5040GI/2014

(1)

foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 25 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 1.—Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vf/fu;e] 1934 (1934

dk 2) dh /kjk 8 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (?k) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh jktho

egf"kZ] lfpo] vkfFkZd dk;Z foHkkx] foÙk ea=kky; dks rRdky

izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'k gksus rd] Jh vjfoUn ek;kjke ds LFkku

ij Hkkjrh; fj”koZ cSad ds dsUnzh; cksMZ esa funs'kd ukfer djrh gSA

[iQk- la- 7@2@2012&chvks&I]

fefgj dqekj] funs'kd

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 25th November, 2014

S.O. 1.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Reserve

Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government

hereby nominates Shri Rajiv Mehrishi, Secretary,

Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, to

be a Director on the Central Board of Directors of Reserve

Bank of India with immediate effect and until further orders

vice Shri Arvind Mayaram.

[F. No. 7/2/2012-BO-I]

MIHIR KUMAR, Director

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 1]

ubZ fnYyh] fnlEcj 28] 2014—tuojh 3] 2015] 'kfuokj@ikS"k 7—ikS"k 13] 1936

No. 1]

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 28, 2014—JANUARY 3, 2015, SATURDAY/PAUSA 7—PAUSA 13, 1936

bl 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)

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 25 uoEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 2-—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [akM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr

cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e]

1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk 3 ds [kaM ([k) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] uhps nh xbZ

lkj.kh ds dkye (2) esa fofufnZ"V O;fDr;ksa dks mDr lkj.kh ds

dkye (3) esa fofufnZ"V O;fDr;ksa ds LFkku ij dkye (1) esa

fofufnZ"V cSadksa esa ljdkj }kjk ukfer funs'kd ds :i esa rRdky

izHkko ls vkSj vxys vkns'k gksus rd] ukfer djrh gS %&

(1)

(2)

(3)

cSad vkWiQ cM+kSnk

Jh eksgEen eqLriQk]

Jh ds- ih- d`".ku

la;qDr lfpo]

foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx

bafM;u cSad

Jh ,u- Jhfuokl jko] Jherh lq/k d`".ku

funs'kd

foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx

;wfu;u cSad

Jh fefgj dqekj]

Jh eksgEen eqLriQk

vkWiQ bafM;k

funs'kd]

foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx

;qukbVsM cSad

Jh ,- ds- Mksxjk]

Jh fefgj dqekj]

vkWiQ bafM;k

mi lfpo]

funs'kd

foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx

¹iQk- la- 6@3@2012&chvks&Iº

fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th November, 2014

S.O. 2.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The

Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,

hereby nominate the persons specified in column (2) of the

table below as Government Nominee Director of the Banks

specified in column (1) thereof, in place of the persons

specified in column (3) of the said Table, with immediate

effect and until further orders :—

Bank of Baroda Shri Mohammad Mustafa,

Shri K. P. Krishnan

Jt. Secretary, Department

of Financial Services

Indian Bank

Shri N. Srinivasa Rao,

Smt. Sudha Krishnan

Director, Department of

Financial Services

Union Bank

Shri Mihir Kumar,

Shri Mohammad

of India

Director, Department of

Mustafa

Financial Services

United Bank

Shri A. K. Dogra,

Shri Mihir Kumar,

of India

Dy. Secretary,

Director

Department of

Financial Services

[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

fof/ vkSj U;k; ea=kky;

(fof/ dk;Z foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 31 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 3-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973

(1974 dk 2) dh /kjk 24 dh mi&/kjk (1) vkSj mi&/kjk (2)

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] fuEufyf[kr vf/oDrkvksa

dh] cacbZ mPp U;k;ky; vkSj cacbZ mPp U;k;ky; dh vf/dkfjrk

ds Hkhrj lHkh vU; vf/uLFk U;k;ky;ksa esa Hkkjr la?k ;k dsUnzh;

ljdkj ds fdlh foHkkx ;k dk;kZy; }kjk ;k mlds fo#¼ lHkh

nkafMd ekeyksa dk] ftuds varxZr nkafMd fjV ;kfpdk,a] nkafMd

vihysa] nkafMd iqujh{k.k] nkafMd funsZ'k vkSj nkafMd vkosnu Hkh gSa]

lapkyu djus ds iz;kstu ds fy,] bl 'krZ ds v/hu jgrs gq, fd

;s vfèkoDrk viuh fu;qfDr dh vof/ ds nkSjku cacbZ mPp U;k;ky;

;k cacbZ mPp U;k;ky; dh vf/dkfjrk ds Hkhrj vU; vf/uLFk

U;k;ky; esa Hkkjr la?k ;k dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fdlh foHkkx ;k

dk;kZy; ds fo#¼ gkftj ugha gksaxs] 25 uoEcj] 2014 ls rhu o"kZ

dh vof/ ds fy, ;k vxys vkns'k rd] buesa ls tks Hkh iwoZrj gks]

vij yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qfDr dh vof/ dk foLrkj

djrh gS %&&

Jh nhid ,u- lkYoh

Jherh iwf.kZek ,p- daFkkfj;k

Jh lanhi dk'khukFk f'kans

lqJh m"kk fouksn dstjhoky

Jh fefyan 'kkejko lkoar

Jherh fjcsdk xksalkyost+

Jh ';ke esgrk

(1)

(2)

(3)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

Jh ;ksxs'k eksjs'oj u[kok

Jh ftrsanz vkj- lksyadh

10-

Jh /S;Z'khy ,- ukykoMs+

¹iQk- la- 23(1)@2014&U;kf;dº

tks;k gkMds] la;qDr lfpo vkSj fof/ lykgdkj

MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

(Department of Legal Affairs)

New Delhi, the 31st December, 2014

S.O. 3.—In exercise of the power conferred by

sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 24 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central

Government hereby extends the term of appointment of

the following Advocates as Additional Public Prosecutor

for the purpose of conducting all criminal cases including

criminal writ petitions, criminal appeals, criminal revisions,

criminal references and criminal applications by or against

the Union of India or any Department or Office of the

Central Government in the High Court of Bombay and

other subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of High

Court of Bombay, with effect from 25^th day of November,

2014 for a period of three years or until further orders,

whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that these

advocates shall not appear against the Union of India or

any Department or Office of the Central Government in

any criminal case referred to above in the High Court of

Bombay and other subordinate courts within the

Jurisdiction of High Court of Bombay during the period

of their appointment, namely :-

Shri Deepak N. Salvi

Smt. Purnima H. Kantharia

Shri Sandeep Kashinath Shinde

Ms. Usha Vinod Kejriwal

Shri Milind Shamrao Sawant

Smt. Rebecca Gonsalves

Shri Shyam Mehta

Shri Yogesh Moreshwar Nakhwa

Shri Jitendra R. Solanki

10.

Shri Dhairyasheel A. Nalavade.

[F.No.23 (1)/2014-Judl.]

ZOYA HADKE, Jt. Secy. and Legal Adviser

fons'k ea=kky;

(lh ih oh izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 4-—jktuf;d vkSj dkSalqyj vkWfiQlj ('kiFk vkSj

iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 dh /kjk 2 ds [kaM (d) ds vuqlj.k

esa dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Jh vkbZ Mh jktw] lgk;d] Jh vkye

gqlSu] fuEu Js.kh fyfid] Jh uoy izHkkdj Fkify;ky] lgk;d]

Jh euh"k dqekj] lgk;d Jh lat; lgjkor] mPp Js.kh fyfid]

Jh g"kZ o/Zu lR; izdk'k] fuEu Js.kh fyfid] dks 26 fnlEcj

2014 ls Hkkjr ds dksalqykokl] nqcbZ esa dkSalqyj lsokvksa ds fy,

lgk;d dkSalqyj vf/dkjh izkf/d`r djrh gS A

¹la- Vh- 4330@1@2014º

izdk'k pUn] mi lfpo (dkSalqyj)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 26th December, 2014

S.O. 4.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the

Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths

and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government

hereby authorises (1) Shri I.D.Raju Assistant, (2) Shri Alam

Hussain, LDC, (3) Shri Naval Prabhakar Thapliyal,

Assistant, (4) Shri Manish Kumar, Assistant, (5) Shri Sanjay

Sahrawat, UDC, (6) Shri Harsha Wardhan Satya Prakash,

LDC, in Consulate General of India, Dubai to perform the

Consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect

from 26^th December 2014.

[No. T. 4330/01/2014]

PRAKASH CHAND, Dy. Secy. (Consular)

LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky;

(LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 5-—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn vf/fu;e] 1956

(1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls

ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh izFke

vuqlwph esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&&

mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ^^thokth fo'ofo|ky;** ds ckn

^^ts,l,l fo'ofo|ky;] eSlwj** tksM+k tk, rFkk ^^ts,l,l

fo'ofo|ky;] eSlwj** ds lkeus ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk*

¹dkye (2) esa] 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k

tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&&

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2)

(3)

cSpyj vkWiQ esfMflu

,e-ch-ch- ,l

vkSj cSpyj vkWiQ ltZjh

(;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk

gksxh ;fn ;g ts,l,l esfMdy dkWyst]

eSlwj] dukZVd] tgka okf"kZd izos'k {kerk

150 ,echch,l Nk=k gSa] esa izf'kf{kr

fd, tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa ts,l,l

fo'ofo|ky;] eSlwj] dukZVd }kjk

iQjojh 2013 esa vFkok mlds ckn iznku

dh xbZ gks)A

¹la- ;w- 12012@5@2014&,ebZ (ih&II)º

lq/hj dqekj] mi lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 10th September, 2014

S.O. 5.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government,

after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule

to the said Act, namely :—

In the said First Schedule after "Jivaji University"

"JSS University, Mysore" shall be added and against "JSS

University, Mysore under the heading 'Recognized Medical

Qualification' [in column (2)] and under the heading

'Abbreviation for Registration" [in column (3)], the following

shall be inserted, namely :—

(2)

(3)

Bachelor of Medicine

M.B.B.S.

and Bachelor of Surgery

(This shall be a recognized

medical qualification when

granted by JSS University,

Mysore, Karnataka in respect

of students being trained at JSS

Medical College, Mysore,

Karnataka with annual intake

of 150 MBBS students per year

on or after, February 2013.

[No. U. 12012/5/2014-ME (P-II)]

SUDHIR KUMAR, Dy. Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 16 flrEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 6-—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn vf/fu;e] 1956

(1956 dk 102) dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls

ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh izFke

vuqlwph esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %&&

mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ^^pkS/jh pj.k flag fo'ofo|ky;]

esjB** ds lkeus ^ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* ¹blds ckn dkye

(2) ds :i esa lUnfHkZra] 'kh"kZ ds varxZr vafre izfof"V rFkk mlls

lEcaf/r izfof"V ds ckn ^iathdj.k ds fy;s lf{kIr :i* ¹blds

ckn dkye (3) ds :i esa lanfHkZr] 'kh"kZd ds rgr fuEufyf[kr

dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&&

(2)

(3)

cSpyj vkWiQ eSfMflu

,e-ch-ch- ,l

,aM cSpyj vkWiQ ltZjh

(;g ekpZ 2013 esa ;k mlds ckn izfr

o"kZ 100 ,echch,l Nk=kksa ds okf"kZd

izos'k ds lkFk ljLorh fpfdRlk foKku

laLFkku] gkiqj] xkft;kckn esa izf'kf{kr

fd;s tk jgs Nk=kksa ds laca/ esa pkS/jh

pj.k flag fo'ofo|ky;] esjB }kjk

Lohd`r fd;s tkus ij ekU;rk izkIr

fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh)A

¹la- ;w- 12012@506@2006&,ebZ (ih&II)º

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 16th September, 2013

S.O. 6.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government,

after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule

to the said Act, namely :—

In the said First Schedule against "Ch. Charan Singh

University, Meerut, (Uttar Pradesh)" under the heading

'Recognized Medical Qualification' [in column (2)] and under

the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration" [in column (3)],

the following shall be inserted, namely :—

(2)

(3)

Bachelor of Medicine and

M.B.B.S.

Bachelor of Surgery

(This shall be a recognized

medical qualification when

granted by Ch. Charan Singh

University, Meerut, (Uttar

Pradesh) in respect of students

being trained at Saraswathi

Institute of Medical Sciences,

Hapur, Ghaziabad, Uttar

Pradesh on or after March, 2013

with annual intake of 100 MBBS

students per year on or after

March, 2013.

[No. U. 12012/506/2006-ME (P-II)]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky;

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 7-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykbZlsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa %µ

vuqlwph

Ø- ykblsal

LohÑfr djus dh

ykblsal/kjh dk uke

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkkek la- (Hkkx@vuqHkkx) %

la- la[;k

frfFk o"kZ@ekg

o irk

o"kZ

1- 4794790

2014-11-03

eSllZ fjyk;Ul iEIl ,u eksVlZ

xgjs dqvksa ds fy, fuEetuh;

IS 14220 : 1994

la- 4] 'kfDr uxj]

iEilsV

mfIiyhiky;e ikslV]

dks;EcÙkwj&641015

2- 4796087

2014-11-03

eSllZ Jh ofUtvEeu ,Dok iQkeZ

iSdstcan is; ty (iSdstcan

IS 14543 : 2004

lkbV la- 52] ,u- oh- ch- xkMZu]

feujy ty ds vykok)

eUxye jksM] psYye uxj]

fr:Iiqj&641687

3- 4797493

2014-11-11

eSllZ Jh jaxukrj iQqM izksMDV~l

iSdstcan is; ty (iSdstcan

IS 14543 : 2004

,.M baMLVªhl la- 175@2A2]

feujy ty ds vykok)

,e- iqnqiky;e]

iksfYydkyhiky;e iksLV]

nkjkiqje jksM

fr:Iiqj&641665

4- 4798394

2014-11-12

eSllZ t; vkUtus;k ,Dok iQkElZ

iSdstcan is; ty (iSdstcan

IS 14543 : 2004

lkbV la- 1@245A] vk'kku rksV~Ve]

feujy ty ds vykok)

dkyeiky;e xkWao] iksUxqiky;e iksLV]

is:euYyhj] fr:Iiqj&641666

5- 4798495

2014-11-12

eSllZ VsyUV bathfu;fjax (lhchbZ)

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr esa iquosZYyu

IS 2830 : 2012

izkbZosV fyfeVsM ,l ,iQ 475

ds fy, dkWcZu] <yokWa bLikr fcysV

dsEekuk;duiksy;e]

baxV] fcysV] Cywe ,oa LySc

dkjsxkSUMuiky;e] vUuwj ;wfu;u]

fr:Iiqj&641697

6- 4799396

2014-11-13

eSllZ Jh osVªhosy ,Dok izksMDV~l

iSdstcan is; ty (iSdstcan

IS 14543 : 2004

,l ,iQ la- 132@1] iYykrqj jksM+]

feujy ty ds vykok)

Vh ,u iky;e] okfuiqnqj xkWao]

xkschpsV~Vhiky;e]

bZjksM&638506

7- 4802258

2014-11-21

eSllZ gSMªksesDl baMLVªhl

lkiQ] BaMs ikuh ds fy,

IS 8472 : 1998

,l ,iQ la- 372@2] tksrh uxj]

vidsanzh; iqu:Riknd iEi

5 okWa lM+d] dks;EcÙkwj&641015

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8- 4801963

2014-11-21

eSllZ Jh ckykth feujYl

iSdstcan is; ty (iSdstcan

IS 14543 : 2004

64@1B] lkrEcqj dkye]

feujy ty ds vykok)

lkrEcqj fpfUu;eiky;e iksLV]

bZjksM&638104

9- 4805365

2014-11-21

eSllZ dsfou ds;j izkbZosV fyfeVsM

eykbZjfgr nw/ ikmMj&

IS 13334 (Part 1) :

,l,iQ la- 582] Hkokuh vfUr;wj

Hkkx 1&ekud xzsM

1998

eq[; lM+d] dUukMhiky;e iksLV]

Hkokuh rkyqd] bZjksM&638314

10- 4805264

2014-11-26

eSllZ bfUM;u fgVkph okVj iEil

xgjs dqvksa ds fy, fuEetuh;

IS 14220 : 1994

27, osUdVs'ojk uxj] CykWd]

iEilsV

rksV~Vhiky;e fifjoq] flfoy ,sjksMªkWe

iksLV] dks;EcÙkwj iwoZ rkyqd]

dks;EcÙkwj&641014

11- 4805567

2014-11-27

eSllZ bfUM;u fgVkph okVj iEil

d`~f"k ,oa ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,

IS 9097 : 2002

27, osUdVs'ojk uxj] CykWd]

lkiQ BaMs ikuh ds fctyh ds

rksV~Vhiky;e fifjoq] flfoy ,sjksMªkWe

eksukslsV iEIl

iksLV] dks;EcÙkwj iwoZ rkyqd]

dks;EcÙkwj&641014

12- 4806569

2014-11-28

eSllZ Jh okloh psbUl

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ/krq,a]

IS 1417 : 1999

564&569] fcx ckt+kj lM+d]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh&'kq¼rk ,oa

dks;EcÙkwj&641001

eqgjkadu

¹la- lh,eMh 13%11º

,e lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 26th December, 2014

S.O. 7.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the

following schedule :

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name and Address

Title of the Standard

IS No. Part/Sec. : Year

No.

Date

(Factory) of the party

4794790

2014.11.03

M/s. Reliance Pumps N Motors

Openwell Submersible

IS 14220 : 1994

No. 4, Sakthi Nagar,

Pumpsetrs

Uppilipalayam Post

Coimbatore-641015

4796087

2014.11.03

M/s. Sri Vanjiamman Aqua Farm

Packaged Drinking Water (other

IS 14543 : 2004

Site No. 52, N.V.B. Garden,

than Packaged Natural

Mangalam Road, Chellam Nagar,

Mineral Water)

Tirupur-641687

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

4797493

2014.11.11

M/s. Sree Ranganathar Food

Packaged Drinking Water (other

IS 14543 : 2004

Products and Industries

than Packaged Natural

No. 175/2A2, M. Pudhupalayam

Mineral Water)

Pollikalipalayam Post,

Dharapuram Road,

Tiruppur-641665

4798394

2014.11.12

M/s. Jai Anjaneya Aqua Farms

Packaged Drinking Water (other

IS 14543 : 2004

Site No. 1/245A, Ashan Thottam,

than Packaged Natural Mineral

Kalampalayam Village,

Water)

Pongupalayam (P.O.), Perumanallur,

Tiruppur-641666

4798495

2014.11.12

M/s. Talent Engineering (Cbe)

Covered electrodes for manual

IS 2830 : 2012

Pvt. Ltd. S. F. 475,

metal arc welding of carbon and

Kemmanaickenpalayam, Kare

carbon manganess steel

Goundenpalayam, Annur

(Union), Tiruppur-641697

4799396

2014.11.13

M/s. Sri Vetrivel Aqua Products

Packaged Drinking Water (other

IS 14543 : 2004

S. F. No. 132/1, Pallathur Road,

than Packaged Natural Mineral

T N Palayam, Vaniputhur Village

Water)

Gobichettipalayam,

Erode-638506

4802258

2014.11.21

M/s. Hydromax Industries

Centrifugal Regenerative pumps

IS 8472 : 1998

S. F. No. 372/2, Jothi Nagar,

for clear, cold water

5th Street, Coimbatore-641015

4801963

2014.11.21

M/s. Sri Balaji Minerals

Packaged Drinking Water (other

IS 14543 : 2004

64/1B, Sathambur Kalam

than Packaged Natural Mineral

Sathambur, Chinniyampalayam

Water)

(P.O.), Crode-638104

4805365

2014.11.21

M/s. Cavinkare Pvt Ltd.

Skimmed Milk Powder-Part-1

IS 13334(Part-I :

S. F. No. 582, Bhavani Anthiyur

Standard Grade

1998

Main Road, Kannadipalayam

(P.O.) Bhavani Taluk,

Erode-638304

10. 4805264

2014.11.26

M/s. Indian Hitachy Water

Openwell Submersible Pumpsets

IS 14220 : 1994

Pumps 27, Venkateshwara Nagar,

Block Thottipalayam Piruvu,

Civil Aerodome Post,

Coimbatore (North) Taluk,

Coimbatore-641014

11. 4805567

2014.11.27

M/s. Indian Hitachy Water

Electric Monoset Pumps for

IS 9079 : 2002

Pumps 27, Venkateshwara Nagar,

Clear, Cold Water for Agricultural

Block Thottipalayam Piruvu,

and Water Supply Purposes

Civil Aerodome Post,

Coimbatore (North) Taluk,

Coimbatore-641014

12. 4806569

2014.11.28

M/s. Sri Vasavi Chains

Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/

IS 1417 : 1999

564-569, Big Bazaar Street,

Artefacts-Fineness and Marking

Coimbatore-641001

¹No. CMD/13%11º

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 8-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;eu 5 ds mifofu;e (6) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZbZ xbZ rkjh[k ls jí@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gSa %µ

vuqlwph

Ø- la-

Ykkblsal la- lh,e@,y&

ykblsal/kjh dk uke o irk

LFkfxr fd, x,@jí fd, x, ykblsal

jí gksus dh

ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc¼ Hkkjrh;

frfFk

ekud dk 'kh"kZd

3 4

uoEcj 2014&'kwU;

¹la- lh,eMh 13%13º

,e lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 26th December, 2014

S.O. 8.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given

below have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence No.

Name and Address

Article/Process with relevant Indian Standard

Date of

No.

