रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05 प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं. 18] नई दिल्ली, अप्रैल 27—मई 3, 2014, शनिवार/वैशाख 7—वैशाख 13, 1936
No. 18] NEW DELHI, APRIL 27—MAY 3, 2014, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 7—VAISAKHA 13, 1936
भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
गृह मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2014
का॰आ॰ 1299.--केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 (यथा संशोधित, 1987) के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में गृह मंत्रालय के निम्नलिखित 10 कार्यालयों में हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान रखने वाले कर्मचारियों की संख्या 80% से अधिक हो जाने के फलस्वरूप उन्हें एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करती हैः—
7. के॰औ॰सु॰ बल इकाई शेप सेवा-II (जम्मू एवं कश्मीर)
8. के॰औ॰सु॰ बल इकाई के॰एच॰ई॰पी॰ कोटेश्वर, टिहरी गढ़वाल
(उत्तराखंड)
9. के॰औ॰सु॰ बल 8वीं आरक्षित वाहिनी जयपुर (राजस्थान)
10. के॰औ॰सु॰ बल इकाई टीएचडीसी टिहरी गढ़वाल (उत्तराखंड)
[सं॰ 12017/1/2012-हिन्दी]
अवधेश कुमार मिश्र, निदेशक (राजभाषा)
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
1. के॰औ॰सु॰ बल 7वीं आरक्षित वाहिनी किश्तवाड़ (जम्मू एवं
कश्मीर)
2. के॰औ॰सु॰ बल इकाई आर॰एच॰पी॰पी॰ पिपरी (उत्तर प्रदेश)
3. के॰औ॰सु॰ बल इकाई पीपीसीएल-III बवाना (नई दिल्ली-39)
4. के॰औ॰सु॰ बल इकाई आईजी मिन्ट नोएडा (उत्तर प्रदेश)
5. के॰औ॰सु॰ बल इकाई डीएचईपी धौलीगंगा (उत्तराखंड)
6. के॰औ॰सु॰ बल 9वीं आरक्षित वाहिनी देवली (राजस्थान)
1684 GI/2014
New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2014
S.O. 1299.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of rule 10
of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976 ( as amended, 1987), the Central
Government hereby notifies the following 10 offices of the
Ministry of Home Affairs, wherein the percentage of the staff having working knowledge of Hindi has gone above 80%:—
(3415)3416 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1. CISF 7th Res. Bn. Kishtwar (J&K)
2. CISF Unit RHPP Pipri (U.P.)
3. CISF Unit PPCL-III Bawana (New Delhi-39)
4. CISF Unit IG Mint Noida (U.P.)
5. CISF Unit DHEP Dhauli Ganga (Uttarakhand)
6. CISF 9th Res. Bn. Deoli (Rajasthan)
7. CISF Unit SHEP Sewa-II (J&K)
8. CISF Unit KHEP Koteshwar, Tehri Garhwal
(Uttarakhand)
9. CISF 8th Res. Bn. Jaipur (Rajasthan)
10. CISF THDC Tehri Garhwal (Uttarakhand)
[No. 12017/1/2012-Hindi] AVDESH KUMAR MISHRA, Director (OL)
कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय
(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
(DA case against Shri Akhand Pratap Singh, ex-Chief Secretary, Govt. of UP & Others) instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (C.B.I.) in the Delhi High Court at Delhi and other matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.
[F. No. 225/15/2008-AVD-II] RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
वित्त मंत्रालय
(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2014
का॰आ॰ 1301.--पेंशन निधि विनियामक एवं विकास प्राधिकरण अधिनियम, 2013 (2013 का 23) की धारा 4 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा श्री राज विकास वर्मा को पेंशन निधि विनियामक एवं विकास प्राधिकरण (पीएफआरडीए) पूर्णकालिक सदस्य (वित्त) को पद का कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से पांच वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या 62 वर्ष की आयु प्राप्त करने तक या अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, आवास और कार की सुविधा के बिना 3.75 लाख रूपये प्रति माह के वेतनमान में नियुक्त करती है।
[फा॰सं॰ 2/1/2012-पीआर] सुरिन्दर कौर, अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
का॰आ॰ 1300.--केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद् द्वारा दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का अधिनियम सं॰ 2) की धारा 24 की उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय, दिल्ली में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना (सी॰बी॰आई॰) द्वारा प्रारंभ किए गए सी॰बी॰आई॰ केस आरसी 2 (ए)/2005-सीबीआई, एसीयू-V, नई दिल्ली (उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार के पूर्व मुख्य सचिव श्री अखंड प्रताप सिंह तथा अन्यों के विरूद्ध डीए मामला) तथा उससे जुड़े और प्रासंगिक अन्य मामलों की वजह से उत्पन्न एमए संख्या 3361/2013 तथा आपराधिक एमए संख्या 12369 और 12370/2013 में पेश होने के लिए भारत के अपर महान्यायधिवक्ता श्री पी॰पी॰ मल्होत्रा को विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।
[फा॰ सं॰ 225/15/2008-ए वी डी-II ] राजीव जैन, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 28th April, 2014
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS
S.O. 1301.—In exercise of powers conferred by Section 4 of the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 2013 (23 of 2013), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Raj Vikash Verma, as Whole-Time Member (Finance) in the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA), for a period of five years w.e.f. the date of assumption of charge of the post or till attaining the age of 62 years or until further orders, whichever is the earliest, at a consolidated pay of Rs. 3.75 lakh (Rs. Three Lakh and seventy five thousand only) per month, without facility of house and car.
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
S.O. 1300.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri P.P. Malhotra, Additional Solicitor General of India as Special Public Prosecutor for appearing in Criminal M.A. No. 3361/2013 and Crl. M.As No. 12369 and 12370/2013 arising out of CBI case RC 2(A)/2005-CBI, ACU-V, New Delhi
[F. No. 2/1/2012-PR] SURINDER KAUR, Under Secy.
वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय
(वाणिज्य विभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2014
का.आ. 1302.--केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण) नियम, 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम (2) के साथ[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3417 पठित निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण) अधिनियम, 1963 (1963 का 22) की धारा 7 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स एसजीएस इंडिया प्रा॰ लि॰ सत्यभामा (जोशी बिल्डिंग), तीसरी मंजिल, रुआ ांसिस्को लूयूस गोम्स, पी॰ओ॰ बोक्स नं॰ 101, वास्को डी गामा, गोवा भारत में स्थित है, को इस अधिसूचना, के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार के वाणिज्य मंत्रालय, की अधिसूचना सं॰ का॰आ॰ 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर,1965 की अधिसूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूचियों में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क, ग्रुप-I, अर्थात् लौह अयस्क को निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन गोवा, में उक्त खनिज और अयस्क के निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता देती है, अर्थात्ः-
(i) मैसर्स एसजीएस इंडिया प्रा॰ लि॰ सत्यभामा (जोशी बिल्डिंग), तीसरी मंजिल, रुआ ांसिस्को लूयूस गोम्स, पी॰ ओ॰ बोक्स नं॰ 101, वास्को डी गामा, गोवा, खनिज और अयस्क ग्रुप-I का निर्यात (निरीक्षण) नियम, 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई निरीक्षण की पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी; और
(ii) मैसर्स एसजीएस इंडिया प्रा॰ लि॰ सत्यभामा (जोशी बिल्डिंग), तीसरी मंजिल, रुआ ांसिस्को लूयूस गोम्स, पी॰ ओ॰ बोक्स नं॰ 101, वास्को डी गामा, गोवा, इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक (निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण) निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् समय-समय पर लिखित में दिए गए ऐसे निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगे।
[फा॰ सं॰ 4/11/2013-निर्यात निरीक्षण] ए॰ के॰ त्रिपाठी, संयुक्त सचिव notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December 1965, prior to export of said minerals and ores at Goa, subject to
the following conditions, namely:—
(i) that M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd., Satyabhama (Joshi
Building), 3rd Floor, Rua Francisco Luis Gomes, P.O.
Box No. 101, Vasco da Gama, Goa, shall give adequate
facilities to the officers nominated by the Export
Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the
method of inspection followed by them in carrying
out the inspection under rule 4 of the Export of
Minerals and Ores-Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965;
and
(ii) that M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd., Satyabhama (Joshi
Building), 3rd Floor, Rua Francisco Luis Gomes, P.O.
Box No. 101, Vasco da Gama, Goa, in the performance
of their function under this notification shall be bound
by such directions as the Director (Inspection and
Quality Control) may give in writing, from time to
time.
[F.No. 4/11/2013-Export Inspection]
A.K. TRIPATHY, Jt. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2014
का.आ. 1303.--केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण
और निरीक्षण) नियम, 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम (2) के साथ
पठित निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण) अधिनियम, 1963
(1963 का 22) की धारा 7 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का
प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स आर॰ वी॰ बिंग्स एंड क॰ (प्रा॰) लि॰,
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
डाकघर-बारबिल, जिला क्योंझार, उड़ीसा को इस अधिसूचना, के राजपत्र
में प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार के (Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the 25th April, 2014
S.O. 1302.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality
Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd., Satyabhama (Joshi Building), 3rd Floor, Rua Francisco Luis Gomes, P.O. Box No. 101, Vasco da Gama, Goa, India, as an agency
for a period of three years from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals and Ores-Group-I, namely, Iron Ore and Bauxite, specified in the Schedule annexed to the वाणिज्य मंत्रालय, की अधिसूचना का॰ आ॰ 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर,
1965 की अधिसूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और
अयस्क, समूह-I, अर्थात् लौह अयस्क को निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित
शर्तों के अधीन बारबिल, में निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के
रूप में मान्यता देती है, अर्थात्ः—
(i) मैसर्स आर॰ वी॰ बिंग्स एंड क॰ (प्रा॰) लि॰, डाकघर-बारबिल,
जिला क्योंझार, उड़ीसा, खनिज और अयस्क समूह-I का निर्यात
(निरीक्षण) नियम, 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन उनके द्वारा
अपनाई गई निरीक्षण की पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस
निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को
पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी,3418 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (ii) मैसर्स आर॰ वी॰ बिंग्स एंड क॰ (प्रा॰) लि॰ डाकघर-बारबिल, जिला क्योंझार, उड़ीसा, इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक (निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण) द्वारा समय-समय पर लिखित में दिए गए ऐसे निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगे।
[फा॰ सं॰ 4/12/2013-निर्यात निरीक्षण]
ए॰ के॰ त्रिपाठी, संयुक्त सचिव
New Delhi, the 25th April, 2014
S.O. 1303.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government
hereby recognises M/s. R.V. Briggs & Co. (P) Ltd., P.O.- Barbil, District-Keonjhar, Orissa, as an agency for a period of three years from the date of publication of this
notification in the Official Gazette, for the inspection of
Minerals and Ores-Group-I, namely, Iron Ore and
Manganese, Ore, specified in the Schedule annexed to
the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry
of Commerce number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th
December 1965, prior to export of said minerals and ores
at Barbil, subject to the following conditions, namely:—
(i) that M/s R.V. Briggs & Co. (P) Ltd., P.O.-Barbil,
District-Keonjhar, Orissa, shall give adquate facilities
to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection
Council in this behalf to examine the method of
inspection followed by them in carrying out the
inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and
Ores-Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965; and
(ii) that M/s. R.V. Briggs & Co. (P) Ltd., P.O.-Barbil,
District-Keonjhar, Orissa, in the performance of their
function under this notification shall be bound by
such directions as the Director (Inspection and Quality
Control) may give in writing, from time to time.
[F.No. 4/12/2013-Export Inspection]
A.K. TRIPATHY, Jt. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2014
का.आ. 1304.--केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण) नियम, 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम (2) के साथ पठित निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण) अधिनियम, 1963 (1963 का 22) की धारा 7 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स एसजीएस इंडिया प्रा॰ लि॰, प्लाट नं॰ 64, जीआईडीसी, मैन रोड, धर्म पुर, पोरबंदर-360577 गुजरात, भारत में स्थित है, को इस अधिसूचना, के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार के वाणिज्य मंत्रालय, की अधिसूचना सं॰ का॰आ॰ 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 और संख्या का॰आ॰ 3978 दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर 1965 की अधिसूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूचियों में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज औेर अयस्क, ग्रुप-I, बक्साइट तथा खनिज और अयस्क ग्रुप-II अर्थात् जिंक कन्सेनट्रेट को क्रमशः निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन पोरबंदर, कच्छ, जामनगर और पीपावाव, में उक्त खनिज और अयस्क के निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता देती है, अर्थात्ः
(i) मैसर्स एसजीएस इंडिया प्रा॰ लि॰ प्लाट नं॰ 64, जीआईडीसी, मैन रोड, धर्म पुर, पोरबंदर-360577 गुजरात, खनिज और अयस्क ग्रुप-I, का निर्यात (निरीक्षण) नियम, 1965 और खनिज और अयस्क ग्रुप-II का निर्यात (निरीक्षण) नियम, 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई निरीक्षण की पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस निर्मित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी, और
(ii) मैसर्स एसजीएस इंडिया प्रा॰ लि॰ प्लाट नं॰ 64, जीआईडीसी, मैन रोड, धर्म पुर, पोरबंदर-360577 गुजरात, इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक (निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण) निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् समय-समय पर लिखित में दिए गए ऐसे निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगे।
[फा॰ सं॰ 4/13/2013-निर्यात निरीक्षण]
ए॰ के॰ त्रिपाठी, संयुक्त सचिव
New Delhi, the 25th April, 2014
S.O. 1304.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd, Plot No. 64, GIDC Main Road, Dharam Pur, Porbandar-360 577 Gujarat, India, as an agency for a period of three years from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals and Ores -Group-I namely, Bauxite and Minerals & Ores Group-II, namely, Zinc Concentrate, specified in the Schedules annexed to the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December 1965, and number S.O. 3978, dated the 20th December, 1965 respectively, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Porbandar, Kutch, Jamnagar
and Pipavav, subject to the following conditions, namely:-
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3419(i) that M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 64, GIDC Main
(ii) that M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 64, GIDC Main Road, Dharam Pur, Porbandar-360 577, Gujarat, shall
Road, Dharam Pur, Porbandar-360 577 Gujarat, in the give adquate facilities to the officers nominated by
performance of their function under this notification the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine
shall be bound by such directions the Director the method of inspection followed by them in carrying
(Inspection and Quality Control) Export Inspection out the inspection under rule 4 of the Export of
Council may give in writing, from time to time.
Minerals and Ores, Group-I (Inspection) Rules, 1965
[F.No. 4/13/2013-Export Inspection] and the Export of Minerals and Ores-Group-II
(Inspection) Rules, 1965; and
A.K. TRIPATHY, Jt. Secy.
पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2014
का.आ. 1305.--सक्षम प्राधिकारी, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाईन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 17 के अधीन विरचित पेट्रोलियम और खजिन पाइपलाईन (भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार का अर्जन) नियम, 1963 के नियम 4 के उपनियम (1) के परंतुक के अनुसरण में, गेल (इंडिया) लिमिटेड के परामर्श से जिसमें, यथास्थिति, उस क्षेत्र में भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार निहित किया गया है या उस क्षेत्र में पाइपलाईन का स्वामित्व निहित है, नीचे सारणी के स्तंभ 8 में यथा उल्लिखित मध्य प्रदेश राज्य के विजयपुर-दादरी पाइपलाईन परियोजना के माध्यम से पाइपलाईन बिछाये जाने के प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीख घोषित करता है।
संलग्नक-1
अनुसूची
धारा 3 (1) के अधीन अधिसूचना धारा 6 (1) के अधीन अधिसूचना
क्रम गांव का नाम तालुका/ राजपत्र में का॰आ॰ संख्या और राजपत्र में का॰आ॰ संख्या और कार्य की समाप्ति सं॰ तहसील प्रकाशन का दिनांक प्रकाशन का दिनांक का दिनांक दिनांक दिनांक
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
1. बावडीखेडा राघौगढ 30.03.1985 311(अ) 30.03.1985 14.09.1985 4293 (अ) 14.09.1985 01.11.2010
23.04.2008 921 (अ) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (अ) 10.10.2008
2. दौराना राघौगढ 23.04.2008 921 (अ) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (अ) 10.10.2008 26.11.2010
3. पगारा राघौगढ 23.04.2008 921 (अ) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (अ) 10.10.2008 01.11.2010
4. रूठियाई राघौगढ 23.04.2008 921 (अ) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (अ) 10.10.2008 14.05.2010
5. देहरी राघौगढ 23.04.2008 921 (अ) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (अ) 10.10.2008 01.11.2010
30.03.1985 1300 (अ) 30.03.1985 04.09.1985 4295 (अ) 04.09.1985
6. पांज गुना 23.04.2008 921 (अ) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (अ) 10.10.2008 01.11.2010
7. बजरंगढ गुना 23.04.2008 921 (अ) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (अ) 10.10.2008 26.11.2010
8. सौजना गुना 01.12.1984 4142 (अ) 01.12.1984 05.10.1985 4718(अ) 05.10.1985 01.11.2010
23.04.2008 921 (अ) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (अ) 10.10.2008
9. बिनायकखेडी गुना 08.12.1984 4282(अ) 08.12.1984 06.11.1985 5231(अ) 06.11.1985 11.11.2010
23.04.2008 921 (अ) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (अ) 10.10.2008
10. मुहालपुर गुना 21.03.1987 2285(अ) 21.03.1987 08.08.1987 2027(अ) 08.08.1987 26.11.2010
23.04.2008 921 (अ) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (अ) 10.10.2008
3420 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
11. छाबनी गुना 23.04.2008 921 (अ) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (अ) 10.10.2008 28.02.2011
12. सिंगबासा गुना 01.10.1984 2532(अ) 09.09.1984 17.05.1984 440(अ) 10.05.1985 28.02.2011
23.04.2008 921 (अ) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (अ) 10.10.2008
13. पिपरिया गुना 01.10.1994 2545(अ) 09.04.1994 28.03.1995 270(अ) 24.03.1995 26.11.2010
14. सिलावटी गुना 01.10.1994 2533(अ) 09.09.1994 09.03.1995 143(अ) 02.03.1995 11.11.2010
15. तरावटा गुना 01.10.1994 2531(अ) 09.09.1994 28.03.1995 269(अ) 24.03.1995 11.11.2010
16. घमनार गुना 01.10.1994 2544(अ) 09.09.1994 21.04.1995 377(अ) 19.04.1995 26.11.2010
17. खुटियाबद गुना 01.10.1994 2543(अ) 09.09.1994 21.04.1995 375(अ) 19.04.1995 26.11.2010
18. भदोरा गुना 01.10.1994 2541(अ) 09.09.1994 21.04.1995 375(अ) 19.04.1995 20.12.2010
19. ग्बारखेडा गुना 01.10.1994 2542(अ) 09.09.1994 09.03.1995 149(अ) 02.03.1995 11.11.2010
20. सगोरिया गुना 01.10.1994 2540(अ) 09.09.1994 21.04.1995 376(अ) 19.04.1995 11.11.2010
21. जमरा गुना 01.10.1994 2539(अ) 09.09.1994 09.03.1995 148(अ) 02.03.1995 26.11.2010
22. म्याना गुना 01.10.1994 2538(अ) 09.09.1994 21.04.1995 374(अ) 19.04.1995 18.12.2010
23. पदमनखेडी गुना 01.10.1994 2537(अ) 09.09.1994 09.03.1995 147(अ) 02.03.1995 11.11.2010
24. खजूरी गुना 01.10.1994 2536(अ) 09.09.1994 09.03.1995 146(अ) 02.03.1995 11.11.2010
25. रावसरजागीर ईसागढ 01.10.1994 2535(अ) 09.09.1994 03.03.1995 145(अ) 02.03.1995 26.11.2010
26. घुरबारकला ईसागढ 01.10.1994 2534(अ) 09.09.1994 09.03.1995 144(अ) 02.03.1995 11.11.2010
27. सींगाखेडी कोलारस 15.10.1994 2762(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 367(अ) 19.04.1995 11.11.2010
28. बकसपुर कोलारस 15.10.1994 2463(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 367(अ) 28.04.1995 11.11.2010
29. सुमेला कोलारस 15.10.1994 2766(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 262(अ) 24.03.1995 26.11.2010
30. बदरबास कोलारस 15.10.1994 2765(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 261(अ) 24.03.1995 26.11.2010
31. तिलातिली कोलारस 15.10.1994 2766(अ) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 150(अ) 02.03.1995 26.11.2010
32. एनबारा कोलारस 15.10.1994 2761(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 264(अ) 24.03.1995 26.11.2010
33. दीगोद कोलारस 15.10.1994 2764(अ) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 151(अ) 02.03.1995 11.11.2010
34. चितारा कोलारस 15.10.1994 2768(अ) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 152(अ) 02.03.1995 28.02.2011
35. बूढा डोंगर कोलारस 25.02.1995 509(अ) 11.02.1995 13.06.1995 518(अ) 02.06.1995 28.02.2011
36. कुल्हाडी कोलारस 15.10.1994 2769(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 365(अ) 19.04.1995 29.10.2010
37. खरई कोलारस 15.10.1994 2770(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 265(अ) 24.03.1995 29.10.2010
38. लुकवासा कोलारस 15.10.1994 2771(अ) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 153(अ) 02.03.1995 29.10.2010
39. डोंडयाई कोलारस 15.10.1994 2772(अ) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 154(अ) 02.03.1995 29.10.2010
40. जूर कोलारस 15.10.1994 2773(अ) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 125(अ) 02.03.1995 29.10.2010
41. उकाबला कोलारस 15.10.1994 2774(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 263(अ) 24.03.1995 29.10.2010
42. पनबारी कोलारस 15.10.1994 2775(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 271(अ) 24.03.1995 28.02.2011
43. गुढा कोलारस 15.10.1994 2776(अ) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 156(अ) 02.03.1995 01.11.2010
44. गुगबारा कोलारस 15.10.1994 2777(अ) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 157(अ) 02.03.1995 29.10.2010
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3421
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
45. वीरमखेडी कोलारस 15.10.1994 2778(अ) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 158(अ) 02.03.1995 01.11.2010
46. मोहरा कोलारस 15.10.1994 2779(अ) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 159(अ) 02.03.1995 01.11.2010
47. तिघरिया कोलारस 15.10.1994 2780(अ) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 160(अ) 02.03.1995 01.11.2010
48. पिपरोदा कोलारस 15.10.1994 2781(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 267(अ) 24.03.1995 01.11.2010
49. बागरोद कोलारस 15.10.1994 2782(अ) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 161(अ) 02.03.1995 01.11.2010
50. नेतबास कोलारस 15.10.1994 2783(अ) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 162(अ) 02.03.1995 01.11.2010
51. कुलबारा कोलारस 15.10.1994 2766(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 266(अ) 24.03.1995 01.11.2010
52. मढीखेडा कोलारस 15.10.1994 2784(अ) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 163(अ) 02.03.1995 01.11.2010
53. डहरवारा कोलारस 15.10.1994 2785(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 366(अ) 19.04.1995 01.11.2010
54. बिलोकला शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369(अ) 19.04.1995 01.11.2010
55. चौकी शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 02.05.1995 395(अ) 28.04.1995 01.11.2010
56. असुबाखेडी शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369(अ) 17.04.1995 01.11.2010
57. मालाखेडी शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369(अ) 19.04.1995 01.11.2010
58. टोंगरा शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369(अ) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
59. तानपुरा शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 258(अ) 25.03.1995 28.02.2011
60. कोडाबदा शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369(अ) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
61. कबीरखेडी शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369(अ) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
62. छार शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 258(अ) 25.03.1995 25.02.2011
63. ठर्री शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369(अ) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
64. ठर्रा शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 258(अ) 25.03.1995 25.02.2011
65. खोरधार शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369(अ) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
66. खरईभाट शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369(अ) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
67. ढकरोरा शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369(अ) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
68. रामाबसई शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369(अ) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
69. बिलपुरा शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369(अ) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
70. चकमानकबसई शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 258(अ) 25.03.1995 25.02.2011
71. चकघेकलबसई शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369(अ) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
72. तारका शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369(अ) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
73. माडनखेडी शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369(अ) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
74. सिकराबदा शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 258(अ) 25.03.1995 25.02.2011
75. सिकराबदी शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 258(अ) 25.03.1995 25.02.2011
76. सूंड शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 269(अ) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
77. सिमरिया शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369(अ) 19.04.1995 03.01.2012
10.06.2008 1425(अ) 06.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(अ) 10.10.2008
78. सिलपुरा शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 258(अ) 25.03.1995 03.01.2012
10.06.2008 1425(अ) 06.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(अ) 10.10.2008
3422 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
79. डेंडरी शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1005 258(अ) 25.03.1995 03.01.2012
10.06.2008 1425(अ) 06.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(अ) 10.10.2008
80. श्यामपुर शिवपुरी 29.10.1994 2975(अ) 22.09.1994 10.10.2008 2436(अ) 10.10.2008 03.01.2012
25.06.2008 1559(अ) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(अ) 10.10.2008
81. बेरजा पोहरी 29.10.1994 2976(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 24.03.1995 08.01.2012
82. गूगरपट्टी पोहरी 29.10.1994 2976(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 268(अ) 24.03.1995 08.01.2012
10.06.2008 1425(अ) 06.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(अ) 10.10.2008
83. गूगरगांव पोहरी 29.10.1994 2976(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 260(अ) 24.03.1995 21.04.2011
25.06.2008 1559(अ) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(अ) 10.10.2008
84. बीलबरामाता पोहरी 29.10.1994 2976(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 268(अ) 24.03.1995 21.04.2011
25.06.2008 1559(अ) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(अ) 10.10.2008
85. बिन्हेराखुर्द पोहरी 29.10.1994 2976(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 260(अ) 24.03.1995 21.04.2011
10.06.2008 1425(अ) 06.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(अ) 10.10.2008
86. हुसैनपुर पोहरी 29.10.1994 2976(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 260(अ) 24.03.1995 08.01.2012
25.06.2008 1559(अ) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(अ) 10.10.2008
87. बालापुर पोहरी 29.10.1994 2976(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 368(अ) 19.04.1995 08.01.2012
10.06.2008 1425(अ) 06.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(अ) 10.10.2008
88. आबादपुर पोहरी 29.10.1994 2976(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 260(अ) 24.03.1995 21.04.2011
10.06.2008 1425(अ) 06.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(अ) 10.10.2008
89. खटका पोहरी 29.10.1994 2976(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 260(अ) 24.03.1995 21.04.2011
10.06.2008 1425(अ) 06.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(अ) 10.10.2008
90. अहिल्यापुर पोहरी 29.10.1994 2976(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 260(अ) 24.03.1995 03.01.2012
25.06.2008 1559(अ) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(अ) 10.10.2008
29.10.1994 2976(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 268(अ) 24.03.1995 03.01.2012
91. पटेबरी पोहरी 25.05.2009 1336(अ) 22.05.2009 06.09.2010 2178(अ) 03.09.2010 03.01.2012
10.06.2008 1425(अ) 06.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(अ) 10.10.2008
92. देबपुरकला पोहरी 29.10.1994 2976(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369(अ) 19.04.1995 08.04.2012
25.06.2008 1559(अ) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(अ) 10.10.2008
93. गुरीच्छा पोहरी 29.10.1994 2976(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 260(अ) 24.03.1995 08.01.2012
25.06.2008 1559(अ) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(अ) 10.10.2008
94. बूड़दा पोहरी 29.10.1994 2976(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 268(अ) 24.03.1995 08.01.2012
01.08.2009 1873(अ) 31.07.2009 06.09.2010 2188(अ) 03.09.2010
25.06.2008 1559(अ) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(अ) 10.10.2008
95. केमा पोहरी 29.10.1994 2976(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 260(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
25.06.2008 1559(अ) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(अ) 10.10.2008
96. सहसराम विजयपुर 15.10.1994 2786(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 372(अ) 19.04.1995 28.02.2010
24.06.2008 1560(अ) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2437(अ) 10.10.2008
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3423
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
97. फरारा विजयपुर 15.10.1994 2786(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 259(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
24.06.2008 1560(अ) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2437(अ) 10.10.2008 28.02.2010
98. बुढेरा विजयपुर 15.10.1994 2786(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 272(अ) 24.03.1995 28.02.2010
99. दूध्ई विजयपुर 15.10.1994 2786(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 272(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
100. खुरजान विजयपुर 25.05.2009 1336(अ) 22.05.2009 06.09.2010 2178(अ) 03.09.2010 28.09.2010
15.10.1994 2786(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 372(अ) 19.04.1995 28.09.2010
101. टिडावली जौरा 15.10.1994 2787(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
24.06.2008 1561(अ) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2434(अ) 10.10.2008
102. भूरी जौरा 15.10.1994 2787(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
24.06.2008 1561(अ) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2434(अ) 10.10.2008
103. धेंध जौरा 15.10.1994 2787(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
24.06.2008 1561(अ) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2434(अ) 10.10.2008
104. बसखोहा जौरा 15.10.1994 2787(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
24.06.2008 1561(अ) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2434(अ) 10.10.2008
105. जोगीपुरा जौरा 15.10.1994 2787(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
106. कन्हार जौरा 15.10.1994 2787(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
107. आरेठी जौरा 15.10.1994 2787(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
108. रखेरा जौरा 27.10.1994 2760(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 255(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
109. हरियापुरा जौरा 15.10.1994 2760(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 370(अ) 19.04.1995 28.09.2010
110. मरा जौरा 15.10.1994 2760(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 255(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
111. भज्जेकापुरा जौरा 15.10.1994 2760(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 255(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
112. खडरियापुरा जौरा 15.10.1994 2760(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 255(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
113. गोपालपुरा जौरा 15.10.1994 2787(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
114. टेलरी जौरा 15.10.1994 2787(अ) 22.09.1994 15.04.1995 256(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
115. ध्ुरकूडा जौरा 15.10.1994 2787(अ) 22.09.1994 28.09.1995 256(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
116. खेरली जौरा 15.10.1994 2787(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
117. जापथाप जौरा 15.10.1994 2787(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
118. हुसैनपुर जौरा 15.10.1994 2787(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
119. बृजगढ़ी जौरा 15.10.1994 2760(अ) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 271(अ) 19.04.1995 28.09.2010
120. सगोरिया कैलारस 15.10.1994 2788(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
121. सिंगाचोली कैलारस 15.10.1994 2788(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
122. देवकच्छ कैलारस 15.10.1994 2788(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
123. बिलौआ कैलारस 15.10.1994 2788(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
124. भुरावली कैलारस 15.10.1994 2788(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
125. सुजर्मा कैलारस 15.10.1994 2788(अ) 22.09.1994 11.05.1996 1408(अ) 15.04.1996 28.09.2010
126. भिलसैया कैलारस 15.10.1994 2788(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
127. बेरईमानगढ़ कैलारस 15.10.1994 2788(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
3424 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 128. रिठोनियां कैलारस 15.10.1994 2788(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010 129. नेपरी कैलारस 15.10.1994 2788(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010 130. रजपुराजागीर कैलारस 15.10.1994 2788(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 273(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010 131. पचेखा कैलारस 15.10.1994 2788(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010 132. हटीपुरा कैलारस 15.10.1994 2788(अ) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(अ) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
[फा॰ सं॰ एल-14014/24/2014-जी पी] एस॰ पी॰ अग्रवाल, अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2014
S.O. 1305.—In pursuance of the proviso to sub-rule (i) of rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963, framed under Section 17 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Competent Authority, GAIL (India) Limited with whom the right of user in the land in that area has been vested or ownership of the pipeline in that area vests as the case may be, hereby declares the date of termination of operation of laying Vijaipur—Dadri Pipeline Project in Madhya Pradesh State as mentioned in column - 8 of the Schedule below, namely:—
ANNEXURE - 1
SCHEDULE
Notification Under Section 3(1) Notification Under Section 6(1)
Sr. No. Name of Tehsil Date of S.O. No. & Date Date of S.O. No. & Date Date of
Village Publication Publication Termination
of Gazeete of Gazeete of operations
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
1 Babdikheda Raghogarh 30.03.1985 311 (A) 30.03.1985 14.09.1985 4293(A) 14.09.1985 1.11.2010
