x`g ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 23 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1299-&&dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr] 1987½ ds
fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa x`g ea=ky; ds fuEufyf[kr
10 dk;kZy;ksa esa fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku j[kus okys deZpkfj;ksa dh
la[;k 80% ls vf/kd gks tkus ds QyLo:i mUgsa ,rn}kjk vf/klwfpr
djrh gS%µ
1- dsñvkSñlqñ cy 7oha vkjf{kr okfguh fd'rokM+ ¼tEew ,oa
d'ehj½
2- dsñvkSñlqñ cy bdkbZ vkjñ,pñihñihñ fiijh ¼mÙkj izns'k½
3- dsñvkSñlqñ cy bdkbZ ihihlh,y&III cokuk ¼ubZ fnYyh&39½
4- dsñvkSñlqñ cy bdkbZ vkbZth feUV uks,Mk ¼mÙkj izns'k½
5- dsñvkSñlqñ cy bdkbZ Mh,pbZih /kkSyhxaxk ¼mÙkjk[kaM½
6- dsñvkSñlqñ cy 9oha vkjf{kr okfguh nsoyh ¼jktLFkku½
7- dsñvkSñlqñ cy bdkbZ 'ksi lsok&II ¼tEew ,oa d'ehj½
8- dsñvkSñlqñ cy bdkbZ dsñ,pñbZñihñ dksVs'oj] fVgjh x<+oky
¼mÙkjk[kaM½
9- dsñvkSñlqñ cy 8oha vkjf{kr okfguh t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½
10- dsñvkSñlqñ cy bdkbZ Vh,pMhlh fVgjh x<+oky ¼mÙkjk[kaM½
[lañ 12017@1@2012&fgUnh]
vo/ks'k dqekj feJ] funs'kd ¼jktHkk"kk½
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
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%:—
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 18]
ubZ fnYyh, vizSy 27—ebZ 3] 2014] 'kfuokj@oS'kk[k 7—oS'kk[k 13] 1936
No. 18]
NEW DELHI, APRIL 27—MAY 3, 2014, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 7—VAISAKHA 13, 1936
Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
1684 GI/2014
(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)
dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=ky;
¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1300-&&dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~ }kjk n.M izfØ;k lafgrk]
1973 ¼1974 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 2½ dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk ¼8½
}kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnYyh mPp U;k;ky;] fnYyh
esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ¼lhñchñvkbZñ½ }kjk izkjaHk fd, x,
lhñchñvkbZñ dsl vkjlh 2 ¼,½@2005&lhchvkbZ] ,lh;w&V] ubZ
fnYyh ¼mRrj izns'k ljdkj ds iwoZ eq[; lfpo Jh v[kaM izrki flag
rFkk vU;ksa ds fo:) Mh, ekeyk½ rFkk mlls tqM+s vkSj izklafxd vU;
ekeyksa dh otg ls mRiUu ,e, la[;k 3361@2013 rFkk vkijkf/kd
,e, la[;k 12369 vkSj 12370@2013 esa is'k gksus ds fy, Hkkjr ds
vij egkU;k;f/koDrk Jh ihñihñ eYgks=k dks fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd
ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 225@15@2008&, oh Mh&II ]
jktho tSu] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS
(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
(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.
foÙk ea=ky;
¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 28 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1301-&&isa'ku fuf/k fofu;ked ,oa fodkl izkf/kdj.k
vf/kfu;e] 2013 ¼2013 dk 23½ dh /kkjk 4 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Jh jkt fodkl oekZ dks
isa'ku fuf/k fofu;ked ,oa fodkl izkf/kdj.k ¼ih,QvkjMh,½
iw.kZdkfyd lnL; ¼foÙk½ dks in dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh
rkjh[k ls ikap o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, ;k 62 o"kZ dh vk;q izkIr djus
rd ;k vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] vkokl vkSj dkj dh
lqfo/kk ds fcuk 3-75 yk[k :i;s izfr ekg ds osrueku esa fu;qDr
djrh gSA
[Qkñlañ 2@1@2012&ihvkj]
lqfjUnj dkSj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 28th April, 2014
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.
[F. No. 2/1/2012-PR]
SURINDER KAUR, Under Secy.
okf.kT; vkSj m|ksx ea=ky;
¼okf.kT; foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vizSy] 2014
dk-vk- 1302-&&dsUæh; ljdkj] fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k
vkSj fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds mifu;e ¼2½ ds lkFk
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3417
ifBr fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj fujh{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1963
¼1963 dk 22½ dh /kkjk 7 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] eSllZ ,lth,l bafM;k izkñ fyñ lR;Hkkek ¼tks'kh
fcfYMax½] rhljh eafty] #vk ÚkaflLdks yw;wl xksEl] ihñvksñ cksDl
uañ 101] okLdks Mh xkek] xksok Hkkjr esa fLFkr gS] dks bl vf/klwpuk]
ds jkti= esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, Hkkjr
ljdkj ds okf.kT; ea=ky;] dh vf/klwpuk lañ dkñvkñ 3975 rkjh[k
20 fnlEcj]1965 dh vf/klwpuk esa mikc) vuqlwfp;ksa esa fofufnZ"V
[kfut vkSj v;Ld] xzqi&I] vFkkZr~ ykSg v;Ld dks fu;kZr ls iwoZ
fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu xksok] esa mDr [kfut vkSj v;Ld ds
fujh{k.k djus ds fy, ,d vfHkdj.k ds :i esa ekU;rk nsrh gS]
vFkkZr~%&
(i) eSllZ ,lth,l bafM;k izkñ fyñ lR;Hkkek ¼tks'kh fcfYMax½]
rhljh eafty] #vk ÚkaflLdks yw;wl xksEl] ihñ vksñ cksDl
uañ 101] okLdks Mh xkek] xksok] [kfut vkSj v;Ld xzqi&I dk
fu;kZr ¼fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1965 ds fu;e 4 ds v/khu muds
}kjk viukbZ xbZ fujh{k.k dh i)fr dh tkap djus ds fy,]
bl fufeÙk fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ }kjk ukefufnZ"V vf/kdkfj;ksa
dks i;kZIr lqfo/kk,a nsxh( vkSj
(ii) eSllZ ,lth,l bafM;k izkñ fyñ lR;Hkkek ¼tks'kh fcfYMax½]
rhljh eafty] #vk ÚkaflLdks yw;wl xksEl] ihñ vksñ cksDl
uañ 101] okLdks Mh xkek] xksok] bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu
vius d`R;ksa ds ikyu esa funs'kd ¼fujh{k.k vkSj DokfyVh
fu;a=.k½ fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ le;≤ ij fyf[kr esa
fn, x, ,sls funsZ'kksa ls vkc) gksaxsA
[Qkñ lañ 4@11@2013&fu;kZr fujh{k.k]
,ñ dsñ f=ikBh] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(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
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.
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vizSy] 2014
dk-vk- 1303-&&dsUnzh; ljdkj] fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k
vkSj fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds mifu;e ¼2½ ds lkFk
ifBr fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj fujh{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1963
¼1963 dk 22½ dh /kkjk 7 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] eSllZ vkjñ ohñ fcaXl ,aM dñ ¼izkñ½ fyñ]
Mkd?kj&ckjfcy] ftyk D;ksa>kj] mM+hlk dks bl vf/klwpuk] ds jkti=
esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, Hkkjr ljdkj ds
okf.kT; ea=ky;] dh vf/klwpuk dkñ vkñ 3975 rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj]
1965 dh vf/klwpuk esa mikc) vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V [kfut vkSj
v;Ld] lewg&I] vFkkZr~ ykSg v;Ld dks fu;kZr ls iwoZ fuEufyf[kr
'krks± ds v/khu ckjfcy] esa fujh{k.k djus ds fy, ,d vfHkdj.k ds
:i esa ekU;rk nsrh gS] vFkkZr~%µ
(i) eSllZ vkjñ ohñ fcaXl ,aM dñ ¼izkñ½ fyñ] Mkd?kj&ckjfcy]
ftyk D;ksa>kj] mM+hlk] [kfut vkSj v;Ld lewg&I dk fu;kZr
¼fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1965 ds fu;e 4 ds v/khu muds }kjk
viukbZ xbZ fujh{k.k dh i)fr dh tkap djus ds fy,] bl
fufeÙk fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ }kjk ukefufnZ"V vf/kdkfj;ksa dks
i;kZIr lqfo/kk,a nsxh]
3418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(ii) eSllZ vkjñ ohñ fcaXl ,aM dñ ¼izkñ½ fyñ Mkd?kj&ckjfcy]
ftyk D;ksa>kj] mM+hlk] bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vius d`R;ksa
ds ikyu esa funs'kd ¼fujh{k.k vkSj DokfyVh fu;a=.k½ }kjk
le;≤ ij fyf[kr esa fn, x, ,sls funsZ'kksa ls vkc) gksaxsA
[Qkñ lañ 4@12@2013&fu;kZr fujh{k.k]
,ñ dsñ f=ikBh] la;qDr lfpo
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.