CM/L-

of the Licensee

covered by the licence cancelled/suspension

Cancellation

November 2014-Nil

¹No. CMD/13%13º

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head

dks;yk ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 29 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 9-&dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds

i'pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu Hkkjr ljdkj esa dks;yk ea=ky; ds }kjk tkjh dh xbZ

vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 747] rkjh[k 26 ekpZ] 2013 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= ds Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi[kaM ¼ii½] rkjh[k 30 ekpZ] 2013

esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa ftldk eki 204-710 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k

505-84 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ gS] dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nh Fkh ;

vkSj dzsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V mDr Hkwfe ds ,d Hkkx

esa dks;yk vfHkizkIr gS A

vr%] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 dh /kkjk 7 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq, blls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr 204-710 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 505-84 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki dh mDr Hkwfe dk vtZu

djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS;

fVIi.k 1 :— bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vkus okys {ks= ds js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ ch,lih@th,e¼Ikh,yth½@ Hkwfe@455] rkjh[k

26 ebZ] 2014 dk fujh{k.k dyDVj] ftyk& dksjck] NRrhlx<+ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml

LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] ¼jktLo vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM]

fcykliqj&495006 ¼NRrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA

fVIi.k 2 :— mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8 ds mica/kksa dh vksj è;ku vkd`"V fd;k tkrk gS] ftlesa fuEufyf[kr mica/k gS %&

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

vtZu ds ckcr~ vkifRr;k¡ %&

¼1½

dksbZ O;fDr tks fdlh Hkwfe esa ftldh ckcr~ /kkjk 7 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk fudkyh xbZ gS] fgrc) gS] vf/klwpuk ds fudkys

tkus ls rhl fnu ds Hkhrj lEiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds fdUgha vf/kdkjksa dk vtZu

fd, tkus ds ckjs esa vkifRr dj ldsxkA

Li"Vhdj.k-&

bl /kkjk ds vUrxZr ;g vkifRr ugha ekuh tk,xh fd dksbZ O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa dks;yk mRiknu ds fy, Loa; [kuu

lafØ;k,a djuk pkgrk gS vkSj ,slh lafØ;k,a dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k fdlh vU; O;fDr dks ugha djuh pkfg,A

¼2½

mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu izR;sd vkifRr l{ke vf/kdkjh dks fyf[kr :i esa dh tk,xh vkSj l{ke vf/kdkjh] vkifRrdrkZ

dks Lo;a lqus tkus] fof/k O;olk;h }kjk lquokbZ dk volj nsxk vkSj ,slh lHkh vkifRr;ksa dks lquus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ,slh

vfrfjDr tkWp] ;fn dksbZ gks] djus ds i'pkr] tks og vko';d le>rk gS] og ;k rks /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds

v/khu vf/klwfpr Hkwfe dk ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa ,d fjiksVZ ;k ,slh Hkwfe ds fofHkUu VqdMs+

;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa vkifRr;ksa ij viuh flQkfj'kksa vkSj mlds }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh

ds vfHkys[k lfgr fofHkUu fjiksVZa dsUnzh; ljdkj dks mlds fofu'p; ds fy, nsxkA

¼3½

bl /kkjk ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, og O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa fgrc) le>k tk,xk tks izfrdj esa fgr dk nkok djus dk

gdnkj gksxk] ;fn Hkwfe ;k fdlh ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkj bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vftZr dj fy, tkrs

gSaA

fVIi.k 3 :— dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II] /kkjk 3] mi&/kkjk ¼ii½] rkjh[k 4 vizSy] 1987 esa izdkf'kr vf/klwpuk

la[;kad dk-vk- 905] rkjh[k 20 ekpZ] 1987 }kjk dks;yk fu;a=d] 1]dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 dks

mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 ds v/khu l{ke izkf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA

vuqlwph

cxnsok dksy Cykd]

dksjck {ks=] ftyk dksjck ¼NRrhlx<+½

¼js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼ih,yth½@Hkwfe@455] rkjh[k 26 ebZ]2014½

Hkw&lrg vf/kdkj%

Øe

xzke dk

xzke

iVokjh gYdk

rglhy

ftyk

{ks= gsDVs;j

fVIi.k

la-

uke

la[;k

esa

y[kuiqj

ikSaMh mijksM+k

dksjck

38-992

Hkkx

fot;iqj

dV?kksjk

dksjck

136-908

Hkkx

tokyh

dV?kksjk

dksjck

4-379

Hkkx

vHk;iqj

dV?kksjk

dksjck

19-150

Hkkx

fla?kkyh

dV?kksjk

dksjck

5-281

Hkkx

dqy %& 204-710 gsDVs;j ¼yxHkx½ ;k 505-84 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

1- xzke y[kuiqj ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k%& 555(Hkkx), 556(Hkkx), 557]559(Hkkx), 562 ls 574]

575(Hkkx), 576(Hkkx), 577(Hkkx), 582(Hkkx) A

2- xzke fot;iqj ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k%& 1@1(Hkkx), 5(Hkkx), 6 ls 10]11(Hkkx), 12(Hkkx),13(Hkkx),

14 ls 19] 20(Hkkx), 56(Hkkx), 57] 58] 59(Hkkx), 60 ls 115] 116(Hkkx), 117 ls 151] 152(Hkkx), 153(Hkkx), 155(Hkkx), 159(Hkkx),

160 ls 211] 212(Hkkx), 224(Hkkx), 225 ls 229] 230(Hkkx), 231 ls 234] 235(Hkkx),236] 237(Hkkx), 238(Hkkx), 239(Hkkx),

242(Hkkx), 263(Hkkx),264] 265(Hkkx), 266 ls 425] 426@1(Hkkx), 426@2] 429(Hkkx),431(Hkkx),432 ls 437] 438(Hkkx),439(Hkkx),

439@2] 440 ls 449 A

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3- xzke tokyh ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k%& 12(Hkkx), 104(Hkkx), 105 ls

108] 109(Hkkx), 110

ls 114] 115(Hkkx), 118(Hkkx), 119(Hkkx), 120(Hkkx), 180(Hkkx) A

4- xzke vHk;iqj ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k%& 180(Hkkx), 226(Hkkx), 227 ls 231] 237] 238] 241 ls

284 A

5- xzke fla?kkyh ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k%& 1 ls 7] 8@1(Hkkx), 313(Hkkx),316(Hkkx),317(Hkkx),

318(Hkkx), 319] 320] 321(Hkkx), 326(Hkkx), 327(Hkkx), 328] 329(Hkkx), 330(Hkkx) A

lhek o.kZu %

d&[k

js[kk fcUnq **d** ls izkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fot;iqj ds IykV la[;kdksa 265] 263] 235] 238] 239] 237] 242] 230/2] 230/1]

224] 212] 159] 155] 152] 153] 116] 59] 56] 20] 13] 12/2] 12/1] 11] 1/1] 5 ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke fot;iqj ds mRrjh

lhek esa fcUnq **[k** ij feyrh gSA

[k&x

js[kk fcUnq **[k** ls izkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fot;iqj&vejiqj] y[kuiqj&vejiqj ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek] xzke y[kuiqj

ds IykV la[;kdksa 561] 559] 555 ds if'peh lhek] 556]555] 575] 576] 582] 577] 582 ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke fot;iqj&y[kuiqj

ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq **x** ij feyrh gSA

x&?k

js[kk fcUnq **x** ls izkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fot;iqj ds IykV la[;kdksa 407] 425] 426/1] 431] 429] 438] 439 ls xqtjrh

gqbZ xzke fot;iqj&tokyh ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq **?k** ij feyrh gSA

?k&³

js[kk fcUnq **?k** ls izkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke tokyh ds IykV la[;kd 109 ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke vHk;iqj esa izos'k dj IykV

la[;kad 180 ls gksdj IykV la[;kdksa 238] 241] 237] 230] 228] 227] ds iwohZ lhek] 226 ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke vHk;iqj&fla?kkyh

ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq **³** ij feyrh gSA

³&p

js[kk fcUnq **³** ls izkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fla?kkyh ds IykV la[;k 8@1] 313] 316] 317] 318] 321] 327] 326] 330] 329]

8@1 ls xqtjrh gqbZ xzke fla?kkyh&tokyh ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq **p** ij feyrh gSA

p&d

js[kk fcUnq **p** ls izkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke tokyh ds IykV la[;k 114 ds nf{k.kh lhek] 180] 115] 104] 118] 119] 120]

104] 12 ls xqtjrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq **d** ij feyrh gSA

[Qk-la- 43015@32@2012 & ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]

nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2014

S.O. 9.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 747, dated

the 26^th March, 2013, issued under 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) and published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-

section (ii), dated the 30^th March, 2013, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 204.710

hectares (approximately) or 505.84 acres (approximately) of the land in the locality specified in the Schedule annexed to

that notification;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands prescribed in

the Schedule appended to this notification.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land

measuring 204.710 hectares (approximately) or 505.84 acres (approximately) as surface rights in or over the said land

described in the Schedule appended hereto;

Note 1 :— The plan bearing number SECL/ BSP/ GM(PLG)/ LAND/ 455, dated the 26th May, 2014 of the area covered by

this notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector, District Korba, Chhattisgarh or in the office of

the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata - 700001 or in the office of the South Eastern Coalfields

Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh).

Note 2 :— Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows:-

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

Objection to acquisition:—

(1)

Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under section 7 has been issued, may,

within thirty days of the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land

or any rights in or over such land.

Explanation.— It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself desires

to undertake mining operation in the land for the production of coal and that such operations should not

be undertaken by the Central Government or by any other person.

(2)

Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing, and the competent

authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and

shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary,

either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or of

rights in or over such land, or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in

or over such land, to the Central Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together

with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government.

(3)

For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to

claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act.

Note 3 :— The Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 has been appointed by the Central Government

as the competent authority under Section 3 of the said Act, vide notification number S.O. 905, dated the 20^th

March, 1987, published in Part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the 4^th April, 1987.

SCHEDULE

Bagdewa Coal Block

Korba Area, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)

[Plan bearing number SECL/ BSP/ GM(PLG)/ LAND/ 455, dated the 26th May, 2014]

Surface Rights:

Sl.

Name of

Village

Patwari Halka

Tahsil

District

Area in

Remarks

No.

village

number

hectares

Lakhanpur

Pondi Uprora

Korba

38.992

Part

Bijaypur

Katghora

Korba

136.908

Part

Jawali

Katghora

Korba

4.379

Part

Abhaipur

Katghora

Korba

19.150

Part

Singhali

Katghora

Korba

5.281

Part

Total:—204.710 hectares (approximately) or 505.84 acres (approximately).

1. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Lakhanpur (Part):- 555(P), 556(P), 557, 559(P), 562 to 574, 575(P), 576(P),

577(P), 582(P).

2. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Bijaypur (Part):- 1/1(P), 5(P), 6 to 10, 11(P), 12(P), 13(P), 14 to 19, 20(P),

56(P), 57, 58, 59(P), 60 to 115, 116(P), 117 to 151, 152(P), 153(P), 155(P), 159(P), 160 to 211, 212(P), 224(P), 225 to 229, 230(P),

231 to 234, 235(P), 236, 237(P), 238(P), 239(P), 242(P), 263(P), 264, 265(P), 266 to 425, 426/1(P), 426/2, 429(P), 431(P), 432 to

437, 438(P), 439(P), 439/2, 440 to 449.

3. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Jawali (Part):- 12(P), 104(P), 105 to 108, 109(P), 110 to 114, 115(P), 118(P),

119(P), 120(P), 180(P).

4. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Abhaipur (Part):- 180(P), 226(P), 227 to 231, 237, 238, 241 to 284.

5. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Singhali (Part):- 1 to 7, 8/1(P), 313(P), 316(P), 317(P), 318(P), 319, 320,

321(P), 326(P), 327(P), 328, 329(P), 330(P).

Boundary description:—

A-B

Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes in village Bijaypur through plot numbers 265, 263, 235, 238, 239, 237, 242,

230/2, 230/1, 224, 212, 159, 155, 152, 153, 116, 59, 56, 20, 13, 12/2, 12/1, 11, 1/1, 5 and meets at point ‘B’ on the

northern boundary of village Bijaypur.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

B-C

Line starts from point ‘B’ and passes along partly common boundary of villages Bijaypur-Amarpur, Lakhanpur-

Amarpur, along western boundary of plot numbers 561, 559, 555, through 556, 555, 575, 576, 582, 577, 582 of

village Lakhanpur and meets at point ‘C’ on the common boundary of villages Bijaypur-Lakhanpur.

C-D

Line starts from point ‘C’ and passes in village Bijaypur through plot number 407, 425, 426/1, 431,429, 438, 439

and meets at point ‘D’ on the common boundary of villages Bijaypur-Jawali.

D-E

Line starts from point ‘D’ and passes in village Jawali through plot number 109 then enter in village Abhaipur and

passes through plot number 180, along eastern boundary of plot number 238, 241, 237, 230, 228, 227, through 226

and meets at point ‘E’ on the common boundary of villages Abhaipur-Singhali.

E-F

Line starts from point ‘E’ and passes in village Singhali through plot number 8/1, 313, 316, 317, 318, 321, 327, 326,

330, 329, 8/1 and meets at point ‘F’ on the common boundary of villages Singhali -Jawali.

F-A

Line starts from point ‘F’ and passes in village Jawali along southern boundary of plot number 114, through

180, 115, 104, 118, 119, 120, 104, 12 and meets at starting point ‘A’.

[F.No. 43015/32/2012-PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 10-&dsUnh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd blls mikc) vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr Hkwfe esa dks;yk vfHkizkIr fd;s

tkus dh laHkkouk gS;

bl vf/klwpuk ds vUrxZr vkus okys js[kkad la[;k jktLo@12@2014] rkjh[k 13 twu] 2014 dk fujh{k.k lsaVz~y

dksyQhYM+l fyfeVsM ¼Hkwfe vkSj jktLo foHkkx½] njHkaxk gkml] jk¡ph&834029 ¼>kj[kaM½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k egkizca/kd] lsaVªy

dksyQhYM+l fyfeVsM] jktjIik {ks=] ftyk jkex<+ ¼>kj[kaM½] mik;qDr] ftyk jkex<+] >kj[kaM ds dk;kZy; esa ;k egkizca/kd ¼[kkst

izHkkx½] dsUnzh; [kuu ;kstuk vkSj fMtkbu laLFkku] xksanokuk iSysl] dkads jksM] jk¡ph ¼>kj[kaM½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d]

1] dkmfly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700 001 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 ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~

mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr “kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ml Hkwfe esa dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k

djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gSA

mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) dksbZ O;fDr&

(i)

mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 dh mi /kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu dh xbZ dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ {kfr ;k laHkkfor {kfr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk

6 ds v/khu fdlh uqdlkuh ds fy, izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk; ;k

(ii)

mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu lekIr gks xbZ iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds laca/k esa ;k mDr vf/kfu;e

dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ ds v/khu lekIr gks x, [kuu iV~Vs ds fy, izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk vkSj mDr

vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM (i) ls [kaM ¼iv½ esa fofufnZ"V enksa ds laca/k esa mixr O;; dks minf’kZr

djus ds fy, mDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr lHkh ekufp=ksa] pkVksZa vkSj vU; nLrkost]

bl vf/klwpuk ds jkti= esa izdk’ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu ds Hkhrj egkizca/kd] lsaVªy dksyQhYMl fyfeVsM] jktjIik

{ks=] ftyk jkex<+ ¼>kj[kaM½ ;k egkizca/kd] lsaVªy dksyQhYMl fyfeVsM] Hkwfe vkSj jktLo foHkkx] njHkaxk gkml] jkaph& 834029

¼>kj[kaM½ dks lqiqnZ djsxkA

vuqlwph

dSFkk dks;yk [kuu CykWd

ftyk & jkex<+ ¼>kj[kaM½

¼ js[kkad la[;k jktLo@12@2014] rkjh[k 13 twu] 2014 ½

lHkh vf/kdkj %

Øe

ekStk@xzke

Fkkuk

Fkkuk la[;k

ftyk

{ks= ,dM+

{ks= gsDVs;j

fVIif.k;ka

la-

esa ¼yxHkx½

jkex<+

430-00

174-08

Hkkx

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

dSFkk

jkex<+

748-08

302-86

Hkkx

xkscj/kkjk

jkex<+

507-64

205-53

Hkkx

dqy {ks=%

1685-72

682-47

lhek o.kZu %

d&[k

js[kk] fcUnq ^d^ ls izkjEHk gksdj xzke jkex<+] dSFkk] xkscj/kkjk ds Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq ^[k^ ij feyrh gSA

[k&x

js[kk] xzke xkscj/kkjk ls xqtjrh tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^x^ ij feyrh gSA

x&d

js[kk] nkeksnj unh ds eè; js[kk ls xqtjrh gqbZ izkjfEHkd fcUnq ^d^ ij feyrh gSA

[Qk- la- 43015@10@2014&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]

nksfefud MqaxMqax, voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29^th December, 2014

S.O. 10.—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/12/2014, dated the 13^th June, 2014, of the area covered by this

notification may be inspected at the office of the Central Coalfields Limited (Land and Revenue Department), Darbhanga

House, Ranchi- 834029 (Jharkhand) or at the office of the General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Rajrappa Area,District

Ramgarh (Jharkhand), Deputy Commissioner, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand or at the office of the General Manager

(Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi (Jharkhand) or

at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata- 700 001.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development), Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government

hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in land described in the aforesaid Schedule.

Any person interested in the land described in the afore 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

taken 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) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act,

to the office of the General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Rajrappa Area, District Ramgarh (Jharkhand) or General

Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Land and Revenue Department, Darbhanga House, Ranchi- 834029 (Jharkhand)

within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the official gazette.

SCHEDULE

Kaitha Coal Mining Block

District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand)

(Plan bearing number Rev/12/2014, dated 13^th June, 2014)

All Rights :—

SI.

Mauja/Village

Thana

Thana number

District

Area(in acres)

Area(in hectares)

Remarks

No.

(approxi-mately)

Ramgarh

430.00

174.08

Part

Kaitha

Ramgarh

748.08

302.86

Part

Gobardhara

Ramgarh

507.64

205.53

Part

Total Area :

1685.72

682.47

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Boundary Description:

A-B

Line start from ‘A’ passes through part villages of Ramgarh, Khaitha Gobardhara and meets at Point ‘B’.

B-C

Line passes through Gobardhara village and meets at point ‘C’.

C-A

Line passes through centre line of Damodar river and meets at starting point ‘A’.

[F. No. 43015/10/2014-PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG , Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 11-&dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds

i'pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh vkSj Hkkjr ds jkti= Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi&[k.M

¼ii½ rkjh[k 11 tqykbZ] 2014 esa izdkf'kr Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk0 vk0 1822¼v½] rkjh[k 20 Qjojh]

2014 }kjk] ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe vkSj ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds Hkw&lrg vf/kdkjksa dk

vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nh Fkh;

vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS ;

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks iwoksZDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i’pkr~ vkSj NRrhlx<+ ljdkj ls iqu% ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~

;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd blls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr 593-330 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 1466-12 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki okyh Hkwfe vkSj

,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds ds Hkw&lrg vf/kdkj vftZr fd, tkus pkfg, ;

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e]1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ dh /kkjk 9 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½

}kjk iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g ?kks"k.k djrh gS fd blls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr 593-330 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k

1466-12 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki okyh Hkwfe vkSj ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds Hkw&lrg vf/kdkj vftZr fd, tkrs gSaA

bl vf/klwpuk ds vUrxZr vkus okys {ks= ds js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@ th,e¼ih,yth½@Hkwfe@457] rkjh[k

7 vxLr] 2014 dk fujh{k.k dysDVj] ftyk ljxqtk ¼NRrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkamfly gkml LVªhV]

dksydkrk&700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼jktLo vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM] fcykliqj &495006

¼NRrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA

vuqlwph

lsU/kksikjk&AA Cykd ¼egkek;k ;wth½] HkVxkao {ks=]

ftyk& ljxqtk ¼NRrhlx<+½

Hkw&lrg vf/kdkj%

¼d½ jktLo Hkwfe %

dze la- xzke dk uke

xzke la[;k

rglhy dk uke

ftyk dk uke

{ks= gsDVj esa

fVIi.kh

diljk

HkS;kFkku

ljxqtk

129.320

Hkkx

cjkS/kh

HkS;kFkku

ljxqtk

8.280

Hkkx

tjgh

izrkiiqj

ljxqtk

87.610

Hkkx

lsU/kksikjk

izrkiiqj

ljxqtk

86.790

Hkkx

nqjrh

izrkiiqj

ljxqtk

91.230

Hkkx

dqy % 403-230 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 996-38 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

¼[k½ jktLo ou Hkwfe ¼lhtsts@chtsts½%

dze la- xzke dk uke

xzke la[;k

rglhy dk uke

ftyk dk uke

{ks= gsDVj esa

fVIi.kh

diljk

HkS;kFkku

ljxqtk

7.520

Hkkx

cjkS/kh

HkS;kFkku

ljxqtk

0.600

Hkkx

tjgh

izrkiiqj

ljxqtk

31.910

Hkkx

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

lsU/kksikjk

izrkiiqj

ljxqtk

5.830

Hkkx

nqjrh

izrkiiqj

ljxqtk

72.950

Hkkx

dqy % 118-810 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 293-58 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

¼x½ vkjf{kr ou Hkwfe%

Ø- la-

dEikVZesaV la[;k

mi izHkkx

izHkkx

{ks= gsDVj esa

fVIi.kh

1681¼ih½

HkS;kFkku

nf{k.k ljxqtk

71-290

Hkkx

dqy % 71-290 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 176-16 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

dqy ;ksx¼d$[k$x½= 593-330 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 1466-12 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

1- xzke diljk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k% 230 ls 232] 236(Hkkx), 239 ls 246] 248] 249] 307] 314

ls 321] 334] 335] 337] 352 ls 356] 359] 360] 420] 517] 518] 520 ls 525] 528] 529(Hkkx), 530 ls 535] 542 ls 563] 710

ls 713] 732 ls 740] 743 ls 745] 747 ls 754] 757 ls 772] 774(Hkkx), 776] 876] 888 ls 912] 914] 967 ls 972] 989 ls 1246A

2- xzke cjkS/kh ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k% 48(Hkkx), ls 51(Hkkx), 53 ls 55] 56(Hkkx), 57] 58(Hkkx),

60(Hkkx), 68(Hkkx), 113(Hkkx), 115 ls 117] 118(Hkkx), ls 121(Hkkx), 123(Hkkx), 135(Hkkx), 139(Hkkx), 140(Hkkx), 142(Hkkx), 143]

144] 145(Hkkx), 146] 147(Hkkx), 162(Hkkx) A

3- xzke tjgh ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k% 105(Hkkx), 106 ls 174] 175(Hkkx), 182(Hkkx), 183 ls 282]

283(Hkkx), 284 ls 286] 287(Hkkx), 288] 289(Hkkx), 296(Hkkx), 353(Hkkx), 354] 355(Hkkx), 356 ls 361] 362(Hkkx), 363(Hkkx), 511

ls 537] 538(Hkkx), 540(Hkkx), 541(Hkkx), 542 ls 548] 549(Hkkx), 550(Hkkx), 598 ls 607 A

