and improper.
14. In view ofthe above discussions , I find that the action ofthe management of Syndicate Bank in dismissing Shri B.K. Arora, Clerk, from the services ofthe bank w.e.f. 15-4-93 is illegal and unjustified. Hence , it is liable to be quashed and consequently the workman is entitled to be reinstated with continuity in service alongwith all other consequential benefits except any amount of back wages inthe circumstances of the case . The Management of bank shall reinstate him in service within two months after publication ofthe award. Parties shall bear their own costs. Award is given accordingly.
Dated: 7-5-2004
B.N. PANDEY, Presiding Officer 12. The alleged act of misappropriation is said to have been done on 11-12-89 . Shri A.K. Chaudhary the thenAssistant Manager of the Branch was also a party in that matter as the balance amount ofRs . 20,000 which was
Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Maya Puri , New Delhi- 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054 , 2004