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vizSy] 2014
dk-vk- 1304-&&dsUnzh; ljdkj] fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k
vkSj fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds mifu;e ¼2½ ds lkFk
ifBr fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj fujh{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1963
¼1963 dk 22½ dh /kkjk 7 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] eSllZ ,lth,l bafM;k izkñ fyñ] IykV uañ 64]
thvkbZMhlh] eSu jksM] /keZ iqj] iksjcanj&360577 xqtjkr] Hkkjr esa
fLFkr gS] dks bl vf/klwpuk] ds jkti= esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls rhu
o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, Hkkjr ljdkj ds okf.kT; ea=ky;] dh
vf/klwpuk lañ dkñvkñ 3975 rkjh[k 20 fnlEcj] 1965 vkSj la[;k
dkñvkñ 3978 fnukad 20 fnlEcj 1965 dh vf/klwpuk esa mikc)
vuqlwfp;ksa esa fofufnZ"V [kfut vkSsj v;Ld] xzqi&I] cDlkbV rFkk
[kfut vkSj v;Ld xzqi&II vFkkZr~ ftad dUlsuVªsV dks Øe'k% fu;kZr
ls iwoZ fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu iksjcanj] dPN] tkeuxj vkSj
ihikoko] esa mDr [kfut vkSj v;Ld ds fujh{k.k djus ds fy, ,d
vfHkdj.k ds :i esa ekU;rk nsrh gS] vFkkZr~%
(i) eSllZ ,lth,l bafM;k izkñ fyñ IykV uañ 64] thvkbZMhlh] eSu
jksM] /keZ iqj] iksjcanj&360577 xqtjkr] [kfut vkSj v;Ld
xzqi&I] dk fu;kZr ¼fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1965 vkSj [kfut vkSj
v;Ld xzqi&II dk fu;kZr ¼fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1965 ds
fu;e 4 ds v/khu muds }kjk viukbZ xbZ fujh{k.k dh i)fr
dh tkap djus ds fy,] bl fufeZÙk fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ }kjk
ukefufnZ"V vf/kdkfj;ksa dks i;kZIr lqfo/kk,a nsxh] vkSj
(ii) eSllZ ,lth,l bafM;k izkñ fyñ IykV uañ 64] thvkbZMhlh] eSu
jksM] /keZ iqj] iksjcanj&360577 xqtjkr] bl vf/klwpuk ds
v/khu vius d`R;ksa ds ikyu esa funs'kd ¼fujh{k.k vkSj DokfyVh
fu;a=.k½ fu;kZr fujh{k.k ifj"kn~ le;≤ ij fyf[kr esa
fn, x, ,sls funsZ'kksa ls vkc) gksaxsA
[Qkñ lañ 4@13@2013&fu;kZr fujh{k.k]
,ñ dsñ f=ikBh] la;qDr lfpo
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:-
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3419
(i) that M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 64, GIDC Main
Road, Dharam Pur, Porbandar-360 577, Gujarat, 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 the Export of Minerals and Ores-Group-II
(Inspection) Rules, 1965; and
(ii) that M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 64, GIDC Main
Road, Dharam Pur, Porbandar-360 577 Gujarat, in the
performance of their function under this notification
shall be bound by such directions the Director
(Inspection and Quality Control) Export Inspection
Council may give in writing, from time to time.
[F.No. 4/13/2013-Export Inspection]
A.K. TRIPATHY, Jt. Secy.
isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vizSy] 2014
dk-vk- 1305-&&l{ke izkf/kdkjh] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962
dk 50½ dh /kkjk 17 ds v/khu fojfpr isVªksfy;e vkSj [kftu ikbiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ fu;e] 1963 ds fu;e 4 ds
mifu;e ¼1½ ds ijarqd ds vuqlj.k esa] xsy ¼bafM;k½ fyfeVsM ds ijke'kZ ls ftlesa] ;FkkfLFkfr] ml {ks= esa Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj fufgr
fd;k x;k gS ;k ml {ks= esa ikbiykbZu dk LokfeRo fufgr gS] uhps lkj.kh ds LraHk 8 esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr e/; izns'k jkT; ds fot;iqj&nknjh
ikbiykbZu ifj;kstuk ds ek/;e ls ikbiykbZu fcNk;s tkus ds izpkyu dh lekfIr dh rkjh[k ?kksf"kr djrk gSA
layXud&1
vuqlwph
/kkjk 3 ¼1½ ds v/khu vf/klwpuk
/kkjk 6 ¼1½ ds v/khu vf/klwpuk
Øe
xkao dk uke
rkyqdk@
jkti= esa
dkñvkñ la[;k vkSj
jkti= esa
dkñvkñ la[;k vkSj dk;Z dh lekfIr
lañ
rglhy
izdk'ku dk
fnukad
izdk'ku dk
fnukad
dk fnukad
fnukad
fnukad
¼1½ ¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
¼7½
¼8½
1-
ckoMh[ksMk
jk?kkSx<
30-03-1985
311¼v½ 30-03-1985
14-09-1985
4293 ¼v½ 14-09-1985
01-11-2010
23-04-2008
921 ¼v½ 23-04-2008
10-10-2008
2435 ¼v½ 10-10-2008
2-
nkSjkuk
jk?kkSx<
23-04-2008
921 ¼v½ 23-04-2008
10-10-2008
2435 ¼v½ 10-10-2008
26-11-2010
3-
ixkjk
jk?kkSx<
23-04-2008
921 ¼v½ 23-04-2008
10-10-2008
2435 ¼v½ 10-10-2008
01-11-2010
4-
:fB;kbZ
jk?kkSx<
23-04-2008
921 ¼v½ 23-04-2008
10-10-2008
2435 ¼v½ 10-10-2008
14-05-2010
5-
nsgjh
jk?kkSx<
23-04-2008
921 ¼v½ 23-04-2008
10-10-2008
2435 ¼v½ 10-10-2008
01-11-2010
30-03-1985
1300 ¼v½ 30-03-1985
04-09-1985
4295 ¼v½ 04-09-1985
6-
ikat
xquk
23-04-2008
921 ¼v½ 23-04-2008
10-10-2008
2435 ¼v½ 10-10-2008
01-11-2010
7-
ctjax<
xquk
23-04-2008
921 ¼v½ 23-04-2008
10-10-2008
2435 ¼v½ 10-10-2008
26-11-2010
8-
lkStuk
xquk
01-12-1984
4142 ¼v½ 01-12-1984
05-10-1985
4718¼v½ 05-10-1985
01-11-2010
23-04-2008
921 ¼v½ 23-04-2008
10-10-2008
2435 ¼v½ 10-10-2008
9-
fcuk;d[ksMh
xquk
08-12-1984
4282¼v½ 08-12-1984
06-11-1985
5231¼v½ 06-11-1985
11-11-2010
23-04-2008
921 ¼v½ 23-04-2008
10-10-2008
2435 ¼v½ 10-10-2008
10-
eqgkyiqj
xquk
21-03-1987
2285¼v½ 21-03-1987
08-08-1987
2027¼v½ 08-08-1987
26-11-2010
23-04-2008
921 ¼v½ 23-04-2008
10-10-2008
2435 ¼v½ 10-10-2008
3420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11-
Nkcuh
xquk
23-04-2008
921 ¼v½ 23-04-2008
10-10-2008
2435 ¼v½ 10-10-2008
28-02-2011
12-
flaxcklk
xquk
01-10-1984
2532¼v½ 09-09-1984
17-05-1984
440¼v½ 10-05-1985
28-02-2011
23-04-2008
921 ¼v½ 23-04-2008
10-10-2008
2435 ¼v½ 10-10-2008
13-
fiifj;k
xquk
01-10-1994
2545¼v½ 09-04-1994
28-03-1995
270¼v½ 24-03-1995
26-11-2010
14-
flykoVh
xquk
01-10-1994
2533¼v½ 09-09-1994
09-03-1995
143¼v½ 02-03-1995
11-11-2010
15-
rjkoVk
xquk
01-10-1994
2531¼v½ 09-09-1994
28-03-1995
269¼v½ 24-03-1995
11-11-2010
16-
?keukj
xquk
01-10-1994
2544¼v½ 09-09-1994
21-04-1995
377¼v½ 19-04-1995
26-11-2010
17-
[kqfV;kcn
xquk
01-10-1994
2543¼v½ 09-09-1994
21-04-1995
375¼v½ 19-04-1995
26-11-2010
18-
Hknksjk
xquk
01-10-1994
2541¼v½ 09-09-1994
21-04-1995
375¼v½ 19-04-1995
20-12-2010
19-
Xckj[ksMk
xquk
01-10-1994
2542¼v½ 09-09-1994
09-03-1995
149¼v½ 02-03-1995
11-11-2010
20-
lxksfj;k
xquk
01-10-1994
2540¼v½ 09-09-1994
21-04-1995
376¼v½ 19-04-1995
11-11-2010
21-
tejk
xquk
01-10-1994
2539¼v½ 09-09-1994
09-03-1995
148¼v½ 02-03-1995
26-11-2010
22-
E;kuk
xquk
01-10-1994
2538¼v½ 09-09-1994
21-04-1995
374¼v½ 19-04-1995
18-12-2010
23-
ineu[ksMh
xquk
01-10-1994
2537¼v½ 09-09-1994
09-03-1995
147¼v½ 02-03-1995
11-11-2010
24-
[ktwjh
xquk
01-10-1994
2536¼v½ 09-09-1994
09-03-1995
146¼v½ 02-03-1995
11-11-2010
25-
jkoljtkxhj
bZlkx<
01-10-1994
2535¼v½ 09-09-1994
03-03-1995
145¼v½ 02-03-1995
26-11-2010
26-
?kqjckjdyk
bZlkx<
01-10-1994
2534¼v½ 09-09-1994
09-03-1995
144¼v½ 02-03-1995
11-11-2010
27-
lhaxk[ksMh
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2762¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
367¼v½ 19-04-1995
11-11-2010
28-
cdliqj
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2463¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
367¼v½ 28-04-1995
11-11-2010
29-
lqesyk
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2766¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
262¼v½ 24-03-1995
26-11-2010
30-
cnjckl
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2765¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
261¼v½ 24-03-1995
26-11-2010
31-
frykfryh
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2766¼v½ 22-09-1994
09-03-1995
150¼v½ 02-03-1995
26-11-2010
32-
,uckjk
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2761¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
264¼v½ 24-03-1995
26-11-2010
33-
nhxksn
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2764¼v½ 22-09-1994
09-03-1995
151¼v½ 02-03-1995
11-11-2010
34-
fprkjk
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2768¼v½ 22-09-1994
09-03-1995
152¼v½ 02-03-1995
28-02-2011
35-
cw<k Mksaxj
dksykjl
25-02-1995
509¼v½ 11-02-1995
13-06-1995
518¼v½ 02-06-1995
28-02-2011
36-
dqYgkMh
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2769¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
365¼v½ 19-04-1995
29-10-2010
37-
[kjbZ
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2770¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
265¼v½ 24-03-1995
29-10-2010
38-
yqdoklk
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2771¼v½ 22-09-1994
09-03-1995
153¼v½ 02-03-1995
29-10-2010
39-
MksaM;kbZ
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2772¼v½ 22-09-1994
09-03-1995
154¼v½ 02-03-1995
29-10-2010
40-
twj
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2773¼v½ 22-09-1994
09-03-1995
125¼v½ 02-03-1995
29-10-2010
41-
mdkcyk
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2774¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
263¼v½ 24-03-1995
29-10-2010
42-
iuckjh
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2775¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
271¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-02-2011
43-
xq<k
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2776¼v½ 22-09-1994
09-03-1995
156¼v½ 02-03-1995
01-11-2010
44-
xqxckjk
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2777¼v½ 22-09-1994
09-03-1995
157¼v½ 02-03-1995
29-10-2010
¼1½ ¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
¼7½
¼8½
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3421
45-
ohje[ksMh
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2778¼v½ 22-09-1994
09-03-1995
158¼v½ 02-03-1995
01-11-2010
46-
eksgjk
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2779¼v½ 22-09-1994
09-03-1995
159¼v½ 02-03-1995
01-11-2010
47-
fr?kfj;k
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2780¼v½ 22-09-1994
09-03-1995
160¼v½ 02-03-1995
01-11-2010
48-
fiijksnk
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2781¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
267¼v½ 24-03-1995
01-11-2010
49-
ckxjksn
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2782¼v½ 22-09-1994
09-03-1995
161¼v½ 02-03-1995
01-11-2010
50-
usrckl
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2783¼v½ 22-09-1994
09-03-1995
162¼v½ 02-03-1995
01-11-2010
51-
dqyckjk
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2766¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
266¼v½ 24-03-1995
01-11-2010
52-
e<h[ksMk
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2784¼v½ 22-09-1994
09-03-1995
163¼v½ 02-03-1995
01-11-2010
53-
Mgjokjk
dksykjl
15-10-1994
2785¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
366¼v½ 19-04-1995
01-11-2010
54-
fcyksdyk
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
369¼v½ 19-04-1995
01-11-2010
55-
pkSdh