4- xzke lsU/kksikjk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k% 1(Hkkx), 3(Hkkx), 8(Hkkx), 12(Hkkx), 13(Hkkx), 14(Hkkx), 15

ls 25] 26(Hkkx), 30(Hkkx), 31(Hkkx), 33(Hkkx), 34 ls 36] 81 ls 88] 90 ls 94] 96 ls 99] 99/284] 100 ls 283 A

5- xzke nqjrh ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k% 601(Hkkx), 604(Hkkx), 605] 606] 607(Hkkx), ls 609(Hkkx), 610

ls 630] 631(Hkkx), 632(Hkkx), 633 ls 649] 650(Hkkx), 651(Hkkx), 1176(Hkkx), 1179(Hkkx), 1185(Hkkx), 1186 ls 1198] 1199(Hkkx),

1200(Hkkx), 1201 ls 1228] 1229(Hkkx) ls 1231(Hkkx), 1232 ls 1413] 1414(Hkkx), 1415 ls 1449] 1450(Hkkx) ls 1456(Hkkx),

1449(Hkkx) A

lhek o.kZu %

Cykd&A %

d&[k

js[kk fcUnq **d** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke diljk&cjkS/kh ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek] xzke diljk ds IykV la[;k 710

ds nf{k.kh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **[k** ij feyrh gSA

[k&x

js[kk fcUnq **[k** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke diljk ds IykV la[;k 713] 734] 732] 733] 739] 740]ls gksdj IykV la[;k

743] 745 ds if'peh lhek] 747 ls gksdj] 563 ds nf{k.kh] 528 ds nf{k.kh vkSj if'peh] 529 ls gksdj] 523] 524] 525

ds iwohZ] 525 ds nf{k.kh] 525] 524] 523] 520 ds if'peh lhek] 518 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **x** ij feyrh gSA

x&?k

js[kk fcUnq **x** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke diljk ds IykV la[;k 517/1 ds mRrjh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **?k** ij feyrh

gSA

?k&³

js[kk fcUnq **?k** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke diljk ds IykV la[;k 517@1] 517@2] 517@4] 531]532] 533] 535 ds iwohZ lhek]

542 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **³** ij feyrh gSA

³&p&d

js[kk fcUnq **³** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke diljk ds IykV la[;k 542 ds iwohZ] 543] 544] 545] 546 ds mRrjh] 547] 754]

757] fcUnq **p**] 763 ds iwohZ] 764] 765] 770] 771 ls gksdj] 776 ds mRrjh] iwohZ vkSj nf{k.kh] 772 ds iwohZ] 774 ds mRrjh

vkSj iwohZ lhek ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq **d** ij feyrh gSA

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Cykd&AA %

N&t

js[kk fcUnq **N** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke diljk&lsU/kksikjk ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek] xzke lsU/kksikjk ds IykV la[;k 1@1]

1@2] 36 ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **t** ij feyrh gSA

t&>

js[kk fcUnq **t** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke lsU/kksikjk ds IykV la[;k 3] 18 ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq

**>** ij feyrh gSA

>&´

js[kk fcUnq **>** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke lsU/kksikjk ds IykV la[;k 18] 17@1] 12] 13] 14] 8] 30] 31] 33 ls gksdj IykV

la[;k 34@3] 35] 139 ds mRrjh lhek] 136@1 ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **´** ij feyrh gSA

´&V

js[kk fcUnq **´** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke lsU/kksikjk ds IykV la[;k 136@1] 84] 83] 82 ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **V** ij feyrh

gSA

V&B

js[kk fcUnq **V** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke lsU/kksikjk ds IykV la[;k 82] 81] 86] 87] 88] 90] 91] 92] 93] 94] 96] 97@1 ls

gksdj xzke nqjrh esa izos'k dj IykV la[;k 1231] 1229] 1230] 1227] 1176] 1179] 1200]1199]1185] 650] 651] 632]

631] 604 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUn **B** ij feyrh gSA

B&M

js[kk fcUnq **B** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke nqjrh ds IykV la[;k 607] 601] 608] 609] 1414 ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **M** ij feyrh

gSA

M&<

js[kk fcUnq **M** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke nqjrh ds IykV la[;k 1414 ds iwohZ lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **<** ij feyrh gSA

<&.k

js[kk fcUnq **<** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke nqjrh ds IykV la[;k 1414]1453]1452]1451]1450]1454]1459]1455]1456] vkjf{kr

ou dEikVZesaV la[;k 1681 ls gksdj xzke tjgh esa

izos'k dj IykV la[;k 603] vkjf{kr ou dEikVZesaV la[;k 1681

ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **.k** ij feyrh gSA

.k&r

js[kk fcUnq **.k** ls vkjaHk gksdj vkjf{kr ou dEikVZesaV la[;k 1681 ls gksdj xzke tjgh esa izos'k dj IykV la[;k 605]

606] 607] 550] 545] 540] 541] 535] 538] 289 ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **r** ij feyrh gSA

r&Fk

js[kk fcUnq **r** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke tjgh ds IykV la[;k 289] 287] 283] 296] 283] 353] 355] 362] 363] 182] 175]

121] 105 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **Fk** ij feyrh gSA

Fk&n

js[kk fcUnq **Fk** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke tjgh ds IykV la[;k 105 ds Hkkxr% if'peh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **n** ij

feyrh gSA

n&/k

js[kk fcUnq **n** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke diljk ds IykV la[;k 902 ds Hkkxr% if'peh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **èk** ij

feyrh gSA

/k&N

js[kk fcUnq **/k** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke diljk ds IykV la[;k 876@1] 900 ls gksdj 900] 888 ds if'peh] 889] 244 ds

nf{k.kh] 245 ls gksdj] 246] 321 ds nf{k.kh] 320] 334] 335 ds iwohZ] 335 ds nf{k.kh] 307] 337 ls gksdj] 337 ds if'peh]

353] 352] 354] 420 ds nf{k.kh] 420 ds if'peh] mRrjh vkSj iwohZ] 360] 359 ls gksdj] 356] 353 ds mRrjh] 358 ds iwohZ]

307] 310] 249] 248 ls gksdj] 248] 319] 321 ds iwohZ] 246 ds mRrjh] 243 ds if'peh] 243] 240] 239] 238] 232] 236

ls gksdj] 236] 232] 231 ds iwohZ] 895 ds mRrjh] 230] 902] 914] 912 ls gksdj] 911] 989 ds mRrjh] 989] 990] 991]

996 ds iwohZ] 997] 972] 970 ds mRrjh] 969] 968] 967 ds if'peh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq **N** ij feyrh gSA

Cykd&AAA %

u&i

js[kk fcUnq **u** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke cjkS/kh ds IykV la[;k 147] 140@3] 142] 139] 135]118@6] 118@9] 119] 120

ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **i** ij feyrh gSA

i&Q

js[kk fcUnq **i** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke cjkS/kh ds IykV la[;k 120] 121@2] 123@2] 113 ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **Q** ij

feyrh gSA

Q&c

js[kk fcUnq **Q** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke cjkS/kh ds IykV la[;k 113] 60@9] 58] 60@2] 60@8] 56@1] 60@10] 51] 68]

50@1] 50@2] 50@3] 50@5] 49 ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq **c** ij feyrh gSA

c&u

js[kk fcUnq **c** ls vkjaHk gksdj xzke cjkS/kh ds IykV la[;k 49 ls gksdj] 50@2] 50@1]48@1] 53] 54] 60@1 ds mRrjh]

162@5] 144] 145] 147 ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq **u** ij feyrh gSA

[Qk-la- 43015@16@2011&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]

nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

New Delhi, the 30^th December, 2014

S.O. 11.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1822(E),

dated the 20th February, 2014, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India, Part II,

Section 3, sub-section (ii), dated the 11th July, 2014, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire 593.330

hectares (approximately) or 1466.12 acres (approximately) land as surface rights in or over such lands specified in the

Schedule appended to that notification;

And, whereas, the competent authority in pursuance of Section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the

Central Government;

And, whereas, the Central Government after considering the aforesaid report and after consulting the Government

of Chhattishgarh, is satisfied that the lands measuring 593.330 hectares (approximately) or 1466.12 acres (approximately)

as surface rights in or over such lands as described in Schedule appended hereto should be acquired;

Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act,1957, the Central Government hereby declares that the land measuring 593.330 hectares

(approximately) or 1466.12 acres (approximately) as surface rights in or over such lands as described in Schedule are

hereby acquired.

The plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM/(PLG)/LAND/ 457, dated the 7th August, 2014 of the area covered by

this notification may be inspected in the Office of the Collector, District Surguja (Chhattishgarh) or in the office of the Coal

Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata–700001 or in the Office of the South Eastern Coalfield Limited (Revenue

Section) Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh).

SCHEDULE

Sendhopara-II Block (Mahamaya UG), Bhatgaon Area,

District–Surguja (Chhattishgarh).

Surface Rights :

A. Revenue Land :

Sl. No. Name of village

Number of village

Name of Tahsil

Name of District

Area in hectares

Remarks

Kapsara

Bhaiyathan

Surguja

129.320

Part

Barudhi

Bhaiyathan

Surguja

8.280

Part

Jarhi

Pratappur

Surguja

87.610

Part

Sendhopara

Pratappur

Surguja

86.790

Part

Durti

Pratappur

Surguja

91.230

Part

Total:-403.230 hectares (approximately) or 996.38 acres (approximately)

B. Revenue Forest Land (CJJ/BJJ):

Sl. No. Name of village

Number of village

Name of Tahsil

Name of District

Area in hectares

Remarks

Kapsara

Bhaiyathan

Surguja

7.520

Part

Barudhi

Bhaiyathan

Surguja

0.600

Part

Jarhi

Pratappur

Surguja

31.910

Part

Sendhopara

Pratappur

Surguja

5.830

Part

Durti

Pratappur

Surguja

72.950

Part

Total:-118.810 hectares (approximately) or 293.58 acres (approximately)

C. Reserve Forest Land:

Sl. No.

Compartment number.

Sub Division

Division

Area in hectares

Remarks

1681(P)

Bhaiyathan

South Surguja

71.290

Part

Total:-71.290 hectares (approximately) or 176.16 acres (approximately)

Grand Total : (A+B+C)= 593.330 hectares (approximately) or 1466.12 acres (approximately)

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Kapsara(Part): 230 to 232, 236(P), 239 to 246, 248, 249, 307, 314 to 321, 334,

335, 337, 352 to 356, 359, 360, 420, 517, 518, 520 to 525, 528, 529(P), 530 to 535, 542 to 563, 710 to 713, 732 to 740, 743 to 745,

747 to 754, 757 to 772, 774(P), 776, 876, 888 to 912, 914, 967 to 972, 989 to 1246.

2. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Barudhi(Part): 48(P) to 51(P), 53 to 55, 56(P), 57, 58(P), 60(P), 68(P), 113(P),

115 to 117, 118(P) to 121(P), 123(P), 135(P), 139(P), 140(P), 142(P), 143, 144, 145(P), 146, 147(P), 162(P).

3. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Jarhi (Part): 105(P), 106 to 174, 175(P), 182(P), 183 to 282, 283(P), 284 to

286, 287(P), 288, 289(P), 296(P), 353(P), 354, 355(P), 356 to 361, 362(P), 363(P), 511 to 537, 538(P), 540(P), 541(P), 542 to 548,

549(P), 550(P), 598 to 607.

4. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Sendhopara (Part): 1(P), 3(P), 8(P), 12(P), 13(P), 14(P), 15 to 25, 26(P),

30(P), 31(P), 33(P), 34 to 36, 81 to 88, 90 to 94, 96 to 99, 99/284, 100 to 283.

5. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Durti(Part): 601(P), 604(P), 605, 606, 607(P) to 609(P), 610 to 630, 631(P),

632(P), 633 to 649, 650(P), 651(P), 1176(P), 1179(P), 1185(P), 1186 to 1198, 1199(P), 1200(P), 1201 to 1228, 1229(P) to 1231(P),

1232 to 1413, 1414(P), 1415 to 1449, 1450(P) to 1456(P), 1449(P).

Boundary description :

BLOCK-I :

A-B

Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes along partly common boundary of villages Kapsara-Barudhi, through

village Kapsara along southern boundary of plot number 710 and meets at point ‘B’.

B-C

Line starts from point ‘B’ and passes through village Kapsara through plot number 713, 734, 732, 733, 739, 740,

along western boundary of plot number 743, 745, through plot number 747, along southern boundary of plot

number 563, southern and western boundary of plot number 528, through 529, along eastern boundary of plot

number 523, 524, 525, southern boundary of plot number 525, western boundary of plot number 525, 524, 523,

520, through 518 and meets at point ‘C’.

C-D

Line starts from point ‘C’ and passes through village Kapsara along northern boundary of plot number 517/1

and meets at point ‘D’.

D-E

Line starts from point ‘D’ and passes through village Kapsara along eastern boundary of plot number 517/1,

517/2, 517/4, 531, 532, 533, 535, through 542 and meets at point ‘E’.

E-F-A

Line starts from point ‘E’ and passes through village Kapsara along eastern boundary of plot number 542,

northern boundary of plot number 543, 544, 545, 546, eastern boundary of plot number 547, 754, 757, point ‘F’,

763, through 764, 765, 770, 771, along northern, eastern and southern boundary of plot number 776, eastern

boundary of plot number 772, northern and eastern boundary of plot number 774 and meets at starting

point ‘A’.

BLOCK-II :

G-H

Line starts from point ‘G’ and passes along partly common boundary of villages Kapsara-Sendhopara, through

plot number 1/1, 1/2, 36 of village Sendhopara and meets at point ‘H’.

H-I

Line starts from point ‘H’ and passes through village Sendhopara through plot number 3, 18 and meets at

point ‘I’.

I-J

Line starts from point ‘I’ and passes through village Sendhopara through plot number 18, 17/1, 12, 13, 14, 8, 30,

31, 33, along northern boundary of plot number 34/3, 35, 139, through 136/1 and meets at point ‘J’.

J-K

Line starts from point ‘J’ and passes through village Sendhopara through plot number 136/1,84, 83, 82 and

meets at point ‘K’.

K-L

Line starts from point ‘H’ and passes through village Sendhopara through plot number 82, 81, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91,

92, 93, 94, 96, 97/1 then enter and passes through village Durti through plot number 1231, 1229, 1230, 1227,

1176, 1179, 1200, 1199, 1185, 650, 651, 632, 631, 604 and meets at point ‘L’.

L-M

Line starts from point ‘L’ and passes through village Durti through plot number 607, 601, 608, 609, 1414 and

meets at point ‘M’.

M-N

Line starts from point ‘M’ and passes through village Durti along eastern boundary of plot number 1414 and

meets at point ‘N’.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

N-O

Line starts from point ‘N’ and passes through village Durti through plot number 1414, 1453, 1452, 1451, 1450,

1454, 1459, 1455, 1456, Reserve Forest Compartment number 1681 then enter and passes through village Jarhi

through plot number 603, Reserve Forest Compartment number 1681 and meets at point ‘O’.

O-P

Line starts from point ‘O’ and passes through Reserve Forest Compartment number 1681, through village Jarhi

plot number 605, 606, 607, 550, 545, 540, 541, 535, 538, 289 and meets at point ‘P’.

P-Q

Line starts from point ‘P’ and passes through village Jarhi through plot number 289, 287, 283, 296, 283, 353, 355,

362, 363, 182, 175, 121, 105 and meets at point ‘Q’.

Q-R

Line starts from point ‘Q’ and passes through village Jarhi along partly western boundary of plot number 105

and meets at point ‘R’.

R-S

Line starts from point ‘R’ and passes through village Kapsara along partly western boundary of plot number

902 and meets at point ‘S’.

S-G

Line starts from point ‘S’ and passes through village Kapsara through plot number 876/1, 900, along western

boundary of plot number 900, 888, southern boundary of plot number 889, 244, through 245, southern boundary

of plot number 246, 321, eastern boundary of plot number 320, 334, 335, southern boundary of plot number 335,

through 307, 337, western boundary of plot number 337, southern boundary of plot number 353, 352, 354, 420,

western, northern and eastern boundary of plot number 420, through 360, 359, northern boundary of plot

number 356, 353, eastern boundary of plot number 358, through 307, 310, 249, 248, eastern boundary of plot

number 248, 319, 321, northern boundary of plot number 246, western boundary of plot number 243, through

243, 240, 239, 238, 232, 236, eastern boundary of plot number 236, 232, 231, northern boundary of plot number

895, through 230, 902, 914, 912, northern boundary of plot number 911, 989, eastern boundary of plot number

989, 990, 991, 996, northern boundary of plot number 997, 972, 970, western boundary of plot number 969,

968, 967 and meets at starting point ‘G’.

BLOCK-III :

T-U

Line starts from point ‘T’ and passes through village Barudhi through plot number 147, 140/3,142, 139, 135,

118/6, 118/9, 119, 120 and meets at point ‘U’.

U-V

Line starts from point ‘U’ and passes through village Barudhi through plot number 120, 121/2, 123/2, 113 and

meets at point ‘V’.

V-W

Line starts from point ‘V’ and passes through village Barudhi through plot number 113, 60/9, 58, 60/2, 60/8,

56/1, 60/10, 51, 68, 50/1, 50/2, 50/3, 50/5, 49 and meets at point ‘W’.

W-T

Line starts from point ‘W’ and passes through village Barudhi through plot number 49, along northern

boundary of plot number 50/2, 50/1, 48/1, 53, 54, 60/1, through 162/5, 144, 145, 147 and meets at starting point

‘T’.

[F.No. 43015/16/2011-PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 12-&dsUæh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dh /kkjk 20½ ¼ftls blesa

blds i’pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu Hkkjr ljdkj us dks;yk ea=ky; ds }kjk tkjh

dh xbZ vf/klwpuk la[;kad dk- vk- 451¼v½] rkjh[k 17 vDrwcj] 2012] tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi&[k.M ¼ii½]

rkjh[k 25 Qjojh] 2013 esa çdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] mDr vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa ftldk

eki 184-94 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 457-00 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ gS(

vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS] fd bl vf/klwpuk ls mikc) vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V mDr Hkwfe ds Hkkx esa

dks;yk çkI; gS(

vr %] vc] dsUæh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e] 1957 dh /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk çnRr 'kfDr;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,]

blls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kaZr 148-34 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 366-54 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki okyh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds lHkh vf/kdkj

ds vtZu djus dh] vius vk’k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS (

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fVIi.k 1 %& bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vkus okys {ks= ds js[kkad la[;k lh &1¼bZ½AAA@,Qvkj@908&0814] rkjh[k 8 vxLr] 2014

dks dyDVj] ukxiqj ¼egkjk"Vª½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&¼fiu&700001½

ds dk;kZy; esa ;k egkçca/kd ¼Hkwfe ,oa jktLo½] osLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] ¼jktLo foHkkx½ dksy bLVsV] flfoy

ykbZUl] ukxiqj & 440 001 ¼egkjk"Vª½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gS A

fVIi.k 2 %& mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8 ds mica/kksa dh vksj è;ku vkeaf=r fd;k tkrk gS] ftlesa fuEufyf[kr mica/k gSa %&

vtZu dh ckcr~ vkifÙk;ka- &

8 ¼1½

dksbZ O;fDr] tks fdlh Hkwfe esa] ftldh ckcr~ /kkjk 7 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk fudkyh xbZ gS] fgrc) gS] vf/klwpuk ds fudkys

tkus ls rhl fnu ds Hkhrj lEiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds fdUgha vf/kdkjksa dk vtZu

fd, tkus ds ckjs esa vkifÙk dj ldsxk A

Li"Vhdj.k %&

¼1½

bl /kkjk ds vFkkZUrxZr ;g vkifÙk ugha ekuh tk,xh] fd dksbZ O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa dks;yk mRiknu ds fy, Lo;a [kuu

lafØ;k,a djuk pkgrk gS vkSj ,slh lafØ;k,a dsUæh; ljdkj ;k fdlh vU; O;fDr dks ugha djuh pkfg,A

¼2½

mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu çR;sd vkifÙk l{ke vf/kdkjh dks fyf[kr :i esa dh tk,xh vkSj l{ke çkf/kdkjh vkifÙkdrkZ

dks Lo;a lqus tkus dk ;k fof/k O;olk;h }kjk lquokbZ dk volj nsxk vkSj ,slh lHkh vkifÙk;ksa dks lquus ds i'kpkr~

vkSj ,slh vfrfjDr tkap] ;fn dksbZ gks] djus ds i’pkr~ tks og vko’;d le>rk gS] og ;k rks /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk

¼1½ ds v/khu vf/klwfpr Hkwfe ds ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa ,d fjiksVZ ;k ,slh Hkwfe ds fofHkUu

VqdM+ksa ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa vkifÙk;ksa ij viuh flQkfj’kksa vkSj mlds }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh

ds vfHkys[k lfgr fofHkUu fjiksVZ dsUæh; ljdkj dks mlds fofu’p; ds fy, nsxk A

¼3½

bl /kkjk ds ç;kstuksa ds fy, og O;Dfr fdlh Hkwfe esa fgrc) le>k tk,xk tks çfrdj esa fgr dk nkok djus dk gdnkj

gksrk] ;fn Hkwfe ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkj bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vftZr dj fy, tkrs A

fVIi.k 1 %& dsUæh; ljdkj us dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk & 700 001 dks mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3

ds v/khu vf/klwpuk la[;kad dk- vk- 2519] rkjh[k 27 ebZ] 1983 }kjk Hkkjr ljdkj ds jkti= Hkkx&AA] [kaM& 3]

mi&[kaM ¼ii½] rkjh[k 11 twu] 1983 }kjk çdkf'kr dks l{ke çkf/kdkjh }kjk fu;qDr fd;k x;k gS A

vuqlwph

dkeBh Mhi vksiudkLV ekbZu

ukxiqj {ks=

ftyk ukxiqj ¼egkjk"Vª½

[js[kkad la[;kad lh&1¼bZ½AAA@,Qvkj@908&0814] rkjh[k 8 vxLr] 2014]