23.04.2008 921 (A) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (A) 10.10.2008
2 Dorana Raghogarh 23.04.2008 921 (A) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (A) 10.10.2008 26.11.2010
3 Pagara Raghogarh 23.04.2008 921 (A) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (A) 10.10.2008 1.11.2010
4 Ruthyai Raghogarh 23.04.2008 921 (A) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (A) 10.10.2008 14.05.2010
23.04.2008 921 (A) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (A) 10.10.2008 1.11.2010
5 Dehri Raghogarh
30.03.1985 1300 (A) 30.03.1985 04.09.1985 4295 (A) 04.09.1985
6 Panj Guna 23.04.2008 921 (A) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (A) 10.10.2008 1.11.2010
7 Bagrangghar Guna 23.04.2008 921 (A) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (A) 10.10.2008 26.11.2010
01.12.1984 4142 (A) 01.12.1984 50.10.1985 4718 (A) 05.10.1985
8 Sojna Guna 23.04.2008 921 (A) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (A) 10.10.2008 1.11.2010
08.12.1984 4282 (A) 08.12.1984 06.11.1985 5231 (A) 06.11.1985
9 Vinayakkhedi Guna 23.04.2008 921 (A) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435(A) 10.10.2008 1.11.2010
21.03.1987 2285 (A) 21.03.1987 08.08.1987 2027 (A) 08.08.1987 26.11.2010
1 0 Muhalpur Guna 23.04.2008 921 (A) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (A) 10.10.2008 26.11.2010
11 Chavni Guna 23.04.2008 921 (A) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (A) 10.10.2008 28.02.2011
01.10.1994 2532 (A) 09.09.1984 17.05.1985 440 (A) 10.05.1985
12 Sigwasha Guna 23.04.2008 921 (A) 23.04.2008 10.10.2008 2435 (A) 10.10.2008` 26.11.2010
13 Pipariya Guna 01.10.1994 2545 (A) 09.04.1994 28.03.1995 270 (A) 24.03.1995 26.11.2010
14 Silawati Guna 01.10.1994 2533 (A) 09.09.1994 09.03.1995 143 (A) 02.03.1995 11.11.2010
15 Tarabta Guna 01.10.1994 2531 (A) 09.09.1994 28.03.1995 269 (A) 24.03.1995 11.11.2010
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3425
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 1 6 Dhamnar Guna 01.10.1994 2544 (A) 09.09.1994 21.04.1995 377 (A) 19.04.1995 26.11.2010 1 7 Kutiyabad Guna 01.10.1994 2543 (A) 09.09.1994 21.04.1995 375 (A) 19.04.1995 26.11.2010 1 8 Bhadora Guna 01.10.1994 2543 (A) 09.09.1994 21.04.1995 375 (A) 19.04.1995 20.12.2010 1 9 Gwarkheda Guna 01.10.1994 2542 (A) 09.09.1994 09.03.1995 149 (A) 02.03.1995 11.11.2010 2 0 Sagoriya Guna 01.10.1994 2540 (A) 09.09.1994 21.04.1995 376 (A) 19.04.1995 11.11.2010 2 1 Jamra Guna 01.10.1994 2539 (A) 09.09.1994 09.03.1995 148 (A) 02.03.1995 26.11.2010 2 2 Myana Guna 01.10.1994 2538 (A) 09.09.1994 21.04.1995 374 (A) 19.04.1995 18.12.2010 2 3 Padmankhedi Guna 01.10.1994 2537 (A) 09.09.1994 09.03.1995 147 (A) 02.03.1995 11.11.2010 2 4 Khajuri Guna 01.10.1994 2536 (A) 09.09.1994 09.03.1995 146 (A) 19.04.1995 11.11.2010 2 5 Rabsarjagir Ishaghar 01.10.1994 2535 (A) 09.09.1994 03.03.1995 145 (A) 02.03.1995 26.11.2010 2 6 Ghurwarkala Ishaghar 01.10.1994 2534 (A) 09.09.1994 09.03.1995 144 (A) 02.03.1995 11.11.2010 2 7 Sigakhedi Kolaras 15.10.1994 2762 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1985 367 (A) 19.04.1995 11.11.2010 2 8 Bakaspur Kolaras 15.10.1994 2463 (A) 22.09.1994 02.05.1995 394 (A) 28.04.1995 11.11.2010 2 9 Sumela Kolaras 15.10.1994 2766 (A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 262 (A) 24.03.1995 26.11.2010 3 0 Badarvash Kolaras 15.10.1994 2765 (A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 261 (A) 24.03.1995 26.11.2010 3 1 Tilatili Kolaras 15.10.1994 2765 (A) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 150 (A) 02.03.1995 26.11.2010 3 2 Anwara Kolaras 15.10.1994 2761 (A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 264 (A) 24.03.1995 26.11.2010 3 3 Digodh Kolaras 15.10.1994 2764 (A) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 151 (A) 02.03.1995 11.11.2010 3 4 Chitara Kolaras 15.10.1994 2768 (A) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 152 (A) 02.03.1995 28.02.2011 3 5 Buda dogar Kolaras 25.02.1995 509 (A) 11.02.1995 13.06.1995 518 (A) 02.06.1995 28.02.2011 3 6 Kulhadi Kolaras 15.10.1994 2769 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 365 (A) 19.04.1995 29.10.2010 3 7 Kharai Kolaras 15.10.1994 2770 (A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 265 (A) 24.03.1995 29.10.2010 3 8 Lukwasha Kolaras 15.10.1994 2771 (A) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 153 (A) 02.03.1995 29.10.2010 3 9 Dondyai Kolaras 15.10.1994 2772 (A) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 154 (A) 02.03.1995 29.10.2010 4 0 Jur Kolaras 15.10.1994 2773 (A) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 125 (A) 02.03.1995 29.10.2010 4 1 Ukawal Kolaras 15.10.1994 2774 (A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 263 (A) 24.03.1995 29.10.2010 4 2 Panwari Kolaras 15.10.1994 2775 (A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 271 (A) 24.03.1995 01.11.2011 4 3 Gudha Kolaras 15.10.1994 2776 (A) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 156 (A) 02.03.1995 29.10.2010 4 4 Gugwara Kolaras 15.10.1994 2777 (A) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 157 (A) 02.03.1995 29.10.2010 4 5 Biramkhedi Kolaras 15.10.1994 2778 (A) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 158 (A) 02.03.1995 01.11.2010 4 6 Mohra Kolaras 15.10.1994 2779 (A) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 159 (A) 02.03.1995 01.11.2010 4 7 Tighariya Kolaras 15.10.1994 2780 (A) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 160 (A) 02.03.1995 01.11.2010 4 8 Piprodha Kolaras 15.10.1994 2781 (A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 267 (A) 24.03.1995 01.11.2010 4 9 Bagroda Kolaras 15.10.1994 2782 (A) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 161 (A) 02.03.1995 01.11.2010 5 0 Nitwash Kolaras 15.10.1994 2783 (A) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 162 (A) 02.03.1995 01.11.2010 5 1 Kulwara Kolaras 15.10.1994 2766 (A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 266 (A) 24.03.1995 01.11.2010 5 2 Madikhera Kolaras 15.10.1994 2784 (A) 22.09.1994 09.03.1995 163 (A) 02.03.1995 01.11.2010 5 3 Deherwara Kolaras 15.10.1994 2785 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 366 (A) 19.04.1995 01.11.2010 5 4 Bilokala Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369 (A) 19.04.1995 01.11.2010 5 5 Choki Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 02.05.1995 395 (A) 28.04.1995 01.11.2010 5 6 Asuakehdi Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369 (A) 17.04.1995 01.11.2010 5 7 Malakhedi Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369 (A) 19.04.1995 01.11.2010 5 8 Tongra Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369 (A) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011 5 9 Tanpur Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 258 (A) 25.03.1995 28.02.2011 6 0 Kodabda Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369 (A) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011 6 1 Kabirkhedi Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369 (A) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011 6 2 Chhar Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 258 (A) 25.03.1995 25.02.20113426 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
6 3 Tharri Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369 (A) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
6 4 Thara Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 258 (A) 25.03.1995 25.02.2011
6 5 Khorghar Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369 (A) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
6 6 Kharaibhat Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369 (A) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
6 7 Dakrora Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369 (A) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
6 8 Ramabasai Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369 (A) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
6 9 Bilupura Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369 (A) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
7 0 Chakmankbasai Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 258 (A) 25.03.1995 25.02.2011
7 1 Chakdhukalbasai Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369 (A) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
7 2 Tarkaa Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369 (A) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
7 3 Madankhedi Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369 (A) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
7 4 Sikrawada Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 258 (A) 25.03.1995 25.02.2011
7 5 Sikravadi Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 258 (A) 25.03.1995 25.02.2011
7 6 Sood Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 269 (A) 19.04.1995 25.02.2011
7 7 Simariya Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369 (A) 19.04.1995 03.01.2012
10.06.2008 1425 (A) 06.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436 (A) 10.10.2008
7 8 Silpura Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1995 28.03.1995 258 (A) 25.03.1995 03.01.2012
10.06.2008 1425 (A) 06.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436 (A) 10.10.2008
7 9 Dendri Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975 (A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 258 (A) 25.03.1995 03.01.2012
10.06.2008 1425 (A) 06.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(A) 10.10.2008
80 Shyampur Shivpuri 29.10.1994 2975(A) 22.09.1994 10.10.2008 2436(A) 10.10.2008 03.01.2012
25.06.2008 1559(A) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(A) 10.10.2008
81 Berja Pohri 29.10.1994 2976(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 24.03.1995 08.01.2012
82 Gugarpati Pohri 29.10.1994 2976(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 268(A) 24.03.1995
10.06.2008 1425(A) 06.06.2008 10.10.2008
83 Gugargaov Pohri 29.10.1994 2976(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 260(A) 24.03.199 21.04.2011
25.06.2008 1559(A) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(A) 10.10.2008
84 Billibaramata Pohri 29.10.1994 2976(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 268(A) 24.03.1995 21.04.2011
25.06.2008 1559(A) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(A) 10.10.2008
85 Vinherakhurd Pohri 29.10.1994 2976(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 260(A) 24.03.1995 21.04.2011
10.06.2008 1425(A) 06.06.2008 2436(A) 10.10.2008
86 Husainpur Pohri 29.10.1994 2976(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 260(A) 24.03.1995 08.01.2012
25.06.2008 1559(A) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(A) 10.10.2008
87 Balapur Pohri 29.10.1994 2976(A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 368(A) 19.04.1995 08.01.2012
10.06.2008 1425(A) 06.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(A) 10.10.2008
88 Aavadpur Pohri 29.10.1994 2976(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 260(A) 24.03.1995 21.04.2011
10.06.2008 1425(A) 06.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(A) 10.10.2008
89 Khatka Pohri 29.10.1994 2976(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 260(A) 24.03.1995 21.04.2011
10.06.2008 1425(A) 06.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(A) 10.10.2008
90 Ahilyapur Pohri 29.10.1994 2976(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 260(A) 24.03.1995 03.01.2012
25.06.2008 1559(A) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(A) 10.10.2008
91 Patiwari Pohri 29.10.1994 2976(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 268(A) 24.03.1995 03.01.2012
25.05.2009 1336(A) 22.05.2009 06.09.2010 2178(A) 03.09.2010
10.06.2008 1425 (A)06.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436 (A) 10.10.2008 03.01.2012
92 Devpurkala Pohri 29.10.1994 2976(A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 369(A) 19.04.1995 08.01.2012
25.06.2008 1559(A) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(A) 10.10.2008
93 Gurichha Pohri 29.10.1994 2976(A) 22.09.994 28.03.1995 260(A) 24.03.1995 08.01.2012
25.06.2008 1559(A) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(A) 10.10.2008
94 Burda Pohri 29.10.1994 2976(A) 22/09/1994 28.03.1995 268(A) 14.03.1995 08.01.2012
25.06.2009 1559(A) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(A) 10.10.2008
95 Kema Pohri 29.10.1994 2976(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 260(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3427
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
25.06.2008 1559(A) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2436(A) 10.10.2008 28.09.2010
9 6 Shasram Vijaipur 15.10.1994 2786(A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 372(A) 19.04.1995 28.02.2010
24.06.2008 1560(A) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2437(A) 10.10.2008
9 7 Farara Vijaipur 15.10.1994 2786(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 259(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
24.06.2008 1560(A) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2437(A) 10.10.2008 28.02.2010
9 8 Budera Vijaipur 15.10.1994 2786(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 272(A) 24.03.1995 28.02.2010
9 9 Dudhye Vijaipur 15.10.1994 2786(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 272(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
100 Khurjan Vijaipur 25.05.2009 1336(A) 22.05.2009 06.09.2010 2178(A) 03.09.2010 28.09.2010
15.10.1994 2786(A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 372(A) 19.04.1995 28.09.2010
101 Tidabli Jora 15.10.1994 2787(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
24.06.2008 1561(A) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2434(A) 10.10.2008
102 Bhuri Jora 15.10.1994 2787(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
24.06.2008 1561(A) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2434(A) 10.10.2008
103 Dhondha Jora 15.10.1994 2787(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 245(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
24.06.2008 1561(A) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2434(A) 10.10.2008
104 Baskhoa Jora 15.10.1994 2787(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
24.06.2008 1561(A) 24.06.2008 10.10.2008 2434(A) 10.10.2008
105 Jogipura Jora 15.10.1994 2787(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(A)24.03.1995 28.09.2010
106 Kanhar Jora 15.10.1994 2787(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
107 Arithi Jora 15.10.1994 2787(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
108 Rakhera Jora 27.10.1994 2760(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 255(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
109 Hariyapura Jora 15.10.1994 2760(A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 370(A) 19.04.1995 28.09.2010
110 Mara Jora 15.10.1994 2760(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 255(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
111 Bhajekapura Jora 15.10.1994 2760(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 255(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
112 Khadiyapura Jora 15.10.1994 2760(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 255(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
113 Gopalpura Jora 15.10.1994 2787(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
114 Telri Jora 15.10.1994 2787(A) 22.09.1994 15.04.1995 256(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
115 Ghurkuda Jora 15.10.1994 2787(A) 22.09.1994 28.09.1995 256(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
116 Kherli Jora 15.10.1994 2787(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
117 Japthap Jora 15.10.1994 2787(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
118 Husenpur Jora 15.10.1994 2787(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 256(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
119 Brajghadi Jora 15.10.1994 2760(A) 22.09.1994 21.04.1995 271(A) 19.04.1995 28.09.2010
120 Sagoriya Kelaras 15.10.1994 2788(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
121 Sighacholi Kelaras 15.10.1994 2788(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
122 Devchha Kelaras 15.10.1994 2788(A) 22.03.1994 28.03.1995 257(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
123 Bilaooa Kelaras 15.10.1994 2788(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
124 Burabli Kelaras 15.10.1994 2788(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
125 Sujarma Kelaras 15.10.1994 2788(A) 22.09.1994 11.05.1996 1408(A)15.04.1996 28.09.2010
126 Bilsaiya Kelaras 15.10.1994 2788(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
127 Beraimanghar Kelaras 15.10.1994 2788(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
128 Rithoniya Kelaras 15.10.1994 2788(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
129 Nepri Kelaras 15.10.1994 2788(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
130 Rajpurajagir Kelaras 15.10.1994 2788(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 273(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
131 Pachikha Kelaras 15.10.1994 2788(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(A) 24.03.1996 28.09.2010
132 Hatipura Kelaras 15.10.1994 2788(A) 22.09.1994 28.03.1995 257(A) 24.03.1995 28.09.2010
[F. No. L-14014/24/2014-G.P.] S.P. AGARWAL, Under Secy3428 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2014
का.आ. 1306.--सक्षम प्राधिकारी, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाईन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 17 के अधीन विरचित पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाईन (भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार का अर्जन) नियम, 1963 के नियम 4 के उपनियम (1) के परंतुक के अनुसरण में, गेल (इण्डिया) लिमिटेड के परामर्श से जिसमें, यथास्थिति, उस क्षेत्र में भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार निहित किया गया है या उस क्षेत्र में पाइपलाईन का स्वामित्व निहित है, नीचे सारणी के स्तम्भ 8 में यथा उल्लिखित मध्य प्रदेश राज्य के दहेज-वेमार-विजयपुर पाइपलाईन परियोजना के माध्यम से पाइपलाईन बिछाये जाने के प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीख घोषित करता है।
संलग्नक-1
अनुसूची
धारा 3 (1) के अधीन अधिसूचना धारा 6 (1) के अधीन अधिसूचना
क्रम गांव का नाम तालुका राजपत्र में का.आ. संख्या और राजपत्र में का॰आ॰ संख्या और कार्य की समाप्ति सं. तहसील प्रकाशन का दिनांक प्रकाशन का दिनांक का दिनांक दिनांक दिनांक
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 1. संडावता सारंगपुर 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 25.08.2011 2. खंजरपुर सारंगपुर 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 12.09.2011 3. बरखेडीखुर्रम सारंगपुर 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 15.09.2011 4. घाटाखेडी सारंगपुर 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 15.09.2011 5. रसूलपुरा राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 28.12.2011 6. कलपोनी राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 21.09.2011 7. पाडलियाखेडी राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 21.09.2011 8. चौसला राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 21.04.2012 9. तुमडियाखेडी राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 20.06.2012 10. गुराडिया राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2558(अ)10.11.2009 20.06.2012 11. खजूरी राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2558(अ)10.11.2009 20.06.2012 12. गोरखपुरा राजगढ 22.06.2009 1804(अ)22.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 08.04.2011 13. किशनपुरिया-1 राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2558(अ)10.11.2009 20.06.2012 14. कुन्डीवे-1 राजगढ 08.01.2010 37(अ)08.01.2010 03.04.2010 746(अ)03.04.2010 19.09.2011 15. लालपुरा राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 21.04.2012 16. मोहकमपुरा राजगढ 22.09.2009 2421(अ)22.09.2009 19.01.2010 113(अ)19.01.2010 13.12.2011 17. रानीपुरा राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 19.09.2011 18. दलेलपुरा राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 15.09.2011 19. चेनपुरिया राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 13.09.2011 20. सालपुरा राजगढ 22.09.2009 2421(अ)22.09.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 26.11.2011 21. सांगी राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 22.04.2012 22. सावनखेडा राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 22.04.2012 23. जैतपुरा राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 21.04.2012 24. भादवाखेडा राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 20.09.2011[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3429
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 25. किशनपुरिया 2 राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 21.04.2011 26. रामपुरिया राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 21.04.2011 27. राजलीवे राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 20.09.2011 28. पीपलवे राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 19.04.2012 29. हिरनखेडी राजगढ 22.07.2009 1804(अ)22.07.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 28.12.2011 30. घोघडियाकला राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 09.11.2011 31. घोघडियाखुर्द राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 09.11.2011 32. गोल्यावे राजगढ 22.07.2009 1804(अ)22.07.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 24.01.2012 33. कालीपीठ राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 21.04.2012 34. बनानिया राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449(अ)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(अ)10.11.2009 20.09.2011 35. लालयातलाई राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449 (अ) 10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858 (अ) 10.11.2009 19.04.2012 36. बाजपुरा राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449 (अ) 10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858 (अ) 10.11.2009 19.04.2012 37. कुन्डीवे 2 राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449 (अ) 10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858 (अ) 10.11.2009 24.01.2012 38. महुवावे राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449 (अ) 10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858 (अ) 10.11.2009 24.01.2012 39. जोडकिया राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449 (अ) 10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858 (अ) 10.11.2009 19.04.2012 40. सुवाहेडी राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449 (अ) 10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858 (अ) 10.11.2009 19.04.2012 41. जलालपुरा राजगढ 11.06.2009 1449 (अ) 10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858 (अ) 10.11.2009 21.04.2012 42. सोनाहेडा चाचौडा 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (अ) 03.12.2009 24.04.2012 43. सगापुरा चाचौडा 22.06.2009 1803 (अ) 22.06.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (अ) 03.12.2009 13.09.2011 44. नेशखुर्द चाचौडा 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (अ) 03.12.2009 25.08.2011 45. नेत्याखेडी चाचौडा 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (अ) 03.12.2009 26.11.2011 46. झोरदा चाचौडा 03.04.2010 743 (अ) 03.04.2010 03.12.2009 3095 (अ) 03.12.2009 03.04.2011 47. मोहम्मदपुर चाचौडा 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (अ) 03.12.2009 19.03.2012 48. गुन्जारी चाचौडा 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (अ) 03.12.2009 18.03.2012 49. मुंहासाकला चाचौडा 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (अ) 03.12.2009 19.03.2012 50. पोलास चाचौडा 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (अ) 03.12.2009 18.03.2012 51. चाचौडा चाचौडा 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (अ) 03.12.2009 24.04.2012 52. छान चाचौडा 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (अ) 03.12.2009 19.03.2012 53. महेशपुरा चाचौडा 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (अ) 03.12.2009 25.04.2012 54. बीजनीपुरा चाचौडा 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (अ) 03.12.2009 19.03.2012 55. जयसहपुरा चाचौडा 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (अ) 03.12.2009 19.03.2012 56. चारनपुरा चाचौडा 08.01.2010 37 (अ) 08.01.2010 03.04.2010 746 (अ) 03.04.2010 08.11.2011 57. खेजडाखुर्द चाचौडा 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (अ) 03.12.2009 13.09.2011 58. रमडा चाचौडा 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (अ) 03.12.2009 08.11.2011 59. रमडी चचौडा 19.04.2011 764 (अ) 19.04.2011 03.04.2010 746 (अ) 03.04.2010 24.04.20123430 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 60. बरखेडीमाफी कुम्भराज 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (अ) 03.12.2009 13.09.2011 61. ईंटखेडीकला कुम्भराज 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 11.12.2009 3183 (अ) 10.12.2009 12.09.2011 62. सिहारी कुम्भराज 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 11.12.2009 3183 (अ) 10.12.2009 12.09.2011 63. अलीखेडी कुम्भराज 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 11.12.2009 3183 (अ) 10.12.2009 12.09.2011 64. खेजडाबेहरा कुम्भराज 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 11.12.2009 3183 (अ) 10.12.2009 19.03.2012 65. तुलसीखेडी कुम्भराज 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 11.12.2009 3183 (अ) 10.12.2009 19.03.2012 66. ऊपरी कुम्भराज 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 11.12.2009 3183 (अ) 10.12.2009 19.03.2012 67. मानपुरा कुम्भराज 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 11.12.2009 3183 (अ) 10.12.2009 13.09.2011 68. सांकाकला राघौगढ 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 11.12.2009 3183 (अ) 10.12.2009 13.09.2011 69. बेहराखेडी राघौगढ 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 18.03.2010 613 (अ) 18.03.2010 08.11.2011 70. बर्या राघौगढ 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 19.01.2010 113 (अ) 19.01.2010 08.11.2011 71. आवन राघौगढ 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 19.01.2010 113 (अ) 19.01.2010 08.11.2011 72. भसाना राघौगढ 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 19.01.2010 113 (अ) 19.01.2010 08.11.2011 73. चेंटरवर्री राघौगढ 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 19.01.2010 113 (अ) 19.01.2010 04.05.2012 74. अहीरखेडी राघौगढ 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 19.01.2010 113 (अ) 19.01.2010 19.03.2012 75. अहमदपुरं राघौगढ 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 19.01.2010 113 (अ) 19.01.2010 24.04.2012 76. हुसेनपुरं राघौगढ 22.07.2009 1803 (अ) 22.07.2009 19.01.2010 113 (अ) 19.01.2010 08.04.2011
[फा॰सं॰ एल-14014/23/2014-जी पी] एस॰पी॰ अग्रवाल, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2014
S.O. 1306 .—In pursuance of the proviso to sub-rule (i) of rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Popelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963, framed under section 17 of the Petroleum and Minerals Popelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Competent Authority, GAIL (India) Limited with whom the right of user in the land in that area has been vested or ownership of the pipeline in that area vests as the case may be, hereby declares the date of termination of operation of laying Dahej - Vemar - Vijaipur pipeline project in Madhya Pradesh State as mentioned in column - 8 of the Schedule below, namely:—
ANNEXURE- 1
SCHEDULE
Notification Under section 3(1) Notification Under section 6(1)
Sr.No. Name of Tehsil Date of S.O.No. & Date Date of S.O.No. & Date Date of
Village Publication Publication Te r m i n a t i o n
of Gazette of Gazette of operations
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
1. Sandavta Sarangpur 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A) 10.11.2009 5.08.2011
2. Khanjarpur Sarangpur 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 12.09.2011
3. Barkhedikhuram Sarangpur 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 15.09.2011
4. Ghatakhedi Sarangpur 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 15.09.2011
5. Rasulpura Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 28.12.2011
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3431
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
6. Kalponi Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 21.09.2011 7. Paddaliya Khedi Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 21.09.2011 8. Chonsla Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 21.04.2012 9. Tumadiyakhedi Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 20.06.2012 10. Guradiya Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 20.06.2012 11. Khajuri Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 20.06.2012 12. Gorakhpura Rajgad 22.06.2009 1804(A)22.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 08.04.2011 13. Kishanpuriya-1 Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 20.06.2012 14. Kundibeh 1 Rajgad 08.01.2010 37(A)08.01.2010 03.04.2010 746(A)03.04.2010 19.09.2011 15. Lalpura Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 21.04.2012 16. Mohlampura Rajgad 22.09.2009 2421(A)22.096.2009 19.01.2010 113(A)19.01.2010 13.12.2011 17. Ranipura Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 19.09.2011 18. Dalelpura Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 15.09.2011 19. Chainpuriya Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 13.09.2011 20. Salpura Rajgad 22.09.2009 2421(A)22.09.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 26.11.2011 21. Saangi Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 21.04.2011 22. Sawankheda Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 22.04.2012 23. Pura Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 21.04.2012 24. Bhadvakheda Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 20.09.2011 25. Kishanpuriya 2 Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 21.04.2011 26. Rampuria Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 21.04.2011 27. Rajlibe Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 20.09.2011 28. Pipalbe Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 19.04.2012 29. Hirankhedi Rajgad 22.07.2009 1804(A)22.07.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 28.12.2011 30. Ghoghadiyakala Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 09.11.2011 31. Ghoghadiyakhurd Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 09.11.2011 32. Golyave Rajgad 22.07.2009 1804(A)22.07.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 24.01.2012 33. Kalipith Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858(A)10.11.2009 21.04.2012 34 Bnaniya Radgad 11.06.2009 1449(A) 10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858 (A) 10.11.2009 20.09.2011 35 Lalatalai Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449(A)10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858 (A) 10.11.2009 19.04.2012 36 Bajpura Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449 (A) 10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858 (A) 10.11.2009 19.04.2012 37 Kundibeh 2 Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449 (A) 10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858 (A) 10.11.2009 24.01.2012 38 Mahubabe Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449 (A) 10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858 (A) 10.11.2009 24.01.2012 39 Jodakia Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449 (A) 10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858 (A) 10.11.2009 19.04.2012 40 Suwaheri Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449 (A) 10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858 (A) 10.11.2012 19.04.2012 41 Jalalpura Rajgad 11.06.2009 1449 (A) 10.06.2009 10.11.2009 2858 (A) 10.11.2009 21.04.20123432 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
4 2 Sonahera Chachoda 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (A) 03.12.2009 24.04.2012 4 3 Sigapura Chachoda 22.06.2009 1803 (A) 22.06.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (A) 03.12.2009 13.09.2011 4 4 Nesh Khurd Chachoda 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (A) 03.12.2009 25.08.2011 4 5 Netya Khedi Chachoda 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (A) 03.12.2009 26.11.2011 4 6 Jhordha Chachoda 03.04.2010 743 (A) 03.04.2010 03.12.2009 3095 (A) 03.12.2009 03.04.2011 4 7 Mohammadpur Chachoda 22.07.2009 1803A22.07.2009 03.12009 3095(A) 03.12.2009 19.03.2012 4 8 Gunjari Chachoda 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (A) 03.12.2009 18.03.2012 4 9 Muhashkala Chachoda 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (A) 03.12.2009 19.03.2012 5 0 Polash Chachoda 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (A) 03.12.2009 18.03.2012 5 1 Chachoda Chachoda 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (A) 03.12.2009 24.04.2012 5 2 Chhan Chachoda 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (A) 03.12.2009 19.03.2012 5 3 Mahespura Chachoda 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (A) 03.12.2009 25.04.2012 5 4 Bijnipur Chachoda 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (A) 03.12.2009 19.03.2012 55 Jyishingh Chachoda 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (A) 03.12.2009 19.03.2012 5 6 Charanpura Chachoda 08.01.2010 37 (A) 08.01.2010 03.04.2010 746 (A) 03.04.2010 08.11.2011 5 7 Khejda Khurd Chachoda 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (A) 03.12.2009 13.09.2011 5 8 Ramra Chachoda 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (A) 03.12.2009 08.11.2011 5 9 Ramrima Chachoda 19.04.2011 764 (A) 19.04.2011 03.04.2010 746 (A) 03.04.2010 24.04.2012 6 0 Barkherima Chachoda 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 03.12.2009 3095 (A) 03.12.2009 13.09.2011 6 1 Intkherima Kumbhraj 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 11.12.2009 3183(A) 10.12.2009 12.09.2011 6 2 Sihari Kumbhraj 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 11.12.2009 3183 (A) 10.12.2009 12.09.2011 6 3 Allikheri Kumbhraj 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 11.12.2009 3183 (A) 10.12.2009 12.09.2011 6 4 Kherja Behra Kumbhraj 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 11.12.2009 3183 (A) 10.12.2009 19.03.2012 6 5 Tulsikheri Kumbhraj 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 10.12.2009 3183 (A) 10.12.2009 19.03.2012 6 6 Upri Kumbhraj 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 11.12.2009 3183 (A) 10.12.2009 19.03.2012 6 7 Manpura Kumbhraj 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 11.12.2009 3183 (A) 10.12.2009 13.09.2011 6 8 Sanka Kalan Kumbhraj 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 11.12.2009 3183 (A) 10.12.2009 13.09.2011 6 9 Behra kheri Raghogad 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 18.03.2010 613 (A) 18.03.2010 08.11.2011 7 0 Barya Raghogad 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 19.01.2010 113 (A) 19.01.2010 08.11.2011 7 1 Awan Raghogad 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 19.01.2010 113 (A) 19.01.2010 08.11.2011 72. Bhesana Raghogad 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 19.01.2010 113(A) 19.01.2010 08.11.2011 73. Chetabari Raghogad 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 19.01.2010 113(A) 19.01.2010 04.05.2011 74. Ahirkheri Raghogad 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 19.01.2010 113(A) 19.01.2010 19.03.2012 75. Ahmedpur Raghogad 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 19.01.2010 113(A) 19.01.2010 24.04.2012 76. Husenpur Raghogad 22.07.2009 1803 (A) 22.07.2009 19.01.2010 113(A) 19.01.2010 08.04.2011
[F. No. L-14014/23/2014-G.P.]