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
02-05-1995
395¼v½ 28-04-1995
01-11-2010
56-
vlqck[ksMh
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
369¼v½ 17-04-1995
01-11-2010
57-
ekyk[ksMh
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
369¼v½ 19-04-1995
01-11-2010
58-
Vksaxjk
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
369¼v½ 19-04-1995
25-02-2011
59-
rkuiqjk
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
258¼v½ 25-03-1995
28-02-2011
60-
dksMkcnk
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
369¼v½ 19-04-1995
25-02-2011
61-
dchj[ksMh
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
369¼v½ 19-04-1995
25-02-2011
62-
Nkj
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
258¼v½ 25-03-1995
25-02-2011
63-
BjhZ
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
369¼v½ 19-04-1995
25-02-2011
64-
BjkZ
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
258¼v½ 25-03-1995
25-02-2011
65-
[kksj/kkj
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
369¼v½ 19-04-1995
25-02-2011
66-
[kjbZHkkV
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
369¼v½ 19-04-1995
25-02-2011
67-
<djksjk
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
369¼v½ 19-04-1995
25-02-2011
68-
jkekclbZ
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
369¼v½ 19-04-1995
25-02-2011
69-
fcyiqjk
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
369¼v½ 19-04-1995
25-02-2011
70-
pdekudclbZ
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
258¼v½ 25-03-1995
25-02-2011
71-
pd?ksdyclbZ
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
369¼v½ 19-04-1995
25-02-2011
72-
rkjdk
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
369¼v½ 19-04-1995
25-02-2011
73-
ekMu[ksMh
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
369¼v½ 19-04-1995
25-02-2011
74-
fldjkcnk
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
258¼v½ 25-03-1995
25-02-2011
75-
fldjkcnh
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
258¼v½ 25-03-1995
25-02-2011
76-
lwaM
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
269¼v½ 19-04-1995
25-02-2011
77-
flefj;k
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
369¼v½ 19-04-1995
03-01-2012
10-06-2008
1425¼v½ 06-06-2008
10-10-2008
2436¼v½ 10-10-2008
78-
flyiqjk
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
258¼v½ 25-03-1995
03-01-2012
10-06-2008
1425¼v½ 06-06-2008
10-10-2008
2436¼v½ 10-10-2008
¼1½ ¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
¼7½
¼8½
3422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
79-
MsaMjh
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1005
258¼v½ 25-03-1995
03-01-2012
10-06-2008
1425¼v½ 06-06-2008
10-10-2008
2436¼v½ 10-10-2008
80-
';keiqj
f'koiqjh
29-10-1994
2975¼v½ 22-09-1994
10-10-2008
2436¼v½ 10-10-2008
03-01-2012
25-06-2008
1559¼v½ 24-06-2008
10-10-2008
2436¼v½ 10-10-2008
81-
csjtk
iksgjh
29-10-1994
2976¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
24-03-1995
08-01-2012
82-
xwxjiêh
iksgjh
29-10-1994
2976¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
268¼v½ 24-03-1995
08-01-2012
10-06-2008
1425¼v½ 06-06-2008
10-10-2008
2436¼v½ 10-10-2008
83-
xwxjxkao
iksgjh
29-10-1994
2976¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
260¼v½ 24-03-1995
21-04-2011
25-06-2008
1559¼v½ 24-06-2008
10-10-2008
2436¼v½ 10-10-2008
84-
chycjkekrk
iksgjh
29-10-1994
2976¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
268¼v½ 24-03-1995
21-04-2011
25-06-2008
1559¼v½ 24-06-2008
10-10-2008
2436¼v½ 10-10-2008
85-
fcUgsjk[kqnZ
iksgjh
29-10-1994
2976¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
260¼v½ 24-03-1995
21-04-2011
10-06-2008
1425¼v½ 06-06-2008
10-10-2008
2436¼v½ 10-10-2008
86-
gqlSuiqj
iksgjh
29-10-1994
2976¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
260¼v½ 24-03-1995
08-01-2012
25-06-2008
1559¼v½ 24-06-2008
10-10-2008
2436¼v½ 10-10-2008
87-
ckykiqj
iksgjh
29-10-1994
2976¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
368¼v½ 19-04-1995
08-01-2012
10-06-2008
1425¼v½ 06-06-2008
10-10-2008
2436¼v½ 10-10-2008
88-
vkckniqj
iksgjh
29-10-1994
2976¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
260¼v½ 24-03-1995
21-04-2011
10-06-2008
1425¼v½ 06-06-2008
10-10-2008
2436¼v½ 10-10-2008
89-
[kVdk
iksgjh
29-10-1994
2976¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
260¼v½ 24-03-1995
21-04-2011
10-06-2008
1425¼v½ 06-06-2008
10-10-2008
2436¼v½ 10-10-2008
90-
vfgY;kiqj
iksgjh
29-10-1994
2976¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
260¼v½ 24-03-1995
03-01-2012
25-06-2008
1559¼v½ 24-06-2008
10-10-2008
2436¼v½ 10-10-2008
29-10-1994
2976¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
268¼v½ 24-03-1995
03-01-2012
91-
iVscjh
iksgjh
25-05-2009
1336¼v½ 22-05-2009
06-09-2010
2178¼v½ 03-09-2010
03-01-2012
10-06-2008
1425¼v½ 06-06-2008
10-10-2008
2436¼v½ 10-10-2008
92-
nsciqjdyk
iksgjh
29-10-1994
2976¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
369¼v½ 19-04-1995
08-04-2012
25-06-2008
1559¼v½ 24-06-2008
10-10-2008
2436¼v½ 10-10-2008
93-
xqjhPNk
iksgjh
29-10-1994
2976¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
260¼v½ 24-03-1995
08-01-2012
25-06-2008
1559¼v½ 24-06-2008
10-10-2008
2436¼v½ 10-10-2008
94-
cwM+nk
iksgjh
29-10-1994
2976¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
268¼v½ 24-03-1995
08-01-2012
01-08-2009
1873¼v½ 31-07-2009
06-09-2010
2188¼v½ 03-09-2010
25-06-2008
1559¼v½ 24-06-2008
10-10-2008
2436¼v½ 10-10-2008
95-
dsek
iksgjh
29-10-1994
2976¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
260¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
25-06-2008
1559¼v½ 24-06-2008
10-10-2008
2436¼v½ 10-10-2008
96-
lgljke
fot;iqj
15-10-1994
2786¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
372¼v½ 19-04-1995
28-02-2010
24-06-2008
1560¼v½ 24-06-2008
10-10-2008
2437¼v½ 10-10-2008
¼1½ ¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
¼7½
¼8½
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3423
97-
Qjkjk
fot;iqj
15-10-1994
2786¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
259¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
24-06-2008
1560¼v½ 24-06-2008
10-10-2008
2437¼v½ 10-10-2008
28-02-2010
98-
cq<sjk
fot;iqj
15-10-1994
2786¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
272¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-02-2010
99-
nwèbZ
fot;iqj
15-10-1994
2786¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
272¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
100-
[kqjtku
fot;iqj
25-05-2009
1336¼v½ 22-05-2009
06-09-2010
2178¼v½ 03-09-2010
28-09-2010
15-10-1994
2786¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
372¼v½ 19-04-1995
28-09-2010
101-
fVMkoyh
tkSjk
15-10-1994
2787¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
256¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
24-06-2008
1561¼v½ 24-06-2008
10-10-2008
2434¼v½ 10-10-2008
102-
Hkwjh
tkSjk
15-10-1994
2787¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
256¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
24-06-2008
1561¼v½ 24-06-2008
10-10-2008
2434¼v½ 10-10-2008
103-
èksaèk
tkSjk
15-10-1994
2787¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
256¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
24-06-2008
1561¼v½ 24-06-2008
10-10-2008
2434¼v½ 10-10-2008
104-
cl[kksgk
tkSjk
15-10-1994
2787¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
256¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
24-06-2008
1561¼v½ 24-06-2008
10-10-2008
2434¼v½ 10-10-2008
105-
tksxhiqjk
tkSjk
15-10-1994
2787¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
256¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
106-
dUgkj
tkSjk
15-10-1994
2787¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
256¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
107-
vkjsBh
tkSjk
15-10-1994
2787¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
256¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
108-
j[ksjk
tkSjk
27-10-1994
2760¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
255¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
109-
gfj;kiqjk
tkSjk
15-10-1994
2760¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
370¼v½ 19-04-1995
28-09-2010
110-
ejk
tkSjk
15-10-1994
2760¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
255¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
111-
HkTtsdkiqjk
tkSjk
15-10-1994
2760¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
255¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
112-
[kMfj;kiqjk
tkSjk
15-10-1994
2760¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
255¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
113-
xksikyiqjk
tkSjk
15-10-1994
2787¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
256¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
114-
Vsyjh
tkSjk
15-10-1994
2787¼v½ 22-09-1994
15-04-1995
256¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
115-
èqjdwMk
tkSjk
15-10-1994
2787¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-09-1995
256¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
116-
[ksjyh
tkSjk
15-10-1994
2787¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
256¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
117-
tkiFkki
tkSjk
15-10-1994
2787¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
256¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
118-
gqlSuiqj
tkSjk
15-10-1994
2787¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
256¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
119-
c`tx<+h
tkSjk
15-10-1994
2760¼v½ 22-09-1994
21-04-1995
271¼v½ 19-04-1995
28-09-2010
120-
lxksfj;k
dSykjl
15-10-1994
2788¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
257¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
121-
flaxkpksyh
dSykjl
15-10-1994
2788¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
257¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
122-
nsodPN
dSykjl
15-10-1994
2788¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
257¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
123-
fcykSvk
dSykjl
15-10-1994
2788¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
257¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
124-
Hkqjkoyh
dSykjl
15-10-1994
2788¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
257¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
125-
lqtekZ
dSykjl
15-10-1994
2788¼v½ 22-09-1994
11-05-1996
1408¼v½ 15-04-1996
28-09-2010
126-
fHkylS;k
dSykjl
15-10-1994