^Hkkx & 1*

lHkh vf/kdkj %&&

Øa-

xzke dk

iVokjh

rglhy

ftyk

{ks= ¼gsDVj esa½

dqy

fVIif.k;ka

la-

uke

lfdZy la-

futh

ljdkjh

xksaMsxkao

ikjf’kouh

ukxiqj

37-02

1-87

38-89

Hkkx

ojkM+k

ikjf’kouh

ukxiqj

65-18

2-24

67-42

Hkkx

dqy %

102-20

4-11

106-31

dqy {ks= % 106-31 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 262-69 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

xzke xksaMsxkao esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kad %

102@1d@1& 102@1 d @2& 102@1 d @3& 102@1[k@1& 102@1[k@2& 102@1[k@3& 102@2& 102@3]

103] 104@1& 104@2] 105@1& 105@2] 106@1& 106@2& 106@3] 107] 108@1& 108@2& 108@3] 109@1& 109@2&

109@3] 110@1& 110@2& 110@3& 110@4& 110@5] 111@1& 111@2] 112] 113 ¼xzke iapk;r] xksaMsxkao½] 133] 134] 137@1&

137@2] 138] lM+d A

xzke ojkMk esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kad %

210@1& 210@2] 211] 212] 213] 214] 215] 216] 217] 218@1& 218@2] 221] 227] 228@1& 228@2] 242] 244] 245]

246] 247] 248] 249] 250] 251] 252@1d] 252@1[k] 252@2] 253@1& 253@2] 254@1& 254@2] 255@1& 255@2] 256] 257]

258] 259] 260@1& 260@2d& 260@2[k] 261] 262] 263@1& 263@2d& 263@2[k] 264 ¼Hkkx½] 267@1& 267@2] 268@1d&

268@1[k& 268@2d& 268@2[k& 268@2x] 269@1& 269@2& 269@3& 269@4] 270@1d@1& 270@1d@2& 270@1[k&

270@2] 271@1& 271@2& 271@3] 272@1& 272@2] 273] 275] 276] 305@1& 305@2] 337 ¼Hkkx½] 347] 348] 374] lM+d A

lhek o.kZu %

d & [k %

js[kk] xzke ojkM+k esa fcUnq ^d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj IykV la[;kad 276] 275 dh cká lhek ls yxdj xqtjrh gS fQj

lM+d ikj djrh gS A iqu% IykV la[;k 273 dh cká lhek ls yxdj xqtjrh gS fQj iqu% lM+d ikj djrh gS vkSj

IykV la[;kad 305@2] 305@1 dh cká lhek ls yxdj xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^d* ij feyrh gS A

[k & x %

js[kk] IykV la[;kad 267@1& 267@2] 374] 337 dh cká lhek ls yxdj xqtjrh gS fQj js[kk IykV la[;kad 264]

337 ls gksdj xqtjrh gS] fQj js[kk IykV la[;kad 263@2d& 263@2[k dh cká lhek ls yxdj xqtjrh gS vkSj lM+d

ikj djrh gS fQj js[kk iqu% IykV la[;kad 244] 242] 228@1& 228@2] 227] 221 dh cká lhek ls yxdj xqtjrh

gS vkSj fcUnq ^x* ij feyrh gS A

x & ?k %

js[kk] IykV la[;kad 271] 218@1& 218@2] 215] 210@1& 210@2 dh cká lhek ls yxdj xqtjrh gS fQj xzke ojkM+k

vkSj xzke xksaMsxkao dh lfEefyr xzke lhek dks ikj djrh gS fQj js[kk xzke xksaMsxkao ls IykV la[;kad 106@1& 106@2&

106@3] 107] 108@1& 108@2& 108@3] 109@1& 109@2& 109@3] dh cká lhek ls yxdj xqtjrh gS fQj lM+d

ikj djrh gS vkSj IykV la[;k 138 dh cká lhek ij fcUnq ^?k* ij feyrh gS A

?k & M- %

js[kk] IykV la[;kad 137@1& 137@2] 134] 133 dh cká lhek ls yxdj xqtjrh gS fQj lM+d ikj djrh gS vkSj

IykV la[;k 112 ij fcUnq ^M-* ij feyrh gS A

M- & p %

js[kk] IykV la[;kad 113] 111@1& 111@2] 102@1d@1& 102@1d@2& 102@1d@3& 102@1[k@1& 102@1[k@2&

102@1[k@3& 102@2& 102@3 dh cká lhek ls yxdj xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^p* ij feyrh gS A

p & d %

js[kk] lM+d ikj djrh gS fQj js[kk xzke xksaMsxkao ,oa xzke ojkM+k dh lfEefyr xzke lhek ls yxdj] mlh rjg IykV

la[;kad 256] 270@2] 270@1d@1& 270@1d@2& 270@1[k] 271@1& 271@2& 271@3] 276 dh cká lhek ls

yxdj xqtjrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq ^d* ij feyrh gS A

^Hkkx & 2*

Øa-

xzke dk

iVokjh

rglhy

ftyk

{ks= ¼gsDVj esa½

dqy

fVIif.k;ka

la-

uke

lfdZy la-

futh

ljdkjh

VsdkM+h

ikjf’kouh

ukxiqj

10-85

Hkkx

dqy %

10-85

dqy {ks= % 10-85 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 26-81 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

xzke VsdkM+h esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kad %

474@1& 474@2] 484@1& 484@2& 484@3] 485@1& 485@2& 485@3& 485@4] 486] 487@1& 487@2] 488@1& 488@2]

489-

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lhek o.kZu %

N&t&>&N % js[kk] xzke VsdkM+h esa fcUnq ^N* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^t* & ^>* ds ikl ls xqtjrh gqbZ IykV la[;kad 474@1&

474@2] 486] 485@1& 485@2& 485@3& 485@4] 484@1& 484@2& 484@3 dh cká lhek ls yxdj xqtjrh

gS fQj iqu% IykV la[;kad 485@1& 485@2& 485@3& 485@4] 489] 488@1& 488@2] 487@1& 487@2] 486

dh cká lhek ls yxdj xqtjrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq ^N* ij feyrh gS A

^Hkkx & 3*

Øa-

xzke dk

iVokjh

rglhy

ftyk

{ks= ¼gsDVj esa½

dqy

fVIif.k;ka

la-

uke

lfdZy la-

futh

ljdkjh

VsdkM+h

ikjf’kouh

ukxiqj

2-56

8-27

10-83

Hkkx

dqy %

10-83

dqy {ks= % 10-83 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 26-76 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

xzke VsdkM+h esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kad %

611 ¼u>qy½] 612] 613 ¼xzke iapk;r] VsdkM+h½] lM+d A

lhek o.kZu %

¥&V&B&¥ % js[kk] xzke VsdkM+h esa fcUnq ^¥* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^V*&^B* ds ikl ls xqtjrh gqbZ IykV la[;kad 613 ¼ljdkjh½]

612] 611 ¼ljdkjh½ dh cká lhek ls yxdj xqtjrh gS fQj js[kk IykV la[;kad 612] 613 ¼ljdkjh½ dh cká lhek

ls yxdj xqtjrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq ^¥* ij feyrh gS A

^Hkkx & 4*

Øa-

xzke dk

iVokjh

rglhy

ftyk

{ks= ¼gsDVj esa½

dqy

fVIif.k;ka

la-

uke

lfdZy la-

futh

ljdkjh

VsdkM+h

ikjf’kouh

ukxiqj

17-35

Hkkx

dqy %

17-35

dqy {ks= % 17-35 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 42-87 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

xzke VsdkM+h esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kad %

599@1& 599@2] 601@1& 601@2] 602] 608@1& 608@2& 608@3] 674-

lhek o.kZu %

M&<+&.k&r&M % js[kk xzke VsdkM+h esa fcUnq ^M* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^<+*&^.k*&^r* ds ikl ls xqtjrh gqbZ IykV la[;kad 674]

608@1& 608@2& 608@3] 602] 599@1& 599@2] 601@1& 601@2 dh cká lhek ls yxdj xqtjrh gS fQj

js[kk IykV la[;k 674 dh cká lhek ls yxdj xqtjrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq ^M* ij feyrh gS A

^Hkkx & 5*

Øa-

xzke dk

iVokjh

rglhy

ftyk

{ks= ¼gsDVj esa½

dqy

fVIif.k;ka

la-

uke

lfdZy la-

futh

ljdkjh

fiijh ¼dUgku½

ikjf’kouh

ukxiqj

3-00

Hkkx

dqy %

3-00

dqy {ks= % 3-00 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 7-41 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

xzke VsdkM+h esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kad %

50@1& 50@2& 50@3& 50@4& 50@5-

lhek o.kZu %

Fk&n&/k&Fk %

js[kk xzke ihijh ¼dUgku½ esa fcUnq ^Fk* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^n*&^/k* ds ikl ls xqtjrh gqbZ IykV la[;kad 50@1&

50@2& 50@3& 50@4& 50@5 dh cká lhek ls yxdj xqtjrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq ^Fk* ij feyrh gS A

Hkkx ^1* $ Hkkx ‘^2* $ Hkkx ^3* $ Hkkx ^4* $ Hkkx ^5*¾ dqy {ks=

106-31$+10-85+$10-83$+17-35$3-00 ¾ 148-34 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k

262-69$+26-81$+26-76+$42-87$7-41 ¾ 366-54 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

[Qk- la- 43015@8@2012 & ihvkjvkbZMCY;w & I]

nksfefud MqaxMqax] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30^th December, 2014

S. O. 12.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S. O. 451(E),

dated the 17^th October, 2012, issued under 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) and published in the Gazette of India, Part II,

Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 25^th February, 2013, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect

for coal in 184.94 hectares (approximately) or 457.00 acres (approximately) of the land in the locality specified in the

Schedule annexed to that notification ;

And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands prescribed in

the Schedule appended to this notification ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire all rights in or over the land measuring 148.34 hectares

(approximately) or 366.54 acres (approximately) described in the Schedule appended hereto.

Note 1:—

The plan bearing number C-1(E)III/FR/908-0814, dated the 8^th August, 2014 of the area covered by this

notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector, Nagpur (Maharashtra) or in the office of the Coal

Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata (Pin - 700 001) or in the office of the General Manager, Western

Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department), Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440 001 (Maharashtra).

Note 2:—

Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of Section 8 of the aforesaid Act which provides as follows :-

Objections to acquisition.-

8 (1)

Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under Section 7 has been issued, may,

within thirty days of the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land

or of any rights in or over such land.

Explanation :—

(1)

It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself desires to

undertake mining operations in the land for the production of coal and that such operations should not be

undertaken by the Central Government or by any other person.

(2)

Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing, and the competent

authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and

shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary,

either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 or of

rights in or over such land, or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in

or over such land, to the Central Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together

with the record of proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(3)

For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to

claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act.

Note 3:—

The Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700 001 has been appointed by the Central

Government as the competent authority under Section 3 of the said Act, vide notification number S. O. 2519

dated the 27th May, 1983, published in Part- II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the

11th June, 1983.

SCHEDULE

KAMPTEE DEEP OPEN CAST MINE

NAGPUR AREA

DISTRICT NAGPUR (MAHARASHTRA)

“ PART – 1"

(Plan bearing number C-1(E)III/FR/908-0814, dated the 8^th August, 2014)

All Rights :

Sl.

Name of

Patwari circle

Tahsil

District

Area (In hectares)

Total Remarks

No.

Village

number

Tenancy Government Forest

Gondegaon

Parseoni

Nagpur

37.02

1.87

38.89 Part

Warada

Parseoni

Nagpur

65.18

2.24

67.42 Part

TOTAL :

102.20

4.11

106.31

Total area : 106.31 hectares (approximately) or 262.69 acres (approximately)

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Gondegaon :

102/1A/1- 102/1A/2- 102/1A/3- 102/1B/1- 102/1B/2- 102/1B/3- 102/2- 102/3, 103, 104/1- 104/2, 105/1- 105/2, 106/1-

106/2- 106/3, 107, 108/1- 108/2- 108/3, 109/1- 109/2- 109/3, 110/1- 110/2- 110/3- 110/4- 110/5, 111/1- 111/2, 112, 113 (Gram

Panchayat, Gondegaon), 133, 134, 137/1- 137/2, 138, Road.

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Warada :

210/1- 210/2, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218/1- 218/2, 221, 227, 228/1- 228/2, 242, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249,

250, 251, 252/1A, 252/1B, 252/2, 253/1- 253/2, 254/1- 254/2, 255/1- 255/2, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260/1- 260/2A- 260/2B, 261, 262,

263/1- 263/2A- 263/2B, 264 (Part), 267/1- 267/2, 268/1A- 268/1B- 268/2A- 268/2B- 268/2C, 269/1- 269/2- 269/3- 269/4, 270/1A/

1- 270/1A/2- 270/1B- 270/2, 271/1- 271/2- 271/3, 272/1- 272/2, 273, 275, 276, 305/1- 305/2, 337 (Part), 347, 348, 374, Road.

Boundary description :

A – B :

Line starts from Point ‘A’ in village Warada and passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 276, 275,

then crosses road, again passes along the outer boundary of plot number 273, then again crosses road, and

passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 305/2, 305/1 and meets at Point ‘B’.

B – C :

Line passes along the plot numbers 267/1- 267/2, 374, 337, then line passes through plot numbers 264, 337,then

line passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 263/2A- 263/2B, crosses road, then line again passes

along the outer boundary of plot numbers 244, 242, 228/1- 228/2, 227, 221 and meets at Point ‘C’.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

C – D :

Line passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 271, 218/1- 218/2, 215, 210/1- 210/2, then crosses

common village boundary of villages Warada and Gondegaon, then line passes through village Gondegaon

along the outer boundary of plot numbers 106/1- 106/2- 106/3, 107, 108/1- 108/2- 108/3, 109/1- 109/2- 109/3, then

crosses road and meets at Point ‘D’ on outer boundary of plot number 138.

D – E :

Line passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 137/1- 137/2, 134, 133, then crosses road and meets at

Point ‘D’ on plot number 112.

E – F :

Line passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 113, 111/1- 111/2, 102/1A/1- 102/1A/2- 102/1A/3- 102/

1B/1- 102/1B/2- 102/1B/3- 102/2- 102/3 and meets at Point ‘F’ on common village boundary of villages Gondegaon

and Warada.

F – A :

Line crosses road, then line passes along the common village boundary of villages Gondegaon and Warada

as well as the outer boundary of plot bumbers 256, 270/2, 270/1A/1- 270/1A/2- 270/1B, 271/1- 271/2- 271/3, 276

and meets at starting Point ‘A’.

“ PART – 2"

Sl.

Name of

Patwari circle

Tahsil

District

Area (In hectares)

Total Remarks

No.

Village

number

Tenancy Government Forest

Tekadi

Parseoni

Nagpur

10.85

10.85 Part

TOTAL :

10.85

Total area : 10.85 hectares (approximately) or 26.81 acres (approximately)

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Tekadi :

474/1- 474/2, 484/1- 484/2- 484/3, 485/1- 485/2- 485/3- 485/4, 486, 487/1- 487/2, 488/1- 488/2, 489.

Boundary description :

G-H-I-G :

Line starts from Point ‘G’ in village Tekadi and passes nearby Point ‘H’ – ‘I’ along the outer boundary of plot

numbers 474/1- 474/2, 486, 485/1- 485/2- 485/3- 485/4, 484/1- 484/2- 484/3, then again 485/1- 485/2- 485/3-

485/4, 489, 488/1- 488/2, 487/1- 487/2, 486 and meets at starting Point ‘G’.

“ PART – 3 “

Sl.

Name of

Patwari circle

Tahsil

District

Area (In hectares)

Total Remarks

No.

Village

number

Tenancy Government Forest

Tekadi

Parseoni

Nagpur

2.56

8.27

10.83 Part

TOTAL :

2.56

8.27

10.83

Total area : 10.83 hectares (approximately) or 26.76 acres(approximately)

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Tekadi :

611 (Nazul), 612, 613 (Gram Panchayat, Tekadi), Road.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Boundary description :

J-K-L-J :

Line passes through village Tekadi and passes nearby Point ‘K’ – ‘L’ along the outer boundary of plot

numbers 613 (Government), 612, 611 (Government), line again passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers

612, 613 (Government) and meets at starting Point ‘J’.

“ PART – 4"

Sl.

Name of

Patwari circle

Tahsil

District

Area (In hectares)

Total Remarks

No.

Village

number

Tenancy Government Forest

Tekadi

Parseoni

Nagpur

17.35

17.35 Part

TOTAL :

17.35

Total area : 17.35 hectares (approximately) or 42.87 acres (approximately)

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Tekadi :

599/1- 599/2, 601/1- 601/2, 602, 608/1- 608/2- 608/3, 674.

Boundary description :

M-N-O-P-M : Line passes through village Tekadi and passes nearby Point ‘N’ – ‘O’ – ‘P’ along the outer boundary of plot

numbers 674, 608/1- 608/2- 608/3, 602, 599/1- 599/2, 601/1- 601/2, line again passes along the outer boundary

of plot number 674 and meets at starting Point ‘M’.

“ PART – 5"

Sl.

Name of

Patwari circle

Tahsil

District

Area (In hectares)

Total Remarks

No.

Village

number

Tenancy Government Forest

Pipri (Kanhan)

Parseoni

Nagpur

3.00

Part

TOTAL :

3.00

Total area : 3.00 hectares (approximately) or 7.41 acres (approximately)

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Pipri (Kanhan) :

50/1- 50/2- 50/3- 50/4- 50/5.

Boundary description :

Q-R-S-Q :

Line passes through village Pipri (Kanhan) and passes nearby Point ‘R’ – ‘S’ along the outer boundary

of plot numbers 50/1- 50/2- 50/3- 50/4- 50/5 and meets at starting Point ‘Q’.

Part ‘1’ + Part ‘2’ + Part ‘3’ + Part ‘4’ + Part ‘5’ = Total Area

106.31 + 10.85 + 10.83 + 17.35 + 3.00 = 148.34 hectares (approximately) or

262.69 + 26.81 + 26.76 + 42.87 + 7.41 = 366.54 acres (approximately)

[F. No. 43015/8/2012- PRIW - I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 13-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM] iVuk ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2 /uckn ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 189@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 22@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@28@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LOBOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2014

S.O.

13.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 189/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Ltd., Patna and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 22/12/2014.

[No. L-40011/28/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, 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. 189 OF 2013.

PARTIES :

The President,

BSNL Casual Shramik Sangh,

Dulhin Bazar Belhouri, Patna, Bihar

Vs.

Chief General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Patna Telecom Circle, Patna.

Ministry’s Order No L-40011/28/2013-IR(DU) dt. 06.08.2013

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/:

None.

Union

On behalf of the

Mr.

Sushil

Prasad

Management

Ld. Adv.

State : Bihar

Industry : Telecom

Dhanbad, the 13^th November, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them 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-40011/28/2013-IR(DU) dt. 06.08.2013.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Patna, in terminating the

services of Shri Ranjeet Kumar w.e.f. 01.02.2012 is

legal and justified? To what relief he workman

concerned is entitled to?”

Neither the Union Representative for the BSNL

Casual Sharmik Sangh nor workman Ranjeet Kumar

appeared nor any written statement with any documents

of the workman filed on his behalf.Mr.Sushil Prasad, the

Ld.Advocate for the OP/Management is also absent.

On perusal of the case record, it is evident that

despite three Regd.notices dtt. 30.1.2014, 11.6.2014 and

24.09.2014 having been issued to the President of the

aforesaid Sangh on his address as noted in the Reference

itself, no written statement along with any documents filed

on behalf of the Union Representative or the workman.

The case has all along been pending from very beginning

for it. The negligent conducts of the Union Representative

as well as the workman show and indicate their reluctance

in pursuing the case for its finality. It appears that there is

no longer any Industrial dispute for adjudication. Under

these circumstances, the case is closed as no I.D. and

accordingly an order of “No Dispute” is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 14-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM] iVuk ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] /uckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 193@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 22@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@45@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2014

S.O.

14.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 193/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in relation to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Ltd., and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 22/12/2014.

[No. L-40012/45/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, 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. 193 OF 2013.

PARTIES :

Sri Ramakant Prasad.

S/o Laldeo Shah, Resident of Mohalla

Nawatola, PO: Shormpur,

PS: Janipur, Patna

Vs.

Chief General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Patna Telecom Circle,

Patna.

Ministry’s Order No L-40012/45/2013-IR (DU) dt. 26.08.2013

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

None

workman/Union

On behalf of the

Mr. Sushil Prasad Ld. Adv.

Management

State : Bihar

Industry : Telecom

Dhanbad, the 13^th November, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them 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-40012/45/2013-IR (DU) dt. 26.08.2013.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Patna, in terminating the

services of Shri Ramakant Prasad, workman is legal

and justified? To what relief the workman concerned

is entitled to?”

Neither workman Ramakant Prasad appeared nor

his written statement along with his any documents

filed on his behalf.Mr.Sushil Prasad,Ld.Advocate for

OP/Management of BSNL,Patna is also absent.

On going through the case record, it stands clear

that the case has been pending all along right from very

beginning for filing a written statement with documents of

the workman. But the workman did not appear nor filed it

even after three Regd.Notices dtt.3.2.2014, 11.6.2014 and

24.09.2014 having been issued to the workman on his

address as noted in the Reference itself. It appears that

the workman by his willful negligence appears to be quite

uninterested in pursuing his own case for his cause of

alleged termination of his service. It appears to be no longer

an Industrial Dispute.Hence, the case is closed as no I.D.

and accordingly, an order of ‘No Dispute’ is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 15-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsUnzh;

Hk.Mkj.k fuxe] iapdqyk ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1 paMhx<

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 277@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@171@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2014

S.O.

15.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 277/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Central Warehousing

Corporation, Panchkula, and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 22/12/2014.

[No. L-42012/171/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Case No. ID No. 277 of 2013, Reference no. L-42012/171/

2013/IR(DU) dated 26.2.2014

Sh. Satta Ram

son of Shri Banarsi Ram,

Village &PO Mohal Khera,

Tehsil Narwana,

Jind (Haryana)

...Workman

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Chandigarh Region,

Bay No. 35-38, Sector -4,

Panchkula (Haryana) - 134112

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

None.

For the Management

Shri N. K. Zakhmi .

AWARD

Passed on:- 15.12.2014

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No.L-42012/171/2013/IR (DU) dated 26.2.2014

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the Management of Regional

Manager, CWC, Panchkula in terminating the services of

Sh. Satta Ram son of Shri Banarsi Ram workman of

Narwana Depot is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to ?”

Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the

workman nor any claim statement has been filed. As per

record already three opportunities have been allowed to

file claim statement. None appeared on behalf of the

workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is

not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of

the above the present reference is disposed off for want

of prosecution.

Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt.

be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the

Central Govt. for publication.

Chandigarh.

15.12.2014

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 16-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM] iVuk ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k] egkjk"Vª] iq.ks ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

vkbZ- Vh- 19@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

22@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@26@2007&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2014

S.O.

16.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. I. T. 19

of 2007) of the Maharashtra at Pune, now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Ltd., Pune and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 22/12/2014.

[No. L-40011/26/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

MAHARASHTRA AT PUNE

Reference (IT) No. 19/2007

The Asstt. General Manager (Legal),

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Bajirao Road, Pune - 411 002.

...First Party

AND

The Secretary,

BSNL Mazdoor Sangh,

185, Shaniwar Peth,

Pune - 411 030.

...Second Party

CORAM :

Shri D. H. DESHMUKH, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

Mr. Khandekar, Advocate for First Party

Mr. R. P. Shaligram, Advocate for Second Party

AWARD

( Dated : 07.07.2014 )

This is a reference made by Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. The demand is for

regularisation of the services of the concerned workmen

who were allegedly working in the canteen at CTO, Pune.

The reference is, as to whether the said demand is legal or

justified, and if yes, to what relief the workmen are entitled

to and from which date. The reference order makes it clear

that the demand was made by BSNL Mazdoor Sangh, a

trade union.

The statement of claim Exh.U-8, has been submitted

by the seven concerned workmen whose names,

designation and last drawn wages are mentioned in

Annexure-A to the statement of claim. The concerned

workmen have contended that they are the members of

the BSNL Mazdoor Sangh, which is second party. The

contention is that the Central Telegraph Office (hereinafter

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

referred as CTO) is situated near General Post Office, Pune,

and there were about 550 employees of Telecom

department working at that place. As a part of service

condition, the canteen is run for those employees since

1964. The canteen was run by Telecom Employees Co-op.

Society, and in the name and style of Telecom Employees

Co-op. Canteen. There were 17 workmen working in the

said canteen, who were called as canteen employees. It is

contended that in the year 1991, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court vide its order dated 01.10.1991 had directed the

department of Telecom, to convert all such canteens into

departmental canteen. Accordingly, the Telecom

department, in 1994 decided to convert all such canteens

in Pune, which were run by the employees society into

departmental canteen and to regularise the services of the

concerned workmen as employees of Telecom department.

As per the judgment, in 1994 two such canteens situated

at Bajirao Road, Pune and Mahadji Shinde Telephone

Exchange, Pune were converted into departmental canteen

and the services of the employees were regularised as

employees of Telecom department. However, the CTO

canteen was decided to be converted in the year 1999.

The department of Telecom which is now known as Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,(BSNL), decided to convert the CTO

canteen into departmental canteen and to regularise the

services of the canteen employees. The process was

started in May 2001, and at that time there were 17

employees. All the 17 employees were required to be

regularised/absorbed. However, the first party department

regularised the services of 10 employees, which was illegal

and unjust. The contention is that the demand of the

regularisation of the services of remaining 7 employees,

who are the concerned workmen is legal, proper & justified.

The workmen, therefore, want their regularisation as

workmen of the first party department w.e.f. 10.06.2000,

cost, as well as passing such order which may deemed

necessary in the interest of justice.

The first party department, which is now Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Ltd., has resisted the claim vide written

statement Exh.C-3, denying all the adverse allegations. It

is contended that there is no employer-employee

relationship between the parties, and therefore, the

reference is not maintainable. The statement of claim has

been filed belatedly without seeking condonation of delay.

The 7 concerned workmen are not members of the union,

and as such they have no right to file this complaint/

reference. It is contended that the said canteen was run

by the Telecom Employees Co-op. Society Pune. The

society was a separate legal entity duly registered. The

society has not been impleaded as a party. The canteen

was not set up by the departmental authorities. The

workmen were not recruited by the first party. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court has never directed to convert all such

canteens into departmental canteens. It is contended that

canteens which were converted were of different kind. It

is contended that even though the society canteen was

not registered with the Director of Canteen. The Chief

General Manager Maharashtra Telecom Circle, Mumbai,

had appointed a committee to consider the issue of

regularisation of employees of CTO canteen. The meeting

was held on 16.02.2001 and report was submitted to the

Chief General Manager, Mumbai. The Chief General

Manager, accepted the report and directed to regularise

the 15 employees who were working at CTO canteen prior

to 01.10.1991. The committee observed that some persons

were not in employment prior to 01.10.1991, and further

documents produced in respect of 2 employees were

doubtful. Out of 15 persons, 10 were appointed, the

remaining 5 persons could not be appointed as they had

left the job or resigned from the post. As per O.M. dated

22.06.1998, the vacancy which remained unfilled for a

period of more than one year was to be treated as having

lapsed.

The first party has contended, that at present there

are no vacant posts. Then it is contended that the

concerned workmen were working with the society. They

were paid wages and they were controlled by the society,

their services were terminated on account of closure of

the canteen on 02.09.2002, and they were paid all the legal

dues. The first party has also contended that the

concerned workmen cannot claim a back door entry in the

employment.

The issues are framed by my Id. Predecessor, and

my findings thereon are as follows :-

ISSUES

FINDINGS

(1) Whether the demand of the

Yes, partly;

second party union as referred

in Schedule of Reference is legal

and justified ?

(2) What Award ?

As per final award.

REASONS

The concerned workmen have adduced oral as well

as, documentary evidence. The first party department has

not led any oral evidence, but, has produced the copies of

few documents. I have gone through the entire record

including the case laws, notes of arguments of first party

and have heard the submissions made by Shri R.P.

Shaligram and Shri Khandekar, the learned counsels.

The concerned workmen have filed the affidavits by

way of examination-in-chief, which are identical. In the

evidence, the concerned workmen have stated specifically

that they are the members of the second party union. The

details stated in Annexure-A are true and correct. The union

had raised the demand for regularisation of the concerned

workmen who were working in CTO canteen, etc. The

evidence indicates that at CTO canteen 17 employees were

working including the concerned workmen. About 550

employees were working in the department at that place.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

That canteen was run by the society of the employees.

As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated

01.10.1991, the first party department was directed to

convert all such canteens into departmental canteen. In

1994, the department converted the two other canteens of

Bajirao Road & Mahadji Shinde telephone exchange to

departmental canteen, but not the CTO canteen. In the

year 1999 the first party decided to convert the CTO

canteen into the departmental canteen. The process

started in May 2001, when the concerned workmen were

also working. The first party, however, regularised only

10 employees w.e.f. 10.06.2000, which action was illegal

and unjust. Then, it is stated that letter dated 15.02.2000

issued by Dy. General Manager Pune to Dy. General

Manager, Mumbai of first party is produced, which

supports the contention of the workmen. The names of

the concerned workmen are mentioned in the said letter,

etc. In cross-examination, the material evidence of the

concerned workmen remained unshakened. The

admissions indicate that the concerned workmen were

working in the canteen without any appointment letter

given by the Society. One Mr. Gole was the honorary

secretary of the society. The termination letter was given

in 2002. The appointment, as well as termination of services

of the concerned workmen in 2002, was by society or

canteen, and one workman admitted that the concerned

workmen had decided to raise the present dispute. No

document is produced to show the membership of the

union. The workman A.N. Pirzade, does not know, whether

there is vacant post or not. According to him, workmen

should be accommodated anywhere. He admitted that his

name was not recommended by Employment Exchange.

The workman states in cross-examination that union raised

the dispute. The Secretary and Chairman of society were

Mr. Gole and Kanade respectively. The workman Surendra

has stated that he has not filed any other case. He was

working in the canteen since 1992. The documentary

evidence of union membership is not produced. Nobody

from the union attended this case. He does not know if

union has authorised him in regard to this case. He denies

that there is no vacant post in BSNL, but, has no

information about vacancy. The workman Timoti also

gave similar admissions, that nobody from union attended

this case. He denies that there is no vacancy in BSNL. He

also denies that canteen was not a service condition. He

has no evidence in that regard. The other workmen have

also given similar admissions. The workman Vijay Kamble

admits, that Employment Exchange has not recommended

his name. He joined in 1992. He was appointed by canteen

Manager, etc.

The second party examined Mr. Baban Gole, who

was secretary of the society. Baban Gole stated about the

letter dated 15.05.1997 and accordingly, the decision to

regularise the canteen employees etc. There were 17

employees. He submitted the list of 17 employees to

regularise their services vide letter dated 31.12.1999. The

said letter is on record. Only 10 employees named were

regularised. The first party regularised 5 other persons,

but ignored the claim of 7 concerned workmen who were

working in the canteen. There is no criteria, etc. Gole

stated about the letter dated 31.12.1999 sent by him to

BSNL. He deposed as to the documents at Exh.U-10A,

Exh. U-20A & U-20B. The cross-examination indicate that

Gole was secretary from 1998 to 2003. He denies that Sangh

(union) is absent. DGM asked him to submit the list of

employees. He does not know if acknowledgment of the

letter produced is on record. The dates of appointment

were taken from pay-register, the register is submitted to

BSNL. He also does not know whether the names of the

concerned workmen were recommended by the

Employment Exchange, or if the post were advertised. He

admits that on 16.02.2001, the department had constituted

a committee to regularise the services of the canteen

employees. He has stated about regularisation of the 10

employees. He does not know if two muster rolls were

shown to the committee. Gole clarifies that 10 employees

out of 17 employees were regularised, and 5 were brought

by BSNL for regularisation. Gole could not tell about the

sanctioned posts in the canteen. Gole has stated that

canteen is the service condition in the BSNL, but he could

not tell any rule as such. He was shown proceeding book

of the society. The relevant page shown to him, according

to Gole, does not bears his signature.

Mr. R. P. Shaligram, the learned counsel submitted

that the concerned workmen were required to be

regularised in service. Instead of taking 17 employees,

only 10 employees were taken up and 5 were brought from

outside and regularised. Exh.U-10A, U-22A & B and other

documents were pointed out. The CTO canteen was not

only for the Telegraph department, but for entire Telecom

department situated at that place. The CTO canteen does

not mean only telegraph office. In Telecom department

the employees were working. Joining dates are not

disputed. This is not a case of back door entry. There was

a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and decision

was taken to absorb the employees in the services. The

learned counsel prayed for grant of relief, etc. According

to him the judgment in Umadevi & other cases are of no

application.

Mr. Khandekar, the learned counsel for the first party,

argued that union has not appeared. Regularisation

requires, that the person should be in the employment.

The reinstatement cannot be claimed. The Telegraph

department was permanently closed in July 2013. The

services of the employees have been terminated, and legal

dues were also paid by the society in 2002. Therefore, the

workmen have no locus standi to make the claim. The

membership of union is not proved. Factum of termination

is not disclosed. The canteen is not a part of service

condition. The union has been absent. The concerned

workmen have filed the statement of claim, but they are

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

not authorised. The statement of claim was filed belatedly.

The claim is to regularise. The canteen was governed by

the bye-laws of the society. The society staff cannot be

treated at par with the employees of the department. No

appointment letter was given, no selection procedure was

followed, and there was no recommendation from the

Employment Exchange. The regularisation would amount

to giving back door entry, which is not permissible.

According to the learned counsel the material date for

regularisation was 01.10.1991 and other requirement is

recruitment through procedural. A committee was

constituted and the committee after considering

everything recommended regularisation of 15 employees,

out of them 2 employees expired, and 3 had left. However,

that does not mean that other 5 are also required to be

taken. As far as the employment is concerned all the eligible

persons should get an opportunity, etc.

The learned counsel Mr. Khandekar, relied upon

the judgments in Union of India V/s. Subhaiah & Ors.,

(AIR-1996-SC-2890); State of Karnataka & Ors V/s. KGSD

Centeen Employees’ Welfare Association, (2006-1-SCC-

567); Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V/s. Umadevi &

ors. (AIR-2006-SC-1806); M.P. Housing Board V/s. Manoj

Shrivastava, [2006-(2)-SCC-702]; and General Secretary,

Van Shramik Sangh V/s. Director, Social Forestry,

Maharashtra State & Ors. [2009-(1)-Bom CR-589].

10.

I have considered everything. The reference order

indicates that demand of regularisation of the concerned

workmen was made by the BSNL Mazdoor Sangh. The

concerned workmen have stated on oath that they were

members of that union. The documentary proof may not

have been produced. It is also true that after reference

was made to this Tribunal, the union did not attend or

prosecute the reference by itself leading evidence, etc.

However, the concerned workmen, after the reference is

made at the instance of the union, cannot be allowed to be

left helpless. Ultimately, the beneficiaries or the allegedly

affected persons are the concerned workmen. The

concerned workmen would naturally prosecute the

reference further, so as to bring the dispute resolution/

adjudication to a logical end. I therefore, do not find any

illegality in the concerned workmen signing the statement

of claim, or giving evidence to establish their claim.

The important letter produced with Exh.U-10 is

marked as Exh.U-10/A & it is dated 15.02.2000. The letter is

written by the Dy.General Manager Pune, Telecom to Dy.

General Manager, Mumbai, with reference to regularisation

of services of CTO canteen employees. The names of the

17 employees and their posts are mentioned in the letter.

The Dy. General Manager, who apparently was in the know

of the facts of the case, had mentioned in the letter, that

out of 17 named employees, Sr. No.1 to 14 were working

since prior to 01.10.1991. The employee at sr.no.15 namely

A. N. Pirzade, can also be considered for regularisation as

per guidelines given in the letter dated 21.12.1998 by

sanctioning the post. A. N. Pirzade, is one of the 7

concerned workmen. Regarding Sr. No.16 & 17 David &

Timoti (concerned workmen), the Dy. General Manager,

stated that these 2 workmen had joined after 01.10.1991.

However he recommended to accommodate these 2

workmen also. Now, in first 14 atleast 4 concerned workmen

were covered. Surendra (Prakash) T. Detake (Table-Boy),

Vijay B. Kamble (Mandaniwala), Yesu J. Mavad (Waiter)

and Babu J. Surpugu (Tea Maker). If the letter of Dy.

General Manager is to be believed and relied upon, the

above 4 concerned workmen were entitled to regularisation.

11.

The learned counsel for the second party have

produced the documents with Exh.U-22, two important

documents. One is letter dated 15.05.1997. The letter is

circular issued to all the Circles/ Authorities of the

department. In the letter there is reference to the judgment

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein some directions

were given for extending the benefits by the Government

employer to the persons working in the canteens/tiffin

rooms. The letter indicates that first party department had

decided to extend such benefits to the employees of the

unregistered canteen also, provided the canteen was set

up before 01.10.1991, and secondly, the employees in the

canteen were recruited in proper manner, and such

recruitment was made on regular basis, etc. The other

letter is Exh.U-22A, which is a letter dated 31.12.1999,

addressed by Telecom Employees’ Co-operative Canteen

to the Divisional Engineer of the first party. The subject is

regularisation of services of employees in the CTO canteen.

The letter is signed by Chief Superintendent CTO of the

first party, and also the honorary secretary of the Telecom

Employees canteen i.e. Mr. Gole, who is examined. The

letter gives the information about 17 employees working

in the canteen which includes names of the concerned 7

workmen. Some of them were working since as fas back as

1975.

12.

The first party has produced the copies of some

documents, which are neither admitted nor proved.

However, I have gone through those documents also. The

oral as well as documentary evidence goes to establish

that the 7 concerned workmen were working in the canteen,

and 4 of them were working prior to 01.10.1991. The

workman A.N. Pirzade was working from 01.09.1997, David

was working from 01.04.1998. Both of them were appointed

in place of 2 other employees who had expired. The

workman Timoti was appointed from 01.04.1998 in place of

Shelar, who had resigned w.e.f. 09.10.1997. It is undipsuted

that the canteen in question was run for several years

prior to 1991. The documents with Exh.U-22 & Exh.U-10A

indicate clearly that canteen was running even prior to

01.10.1991. It is apparent that even according to the first

party, 15 other employees working in the same canteen

were regularised or absorbed. When those employees were

appointed by canteen or society. The canteen was run by

employees themselves, and therefore, requisition might

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

have not been sent to Employment Exchange. The first

party has not shown that others who were absorbed were

recommended by Employment Exchange or their initial

appointments were made as per a particular procedure. In

this case the judgment in Umadevi and other cases would

really not come into play. The department had decided to

regularise the canteen employees, and treat them as

employees of the Telecom department. The benefits of

departmental service was also decided to be given. The

date 01.10.1991 was cut-off date, but in respect of setting

up of the canteen. The said date was not relevant for the

purpose of appointment, and therefore only the Dy. General

Manager had recommended absorption of all the

concerned workmen.

13.

The fact that in the year 2002 the services of the 7

concerned workmen were terminated by the society is not

of any consequence. The termination is not fatal to the

claim. It is undipsuted that 10 employees, out of 17

employees of the same canteen were absorbed or

regularised in the departmental services w.e.f.10.6.2000.

The Exh.U-10A state names of the 7 concerned workmen

and their posts. These 7 concerned workmen were also

required to be regularised in the services of the Telecom

department, which is now BSNL. There was no justification

given in rejecting their claim. The demand for regularisation

in service is on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, and decision taken by higher authorities

of the first party. On the basis of that judgment and

departmental decision the demand as made is legal as well

as justified. The termination of services was made by the

society. However, the co-workers of the concerned

workmen were regularised w.e.f. 10.06.2000. The delay in

raising the dispute by the union or delay in filing the

statement of claim is not sufficient to reject the entire claim.

The concerned workmen want regularisation in the services

of the first party w.e.f. 10.06.2000. The regularisation is

nothing but absorption in regular service. The others who

were absorbed must have been working and must have

got wages and benefits at par with the departmental

employees.

14.

Initially, the reference was made by the union, and

therefore, objection relating to absence of employer-

employee relationship has no substance.

The services of concerned employees were

terminated in 2002 there is no pleading or evidence that

the union or the concerned workmen made efforts or

agitated the claim before authority of the first party

department till making of the reference. Upon

regularisation, the concerned workmen would have got

the wages and benefits of a regular employee. The first

party has not led any evidence to show that there are no

vacancies. In keeping with the decision taken by the first

party itself, the regularisation in service ought to have

been done in the year 2000. I am therefore, inclined to

grant relief regarding regularisation, which is nothing but

absorption of concerned workmen in the service of the

first party. The regularisation shall be w.e.f. 10.06.2000,

meaning thereby that all the concerned workmen shall be

deemed to be in the employment of the first party/erstwhile

department w.e.f. 10.06.2000. Their wages/ salaries shall

be fixed treating them to be holding different posts as

mentioned in annexure-A as on 10.06.2000. However, the

actual wages and other monetary benefits shall be payable

from the date of reference i.e.26.09.200, which may be

treated as 01.10.2007 for the payment purpose. Needless

to mention that absorption,regularisation and continuance

in the employment shall be subject to the rules regarding

superannuation/retirement etc. Having considered

everything, I proceed to pass the following award.

AWARD

The reference is partly allowed.

The first party BSNL, Pune shall regularise the

services of the 7 concerned workmen by absorbing

them in the regular service w.e.f. 10.06.2000, and

further the 7 workmen shall be paid wages and other

benefits w.e.f. 01.10.2007 as said herein above.

No order as to costs.

Pune :

Dated : 07.07.2014

D. H. DESHMUKH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 17-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh- lh- ,y-]

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1 /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

51@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@12@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@23@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&1)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2014

S.O.

17.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2006)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the the management

of M/s. CCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 23/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/23/2006-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.l),

DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE

U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) OF I.D.ACT, 1947.

Ref. No. 51/2006

Employers in relation to the management of

Bokaro Colliery M/S BCCL

And

their workman

Present:—Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman

Sri B.B.Pandey, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal.

Dated.24/10/2014

AWARD

By Order No.L~20012/23/2006-IR (CM-I), dated

01/06/2006, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub -section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the

following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Rastriya Colliery

Mazdoor Sangh from the management of CCL Bokaro

Colliery for regularization of Shri Ajay Kumar Singh,

Driver Cat-V to the post of Mechanical Supervisor/

Chargeman (Mechanical) is legal and justified? If

so, to What relief is the concerned workmen

entitled and from what date 1”

The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 20.06.2006. After receipt of the reference, both parties

are noticed. The workman files their written statement

on 24.07.2006Thereafter the management files their

written statement-cum-rejoinder on 03.09.2007.

Rejoinder and document also filed by the parties .Both

side adduced one witness each their behalf. The

management marked the document as M-l & M-2, as

well as the workman also marked document as Ext. W-l

& W-2 .

The point involved in the reference is that the

case as to whether the workman concerned can be

regularized for the post of driver category V to

Mechanical Supervisor

The workman claims for regularization as such.

But the management submitted that as per cadre

scheme a driver category V can be promoted to higher

post i.e Driver category VI. But he can not be regularized

as Mechanical Supervisor, which is manned by an

Engineer. That fact also came in evidence of MW-1 &

the documents i.e. cadre scheme.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, I hold that the demand of the Rastriya Colliery

Mazdoor Sangh from the management of CCL Bokaro

colliery for regularization of Shri Ajay Kumar Singh,

Driver Cat- V to the post of Mechanical Supervisor/

Chargeman (Mechanical) is not legal and justified,

Hence he is not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 18-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch- lh- lh-

,y-] ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua-&1 /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

187@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@12@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@40@2000&vkbZvkj (lh&1)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2014

S.O.

18.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 187/

2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 23/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/40/2000-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,

DHANBAD

Reference: No. 187/2000

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act, 1947

Employer in relation to the management of East

Katras Colliery M/S BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present: Sri R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri D.K. Verma

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry- Coal

Dated- 16/10/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/40/ 2000 IR (C-1)) dated

29/06/2000, the central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of East Katras Colliery of M/s.

BCCL in dismissing the servies of Md. Naseem, M/

Loader P.No. 02886315 with effect from 26/07/97 is

justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned

workman entitled?”

After receipt of the reference , both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 19-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh- ,y-] ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua-&1 /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 75@1992) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@12@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@346@1991&vkbZvkj (lh&1)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2014

S.O. 19.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 75/

1992) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 23/12/2014.

[No. L-20012/346/1991-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,

DHANBAD

Reference: No. 75/1992

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A)

of I.D. Act. 1947.

Employer in relation to the management of

Gopinathpur Colliery M/s.ECL

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer.