S. P. AGARWAL, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3433वस्त्र मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2014
का॰आ॰ 1307.--केन्द्रीय सरकार, (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनो के लिए) राजभाषा नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम (4) के अनुसरण में, वस्त्र मंत्रालय के अंतर्गत आने वाले निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को जिसके 80% से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अधिसूचित करती हैः—
1. रेशम जैव प्रौद्योगिकी अनुसंधान प्रयोगशाला, केन्द्रीय रेशम
बोर्ड, कारमेलराम डाक, कोड़ती बेगलुरू-560 035 (कर्नाटक)
2. अनुसंधान विस्तार केंद्र, केरेअवप्रसं॰, केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड,
रंगपो-737132 (सिक्किम)
3. क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, 18-सत्यनगर,
भुवनेश्वर-751007 (ओडिशा)
[सं॰ई॰ 11016/1/2011-हिन्दी] सुनयना तोमर, संयुक्त सचिव विभाग) दरभंगा हाउस, रांची— 834929 (झारखंड) के कार्यालय में या महाप्रबंधक, सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड, मगध एवं आम्रपाली, जिला चतरा (झारखंड), के कार्यालय में या उपायुक्त जिला चतरा झारखंड या महाप्रबंधक (खोज प्रभार) आरआई-III, केन्द्रीय खान योजना एवं डिजाइन संस्थान, गोडवाना प्लेस, कांके रोड, रांची (झारखंड) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1, काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता-700001 के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है।
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम, 1957 (1957 का 20) जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है, की धारा 4 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए पूर्वोक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है।
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
New Delhi, 30th April, 2014
S.O. 1307.—In pursuance of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (use for the official purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies the following offices of the Ministry of Textiles, more than 80% staff whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:—
1. Seri Biotech Research Laboratory, Central Silk Board, Carmelram Post, Kodathi, Bengarulu-560035 Karnataka.
2. Research Extention Centre, CSR&TI, Cntral Silk
Board, Rangpo-737132 Sikkim.
3. Regional Office, Central Silk Board, 18-
Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar-751007 Orissa.
[No. E. 11016/1/2011-Hindi]
SUNAINA TOMAR, Jt. Secy.
कोयला मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 2 मई 2014
का॰आ॰ 1308.--केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में से कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है;
और उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि के क्षेत्र का ब्यौरा अंतर्विष्ट करने वाले रेखांक संख्यांक आरईवी/01/2014, तारीख 15 जनवरी, 2014 का निरीक्षण सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड््स लिमिटेड (भूमि और राजस्व उपर्युक्त वर्णित अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर महा- प्रबंधक, सेंट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड, मगध एवं आम्रवाली क्षेत्र, जिला चतरा (झारखंड) या महाप्रबंधक, सेंट्रल कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड, भूमि और राजस्व विभाग, दरभंगा हाउस, राची—834029 (झारखंड) को—
(i) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 4 की उप धारा (3) के अधीन की गई कार्रवाई से हुई क्षति या संभाव्य होने वाली किसी क्षति के लिए अधिनियम की धारा 6 के अधीन प्रतिकर का दावा कर सकेगा; और
(ii) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप धारा (1) के अधीन समाप्त हो गई पूर्वेक्षण अनुज्ञप्तियों की बाबत् या उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप धारा (4) के अधीन समाप्त हो गए खनन पट्टे के लिए प्रतिकार का दावा कर सकेगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप धारा (1) के खंड (i) से खंड (iv) में विनिर्दिष्ट मदों की बाबत् उपगत व्यय को उपदर्शित करन ेके लिए उक्त भूमि से संबंधित सभी मानचित्रों, चाटर् ों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को परिदत्त कर सकेगा।
अनुसूची
आम्रपाली विस्तार खुली खदान परियोजना
जिला-चतरा, झारखंड
(रेखाक संख्यांक आरईवी/01/2014, तारीख 15 जनवरी, 2014)
क्र॰ ग्राम थाना थाना जिला क्षेत्र क्षेत्र टिप्पण
सं॰ नं॰ (एकड़) (हेक्टेयर)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. होनहे टंडवा 50/207 चतरा 210.00 85.02 भाग 2. कुमरांग टंडवा 51/208 चतरा 393.78 159.1 भाग
खुर्द3434 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
3. कुमरांग टंडवा 52/209 चतरा 147.99 59.91 भाग
कलां
4. उरसु टंडवा 54/211 चतरा 294.78 119.34 भाग
कुलः 1046.55 423.37
सीमा का वर्णनः
क—ख रेखा बिन्दु 'क' से आरम्भ होकर ग्राम कोयद में होनहे के सम्मिलित सीमा से गुजरती हुई रेखा बिन्दु 'ख' पर मिलती है।
ख—ग रेखा बिन्दु 'ख' गरीया नदी के मध्य रेखा से गुजरती हुई
बिन्दु 'ग' पर मिलती है।
ग—घ रेखा बिन्दु 'ग' गरीया नदी के मध्य रेखा से गुजरती हुई
बिन्दु 'घ' पर मिलती है।
घ—क रेखा बिन्दु घ' ग्राम उरसू, कुमरांग कला, कुमरांग खुर्द और (i) claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any action under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the said Act: or
(ii) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting license ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to have effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the expenditure incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) to sub-section (1) of section 13 of said Act, to the office of the General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Magadh and Amrapali Area, District Chatra (Jharkhand) or General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Land and Revenue Department, Darbhanga House, Ranchi- 834029 (Jharkhand) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification.
SCHEDULE
होनहे से गुजरती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु 'क' पर मिलती है।
[फा॰ सं॰ 43015/2/2014—पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-I]
दोमिनिक डुंगडुंग, अवर सचिव Amrapali Extension Opencast Project
District-Chatra, Jharkhand
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2014
S.O. 1308.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
(plan bearing number Rev/01/2014, dated the 15th January, 2014)
Sl. Village Thana Thana District Area Area Remarks
No. No. (Acres) (Hectares)
1. Honhe Tandwa 50/207 Chatra 210.00 85.02 Part
2. KumarangTandwa 51/208 Chatra 393.78 159.1 Part
Kurd
3. KumarangTandwa 52/209 Chatra 147.99 59.91 Part
Kalan
4. Ursu Tandwa 54/211 Chatra 294.78 119.34 Part
Total 1046.55 423.37
Boundary Description:—
And, whereas the plan bearing number Rev/01/2014, dated the 15th January, 2014 containing details of the areas of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Central Coalfields Limited (Land and Revenue Department), Darbhanga House, Ranchi-834 029 (Jharkhand) or at the office of the General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Magadh and Amrapali, District Chatra (Jharkhand), Deputy Commissioner, District Chatra, Jharkhand or at the office of the General Manager (Exploration Division), RI-III, Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Palace, Kanke Road, Ranchi (Jharkhand) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700 001.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development), Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), hereinafter referred to as the said Act, the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in land described in the aforesaid Schedule.
Any person interested in the land described in the
above mentioned Schedule may:—
A-B Line starts from'A' and passes through common boundary of village koed and Honhe and meets at point 'B'.
B-C Line passes through centre line of Garuia Nadi
and meets at point 'C'.
C-D Line passes through centre line of Garuia Nadi
and meets at points 'D'.
D-A line passes through village Ursu, Kumarang Kalan, Kumarang Khurd and Honhe and meets at starting point 'A'.
[F.No. 43015/2/2014-PRIW-1]
DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3435APPEARANCES:
श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 21 अप्रैल, 2014
का.आ. 1309.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ॰सी॰आई॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं॰ 2, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 141/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
On behalf of the workman/ : Mr. Ghanshyam Jena
union Union Representative
On behalf of the : None
Management
State JHARKHAND
Industry: Consumer Affairs, Food and Pub. Distribution
Dhanbad, dated the 7th March, 2013
AWARD
[सं॰ एल-22011/6/2013-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी
exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi, the 21st April, 2014
S.O.1309.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No L-22011/
6/2013-IR(CM-II) dt. 10.06.2013.
SCHEDULE
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 141/
2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of FCT, FSD, at PO/Dt.-
Gumla, Food Corporation of India, Mahabir Tower, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
21/04/2014
"Whether the actions of the Management of Food
Corporation of India in denying wages for the period
03.02.2012 to 13.06.2012 and consequential benefits
to Sri Fundan Sao and 43 other workmen under No
work No Pay System (List enclosed) after their transfer
from FSD, Suriya Godown to FCI, FSD, Gumla Depot
are legal and justified? If not, what relief including
costs and incidental to, the workmen are entitled to?
[No. L-22011/6/2013-IR(CM-II)]
2. Shri Birendra Rai, the workmen under Sl. No. 44 out
of the total workmen 44 as per the list enclosed is present
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
and by filing a petition (in duplicate) dt 31.1.2014 duly under
ANNEXURE
the signature of Shri Ghanshyam Jena, the General
Secretary, the FCI Workers Union, Diamond Harbour Road, BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Kolkata, has submitted that the Union does not want to INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD.
pursue the instant Industrial Dispute for the reasons that PRESENT :
SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
the amicable settlement is in process between both the
parties, so it needs to be withdrawn. On the other hand,
despite Regd. Notices neither the Manager, FCI, FSD, PO:/
Distt. Gumla, nor the General Manager, FCI, Mahavir
Tower, 9th Floor, Main Road, Ranchi, both Jharkhand,
appeared in this case.
REFERENCE NO. 141 OF 2013.
PARTIES : The General Secretary,
F.C.I. Workers Union.
58/1, Diamond Harbour Road,
Kolkata-23.
Vs
General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Ranchi Since the Union Repesentative is reluctant to pursue
the Reference case in view of the process of settlement
going between both the parties, the case is closed as non-
existence of the Industrial Dispute; accordingly an order of
No Dispute is passed.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer3436 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] List of the 44 workers
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
Sl. Name of worker Sl. Name of worker
No. No.
01 02 01 02
1 Fudan Sao 2 Heman Yadav
3 Ramdeo Sao 4 Khuban Sao
5 Md. Kamruddin Mian 6 Kalia Sao
7 Bandhan Mahto 8 Churaman Gope
9 Binod Sao 10 Bedo Gope
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. 70/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s . Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/04/2014.
[No. L-22012/75/2013-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
11 Md. Khalil Mian 12 Sahdeo Sao 13 Laxman Yadav 14 Md. Habib Mian 15 Bhawani Thakur 16 Dukhan Yadav
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
17 Basudeo Sao 18 Laxman Sao Present : SMT.M.VIJAYAAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 30th day of January, 2014
19 Shaymlal Sao 20 Md. Jumman Mian
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 70/2013
21 Bhudan Gope 22 Ishwar Sao
Between:
23 Santan Sao 24 Sewa Sao
The President,
25 Mahesh Sao 26 Mahru Sao
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
27 Bhagirath Yadav 28 Chhotan Singh Telangana Trade Union Council,
29 Tek Lal Gope 30 Md. Badruddin Mian H.No. 5-295, Indra Nagar,
31 Bhikho Sao 32 Chander Sao Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist.-504208. . . . .Petitioner
33 Md. Siddique Mian 34 Ramdeo Sao
AND.
35 Rameshwar Sao 36 Sukhdeo Sao
The General Manager,
37 Raghunath Sao 38 Somar Sao
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
39 Dhupal Sao 40 Ashok Sao Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township (P.O.)
41 Bhagirath Sao 42 Surendra Sao Adilabad Dist.-504292. . . .Respondent
APPEARANCES:
43 Rajender Sao 44 Birendra Rai
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
For the Petitioner : NIL
For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &
V.S.V.S.R.K.S. Prasad, Advocates
AWARD
का.आ. 1310.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰सी॰सी॰एल॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् ा में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 70/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल॰ 22012/75/2013-आई आर (सी एम-II)]
बी॰एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/75/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 8.7.2013 referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3437
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of General Manager of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township (P.O.), Adilabad Distt., in terminating the services of Sri Ratnam Venkati, Ex-General Mazdoor, Goleti-1, SCCo Ltd., Bellampalli Area with effect from 21.5.2007 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 70/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workman, received by the Central Government on 22.04.2014.
[No. L-22012/202/2012-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim
statement and documents.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
3. Petitioner called absent and there is no representation. Inspite of receiving notice twice, Petitioner is not appearing and taking interest in the proceedings. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made, 'Nil' award is passed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
PRESENT: Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding
Officer
Dated, the 19th day of March, 2014
Industrial Dispute No. I.D. 18/2013
Between:
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 30th day of January, 2014.
The President,
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner Respondent
NIL NIL
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist. - 504208 ......... Petitioner
AND
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
The General Manager,
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur,
Adilabad Distt.-504303 ......Respondent
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner : NIL
For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri, Adovocates
AWARD
का॰आ॰. 1311.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰ सी॰ सी॰ एल॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या (18/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22.04.2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल॰-22012/202/2012-आईआर (सी॰ एम॰-II)] The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/202/2012-IR(CM-II) dated
बी॰एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
S.O. 1311.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central 30.11.2012 referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,
1947 for adjudication to this Tibunal, The reference is :
3438 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur, Adilabad District in terminating the services of Shri Kotrangi Madhu, Ex-Coal Filler, RK-8 Inc., SCCL, Sreerampur Area with effect from 1.5.2005 is justified or not? To what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 20/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/04/2014.
[No. L-22012/208/2012-IR(CM-II] B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
No. 18/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. The case stand posted for filing of claim
statement and documents.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVENRMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
3. Petitioner called absent and there is no representation. Claim statement not filed. Inspite of giving fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking interest in the proceedings and is not making any claim. In the circumstances, taking that there is no claim to be made, 'Nil' award is passed.
PRESENT: Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding
Officer
Dated, the 19th day of March, 2014
Industrial Dispute No. I.D. 20/2013
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
BETWEEN:
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowari, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 19th day of March, 2014.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent
NIL NIL
The President, (Sri Bandari Satyanarayana) Telangana Trade Union Council, H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, Adilabad Dist. - 504208 ......... Petitioner
AND
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township, Adilabad Distt.-504292 ....Respondent
APPEARANCE:
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
For the Petitioner : Nil For the Respondent : M/s P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Lakhsmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
का॰आ॰ 1312.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰सी॰सी॰एल॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 20/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-22012/208/2012-आईआर(सीएम-II]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/208/2012-IR(CM-II) Dated 4.12.2012 referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is :
SCHEDULE
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
S.O. 1312.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central "Whether the action of the Chief General Manager of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampally Area, Goleti Township , Adilabad[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3439 District in disempanelling Shri Gajjeli Posham, Ex- Coal Filler, MVK-5 Inc., SCCL, Bellampalli Area with effect from 22.10.1999 is justified or not? To what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 20/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.
dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 22/04/2014.
[No. L-22012/209/2012-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement
and documents.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
3. Petitioner called absent and there is no representation. Claim statement not filed. Inspite of giving fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking interest in the proceedings and is not making any claim. In the circumstances, taking that there is no claim to be make, 'Nil' award is passed.
PRESENT: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding
Officer
Dated the 19th day of March, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I. D. 21/2013
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
BETWEEN:
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 19th day of March, 2014.
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent NIL NIL
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist. - 504208 ......... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township,
Adilabad Distt.-504292 ....Respondent Documents marked for the Respondent APPEARANCES :
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
For the Petitioner : Nil
For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Lakhsmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
का॰आ॰ 1313.—औघोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰सी॰सी॰एल॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् ा में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 21/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-22012/209/2012-आई आर (सीएम II)]
बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/209/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 4.12.2012 referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
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. 21/ 2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampally Area, Goleti Township, Adilabad District in disempanelling Shri Gattu Ramaiah, Ex-3440 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Badli Coal Filler, Goleti-1 Inc., SCCL, Bellampally Area with effect from 14.5.2004 is justified or not? To what relief the applicant is entitled for?''
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 21/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. The case stands posted for filling of claim
statement and documents.
Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Limited, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 22/04/2014.
[No. L-22012/240/2012-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
3. Petitioner called absent and there is no representation. Claim statement not filed. Inspite of giving fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking interest in the proceedings and is not making any claim. In the circumstances, taking that there is no claim to be made, 'Nil' award is passed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
PRESENT: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding
Officer
Dated the 1st day of January, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I. D. 29/2013
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 19th day of March, 2014.
BETWEEN:
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer The President,
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Withnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent
NIL
NIL
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H. No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Adilabad Dist. - 504208 ......... Petitioner
AND
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Mandamarri Area,
Mandamarri - 504 231
Adilabad Distt.
...........Respondent
APPEARANCES:
का॰आ॰. 1314.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰ सी॰ सी॰ एल॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 29/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-22012/240/2012-आईआर (सी एम-II) ] For the Petitioner : Nil
For the Respondent : M/s. P. A.V.V.S. Sarma &
Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
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. 29/ 2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour ''The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/240/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 11.2.2013 referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3441
SCHEDULE
''Whether the action of the management of General Manager of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri Adilabad District in terminating the service of Sri Bhoopelli Sagar, Ex- Coal Filler, KK-1 Inc., SCCL, Mandamarri Area with effect from 20.8.1999 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered is this Tribunal as I.D. No. 29/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/
2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s
Singareni Collieries Co. Limited, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22.04.2014.
[No. L-22012/241/2012-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT statement and documents.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
3. Petitioner called absent and there is no representation. Inspite of giving notice time and again Petitioner is not appearing and taking interest in the proceedings. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made, 'Nil' award is passed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
PRESENT: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 1st day of January, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I. D. 30/2013
BETWEEN:
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 1st day of January, 2014.
The President,
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner Respondent
NIL NIL
H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist. - 504208 ......... Petitioner
AND
Documents marked for the Petitoner
NIL
The General Manager,
Documents marked for the Petitoner
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Mandamarri Area,
Mandamarri- 504 231
Anilabad Distt.
...... Respondent
APPEARANCES:
का॰आ॰.1315.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947, (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰सी॰सी॰एल॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् ा में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण /श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 30/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22.04.2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
For the Petitioner : NIL
For the Respondent :M/s. P.A.V.V.S Sarma & Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
[सं॰ एल-22012/241/2012-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/241/2012-IR (CM-II) dated
बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
S.O. 1315.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central 11.2.2013 referred the following dispute between the
management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act,
1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The referene is,3442 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District in terminating the services of Sri Gogu Lingaiah, Ex- Coal Filler, MK-4 Inc., SCCL, Mandamarri Area with effect from 29.1.1998 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?" 31/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Limited, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22/04/2014.
[No. L-22012/242/2012-IR(CM-II)] B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 30/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT statement and documents.
HYDERABAD
3. Petitioner called absent and there is no representation. Inspite of giving notice time and again Petitioner is not appearing and taking interest in the proceedings. In the circumstances, taking the Petitioner got no claim to be made, 'Nil' award is passed.
PRESENT : SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI,
Presiding Officer
Dated the 1st day of January, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I. D. 31/2013
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
BETWEEN:
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 1st day of January, 2014.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
Appendix of evidence
H. No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
the Adilabad Dist. - 504208 ......... Petitioner
Petitioner Respondent AND
NIL NIL
The General Manager,
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri-504 231
Adilabad Distt.
....Respondent Documents marked for the Respondent APPEARANCES :
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014 For the Petitioner : NIL
For the Respondent : NIL
AWARD
का॰आ॰ 1316.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰सी॰सी॰एल॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् ा में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 31/2013) प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-22012/242/2012-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
बी॰एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its
order No. L-22012/242/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 11.2.2013
referred the following dispute between the management of
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman
under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication
to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
S.O. 1316.—n pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. ''Whether the action of the management of
General Manager of M/s. Singareni Collieries
Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3443 District in terminating the services of Sri Kotte
Jayakar, Ex-Coal Filler, KK-5 Inc., SCCL, Mandamarri
Area with effect from 30.7.2001 is justified or not? If
not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
31/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement
and documents.
3. Petitioner called absent and there is no Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 32/2013) of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni
Collieries Co. Limited, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 22/04/2014.
[No. L-22012/243/2012-IR (CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
representation. Inspite of giving notice time and again Petitioner is not appearing and taking interest in the BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
proceedings. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made, 'Nil' award is passed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
PRESENT: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 1st day of January, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I. D. 32/2013
BETWEEN:
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 1st day of
January, 2014.
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Appendix of evidence
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the
Adilabad Dist. - 504208 ..... Petitioner
Petitioner Respondent
AND
NIL NIL The General Manager,
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Mandamarri Area,
Mandamarri-504 231
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
Adilabad Distt.
....Respondent
APPEARANCES:
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014 For the Petitioner : NIL
For the Respondent : M/S. P.A.V.V. S. Sarma & Vijaya
Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
का॰आ॰ 1317.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰ सी॰ सी॰ एल॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 32/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-22012/243/2012-आई आर (सी एम-II)] बी॰एम॰ पटनायक डेस्क अधिकारी The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/243/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 19.2.2013 referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman under section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
S.O. 1317.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central "Whether the action the management of General Manager of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad3444 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] District in Terminating the services of Shri Ratnam Ramaswamy, Ex-Badli Coal Filler, KK-5A Inc., SCCL,
Mandamarri Area with effect from 5.3.2003 is justified
or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled
for?''
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 32/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. The Case stands posted for filing of claim Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of M/s Singareni
Collieries Co. Limited, and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 22/04/2014.
[No. L-22012/245/2012-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer.
ANNEXURE
statement and documents.
3. Petitioner called absent and there is no
representation. Inspite of giving notice time and again BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABD
Petitioner is not appearing and taking interest in the
Proceedings. In the circumstances, taking the Petitioner
got no claim to be made, 'Nil' award is passed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
PRESENT: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 1st day of January, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. I. D. 33/2013
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, BETWEEN:
Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 1st day of
January, 2014.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner Respondent
NIL NIL
The President, (Sri Bandari Satyanarayana) Telangana Trade Union Council, H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, Adilabad Dist. - 504208 ... Petitioner
AND
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri-504 231 Adilabad Distt.