2788¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
257¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
127-
csjbZekux<+
dSykjl
15-10-1994
2788¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
257¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
¼1½ ¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
¼7½
¼8½
3424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
128-
fjBksfu;ka
dSykjl
15-10-1994
2788¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
257¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
129-
usijh
dSykjl
15-10-1994
2788¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
257¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
130-
jtiqjktkxhj
dSykjl
15-10-1994
2788¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
273¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
131-
ips[kk
dSykjl
15-10-1994
2788¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
257¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
132-
gVhiqjk
dSykjl
15-10-1994
2788¼v½ 22-09-1994
28-03-1995
257¼v½ 24-03-1995
28-09-2010
[Qkñ lañ ,y&14014@24@2014&th ih]
,lñ ihñ vxzoky] voj lfpo
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
10
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
¼1½ ¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
¼7½
¼8½
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3425
16
Dhamnar
Guna
01.10.1994
2544 (A) 09.09.1994
21.04.1995
377 (A) 19.04.1995
26.11.2010
17
Kutiyabad
Guna
01.10.1994
2543 (A) 09.09.1994
21.04.1995
375 (A) 19.04.1995
26.11.2010
18
Bhadora
Guna
01.10.1994
2543 (A) 09.09.1994
21.04.1995
375 (A) 19.04.1995
20.12.2010
19
Gwarkheda
Guna
01.10.1994
2542 (A) 09.09.1994
09.03.1995
149 (A) 02.03.1995
11.11.2010
20
Sagoriya
Guna
01.10.1994
2540 (A) 09.09.1994
21.04.1995
376 (A) 19.04.1995
11.11.2010
21
Jamra
Guna
01.10.1994
2539 (A) 09.09.1994
09.03.1995
148 (A) 02.03.1995
26.11.2010
22
Myana
Guna
01.10.1994
2538 (A) 09.09.1994
21.04.1995
374 (A) 19.04.1995
18.12.2010
23
Padmankhedi Guna
01.10.1994
2537 (A) 09.09.1994
09.03.1995
147 (A) 02.03.1995
11.11.2010
24
Khajuri
Guna
01.10.1994
2536 (A) 09.09.1994
09.03.1995
146 (A) 19.04.1995
11.11.2010
25
Rabsarjagir
Ishaghar
01.10.1994
2535 (A) 09.09.1994
03.03.1995
145 (A) 02.03.1995
26.11.2010
26
Ghurwarkala
Ishaghar
01.10.1994
2534 (A) 09.09.1994
09.03.1995
144 (A) 02.03.1995
11.11.2010
27
Sigakhedi
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2762 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1985
367 (A) 19.04.1995
11.11.2010
28
Bakaspur
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2463 (A) 22.09.1994
02.05.1995
394 (A) 28.04.1995
11.11.2010
29
Sumela
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2766 (A) 22.09.1994
28.03.1995
262 (A) 24.03.1995
26.11.2010
30
Badarvash
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2765 (A) 22.09.1994
28.03.1995
261 (A) 24.03.1995
26.11.2010
31
Tilatili
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2765 (A) 22.09.1994
09.03.1995
150 (A) 02.03.1995
26.11.2010
32
Anwara
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2761 (A) 22.09.1994
28.03.1995
264 (A) 24.03.1995
26.11.2010
33
Digodh
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2764 (A) 22.09.1994
09.03.1995
151 (A) 02.03.1995
11.11.2010
34
Chitara
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2768 (A) 22.09.1994
09.03.1995
152 (A) 02.03.1995
28.02.2011
35
Buda dogar
Kolaras
25.02.1995
509 (A) 11.02.1995
13.06.1995
518 (A) 02.06.1995
28.02.2011
36
Kulhadi
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2769 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
365 (A) 19.04.1995
29.10.2010
37
Kharai
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2770 (A) 22.09.1994
28.03.1995
265 (A) 24.03.1995
29.10.2010
38
Lukwasha
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2771 (A) 22.09.1994
09.03.1995
153 (A) 02.03.1995
29.10.2010
39
Dondyai
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2772 (A) 22.09.1994
09.03.1995
154 (A) 02.03.1995
29.10.2010
40
Jur
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2773 (A) 22.09.1994
09.03.1995
125 (A) 02.03.1995
29.10.2010
41
Ukawal
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2774 (A) 22.09.1994
28.03.1995
263 (A) 24.03.1995
29.10.2010
42
Panwari
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2775 (A) 22.09.1994
28.03.1995
271 (A) 24.03.1995
01.11.2011
43
Gudha
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2776 (A) 22.09.1994
09.03.1995
156 (A) 02.03.1995
29.10.2010
44
Gugwara
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2777 (A) 22.09.1994
09.03.1995
157 (A) 02.03.1995
29.10.2010
45
Biramkhedi
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2778 (A) 22.09.1994
09.03.1995
158 (A) 02.03.1995
01.11.2010
46
Mohra
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2779 (A) 22.09.1994
09.03.1995
159 (A) 02.03.1995
01.11.2010
47
Tighariya
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2780 (A) 22.09.1994
09.03.1995
160 (A) 02.03.1995
01.11.2010
48
Piprodha
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2781 (A) 22.09.1994
28.03.1995
267 (A) 24.03.1995
01.11.2010
49
Bagroda
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2782 (A) 22.09.1994
09.03.1995
161 (A) 02.03.1995
01.11.2010
50
Nitwash
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2783 (A) 22.09.1994
09.03.1995
162 (A) 02.03.1995
01.11.2010
51
Kulwara
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2766 (A) 22.09.1994
28.03.1995
266 (A) 24.03.1995
01.11.2010
52
Madikhera
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2784 (A) 22.09.1994
09.03.1995
163 (A) 02.03.1995
01.11.2010
53
Deherwara
Kolaras
15.10.1994
2785 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
366 (A) 19.04.1995
01.11.2010
54
Bilokala
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
369 (A) 19.04.1995
01.11.2010
55
Choki
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
02.05.1995
395 (A) 28.04.1995
01.11.2010
56
Asuakehdi
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
369 (A) 17.04.1995
01.11.2010
57
Malakhedi
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
369 (A) 19.04.1995
01.11.2010
58
Tongra
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
369 (A) 19.04.1995
25.02.2011
59
Tanpur
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
28.03.1995
258 (A) 25.03.1995
28.02.2011
60
Kodabda
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
369 (A) 19.04.1995
25.02.2011
61
Kabirkhedi
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
369 (A) 19.04.1995
25.02.2011
62
Chhar
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
28.03.1995
258 (A) 25.03.1995
25.02.2011
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
3426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
63
Tharri
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
369 (A) 19.04.1995
25.02.2011
64
Thara
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
28.03.1995
258 (A) 25.03.1995
25.02.2011
65
Khorghar
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
369 (A) 19.04.1995
25.02.2011
66
Kharaibhat
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
369 (A) 19.04.1995
25.02.2011
67
Dakrora
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
369 (A) 19.04.1995
25.02.2011
68
Ramabasai
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
369 (A) 19.04.1995
25.02.2011
69
Bilupura
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
369 (A) 19.04.1995
25.02.2011
70
Chakmankbasai Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
28.03.1995
258 (A) 25.03.1995
25.02.2011
71
ChakdhukalbasaiShivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
369 (A) 19.04.1995
25.02.2011
72
Tarkaa
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
369 (A) 19.04.1995
25.02.2011
73
Madankhedi
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
369 (A) 19.04.1995
25.02.2011
74
Sikrawada
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
258 (A) 25.03.1995
25.02.2011
75
Sikravadi
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
258 (A) 25.03.1995
25.02.2011
76
Sood
Shivpuri
29.10.1994
2975 (A) 22.09.1994
21.04.1995
269 (A) 19.04.1995
25.02.2011
77
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
78
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
79
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
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3427
25.06.2008
1559(A) 24.06.2008
10.10.2008
2436(A) 10.10.2008
28.09.2010
96
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
97
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
98
Budera
Vijaipur
15.10.1994
2786(A) 22.09.1994
28.03.1995
272(A) 24.03.1995
28.02.2010
99
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 Secy
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
3428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vizSy] 2014
dk-vk- 1306-&&l{ke izkf/kdkjh] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962
dk 50½ dh /kkjk 17 ds v/khu fojfpr isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ fu;e] 1963 ds fu;e 4 ds
mifu;e ¼1½ ds ijarqd ds vuqlj.k esa] xsy ¼bf.M;k½ fyfeVsM ds ijke'kZ ls ftlesa] ;FkkfLFkfr] ml {ks= esa Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj fufgr
fd;k x;k gS ;k ml {ks= esa ikbiykbZu dk LokfeRo fufgr gS] uhps lkj.kh ds LrEHk 8 esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr e/; izns'k jkT; ds ngst&osekj&fot;iqj
ikbiykbZu ifj;kstuk ds ek/;e ls ikbiykbZu fcNk;s tkus ds izpkyu dh lekfIr dh rkjh[k ?kksf"kr djrk gSA
layXud&1
vuqlwph
/kkjk 3 ¼1½ ds v/khu vf/klwpuk
/kkjk 6 ¼1½ ds v/khu vf/klwpuk
Øe
xkao dk uke
rkyqdk
jkti= esa
dk-vk- la[;k vkSj
jkti= esa
dkñvkñ la[;k vkSj dk;Z dh lekfIr
la-
rglhy
izdk'ku dk
fnukad
izdk'ku dk
fnukad dk fnukad
fnukad
fnukad
¼1½ ¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
¼7½
¼8½
1-
laMkork
lkjaxiqj
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
25-08-2011
2-
[katjiqj
lkjaxiqj
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
12-09-2011
3-
cj[ksMh[kqjZe
lkjaxiqj
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
15-09-2011
4-
?kkVk[ksMh
lkjaxiqj
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
15-09-2011
5-
jlwyiqjk
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
28-12-2011
6-
dyiksuh
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
21-09-2011
7-
ikMfy;k[ksMh
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
21-09-2011
8-
pkSlyk
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
21-04-2012