Appearances :

For the Employers

None

For the workman

None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry- Coal

Dated- 10/10/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/346/ 1991 /IR (C-1)) dated

26/08/1992, the central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referr4ed the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s

Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Nirsha Area in relation to

their Gopinathpur Colliery in retiring Abdul Mia w.e.f.

09/07/1990 is justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled?”

After receipt of the reference , both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 20-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]

xksyk ck:n iQSDVªh] iq.ks ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k egkjk"Vª] iq.ks ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k vkbZ- Vh- 16@2008)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@12@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@26@2007&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2014

S.O. 20.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Ref (I.T.)

No. 16/2008) of the Industrial Tribunal Maharashtra at

Pune, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the General Manager, Ammunition Factory,

Pune and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 22/12/2014.

[No. L-14012/26/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, AT PUNE

Reference (IT) No. 16 of 2008

Between :

The General Manager

Ammunition Factory

Khadki,

Pune - 411 003.

...First Party

And

Shri Martin Samuel Salve

Address No. 1

Quarter No.66/06, Type (l)

Range Hills Estate, Khadki

Pune - 411 020.

Address No. 2

Near Lunkad Hospital,

Naik Chwal,

Mumbai Pune Road,

Dapodi,

Pune - 411 012.

...Second Party

CORAM : D. H. DESHMUKH, Presiding Officer.

Appearances :

Smt.Sandhya Londhe- Deshpande.Advocate for First

Party.

Shri S. Solanki , Advocate for Second Party .

AWARD

(Date: 03-12-2014)

This is a reference made by Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for adjudication of industrial

dispute between the General Manager, Ammunition

Factory, Kirkee, Pune (the “First Party” for short), and

Shri Martin Salve (the “Second Party” for short) The

dispute pertains to compulsory retirement of second party

w.e.f. 2-3-2006.

The second party union has contended that the first

party is a factory where more than 5000 employees are

working. The second party was employed as Sweeper

(Safai Karmachari) w.e.f. 13-10-1998. The service record of

the second party was clean. It is contended that the second

party was not given any facilities, and there used to be

discrimination on the basis of caste etc, and also some

politics. The second party was given a charge-sheet, and

an enquiry was conducted in haste. Then, it is contended

that the second party had married in the year 1999, but his

marital life was full of disturbances, and that led to some

litigation in Family Court. Because of physical and mental

problems, the second party began to remain absent. The

second party was asked to retire voluntarily, stating that

otherwise he would not get the legal dues. The second

party has contended that he had to proceed on leave

frequently, because of the dispute/quarrel with the wife

and problems arising therefrom.

The second party was made to face the enquiry. In

the year 2006 signatures of the second party were obtained

without letting him understand anything. The second party

has stated about voluntary retirement. Then it is

contended that he has no other source of income, and he

has a big family which is poor. The second party wants

reinstatement with all benefits.

The first party has resisted the claim, denying all

adverse allegations. According to the first party the

establishment belongs to Central Government, and it is

engaged In manufacturing of arms and ammunitions

required for the Army, Air force, & Navy. The funds are

provided by the Central Government. The activities of the

first party are stated to be exclusively relating to safety

and security of the country. The activities and the

functions are inalienable and sovereign functions, and

therefore, the establishment is not industry. Then, it is

contended that Civil Service Rules are applicable, and

therefore, this Court has got no jurisdiction.

The first party has contended that the statement of

claim is mischievous, and there is suppression of facts.

The contention about 5000 employees are working, is

denied. It is also denied that the second party had worked

for 7 1/2 years, or had completed 240 days every year. It is

contended that the second party was punished on 4

occasions in the past for similar misconduct of

unauthorized absence. The details are mentioned in the

written statement. It is also denied that the second party

was assured to be given any facility. The allegations of

discrimination etc. are denied.

The first party has contended that the second party

was charge-sheeted for unauthorized absence. The second

party admitted the allegations in the charge-sheet. The

guilt was proved, and therefore, he was punished by

compulsory retirement, which action is legal and justified.

It is denied that the second party has a family dependent

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

upon him. Father of the second party is getting pension,

etc.

The issues and my findings thereon, are as follows :-

ISSUES

FINDINGS

1. Whether the First Party is an

industry within the meaning

of Section 2 (j) of I.D.Act ?

...Yes

2. Whether Second Party is a

workman within the meaning

of Section 2(s) of I.D.Act?

...Yes

3. Whether the action of the

management of the General

Manager, Ammunition Factory,

in compulsorily retiring their

workman Shri Martin Salve w.e.f.

2-3-2006 is legal and justified?

...Yes

3(A) Whether the enquiry is not fair

& proper, & further whether

...Already

the findings are not justified?

decided

4. If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled to ?

...No relief

5. What Award?

...As per

final award.

REASONS

There is oral as well as the documentary evidence

led. I have gone through the record, including the written

argument, and have heard the submissions made.

The contention that the factory or establishment of

the first party is not an industry, has not been

substantiated by giving details or any evidence. The first

party is. a factory where arms and ammunition are

manufactured, may be exclusively for the defence. This

particular objection does not appear to have been raised

before the Conciliation officer or any time before the

reference was made. It is common place that these days

some requirements of the defence are met even from private

sector, particularly by way of import. Manufacturing of

arms by itself may not make the functions of the factory

sovereign or inalienable. Similarly, the contention that the

activities of the first party are exclusively relating to safety

and security of the country, even if presumed to be true,

may also not be sufficient to take the factory outside the

purview of the definition of the term ‘industry’. Issue No.l

is therefore, answered in the affirmative.

The second party was admittedly a sweeper or a

Class IV employee or a person engaged for manual work,

and therefore, he is a workman. Application of Civil

Services Rules by itself, is not sufficient to take the factory

or the second party, outside the scope of the definition of

the terms “industry” and “workman” respectively.

10.

After hearing both the sides, this Court had passed

an order on 1-9-2014 on the Issue No.3A. The said issue

was taken up first on request of the learned counsel for

the first party, and by consent of the Advocate of the

other side. On merits, this Court found that the

unauthorized absence is an admitted fact, and therefore,

the charges stood proved. This Court held that the second

party understood the charges, and admitted the same

repeatedly. In view of the admission, the first party did not

think it necessary to conduct further enquiry. This Court

finally observed that whatever enquiry was held, and

whatever was found from the admissions on record i.e.

about the allegation of the absence, cannot be said to be

unjustified. In view of the order dt.1-9-2014 it has now to

be said that the allegations and the charges are proved.

11.

The charges levelled against the second party were

that the second party stayed away from duty during

16-9-2005 to 28-9-2005 without prior sanction or intimation.

He did not submit leave note etc. He reported for duty on

29-9-2005 without producing any documents. However,

he was again found missing from the duties. He was

continuously absent from 30-9-2005 till the date of charge-

sheet i.e. 19-1-2006. The charge was willful neglect of duty

and lack of devotion to duty etc. In the charge-sheet, there

is mention about previous misconduct, and the punishment

imposed. In Article III on Page 2, the previous record is

mentioned, but it’s mention is not of any consequence.

12.

In view of the order passed after hearing both the

sides, now, the second party cannot be heard to say that

the allegations are not proved. The submissions that

Marathi translation was not given, the enquiry was

conducted hastily, the second party was mentally

disturbed. There were personal problems etc. stated in the

argument, are not now relevant. The submission that the

authority was predetermined or partial, is also baseless.

The submission regarding production of fitness certificate

is also not substantiated. Then, it was submitted that there

was force or coercion, which again is not proved. The

second party had filed a departmental appeal to the

authority at Kolkata. In that appeal, which is on record,

there is no mention about several submissions, which are

now tried to be made. In the written argument, it is

submitted that absence was duly explained. Whatever

reasons shown by the second party, were considered by

the authority of the first party.

13.

At least two letters dt.29-9-2005 & 8-2-2006 are

written in Marathi, and they are signed by the second

party. They are Exh.C-6 D & C-6 B. In the first letter, the

second party has stated that he had some argument with

other employee, but thereafter he apologized. Second party

further writes that he would not come on duty on drunk.

He would not harass anybody. In view of the court case of

his wife, he was mentally disturbed, and therefore, he

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

committed the misconduct. He also undertook that he

would not remain absent. Then, the second party stated

that an action may be taken against him, if he indulges in

indiscipline or drunkenness etc. In the subsequent letter

dt.8-2-2006 also, there is an undertaking that he would not

take leave and would attend duties on time. The admitted

documents clearly indicate that the unauthorized absence

from 16-9-2005 to 28-9-2005 and from 30-9-2005 onwards

till charge-sheet dt.19-1-2006, has been duly proved.

14.

In the past, the second party was punished on 4

occasions for the misconduct of unauthorized absence

and irregular attendance, and consequent lack of devotion

to duty.

15.

The first parry is an establishment of Government of

India. There should be no reason for anybody to behave

vindictively against second party. The factory belongs to

the Ministry of Defence. In such services, discipline is of

utmost important. Indiscipline or unauthorized absence

of such a nature may not be tolerated by the authority.

Considering the period of unauthorized absence, and the

past service record, if the department decides to punish,

an employee by way of compulsory retirement, the same

can hardly be said to be unjustified. It is definitely not

illegal. With the admitted facts and record, I find it difficult

to exercise judicial discretion, and grant any relief. I thus

find that the action is legal and justified, and no relief can

be graned. The reference is accordingly answered.

Pune

Date : 03.012.2014

D. H. DESHMUKH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 21-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ- lh- ,y-]

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

137@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@12@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@177@1999&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th December, 2014

S.O.

21.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 137/

1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of the

M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 24/12/2014.

[No. L-22012/177/1999-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT :

Sri PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 137 OF 1999

PARTIES :

The management of Sodepur Area, ECL.

Vs.

Sri Chandrika Yadav

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management

Shri P. K. Das Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman)

Shri R. K. Tripathi

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated : 02.12.2014

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/

177/99-IR(CM-II) dated 31.08.1999 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Sodepur

Area of ECL in not regularising Sh. Chandrika Yadav

as Security Guard is justified? If not, to what relief is

the workman concerned entitled?”

Having received the Order No. L-22012/177/99/

IR(CM-II) dated 31.08.1999 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 137 of

1999 was registered on 14.09.1999 / 05.10.2001 and

accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue

notices through the registered post to the parties

concerned directing them to appear in the court on the

date fixed and to file their written statements along with

the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support

of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by

the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

Sri R. K. Tripathi, representative of the workman

and Sri P. K. Das Learned Advocate for the management

are present.

Sri R. K. Tripathi submits that the case may be

closed. The Management has no objection to close the

case also. Since the workman’s representative, i.e. the union

(Koyla Mazdoor Congress) does not want to proceed with

the case any further and the case is also too old – in the

year 1999, I think it wise to close this case. As such the

case is closed and accordingly a “No Dispute Award”

may be passed.

ORDER

Let an “Award” be and same is passed as no dispute

existing. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for information and needful.

The reference is accordingly disposed of.

PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 22-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- bZ- lh-

,y-] ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 121@1994)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@12@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@89@1994&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th December, 2014

S.O.

22.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 121/

1994) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of

Rajnagar Ro of SECL, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 24/12/2014.

[No. L-22012/89/1994-IR(C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/121/94

Vice President,

NCWF(NLO),

PO Rajnagar colliery,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

Sub Area Manager,

Rajnagar RO of SECL,

PO Rajnagar colliery,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 4^th day of December 2014

As per letter dated 2-8-84 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/

89/94-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of Sub Area Manager,

Rajnagar RO, Sub Area of Hadeo Area of SECL (a)

in converting 13 wagon shunters named below as

Cat II workers without complying with the provisions

of Section 9 A of the Act, and ; (b) in not making full

payment of arrears of wages occurring to the 13

workers named below due to implementation of

National Coal Wage Agreement-IV is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief these workmen are

entitled to:-

Shri Kunjilal, S/o Likhanu,

ii.

Shri Dhanilal S/o Deodatt,

iii.

Shri Mangroo S/o Tannu

iv.

Shri Sukhlal s/o Tirath

Shri Jagdish S/o Ramsagar

vi.

Shri Chandradeo S/o Bhuwal

vii.

Shri Rajaram S/o Hariklal

viii.

Shri Kanhaiya S/o Manbahor

ix.

Shri Sugreem S/o Tiroo

Shri Ashwani Kumar S/o Indrabhan

xi.

Shri Sheonandan S/o Antram

xii.

Shri Barsatilal S/o Bishnuwa

xiii.

Shri Puran S/o Milan

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim

at Page 4/1 to 4/8. Union is however shown as IInd party

in the statement of claim will be hereinafter referred as Ist

party. Case of Ist party Union is that reference relates to

conversion of status of 13 employees names given in the

reference , wagon shunters Category II workers in violation

of Section 9-A of I.D.Act. IInd party of reference relates to

payment of full arrears of wages to those employees as

per NCWA-IV. W.r.t. Ist part of reference, it is submitted

that those 13 workers were initially employed by

management as piece rated. They were required to perform

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

work of wagon shunters. According to job nomenclature

under Wages Board Recommendations implemented since

1967 and NCWA all of them were performing jobs of Wagon

shunters, they were paid salary according to work

performed by them. They were earning monthly salary

around 4000 to 5000 per month.

On 11-12-90, management issued notice under

Section 9-A of I.D.Act that management informed those

workers that from 1-1-1991, the condition of their service

irrespective of matters covered in Schedule IV would be

changed. Management also informed that the status of

piece rated wagon shunters would be converted from 1-1-

91. All those workers objected said notice giving their

objections in writing. Thereafter management did not act

upon the notice of change from 1-1-1991. That thereafter

status of those workers denied as piece rated according

to quantum of work performed by them. From August 1993,

management converted their status to time rated employees

posting them at RO Rajnagar colliery. As its consequences,

management treated them as Category II mazdoor as time

rated. That minimum salary prescribed for Cat-II workers

in NCWA-IV enforced at that time. The conversion of status

of those workers from piece rated to monthly rated, their

total earning was reduced to 50 % of their earlier earnings.

Before converting status of those employees from

1993, notice under Section 9-A of ID Act was not given.

Without giving such notice, their status was effected, their

wages were reduced considerably. The employees suffered

prejudice by conversion of their status. Conversion of

their status is illegal and unjustified.

That so far as other workers are concerned executing

those workers, they are paid salary of Category II. Those

workers were performing work of piece rated wagon

shunters. Subsequently they were transferred to CHP,

Rajnagar. They were paid wages of Category II Rs. 52.09.

Their transfer was effected for rationalization and

improvement of at new Rajnagar 7^th incline. Management

introduced work through hallow machines which was not

available earlier. Work started in January 1994. Prior to it,

workers were transferred in anticipation of inducting coller

machine. Transfer and change in their status as Category

II mazdoor at time rated category adversely affected those

workers without notice under Section 9-A of I.D.Act. That

such notice is mandatory. Their status is changed in

violation of notice under Section 9-A correcting from piece

rated to time rated category Mazdoor II.

W.r.t. 2^nd point in terms of reference, it is submitted

that NCWA was implemented from 1-7-89. It was given

retrospective effect from 1-1-1987. All those 13 workers

were performing work of piece rated wagon shunters from

November to July 1989. NCWA was introduced during 1-

1-87 to July 1989. Management continued to pay salary of

those workers prescribed under NCWA-III. After NCWA

IV implemented from 1-1-1987, those workers are entitled

to salary/ wages as per NCWA from 1-1-1978. It is

emphasized that those workers were not paid arrears as

per NCWA-IV. They were paid Rs. 60,000 towards

difference of arrears. It is alleged that IInd party not acted

as model employer for payment of difference of wages as

per NCWA-IV. It is reiterated that those employees are

entitled to arrears of wages/salary from 1-1-1987 to August

1989. It is submitted that those workers were continuing

to perform full work of wagon shunters prescribed under

Coal Wage Recommendations and NCWA. Management

had not allowed 100 % wages of Wagon shunters. It was

contented that they are not entitled to full salary as

prescribed to wagon shunters. Management is denied to

pay salary at the rate NCWA-IV. Showing less preparation

of their work consequently those workers are not getting

salary in preparation to their work. That those 13 workmen

were paid their salary to the extent of 60 % of the work

done by them. Such payment is made to those workers

from August 89 to July 93. Their status is converted from

piece rated to time rated wagon shunters. It is reiterated

that the workmen are entitled to 40 % salary to which they

were entitled at the rate of NCWA IV not paid to them.

Union is claiming arrears from 1-1-87 to July 89 as per

NCWA IV and 40 % wages illegally with held as arrears for

the period August 89 to July 93.

IInd party management submitted Written Statement

at Page 8/1 to 8/10. IInd party raised preliminary objection

that reference is misconceived and bad in law. The dispute

between parties is not referred for adjudication. While

making reference, Government of India has favoured the

Union. Terms of reference pertains to conversion of status

without complying section 9-A of I.D.Act, not making full

payment of arrears of wages. That Section 9-A is not

applicable. There was a question whether workers are

entitled to arrears of wages as per NCWA IV. Without

deciding those questions, the reference has been made.

IInd party submits that coal mines in India are

nationalized as per Coal Mine Nationalisation Act 1973,

there were no uniform service conditions or agreement

between management and Union in coal industry. After

nationalization, uniform policy with regard to service

conditions have been accepted. Agreement are renewed

time to time known as NCWA- I to IV. The policy to be

implemented is decided by JBCCI. The instructions issued

by JBCCI for implementation of the provisions of NCWA

are called Implementation Instructions. That Kunjilal and

12 others were appointed as piece rated workers by private

nationalization. During the period of appointment, loadings

were made manually. At Rajnagar siding there were only

15 box. After nationalization, few piece rated shunters were

added to load the rack of 58 boxes was introduced. The

payment to piece rated loaders demanded on work done

by them. Around 1987, mechanical system of pulling wagon

was introduced. The workman continued the part of job of

pulling wagon on piece rated basis. It is submitted that

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

amount Rs. 5,22,515.33 was wrongly paid in excess to those

workmen. The work of pulling wagon mechanically was

also considered while making payment to those workmen.

Therefore the workmen are not entitled to arrears as per

NCWA IV.

Workman had submitted application before RLC,

Jabalpur. Order under Section 33(C)(1) of ID Act was

passed directing payment to each of the workmen. Order

was challenged in High court. IInd party submits that on

average work done by manual pulling comes to 15 to 24

and work of pulling 58 wagon per day was carried. The

wages on the basis of 60 % was paid to those workers i.e.

for work of pulling 34 wagon. Workmen were paid excess

amount for 15 -20 wagons. After enquiry it was found that

amount of Rs.5,22,515.33 was paid in excess to these

workmen. Order passed by RLC was stayed at High Court

and directed to this Tribunal to decide all the matters.

10.

IInd party submits that notice under Section 9-A is

necessary in respect of matters provided in Schedule IV.

Notice of change is necessary where rationalization,

standardization of improvement of plan or technical is likely

to lead to retrenchment of workman. After introduction of

pushing wagons by machine, the work of manual pushing

of wages is not available. Workmen were transferred to

other places with an object to continue them in employment.

Therefore the notice under Section 9-A of ID Act is not

required. Workmen are already paid excess amount for

work of manual pulling therefore they are not entitled to

arrears as per NCWA IV. On such ground, IInd party is

praying that reference be answered in its favour.

11.

IInd party submitted rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/7

reiterating its contentions in Written Statement.

12.

Proceeding for recovery under Section 33(C)(2) of

ID Act is filed by workman. claim in said proceeding will

be decided in terms of decision in the reference.

13.

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 Sub

Area Manager, Rajnagar

RO, Sub Area of Hadeo Area

of SECL in converting 13

wagon shunters named

below as Cat II workers

without complying with the

provisions of Section 9 A of

the Act is legal?

In Negative

(ii) whether the action of Sub

Area Manager, rajnagar

RO, Hasdeo Area of SECL

in not making full payment

of arrears of wages occurring

to the 13 workers named

below due to implementation

of National Coal Wage

Agreement-IV is legal and

justified?

In Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workmen are not

workman is entitled to?”

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

14. It is case of Ist party Union that they were working

as piece rated shunters. Their service conditions are

changed converting them as piece rated workers in

violation of Section 9-A of I.D. Act. To be precise, IInd

party management submits that notice under Section 9-A

was not required as work of shunting was carried

mechanically from 1986. The manual shunting work were

not available. To avoid retrenchment, the workmen were

transferred to other mines. The evidence of witness for

Ist party Union Ashwini Kumar in cross-examination

shows after 9-7-93, the work of manual shunting was not

taken from anybody. He denies that from 1987, work of

wagon shunting was started by machine. That there is no

category of wagon shunters. He denies that in 1993, the

work of wagon shunter was carried mechanically and there

was no need of manual wagon shunters. Shri Chandradev,

witness No.2 for Ist party says in 1995, he retired as Wagon

shunter. The work of wagon shunter was carried by

machine from 1989 that they had not maintained private

record about work of wagon shunting. At end of his cross-

examination, he says that they had no objection for the

work after their conversion to Cat-I. when they were

transferred to 7^th, 8^th Incline. Evidence of Baijnath Singh

Union office bearer shows that he is Union Representative.

He never worked at site of working by those 13 workmen.

15.

The evidence of management’s witness Shri R. K.

Tiwari Loading Suptd. Is mostly devoted to work of

shunting wagons manually etc. His evidence doesnot

cover the point of issuing notice under Section 9-A of

change in service conditions of those 13 workmen. Ranjan

Kumar Witness No.2 also doesnot cover the point of

change in service conditions of 6-30 workmen from piece

rated to Cat-II. The evidence of Witness No.3 Shri N.R.Das

deals with the points of service conditions on workers are

governed by NCWA, Bipartite settlement, JBCCI

instructions. After nationalization, few piecerated shunters

were added to load the rack of 30 boxes introduced as a

growth of coal production. The work of wagon shunting

are done manually by piece rated shunters. His evidence

mostly covers the work of wagon shunting carried manually

and mechanically shunting was started around 1986. That

the workmen were paid excess amount. RLC directed

payment of amount Rs. 35 Lakh under section 33(C)(1),

said order was kept in abeyance after challenge before

High Court. Exhibit W-4 is notice dated 11-12-90 issued by

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management for change of service conditions proposed

by employer. Said notice speaks that due to the work of

wagon pushing through wagon shunters engaged on

pushing wagons at Rajnagar are no longer required to

push wagon moreover pushing wagons manually on piece

rated is not operated. Notice was issued to Chandradev

Exhibit W-7 calling his option within 7 days. The change

proposed by management was opposed by the workers as

well as Union. The copy of notice dated 11-12-90 is

produced by management at Exhibit M-14. Copy of

objection submitted by workers is produced at Exhibit

M-15 bearing signatures of several workers. Copy of

objection submitted by workman is produced by Ist party

at Exhibit W-3. Workman had requested pay protection

and benefit of paid holidays, sick leave, CL etc.