...Respondent
APPEARANCES:
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
For the Petitioner : NIL
For the Respondent : M/S. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya
Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
का॰आ॰. 1318.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰सी॰सी॰एल॰ के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 33/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल॰-22012/245/2012-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
बी॰एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
S.O. 1318.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/245/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 19.2.2013 referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman under section 10 (1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/
2013) of the Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum Labour ''Whether the action the management of General Manager of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3445 Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District in terminating the services of Sri Thungapindi Balaiah, Ex-Coal Filler, MK-4 Inc., SCCL, Mandamarri Area with effect from 19.2.2003 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?''
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 33/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni
Collieries Co. Limited, and their workman, received by the
Central Government on 22/04/2014.
[No. L-22012/117/2012-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
2. The case stands posted for filling of claim
statement and documents.
3. Petitioner called absent and there is no BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
representation. In spite of giving notice time and again
Petitioner is not appearing and taking interest in the
proceedings. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner
got no claim to be made, 'Nil' award is passed.
PRESENT: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, PresidingOfficer
Dated the 1st day of January, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I. D. 60/2012
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
BETWEEN:
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,
Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 1st day of
January, 2014.
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Appendix of evidence
Adilabad Dist. - 504208 ... Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the AND
Petitioner Respondent
The General Manager,
NIL NIL
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Bellampalli Area, Goletic Township, Adilabad Distt. Andhra Pradesh ...Respondent
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
APPEARANCE:
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
For the Petitioner : NIL
For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya
Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
का॰आ॰ 1319.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰सी॰सी॰एल॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् ा में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 60/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-22012/117/2012-आई आर (सीएम-II)]
बी॰एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/117/2012-1R(CM-II) dated 26.9.2012 referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
S.O.1319.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.60/2012) "Whether the action the management of the Chief General Manager of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampally Area, Goleti Township,3446 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Adilabad District in terminating the services of Sri Akkpaka Laxminarayana, Ex-Badli, Filler, MVK-6 Inc., Bellampalli Area with effect from 22.5.2001 is justified or not? To what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 60/2012 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents.
3. Petitioner called absent and there is no
representation. In spite of giving notice time and again Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 69/2013 )of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni
Colleries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 22/04/2014.
[L-No. 22012/62/2013-IR (CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer.
ANNEXURE
Petitioner is not appearing and taking interest in the
proceedings. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner
got no claim to be made, 'Nil' award is passed.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,
Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 1st day of PRESENT: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 30th day of January, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 69/2013
January, 2014.
BETWEEN:
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Appendix of evidence
Telangana Trade Union Council,
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Petitioner Respondent
Adilabad Dist. - 504208 .... Petitioner
NIL NIL
AND
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
The General Manager,
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township (P.O.) Adilabad Dist.-504292.
....Respondent
APPEARANCE:
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
For the Petitioner : NIL
For the Respondent : M/S. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & V.S.V. S.R. K.S. Prasad, Advocates
AWARD
का॰आ॰ 1320.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰ सी॰ सी॰ एल॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 69/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-22012/62/2013-आई आर (सी एम-II)]
बी॰एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी,
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
S.O. 1320.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/62/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 8.7.2013 referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central ''Whether the action the management of General Manager of M/s. Singareni Colleries Company Ltd.,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3447 Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township (P.O.), Adilabad Distt., in terminating the services of Sri Dubbaka Govinda Raju, Ex-Badli Filler, Goleti-2 Inc., SCCo. Ltd., Bellampalli Area with effect from 28.8.1993 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 69/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.71/2013)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni
Colleries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 22/04/2014.
[No. L-22012/63/2013- IR (CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
and documents.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
3. Petitioner called absent and there is no INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT representation. Inspite of receiving notice twice,
HYDERABAD
Petitioner is not appearing and taking interest in the proceedings. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made, 'Nil' award is passed.
Award passed accodingly. Transmit.
PRESENTS: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 30th day of January, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. I.D. 71/2013
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, BETWEEN:
Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 30th day of January, 2014.
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Telangana Trade Union Council,
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined forthe H. No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar, Petitioner Respondent Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, NIL NIL Adilabad Dist. - 504208 .... Petitioner
AND
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
The General Manager,
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township, (P.O.)
Adilabad Distt.-504292 ...Respondent
APPEARANCES:
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
का॰आ॰ 1321.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 71/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त् हुआ था।
For the Petitioner : Nil
For the Respondent : M/s P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &
V.S.R. S.R. K.S. Prasad,
Advocates
AWARD
[सं॰ एल-22012/63/2013-आई आर (सी एम-II)]
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its
बी.एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
S.O. 1321.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central order No. L-22012/63/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 5.7. 2013
referred the following dispute between the management
of M/s Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947
for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,3448 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action the management of General Manager of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township (P.O.). Adilabad Distt., in terminating the services of Sri Daki Mallaiah, Ex-Coal Filler, MVK-5, Inc. SCCo. Ltd., Bellampalli Area with effect from 23.5.2001 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 71/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents.
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Limited, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22/04/2014.
[No. L-22012/48/2013-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
3. Petitioner called absent and there is no representation. Inspite of receiving notice twice, Petitioner is not appearing and taking interest in the proceedings. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made. 'Nil' award is passed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
PRESENT: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 30th day of March, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. I.D. 72/2013
BETWEEN:
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 30th day of January, 2014.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the H. No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar, Petitioner Respondent Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, NIL NIL Adilabad Dist. - 504208 ... Petitioner
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
AND
The General Manager,
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Ramagundam-I Area, Godavarikhani
Karimnagar Distt.-505209.
...Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner : NIL For the Respondent : M/s P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &
Vijaya Lakhsmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
का॰आ॰ 1322.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰सी॰सी॰एल॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् ा में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 72/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-22012/48/2013-आईआर (सी.एम.-II)]
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
S.O.1322.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/48/2013-1R(CM-II) dated 8.7.2013 referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3449
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action the management of General Manager of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-I Area, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Distt., in terminating the services of Sri Manda Rajamouli, Ex-CF, GDK-6B Inc., SCCo. Ltd., Ramagundam-I Area, Godavarikhani with effect from 31.3.2004 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. 72/ 2013 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement
and documents.
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
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. 74/2013)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni
Colleries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 22/04/2014.
[No. L-22012/81/2013-IR(CM-II]
B.M.PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
3. Petitioner called absent and there is no
representation. Inspite of receiving notice twice Petitioner
is not appearing and taking interest in the proceedings. In BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
the circumstances, taking that Petitioner got no claim to
be made, 'Nil' award is passed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, PRESENT: Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 30th day of January, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. I.D. 74/2013
Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 30th day BETWEEN:
of January, 2014.
The President,
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H. No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the
the Petitioner Respondent
NIL NIL
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Distt. - 504208 ..... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township, (P.O.) Adilabad Distt.-504292 ....Respondent Documents marked for the Respondent APPEARANCES:
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
का॰आ॰. 1323.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰सी॰सी॰एल॰
के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध For the Petitioner : NIL For the Respondent : M/s P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &
Vijaya Lakhsmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम
न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 74/2013) को प्रकाशित
करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-22012/81/2013-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/81/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 8.7.2013 referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी
3450 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]SCHEDULE
"Whether the action the management of General Manager of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township (P.O.), Adilabad Distt., in terminating the services of Sri Visakha Bhimaiah, Ex-Coal Filler, Goleti-I Inc., SCCo Ltd., Bellampalli, Area with effect from 23.8.2000 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 74/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
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. 73/2002 of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 22/04/2014.
[No. L-22013/1/2014-IR(CM-II)] B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
and documents.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
3. Petitioner called absent and there is no representation. Inspite of receiving notice twice, Petitioner is not appearing and taking interest in the proceedings. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner got no claim to be made, "Nil" award is passed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
PRESENT: Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 13th day of February, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. I.D. 73/2002
BETWEEN:
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 30th day of January, 2014.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner Respondent
NIL NIL
Sri Banoth Lakhiya, S/o Ravilya, C/o Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, 4-5-592, Near Badichowdi, Vegetable Market, Kutbiguda, Hyderabad-27.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The General Manager, (Projects),
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Yellandu Area, Khammam District.
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
2. The Superintendent of Mines,
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, 21-Incl., Yellandu Area, Khammam District
....Respondents
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner : M/s. K. Vasudeva Reddy and
V. Sreeramulu, Advocates
For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma and Vijaya Lakhsmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
का॰आ॰.1324.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण मे, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰सी॰सी॰एल॰ के प्रबंधनतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 73/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-22013/1/2014-आईआर (सीएम-II)] बी. एम. पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी Sri Banoth Lakhiya, the workman has filed this petition invoking Sec. 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking for setting aside the impugned officer order[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3451 No. YCP 27/1923 dated 27.6.2001 issued by the 1st Respondent consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner duly granting all other consequential benefits.
2. The Averments made in the petition in brief are as
follows:
illiteracy and ignorance of procedural aspects, of Petitioner the Management examined irrelevant witnesses, basing on the statement of those witnesses Enquiry Officer has came to perverse conclusion. Petitioner was not supplied with several documents which were relied upon by the Presinting Officer. Before issuing the impugned order approval of competent authority had to be taken but no such approval has been taken. The absenteeism espically due to mental ill-health is not a grave and serious charge. The punishment of dismissal from service can be imposed only in case of grave and serious charges. Thus, such punishment imposed is untenable. The past service of the Petitioner though was not part of the chargesheet was considered during the course of enquiry to arrive at the conclusions. Thus, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are outside the scope of the charges and thus perverse. As the Petitioner has recovered from mental illness he could have been permitted to continue in service instead he was imposed punishment of dismissal from service. Petitioner is the only earning member of the family as the result of the dismissal from service all the members of his family would be put to hardship. Even after the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings apart from the time during the enquiry Petitioner was suffering mental illness. He was referred to Main Hospital, Kothagudem and then the Government Mental Hospital, Hyderabad. Further Petitioner's wife and son have submitted several representations bringing to the notice of the authorities of 1st Respondent about the mental ill-health of the Petitioner. Many news papers also reported about it. Despite of it, enquiry was conducted and Petitioner was removed from service. The same is contrary to the provisions of Standing Orders and circulars issued by the 1st Respondent and illegal and arbitrary. Petitioner rendered sufficient service and he rendered 15 years of service. Hence, the petition.
3. Respondent filed counter with the averments
in brief as follows:
The contention of the Petitioner that he suffered from chronic Schizophrenia and did not attend his duties during the year 2001 due to the said disease is not correct. His further contention that he was referred to the Institute of Mentally Handicapped on 14.12.2000 by the authorities and he underwent continuous treatment that he was referred to the 1st Respondent's main hospital at Kothagudem and from there to Government Mental Hospital, Hyderabad are also denied. Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. Petitioner was issued with chargesheet dated 23.1.2001 under the company's Standing Orders No. 25(25) and 25(31) as he remained absent from duty from 1.1.2000 to 31.12.2000. An enquiry was conducted regarding the said charges. Petitioner fully Petitioner was appointed in the Respondent company in 1983 and his services were regularised and he was designated as general mazdoor. He was regular and attentive to his service upto 1997. Thereafter owing to some family troubles Petitioner suffered chronic Schizophrenia a mental disease. During the year 2000 he did not attend for duties due to the said problem. Though he used to be present in the mine premises being in a mentally disturbed state, used to roam here and there aimlessly. He mental imbalanced health is a fact known to the workers and the Management. He was referred to the institute of mentally handicapped, Hyderabad on 14.12.2000 by the authorities of the 1st Respondent company. He was under continuous treatment till 22.4.2001. Thereafter he was referred to the 1st Respondent company's main hospital, Kothagudem for examination by a psychiatrist. After examining him there the medical authorities referred him to the Government Mental Hospital, Hyderabad during the month of May, 2001. After he was treated in the said hospital, he became normal. At one point of time proposals were mooted, to declare the Petitioner as unfit but keeping those proposals pending a chargesheet dated 23.1.2002 was issued alleging absenteeism without leave or without sufficient cause from 1.1.2000 to 31.12.2000. Basing on the above charge sheet an enquiry seems to have been conducted. It appears that basing on the said chargesheet an enquiry was conducted as the Petitioner was mentally disturbed suffering with chronic Schizophrenia he could not participate in the enquiry effectively. Neither the contents of the chargesheet nor the proceedings of the enquiry have been explained to the Petitioner. Simply his thumb impression was taken. He was not in a position to understand the proceeding. Issuance of chargesheet and conducting of the enquiry proceedings while the Petitioner was suffering from chronic Schizophrenia disease, is nothing but the pre-determined notion of the Respondent to dismiss the Petitioner from services. Basing on the above said enquiry proceedings the impugned order dated 27.6.2001 was issued dismissing the Petitioner from services with effect from 28.6.2001 which is totally illegal and arbitrary. If the enquiry was conducted after Petitioner recovered from the ailment and by giving the opportunity to understand the proceedings to participate in the same and to cross examine the witnesses. The impugned order could have been averted. Taking advantage of the ill-health and3452 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] participated in the said enquiry. Full and fair opportunity was given to him to defend his case. He was explained the procedure in Telugu. Charges were also explained to him. He was asked that he could have help of the defence assistant if any. At every stage proceedings were exaplained to him in Telugu. After satisfying with the same he affixed his thumb impression in the proceedings sheet. He admitted the charges levelled against him. He stated that he remained absent during this period as he went to temples at Bhadrachalam, Tirupathi and Mumbai. At no point of time he disclosed the alleged ill-health during the course of enquiry held on 26.2.2001. The alleged disease of chronic Schizophrenia was invented by the Petitioner to get over the lapse of long absenteeism from service. The enquiry proceeding together with enquiry report was served on the Petitioner on 15.5.2001 giving an opportunity to represent against the finding of the Enquiry Officer. He has not given any representation. Second show cause notice was issued to him. As there were no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view Petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 28.6.2001 vide letter dated 27.6.2001. The attendance of the Petitioner prior to the year 2000 also was not satisfactory. Contention of the Petitioner that he understands that a proposal was noted to declare the Petitioner as unfit for the service is denied. His further contention that due to his illness he could not participate in the enquiry is also denied. He participated in the enquiry and admitted the charges stating that as he has visited the temples of Bhadrachalam, Tirupathi and Mumbai he was absented from duty. He did not produce even an iota of evidence to the prove that he suffered mental illness. Considering the past record of the Petitioner which shows that he was a habitual absentee and since the charges were proved against the Petitioner and he was found guilty the impugned order was passed. The impugned order is not liable to the interfered with. The petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. On 8.9.2003 orders were passed by this forum holding that domestic enquiry was not validly conducted in this case. Ex.M1 to M11 were marked while considering the validity of the domestic enquiry.
5. To substantiate their contentions Management examined MW1 and MW2 and got marked Ex.M1 to M25. Petitioner got examined himself as WW1 to substantiate his contentions and also examined WW2 and WW3 and got marked Ex.W1 to W15. 6. Heard either party. 7. The Points that arise for determination are: 1. Whether the impugned termination order dated
27.6.2001 is legal and justified?
2. If not, to what relief the Petitioner is entitled? 8. Point No. 1:
It is undisputed fact that Petitioner has not attended to the duties as general mazdoor of the Respondent company during the year 2000. It is the contention of the Management during the domestic enquiry that, he was absent from duties unauthorizedly without sufficient cause or reason and therefore he violated the Standing Orders No. 25.25 and 25.31 and is liable for punishment for said misconduct.
9. Domestic enquiry was evidently conducted in which Petitioner also participated. But the fact remains that the material on record clearly disclose that at the relevant period of absenteeism as well as domestic enquiry, Petitioner was suffering from mental disability due to chronic Schizophrenia, a serious mental disorder. The oral and documentary evidence adduced on record show that during the year 1999, 2000 and 2001 Petitioner suffered from this ailment. He left his house without knowledge of anybody and his whereabouts were not known for some time. Ex. W1 and W2, the newspaper publications relied upon by the Petitioner and also other evidence available on record substantiates the same.
10. Ex. W3 and Ex. M 15 both are one and the same documents i.e., the referral letter dated 14.12.2000 issued by the Dy. Medical Superintendent, Y.C. Hospital, Yellandu which belong to the Respondent company, whereunder Petitioner has been referred to the Institute of Mentally Handicapped, Hyderabad for further advise and treatment. In this letter the Dy. Medical Superintendent, Y.C. Hospital, Yellandu has clearly stated that Petitioner's case has been a chronic Schizophrenia since two years. It means since two years prior to 14.12.2000, Petitioner has been suffering from chronic Schizophrenia to the knowledge of the Respondent.
11. Ex. W4 is the representation made by the Petitioner's wife on 15.12.2000 to the General Manger of the Respondent company stating about the mental health condition of the Petitioner enclosing Doctor Certificate also.
12. Inspite of all the above referred circumstances, Ex. M1 chargesheet dated 23.1.2001 has been issued against the Petitioner alleging that due to his unauthorized absenteeism during the year 2000 he has committed the misconduct under Respondent's Standing Orders No. 25.25 and 25.31. Thus, it is very much clear that inspite of having knowledge that Petitioner was suffering from mental disorder and due to the same, he was unable to attend to the duties during the year 2000, an enquiry was conducted into the said absenteeism. Further it is very much clear from Ex. M15 that though it is in the knowledge of the Respondent company, that Petitioner was mentally ill from the year 1999 to 2001, during the year 2001 departmental enquiry was conducted against him and claiming that fair opportunity has been given to the Petitioner, during the said enquiry though he was mentally ill during that time, he was found to be guilty of misconduct of unauthorized absence by the Enquiry Officer and to the said effect Ex. M16 enquiry report was given. Acting on the said report and inspite of Ex. M20,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3453 M21 and M22, the proceedings of the hospitals at Yellandu and the Main Hospital Kothagundem whereunder, the mental condition of the Petitioner has been mentioned, the Respondent organization proceeded with awarding punishment of dismissal from service to the Petitioner by virtue of Ex. M2 order dated 27/28.6.2001.
13. Whereas on 31.7.2001 Petitioner has been discharged from the Institute of Mentally Handicapped, Hyderabad. Ex. W13 is the discharge certificate issued on that date, which means upto 31.7.2001 Petitioner's mental condition was not sound.
nothing to do with his earlier post held as General Mazdoor. Petitioner is claiming that he is to be reinstated into service as General Mazdoor since for no fault of him and for sufficient cause i.e., his mental illness he was unable to attend his duties and therefore, he is not at all guilty of misconduct of unauthorized absence. There is substance in this contention.
16. Further more, one another important aspect to be considered is whether the Respondent organization is correctly dealt with the Petitioner who was suffering from Nental illness at the relevant time. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Petitioner was a disabled person at the relevant time and he is covered by "The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995" and thus Sec. 47 of the said Act applies to him. Respondents can not deny the force of this contention. Sec. 2(i) of this Act enumerates the disabilities for the purpose of this Act. Section 2(I)(vii) provides that mental illness is disability. Thus, Petitioner who suffered mental illness is covered by this Act. It is not in dispute that Respondent organization is bound by this Act.
Therefore, Petitioner is entitled for the benefit of
the provisions of Sec. 47 of this Act whihc reads as follows:
"47. Non-discrimination in Government
employment :- (1) No establishment shall dispense with,
or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability
during his service:
Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring
disability is not suitable for the post he was holding,
could be shifted to some other post with the same pay
scale and service benefits:
Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust
the employee against any post, he may be kept on a
supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or
he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely
on the ground of his disability:
14. On due consideration of the material on record by virtue of oder dated 8.9.2003, domestic enquiry conducted in this case has been held as invalid. There after to substantiate their contentions Management examined MW1 and MW2 and got marked various documents as the evidence of their side which has already been discussed above. The same are proving that to the knowledge of the Management Petitioner was mentally sick during the relevant time covered by the charges in the chargesheet and also during the time of domestic enquiry. MW1 has not disputed with the factum of mental sickness of the Petitioner. The evidence made available on record is clearly showing that Management is aware of the sickness of the Petitioner. Inspite of it they issued chargesheet against the Petitioner, conducted domestic enquiry and also awarded punishment of dismissal from service to him. This is certainly and arbitrary action. The person who is mentally sick can not be made responsible for his action/ inaction. The impugned order of dismissal from service which is now being questioned is certainly not maintainable under law for the reason that there was no opportunity for the Petitioner to effectively participate in the enquiry owing to his mental sickness at the relevant time. Further more, the very chargesheet is not maintainable for the reason that to the knowledge of the Management, Petitioner was mentally sick during the period covered by the charges and for that reason only he was unable to attend his duties and therefore his absenteeism from duties is not without cause or reason.
In view of the fore gone discussion, the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.
This point is answered accordingly.
15. Point No. II:
Provided that the appropriate Government may,
having regard to the type of work carried on in any
establishment, by notification and subject to such
conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification,
exempt any establishment from the provisions this
section."
In view of the finding given in Point No. 1, Petitioner is entitled for the relief of reinstatement into service forth with as General Mazdoor. In this context the fact that Petitioner has been re-appointed on 16.9.2005 as badli filler has to be noted. As can be seen from Ex. W14, he was so appointed as badli filler but for a period of one year only. It is a fresh appointment which got 17. Thus, Petitioner can not be reduced in rank due to the disability suffered by him. He can not be denied any promotion either. It is not the case of the Respondents the Petitioner is not suitable for the work of General Mazdoor or that there is no suitable work for him in their organization. Therefore, after his reinstatement into service as General3454 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Mazdoor he is to be granted all attandant benefits. He is Ex. W4: Photostat copy representation on behalf of
also entitled for back wages for entire period. The amounts WW1 dt. 15.12.2000
paid towards wages to him after his fresh appointment as
Ex. W5: Photostat copy of proceeding of SOM-21 inc.
badli filler are to be deducted from the said back wages
payable to him. to Dy. MS, YCH, Yellandu, disclosing the mental
status of the Petitioner dt. 15.5.2001
This point is answered accordingly.
Ex. W6: Photostat copy of proceedings of Dy. MS, YCH
Result:
In the result, petition is allowed. Ex. M2, the impugned termination order dated 27/28.6.2001 dismissing the Petitioner from service, is hereby set aside holding that it is illegal and inoperative. Petitioner shall be
reinstated into service as General mazdoor forth with. He
shall be paid all back wages payable to General mazdoor
and while so, the amounts already paid towards wages to
the Petitioner as badli filler appointing him afresh by virtue
of Ex. W14 order dated 16.9.2005 shall be deducted.
Petitioner is entitled for all other attendant benefits also
like promotion etc., if such rights were accrued to him in
regular course of employment as attendant benefits.
This point is answered accordingly.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant
transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 13th day
of February, 2014.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner Respondent
WW1: Sri Banoth Lakhiya MW1: Sri P. Purushottam
Rao
WW2: Sri J. Mangaiah MW2: V.V.S.N. Murthy
WW3: Sri Banoth Ramesh
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex. W1: Photostat copy of the paper clipping dt.
9.10.2000
Ex. W2: Photostat copy of the paper clipping dt.
16.10.2000
Ex. W3: Photostat copy of proceeding issued by Dy.
Medical Supdt. YC
Hospital, Yellandu referring the Petitioner to
Instt. of Mentally handicapped, Hyderabad, Dt.
14.12.2000
to Supdt., Main Hospital, Kothagudem referring
the Petitioner to Psychiriatic treatment dt.
15.5.2001
Ex. W7: Photostat copy of Ir. of Supdt., Main Hospital Kothagudem to Dy. MS, YCH, informing that Petitioner is a chronic Seizhopheina patient and to refer him to Govt. Mental Hospital, Hyderabad dt. 22.5.2001
Ex. W8: Photostat copy of Ir. From Dy. MS, YC Hospital, Yellandu, to the Supdt., Govt. Mental Hospital, Hyderabad referring the Petitioner for treatment of Chronic Seizhophernia dt. 26.5.2001
Ex. W9: Photostat copy of representation submitted on
behalf of the Petitioner dt. 26.5.2001
Ex. W10: Photostat copy of Proceeding of SOM-21 inc. to the GM (Projects) Yellandu to refer the Petitioner to the Corporate Medical Board dt. 5.6.2001
Ex. W11: Photostat copy of application purportedly signed by the Petitioner for examination by Corporate Medical Board dt. 5.6.2001
Ex. W12: Photostat copy of proceeding issued by GM(Projects) Yellandu dismissing the Petitioner from service dt. 27.6.2001
Ex. W13: Photostat copy of discharge certificate issued by Supdt., Instt. of Medical Health, Hyderabad dt. 31.7.2001
Ex. W14: Photostat copy of office order issued by GM(Personnel) appointing the Petitioner afresh as badli filler for a period of one year dt. 16.9.2005
Ex. W15: Photostat copy of office order issued by CGM(Personnel) appointing him afresh as badli filler dt. 20.1.2007
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex. M1: Office copy of chargesheet dt. 23.1.2001
Ex. M2: Office copy of dismissal order dt. 27.6.2001
Ex. M3 to
Ex. M14: Photostat copies of pay slips of WW1 from January, 2000 to December, 2000[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3455
Ex. M15: Photostat copy of letter dt. 14.12.2000 to the Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 104/
Supdt., Instt. of Mentally Handicapped, 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Hyderabad from Dy. MS, YC Hospital, Yellandu Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Ex. M16: Enquiry report dt. 26.2.2001 industrial dispute between the management of South Eastern
Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Ex. M17: Pay sheets for the year 1998
Government on 22/04/2014.
Ex. M18: Pay sheets for the year 1999
[No. L-22012/403/2003-IR(CM-II)]
Ex. M19: Representation of the wife of the Petitioner dt. B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
15.12.2010
ANNEXURE
Ex. M20: Office copy of the letter of proceedings of Dy.
MS, YCH to Supdt., Main Hospital,
Kothagudem referring the Petitioner to BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
Psychiriatic treatment dt. 15.5.2001
NO. CGIT/LC/R/104/2004
Ex. M21: Photostat copy of Ir. of Supdt., Main Hospital
Kothagudem to Dy. MS., YCH, informing that
Petitioner is a chronic Seizhopheina patient and
to refer him to Govt. Mental Hospital,
Hyderabad dt. 22.5.2001
Ex. M22: Office copy of Ir. from Dy. MS, YC Hospital,
Yellandu, to the Supdt., Govt. Mental Hospital, PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE
The President,
Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),
Branch Churcha Colliery of SECL,
PO Churcha, Distt. Korea (CG),
Korea Chhattisgarh ........Workman
Versus
Hyderabad referring the Petitioner for treatment
of Chronic Seizhophenia dt. 26.5.2001
Ex. M23: Representation submitted on behalf of the
Petitioner dt. 26.5.2001
Chief General Manager,
Baikuntpur Area of SECL,
PO Baikuntpur, Distt. Korea (CG),
Korea Chhattisgarh ...Management
AWARD
Ex. M24: Photostat copy of proceeding of SOM-21 inc.
to the GM(Projects) Yellandu to refer the
Petitioner to the Corporate Medical Board dt.
5.6.2001
Ex. M25: Office copy of application purportedly signed
by the Petitioner for examination by Corporate
Medical Board dt. 5.6.2001.
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
का॰आ॰ 1325.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰ई॰सी॰एल॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकाें और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 104/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-22012/403/2003-आई आर (सीएम-II)] बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
S.O. 1325.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central (Passed on this 21st day of March 2014)
1. As per letter dated 4.10.04 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I. D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L- 22012/403/2003-IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, Baikunthpur Area of SECL in not giving notional seniority to Shri R. S. Jaiswal in Clerical Grade-I with retrospective effect from 1.4.86 and in Sr. Clerk with retrospective effect from 1.6.91 and promotion with retrospective effect is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Union submitted statement of claim at Page 3/1 to 3/8. Case of Ist Party Union is that the reference relates to promotion to the post of Clerk Grade-I of workman R. S. Jaiswal from 1.4.86. That IInd Party is an industry has prepared a cadre scheme governing method of promotion of the posts in question. The cadre scheme governing methods of promotion of the posts in question. The cadre3456 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] scheme came in force from 17.7.84 under Implementation Instruction No. 34. Clause 3.2 of Cadre Scheme No. 8 pertains to ministerial staff which—selection for the post upto Clerk Grade-I shall be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and for clerk special grade and above on the basis of merit-cum- seniority, Clause 3.3 of the said cadre scheme provides the Promotional zone for filling the posts upto clerk grade special will be area and post for technical supervisor Grade A will be the company. Ist Party workman further submits that workman R. S. Jaiswal is senior to other workman promoted to the post of Clerical Grade-I w.e.f. 1.4.86. Union has prepared a comparative statement of clerical staff of Baikunthpur area of SECL. Its perusal shows that on any post the workman is much senior than the other employees promoted as Clerk Grade-I from 1.4.86. That workman is superseded at the time of promotion of Clerk Grade-I on 1.4.86 though the persons promoted as Clerk Grade-I were also given another promotion of Sr. Clerk Special Grade from 1.6.91. Workman was superseded in the matter of promotion. He was promoted w.e.f. 1.1.89 and 1.1.93. It is reiterated that juniors R. P. Sahu and others were promoted superseding the workman. Workman R.S. Jaiswal is superseded. Management has discriminated R. S. Jain, the action of promoting juniors is arbitrary. On such ground, Union prays that workman R. S. Jaiswal be given promotion benefits of Clerk Grade-I in 1.4.86 and Special Grade from 1.6.91.