9-
rqefM;k[ksMh
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
20-06-2012
10-
xqjkfM;k
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2558¼v½10-11-2009
20-06-2012
11-
[ktwjh
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2558¼v½10-11-2009
20-06-2012
12-
xksj[kiqjk
jktx<
22-06-2009
1804¼v½22-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
08-04-2011
13-
fd'kuiqfj;k&1
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2558¼v½10-11-2009
20-06-2012
14-
dqUMhos&1
jktx<
08-01-2010
37¼v½08-01-2010
03-04-2010
746¼v½03-04-2010
19-09-2011
15-
ykyiqjk
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
21-04-2012
16-
eksgdeiqjk
jktx<
22-09-2009
2421¼v½22-09-2009
19-01-2010
113¼v½19-01-2010
13-12-2011
17-
jkuhiqjk
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
19-09-2011
18-
nysyiqjk
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
15-09-2011
19-
psuiqfj;k
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
13-09-2011
20-
lkyiqjk
jktx<
22-09-2009
2421¼v½22-09-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
26-11-2011
21-
lkaxh
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
22-04-2012
22-
lkou[ksMk
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
22-04-2012
23-
tSriqjk
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
21-04-2012
24-
Hkknok[ksMk
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
20-09-2011
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3429
25-
fd'kuiqfj;k 2
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
21-04-2011
26-
jkeiqfj;k
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
21-04-2011
27-
jktyhos
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
20-09-2011
28-
ihiyos
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
19-04-2012
29-
fgju[ksMh
jktx<
22-07-2009
1804¼v½22-07-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
28-12-2011
30-
?kks?kfM;kdyk
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
09-11-2011
31-
?kks?kfM;k[kqnZ
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
09-11-2011
32-
xksY;kos
jktx<
22-07-2009
1804¼v½22-07-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
24-01-2012
33-
dkyhihB
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
21-04-2012
34-
cukfu;k
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449¼v½10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858¼v½10-11-2009
20-09-2011
35-
yky;krykbZ
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449 ¼v½ 10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858 ¼v½ 10-11-2009
19-04-2012
36-
cktiqjk
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449 ¼v½ 10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858 ¼v½ 10-11-2009
19-04-2012
37-
dqUMhos 2
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449 ¼v½ 10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858 ¼v½ 10-11-2009
24-01-2012
38-
egqokos
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449 ¼v½ 10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858 ¼v½ 10-11-2009
24-01-2012
39-
tksMfd;k
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449 ¼v½ 10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858 ¼v½ 10-11-2009
19-04-2012
40-
lqokgsMh
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449 ¼v½ 10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858 ¼v½ 10-11-2009
19-04-2012
41-
tykyiqjk
jktx<
11-06-2009
1449 ¼v½ 10-06-2009
10-11-2009
2858 ¼v½ 10-11-2009
21-04-2012
42-
lksukgsMk
pkpkSMk
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
03-12-2009
3095 ¼v½ 03-12-2009
24-04-2012
43-
¯lxkiqjk
pkpkSMk
22-06-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-06-2009
03-12-2009
3095 ¼v½ 03-12-2009
13-09-2011
44-
us'k[kqnZ
pkpkSMk
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
03-12-2009
3095 ¼v½ 03-12-2009
25-08-2011
45-
usR;k[ksMh
pkpkSMk
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
03-12-2009
3095 ¼v½ 03-12-2009
26-11-2011
46-
>ksjnk
pkpkSMk
03-04-2010
743 ¼v½ 03-04-2010
03-12-2009
3095 ¼v½ 03-12-2009
03-04-2011
47-
eksgEeniqj
pkpkSMk
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
03-12-2009
3095 ¼v½ 03-12-2009
19-03-2012
48-
xqUtkjh
pkpkSMk
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
03-12-2009
3095 ¼v½ 03-12-2009
18-03-2012
49-
eqagklkdyk
pkpkSMk
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
03-12-2009
3095 ¼v½ 03-12-2009
19-03-2012
50-
iksykl
pkpkSMk
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
03-12-2009
3095 ¼v½ 03-12-2009
18-03-2012
51-
pkpkSMk
pkpkSMk
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
03-12-2009
3095 ¼v½ 03-12-2009
24-04-2012
52-
Nku
pkpkSMk
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
03-12-2009
3095 ¼v½ 03-12-2009
19-03-2012
53-
egs'kiqjk
pkpkSMk
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
03-12-2009
3095 ¼v½ 03-12-2009
25-04-2012
54-
chtuhiqjk
pkpkSMk
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
03-12-2009
3095 ¼v½ 03-12-2009
19-03-2012
55-
t;¯lgiqjk
pkpkSMk
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
03-12-2009
3095 ¼v½ 03-12-2009
19-03-2012
56-
pkjuiqjk
pkpkSMk
08-01-2010
37 ¼v½ 08-01-2010
03-04-2010
746 ¼v½ 03-04-2010
08-11-2011
57-
[kstMk[kqnZ
pkpkSMk
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
03-12-2009
3095 ¼v½ 03-12-2009
13-09-2011
58-
jeMk
pkpkSMk
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
03-12-2009
3095 ¼v½ 03-12-2009
08-11-2011
59-
jeMh
ppkSMk
19-04-2011
764 ¼v½ 19-04-2011
03-04-2010
746 ¼v½ 03-04-2010
24-04-2012
¼1½ ¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
¼7½
¼8½
3430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
60-
cj[ksMhekQh
dqEHkjkt
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
03-12-2009
3095 ¼v½ 03-12-2009
13-09-2011
61-
b±V[ksMhdyk
dqEHkjkt
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
11-12-2009
3183 ¼v½ 10-12-2009
12-09-2011
62-
flgkjh
dqEHkjkt
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
11-12-2009
3183 ¼v½ 10-12-2009
12-09-2011
63-
vyh[ksMh
dqEHkjkt
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
11-12-2009
3183 ¼v½ 10-12-2009
12-09-2011
64-
[kstMkcsgjk
dqEHkjkt
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
11-12-2009
3183 ¼v½ 10-12-2009
19-03-2012
65-
rqylh[ksMh
dqEHkjkt
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
11-12-2009
3183 ¼v½ 10-12-2009
19-03-2012
66-
Åijh
dqEHkjkt
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
11-12-2009
3183 ¼v½ 10-12-2009
19-03-2012
67-
ekuiqjk
dqEHkjkt
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
11-12-2009
3183 ¼v½ 10-12-2009
13-09-2011
68-
lkadkdyk
jk?kkSx<
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
11-12-2009
3183 ¼v½ 10-12-2009
13-09-2011
69-
csgjk[ksMh
jk?kkSx<
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
18-03-2010
613 ¼v½ 18-03-2010
08-11-2011
70-
c;kZ
jk?kkSx<
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
19-01-2010
113 ¼v½ 19-01-2010
08-11-2011
71-
vkou
jk?kkSx<
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
19-01-2010
113 ¼v½ 19-01-2010
08-11-2011
72-
Hk®lkuk
jk?kkSx<
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
19-01-2010
113 ¼v½ 19-01-2010
08-11-2011
73-
psaVjojhZ
jk?kkSx<
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
19-01-2010
113 ¼v½ 19-01-2010
04-05-2012
74-
vghj[ksMh
jk?kkSx<
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
19-01-2010
113 ¼v½ 19-01-2010
19-03-2012
75-
vgeniqja
jk?kkSx<
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
19-01-2010
113 ¼v½ 19-01-2010
24-04-2012
76-
gqlsuiqja
jk?kkSx<
22-07-2009
1803 ¼v½ 22-07-2009
19-01-2010
113 ¼v½ 19-01-2010
08-04-2011
[Qkñlañ ,y&14014@23@2014&th ih]
,lñihñ vxzoky] voj lfpo
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
Termination
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
¼1½ ¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
¼7½
¼8½
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3431
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
21.04.2012
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
3432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
42
Sonahera
Chachoda
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
03.12.2009
3095 (A) 03.12.2009
24.04.2012
43
Sigapura
Chachoda
22.06.2009
1803 (A) 22.06.2009
03.12.2009
3095 (A) 03.12.2009
13.09.2011
44
Nesh Khurd
Chachoda
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
03.12.2009
3095 (A) 03.12.2009
25.08.2011
45
Netya Khedi
Chachoda
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
03.12.2009
3095 (A) 03.12.2009
26.11.2011
46
Jhordha
Chachoda
03.04.2010
743 (A) 03.04.2010
03.12.2009
3095 (A) 03.12.2009
03.04.2011
47
Mohammadpur
Chachoda
22.07.2009
1803A22.07.2009
03.12009
3095(A) 03.12.2009
19.03.2012
48
Gunjari
Chachoda
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
03.12.2009
3095 (A) 03.12.2009
18.03.2012
49
Muhashkala
Chachoda
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
03.12.2009
3095 (A) 03.12.2009
19.03.2012
50
Polash
Chachoda
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
03.12.2009
3095 (A) 03.12.2009
18.03.2012
51
Chachoda
Chachoda
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
03.12.2009
3095 (A) 03.12.2009
24.04.2012
52
Chhan
Chachoda
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
03.12.2009
3095 (A) 03.12.2009
19.03.2012
53
Mahespura
Chachoda
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
03.12.2009
3095 (A) 03.12.2009
25.04.2012
54
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
56
Charanpura
Chachoda
08.01.2010
37 (A) 08.01.2010
03.04.2010
746 (A) 03.04.2010
08.11.2011
57
Khejda Khurd
Chachoda
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
03.12.2009
3095 (A) 03.12.2009
13.09.2011
58
Ramra
Chachoda
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
03.12.2009
3095 (A) 03.12.2009
08.11.2011
59
Ramrima
Chachoda
19.04.2011
764 (A) 19.04.2011
03.04.2010
746 (A) 03.04.2010
24.04.2012
60
Barkherima
Chachoda
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
03.12.2009
3095 (A) 03.12.2009
13.09.2011
61
Intkherima
Kumbhraj
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
11.12.2009
3183(A) 10.12.2009
12.09.2011
62
Sihari
Kumbhraj
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
11.12.2009
3183 (A) 10.12.2009
12.09.2011
63
Allikheri
Kumbhraj
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
11.12.2009
3183 (A) 10.12.2009
12.09.2011
64
Kherja Behra
Kumbhraj
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
11.12.2009
3183 (A) 10.12.2009