16.

Witness Ashwini Kumar and Chandradev in their

affidavit of evidence have stated that they were working

as piecerated workmen from august 93. They were

converted to time rated wagon shunter Cat-II without

notice. He and his co-workers had opposed. Their

conversion as time rated wagon shunting mazdoor

Category II. Their entire evidence doesnot show that after

submitting objection they did not carry the work of wagon

shunter in time rated cat-II. Rather their evidence shows

that they had carried said work by existing ipayment of

wages as piece rated wagon shunters. Shri B.K.Singh

submitted exhaustive written notes of argument. In para-

21 of his notes, it is submitted that copy of wage billing of

piece rated wagon shunter are not produced. The

documents produced are of subsequent period. The

evidence of management’s witness shri N.R.Das is

imaginary and bogus. In para-22 of his notes, it is

submitted that the billing of piece rated wagon shunters

was prepared in Manager’s office till 10^th day of the month.

From 1994 onwards, the work of billing was computerized.

His evidence is devoted about the claim of wages for work

as breakman, pointsman etc. The evidence on record

shows even after submitting objections, the workman

carried work of wagon shunters, time rated Cat-II.

17.

Ist party relies on ratio held in

Case of M/S Kec International Ltd versus Kamani

Employees Union and others equivalent citation 1998(3)

BomCR 590. In para-3 their Lordship dealing with violation

of Section 9-A of ID Act discussed, it is contented that no

notice as contemplated under Section 9-A the ID Act, 1947

was issued and consequently the action of the

management in accepting the applications for voluntary

retirement Scheme was ab-initio null and void and it must

be deemed that the workmen are in service. It is in that

context that they have prayed for various reliefs for the

105 workers who are enlisted at Exhibit “C” who have

withdrawn their VRS applications.

In case of 2013-136-FLR-1070. Their Lordship dealing

with Section 9-A held merely because other employees

drivers did not object on being appointed as operators. It

doesnot mean that employer was not under obligation to

give notice of change under Section 9-A of Act.

On point of converting those 13 workmen as time

rated wagon shunters, learned counsel for IInd party Shri

A.K.Shashi submits that notice of change under Section

9-A is required to be given w.r.t. the matters provided in

Schedule-IV. It is further submitted that when change is

required to be introduced to retrench the workers for

introducing standardization, notice is required.

Schedule-IV under ID Act deals with conditions of

service for change of which notice is to be given-

Wages, including the period and mode of payment,

Contribution paid, or payable by the employer to

any Provident Fund or pension fund or for the

benefit of the workmen under any law for the time

being in force,

Compensatory and other allowances,

Hours of work and rest intervals,

Leave with wages and holidays,

withdrawal of any customary concession or privilege

or change in usage,

introduction of new rules of discipline or alteration

of existing rules, except in so far as they are provided

in standing orders.

10.

rationalization, standardization or improvement of

plant or technique which is likely to lead to

retrenchment of workmen

The change in service condition of 6-13 workmen

from piece rated to time rated Cat-II wagon shunter certainly

as impact of change payment o wages from piece rated to

time rated workers. In my considered view, the notice under

Section 9-A was required. Service conditions of those 13

workmen are changed without notice under Section 9-A

of I.D.Act. Thus provisions of Section 9-A of I.D.Act are

violated by IInd party while converting those workers from

piece rated to time rated shunters Cat-II. For above reasons,

I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

18.

Point No.2- 2^nd part of reference relates to not making

full payment of arrears of wages to 6-13 workmen as per

NCWA-IV. The evidence of witness of workman is clear

that NCWA Core was implemented from August 89 with

retrospective effect. From 1-1-1987. That during

intervening period, NCWA IV was in force. The wages

were paid to those workers as per NCWA-III as piece rated

workers. In his notes of argument. Shri B.N.Singh Vice

President of the Union also advanced submission without

those workers were carrying the work of loading point,

manual, opening couplings, crossing points etc. and the

wages Cat-IV are calculated. Howeverabove said claim is

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

certainly beyond the terms of reference. 2^nd part of the

terms of reference relates to non-payment of difference of

arrears of wages as per NCWA-IV were not paid to those

workers from 1-1-1987 to August 1989. That the workmen

were paid 60 % wages of the work carried by wagon

shunters. They were not paid 40 % wages of work of wagon

shunting. Both the witnesses for claimed wages 40 % of

the total work of wagon pulling. The evidence of the

management’s witnesses is that from 1986 onwards, work

of wagon pulling was carried mechanically. There were 15-

20 wagon of 22 tones. In the past work of wagon pulling

15-20 used to be carried after introduction of work of wagon

pulling by machine, pulling of 58 wagons was carried every

day. While making payments to those piece rated workers,

60 % work was considered for billing i.e. about 34 wagons

per day. That the actual work of wagon pulling was carried

by those workmen of 15-20. The workmen were paid excess

amount for 14-15 wagon per day. Those workmen were

paid excess amount of Rs. 5 Lakh, Rs. 22,540.13 stated by

Shri N.R.Das in Para-16 of his affidavit. The payment made

to those workers @ 60 % of the total wage making as well

manually from Sept 89 to May 93 comes to Rs.8,17,303.79.

The excess payment of Rs.13,39,820.94 was made to the

workman. In para-13 of his affidavit, N.R.Das has stated

RLC has directed management for payment of Rs.35,81,500.

Said order was challenged before Hon’ble High Court.

Hon’ble High court has stayed order passed by RLC with

direction that Tribunal may decide the claims between

parties. Shri N.R.Das in his cross-examination admits that

the officers concerned with Rajnagar are not witness in

this case. That Mr. Raghuraj Singh was looking the work

of Rajnagar Mines. His evidence in further cross-

examination shows he had knowledge of working of

Rajnagar Colliery as he was sitting with the officers. He

was going to siding of Rajnagar colliery with Raghuraj

Singh. That they have not prepared in the registers. He

was not responsible for work of Rajnagar Siding. Work of

loading was carried in 3 shifts. Different clerks were looking

after work in the shift. Before nationalization, there was

single unit at Rajnagar Area. There was loading side for

the unit. Piece rated wagon shunter at Rajnagar was prior

to nationalization. Wages of piece rated employees were

different . He could not produce old wage agreement. The

work load was not revised. His further evidence in cross-

examination shows that Tarex Machine was used by

contractors. Loading and pushing work was carried by

Singh Contractor. The witness was unable to tell its date.

Shri N.R.Das in Para-40 of his cross admits that arrears for

the period 1-1-1987 to August 89 are not paid to the workers

which they were entitled. He further says, it came to notice

that amount of Rs. 5,22,306/- was paid in excess of those

workers. They were paid excess amount of Rs.8,17,100/-

for the period Sept 87 to May 93. The evidence of

Shri N.R.Das on the point of excess payment made to those

workers is not shattered in his cross-examination.

Shri R.K.Tiwari in his cross-examination para-11 says after

1986, 58 wagons per day shunting work was carried. After

December 1986, coal from open cast mines was received.

The wagon racks were increased. Thereafter Shunting

work was stopped. As per evidence of Shri R.k.Tiwari,

Ranjan Sahai, chandrabhan Singh, Mahanji were looking

after the work of Wagon shunting. Loading mate was

submitted report on papers , its entry was taken in office.

He was not signing on report submitted by loading mate.

The evidence of shri R.K.Tiwari that work of wagon

shunting carried by mechanical process since 1986 is not

shattered in his cross-examination. The evidence of

witnesses of Ist party Union doesnot show that any

separate record was maintained about the work of shunting

wagon manually and mechanically. Rather the witnesses

of Ist party Union claims that total work of wagon shunting

was manually carried. Therefore evidence on above point

cannot be accepted in view of evidence of Management’s

witness R. K. Tiwari and N. R. Das.

19.

IInd party has produced as Exhibit M-1, M-2 w.r.t.

cases amount paid to workers. The details are shown in

M-1A to M-1F and Exhibit M-2. The evidence of witnesses

of Ist party is absolutely silent about excess payment made

to workers shown in all those documents. Exhibit M-3 is

report of the Committee which had inquired about the

payments made and reported excess payment. The

evidence of management’s witnesses No.2 and 3 and

documentary evidence cannot be disbelieved. The

evidence of the witnesses of Union that total work of

wagon pushing was carried manually by those 13 workers

cannot be believed. The evidence on record shows that

excess amount is also paid to the workers. Those workers

were also paid advance Rs.15,000 towards arrears for the

period January 89 to august 89. The evidence of witness

of Ist party is not clear to calculate how much work of

wagon shunting was carried by them and how much

amount of arrears they are entitled. Certainly burden lies

on workman to establish their claim for arrears as per

NCWA IV is due against the management. The evidence

adduced by witnesses of management is not sufficient to

establish exact amount of arrears as per NCWA IV

adjusting excess amount paid to them.

20.

Union Representative V. N. Singh has submitted

citations in case of M/S Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd

versus their workmen reported in 1972(2) SCC 383 . The

judgment between Hindustan Lever Ltd Employees Union

equivalent to citation 1999(1) BomCR722. Both cases, facts

are not comparable to the case at hand.

21.

To sumup, the evidence of witnesses of Ist party is

not clear how much work of shunting wagon carried

manually during the period 1-1-1987 to August 89. Amount

of arrears as per NCWA-IV therefore cannot be calculated.

For above reasons, claim of workman for arrear as per

NCWA-IV cannot be allowed. For above reasons, I record

my finding in Point No.2 in Negative.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

22.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of Sub Area Manager, Rajnagar RO, Sub

Area of Hadeo Area of SECL in converting 13 wagon

shunters Cat II workers without complying with the

provisions of Section 9 A of the Act is illegal.

(2)

Workmen are not entitled to arrears of wages as per

NCWA-IV as excess amount was already paid to them.

(3)

Proceeding under Section 33(C)(2) in Case No. C/4/

94 stands disposed in terms of award. Copy be placed on

record of C/4/94.

(4)

Parties to bear their respective costs.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 23-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- lh- ,y-]

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 276@1999)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@12@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@86@1999&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th December, 2014

S.O. 23.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 276/

1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the M/s. WCL, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 24/12/2014.

[No. L-22012/86/1999-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/276/99

Chief General Secretary,

RKKMS (INTUC),

PO Chandametta,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

WCL, Pench Area,

PO Parasia,

Distt. Chhindwara

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9^th day of December 2014

As per letter dated 3-8-99 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/

86/99/IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of WCL,

Pench Area, PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara in not

giving promotion/ notional seniority with back

wages to Shri Rameshwar Prasad in Grade I from

1985 and special Grade from 1990 is justified? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 9/1 to 9/5. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

appointed as General Mazdoor on 2-11-1972. He was

promoted as clerk Grade II on 1-12-78. He was posted under

Sub Area Manager, Burkui Colliery. In 1984, management

declared existence of Burkui colliery seized . it merged

with Eklehra colliery. At the time of merger of colliery,

Manager displayed notice on Notice Board inviting options

of two places from excessive staff for transfer. Applicant

submitted option for his transfer to C.M.Store or GM

office. That management avoided his transfer on

administrative ground. The transfer order was issued on

ground of request. Workman alleged malicious intention

for such transfer by management. The excess staff was

posted within Eklehra colliery as per order dated 15-7-84

even after merger of colliery, the surplus staff was retained

as per order dated 11-7-84 by management. Name of

workman was at Sl.No.4. the merger of Burkui and Eklehra

colliery was completed as per order dated 9-3-85 letter

issued by the PF commissioner, Chhindwara.

Ist party workman further submits that he was

detained at Burkui colliery for completing work of PF. After

completion of said work, he was transferred to area office

on 30-7-85. He joined said posting on 2-8-85 in account

section. That in seniority list of area Office, his name was

put in bottom. He was superseded by his juniors on basis

of station seniority. That station seniority could not be

applied in this case as he was transferred on administrative

ground after merger. Workman further submits that on

3-5-86, employees junior to him were promoted as Grade

II. His name was omitted from order of promotion. He

submitted various representations. The same were not

considered. Workman further submits that the order of his

promotion was issued on 31-7-91. He was denied national

seniority from 3-5-86. He submitted various

representations. The matter was placed before the

committee constituted on 9-11-94. Said committee illegally

held that his transfer was on mutual ground and his

seniority at bottom is proper.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

Ist party workman further submits that his transfer

order was single. Mr. Atique Mohd clerk Grade I was

transferred to Eklehra. He was transferred to GM Office,

that Senior personnel cannot be mutually transferred with

junior. Mr. Atique Mohd. Was transferred as Clerk Grade I.

Mutual transfer of workman with Atique is illegal. It is

reiterated that seniority of workman is illegally denied.

Dy.Chief Personal Manager had recommended properly

his national seniority from 3-5-86. On its approval, the

order was issued on 25-3-95. The placement order was

issued on 3-7-95. Both orders were revoked behind his

back on recommendations of junior most personal officer.

Workman submits that he is victimized by management

showing seniority at bottom. He is superseded by juniors.

On such ground, workman is praying promotion to clerk

Grade I from 3-5-86 and promotion to Special Grade from

1990.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to

10/4 denying claim of the workman. Prior to it, exparte

Written Statement was submitted by IInd party. IInd party

did not dispute that the workman was working at Burkui

Colliery. He submitted application for transfer to GM Office.

His application was sympathetically considered and

transferred workman on request. That seniority in GM

office was taken from date of joining on request transfer.

Workman thereby become junior in existing clerk Grade II

in GM office as per prevailing practice. Ist party workman

submitted several representations requesting to treat his

transfer on administrative ground. If his request was not

accepted. On recommendation by DPC, workman was

promoted as Accounts Assistant in special Grade on 29-9-98

as per prevailing practice. All adverse contentions of

workman in statement of claim are denied. IInd party

denies that juniors were given promotion. It is denied that

Committee had illegally held that transfer of workman was

mutual. Workman was transferred on his request, he was

placed at bottom of seniority. IInd party submits that

reference be answered in its favour.

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

management of WCL, Pench

Area, PO Parasia,

Distt. Chhindwara in not

giving promotion/ notional

seniority with back wages to

Shri Rameshwar Prasad in

Grade I from 1985 and special

Grade from 1990 is justified?

In Negative

(ii)

If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

As per final order.

REASONS

As per terms of reference, the claim of promotion to

Grade I post is shown from 1995 whereas in statement of

claim, workman had claimed promotion to said post from

3-5-86. The substance of grievance of workman is after

merger of Burkui mines in Eklehra mines, he submitted

option for transfer to GM office as notice was displayed

by Manager. His transfer was on administrative ground

but his transfer was shown on mutual ground and he was

placed at bottom of seniority list. IInd party contents that

transfer of workman was on request/ mutual transfer and

therefore his seniority was placed at bottom. The

Committee also confirmed seniority of workman fixed at

bottom was proper. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence.

Workman has stated that in 1984, Burkui colliery in Eklehra

colliery. After that Manager issued order dated 11-7-84

directing surplus staff be retained . his name was at Sl.No.4

in said order. That he had submitted option for his transfer

to CM Store/ GM office on 6-5-84. After he submitted

option, order of his transfer was issued on 18-6-85. His

transfer was shown mutual. In transfer order, there is no

term to take his seniority from joining duty at place of

transfer as prevailing practice. That both mines are merged

in 1984. PF Commissioner, Chhindwara declared merger as

per letter dated 9-3-85. That he was detained at Burkui

colliery for completion of work of PF. Then he was renewed

on 30-7-85. He joined place of transfer on 2-8-85. His

seniority was shown at bottom. That he was transferred

as clerk Grade II whereas Atique was transferred as Clerk

Grade I. it cannot be mutual transfer. In his cross-

examination, workman says he had submitted application

for transfer to GM office. His application was not accepted

or rejected. He worked in GM office since 1985. He admits

that in 1985, his application or transfer was accepted. Prior

to 1984, seniority of clerks was maintained simultaneously.

After introduction of cadre scheme, option was called. He

was promoted in 1991, his seniority was not given in the

order of promotion. The Committee had found his seniority

given at bottom was proper. Workman explained that when

Burkui colliery was closed, management issued notice

calling option of witnesses for transfer. That Dy.Chief

Personal Manager Shri C.L.Jaiswal had cordial relations

with him. Workman was unable to tell whether any

chargesheet was issued to Shri Jaiswal. He denies that

notesheet was put up by Jaiswal was wrong. Since 1998,

he is working on clerks Grade Special.

The evidence of workman in re-examination and his

cross-examination relates to documents Exhibit W-8-a,b,c,

W-9 as those documents have no vital impact for deciding

seniority of the workman.

The documentary evidence Exhibit M-1 is option

submitted by workman as per notice issued by Manager.

M-2 is notice issued by Manager calling option for two

places, M-3 is order of transfer of Atique Mohd. And

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman were transferred to Eklehra and GM office

respectively. Their transfer is shown on his own request.

Order is silent that their seniority will be shown at bottom

at place of transfer. Exhibit M-4 is order of promotion of

workman dated 25-3-95. Said order shows that his seniority

will be considered for promotion to the next higher grade.

Exhibit M-5 is note submitted by Dy.Chief personal

Manager to treat transfer of workman on administrative

ground in consequence of merger of Burkui colliery and

absence for transfer called on 6-5-84. Exhibit M-6 is letter

dated 9-3-85 confirming merger of Burkui and Eklehra

Mines. M-7 is order dated 5-10-96 revoking order dated

18-6-85. From above order, it is clear that the transfer of

workman treated on administrative ground was revoked

and therefore the delay in raising dispute alleged by IInd

party cannot be accepted. Infact the dispute starts after

revocation of the earlier order by Exhibit M-7. Exhibit M-9

is report of Committee treating mutual transfer of workman.

No application for transfer by Atique Mohd. Is produced

on record. In absence of such application, the transfer of

applicant cannot be said mutual. Committee had

overlooked the application of workman in pursuance of

notice issued by Manager calling option. The evidence of

workman that he was detained at Burkui colliery for

completing work is not shattered. Order Exhibit W-1 order

dated 11-6-84 about merger of both the mines. W-2 shows

workman was promoted as Clerk Grade II from 1-12-1978,

Exhibit W-5 is order of promotion of workman dated

31-7-91. W-6 is order treating transfer of workman on

administrative ground. Said order has been revoked.

Subsequently the reasons are not justified.

10.

The evidence of management’s witness Abdul hakim

shows that workman submitted representations to treat

his transfer on administrative ground. Said witness was

not made available for cross-examination. Management

witness Samir Barla tried to support contentions of

management. In Par-11 of his affidavit, he says the basis

granting notional seniority to workman was his transfer

order but he was not transferred to GM office , he was

transferred on 18-6-85. Why workman was not transferred

as per his option. The evidence of workman that he was

detained for completing work remained unshattered. The

evidence of management’s witness cannot be accepted.

The witness of management was unable to tell when

Burkui colliery was closed, he did not remember about it.

From his evidence in cross-examination, Exhibit W-1 to

W-7 are admitted in evidence.

11.

To conclude the workman had submitted option for

transfer in pursuance of notice issued by manager but

was detained for completing work and transferred

subsequently. His transfer was on administrative ground

and not on transfer request. The transfer order is silent

that his seniority will be at bottom at place of joining

therefore the action of management cannot be justified.

Workman is discriminated on ground that his transfer was

mutual on request. The evidence of management’s witness

is silent what was the practice in GM office and whether

such practice was approved and acquired legal sanction.

In absence of such satisfactory evidence on above point,

the denial of promotion to the workman overlooking his

original seniority is illegal. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

12.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1

workman is illegally discriminated showing his seniority

at bottom, therefore workman deserves promotion as per

his original seniority. Accordingly I record my finding in

Point No.2.

13.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the management of WCL, Pench Area,

PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara in not giving

promotion/ notional seniority with back wages to

Shri Rameshwar Prasad in Grade I from 1985 and

special Grade from 1990 is not proper and legal.

(2) IInd party is directed to consider promotion of

workman to post of Clerk Grade I and special Grade

considering his transfer order dated 30-7-85 to GM

office on Administrative ground. Workman be

allowed all monetary benefits.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 24-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- bZ- lh-

,y-] ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 42@2002)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@12@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@110@2001&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th December, 2014

S.O.

24.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/2002)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Bangwar Sub-Area

of SECL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 24/12/2014.

[No. L-22012/110/2001-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/42/02

Shri Laxman Prasad, General Mazdoor,

T. No. 1747, Bhuibandh,

PO & Distt. Shahdol (MP)

...Workman

Versus

Sub Area Manager,

Bangwar Sub Area of SECL,

PO Bemhouri, Distt. Shahdol (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11^th day of December 2014

As per letter dated 22-2-02 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/

110/2001-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates

to:

“ Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager,

Bangwar Sub Area of SECL, PO Bemhouri, Distt.

Shahdol (MP) in terminating Shri Laxman Prasad,

General Mazdoor from services on 5-4-99 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

parties. Workman died during pendency. His LRs are

substituted. The deceased workman submitted statement

of claim at Page 4/1 to 4/5. Case of workman is that he was

appointed as General Mazdoor with IInd party on 3-12-84

on vacant post. He worked with devotion on 7-6-94, he

was transferred from Chachai Project to Bungwar Project.

Due to his ill health, workman did not obey transfer order.

He submitted information alongwith medical certificate to

the department on 4-2-98, management imposed

punishment withholding one increment with cumulative

effect. Workman was allowed to join duty on 5-2-98. He

was not paid wages from June 94 to Jan-98- the period of

absence.

Workman submits he joined duty on 5-2-98. Because

of illhealth, he did not attend duty from 21-6-98 to 9-8-98.

He submitted Medical Certificate in support of his absence.

On 12-8-98, chargesheet was issued to him for unauthorized

absence without considering the facts. Workman denied

charges against him. Workman submitted he was seriously

ill. Medical Certificate was also submitted. His reply was

not considered and enquiry was initiated against him.