3. Management filed Written Statement at Page 8/ 1 to 8/13. IInd Party submits that as per terms of reference, the promotion of Shri R. S. Jaiswal is claimed retrospectively on 1.4.86 for post of Clerk Grade-I and 1.6.91 for Clerk Special Grade the reference is submitted after long lapse of time of 2 decades. Such reference is not tenable. Workman left over the matter for about 7 years. The Govt. ought to have refused reference on ground of delay. Workman has not disclosed reasons for challenging seniority. Promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Promotion is a managerial function. Promotion depends in various negligence. Claim of workman is not tenable.
Technical and Supervisory Grade A will be area or company as per the prevailing practice in the company. It is reiterated that the promotion for the Clerk Grade-III to I and Grade-I to Special Grade, seniority is maintained Sub Area level and for the post of Sr. Clerk Grade-B to Office Suptd., seniority is maintained at area level that Shri S. N. Singh, O. P. Gupta, R.J. Singh, A. K. Paul and R. P. Sahu were initially appointed on different dates. They were given promotion to post of Clerk Grade-III on different dates in 1978. Mr. R. P. Sahu was promoted to Clerk Grade-II from 11.6.80. Shri S. N. Singh was promoted to Clerk Grade I from 1.4.86, Clerk Grade-B from 1.6.91, O. P. Gupta, Ajay Singh, A. K. Paul were promoted on Clerk Grade-I on 7.5.87. They were promoted to Sr. Clerk post in 1992. Giving details of the promotion on different dates and different area, it is contented that workman cannot claim seniority with those employees. Workman is promoted in post of Suptd. in 2005. Workman is not discriminated in the matter of promotion. He is not superseded therefore workman is not entitled to promotional benefits claimed by him. On such ground, IInd Party prays for rejection of claim.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the Chief In Affirmative
General Manager, Baikunthpur Area of SECL in not giving notional seniority to Shri R. S. Jaiswal in Clerical Grade-I with retrospective effect from 1.4.86 and in Sr. Clerk with retrospective effect from 1.6.91 and promotion with retrospective effect is legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the Workman is not workman is entitled to?" entitled for any
relief.
REASONS
4. That SECL is a company registered under Indian Companies Act. It is controlled by General Manager and Board of Chairman-cum-Managing Director. That NCWA contains cadre scheme for purpose of promotional evenue for each category of employees. The Cadre scheme for ministerial staff are given as per Cadre No. I-VIII & annexure VIII-1 to 5. The cadre scheme has been circulated by II of 34 dated 17.7.84. The promotional channel is given under Clause III. Clause III, 3.1 to 3.3 are reproduced. That promotion for the post of Technical Grade B shall be on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and for the post from Technical Grade B to A shall be on the basis of merit- cum seniority, the promotional zone for filling the post upto Clerical Grade Special will be Area and for posts in 6. Union has raised dispute alleging discrimination in the matter of promotion to Shri R. S. Jaiswal that his juniors are promoted. Workman Shri R. S. Jaiswal was superseded. The notional seniority from 1.4.86 for the post of Clerk Grade-I and notional promotion from 1.6.91 for post of Clerk Special Grade. However the Union has failed to participate in reference proceedings, not adduced any evidence. Evidence of Union is closed on 15.10.2012. Management filed affidavit of evidence of its witness Shri Bijay Choudhary. He has supported contentions of management that the seniority upto the post of Clerk[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3457 New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
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. 119/92) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/04/2014.
[No. L-22012/46/1992-IR (C-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/119/92
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Shyambabu,
S/o Shri Devnath,
Ex. Mechanical Helper,
Grade-II, Jainagar Colliery,
Gram Bisrampur,
Distt. Surguja (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Grade I is maintained at Sub Area Level and promotion is based on seniority cum merit. For the post of Sr. Clerk Grade B to OS, Seniority is maintained at Area Level and promotion is given on basis of merit cum seniority. That Shri R.S. Jaiswal was initially appointed as General Mazdoor w.e.f. 1.10.74. He was given promotion time to time. He was promoted to the post of clerk Grade III from 1.1.79. He was promoted to the post of Clerk Grade I w.e.f. 1.1.89 and post of Sr. Clerk Grade-B w.e.f. 1.1.93. That O.P. Gupta, R.J. Singh, A.K. Paul and R.P. Sahu were initially appointed on different dates on 1975. They were promoted to clerk Cat Grade III w.e.f. 1.10.78, they were promoted to the post of Clerk Grade II w.e.f. 2.10.79. Shri R.P. Sahu was promoted to the post of Clerk Grade II w.e.f. 11.6.80. Shri S.N. Singh was promoted to Clerk Grade I w.e.f. 7.5.87. They were further promoted as Sr. Clerk on 31.12.92. Shri R.P. Sahu had submitted representation for notional seniority w.e.f. 1.6.86 claiming that he was working in Clerk Grade-II at Kotkona colleiry. He was promoted as clerk Grade I on 8.6.89. His colleagues Shri S.N. Singh, O.P. Gupta, R.J. Singh, G.D. Kar and A.K. Paul were promoted earlier to him on 1.4.86 etc. he was given notional promotion. Evidence of management's witness remained unchallenged. The documents are produced by Union Exhibit W-1. Management produced documents Exhibit M-1 to M-3. It is to be noted that Union has not participated in reference proceeding, no evidence is adduced by workman how the workman is superseded or discriminated. In absence of any evidence on part of Union, the demand of Union cannot be accepted. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:—
Sub Area Manager,
Jainagar Sub Area of SECL,
PO Bisrampur colliery
Distt. Surguja (MP)
...Management
AWARD
(1) Action of the Chief General Manager, Baikunthpur Area of SECL in not giving notional seniority to Shri R.S. Jaiswal in Clerical Grade-I with retrospective effect from 1.4.86 and in Sr. Clerk with retrospective effect from 1.6.91 and promotion with retrospective effect is legal and proper.
(2) Union is not entitled to relief prayed by them.
(Passed on this 21st day of March 2014)
1. As per letter dated 18.6.92 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L- 22012/46/92-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
का॰आ॰ 1326.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰ई॰सी॰एल॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 119/92) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
"Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager, Jainagar Sub area of Bisrampur Area of SECL, PO Bisrampur Distt. Surguja MP in dismissing Shri Shyam Babu S/o Deonath Cat-II Mech. Helper, Jainagar, 3/4 Incline w.e.f. 17.6.91 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled to?"
[सं॰ एल-22012/46/1992-आई आर (सी-II)]
बी॰एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 6/1 to 6/12. Case of Ist Party workman is that he was appointed as Mechanical Helper Cat-II at Jainagar Mine No. 3, 4 on 1.2.1981. He was on said post till 17.6.91. That officer below General Manager rank is not competent to3458 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] is alleged that workman is trying to find fault in enquiry with a motive to take advantage. The enquiry is conducted as per rules. The misconduct alleged against workman is proved. On such ground, IInd Party prays for rejection of claim.
4. As per order dated 13.12.2010, enquiry
conducted against workman is found legal and valid.
5. Considering pleadings on record and findings on Issue No. 1, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the Sub In Affirmative
Area Manager, Jainagar Sub area of Bisrampur Area of SECL, PO Bisrampur Distt. Surguja M P in dismissing Shri Shyam Babu S/o Deonath Cat-II Mech. Helper, Jainagar, 3/4 Incline w.e.f. 17.6.91 is legal and justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the Workman is not workman is entitled to?" entitled to relief
prayed by him.
REASONS
terminate his services. That he was honestly performing his duties for more than 10 years. He was served with chargesheet dated 4.4.91 alleging that he was apprehended carrying 50ft. conveyor belt during night time in area of Jai Nagar Mine No. 3, 4. That he denied the charges against him. That the report about the alleged incident was submitted after 3 days. Chargesheet was also issued to Shri Rangdhar Nayak. It is alleged that workman was falsely implicated because of the dispute with security persons Norbert, Lakhanram and Anil Yadav. False report was submitted against him by security personnel. The incident had not occurred, the names of Anil Yadav and Rangdhar Nayak was subsequently added implicating workman. Workman was not caught with bicycle carrying conveyor belt by any of the security personnel. The bicycle and belt was not seized from him. Workman has also pleaded that enquiry was not properly conducted. He was given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Enquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor. Principles of natural justice were not followed. The witnesses of management Lakhanram and Norbert has stated in their evidence that conveyor belt and bicycle were seized from workman. Seizure Punchnama was not prepared. Joint enquiry held against him and Rangdhar Nayak is illegal. That standing orders are not applicable to the workman. The alleged misconduct is not covered under standing orders Rule 17(1)(a). Workman did not get opportunity for defence. On such ground workman prayed for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. Management filed Written Statement at Page 10/ 1 to 10/7. IInd Party submits that SECL is registered under Companies Act. Several coal mines are operated in MP by SECL including Jainagar colliery. Workman was working as mechanical fitter Category-II. Workman was caught red handed. Chargesheet was issued to him. Enquiry was conducted following principles of natural justice. Opportunity for defence to workman was given to him. IInd Party denies that General Manager has power to terminate/dismiss the workman. IInd Party submits that in 1981, power of dismissal were also delegated on officers below General Manager. That Bisrampur area was established in 1990 therefore the order of dismissal of workman was passed by Joint Area Manager. That workman was apprehended with stolen material while returning home after IInd shift on 2.4.1991. Workman was carrying 25 ft. conveyor belt on his bicycle. When he was challenged, the workman left belt at the place and ran away on his bicycle. Chargesheet was issued to workman. The explanation given by workman was not found satisfactory therefore Enquiry Officer was appointed. Joint enquiry was conducted against workman and Rangdhar Nayak as the charges related to same incident. The Enquiry Officer is competent to ask necessary questions. Enquiry is not vitiated only on such grounds. It
6. In view of enquiry against workman is found legal and proper, question remains for decision whether finding of Enquiry Officer are supported by some evidence or the findings are perverse. Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is proper and legal. With respect to earlier points, affidavit of evidence is filed by workman. However his affidavit is devoted w.r.t. enquiry conducted against him and Enquiry Officer not allowed workman to cross-examine management's witnesses. As enquiry is already found legal and valid, above part of affidavit of evidence cannot be considered. Workman has then devoted affidavit about statement of management's witnesses Lakhanram and Norbert that they have not seen workman carrying belt on bicycle. That bicycle was not seized from workman. The record of Enquiry Proceeding is filed at Exhibit M-1, M-2. Management's witnesses Lakhanram and Robert has stated that he was on night duty on 31.3.91. Norbert Lakra was also on duty with him. When they were on search round and reached towards Jainagar Bunkar, he noticed two persons with bicycles when they reached near those persons they found belt was carried on bicycle by those persons. When they stopped those persons and directed them to go towards Jainagar (old) at that time Anil Yadav Security Guard came. It was around 11.30 PM. Anil was on duty at powerhouse. Shri Anil Yadav has taken persons at a distance of about 5 meters and talked with those persons. Then Anil Yadav had told them that they were of his acquaintance and they be released. That they tried to apprehend those persons. Anil said that those persons[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3459 In case of Lalit Popli versus Canara Bank and others reported in 2003(3) Supreme Court Cases 583. Their Lordship dealing with scope of judicial review of High Court under Article 226 High Court doesnot act as an appellate authority. Their Lordship further observed that approach and objective in criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. In disciplinary proceedings the preliminary question is whether the employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit action against him whereas in criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him are established and if established what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof the mode of enquiry and rules governing the enquiry and trial are conceptually different.
In case of State of Tamil Nadu Versus Thiru K.V. Perumal and others reported in 1996(5) Supreme Court Cases 474. Their Lordship dealing with service law scope of judicial review. Their Lordship held the question as to whether the charges were established on the material available, held, beyond the scope of judicial review as the Administrative Tribunal is not an appellate authority over the Department Authorities.
The principles laid down cannot be applied to present case as powers are conferred on this Tribunal under Section 11-A of I.D. Act are not identical to the powers of Administrative Tribunal.
Copy of judgment in Writ Petition No. 1108/2002 is submitted. The facts are not comparable of present case. Therefore said judgment cannot be beneficially used in the case.
cannot run away, they would be called in morning as they were acquainted with him. That he has taken those persons to powerhouse telling the belt would remain safe. Thereafter Anil taken them with him to powerhouse. On next day, Anil was called. The names of those persons were asked from him. He told the names of those persons were Shambabu and Rangdhar. In their cross-examination, evidence of Lakhanram and Rangdhar is not shattered. Management witness Norbert in his statement before Enquiry Officer has stated that in the night of 31.3.1981, he and Lakhanram were on duty. When they approached towards boundary wall, they had noticed two persons. They had apprehended them. At that time Anil came and he taken those persons to powerhouse. He directed those persons to run away. When they tried to apprehend those persons Anil Yadav said them not to apprehend. He had taken belt to powerhouse saying that the belt would remain safe, they should not worry about it. The evidence of Norbert on above point is not shattered in his cross-examination. Both the witnesses in their cross-examination says that those persons were at 5 metres distance from them. Those persons were walking by boundary side and CHP bridge. Both the witnesses have identified workman before Enquiry Officer as the person found by them in the night. That belt was recovered from Anil Yadav. Norbert was unable to tell distance between his house and house of Shambabu. He was also unable to tell location of house of Rangdhar Nayak. Management's witness P.N. Tiwari corroborated statements of Lakhanram and Norbert. In his cross-examination statement of Shri P.N. Tiwari management's witness was not shattered to disbelieve the evidence. Evidence of all management's witnesses is cogent that Ist paprty workman was found carrying 25 ft. belt on his bicycle. When Lakhanram and Norbert, Management's witnesses stopped them, they tried to run away. The evidence on above point is not shattered. The defence of workman was he was falsely implicated. However in cross-examination of management's witnesses Lakhanram, Norbert and Tiwari, any kind of enmity is not suggested. I find no reason why all those 3 management witnesses would falsely implicate the workman. The findings of Enquiry Officer holding workman guilty are supported by evidence of Lakhanram, Norbert and Tiwari. The findings of Enquiry Officer cannot be said perverse. Therefore I record my finding on Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
In case of Prasad Film Laboratories represented by its Director, Madras versus Presiding Officer, Principal Laobur Court, City Civil Court Building Madras and another reported in 2001-LLR-407, in Para 22 of the judgment, their Lordship held the Tribunal discharges its functions in the matter judicially. If the discretion has been properly exercised, this Court would not interfere with such exercise of discretion. The discretionary power to tribunal is not a free licence to direct reinstatement, even when it is not warranted and when the records do not warrant the setting aside the order of dismissal.
7. Point No. 2-charge against workman about theft of conveyor belt is proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. The question arises whether punishment of dismissal imposed on workman is disproportionate or exorbitant and deserves interference. The misconduct proved against workman is of committed theft of belt is serious misconduct. Learned counsel for IInd Party management Shri A.K. Shashi relies on bunch of citations.
In case of Janatha Bazar (South Kanar Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) and others versus Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha and others reported in 2000(7) Supreme Court Cases 517, their Lordship of the Apex Court dealing with misconduct/penalty held Labour Court cannot substitute the penalty imposed by employer. Discretion of employer exercise in imposing of punishment after misconduct proved the domestic enquiry.
3460 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]PO Bankimogra, Distt. Bilaspur ... Workman
Versus
In present case as per finding on Point No. 1, from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings, misconduct of workman is proved. Considering the nature of proved misconduct relating to the theft of belt, I do not find reason to interfere in the punishment. The punishment of dismissal imposed against workman cannot be said excessive or exorbitted. Therefore, I record my finding in Point No. 2 in Affirmative.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
Dy. General Manager,
SECL, Kusmunda Project, PO Kusmunda Project,
Distt. Bilaspur (MP)
... Management
AWARD
(1) Action of the Sub Area Manager, Jainagar Sub area of Bisrampur Area of SECL, PO Bisrampur Distt. Surguja MP in dismissing Shri Shyam Babu S/o Deonath Cat-II Mech. Helper, Jainagar, 3/4 Incline w.e.f. 17.6.91 is legal and proper.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer.
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
का॰आ॰ 1327.—औघोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰ई॰सी॰एल॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 153/91) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-22012/282/1991-आईआर(सी-II)] बी॰ एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
S.O. 1327.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 153/91) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/4/2014.
[No. L-22012/282/1991-IR (C-II)] B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer (Passed on this 10th day of March 2014)
1. As per letter dated 12-9-91 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012(282)/91-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Kusmunda Project of SECL, Bilaspur justified in terminating the service of Shri Jarnail Singh as Driver (Trainee) w.e.f. 23.12.89? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/153/91 PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE
Shri Jarnail Singh, S/o Shri Uttam Singh, Qtr. No. 23/2, Churdava Colony,
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist Party workman filed Statement of claim at Page 2/1 to 2/5. The case of Ist Party workman is that he was working in Kusmunda Project of IInd party as Driver from 1-8-89 to 23-12-89. He was terminated from 22-12-89 by Dy. General Manager on the ground that the certificate of High School submitted by him was found bogus. Workman submits that before termination of his services, his explanation was not called. He was terminated for alleging serious misconduct against him. Show cause notice was not issued to him, no chargesheet was issued by IInd Party. Enquiry was not conducted against him. His services are terminated illegally. Ist Party workman submits that he had pursued his education from Gurunanak Khalsa School, Orrissa. He passed 10th standard from said school in 1978. Thereafter he was residing at Bilaspur for past 10 years. He had obtained driving licence from Bilaspur prior to January 1991. His licence was renewed on 7-6-94 from RTO, Bilaspur. The allegations against him was imaginary. That for post of Driver passing 10th standard was not required therefore the allegations against him were irrelevant. It is reiterated that he was residing at Bilaspur for more than 12 years as per rules of MP Govt. the persons residing for 3 years was considered to be resident of State. He was driving vehicle since 10 years at Bilaspur. That his services were illegally terminated she had joined membership of the Union. That he joined membership of Central India Trade Union branch Kusmunda. He was terminated in violation of the provisions of standing orders in violation of principles of natural justice. That 33 employees junior to him are still working with the IInd Party, termination of his services[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3461
REASONS
is illegal. On such grounds, workman is praying for his reinstatement with back wages.
IInd Party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to 5/3. IInd Party had denied all material allegations of workman in his statement of claim. It is not disputed that workman was working as driver in Kusmunda Project. In order to fill vacancies of Driver, management sent requisition to Divisional Employment Exchange Office, Korba to sponsore suitable candidates as per terms. For post of drivers minimum qualifications required was High School Pass with 3 Years driving experience. The employment exchange sponsored name of Ist Party workman. He was found suitable and selected for the post of Driver on 26-7-89. Workman was appointed on probation. After verificfation of qualification, it was found that the Principal of Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School, Chhappa intimated vide letter dated 11-10-89 that marksheet and School Leaving Certificate produced by workman were false. As per Condition-6 of the appointment order, service of Ist Party workman was terminated on the ground that he submitted false and fabricated documents for carrying the job. IInd Party reiterates that no chargesheet was required. It was not necessary to conduct enquiry against workman. The services of workman could be terminated as per Caluse-6 of the appointment order. On such ground, IInd Party prays for rejection of claim.
4. Workman submitted rejoinder at Pate 8/1 to 8/3. Workman submits that in appointment order, it was no where mentioned that the appointment was on probation subject to verification of his qualification. That contentions of IInd Party on the point of mis- representation of the fact that he has made clear that he was no having requisite qualification for appointment, that he had passed 10th standard from Gurunanak Khalsa High Secondary school, Orrissa. That he cannot be made guilty of fabricative, bogus certificate. On such grounds, Ist Party workman reiterates that he was terminated from service without giving opportunity.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:—
"(i) Whether the action of the In Affirmative
6. Workman is challenging termination of his service without showcause notice, chargesheet of enquiry. That termination of his services on the ground of submitting false documents for his appointment as Driver. The management has denied contentions of workman in Statement of claim filed on record. Workman in his affidavit of evidence has stated he is resident of T.R. Ghuddeva colony, Qr. No. 23/2, Post office Bankimongra, District Bilaspur. That he had passed 10th standard in 1978 Gurunanak High School, Orissa. That he was residing at Bilaspur. He was running 4 wheeler, he has obtained driving license, that he was called for interview on 10-3- 82 for the driver post. On 19-8-89, he was appointed at Kusmunda Section. He was terminated from 22-12-89 without showcause notice or chargesheet. No enquiry was conducted against him. That he had submitted false document for obtaining appointment. In his cross- examination, workman says that he had passed test around 1976-77 from Matkambeda Kalinga school. His name was sponsored through Employment Exchange. That in 1981, he was shifted to Bilaspur as his sister was residing there. He had obtained driving license, he was called for interview. That he had not submitted any documents at the time of his interview. He received appointment leter Exhibit M-1. He has submitted biodata. He admits his signature on documents No. 12/3 but denied its contents. That in document 12/3, address of his school is wrongly shown. That he had not studied in Govt. school Chhappa. He denied document 12/4, 12/5. He had not submitted those documents with management. He admits Paper 12/8 marketd Exhibit M-2 i.e. termination order dated 12-12-1989. The reason given for termination of workman is that on verification of record from Principal, Govt. High Secondary school, Chhappa, it was revealed that workman was never student of that school. The certificate submitted by him was not authentic or genuine. The appointment letter Exhibit M-1 produced by IInd Party Clause-6 provides—the appointment is subject to verification of his character and antecedents after your reporting for duty, if any adverse remarks regarding your character and antecedents are received from the Govt. Authorities in the basis of verification carried out by them, your services will be terminated without notice and without assigning any reasons even during the period of service when are regulary retained by the administration. The termination of service of workman is as per above caluse, no chargesheet was issued to workman.
management of Kusmunda Project of SECL, Bilaspur Justified in terminating the service of Shri Jarnail Singh as Driver (Trainee) w.e.f. 23-12-89 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the Workman is not
workman is entitled to?" entitled to relief claimed by him.
7. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri P.V. Satyanarayana, that management had sent requisition to Divisional Employment Exchange, Korba for vacancies of Driver. In Para-4 management's witness has stated that minimum qualification was High School passed with 3 years3462 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] experience of Driving Motor Vehicle. The workman was found suitable. He was appointed as per document Exhibit M-1. His services were terminated as the certificate produced by workman was found false as per report received from Govt. Boys High Secondary School, Chhappa. Management's witness in his cross-examination says that he had not participated in proceeding before ALC. Workman never worked under him. He was not member of the Selection Committee. Departmental Enquiry was not conducted against workman. He denies that since workman joined service, documents about his educational qualifications were not called from him. That service of workman was terminated as per standing orders. He was not paid compensation. From further evidence of management's witness Document Exhibit M-6 is proved i.e. letter issued from Principal, Govt. High Secondary School that workman was not student of that school. In his cross-examination, management's witness was unable to tell whether copy of application given to the Govt. High School, Chhappa is produced on record. He admits that original marksheet of workman and entry in admission register of workman are not produced. He had not seen original marksheet and admission register of workman. He had not seen document referred in Exhibit W-6.
8. Workman has produced documents W-1 Transfer certificate from Gunanak Khalsa High School Barbil, Distt Kalinga, his date of admission is shown 19.10.73 and date of leaving school is 22-12-1978. He was student of 10th standard. Exhibit W-2 is duplicate marksheet of passing 10th standard examination in 1978. Both Exhibit W-1 & W-2 are duplicates issued on 17-7-90. If Exhibit W-2 is accepted, workman had passed 10th standard examination in 1978. He had secured 379 marks out of 900.
9. The affidavit of witness Shriu Suraj Singh Yadav was filed by workman in support of above documents. Said witness was not cross-examined. Management has produced documents Exhibit 12/4/, 12/5/ copies of transfer certificate of workman from Govt. High Secondary school, Chhappa, 12/5 is copy of Marksheet of passing secondary school examination in 1977, the marks secured by workman are shown. Document 12/6 shows marks obtained by the workman. In biodata form Exhibit M-4 information is shown that workman had passed 10th standard examination from Chhappa in 1979 with 58% marks. The workman had secured IInd division. Workman in his cross-examination admitted signature on said document. Initially he had denied signature on document. As per evidence of handwriting expert, the signature on biodata form is of the workman. The workman claims in his evidence that the contents of biodata form were not filled by him. Clause V of appointment letter contemplates verification of the character and educational qualifications. The information submitted in biodata form was found false. Workman in his cross- examination claims that he has not submitted any document at the time of interview that he had passed examination from School in Orissa, he has not explained why information in biodata form Exhibit M-4 was not corrected. The document Exhibit W-1, W-2 produced by workman are duplicates. He has not expalained what were the reasons to obtain duplicate document Exhibit W-1, W-2 after termination of his service. The termination of service of workman after receiving information that the workman was not student of Govt. School, Chhappa cannot be said illegal. The documents Exhibit W-1, W-2 are produced subsequently to letter received from Principal Govt. School, Chhappa. On 11-10-89, Principal of Govt. School Chhappa has reported that workman was not student of said school, the documents were bogus. IInd Party has produced those documents at Page 12/4, 12/5. Management's witness stated those documents 12/5 & 12/5 were produced by workman alongwith biodata form, there was no reason for management of IInd party to verify its genuiness from Principal, Govt. School Chhappa. It is reported that workman was not studying in said school and the document were bogus. The document produced by workman Exhibit W-1, W-2 were not produced with biodata Exhibit No. 3 and appears obtained subsequently to suit defence of the workman. Therefore I record my finding on Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
10. Point No. 2- In view of any finding in Point No. 1, as the document submitted by workman regarding his educational qualifications were found bogus, the services of Ist Party workman are terminated as per Clause-V of the appointment letter, workman is not entitled for relief claimed by the him. There was no reason for IInd Party to receive those documents from any other source. Though reliance is placed in ratio held in Case of Prithipal Singh versus State of Punjab and others reported in 2002 (10) Supreme Court Cases 133. The ratio cannot be applied to present case at hand as the services of workman were terminated giving reasons the documents about the educational qualification submitted by workman were found bogus, the termination cannot be said stigmatic. Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Kusmunda Project of SECL, Bilaspur justified in terminating the service of Shri Jarnail Singh as Driver (Trainee) w.e.f 23-12-89 is legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to relief prayed by him.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3463 नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
For the Respondent : M/s P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &
Vijaya Lakhsmi P., Advocates
AWARD
का॰आ॰ 1328.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰सी॰सी॰एल॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 17/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-22012/10/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 26.4.2012 referred the following dispute between the management
of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their
workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for
adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is, [सं॰ एल-22012/10/2012-आई आर (सीएम-II)] बी॰एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी
SCHEDULE
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
S.O. 1328.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/ 2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Limited, and their workman, received by the Central Government on 22/04/2014.
"Whether the action the management of General
Manager of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company
Ltd., Ramagundam-II Area, Godavarikhani,
Karimnagar Dist., Designating Sri Kumabala
Laxmaiah, Ex-Pump Operatory category-III as
piece-rated workers Grade-I and later re-
designating as General Mazdoor (surface) by
protecting wages in Cat-I instead of Cat-III with
effect from 6.4.1992 and 15.11.1994 respectively
is justified or not? To what relief the concerned
[No. L-22012/10/2012-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
workman is entitled.?
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 17/2012 and notices were issued to the parties.
ANNEXURE
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim
statement and documents.
3. Petitioner called absent. Claim statement not filed BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 29th day of January, 2014 and there is no representation. Inspite of receiving notice
twice, Petitioner is not appearing and taking interest in
the proceedings. In the circumstances, taking that
petitioner got no claim to be made, 'Nil'award is passed."