19.03.2012
65
Tulsikheri
Kumbhraj
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
10.12.2009
3183 (A) 10.12.2009
19.03.2012
66
Upri
Kumbhraj
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
11.12.2009
3183 (A) 10.12.2009
19.03.2012
67
Manpura
Kumbhraj
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
11.12.2009
3183 (A) 10.12.2009
13.09.2011
68
Sanka Kalan
Kumbhraj
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
11.12.2009
3183 (A) 10.12.2009
13.09.2011
69
Behra kheri
Raghogad
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
18.03.2010
613 (A) 18.03.2010
08.11.2011
70
Barya
Raghogad
22.07.2009
1803 (A) 22.07.2009
19.01.2010
113 (A) 19.01.2010
08.11.2011
71
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.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3433
oL= ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1307-&&dsUnzh; ljdkj] ¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuks
ds fy,½ jktHkk"kk fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½ ds
vuqlj.k esa] oL= ea=ky; ds varxZr vkus okys fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa
dks ftlds 80% ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku
izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/klwfpr djrh gS%µ
1- js'ke tSo izkS|ksfxdh vuqla/kku iz;ksx'kkyk] dsUnzh; js'ke
cksMZ] dkjesyjke Mkd] dksM+rh csxyq:&560 035 ¼dukZVd½
2- vuqla/kku foLrkj dsanz] dsjsvoizlañ] dsUnzh; js'ke cksMZ]
jaxiks&737132 ¼flfDde½
3- {ks=h; dk;kZy;] dsUnzh; js'ke cksMZ] 18&lR;uxj]
Hkqous'oj&751007 ¼vksfM'kk½
[lañbZñ 11016@1@2011&fgUnh]
lqu;uk rksej] la;qDr lfpo
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.
dks;yk ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 2 ebZ 2014
dkñvkñ 1308-&&dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd
blls mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa ls dks;yk vfHkizkIr
fd, tkus dh laHkkouk gS(
vkSj mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ds {ks= dk C;kSjk varfoZ"V
djus okys js[kkad la[;kad vkjbZoh@01@2014] rkjh[k 15 tuojh]
2014 dk fujh{k.k lsaVªy dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼Hkwfe vkSj jktLo
foHkkx½ njHkaxk gkml] jkaphµ 834929 ¼>kj[kaM½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k
egkizca/kd] lsUVªy dksyQhYMl fyfeVsM] ex/k ,oa vkezikyh] ftyk
prjk ¼>kj[kaM½] ds dk;kZy; esa ;k mik;qDr ftyk prjk >kj[kaM ;k
egkizca/kd ¼[kkst izHkkj½ vkjvkbZ&III] dsUnzh; [kku ;kstuk ,oa
fMtkbu laLFkku] xksMokuk Iysl] dkads jksM] jkaph ¼>kj[kaM½ ds dk;kZy;
esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001
ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj
fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ftls blesa blds i'pkr~
mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS] dh /kkjk 4 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznr
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, iwoksZDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa dks;ys
dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gSA
mi;qZDr of.kZr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) dksbZ O;fDr
bl vf/klwpuk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu ds Hkhrj egk&
izca/kd] lsaVªy dksyQhYMl fyfeVsM] ex/k ,oa vkezokyh {ks=]
ftyk prjk ¼>kj[kaM½ ;k egkizca/kd] lsaVªy dksyQhYMl fyfeVsM]
Hkwfe vkSj jktLo foHkkx] njHkaxk gkml] jkphµ834029 ¼>kj[kaM½
dksµ
(i)
mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 dh mi /kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu dh
xbZ dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ {kfr ;k laHkkO; gksus okyh fdlh {kfr ds
fy, vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 ds v/khu izfrdj dk nkok dj
ldsxk( vkSj
(ii)
mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu
lekIr gks xbZ iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa dh ckcr~ ;k mDr
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi /kkjk ¼4½ ds v/khu lekIr
gks x, [kuu iV~Vs ds fy, izfrdkj dk nkok dj ldsxk vkSj
mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM (i) ls
[kaM (iv) esa fofufnZ"V enksa dh ckcr~ mixr O;; dks minf'kZr
dju sds fy, mDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr lHkh ekufp=ksa] pkV ks± vkSj
vU; nLrkostksa dks ifjnÙk dj ldsxkA
vuqlwph
vkezikyh foLrkj [kqyh [knku ifj;kstuk
ftyk&prjk] >kj[kaM
¼js[kkd la[;kad vkjbZoh@01@2014] rkjh[k 15 tuojh] 2014½
dzñ
xzke
Fkkuk
Fkkuk
ftyk
{ks=
{ks=
fVIi.k
lañ
uañ
¼,dM+½
¼gsDVs;j½
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1-
gksugs
VaMok
50@207 prjk
210-00
85-02
Hkkx
2-
dqejkax VaMok
51@208 prjk
393-78
159-1
Hkkx
[kqnZ
3434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3-
dqejkax VaMok
52@209 prjk
147-99
59-91
Hkkx
dyka
4-
mjlq VaMok
54@211 prjk
294-78
119-34 Hkkx
dqy%
1046-55
423-37
lhek dk o.kZu%
dµ[k
js[kk fcUnq ^d* ls vkjEHk gksdj xzke dks;n esa gksugs
ds lfEefyr lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ js[kk fcUnq ^[k* ij
feyrh gSA
[kµx
js[kk fcUnq ^[k* xjh;k unh ds e/; js[kk ls xqtjrh gqbZ
fcUnq ^x* ij feyrh gSA
xµ?k
js[kk fcUnq ^x* xjh;k unh ds e/; js[kk ls xqtjrh gqbZ
fcUnq ^?k* ij feyrh gSA
?kµd
js[kk fcUnq ?k* xzke mjlw] dqejkax dyk] dqejkax [kqnZ vkSj
gksugs ls xqtjrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq ^d* ij feyrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 43015@2@2014µihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]
nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo
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;
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:—
(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
Amrapali Extension Opencast Project
District-Chatra, Jharkhand
(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:—
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.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3435
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 21 vizSy] 2014
dk-vk- 1309.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,QñlhñvkbZñ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
141@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@04@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22011@6@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II)]
ch-,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 21st April, 2014
S.O.1309.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 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
[No. L-22011/6/2013-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD.
PRESENT :
SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
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
APPEARANCES:
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
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No L-22011/
6/2013-IR(CM-II) dt. 10.06.2013.
SCHEDULE
"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?
2. Shri Birendra Rai, the workmen under Sl. No. 44 out
of the total workmen 44 as per the list enclosed is present
and by filing a petition (in duplicate) dt 31.1.2014 duly under
the signature of Shri Ghanshyam Jena, the General
Secretary, the FCI Workers Union, Diamond Harbour Road,
Kolkata, has submitted that the Union does not want to
pursue the instant Industrial Dispute for the reasons that
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.
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 Officer
3436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
List of the 44 workers
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
11
Md. Khalil Mian
12
Sahdeo Sao
13
Laxman Yadav
14
Md. Habib Mian
15
Bhawani Thakur
16
Dukhan Yadav
17
Basudeo Sao
18
Laxman Sao
19
Shaymlal Sao
20
Md. Jumman Mian
21
Bhudan Gope
22
Ishwar Sao
23
Santan Sao
24
Sewa Sao
25
Mahesh Sao
26
Mahru Sao
27
Bhagirath Yadav
28
Chhotan Singh
29
Tek Lal Gope
30
Md. Badruddin Mian
31
Bhikho Sao
32
Chander Sao
33
Md. Siddique Mian
34
Ramdeo Sao
35
Rameshwar Sao
36
Sukhdeo Sao
37
Raghunath Sao
38
Somar Sao
39
Dhupal Sao
40
Ashok Sao
41
Bhagirath Sao
42
Surendra Sao
43
Rajender Sao
44
Birendra Rai
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dk-vk- 1310.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 70@2013½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ 22012@75@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II)]
chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
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
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
Present : SMT.M.VIJAYAAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 30th day of January, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 70/2013
Between:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H.No. 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist.-504208.
. . . .Petitioner
AND.
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township (P.O.)
Adilabad Dist.-504292.
. . .Respondent
APPEARANCES:
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
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,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 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.
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim
statement and documents.
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.
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
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ- 1311.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñ lhñ lhñ
,yñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼18@2013½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-04-2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ&22012@202@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lhñ ,eñ&II½]
chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
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
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
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
Industrial Dispute No. I.D. 18/2013
Between:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist. - 504208
......... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
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
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its
order No. L-22012/202/2012-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 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.
No. 18/2013 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. The case stand posted for filing of claim
statement and documents.
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.
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
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1312-&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 20@2013½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@208@2012&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
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
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
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVENRMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT:
Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding
Officer
Dated, the 19th day of March, 2014
Industrial Dispute No. I.D. 20/2013
BETWEEN:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist. - 504208
......... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township,
Adilabad Distt.-504292
....Respondent
APPEARANCE:
For the Petitioner
:
Nil
For the Respondent
:
M/s P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya
Lakhsmi
Panguluri,
Advocates
AWARD
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
“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager
of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Bellampally Area, Goleti Township , Adilabad
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 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.
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement
and documents.
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.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
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
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for
the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1313.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 21@2013½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@209@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e II)]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
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
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
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
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I. D. 21/2013
BETWEEN:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist. - 504208
......... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township,
Adilabad Distt.-504292
....Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner
:
Nil
For the Respondent
:
M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya
Lakhsmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
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
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.
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.
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
Witnesses examined for the
Withnesses examined for
the Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ- 1314.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñ lhñ lhñ
,yñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 29@2013½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@240@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh ,e&II½ ]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
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
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
PRESENT:
SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding
Officer
Dated the 1st day of January, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I. D. 29/2013
BETWEEN:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H. No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist. - 504208
......... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Mandamarri Area,
Mandamarri - 504 231
Adilabad Distt.
...........Respondent
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner
: Nil
For the Respondent
: M/s. P. A.V.V.S. Sarma &
Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri,
Advocates
AWARD
‘‘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,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 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.
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim
statement and documents.
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.
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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitoner
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitoner
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ-1315.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947] ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k @Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 30@2013½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 22-04-2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@241@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
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
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
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT:
SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding
Officer
Dated the 1st day of January, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I. D. 30/2013
BETWEEN:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist. - 504208
......... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Mandamarri Area,
Mandamarri- 504 231
Anilabad Distt.
...... Respondent
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner : NIL
For the Respondent
:M/s. P.A.V.V.S Sarma & Vijaya
Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its
order No. L-22012/241/2012-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 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?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 30/2013 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
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.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for
the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1316.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 31@2013½ izdkf'kr djrh
gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@242@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
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.
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
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT :
SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI,
Presiding Officer
Dated the 1st day of January, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I. D. 31/2013
BETWEEN:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H. No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist. - 504208
......... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri-504 231
Adilabad Distt.
....Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner
:
NIL
For the Respondent
:
NIL
AWARD
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
‘‘Whether the action of the management of
General Manager of M/s. Singareni Collieries
Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 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
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.
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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1317.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñ lhñ lhñ
,yñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 32@2013½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@243@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II)]
chñ,eñ iVuk;d MsLd vf/kdkjh
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
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
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT:
SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 1st day of January, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I. D. 32/2013
BETWEEN:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist. - 504208
..... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Mandamarri Area,
Mandamarri-504 231
Adilabad Distt.
....Respondent
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner
:
NIL
For the Respondent
:
M/S. P.A.V.V. S. Sarma & Vijaya
Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
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
"Whether the action the management of General
Manager of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company
Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad
3444
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
statement and documents.
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.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ- 1318.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ
ds izcaèra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 33@2013½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ&22012@245@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
S.O. 1318.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/
2013) of the Central 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-22012/245/2012-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABD
PRESENT: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 1st day of January, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. I. D. 33/2013
BETWEEN:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist. - 504208
... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Mandamarri Area,
Mandamarri-504 231
Adilabad Distt.
...Respondent
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner
:
NIL
For the Respondent
:
M/S. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya
Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
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
‘‘Whether the action the management of General
Manager of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 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.
2. The case stands posted for filling of claim
statement and documents.
3. Petitioner called absent and there is no
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.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1319-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa ] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 60@2012½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@117@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
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)
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
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, PresidingOfficer
Dated the 1st day of January, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I. D. 60/2012
BETWEEN:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist. - 504208
... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Bellampalli Area, Goletic Township,
Adilabad Distt.
Andhra Pradesh
...Respondent
APPEARANCE:
For the Petitioner
:
NIL
For the Respondent
:
M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya
Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
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
"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
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.
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
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1320-&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñ lhñ lhñ
,yñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 69@2013½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@62@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh]
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
S.O. 1320.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 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
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 30th day of January, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 69/2013
BETWEEN:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist. - 504208
.... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township (P.O.)
Adilabad Dist.-504292.
....Respondent
APPEARANCE:
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
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
‘‘Whether the action the management of General
Manager of M/s. Singareni Colleries Company Ltd.,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 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
and documents.
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 accodingly. Transmit.
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 forthe
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1321-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 71@2013½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIR gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@63@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
ch-,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
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
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
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENTS: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 30th day of January, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. I.D. 71/2013
BETWEEN:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H. No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist. - 504208
.... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township, (P.O.)
Adilabad Distt.-504292
...Respondent
APPEARANCES:
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
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its
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.
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.
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
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1322-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/
k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 72@2013½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS ] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@48@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh-,e-&II½]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh
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
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
PRESENT: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 30th day of March, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. I.D. 72/2013
BETWEEN:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H. No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist. - 504208
... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
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
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,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 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.
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.
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
Witnesses examined for the
the Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ- 1323-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 74@2013½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y-22012/81/2013-vkbZvkj (lh,e-II)]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
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
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT: Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 30th day of January, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. I.D. 74/2013
BETWEEN:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H. No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Distt. - 504208
..... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township, (P.O.)
Adilabad Distt.-504292
....Respondent
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner
:
NIL
For the Respondent
:
M/s P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &
Vijaya
Lakhsmi Panguluri,
Advocates
AWARD
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,
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
and documents.
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.
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
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ-1324-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ
ds izca/kura= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 73@2002½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22013@1@2014&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
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
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT: Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 13th day of February, 2014
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. I.D. 73/2002
BETWEEN:
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.
2.
The Superintendent of Mines,
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
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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 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:
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 and
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
3452
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,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 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.
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:
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
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:
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."
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 General
3454
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
also entitled for back wages for entire period. The amounts
paid towards wages to him after his fresh appointment as
badli filler are to be deducted from the said back wages
payable to him.
This point is answered accordingly.
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
Ex. W4:
Photostat copy representation on behalf of
WW1 dt. 15.12.2000
Ex. W5:
Photostat copy of proceeding of SOM-21 inc.
to Dy. MS, YCH, Yellandu, disclosing the mental
status of the Petitioner dt. 15.5.2001
Ex. W6:
Photostat copy of proceedings of Dy. MS, YCH
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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3455
Ex. M15:
Photostat copy of letter dt. 14.12.2000 to the
Supdt., Instt. of Mentally Handicapped,
Hyderabad from Dy. MS, YC Hospital, Yellandu
Ex. M16:
Enquiry report dt. 26.2.2001
Ex. M17:
Pay sheets for the year 1998
Ex. M18:
Pay sheets for the year 1999
Ex. M19:
Representation of the wife of the Petitioner dt.
15.12.2010
Ex. M20:
Office copy of the letter of proceedings of Dy.
MS, YCH to Supdt., Main Hospital,
Kothagudem referring the Petitioner to
Psychiriatic treatment dt. 15.5.2001
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,
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
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.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1325-&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñbZñlhñ,yñ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 104@2004½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@403@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
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
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 104/
2004) of the Central Government Industrial 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-22012/403/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/104/2004
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
Chief General Manager,
Baikuntpur Area of SECL,
PO Baikuntpur, Distt. Korea (CG),
Korea Chhattisgarh
...Management
AWARD
(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 cadre
3456
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.
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
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
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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3457
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:—
(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.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1326-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñbZñlhñ,yñ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 119@92½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@46@1992&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&II½]
chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
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
Sub Area Manager,
Jainagar Sub Area of SECL,
PO Bisrampur colliery
Distt. Surguja (MP)
...Management
AWARD
(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:
"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?"
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 to
3458
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3459
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.
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 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.
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.
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)]
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:—
(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.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1327-—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñbZñlhñ,yñ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 153@91½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@282@1991&vkbZvkj¼lh&II)]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
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
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,
PO Bankimogra,
Distt. Bilaspur
...
Workman
Versus
Dy. General Manager,
SECL, Kusmunda Project,
PO Kusmunda Project,
Distt. Bilaspur (MP)
... Management
AWARD
(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?"
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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3461
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
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.
REASONS
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.
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 years
3462
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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3463
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1328-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 17@2012½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@10@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh
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.
[No. L-22012/10/2012-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
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
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
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Ramagundam-II Area, GDK-8 Inc., Colony (P.O.),
Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Distt-505211
....Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner
:
NIL
For the Respondent
:
M/s P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &
Vijaya Lakhsmi P.,
Advocates
AWARD
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,
SCHEDULE
"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
workman is entitled.?
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 17/2012 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim
statement and documents.
3. Petitioner called absent. Claim statement not filed
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.
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
Witnesses examined for
Witnesses examined for the
the Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
3464
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1329-&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 13@2013½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS ] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@199@2012&vkbZvkj¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh
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
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
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. I.D. 13/2013
BETWEEN:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist. - 504208
......... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur ,
Adilabad Distt.-504292
....Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner
:
NIL
For the Respondent
:
M/s P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &
Vijaya Lakhsmi Panguluri,
Advocates
AWARD
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
"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
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.
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
Witnesses examined for
the
the Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3465
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñ vkñ 1330-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñ lhñ lhñ
,yñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 15@2013½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ 22012@206@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&,e&II½]
chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2014
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.
[No. L-22012/206/2012-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
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
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 15/2013
BETWEEN:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist. - 504208
......... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Bellampally Area, Goleti Township,
Adilabad Distt.-504292
....Respondent
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner
:
NIL
For the Respondent
:
M/s P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &
Vijaya Lakhsmi Panguluri,
Advocates
AWARD
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
"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. 15/2013 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
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.