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. I.D. 17/2012
BETWEEN: The State Dy. General Secretary, (Sri T. Raja Reddy), Singareni Collieries Employees Union (CITU), Qtr. No. D-9, Shramika Bhavan, Main Chowrasta, Shivaji Nagar, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.
......... Petitioner Award Passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowari,
Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 29th day
of January, 2014.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
AND Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the
the Petitioner Respondent
The General Manager,
NIL NIL
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Ramagundam-II Area, GDK-8 Inc., Colony (P.O.), Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Distt-505211
....Respondent
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner : NIL
NIL3464 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
For the Respondent : M/s P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &
Vijaya Lakhsmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
का॰आ॰ 1329.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰सी॰सी॰एल॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 13/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-22012/199/2012-आईआर(सी एम-II)] बी॰एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अध्किारी The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/199/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 30.11.2012 referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman
under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication
to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
S.O. 1329.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/ 2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Limited, and their workman, received by the Central Government on 22/04/2014.
[No. L-22012/199/2012-IR(CM-II)] B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer "Whether the action of the Chief General Manager
of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur, Adilabad District in
terminating the services of Shri Siddam Muthyalu,
Ex-Coal Filler, RK-6 Inc., SCCL, Sreerampur Area
with effect from 18.11.1998 is justified or not? To
what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 13/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim
statement and documents.
3. Petitioner called absent and there is no
ANNEXURE
representation. Claim statement not filed. Inspite of giving
fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking
interest in the proceedings and is not making any claim.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 19th day of March, 2014 In the circumstances, taking that there is no claim to be
made, 'Nil'award is passed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowari, INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. I.D. 13/2013 Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 19th day BETWEEN:
of March, 2014.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
The President, (Sri Bandari Satyanarayana) Telangana Trade Union Council, H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar, Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, Adilabad Dist. - 504208 ......... Petitioner
AND
Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for
the
the Petitioner Respondent
NIL NIL
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur , Adilabad Distt.-504292 ....Respondent
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner : NIL
NIL[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3465
APPEARANCES:
नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
For the Petitioner : NIL
For the Respondent : M/s P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &
Vijaya Lakhsmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
का॰ आ॰ 1330.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰ सी॰ सी॰ एल॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 15/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल॰ 22012/206/2012-आई आर (सी-एम-II)] बी॰एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/206/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 4.12.2012 referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
S.O. 1330.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.15/
2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of M/s.
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 22/04/2014.
"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampally Area, Goleti Township, Adilabad District in disempanelling Shri Rangu Mallaiah, Ex- Coal Filler, MVK-5 Inc., SCCL, Bellampalli Area with effect from 20.9.2000 is justified or not? To what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
[No. L-22012/206/2012-IR(CM-II)]
No. 15/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim
statement and documents.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 19th day of March, 2014 3. Petitioner called absent and there is no representation. Claim statement not filed. In spite of giving fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not taking interest in the proceeding and is not making any claim. In the circumstances, taking that there is no claim to be made, 'Nil' award is passed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 15/2013
BETWEEN:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 19th day of March, 2014.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Telangana Trade Union Council, H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar, Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial, the Adilabad Dist. - 504208 ......... Petitioner the Petitioner Respondent AND NIL NIL
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Bellampally Area, Goleti Township,
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
Adilabad Distt.-504292 ....Respondent
NIL3466 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2014
For the Respondent : M/s P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &
Vijaya Lakhsmi Panguluri,
Advocates
AWARD
का॰ आ॰ 1331.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस॰ सी॰ सी॰ एल॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 16/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल॰ 22012/205/2012-आई आर (सीएम-II)] बी॰एम॰ पटनायक, डेस्क अधिकारी The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its
order No. L-22012/205/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 4.12.2012
referred the following dispute between the management of
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman
under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication
to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
S.O. 1331.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/04/2014.
[No. L-22012/205/2012-IR(CM-II)] B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer "Whether the action of the Chief General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Bellampally Area, Goleti Township, Adilabad
District in disempanelling Shri Thokala Ramulu, Ex-
Coal Filler, Galeti-I Inc., SCCL, Bellampalli Area
with effect from 12.5.2005 is justified or not? To
what relief the applicant is entitled for?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 16/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim
ANNEXURE
statement and documents.
3. Petitioner called absent and there is no
representation. Claim statement not filed. In spite of BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 19th day of March, 2014 giving fair opportunity again and again Petitioner is not
taking interest in the proceeding and is not making any
claim. In the circumstances, taking that there is no claim
to be made, 'Nil' award is passed.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 16/2013
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
BETWEEN:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,
Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 19th day
of March, 2014.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist. - 504208 ......... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for
the
the Petitioner Respondent
NIL NIL
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Bellampally Area, Goleti Township, Adilabad Distt.-504292 ....Respondent
NIL
APPEARANCES:
Documents marked for the Respondent
For the Petitioner : NIL
NIL[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3467
AWARD
नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2014
का॰आ॰ 1332.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बक ऑफ त्रावनकोर प्रबंध् तंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अरनाकुलम के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 18/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26/03/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
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 (14 of 1947), the Government of India/Ministry of Labour by its Order No.-L-12012/30/ 2011-IR(B-I) dated 29.03.2012 referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.
2. The dispute is:
[सं॰ एल॰-12012/30/2011-आई आर (बी-I)]
सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 25th April, 2014
S.O. 1332.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/ 2012) of the Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Travancore and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26/03/2014.
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Travancore, Kozhenchery Branch in terminating the services of Smt. Sarasamma w.e.f. 19.05.2010 is legal and justified? To what relief the Smt. Sarasamma is entitled?"
3. After appearance of both the parties and submission of pleadings the case was posted in the Lok Adalath as agreed to by both the parties. In the Lok Adalath there was a full and final settlement of all the claims and both the parties jointly filed compromise. Hence an award can be passed accepting the compromise.
4. In the result an award is passed as per the terms of the compromise and the compromise will form part of the award.
The award will come into force one month after its
[No. L-12012/30/2011-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
publication in the Official Gazette.
ANNEXURE
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 26th day of February, 2014.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
PRESENT: Shri D. Sreevallabham, B,Sc., LL.B.,
Presiding Officer
D. SREEVALLABHAM, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX-NIL
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
(Wednesday the 26th day of February, 2014/07th Phalguna 1935)
ID NO. 18/2012
I.D. 18/2012
Workman : Smt. Sarasamma
W/o Thankappan Paradayil Veedu Kuravankuzhy PO Pullad, Thiruvalla Kerala State By Adv. A V Xavier
Managemen : The Managing Director
State Bank of Travancore Head Office Poojappura Trivandrum
By Adv. P Ramakrishnan
This case coming up for final hearing on 26.02.2014 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day passed the following :
Smt. Sarasamma,
W/o Thankappan,
Paradayil Veedu,
Kuravankuzhy P.O.,
Pullad, Thiruvalla,
Kerala State.
...............Workman
Vs.
The Managing Director,
State Bank of Travancore,
Head Office, Poojappura,
Trivandrum.
.........Management
The matter was taken up in Lok Adalat and the parties
agreed to settle the dispute on the following terms:—
1. The management agrees to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand only), to the workman in full and final settlement of all the claims of the worker3468 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
COMMON AWARD
against the Management.
IN
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE Nos.
L.C. 73/2006 AND ID. 14/2007
2. Upon receiving the said amount, the worker will not have any further monetary claim or claim for employment against the Management in connection with her alleged employment under the Management.
BETWEEN:
3. A Banker's Cheque for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) bearing No. 525899 dated 07.02.2014 favouring Smt. Sarasamma drawn on State Bank of Travancore, Kottayam Civil Station Branch is handed over to the worker on this day towards full and final settlement of all claims of the worker in I.D. No. 18/2012.
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2014.
Workman: Management:
Sd/-
Sd/-
Cousel for Workman: Counsel for Management:
Sd/-
Sd/-
नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2014
Sri A. Ramesh
S/o A. Sailoo,
C/o A.P. Industrial Employees Union,
"House of Labour", King Kothi Road,
Hyderabad-29.
.....Petitioner
AND
1. The Dy. General Manager, Personnel Department, State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Head Office, Hyderabad.
2. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of Hyderabad, Nallakunta Branch, Nallakunta, Hyderabad .....Respondents
APPEARANCES:
का॰आ॰ 1333.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बक ऑफ हैदराबाद प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या (न॰ एल सी 73/2006, 14/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
For the Petitioner : M/s. V. Viswanatham & R.
Dushyantla, Advocates
For the Respondent : Sri A.V.S.S. Prasad, Advocate
COMMON AWARD
[सं॰ एल-12012/20/2006-आई आर (बी-I)]
सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 25th April, 2014
S.O. 1333.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (No. LC 73/2006 & ID 14/2007) of the Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Hyderabad and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/04/2014.
[No. L-12012/20/2006-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer Sri A. Ramesh invoking Sec. 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (who will be referred to as workman) has filed this petition against the Respondents seeking for passing an award directing the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service from 1.6.2006 with full back wages and all other attendant benefits with continuity of service and to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the back wages and costs.
2. While so a reference in ID No. 14/2007 has been received by this forum from Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi vide order No.L-12012/20/2006-IR(B-I) dated 19.1.2007, whereunder, this forum has been invited to give award on the questions of,
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, ERNAKULAM
PRESENT: Smt. M. Vijayan Lakashmi,
Presiding Officer
Dated the 28th day of February, 2014 "Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Hyderabad, not regularising the services of Sri A. Ramesh, Casual Labour, working since 1997 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
By virtue of the order dated 30.9.2008, these two cases i.e., LC 73/2006 and ID 14/2007 were clubbed together and the proceedings were conducted commonly for both these matters in LC 73/2006.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 34693. No specific claim statement has been filed by the
Petitioner in ID 14/2007.
5. Respondents filed their common counter in LC 73/ 2006 and ID 14/2007, with the averments in brief as follows:
4. The averments made in LC 73/2006 filed by the
Petitioner in brief are as follows:
Petitioner was appointed by the 2nd Respondent with the consent and permission of the 1st Respondent on 10th June, 1997 as casual labour and his last drawn wages was Rs. 50/- per day, whereas casual labours working at Gunfoundry Branch and Kakatiyanagar Branch are being paid wages @ Rs. 130/- per day. Petitioner was pleading since long time that he was being paid less wages. He worked with the Respondent continuously but as per their usual practice no written orders were issued. He was never engaged in the exigencies of the work as and when necessary and was never paid same amount as per the work, without hindrance he entered into the bank along with the regular employees and performed duties entrusted to him by the 2nd Respondent. But he was deprived equal pay for equal work. He completed 240 days in every calendar year. He used to work from 10 AM to 11.30 PM to help and assist the staff in finalizing the work, after banking hours. 2nd Respondent appreciated his work and in the year 1998 forwarded Petitioner's application for absorption on 4.4.2002. This document clearly show that there is no break in service of the Petitioner from 1997. Since his services were not regularized inspite of several representations though Respondents regularized services of several others without the media of Employment Exchange. He approached his union who in turn raised a dispute under Sec. 2k for regularization before the Conciliation Officer, Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) who admitted the dispute and as the conciliation failed, he closed proceedings and submitted report to the government vide their letter 24.1.2006. Respondent not only paid less wages but also deprived the Petitioner of payment of bonus, whereas there are orders in the shape of circular by the Respondents that the casual employees are entitled for bonus. Having no alternative Petitioner filed MP 49/2005 claiming for difference of the amount due to him invoking Sec. 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the circumstances 2nd Respondent with prejudiced mind has terminated the services of the Petitioner orally from 1.6.2006 which is unfair labour practice. On such illegal termination Petitioner issued notice dated 2.6.2006 which the Respondents received but there is no response from him. Such oral termination of the Petitioner's service is illegal, inoperative and improper and without any valid reason. Petitioner has successfully completed continuous service from June, 1997 to 31.5.2006. Inspite of it Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not followed. He is entitled for reinstatement into service. Hence, the petition.
A.P. Industrial Employee Union does not have any locus stand to file this case on behalf of the Petitioner, as it is neither an association recognized by the Bank nor having the employees of the bank as members. Further Petitioner is not a workman as per Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He is not an employee of the bank. As such, petition is liable to be dismissed. Further as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others (Vs.) Umadevi and three others, reported in at (2006) 4 SCC page 1, casual labour/temporary employee do not have any right to regular or permanent public employment as they accepted the employment fully knowing the nature of their employment at their own violation and with eyes open as to the nature of their illegal employment, which is not as per constitutional provisions and the appointment is not as per due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules and also held that the courts should not perpetuate illegalities, irregularities or improprieties. Thus, the petition under Section 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not maintainable in law or on facts. The contention of the Petitioner that he was employed on casual basis since 1997 by the 2nd Respondent and 2nd Respondent was making payment of Rs. 50/- per day though the casual labours working in the other branches like Kakatiyanagar branch and Gunfoundry branch are being paid more wages, that Petitioner was working continuously without any break and completed 240 days in a calendar year, that he made request for written letter of appointment and for correct wages and was assured of the same and was not granted the same, that 2nd Respondent extracted the work from 10AM to 11.30PM without giving any break are all incorrect. Petitioner never worked for 240 days in a calendar year and he was never employed in the year 1997 nor terminated on 1.6.2006. Payment of wages made to casual workers of Kakatiyanagar branch and Gunfoundry branch were covered by some orders which were passed by competent courts basing on the records. Placing the Petitioner with such persons stating that their respective cases are identical is incorrect and is not maintainable in Law and on facts. The present claim petition is filed as counter making claims which got nothing to the state of affairs concerning the Petitioner who is a daily employee and whose services were utilized as and when need arose is not at all correct. The documents relied upon by the Petitioner are self-serving and they are not official record of the bank. The mode and manner in which such documents were obtained in not made out. Notice for termination dated 2.6.2006 given by the Petitioner is an after thought with a mind set for filing the present petition. Provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 are not applicable to him as the Petitioner is not a permanent employee and3470 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] does not constitute as retrenchment. Such termination is not arbitrary as they are need based. It is well settled principle that an appointment made in violation of mandatory provisions constituted and non-possession of minimum educational or technical qualifications and other essential qualifications etc., would be wholly illegal. Those who come by back door should go through the door. Since Petitioner has been engaged to meet the exigencies only he is not a workman and he is not entitled for equal emoluments or equal pay to that of regular employees. Regularization can not be claimed as a matter of right, specially when it is illegal appointment. Petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
6. To substantiate the contentions of the Petitioner WW1 was examined and Ex. W1 to W3 were marked. Ex. W1 is the application forwarded by the Branch Manager. Ex. W2 is the list of casual employees who were regularized. Ex. W3 is the representation to the Bank Mnager dated 2.6.2006. On behalf of the management MW1 was examined. No documentary evidence has been produced by the management.
7. Heard the arguments of the either party. Written arguments were also filed by the Petitioner and the same are received and considered.
8. Point that arises for determination is: Whether the Petitioner is workman and whether termination of his services is legal and justified? If so, to what relief the Petitioner is entitled?
9. Point: As far as the present dispute is concerned, through Ex. W1 to W3 coupled with his own oral evidence as WW1, Petitioner could established before this court that he has been working as casual labour with the Respondent bank since June, 1997 and management could not produce any material evidence against the contention of the Petitioner that he worked with the Respondent from 10.6.1997 to 31.5.2006. Thus, it can safely be taken that Petitioner has worked with the Respondent bank since June, 1997 as casual labour and therefore, he is a workman for all purposes. Contra contentions of the Respondent are not acceptable.
since his claim that he successfully continued in service from June, 1997 to 31.5.2006 and that he was terminated on 1.6.2006 are all incorrect. He was engaged on casual basis as and when work arose, in the branch due to various reasons. His claim that his services were terminated to harass him as he approached courts is far from truth and it is an attempt to abuse due process of law. He was never appointed by the bank nor appointment letter was issued to him. He was paid as per the norms and understanding of the work done. He was engaged to do the work which is casual in nature and which arise intermittently. For doing regular work bank recruits staff by complying with the provisions stipulated after taking into account the guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time in accordance with constitutional provisions. As such, employment itself is illegal. Therefore, the reinstatement into service can not be claimed that too with full back wages and attendant benefits with continuity of service and also interest. Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) had issued circular dated 6.8.1990 directing the recruitment of temporary employees in the clerical/ subordinate cadre shall be stopped forthwith. For the staff which was then on the rolls of the banks, they shall be regularized as provided in the approach paper in terms of the circular issued at that time. These are all specific directions of Banks to make temporary appointment till the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved and for future requirements, Banks would have to approach Government and would have go by such modalities as would be laid down by the Government through regular process of recruitment enshrined in the constitution. Engagement of Petitioner is illegal because such appointments on casual basis were obtained by the Petitioner without following the procedure of their names being forwarded by the Employment Exchange, without following the rule of reservation and the procedure for appointment of employees in the subordinate cadre as prescribed by the rules of the Respondent bank. Further, as per the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court the candidates lack any eligibility of qualification in any manner it would not possible to consider for regularizations as casual labours and that long duration of service would also not be relevant condition to regularize the service. Appointment against non-existent vacancy is also not maintainable and such person is entitled for regularization. In this case there was no vacancy in the regular basis but the Petitioner was engaged on daily wages basis to meet the exigencies. Even such employment can not be regularized unless regularized through prescribed procedure. Daily wage labourers whose services were engaged on the basis of need of work, such termination
10. As can he gathered from the material on record, Petitioner who applied for his absorption in bank's regular service by making applications time and again, has raised an industrial dispute seeking for regularization of his service with the Respondent bank by approaching Assistant Labour Commissioner (C). Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) has made efforts to conciliate the matter, and evidently such conciliation proceedings failed. 11. While things stood so, istead of regularising the Petitioner's services, the Respondent bank has chosen to remove him from service abruptly w.e.f. 1.6.2006. There on Petitioner is constrained to approach this forum by filing this dispute seeking for his reinstatement into service.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 347112. Evidently and admittedly there is no compliance of Sec. 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while removing the Petitioner from service. It is the contention of the Respondent that since the Petitioner is not a workman and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not apply to him, there was no compliance of Sec. 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
13. As already observed above, the material on record clearly discloses that Petitioner has been in continuous service as casual labour with the Respondent since June, 1994 and thus he is a workman. Thus, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will apply to him, therefore, his retrenchment/removal from service without complying with Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is certainly illegal, unjust and arbitrary.
14. It is the contention of the Respondent that the principles laid down in the cases of Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others (2008) 10 SCC page 1 whereunder principles laid down in the case of Umadevi Vs. State of Karnataka (2006) 4 SCC page 1 has been upheld, are applicable to the present case and that Petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for.
18. Anyway, the question whether Petitioner is entitled for regularization of services or not is not the subject matter in this petition. Even if the same is subject matter in this petition, since it is an industrial dispute, the principles laid down in the above cited cases are not applicable.
19. For all the above referred reasons, the principles laid down in the above cited cases relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the bank are not helpful to his contentions in this case.
20. There are umpteen number of legal precedents laid down by the Apex Court whereunder it is clearly laid down that the workman who is removed from service without complying with the mandatory conditions laid down in Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is to be ordered to be reinstated into service. Thus, the Petitioner who is found to be a workman, is entitled to be reinstated into service of the bank w.e.f. 1.6.2006 with the benefit of continuous service. As far as back wages are concerned, since he did not render his service to the bank but not due to his own fault, he is entitled for atleast 50% of the back wages payable to him, but for the abrupt and illegal removal from service.
This point is answered accordingly.
Result:
In the result, petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be reinstated into service of the Respondent bank as casual labour w.e.f. 1.6.2006 with continuity of service. He shall be paid 50% of the back wages also forth with.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 28th day of February, 2014.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
15. In the above cited cases Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the acceptable mode of public employment and non acceptable regularization of services of the persons who entered into the service by back door methods, thereby defeating the opportunity of the general public to compete for appointment to the said post etc. Present dispute is an industrial dispute. Industrial Law is totally different from Civil Law/Administrative Law. Regularization of casual workman as regular workman etc., are all governed by the Industrial laws, rules and various circulars issued by the government from time to time touching this aspects. Public employment under Civil Law/Administrative Law is totally different.
Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for
the
the Petitioner Respondent
WW1: Sri A. Ramkesh MW1: Sri Mallela Srinivas
Documents marked for the Petitioner
16. Further more, in this case Petitioner is not seeking for regularization of his service. What all he is questioning is the correctness of abrupt termination of his services when he questioned the inaction on the part of the Respondent bank regarding his plea for regularization of his services, that too without complying with the Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ex. W1: Photostat copy of the application of the
Petitioner dt. 4.4.2002
Ex. W2: Photostat copy of list of the 34 casual
employees of the State Bank of Hyderabad
Ex W3: Photostat copy of representation dt. 2.6.2006 by the Petitioner to the DGM, Personnel Department and Branch Manager, Nallakunta branch.
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
17. Inspite of their own admission in their counter that "Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) had issued a circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR dated 6.8.1990 directing that all recruitment of temporary employees in the clerical/subordinate cadre shall be stopped forth with and that for the staff which was then on the rolls of the Banks, they shall be regularized as provided in the approach paper in terms of the circular issued a that time," the Respondent bank, evidently failed to take appropriate action in connection with the claims of the petition.
3472 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2014
Gunfoundry, Head Office, Hyderabad.
2. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of Hyderabad, Nallakunta Branch, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES:
का॰आ॰ 1334.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ हैदराबाद के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्ि ाकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या एल सी 74/2006 12/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-12012/22/2006-आई आर (बी-I)]
सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अध्किारी For the Petitioner : M/s. V. Viswanatham & R.
Dushyantla, Advocates
For the Respondent : Sri A.V.S.S. Prasad, Advocate
COMMON AWARD
New Delhi, the 25th April, 2014
S.O.1334.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (No. LC 74/2006 & ID 12/2007) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Hyderabad and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/04/2014.
[No. L-12012/22/2006-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer Sri J. Kiran Kumar invoking Sec. 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (who will be referred to as workman) has filed this petition against the Respondents seeking for passing an award directing the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service from 1.6.2006 with full back wages and all other attendant benefits with continuity of service and to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the back wages and costs.
ANNEXURE
2. While so a reference in ID No. 12/2007 has been received by this forum from Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi vide order No. L-12012/22-2006-IR (B-(I) dated 18.1.2007, whereunder, this forum has been invited to give award on the question of,
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 28th day of February, 2014 "Whether the action of the management of Statement Bank of Hyderabad, not regularising the services of Sri J. Kiran Kumar, Casual Labour, working since 1999 is legal and justified? If not, what releif the workman is entitled to?"
COMMON AWARD
IN
Industrial Dispute
Nos. L.C. 74/2006 and I. D. 12/2007
By virtue of the order dated 30.9.2008, these two cases i.e. LC 74/2006 and ID 12/2007 were clubbed together and the proceedings were conducted commonly for both these matters in LC 74.2006.
3. No specific claim statement has been filed by BETWEEN :
Sri J. Kiran Kumar,
S/o J. Omprakash,
C/o A.P. Industrial Employees Union,
"House of Labour", King Kothi Road,
Hyderabad-29.
..Petitioner
AND
1. The Dy. General Manager, Personnel Department, State Bank of Hyderabad,
the Petitioner in ID 12/2007.
4. The averments made in LC 74/2006 filed by the
Petitioner in brief are as follows:
Petitioner was appointed by the 2nd Respondent with the consent and permission of the 1st Respondent from 18th August, 1999 as casual labour and his last drawn wages was Rs. 50 per day, whereas casual labours working at Gunfoundry Branch and Kakatiyanagar Branch are being paid wages @ Rs. 130 per day. Petitioner was pleading since long time that he was being paid less wages. He worked with the Respondent continuously but as per their usual practice no written orders were issued. He was never[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3473 engated in the exigencies of the work as and when necessary and was never paid same amount as per the work, without hindrance he entered into the bank along with the regular employees and performed duties entrusted to him by the 2nd Respondent. But he was deprived equal pay for equal work. He completed 240 days in every calendar year. He used to work from 10 AM to 11.30 PM to help and assist the staff in finalizing the work, after banking hours. 2nd Respondent appreciated his work and in the year 2002 forwarded Petitioner's application for absorption on 4.4.2002. This document clearly show that there is no break in service of the Petitioner from 1999. Since his services were not regularized inspite of serveral representations though Respodents regularized services of several others without the media of Employment Exchange. He approached his union who in turn raised a dispute under Sec. 2k for regularization before the Conciliation Officer, Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) who admitted the dispute and as the conciliation failed, he closed proceedings and submitted report to the government vide their letter 24.1.2006. Respondent not only paid less wages but also deprived the Petitioner of payment of bonus, whereas there are orders in the shape of circular by the Respondents that the casual employees are entitled for bonus. Having no alternative Petitioner filed MP 50/05 claiming for difference of the amount due to him invoking Sec. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the circumstances 2nd Respondent with prejudiced mind has terminated the services of the Petitioner orally from 1.6.2006 which is unfair labour practice. On such illegal termination Petitioner issued notice dated 2.6.2006 which the Respondents received but there is no response from him. Such oral termination of the Petitioner's service is illegal, inoperative and improper and without any valid reason. Petitioner has successfully completed continuous service from August, 1999 to 31.5.2006. Inspite of it Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not followed. He is entitled for reinstatement into service. Hence, the petition.
5. Respondents filed their common counter in LC 74/2006 and ID 12/2007, with the averments in brief as follows:
violation and with eyes open as to the nature of their illegal employment, which is not as per constitutional provisions and the appointment is not as per due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules and also held that the courts should not perpetuate illegalities, irregularities or improprieties. Thus, the petition under Section 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not maintainable in law or on facts. The contention of the Petitioner that he was employed on casual basis since 1999 by the 2nd Respondent and 2nd Respondent was making payment of Rs. 50 per day though the casual labours working in the other branches like Kakatiyanagar branch and Gunfoundry branch are being paid more wages, that Petitioner was working continuously without any break and completed 240 days in a calendar year, that he made request for written letter of appointment and for correct wages and was assured of the same and was not granted the same, that 2nd Respondent extracted the work from 10AM to 11.30 PM without giving by break are all incorrect. Petitioner never worked for 240 days in a calendar year and he was never employed in the year 1999 nor terminated on 1.6.2006. Payment of wages made to casual workers of Kakatiyanagar branch and Gunfoundry branch were covered by some orders which were passed by competent courts basing on the records. Placing the Petitioner with such persons stating that their respective cases are identical is incorrect and is not maintainable in Law and on facts. The present claim petition is filed as counter making claims which got noting to the state of affairs concerning the Petitioner who is a daily employee and whose services were utilized as and when need arose is not at all correct. The documents relied upon by the Petitioner are self-serving and they are not official record of the bank. The mode and manner in wich such documents were obtained in not made out. Notice for termination dated 2.6.2006 given by the Petitioner is an after though with a mined set for filing the present petition. Provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable to him as the Petitioner is not a permanent employee and since his claim that he successfuly continued in service from August, 1999 to 31.5.2006 and that he was terminated on 1.6.2006 are all incorrect. He was engaged on casual basis as and when work arose, in the branch due to various reasons. His claim that his services were terminated to harass him as he approached courts is far from truth and it is an attempt to abuse due process of law. He was never appointed by the bank nor appointment letter was issued to him. He was paid as per the norms and understanding of the work done. He was engaged to do the work which is casual in nature and which arise intermittently. For doing regular work bank recruits staff by complying with the provisions stipulated after taking into account the guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time in accordance with constitutional provisions. As such, employment itself is illegal. Therefore, the A.P. Industrial Employee Union does not have any locus stand to file this case on behalf of the Petitioner, as it is neither an association recognized by the Bank nor having the employees of the bank as members. Further Petitioner is not a workman as per Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He is not an employee of the bank. As such, petition is liable to be dismissed. Further as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and three otheres, reported in at (2006) 4 SCC page 1, casual labour/temporary employee do not have any right to regular or permanent public employment as they accepted the employment fully knowing the nature of their employment at their own3474 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2.6.2006. On bahalf of the management MW1 was examined. No documentary evidence has been produced by the management.
7. Heard the arguments of the either party. Written arguments were also filed by the Petitioner and the same are received and considered.
8. Point that arises for determination is:
Whether the Petitioner is workman and whether termination of his services is legal and justified? If so, to what relief the Petitioner is entitled?
9. Point:
As far as the present dispute is concerned, through Ex W1 to W3 coupled with his own oral evidence as WW1, Petitioner could establish before this court that he has been working with the Respondent bank since August, 1999 and management could not produce any material evidence against the contention of the Petitioner that he worked with the Respondent from 18th August, 1999 to 31.5.2006. Thus, it can safelty be taken that Petitioner has worked as casual labour with the Respondent bank since August, 1999 as casual labour and therefore, he is a workman for all purposes. Contra contentions of the Respondent are not acceptable.
10. As can be gathered from the material on record, Petitioner who applied for his absorption in bank's regular service by making applications time and again, has raised an industrial dispute seeking for regularization of his service with the Respondent bank by approaching Assistant Labour Commissioner (C). Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) has made efforts to conciliate the matter, and evidently such conciliation proceedings failed.
11. While things stood so, instead of regularising the Petitioner's services, the Respondent bank has chosen to remove him from service abruptly w.e.f. 1.6.2006. There on Petitioner is constrained to approach this forum by filing this dispute seeking for his reinstatement into service.
12. Evidently and admittedly there is no compliance of Sec. 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while removing the Petitioner from service. It is the contention of the Respondent that since the Petitioner is not a workman and Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 does not apply to him, there was no compliance of Sec. 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
reinstatement into service can not be claimed that too with full back wages and attendant benefits with continuity of service and also interest. Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) had issued circular dated 6.8.1990 directing the recruitment of temporary employees in the clerical/ subordinate cadre shall be stopped forthwith. For the staff which was then on the rolls of the banks, they shall be regularized as provided in the approach paper in terms of the circular issued at that time. These are all specific directions of Banks to make temporary appointment till the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved and for future requirements, Banks would have to approach Government and would have go by such modalities as would be laid down by the Government through regular process of recruitment enshrined in the constitution. Engagement of Petitioner is illegal because such appointments on casual basis were obtained by the Petitioner without following the procedure of their names being forwarded by the Employment Exchange, without following the rule of reservation and the procedure for appointment of employees in the subordinate cadre as prescribed by the rules of the Respondent bank. Further, as per the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court the candidates lack any eligibility of qualification in any manner it would not possible to consider for regularization as casual labours and that long duration of service would also onot be relevant condition to regularize the service. Appointment against non-existent vacancy is also not maintainable and such persons is not entitled for regularization. In this case there was no vacancy in the regular basis but the Petitioner was engaged on daily wages basis to meet the exigencies. Even such employment can not be regularized unless regularized through prescribed procedure. Daily wage labourers whose services were engated on the basis of need of work, such termination does not constitute as retrenchment. Such termination is not arbitrary as they are need based. It is well settled principle that an appointment made in violation of mandatory provisions constituted and non- possession of minimum educational or technical qualifications and other essential qualifications etc., would be wholly illegal. Those who come by back door should go through the door. Since Petitioner has been engaged to meet the exigencies only he is not a workman and he is not entitled for equal emoluments or equal pay to that of regular employees. Regularization can not be claimed as a matter of right, specially when it is illegal appointment. Petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
13. As already observed above, the material on record clearly discloses that Petitioner has been in continuious service as casual labour with the Respondent since August, 1999 and thus he is a workman. Thus, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will apply to 6. To substantiate the contentions of the Petitioner WW1 was examined and Ex. W1 were marked. Ex. W1 is the application forwarded by the Branch Manager. Ex. W2 is the list casual employees who were regularized. Ex. W3 is the respresentation to the Bank Manager dated[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3475 him. Therefore, his retrenchement/removal from service without complying with Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is certainly illegal, unjust and arbitrary.
14. It is the contention of the Respondent that the principles laid down in the cases of Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others (2008) 10 SCC page 1 whereunder principles laid down in the case of Umadevi Vs. State of Karnataka (2006) 4 SCC page 1 has been upheld, are applicable to the present case and that Petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for.
20. There are umpteen number of legal precedents laid down by the Apex Court whereunder it is clearly laid down that the workman who is removed from service without complying with the mandatory conditions laid down in Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is to be ordered to be reinstated into service. Thus, the Petitioner who is found to be a workman, is entitled to be reinstated into service of the bank w.e.f. 1.6.2006 with the benefit of continuous service. As far as back wages are concerned, since he did not render his service to the bank but not due to his own fault, he is entitled for alteast 50% of the back wages payable to him, but for the abrupot and illegal removal from service.
This point is answered accordingly.
Result:
15. In the above cited cases Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the acceptable mode of public employment and non acceptable regularization of services of the persons who entered into the service by back door methods, thereby defeating the opportunity of the general public to compete for appointment to the said post etc.. Present dispute is an industrial dispute. Industrial Law is totally different from Civil Law/Administrative Law. Regularization of casual workman as regular workman etc., are all governed by the industrial laws, rules and various circulars issued by the government from time to time touching this aspects. Public employment under Civil Law/Administrative Law is totally different.
In the result, petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be reinstated into service of the Respondent bank as casual labour w.e.f. 1.6.2006 with continuity of service. He shall be paid 50% of the back wages also, forth with.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 28th day of February, 2014.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
16. Further more, in this case Petitioner is not seeking for regularization of his service. What all he is questioning is the correctness of abrupt termination of his services, when he questioned the inaction on the part of the Respondent bank regarding his plea for regularization of his services, that too without complying with the Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the
the Petitioner Respondent
WW1: Sri J. Kiran Kumar MW1: Sri Mallela Srinivas
Documents marked for the Petitioner
17. Inspite of their own admission in their counter that "Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) had issued a circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR dated 6.8.1990 directing that all recruitment of temporary employes in the clerical/subordinate cadre shall be stopped forth with and that for the staff which was then on the rolls of the Banks, they shall be regularized as provided in the approach paper in terms of the circular issued at that time.", the Respondent bank, evidently failed to take appropriate action in connection with the claims of the Petitioner.
Ex.W1: Photostat copy of the application of the
Petitioner dt. 4.4.2002
Ex. W2: Photostat copy of list of the 34 casual
employees of the State Bank of Hyderabad
Ex. W3: Photostat copy of representation dt. 2.6.2006 by the Petitoner to the DGM, Personnel Department and Branch Manager, Nallakunta branch.
Documents marked for the Respondent
18. Anyway, the question whether Petitioner is entitled for regularization of services or not is not the subject matter in this petition. Even if the same is subject matter in this petition, since it is an industrial dispute, the principles laid down in the above cited cases are not applicable.
19. For all the above referred reasons, the principles laid down in the above cited cases relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the bank are not helpful to his contentions in this case.
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2014
का.आ. 1335.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कोर वैश्य बैंक लि॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक3476 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] अध्किरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 80/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16/.4/2014 प्राप्त हुआ था।
in this case between the Management of Karur Vysya Bank and their workman Sri S.V.S. Sarma, by giving an award into the question.
SCHEDULE
[सं. एल. 12012/139/2004-आईआर (बी-I)] सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th April, 2014
S.O. 1335.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publises the Award (Ref. No. 80/2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kaur Vysya Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/04/2014.
[No. L-12012/139/2004-IR(B-I)] SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer "Whether the action of the Management of Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Karur in dismissing from the services of Sh. S.V.S. Sarma, Ex-clerk-cum-Cashier, Dharmavaram Branch with effect from 14.12.2002 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
After receiving the reference, this Tribunal has registered and numbered it as I.D. No. 80/2004 and issued notice to either party. They both appeared before the court and engaged their respective counsels with the leave of the court and consent of either party.
2. Petitioner filed his claim statement with the
averments in brief as follows:
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT : Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated, the 4th day of March, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 80/2004
BETWEEN:
Sri S.V.S. Sarma, D.No. 23-25-11/A, Sannidhanamvari Street Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada. .....Petitioner
AND
Executive Director, Personnel Administration Dept., Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Central Office, Erode Road, Karur-639001 ....Respondent
APPERANCES:
For the Petitioner : M/s. C. Niranjan Rao & M. Subrahmanya Sastry, Advocates
For the Respondent : M/s. C.R. Sridharan, G. Narender Reddy, S. Ramesh, M. Srinivas Reddy & G.V.S. Ganesh, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India made a reference vide order No. L-12012/139/2004-IR(B-I) dated 10.6.2004
requiring this forum to resolve the industrial dispute arose Petitioner has joined the service of Respondent bank as sub-staff on 14.1.1984 and rendered his services with unblemished record and to the satisfaction of the Management. His services were made permanent as attender and thereafter recognised his merit and excellent service record he was promoted as a clerk in course of time and he continued to work hard maintaining unblemished service. While so on 10.4.2000, while he was working as cashier at the Branch due to heavy work and cash payments there required the assistance of a second cashier which was not provided by the Management. Due to heavy work as a single cashier without any assistance Petitioner suffered loss of Rs. 48,000 on the said day. Said amount was recovered from his salary monthly which worsened the mental condition of the Petitioner and he suffered mental depression from that day. While so, the Branch Manager made a report alleging certain acts against the Petitioner from 17.8.2001 to 24.8.2001 and also made allegations of behaving in discourteous manner and exhibiting insubordination. It was also reported by the Branch Manager that Petitioner entered into a wager with some unnamed persons and walked naked on the streets of Dharmavaram etc. Acting on the basis of the motivated complaint of the Branch Manager, one Sri A.S. Vasudevan, Assistant General Manager, Bangalore visited and submitted his investigation report to the effect that Petitioner is guilty of serious misconducts of behaving with Branch Managing in a discourteous manner, exhibiting insubordination, failing to show proper consideration and courtesy towards the Branch Manager and walking/roaming naked on the streets of Dharmavaram. The Petitioner was kept under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3477 reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner to participate in the said appeal proceedings with the help of any defence assistant. The Appellate Authority admitted that Chief Manager was subordinate to the Assistant General Manager who was primary witness of the Management and also that the witnesses examiend by the bank were seniors to the Enquiry Officer but he asserted that the Disciplinary Authority was not influenced. He was predetermined to dismiss the appeal. The lapse if at all occurred was occurred by the Petitioner was under serious mental depression and was undergoing treatment with the Psychiatrist. The enquiry conducted was not fair. Petitioner was not fairly treated at the hands of the Disciplinary Authority. He was a psychiatric patient and was undergoing treatment with the Psychiatrist. This information is also available in the service records of the Petitioner. He has two grown up daughters whose marriages are to be performed by him. He hahs also to support his aged parents. Thus, his acts were ought to have been condoned. Hence, the claim.
3. Respondents filed their counter statement with
the averments in brief as follows:
against him. Thereafter Chief Manager issued a chargesheet dated 24.10.2001. Petitioner is not at all involved in such charges levelled against him and he denied the charges. An enquiry was conducted agasint the Petitioner. One Sri Ashok Vennelakanti, Manager, Legal Department of the Respondent bank was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Two witnesses were examined during enquiry. Both of them seniors officials and are higher in rank to that of the Enquiry Officer. Disciplinary Authority was the Chief Manager, whereas Sri A.S. Vasudevan was superior officer to the Enquiry Officer and also Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority are under the influence of Sri A.S. Vasudevan. Five documents were marked during enquiry. First two of them were letters of the Branch, 3rd document was letter from the Divisional Office, 4th documents was the letter addressed by the Central Office of the Bank to the applicant and the 5th document was the reply to the applicant to the said letter. Therefore, there was absolutely no evidence in support of the charges. A show cause notice was issued by the Chief Manager dated 8.7.2002 regarding findings of the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner gave reply to the same. A newspaper publication was also relied upon by the Management. Though Petitioner was no where referred in the said news items. No effort was made to prove the contents of the news publication. The customers whose names are mentioned in the chargesheet were also not examined during enquiry. The other officials who are also mentioned therein were not examined. Petitioner cross examined the witnesses who are examined. Material witnesses are not examined. But the Enquiry Officer proceeded in a grossly biased manner and submitted a report holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges. He could not apply his mind instantly to the material on the record as he is junior to the witnesses examined during the enquiry. He had no discretion to assess the evidence instantly and to give correct findings. No independent witnesses were examined. The Enquiry Officer himself admitted in his findings at page 7 para 2 of his report that evidence adduced is only here say evidence. But inspite of it he found the Petitioner guilty of misconduct. Without considering the contents of the reply of the Petitioner given to show cause notice dated 8.7.2002, second show cause notice dated 8.10.2002 was issued by the Disciplinary Authroity proposing the punishment of removal from service. A detailed reply has been given by the Petitioner on 24.10.2002 but the Respondent is failed to consider the same and final order dated 14.12.2002 was issued dismissing the Petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Auhority but said appeal also was dismissed inarbitrarily hearing the Presenting Officer though he go nothing to do with the appeal. Further the Appellate Authority denied
The enquiry was conducted validly and properly against the Petitioner and fully in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. In view of the hopeless and adverse past service record coupled with the grave acts of misconduct proved against his beyond any reasonable doubt he was dismissed froms service and he is not entitled to any indulgence from the court. Dismissal order is not liable to be interfered with under any circumstances. Petitioner was reported to have committed certain serious acts of misconduct which include that he disobeyed the orders of the superiors, indulged in certain acts prejudicial to the interests of the bank. In view of the gravity of the acts of the misconduct reported against the Petitioner, the Respondent bank issued the chargesheet dated 24th October, 2001. The charges include meddling with bank records unauthorizedly, being disrespectful and disobedient towards his superiors, walking named on 22.8.2001 from Panduranga Circle through Gandhi Nagar, Kothapetta to Tarakaramapuram for a consideration of Rs. 50,000 lowering the dignity of the bank in the eyes of the public. Petitioner submitted his explanation which is not satisfactory. Therefore, regular departmental enquiry was ordered against him. Sri Ashok Vennelakanti, Manager- Legal Department was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Enquiry was conducted in the presence of the Petitioner. Petitioner appointed a defence representative. They were given opportunity to produce their defence evidence and they reported that they have no defence witness. Petitioner actively participated in the enquiry with the assistance of his defence assistant chosen by him who cross examined both the Management witnesses. The contents of the3478 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] chargesheet were clearly explained to the Petitioner. Thus, Petitioner was given all opportunities to fully participate in the enquiry and he availed the same. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer has given his report finding the Petitioner guilty of all charges. The report and finding of the Enquiry Officer were forwarded to the Petitioner advising him to make representation if any. He submitted his objections. Considering the fidings of the Enquiry Officer and the objections of the Petitioner, Disciplinary Authority proposed to award the punishment of "Dismissal from the service of the bank without notice" and issued show cause notice to the Petitioner for such proposal. Petitioner availed another opportunity of personal hearing on 24.10.2002 but he did not/could not give any convincing and satisfactory answers, the proposed punishment was confirmed. Particularly since the bank did not find any extenauting and mitigating circumstances to take any lenient view in the matter. Accordingly, punishment of dismissal from service from the bank without any notice was issued by final order dated 14.12.2002. Previously Petitioner was chargesheeted on five occasions for various acts of misconduct from 1996-2001 and punishments ranging from warning to stoppage of increments /reduction in the basic pay in stages have been imposed on him after said act of misconducts have been proved against him. The details of said events are as follows:
S.No. Particulars of chargesheet and the misconduct Particulars of punishment orders
1. Chargesheet dated 13.8.1996 for misappropriation Order dated 17.4.1997 stopping the next one increment, of Rs. 5,000 from the Bank's cash without the effect of postponing his future increments
2. Chargesheet dated 21.9.1998 for: Order dated 16.9.1998:-
(a) Wilful slowing down in performance of work; (a) reduction of b basic pay by two stages; and and
(b) Negligence in peforming duties (b) postponement of next one increment for a period of six months
3. Chargesheet dated 1.12.1998 for disorderly or Order dated 9.4.1999, reduction of basic by two stages indecent behaviour on the premises of the Bank with immeidate effect
4. Chargesheet dated 20.10.2000 for disorderely or Order dated 21.8.2001:
indecent behaviour on the premsies of the Bank (a) reduction of basic pay by one stage;
(b) warning; and (c) postponement of next one increment for a period six months
5. Chargesheet dated 28.2.2001 for: Order dated 24.3.2001 issuing warning
(a) absence without leave; and (b) irregular attendance
The cash shortage of Rs. 48,000 occurred only on account of the gross negligence on the part of the Petitioner. Serious action ought to have been initiated against the Petitioner taking a lenient view the matter was allowed to rest. Petitioner can not seek any advantage from the same. The acts of misconduct alleged in the present chargesheet came to the light through newspaper media. The media representatives were followed by the customers calling on the Manager of the Respondent bank and expressed their anguish and apprehension. The landlord of the Petitioner, Mr. J. Ravi, also discussed the matter with the Branch Manager of the Respondent bank. Further the Manager of the Branch was called by the Police authorities and in presence of the Manager the entire episode of walking naked was discussed by the Police authorities and the police warned and left the Petitioner taking into account, his family and children. Simultaneously, the Assistant General Manager of the Divisional Office, Bangalore, also visited the Branch and at that time also several customers called on him expressing their apprehension to keep their money with the Respondent bank. The charges levelled against the Petitioner have been amply proved in the domestic enquiry held. Though the two Management witnesses examined in the enquiry are higher in rank to their Enquiry Officer, Enquiry Officer was not working under them nor he was reporting to them. Sri A.S. Vadudeven was in Bangalore Divisional Office and the Enquiry Officer Sri Ashok Vennelakanti was in the Legal Department at the Cental Office located in Karur and he was reporting to the Deputy General Manager of his Department. Inevitably the Enquiry Officer has to examine in person having[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3479 are also filed for the Petitioner and the same are considered.
6. The points that arise for determination are:
I. Whether the action of the Management of Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Karur in dismissing from the services of Sh. S.V.S. Sarma, Ex-clerk-cum-Cashier, Dharmavaram Branch with effect from 14.12.2002 is justified?
II. To what relief the workman is entitled?"
7. Point No. I:
As can be gathered from the material made available on the record, and as alredy observed above, the domestic enquiry conducted in this case has been held as valid by this court, by virtue of order dated 11.2.2009. The said order has not been challenged by the Petitioner and thus, it remained on record in force and therefore it is to be taken that Petitioner has not chosen to challenge the validity of domestic enquiry held in this case.
8. But, in his claim statement he made several aspirations against the Enquiry Officer and the enquiry proceedings conducted by him, like the investigation officer being junior to the witnesses examined during the enquiry etc. But, an important aspect to be noted is that the enquiry proceedings filed before the court does not reveal any where that the Petitioner has expressed any grievance regarding the Enquiry Officer or the enquiry proceedings either at any time during the enquiry or in the written respresentations given by him submitting his comments on the enquiry findings. That means, it was not his claim all alone during the enquiry proceedings and until punishment was awarded to him, that his interests were prejudiced in any manner, due to the appointment of the given officer as Enquiry Officer and the other officers were being examined as witnesses during the enquiry and such other analogous aspects.
9. Further, as can be seen from the enquiry proceedings and enquiry report which are made available on record, Enquiry Officer has given ample opportunity to the Petitioner to participate in the enquiry duly and Petitioner availed of the same. The witnesses examined on behalf of the Management during enquiry were elaborately cross examined by the Petitioner in his defence and while so nothing was suggested to them implying that there was any occasion/possibility for them to exercise any influence over the decision of the Enquiry Officer.
knowledge of the facts relevant to charges, whether he is holding higher post in rank or otherwise. Thus, the question of higher rank is not material. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the Petitioner in this case. The Disciplinary Authority is an independent person holding his office in central office and he reported to the then Deputy General Mangaer of Personnel and Adminisrative Department. The newspaper cutting was an enclosure to Ex. M2, the report made by the Respondent branch. A detailed investingation was done in to the matter by the Assistant General Manager, Bangalore. All relevant evidence was placed to record during enquiry. The contentions that Enquiry Office and Disciplinary Authority have not applied their mind to the evidence is not correct. The Appellate Authroity gave personal hearing to the Petitioner and he dealt with the points raised by the Petitioner in appeal eleborately. The contention of the Petitioner that the Enquiry Officer admitted in his findings at pata 7 para 2 that evidence is only hear say is not correct. He stated that particulars of hear say evidence acts as 'circumstantial evidence' for the purpose of rendering his findings. He gave congent reasons for holding the Petitioner as guilty of charges. There is neither biased nor perverse on the part of the Enquiry Officer. Verification of the time of the lunch hour from Planning and Development Department, housed in Central Office which fixed the timings for various branches/offices located through out the country can not be taken as fact in evidence behind the available records. On the contra, it is to be taken that Enquiry Officer has put forth his best efforts to find out the truth and correct position. Contention of the Petitioner that enquiry held against him is unfair and unjust and that psychological conditions of the Petitioner during the period was not considered is not at all correct. During the appeal proceedings Appellate Authority provided the Petitioner with an opportunity to engage a defence assistant to Petitioner stated that does not require the same and that he would defend himself. Contra contentions are not correct. Petitioner's contention that he suffered mental disorder for certain period is not correct. He committed all the acts of misconduct intentionally and wilfully. The court is to note that Petitioner is indirectly admitting the charges.The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority is fully justified. The bank repose in more confidence in the Petitioner. It is not desirable that an employee like the Petitioner be permitted to come back into the services. Petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. By virtue of order dated 11.2.2009 domestic enquiry
conducted in this case has been held as valid.
10. The charges levelled against the Petitioner by the Management of the bank in the chargesheet dated 20.4.2001 are in two fold.
11. The first charge has been to the effect that on 5. Heard the arguments of either party under Sec. 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments3480 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 17.8.2001 is about 2.30 PM i.e., lunch hour the Petitioner who was on medical leave went to the Dharmavaram branch of the Respondent bank in which he was working at that time and informed the Branch manager that he would join duty on 20.8.2001 and thereafter went inside the counter, took the attendance register and started searching the filling cabinet, thereon the Branch Manager has objected for the unauthorised removal of the files by the Petitioner and advised him not to handle the office documents while on leave. For that Petitioner stated that he was looking for his leave particulars and wanted to note the same to obtain suitable medical certificate. Branch Manager allowed the Petitioner to note down required particulars. Even there after, Petitioner has not left the office and instead sat at the counter and refused to leave and thus disobeyed the reasonable orders of the Branch Manager.
12. As can be seen from the material on the record, Petitioner has admitted his attending the bank on 17.8.2001 at about 2.30 PM while he was on medical leave and his refusal to leave the bank premises inspite of Branch Manager ordering for it. His contention is that he went there to submit his leave letter and that he was badly treated by the Branch Manager and that he being a bank employee, was entitled to be in bank premises even while he was on leave and that he was hurt due to the improper treatment on the part of the Branch Manager.
13. But the fact remains that Branch Manager is the person who complained against the conduct of the Petitioner but not vice versa. Only after the enquiry was launched against the Petitioner and while defending himself, Petitioner has chosen to state that Branch Manager ill-treated him. If actually Branch Manager ill-treated him in, all likelihood he would have complained against the Branch Manager to the higher officials, even before launching of the enquiry against him. It did not happen. This is a circumstance which improbabolises the version of the Petitioner.
14. Further, Petitioner being on leave at the relevant time ought not to have meddled with the office records and ought not have been in the bank premises where there was possibility for the office records and other documents being kept, since, the persons who were on duty at that time would be the custodians of the said documents/ records and they would be responsible for their safety. Therefore, such custodians of the records were their limits/rights to ask the Petitioner to be away from the place where such records/documents were. The Branch Manager was the then custodian of the records/documents in the bank, obviously. Thus, he was having every right as well as duty to ask the Petitioner, who was on leave, not to be at that place then and also to ask the Petitioner to leave the premises immediately after the purpose for which he went there was over. Evidently, Petitioner did not do so. On the other hand, he resisted the direction given by the Branch Manager, who is his superior as well apart from being the Incharge of the office. Certainly, this conduct on the part of the Petitioner amounts to misconduct as well as disobedience and disrespect shown towards his superiors. The findings given by the Enquiry Officer with this regard are basing on the evidence made available on record during enquiry and also supported by relevant reasons.
15. No doubt the enquiry report thus, reveal that the Enquiry Officer gathered some information regarding the lunch hour in the given bank on his own. He ought not to have done so, to utilise the information so gathered in his enquiry report. But, doing so on his part has not actually prejudiced the Petitioner in any manner for the reason that enquiry findings are not mainly basing on such information it was only an incidental aspect which will not effect the enquiry findings totally. In this respect one has to take note of the fact that Petitioner is not at all disputing with the contention of the Respondent bank that, at the given time he was in Bank premises. If it was not the lunch hour and there were other persons present at the place of incident. Petitioner could have brought the fact to the notice of the Enquiry Officer by either examining such persons or by suggesting to the Management witnesses regarding the presence of such persons. He never have done so. Considering all these circumstances and since the Enquiry Officer has not based his finding regarding the 1st charge solely on the inference gathered by him on his own, it can be held that no prejudice caused to the Petitioner due to the same.
16. The second charge levelled against the Petitioner has been that he entered into a wager, with some person at Dharamavaram to walk naked on 22.8.2001 from Panduranga Circle to Gandhinagar, Kothapeta, to Tarakaramapuram for a consideration of Rs. 50000 and as per the said deal he walked naked in the streets of Dharmavaram, greeting the public to win the bet and that seeing him a bank employee, so, the public, more particularly ladies experienced difficulty and inconvenience and that his action was condemned by the local public and was also published in Eeenadu newspaper dated 24.8.2001 and further police took him into custody on 24.8.2001 between 7.30 AM and 8.00 AM and further they sent a police constable to the house of the Branch Manager and asked him to meet the Circle Inspector, which required the Branch Manager to attend the Police Station, where he found the Petitioner along with his wife and children and further that Police took pity on the wife and children of the Petitioner and left him after admonishing him, without booking any case against him which all amounts to misconduct on the part of the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3481 Petitioner which prejudiced interest of the bank and customers losing faith in the bank and complaining of the same.
17. As can be gathered from the material on the record, while meeting this charge, the Petitioner has submitted during the departmental enquiry at page No. 5 of the defence that "It is reported in the press and also by some members of public, that the incident has happened as described in the chargesheet issued to me. I agree that the News item published in the Eenadu daily confirms the statement of the charges referred in the chargesheet. I do not have any knowledge about the same as I was undergoing treatment for hypertension and was some times taking drugs of sedative nature. However, I wish to submit that I am never in the habit of betting. Hence, I am not able to say anything beyond this in this matter. In view of my explanation, I appeal to you to kindly close the enquiry." contention that hearsay evidence can not be relied upon and that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are therefore, to be appropriately dealt with. In this case, the evidence relied upon by the Enquiry Officer is not hearsay evidence. The direct evidence of the Branch Manager on MW2 who has spoken of the incidents which occured in his presence, has been relied upon.
21. The principles laid down in the case of Ghanshyam Das Shrivastava, Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh relied upon by the Petitioner are also not helpful to him since he participated in the departmental enquiry.
22. Considering the grave nature of misconduct of the Petitioner complained off and proved, the Respondent bank which is a financial institution and which functions on the faith of the public has chosen to dispense with the services of the Petitioner by dismissing him from the Bank's service. The same can not be find fault with.
23. Thus, the action of the Management of Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Karur in dismissing the Petitioner from service with effect from 14.12.2002 is justified.
This point is answered accordingly.
24. Point No. II:
In view of the finding given in Point No. I, the
Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
Result:
In the result, the reference is answered as under:
The action of the Management of Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Karur in dismissing from the services of Sh. S.V.S. Sarma, Ex-Clerk-cum-Cashier, Dharmavaram Branch with effect form 14.12.2002 is justified and the said workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 28th day of Februrary, 2014.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
18. But, Petitioner has evidently not produced any medical reports which can show that he was taking any drugs which are of sedative in nature, on any medical prescription. Further more, the Branch Manager, who is examined as MW2 has specifically stated that when a Police Constable was sent to him by the Police requiring his presence at Police station, he was constrained to go there and that there, he found the Petitioner along with his wife and children and further that the Circle Inspector admonished the Petitioner and then let him off. Thus, the Branch Manager who complained of this incident has substantiated the same. It is for the Petitioner to explain the circumstances which lead the police to apprehend him. He failed to do so. On the other hand, he is questioning the correctness of the evidence adduced on record for the Management in this regard stating that there is no FIR registered by the police. It is the specific evidence of the Branch Manager as MW2 that the Police have let off the Petitioner without registering any crime on humanitarian grounds and after due admonition. In such case the question of registration of FIR does not arise.
Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the
the Petitioner Respondent
NIL NIL
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
19. The above discussed material on record does clearly establish that the departmental enquiry was duly conducted without any violation of principles of natural justice and further that the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer are not perverse in any manner. They are all well reasoned findings given appreciating the evidence adduced on record and in consideration of the the contentions of both the Management and the defence. Thus, they do not warrant any interference.
20. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the principles laid down in the case of Chandrakumar Madhukar Deshmukh Vs. The Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay 1995 LAB.I.C.1496, in support of his
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 25 अपैल, 2014
का॰ आ॰ 1336.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ हैदराबाद प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच3482 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 11/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16/04/2014 प्राप्त हुआ था।
referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
[सं. एल.-12012/96/2006-आई आर (बी-I)] सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th April, 2014
S.O. 1336.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 11/2007) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribuna-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Hyderabad and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/04/2014.
[No. L-12012/96/2006-IR(B-I)] SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer Whether the action the management of State Bank of Hyderabad, Hyderabad (A.P.) in terminating the services of Sri L. Pavan Kumar, Casual Worker w.e.f. 20.10.2005 without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 11/2007 and notices were issued to the paties.
2. The case stands posted for cross examination to
Petitioner by the Respondent.
ANNEXURE
3. While so, a letter has been received through post purporting to be that of the Petitioner stating that Petitioner is withdrawing the case. Petitioner's counsel reported that he got no response from the Petitioner when he has contacted regarding the letter addressed by him to the Court. Petitioner called absent. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioner got no interest in the proceedings, 'Nil' award is passed.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT : SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 28th day of January, 2014 Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 28th day of January, 2014.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. I.D. 11/2007
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
BETWEEN:
Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for
Sri L. Pavan Kumar,
the
R/o H.No. 5-11-183/1, Coolie Lane,
the Petitioner Respondent
Venkatappaiah Veedhi,
Kothagudem-507101. NIL NIL
Distt. Khammam. ......Petitioner
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
AND
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-500 001. .....Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner : M/s. A. Sarojana & K.
Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent : M/s. Ch. Shiva Reddy & T.G.
Prasad Reddy, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/96/2006-IR(B-I) dated 22.7.2007 का॰ आ॰ 1337.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ हैदराबाद के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या एल सी 72/2006 एवं 15/2007)को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16/04/2014 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल.-12012/21/2006-आई आर (बी-I)] सुमति सकलानी, अनुभाग अधिकारी[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3483 New Delhi, the 25th April, 2014
S.O. 1337.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (No. LC 72/2006 & ID 15/2007) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Hyderabad and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/04/2014.
as workman) has filed this petition against the Respondents seeking for passing an award directing the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service from 10.10.2005 with full back wages and all other attendant benefits with continuity of service and to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the back wages and costs.
[No. L-12012/21/2006-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
2. While so a reference in ID. No. 15/2007 has been received by this forum from Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi vide order No. L-12012/21/2006-IR(B-I) date 19.1.2007, whereunder, this forum has been invited to give award on the question of,
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT : SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 28th day of February, 2014 COMMON AWARD IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE Nos. L.C. 72/2006 and ID. 15/2007
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Hyderabad, not regularising the services of Sri. B. Ashok Kumar, Casual Labour, working since 1994 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
By virtue of the order dated 30.09.2008, these two cases i.e., LC 72/2006 and ID 15/2007 were clubbed together and the proceedings were conducted commonly for both there matters in LC 72/2006.
3. No. specific claim statyement has been filed by the Petitioner in ID 15/2007.
BETWEEN:
4. The averments made in LC /2006 filed by the
Petitioner in brief are follows:
Shri B. Ashok Kumar S/o B. Mallaiah, C/o A.P. Industrial Employees Union, "House of Labour", King Kothi Road, Hyderabad - 29 ....Petitioner
AND
1. The Dy. General Manager, Personnel Department, State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Head Office, Hyderabad.
2. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of Hyderabad, Nallakunta Branch, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.
....Respondents
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner : M/s. V. Viswanatham & R.
Dushyantla, Advocates
For the Respondent : Sri A.V.S.S. Prasad, Advocate
COMMON AWARD
Sri B. Ashok Kumar invoking Sec.2A(2) of Industrieal Disputes Act, 1947 (who will be referred to Petitioner was appointed by the 2nd Respondent with the consent and permission of the 1st Respondent from June, 1994 as casual labour and his las drawn wages was Rs.50/- per day, whereas casual labours working at Gunfoundry Branch and Kakatiyanagar Branch are being paid wages @ Rs. 130 per deay. Petitioner was pleading since long time that he was being paid less wages. He worked with the Respondent continously but as per their usual practice no written orders were issued. He was never engaged in the exigencies of the work as and when necessary and was never paid same amount as per the work without hindrance he entered into he entered into the bank along with the regular employees and performed duties entrusted to him by the 2nd Respondent. But he was deprived equal pay for equal work. He completed 240 days in everyclendar year. He used to work from 10 AM to 11.30 P.M. to help and assist and staff in finalizing the work, after banking hours. 2nd Respondent appreciated his work and in they year 1998 forwarded the proposals to Asst. General Manager vide letter No. 163 dated 28.8.1998 recommending the name of the Petition. In the year 2001 also 2nd Respondent recommended the name of the Petitioner for appointment on consolidated wages vide reference No. F/ 23 dated 19.4.2001. The Dy. General Manager and Asst. General Manager of the Regional Office also have recommended the same of the Petitioner to the first3484 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Respondent vide their letter dated 8.6.2001 2nd Respondent recommended to the Asst. General Manager for absorption on consolidated wages as he is well versed with the bank and duties. These documents clearly show that there is no break in service of the Petitioner from 1994. Since is services were not regularlzed inspite several representations though Respondent regularized services of several others without tyhe medial of Emplyment Exchange. He approached his uion who is turn raised a dispute under Sec. 2SCk for refularization before the Conciliation Officer, Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) who admitted the dispute and as the conciiation failed, he closed proceedings and submitted report to the government vide their letter 23.9.2005. Respondent not only paid less wages but also deprived the Petitioner of payment of bonus, whereas there are order in the shape of circular by the Respondents that the casual employees are netitled for the bonue. Having no alternative Petitioner filed MP 51/2005 claiming for difference of the amount due to him from 5.6.1994 to 4.10.2005 invoking Sec. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the circumstances 2nd Respondent with prejudiced mind has terminated the services of the Petitioner orally from 1.6.2006 by withholding the wages from 8.5.2006, which is unfair labour Practice. On such illegal termination Petitioner issued notice dated 2.6.2006 which the Respondents received but there is not response from him. Such oral termination of the Petitioner's service is illegal, inoperative and improper and without any valid reason. Petitioner has successfully completed continuous service from June, 1994 to 31.5.2006. Inspite of it Sec. 25F of the Industrail Disputes Act, 1947 was not followed. He is entitled for reinstatement into service. Hence, the petition.
5. Respondents filed their common counter in
LC 72/2006 and ID 15/2007, with the averments in
brief as follows:
A.P. Industrial Employee Union does not have any locus stand to file this case on behalf of the Petitioner, as it is neither an association recognized by the Bank nor having the employees of bank as members. Further Petitioner is not a workman as per Industrail Disputes Act, 1947. He is not an employee of the bank. As such, petition is liable to be dismissed. Further as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indeia in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others (Vs) Umadevi and three others, reported in at (2006) 4 SCC page 1, casual labour/temporary employees do not have any right to regular or permanent public employment as they accepted the employment fully knowing the nature of their employment at their own violation and with eyes open as to the nature of their illegal employment, which is not as per constitutional provisions and the appointment is not as per due process of selection
as envisaged by the relevant rules and also held that the courts should not perpetuate illegalities, irregularities or improprieties. Thus, the petition under Section 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is not maintainable in law or on facts. The contention of the Petitioner that he was employed on casual basis since 1994 by the 2nd Respondent and 2nd Respondent was making payment of Rs. 50 per day though the casual labours working in the other branches like Kakatiyanagar branch and Gunfoundry branch are being paid more wages, that Petitioner was working continously without any break and competed 240 days in a calendar year, that he made request for written letter of appointment and for correct wages and was assured of the same and was not granted the same, that 2nd Respondent extracted the work from 10 A.M. to 11 P.M .without giving any break are all incorrect. Petitioner never worked for 240 day in a calaendar year and he was never employed in the year 1994 not terminated on 1.6.2006. Payment of wages made to casual workers of Kakatiyanagar branch and Gunfoundry branch was covered by some order which were passed by competent court basing on the records. Placing the Petitioner with such persons stating that their respective cases are indentical is incorrect and is not maintainable in Law and on facts. The present claim petition is filed as counter making claims which got nothing to the state of affairs concerning the Peitioner who is a daily employee and whose services were utilized as and when need arose is not at all correct. The documents relied upon by the Petitioner are self-serving and they are not official record of the bank. The mode and manner in which such documents were obtained in not made out. Notice for termination dated 2.6.2006 given by the Petitioner is an after though with a mind set for filing the present petition Provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable to him as the Petitioner is not a permanent employee and since his claim that he successfully continued in service from June, 1994 to 31.5.2006 and that he was terminated on 1.6.2006 are all incorrect. He was engaged on casual basis as and when work arose, in the branch due to various reasons. His claim that his services were terminted to harass him as he approached courts is far from truth and it is an attempt to abuse due process of law. He was never appointed by the ban of appointment letter was issued to him. He was paid as per the norms and understanding of the work doen. He was engaged to do the work which is casual in nature and which arise intermittently. For doding regular work bank recruits staff by complying with the provisions stipulated after taking into account the guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time in accordance with constitutional provisions. As such, employment itself is illegal. Therefore, the reinstatement into service can not be claimed that too with full back wages and attendant[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3485 Manager dated 8.6.2001. Ex. W4 is the proposal for the saction of part time employee on consolidated wages. Ex. W5 is the list of the casual employees who were regularized. Ex. W6 is the representation dated 2.6.06 to the Branch Manager and the Dy. General Manager Personnel Department. On behalf of the management MWq was examined. No documentary evidence has been produced by the management.
7. Heard the arguments of the either party. Written arguments were also filed by the Petitioner and the same are received and considered.
8. Point that arises for determination is:
whether the Petitioner is workman and whether termination of his services is legal and justified? If so, to what relief the Petitioner is entitled?
9. Point
benefits with continuity of service and also interest. Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) had issued circular dated 6.8.1990 directing the recruitment of temporary employee in the clerical/subordinate cadre shall be stopped forthwith. For the staff which was then on the rolls of the banks, they shall be regularized as provided in the approach paper in terms of the circular issued at that time. These are all specific directions of Banks to make temporary appointment till the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved and for future requirement, Banks would have to approach Government and would have go by such modalities as would be laid down by the Government through regular process of recruitment enshrined in the constitution. Engagement of Petitioner is illegal because such appointment on casual basis were obtained by the Petitioner without following the procedure of their names being forwarded by the Employment Exchange, without following the rule of reservation and the procedure for appointment of employees in the subordinate cadre as prescribed by the rules of the Respondent bank. Further, as per the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court the candidates lack any eligibility of qualification in any manner it would not possible to consider for regularization as casual labours and that long duration of service would also not be relevant condition to regularize the service. Appointment against non-existent vacancy is also not maintainable and such person is not entitled for regularization. In this case there was no vacancy in the regular basis but the Petitioner was engaged on daily wages basis to meet the exigencies. Even such employment can not be regularized unless regularized through prescribed procedure. Daily wage labourers whose services were engagedon the basis of need of work, such termination does not contitute as retrenchment. Such termination is not arbitrary as they are need based. It is well settled principle that an appointment made in violation of mandatory provisions constituted and non-possession of minimum educational or technical qualifications and other essential qualification etc., would be wholly illegal. Those who come by back door should go through the door. Since Petitioner has been engaged to meet the exigencies only he is not a workman and he is not entitled for equal emoluments or equal pay to that of regular employees. Regularization can not be claimed as a matter of right, spexially when it is illegal appointment. Petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
6. To substantiate the contentions of the Petitioner WW1 was examined and ExW1 to W6 were marked Ex. W1 is the sanction letter for the posts of part ime employees dated 14.6.06. Ex. W2 is the proposal for the post of part time employees on consolidated wages dated 19.4.2001. Ex. W3 is the recommendation letter from the Bank As far as the present dispute is concerned, Ex. W1 and W4 are relevant and Ex. W5 and W6 are not much relevant. Through Ex. W1 and W4 coupled with his own oral evidence as WW1, Petitioner could establish before this court that he has been working as casual labour with the Respondent bank since June, 1994. Sri Mallela Srinivas, Chief Manager of the Respondent bank who has examined as MW1 could not deny regarding the correspondence i.e., Ex. W1 and W4 when they were confronted to him. Thus, it can safely be taken that Petitioner has worked with the Respondent bank since June, 1994 as casual labour and therefore, he is a workman for all purposes. Contra contentions of the Respondent are not acceptable.
10. As can be gathered from the material on record, Petitioner who applied for his absorption in bank's regular service by making applications time and again an whose case has been recommended by the then Branch Manager, as can be gathered from Ex. W1 and W4, has raised an industrial dispute seeking for regularization of his service with the Respondent bank by approaching Assistant Labour Commissioner (C). Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) has made efforts to conciliate the matter, and evidently such conciliation proceedings failed.
11. While things stood so, instead of regularising the Petitioner's service, the Respondent bank has chosen to remove him from service abruptly w.e.f. 1.6.2006. There no Petitioner is constrained to approach this forum by filing this dispute seeking for his reinstatement into service. 12. Evidently and admittedly there is no compliance of Sec. 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while removing the Petitioner from service. It is the contention of the Respondent that since the Petitioner is not a workman and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not apply to him, there was no compliance of Sec. 25F of3486 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
13. As already observed above, the materon record clearly discloses that Petitioner has been in continuous service as casual labour with the Respondent since June, 1994 and thus he is a workman. Thus, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will apply to him, therefore, his retrenchment/removal from service without complying with Sec. 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is certainly illegal, unjust and arbitrary.
14. It is the contention of the Respondent that the principles laid down in the cases of Official Liquididator Vs. Dayanand and others (2008) 10 SCC page 1 whereunder principles laid down in the case of Umadevi Vs. State of Karnataka(2006) 4 SCC page 1 has been upheld, as applicable to the present case and that Petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for.
18. Anyway, the question whether Petitioner is entitled for regularization of services or not is not the subject matter in this petition. Even if the same if subject matter in this petition, since it is an industrial dispute, the principles laid down in the above cited cases are not applicable.
19. For all the above referred reasons, the principles laid down inthe above cited cases relied upon by the Learned Counsels for the bank are not helpful to his contention in this case.
20. There are upmpteen number of legal precedents laid down by the Apex Court whereunder it is clearly laid down that the workman who is removed from service without complying with the mandatory conditions laid down in Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is to be ordered to be reinstated into service. Thus, the Petitioner, who is found to be a workman, is entitled to be reinstated into service of the bank w.e.f. 1.6.2006 with the benefit of continuous service. As far as back wages are concerned, since he did not render his service to the bank, but not due to his own fault, he is entitled for atleast 50% of the back wages which he would have earned but for his removal from service.
This point is answered accordingly.
Result:
15. In the above cited cases Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the acceptable mode of public employment and non acceptable regularization of services of the persons who entered into the service by back door methods, thereby defeating the opportunity of the general public to compete for appointment to the said post etc.. Present dispute is an industrial dispute. Industrial Law is totally different from Civil Law/Administrative Law. Regularization of casual workman as regular workman etc., are all governed by the industrial Laws, rules and various circulars issued by the government from time to time touching this aspects. Public employment under Civil Law/Administrative Law is totally different.
In the result, petition is allowd. Petitioner shall be reinstated into service of the Respondent bank as casual labour w.e.f. 1.6.2006 with contiunity of service. He shall be paid 50% of the back wages also, forth with.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 28th day of February, 2014.
M.VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
16. Further more, in this case Petitioner is not seeking for regularization of his services. What all he is questioning is the correctness of abrupt termination of his services when he questioned the inaction on the part of the Respondent bank regarding his plea for regularization of his services, that too without complying with the Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for the
the Petitioner Respondent
WW1: Sri B. Ashok Kumar MW1: Sri Mallela Srinivas
Documents marked for the Petitioner
17. Inspite of their own admission in their counter that "Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) had issued a circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR dated 6.8.1990, directing that all recruitment of temporary employees in the clerical/subordinate cadre shall be stopped forth with and that for the staff which was then on the rolls of the Banks, they shall be regularized as provided in the approach paper in terms of the circular issued at that time." the Respondent Bank, evidently failed to take appropriate action, in connection with the claims of the Petitioner.
Ex. W1: Photostat copy of the 1r. No. 163 dt. 20/8/98 to the Asst. General Manager by Branch Manager, Nallakunta
Ex. W2: Photostat copy of the 1r. No. F/23 dt. 19/4/2001 to the Asst. General Manager by Branch Manager, Nallakunta
Ex. W3: Photostat copy of the 1r. dated 8.6.2001 to the
DGM, from the Asst. General Manager[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 3487 Ex. W4: Photostat copy of the 1r. No. to the Asst. General Manager by the Chief Manager, Nallakunta
Ex. W5: Photostat copy of list of the 34 casual
employees ofthe State Bank of Hyderabad.
Ex. W6: Photostat copy of representation dt. 2.6.2006 by the Petitioner to the DGM, Personnel Department and Branch Manager, Nallakunta branch
बीमा (साधारण) विनियम, 1950 द्वारा यथाअपेक्षित रजिस्टर और अभिलेख उक्त अवधि के लिए रखे गये थे या नहीं; या
(iii) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ के कर्मचारी, नियोजक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायदों को, जिसके फलस्वरूप इस अधिसूचना के अधीन छूट दी जा रही है, नकद में और वस्तु रूप में पाने का हकदार बना हुआ है या नहीं; या
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2014
का॰आ॰ 1338.--केन्द्रीय सरकार, कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा 91-क के साथ पठित धारा 88 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए सेल के भिलाई स्टील प्लांट के कारखानों/स्थापनाओं के नियमित कर्मचारियों को इस अधिनियम के प्रवर्तन से छूट प्रदान करती है। यह छूट, इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से एक वर्ष की अवधि के लिए लागू रहेगी।
2. उक्त छूट निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन है; अर्थात््ः-
(1) पूर्वोक्त स्थापना जिसमें कर्मचारी नियोजित ह, एक रजिस्टर रखेगी, जिसमें छूट प्राप्त कर्मचारियों के नाम और पदनाम दिखाये जायेंगे;
(2) इस छूट के होते हुए भी, कर्मचारी उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन ऐसी प्रसुविधाएं प्राप्त करते रहेंगे जिनकों पाने के लिए वे इस अधिसूचना द्वारा दी गई छूट के प्रवृत्त होने की तारीख से पूर्व संदत्त अंशदानों के आधार पर हकदार हो जाते ह;
(3) छूट प्राप्त अवधि के लिए, यदि कोई अभिदाय पहले ही किए जा
चुके हों, तो वे वापस नहीं किए जाएंगे;
(4) उक्त कारखाने /स्थापना का नियोजक उस अवधि की बाबत जिसके दौरान उस कारखाने/स्थापना पर उक्त अधिनियम (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अवधि कहा गया है) प्रवर्तमान था ऐसी विवरणियां, ऐसे प्रारूप में और ऐसी विशिष्टियों सहित देगा जो कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा (साधारण) विनियम, 1950 के अधीन उसे उक्त अवधि की बाबत देनी अपेक्षित होती थीं;
(5) निगम द्वारा उक्त कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम की धारा 45 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन नियुक्त किया गया कोई सामाजिक सुरक्षा अधिकारी या निगम का इस निमित्त प्राधिकृृत कोई अन्य पदधारी;
(i) धारा 44 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन, उक्त अवधि की बाबत दी गई किसी विवरण की विशिष्टियों को सत्यापित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ; अथवा
(ii) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी राज्य (iv) यह अभिनिश्चत करने के प्रयोजनार्थ के उस अवधि के दौरान, जब उक्त कारखाने के संबंध में अधिनियम के उपबंध प्रवृत्त थे, ऐसे किन्हीं उपबंधों का अनुपालन किया गया था या नहीं, निम्नलिखित कार्य करने के लिए सशक्त होगाः-
(क) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक से अपेक्षा करना कि वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे जिसे उपरोक्त अधिकारी या अन्य पदधारी इस अधिनियम के प्रयोजनार्थ आवश्यक समझता है; अथवा
(ख) ऐसे प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक के अधिभोगा- धीन, किसी कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में किसी भी उचित समय पर प्रवेश करना और उसके प्रभारी से यह अपेक्षा करना कि वह व्यक्तियों के नियोजन और मजदूरी के संदाय से संबंधित ऐसे लेखा, बहियां और अन्य दस्तावेज, ऐसे निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करें और उनकी परीक्षा करने दें या ऐसी जानकारी दें जिसे वे आवश्यक समझते ह; या
(ग) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक की, उसके अभिकर्ता या सेवक की, या ऐसे किसी व्यक्ति को, जो ऐसे कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में पाया जाए, यह विश्वास करने का युक्तियुक्त कारण है कि वह कर्मचारी है, परीक्षा करना; या
(घ) ऐसे कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में रखे गए किसी रजिस्टर, लेखा, बही या अन्य दस्तावेज की नकल तैयार करने या उद्धरण लेना;
(ड.) यथानिर्धारित अन्य शक्तियों को प्रयोग करना।
6. विनिवेश/निगमीकरण के मामले में, प्रदत्त छूट स्वतः रद्द हो जाएगी और तब नए प्रतिष्ठान को छूट हेतु समुचित सरकार की अनुमति लेनी होगी।
[सं. एस-38014/7/2013-एसएस-I]
अजय मलिक, अवर सचिव3488 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 29th April, 2014
S.O. 1338.—In exercise of the power conferred by Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/ establishment of Bhillai Steel Plant of SAIL from the operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective from the date of issue of notification for a period of one year.
2. The above exemption is subject to the following
conditions namely:
(1) The aforesaid establishments wherein the employees are employed shall maintain a register showing the name and designations of the exempted employees';
(2) Not withstanding this exemption, the employees shall continue to received such benefits under the said Act to which they might have become entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid period to the date from which exemption granted by this notification operates;
(3) The contributions of the exempted period, if already
paid, shall not be refundable;
(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment shall submit in respect of period during which that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period under the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;
(5) Any Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the said ESI Act or other Official of the Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose of:
(i) Verifying the particulars contained in any returned submitted under sub-section (1) Section 44 for the said period; or
(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or
(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this notification; or
(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory to be empowered to:—
(a) require the principal of immediate employer to him such information as he may consider necessary for the purpose of this Act; or
(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, officer or other premises occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any persons found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to examine accounts, books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary; or
(c) examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person found in such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom the said inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an employee; or
(d) make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises;
(e) exercise such other powers as may be
prescribed.
(6) In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled and them the new entity will have to approach the appropriate Government for exemption.
[No. S-38014/7/2013-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2014
का.आ. 1339.--केन्द्रीय सरकार, कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा 91-क के साथ पठित धारा 88 द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए स्टील ऑथोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के सैन्ट्रल मार्केटिंग ऑर्गेनाइजेसन के कारखानों/स्थापनाओं के नियमित कर्मचारियों को इस अधिनिमय के प्रवर्तन से छूट प्रदान करती है। यह छूट, इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से एक वर्ष की अवधि के लिए लागू होगी।
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 3, 2014/वैशाख 13, 1936 34892. उक्त छूट निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन है; अर्थात्ः-
(1) पूर्वाक्त स्थापना जिसमें कर्मचारी नियोजित हैं, एक रजिस्टर रखेगी, जिसमें छूट प्राप्त कर्मचारियों के नाम और पदनाम दिखाए जाएंगे;
(2) इस छूट के होते हुए भी, कर्मचारी उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन ऐसी प्रसुविधाएं प्राप्त करते रहेंगे जिनको पाने के लिए वे इस अधिसूचना द्वारा दी गई छूट के प्रवृत्त होने की तारीख से पूर्व संदत्त अंशदानों के आधार पर हकदार हो जाते है;
(3) छूट प्राप्त अवधि के लिए, यदि कोई अभिदाय पहले ही किए जा
चुके हों, तो वे वापस नहीं किए जाएंगे;
(4) उक्त कारखाने/स्थापना का नियोजक उस अवधि की बाबत जिसके दौरान उस कारखाने/स्थापना पद उक्त अधिनियम (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अवधि कहां गया है) प्रवर्तमान था ऐसी विवरणियां, ऐसे प्रारूप में और ऐसी विशिष्टियों सहित देगा जो कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा (साधारण) विनियम, 1950 के अधीन उसे उक्त अवधि की बाबत देनी अपेक्षित होती थीं;
(5) निगम द्वारा उक्त कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम की धारा 45 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन नियुक्त किया गया कोई सामाजिक सुरक्षा अधिकारी या निगम का इस निमित प्राधिकृत कोई अन्य पदधारी;
(i) धारा 44 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन, उक्त अवधि की बाबत दी गई किसी विवरण की विशिष्टयों को सत्यापित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ; अथवा
(ii) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा (साधारण) विनियम, 1950 द्वारा यथाअपेक्षित रजिस्टर और अभिलेखा एक्ट अवधि के लिए रखे गए थे या नहीं; या
(iii) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी, नियोजक द्वारा दिए गए उन फायदों को, जिसके फलस्वरूप इस अधिसूचना के अधीन छूट दी जा रही है, नकद में और वस्तु रूप में पाने का हकदार बना हुआ है या नहीं; या
(vi) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि उस अवधि के दौरान, जब उक्त कारखाने के संबंध में अधिनियम के उपबंध प्रवृत्त थे, ऐसे किन्हीं उपबंधों का अनुपालन किया गया था या नहीं, निम्नलिखित कार्य करने के सशक्त होगाः-
(क) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक से अपेक्षा करना कि वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे जिसे उपरोक्त अध्किारी या अन्य पदधारी इस अधिनियम के प्रयोजनार्थ आवश्यक समझता है; अथवा
(ख) ऐसे प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक के अधिभोगा- धीन, किसी कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में किसी भी उचित समय पर प्रवेश करना और उसके प्रभारी से यह अपेक्षा करना कि वह व्यक्तियों के नियोजन और मजदूरी के संदाय से संबंधित ऐसे लेखा, बहियां और अन्य दस्तावेज, ऐसे निरिक्षक या अन्य पदधारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करें और उनकी परीक्षा करने दें या ऐसी जानकारी दें जिसे वे आवश्यक समझते हैं; या
(ग) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक की, उसके अभिकर्ता या सेवक की, या ऐसे किसी व्यक्ति को, जो ऐसे कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में पाया जाए, यह विश्वास करने का युक्तियुक्त कारण है कि वह कर्मचारी है, परीक्षा करना; या
(घ) ऐसे कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में रखे गए किसी रजिस्टर, लेखा, बही या अन्य दस्तावेज की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना;
(ङ) यथानिर्धारित अन्य शक्तियों का प्रयोग करना।
6. विनिवेश /निगमीकरण के मामले में, प्रदत्त छूट स्वतः रद््द हो जाएगीे और तब नए प्रतिष्ठान की छूट हेतु समुचित सरकार की अनुमति लेनी होगी।
[सं. एस-38014/2/2014-एस.एस-I]
अजय मलिक, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2014
S.O. 1339.—In exercise of the power conferred by Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) of the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/establishments of Central Marketing Organisation of Steel Authority of India Ltd. from the operation of the said Act. The Exemption shall be effective from the date of issue of notification for a period of one year.
2. The above exemption is subject to the following
conditions namely:-
(1) The aforesaid establishments wherein the employees are employed shall maintain a register showing the name and designations of the exempted employees';
(2) Not withstanding this exemption, the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they might have become entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from which exemption granted by this notification operates;
3490 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)](3) The contributions for the exempted period, of already
paid, shall not be refundable;
(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period under the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;
(5) Any Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under sub-section (1) of section 45 of the said ESI Act or other Official of the Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose of:-
(i) Verifying the particulars contained in any returned submitted under-sub-section (1) of Section 44 for the said period; or
(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or
(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this notification; or
(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory to be empowered to:-
(a) require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may consider necessary for the purpose of this Act; or
(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to examine accounts, books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary; or
(c) examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person found in such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom the said inspector or other official has reasonable cause to beleive to have been an employee; or
(d) make copies of or take extracts from any resigter, account book or other document maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises,
(e) exercise such other power as may be
prescribed.
(6) In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled and then the new entity will have to approach the appropriate Government for exemption.
[No. S-38014/2/2014-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.