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
Witnesses examined for
Witnesses examined for
the
the Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
3466
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vizSy] 2014
dkñ vkñ 1331-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñ lhñ lhñ
,yñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 16@2013½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@04@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ 22012@205@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
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
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
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D. 16/2013
BETWEEN:
The President,
(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telangana Trade Union Council,
H.No.- 5-295, Indra Nagar,
Opp. Bus Stand, Mancherial,
Adilabad Dist. - 504208
......... Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Bellampally Area, Goleti Township,
Adilabad Distt.-504292
....Respondent
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner
:
NIL
For the Respondent
:
M/s P.A.V.V.S. Sarma &
Vijaya Lakhsmi Panguluri,
Advocates
AWARD
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
"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
statement and documents.
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.
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
Witnesses examined for
Witnesses examined for
the
the Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3467
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1332-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV c®d vkWQ
=koudksj izcaè ra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k] vjukdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 18@2012½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26@03@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ&12012@30@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
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.
[No. L-12012/30/2011-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
Shri D. Sreevallabham, B,Sc., LL.B.,
Presiding Officer
(Wednesday the 26th day of February, 2014/07th
Phalguna 1935)
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 :
AWARD
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:
"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
publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and
typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 26th
day of February, 2014.
D. SREEVALLABHAM, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX-NIL
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
ID NO. 18/2012
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 worker
3468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
against the Management.
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.
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/-
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1333-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV c®d vkWQ
gSnjkckn izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k] gSnjkckn ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼uñ ,y lh 73@2006]
14@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@04@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@20@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
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
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
COMMON AWARD
IN
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE Nos.
L.C. 73/2006 AND ID. 14/2007
BETWEEN:
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:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. V. Viswanatham & R.
Dushyantla, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
Sri A.V.S.S. Prasad, Advocate
COMMON AWARD
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,
"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.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3469
3. No specific claim statement has been filed by the
Petitioner in ID 14/2007.
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.
5. Respondents filed their common counter in LC 73/
2006 and ID 14/2007, 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 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 and
3470
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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.
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.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3471
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Witnesses examined for
Witnesses examined for
the
the Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri A. Ramkesh
MW1: Sri Mallela Srinivas
Documents marked for 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 Petitioner to the DGM, Personnel
Department and Branch Manager, Nallakunta
branch.
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
3472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1334-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ
gSnjkckn ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/
kdj.k] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,y lh 74@2006 12@2007½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@04@2014 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@22@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
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
ANNEXURE
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
COMMON AWARD
IN
Industrial Dispute
Nos. L.C. 74/2006 and I. D. 12/2007
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,
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 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.
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,
"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?"
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
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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 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:
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 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 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
3474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
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
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.
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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 alteast
50% of the back wages payable to him, but for the abrupot
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
Witnesses examined for
Witnesses examined for
the
the Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri J. Kiran Kumar
MW1: Sri Mallela Srinivas
Documents marked for 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
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vizSy] 2014
dk-vk- 1335-&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksj oS'; cSad
fyñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
3476
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vfèdj.k] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 80@2004½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@-4@2014 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y- 12012@139@2004&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I)]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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
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
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
"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:
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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3477
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
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:
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 the
3478
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
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
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:
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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3479
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.
5. Heard the arguments of either party under Sec.
11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Written arguments
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.
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
3480
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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 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."
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.
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
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
Witnesses examined for
Witnesses examined for
the
the Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 25 viSy] 2014
dkñ vkñ 1336-&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ
gSnjkckn izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
3482
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 3, 2014/VAISAKHA 13, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 11@2007½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@04@2014 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-&12012@96/2006&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
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
ANNEXURE
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
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. I.D. 11/2007
BETWEEN:
Sri L. Pavan Kumar,
R/o H.No. 5-11-183/1, Coolie Lane,
Venkatappaiah Veedhi,
Kothagudem-507101.
Distt. Khammam.
......Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of Hyderabad,
Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-500 001.
.....Respondent
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
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
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.
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.
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.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
Witnesses examined for
the
the Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents Marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vizSy] 2014
dkñ vkñ 1337-&&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ
gSnjkckn ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k ,y lh 72@2006 ,oa
15@2007½dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16@04@2014
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-&12012@21@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 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.
[No. L-12012/21/2006-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
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
BETWEEN:
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
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.
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,
"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.
4. The averments made in LC /2006 filed by the
Petitioner in brief are follows:
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 first
3484
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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3485
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
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
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 of
3486
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
Witnesses examined for
Witnesses examined for
the
the Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri B. Ashok Kumar
MW1: Sri Mallela Srinivas
Documents marked for 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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 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
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vizSy] 2014
dkñvkñ 1338-&&dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek
vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr
/kkjk 88 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, lsy ds fHkykbZ
LVhy IykaV ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl
vf/kfu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g NwV] bl vf/klwpuk
ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, ykxw jgsxhA
2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu gS( vFkkZr~%&
¼1½ iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr g®] ,d jftLVj j[ksxh]
ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke fn[kk;s tk;saxs(
¼2½ bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu
,slh izlqfo/kk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudksa ikus ds fy, os bl
vf/klwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ
lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vk/kkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs g®(
¼3½ NwV izkIr vof/k ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd, tk
pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs(
¼4½ mDr dkj[kkus @LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/k dh ckcr
ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk ij mDr vf/kfu;e ¼ftls
blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vof/k dgk x;k gS½ izorZeku Fkk
,slh foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr nsxk
tks deZpkjh jkT; chek ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 ds v/khu
mls mDr vof/k dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr gksrh Fkha(
¼5½ fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 45
dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ lkekftd
lqj{kk vf/kdkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk izkf/kd`r dksbZ vU;
in/kkjh(
(i)
/kkjk 44 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu] mDr vof/k dh
ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'kf"V;ksa dks lR;kfir
djus ds iz;kstukFkZ( vFkok
(ii)
;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh jkT;
chek ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr
jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/k ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks
;k ugha( ;k
(iii)
;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ ds deZpkjh]
fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu Qk;nksa dks] ftlds
QyLo:i bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu NwV nh tk jgh gS]
udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk gqvk gS
;k ugha( ;k
(iv)
;g vfHkfu'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ ds ml vof/k ds
nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/k esa vf/kfu;e ds
mica/k izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/kksa dk vuqikyu
fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds fy,
l'kDr gksxk%&
¼d½
iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk
fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr
vf/kdkjh ;k vU; in/kkjh bl vf/kfu;e ds
iz;kstukFkZ vko';d le>rk gS( vFkok
¼[k½
,sls iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vf/kHkksxk&
/khu] fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k
vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij
izos'k djuk vkSj mlds izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk
djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh
ds lank; ls lacaf/kr ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj
vU; nLrkost] ,sls fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kkjh
ds le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus
nsa ;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs
g®( ;k
¼x½
iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ
;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks
,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj
esa ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr
dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk( ;k
¼?k½
,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj
esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU;
nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djus ;k m)j.k ysuk(
¼M-½
;Fkkfu/kkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djukA
6- fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jn~n
gks tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj dh
vuqefr ysuh gksxhA
[la- ,l&38014@7@2013&,l,l&I]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
3488
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.
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vizSy] 2014
dk-vk- 1339-&&dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek
vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 91&d ds lkFk ifBr
/kkjk 88 }kjk iznr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, LVhy vkWFkksfjVh vkWQ
bafM;k fyfeVsM ds lSUVªy ekdsZfVax vkWxsZukbtslu ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa
ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa dks bl vf/kfue; ds izorZu ls NwV iznku
djrh gSA ;g NwV] bl vf/klwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ
dh vof/k ds fy, ykxw gksxhA
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 3] 2014@oS'kk[k 13] 1936
3489
2- mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa ds v/khu gS( vFkkZr~%&
¼1½ iwokZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa] ,d jftLVj
j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa ds uke vkSj inuke
fn[kk, tk,axs(
¼2½ bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu
,slh izlqfo/kk,a izkIr djrs jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl
vf/klwpuk }kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls iwoZ
lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vk/kkj ij gdnkj gks tkrs gS(
¼3½ NwV izkIr vof/k ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk; igys gh fd, tk
pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha fd, tk,axs(
¼4½ mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/k dh ckcr ftlds
nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk in mDr vf/kfu;e ¼ftls blesa
blds i'pkr~ mDr vof/k dgka x;k gS½ izorZeku Fkk ,slh
foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa lfgr nsxk tks
deZpkjh jkT; chek ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 ds v/khu mls
mDr vof/k dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr gksrh Fkha(
¼5½ fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 45
dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ lkekftd
lqj{kk vf/kdkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufer izkf/kd`r dksbZ vU;
in/kkjh(
(i)
/kkjk 44 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu] mDr vof/k dh
ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh fof'k"V;ksa dks lR;kfir
djus ds iz;kstukFkZ( vFkok
(ii)
;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh jkT;
chek ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr
jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[kk ,DV vof/k ds fy, j[ks x, Fks
;k ugha( ;k
(iii)
;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]
fu;kstd }kjk fn, x, mu Qk;nksa dks] ftlds
QyLo:i bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu NwV nh tk jgh gS]
udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk gdnkj cuk gqvk gS
;k ugha( ;k
(vi)
;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml vof/k ds
nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/k esa vf/kfu;e ds
mica/k izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha mica/kksa dk vuqikyu fd;k
x;k Fkk ;k ugha] fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds l'kDr
gksxk%&
¼d½
iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk fd
og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr vfèdkjh
;k vU; in/kkjh bl vf/kfu;e ds iz;kstukFkZ
vko';d le>rk gS( vFkok
¼[k½
,sls iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vf/kHkksxk&
/khu] fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k
vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij izos'k
djuk vkSj mlds izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk djuk
fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj etnwjh ds
lank; ls lacaf/kr ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka vkSj vU;
nLrkost] ,sls fufj{kd ;k vU; in/kkjh ds
le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh ijh{kk djus nsa ;k
,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os vko';d le>rs gSa(
;k
¼x½
iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ
;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks ,sls
dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj esa
ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk ;qfDr;qDr
dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk djuk( ;k
¼?k½
,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU; ifjlj
esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh ;k vU;
nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k m)j.k ysuk(
¼³½
;Fkkfu/kkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA
6- fofuos'k @fuxehdj.k ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor% jn~n gks
tk,xhs vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dh NwV gsrq leqfpr ljdkj dh vuqefr
ysuh gksxhA
[la- ,l&38014@2@2014&,l-,l&I]
vt; efyd] voj lfpo
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.