Enquiry Officer was appointed. He conducted enquiry

without following principles of natural justice. Names of

witnesses and list of documents were not submitted with

chargesheet. On 14-12-98, Enquiry Officer submitted his

report. On report of Enquiry Officer, punishment of removal

from service was imposed against workman on 5-4-98.

Workman was not given personal hearing before imposing

punishment contrary to principles of natural justice.

Workman submits that the punishment of removal

from service is imposed without application of mind,

enquiry conducted against him was not fair. Principles of

natural justice were not followed. While imposing

punishment, no reasons are given for rejecting his defence.

The order of punishment is passed mechanically by

Disciplinary Authority. The punishment is harsh,

disproportionate in the circumstances. The Enquiry Officer

without recording evidence of witnesses submitted his

report. Workman was not given opportunity to lead

evidence and produce documents. On such contentions,

workman prays for his reinstatement with back wages.

IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page 11/1

to 11/7 opposing relief claimed by workman. IInd party

submits workman was initially appointed as General

Mazdoor on 3-12-84. Vide order dated 9-6-94, workman

was transferred to Bungwar Mine. Workman was in habit

of remaining absent without sanctioned leave, without

intimation of permission. The service conditions of

workman are covered by standing orders of colliery. The

standing orders requires workman to submit application

for leave in writing to the Competent Authority. Employees

working in Coal industry are given various facilities i.e.

Leave, Medical Facilities, LTC. The dispensary is provided

at colliery level. Serious patients are referred to specialized

hospital. The attendance of workman from 94 to 97 was

nil.

For unauthorized absence, chargesheet was issued

to workman on 14-8-98, reply submitted by workman was

found not satisfactory. Shri R.Rajeshwar was appointed

as Enquiry Officer. Shri S.R.Chajar was appointed as

Management’s Representative. Enquiry was conducted

on various dates following principles of natural justice.

Workman fully participated in enquiry. He was allowed

services of co-worker but workman did not avail the same.

Workman had participated in enquiry. The findings of

Enquiry Officer were confirmed by Competent Authority.

Showcause notice was issued to workman, he failed to

submit his reply. The punishment of removal was imposed

against workman after findings of Enquiry Officer. It is

reiterated that unauthorized absence must be nipped at

the earliest as failure of employee for work affects coal

production. All other adverse contentions of workman

have been denied. It is submitted that workman resumed

duty on 5-2-98. Chargesheet was issued to him for

unauthorized absence and punishment has been imposed.

The appeal was dismissed.

Workman submitted rejoinder at Page 15/1 to 15/2

reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

Counsel for Ist party workman on 24-3-2014 submits

that legality of enquiry is not disputed. The parties not

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

adduced evidence on other issues. Final argument are

heard.

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 Sub

Area Manager, Bangwar Sub Area

of SECL, PO Bemhouri,

Distt. Shahdol (MP) in

terminating Shri Laxman Prasad,

General Mazdoor from services

on 5-4-99 is legal and justified?

In Negative

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman

As per

is entitled to?”

final order.

REASONS

10.

As discussed above, legality of enquiry is not

disputed by counsel for workman. Therefore the question

remains whether charges against workman are proved,

whether punishment of removal from service of workman

is proper and legal. Workman died during pendency. His

LRs are brought on record. The documents produced by

Ist party Exhibit W-1 is order of punishment dated 4-2-98

stopping of one increment with cumulative effect for

chargesheet issued on 4-12-97. Exhibit W-2 is chargesheet

issued to workman on 12-8-98 for unauthorised absence

and habitual absence under Clause 26.30, 26.24 of the

standing orders. Exhibit W-3 is copy of findings of Enquiry

Officer holding charges alleged against workman are

proved. Exhibit W-4 is copy of order of removal from

service.

11.

IInd party management produced record of enquiry

at Exhibit M-1. The deceased workman filed affidavit of

evidence on the point of legality of enquiry. As learned

counsel for workman Shri S.Mishra did not dispute legality

of enquiry, the evidenced of affidavit needs no more

detailed discussion. For the same reasons, evidence of

management’s witness Shri R.Rajeshwar on point of

conducting enquiry needs no detailed discussion. The

record of Enquiry Proceedings M-1 is produced. The

charges against workman were of unauthorised and

habitual absence. Chargesheet was issued on 12-8-98

stating absence of workman from 20-5-98. Thus the period

of absence comes about less than 3 months. During course

of argument, learned counsel for workman Shri S.Mishra

submits that workman had submitted applications

alongwith medical certificate were not considered by

Enquiry Officer. The reasons for absence were informed

by workman. The chargesheet doesnot show details

pertaining to habitual absence of workman. The charge of

habitual absence cannot be proved. The record of Enquiry

Proceedings Page 9 shows on questions, workman

explained he was granted permission to join duty from

20-6-98. As per letter dated 18-6-98, Dr. D.K. Singh advised

him for his treatment. The Medical Officer, District, Shahdol

certified the same. Workman was advised to join duty from

11-10-98. Sick/fit certificate was submitted by workman.

Certain documents are produced at Page 10 & 11. Workman

has not denied his absence from duty, his contentions are

he had submitted Medical Certificates to the department.

Workman had not submitted any applications for leave

before Enquiry Officer and therefore the charge of

unauthorized absence is proved against the workman.

12.

Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A.K.Shashi

submits enquiry is held legal. Question is whether charges

alleged against workman are proved related to his habitual

absence. Workman was absent more than once. The

attendance details are given. Absence without sanctioned

leave of workman is established. Workman not availed

treatment in colliery hospital. Zerox copy of Medical

Certificate produced in enquiry. Workman has admitted

his absence. He was advised rest. It is not his case that he

fell ill. Workman was transferred on 7-6-94. His one

increment was stopped for his absence in 1994 to 1998.

Therefore it is submitted that charge of habitual absence

is also proved. In his statement of claim itself, workman

has pleaded that his one increment was withheld for

unauthorized absence from 1994 to 98. He was allowed to

join duty on 5-2-98. It is clear from pleading of workman

himself that he was absent from duty during 94 to 98.

When he remained absent without intimating to

management from 20-5-98 to 12-8-98 therefore the period

of habitual absence is also proved against workman.

13.

The learned counsel for management Shri A. K.

Shashi in support of his argument relies on ratio held in–

Case of Vivekanand Sethi versus Chairman J&K

Bank Ltd. And others reported in 2005(5) SCC 337.

Their Lordship held application for grant of leave

much after period of leave already sanctioned was

over. Dealing with application of natural justice, their

Lordship held when facts are admitted, an enquiry

would be an empty formality.

Even in present case, the absence of workman from

duty during 1994 to 1998 and 20-5-98 to 12-8-98 is

admitted in statement of claim itself. Therefore

discussion of evidence in Enquiry Proceeding is not

necessary.

Shri A.K.Shashi also relies on ratio held in case of

Delhi Transport Corporation versus Sardar Singh

reported in AIR 2004 SC-4161. From reading of Para-

16 of judgment it is clear that matter was remitted

back to the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh

after granting due opportunity to the parties.

Therefore detailed discussion in para 9 & 11 of the

judgment is not required.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in

Point No.1 in Affirmative.

14.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1

charges of unauthorized absence and habitual absence

against workman are proved . However for unauthorized

absence from 1994 to 97, punishment of withholding one

increment was imposed against workman. The question

arises whether punishment of removal imposed against

workman for unauthorized absence and habitual absence

is proper. The order of punishment imposed against

workman is produced at Page 16 of record of Enquiry. The

explanation submitted by workman about his illness was

not considered. The length of service of workman is not

considered while imposing punishment of removal from

service. For earlier absence of workman from 94 to 97,

punishment of with-holding one increment was imposed

whereas punishment of removal is imposed for his absence

less than 3 months.

15.

Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A. K. Shashi on

the point of punishment relies on ratio held in

Case of Union of India versus A.Nagamalleshwar

Rao reported in AIR-1998SC-III. Their Loreship

dealing with Section 14 of Administrative Tribunals

Act held Tribunal cannot examine evidence produced

before Inquiry Officer as if it is appellate court.

The ratio cannot be applied to present case as the

powers of this Tribunal are provided under Section

11 of ID Act.

In case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal

India Ltd. Versus Mukul Kumar Choudhari reported

in AIR 2010 SC-75 relied by Shri A.K.shashi, the

ratio held pertains to in departmental enquiry,

delinquent admitting charges. Conclusion arrived

at by Inquiry Officer about proof of charges.

Absence of any procedural illegality or irregularity

in conduct of departmental enquiry. It has to be held

that charges against delinquent stood proved and

warranted no inference.

The ratio in above cited case pertains to proof of

charges on admission during Enquiry Proceedings.

The facts of present case are not comparable. The

ratio cannot be applied to present case. I have

already recorded finding on Point No.1 considering

pleadings in statement of claim by workman, both

the charges against workman are proved.

16.

In present case, workman was already punished for

absence from 1994 to 1997. His one increment was stopped.

For 2^nd charge of unauthorised absence from 20-5-98 to

12-8-98 was for a period of less than 3 months workman

was removed form service. Whether said punishment is

proper and legal. While deciding quantum of punishment,

length of service of workman was not considered.

Workman was appointed inn 1984. He was transferred to

other mine in 1994. Workman had completed more than 30

years service. The punishment of removal from service

has impact of taking away all retiral benefits. Workman

died during pendency. There is no question of his

reinstatement. The victims are the family member. Therefore

in my considered view, punishment of removal form service

deserves to be modified to compulsory retirement of

deceased workman. Accordingly I record my finding in

Point No.2.

17.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the Sub Area Manager, Bangwar Sub

Area of SECL, PO Bemhouri, Distt. Shahdol (MP) in

terminating Shri Laxman Prasad, General Mazdoor

from services on 5-4-99 is legal and proper.

(2)

The punishment of removal imposed against

workman is modified to compulsory retirement . the

deceased and his LRs would be entitled to the

pensionary benefits as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 25-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh- ,l- ch-]

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 32@2002)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@12@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@24@2001&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th December, 2014

S.O.

25.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2002)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Central

Silk Board, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 24/12/2014.

[No. L-42012/24/2001-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/32/02

Shri Laldas Barekar & 18 others,

Vill and PO Garra,

Distt. Balaghat, Balaghat

...Workman

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

Joint Director,

Central Silk Board,

Distt. Raigarh,

Chhattisgarh

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 3^rd day of December 2014

As per letter dated 30-1-02 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-42012/

24/2001-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the Joint Director, Central

Silk Board, Raigarh in not regularizing not converting

as a permanent time rated employee in respect of

Shri Laldas Barekar S/o Shri Bachan Lal and 18 others

after completion of attendance of more than 240

days is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workmen are entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 2/1 to 2/7. Case of Ist party workmen is that after

following selection process, they were engaged by IInd

party as casual employees in 1983. Their service record

was excellent . they were given benefit of medical

allowance, paid holidays. That since 1983, they were

continuously working for more than 240 days every year.

They worked with devotion and honesty. Their services

were not regularized. It is alleged that the junior employees

Tilak Raj, Dalchand were regularized by IInd party without

any reasons. Workmen were illegally shown as seasonal

labours.

Ist party workman submits that in 1999, they had

opposed the action of IInd party submitting repeated

representations against discriminatory acts of IInd party.

They had also raised dispute. Ist party workman reiterates

that since 1999, the facility of medical allowance and paid

holidays was discontinued by IInd party. They were

illegally shown as seasonal employees. They were working

as casual employees for several years. The action of the

management after long service as casual employee

showing them seasonal employees is illegal. Workman

prays for reinstatement of their services.

IInd party filed Written Statement at page 7.1 to 7/4

opposing claim of Ist party workmen. IInd party submits

that Ist party workman were engaged as casual workers

on seasonal basis. In 1983 & 1991, they were engaged or

seasonal nature of work in Basic Seed Multiplication and

Training Centre, Balaghat. The availability of work is of

seasonal nature. Workers get work only 15 days in a month

on rotational basis. Said unit cannot provide work for whole

year. Regular work cannot be provided by Basic Seed

Multiplication and Training Centre. Workers get work only

15 days in a month on rotational basis. Said unit cannot

provide work for whole year. Regular work cannot be

provided by Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre

to seasonal labours. It is submitted that Silk Board has 21

basic Seed Multiplication Training Centre spread over

various states details shown in Para-2 of the Written

Statement. It is reiterated that the workman have not

completed 240 days continuous service during any of the

year. The work in Basic Seed Multiplication and Training

Centre, Balaghat is seasonal. Workman have to work at

Forest. Working period is maximum 5-6 months in a year

during July to December. The unit is carrying work of

seasonal nature- production of basic Tasar silkworm seed,

production of Seed cocoons by rearing of Tasar silkworks,

Raising and maintenance of Eco Plantation of Tasar Food

Plants & training the farmers in Tasar Silkwork rearing

technology.

IInd party further submits that Shri Tilakram

Chawhan was engaged as casual worker on regular basis

as per prevailing Board’s rules, he was converted as

timescale farm worker, whose service condition nature of

work are entirely different from that of applicants. Smt.

Daneshwari Chamlate was engaged as casual Farm worker

on compassionate grounds in place of her husband who

was a regular worker and deceased on 20-3-00 and he was

converted as Time scale Field Worker. That seasonal work

was allocated to labors of unskilled nature. No specific

scheme is required for the jobs that when seasonal work

increased intermittently additional seasonal labours are

engaged by rotation from employees on road. Ist party

workman engaged on seasonal basis are provided

seasonal works without disturbance. They are not entitled

to regularization claimed by them.

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

Joint Director, Central Silk Board,

Raigarh in not regularizing not

converting as a permanent time

rated employee in respect of

Shri Laldas Barekar

S/o Shri Bachan Lal and 18

others after completion of

attendance of more than

240 days is legal and justified?

In Negative

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Present reference pertains to claim for regularization

of Ist party Laldas Barekar and 18 others. Ist party

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

workman in support of their claim filed identical affidavit

of evidence. Shri Laldas Barekar in his affidavit claims he

was working on daily wages from 16-9-85. He worked more

than 240 days during the year 1986 to a 1999. That Tilak

Ram and Dalchand were engaged after they were

regularized in 1992, 1993, his services were not regularized.

He has become age barred for Government Servant. Since

year 2000, he is not regularly engaged on the work. As he

objected regularization of Tilak Ram and Dalchand, the

work was not provided to him regularly. Except date of

engagement of Ist party workmen, identical affidavit of

evidence are filed. Shri Laldas Barekar in his cross-

examination says he received appointment letter. Work of

IInd party continues whole of the year. He was doing work

of breeding silk worms and supervising work in forest. He

denies suggestion that work of unit carried during the

month July to December. He explained that 3 breedings

are taken in a year. That appointment letter is not produced

on record. he reiterates that he worked more than 240 days

during each of the year. Kheldas denies that he was

engaged as seasonal labour. He further says that he was

provided work for 45 days without break. No leave was

granted during such period. The work of breeding is carried

after rainy season is started. He denies suggestion that he

not completed 240 days continuous service. Such

suggestion are also denied by Channulal, Gangadas,

Heeralal, Laxmichand Katre. In his cross-examination

Laxmichand says he was engaged as casual labour. Work

in the unit is carried from June to February. Thereafter he

was doing work of supervising of plants. Pannalal in his

cross-examination says he was not engaged as seasonal

labour. He was engaged as casual labour. Ghuranlal though

filed affidavit of his evidence, he was not cross-examined.

Surajlal Bisen in his cross-examination says he was doing

work of breeding silk works and supervising of plantation.

The work was carried in the forest and the office unit.

Production was taken from the month of July. Kashiram

Matre filed affidavit of evidence but he was not cross-

examined. Dulichand in his cross-examination denies that

work was provided to them by rotation of 15 days. Their

work of silk work production was carried after beginning

of raining season from 15-6 to February. The evidence of

Chattarlal, Vishnusingh, Durga Prasad, Premlal, Lakhanlal,

Ranjendra and Balakdas is on the same lines. Workmen

were engaged as casual employees is not shattered. All

the workmen denied that they were engaged as seasonal

employees. The evidence of the workman is cogent that

after work of production of silk work, during raising season,

they were looking after the work of supervision of

plantation.

Management’s witness Debashish in his affidavit

has stated that he worked from 1983 to 1991, they were

provided work by 15 days rotation. The work was of

seasonal nature. Work used to be started from 15^th June

onwards and continued till January. Work is of seasonal

nature. Management’s witness in his cross-examination

says the name of workmen were sponsored through

Employment Exchange, again contented that names of all

workmen were not sponsored by Employment Exchange.

He wanted to verify the same from record. he was unable

to tell whether appointment letters were given to those

workmen. That Shri Pannalal was paid bonus for 3 years.

No bonus was paid to others. As they did not continuously

worked for 240 days for 2 years. In para-7 of his cross-

examination, witness admits those workmen completes 240

days continuous service. Again he corrected that remaining

workers have not completed 240 days continuous service

therefore bonus was not paid to them. Evidence of

management’s witness is shattered about completion of

240 days continuous service by workman. In his further

cross-examination, management’s witness admits Shri

Laxmichand completed more than 240 days during1989

and 1990. Bonus was not paid to him. Management’s

witness denies that the work is of seasonal nature and if

those workers are not working, the work cannot be

extracted. Workmen were engaged as casual labour in

1983. They were shown seasonal labours in the year 1999.

Any document is not issued in that regard. Casual labours

were CL, Medical allowances and bonus was paid to them.

Medical allowance was also paid to employees working in

the plantations. That Dalchand, Tilakram are junior to

workman were regularized. One of them died and

appointment on compassionate ground has been made. It

is clear from evidence in cross-examination of

management’s witness that workmen were shown seasonal

worker in 1999. Prior to them, they were working as casual

employees. Management’s witness has not produced any

record about the working days of workman. IInd party has

not produced any documents regarding the working days

of workman from 1983 to 1999 when Ist party workmen are

shown as seasonal labours. Record of enquiry is also not

produced on record. the record about working days of Ist

party workmen is not produced. Therefore evidence of

workmen that they were working continuously working

from 1983 to 1999 cannot be disbelieved. Witness of IInd

party has not produced any record that it was working as

seasonal establishment. The evidence of all workmen

discussed above that they worked more than 240 days

during each of the year is not shattered in their cross-

examination. IInd arty has not produced any record like

muster roll, register of payment of wages to establishment

that all those workmen were not continuously working.

They were working by rotation of 15 days during the

season. In absence of such evidence, I find no reason to

disbelieve evidence of workman. Ist party workmen are

working with IInd party as labour from 1983, 1985 to 1995.

Their services are not regularized. Therefore the benefit

of permanency is denied to the workman. IInd party has

not registered as seasonal establishment. No documentary

evidence is produced in that regard. The evidence of the

Ist party workmen that after the period of silk worm

production, they were looking after the work of supervision

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of plantation is not shattered. The evidence of the Ist

party workman that after the period of silk production from

June to Feb, they were looking after the plants cannot be

disbelieved. The plantation for production of silk work

cannot be grown within short season period. Growing

plantation for silk work and maintaining it appears of

permanent nature. It cannot be said seasonal. Therefore I

donot find substance in the contentions of IInd party. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.2 in

Negative.

Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.1, the

action of IInd party not regularizing services of workmen

after completion of 240 days continuous service is not

proper and legal. The workmen after completion of 240

days continuous service are entitled to status of regular

employee in view of Section 25 B of I.D.Act. accordingly I

record my finding in Point No.2.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the Joint Director, Central Silk Board,

Raigarh in not regularizing not converting as a

permanent time rated employee in respect of Shri

Laldas Barekar S/o Shri Bachan Lal and 18 others

after completion of attendance of more than 240

days is not legal and proper.

(2)

Ist party workmen Shri Laldas Barekar, Kheldas

Barekar, Channulal Rangangdale, Gangadas Barekar,

Heeralal Uikey, Laxmichand Katre, Pannalal Kosre,

Ghurunlal, Suralal Bisen, Kashiram Matre, Dulichand

Patle, Chattarlal Kawre, Rudhanlal Meshram,

Vishnusingh uikey, Durga Prasad Sarnagat, Premlal

Choudhary, Ranjendra Daharwal, Lakhanlal Khairwer

and Balakdas Barekar are entitled to be status of

regular employee of IInd party. Consequential

benefits from the date of order of reference i.e.

30-1-02 be given.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 26-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- bZ- lh-

,y-] ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 31@1996)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@12@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@214@1995&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th December, 2014

S.O.

26.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/1996)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Bijuri

Sub Area of SECL, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 24/12/2014.

[No. L-22012/214/1995-IR(C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/31/96

Shri Barelal Kewat, Ex Loader,

C/o Shri M.L.Jain, Advocate,

Near Panchayati Mandir,

Shahdol

... Workman

Versus

Sub Area Manager,

Bijuri Sub Area of SECL,

Post Bijuri Colliery,

Distt. Shahdol

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 4th day of December 2014

As per letter dated 30-1-96 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/

214/95-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager,

Bijuri Sub Area of SECL in dismissing Shri Barelal

Rawat S/o Shri Babuli, Loader Bijuri colliery from

company services w.e.f. 4-2-93 is legal and justified?

What relief the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page

3/1 to 3/5. Case of workman is that Ist party Barelal was

employed in Bijuri colliery as Loader from 1984. He was

continuously working to the satisfactory of his superiors.

On 3-7-89, workman was informed by Sr. personal manager

about complaints against him alleging that he was working

on fake name. that his correct name was Chamru S/o Duma

Kewat. Allegations in said complaint was inquired by Sr.

Personal Manager. Workman was called to produce

certificate issued by Village Sarpanch or any other

competent authority identifying him. He was also informed

otherwise complaint will be presumed to be true and

disciplinary action for committing forgery would be

initiated.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

Workman submits that after receiving said

communication, he produced certificate issued by Gram

Panchayat, Kothi ad affidavit, his photograph attested by

Sarpanch, enquiry was concluded. Workman was

exonerated. After long time more than 14 years, again

workman was served witih letter dated 4-2-93 terminating

his services with immediate effect on the basis of enquiry

conducted behind his back secretly. Workman submits

that he challenged order of his termination before Hon’ble

High Court, Jabalpur in Petition No. 26282/93. In said Writ

petition, directions were issued to conciliate the matter

before ALC. The conciliation failed when the dispute has

been referred.

Workman submits that Dy.General Manager held him

guilty without holding enquiry. Claim of management about

holding domestic enquiry cannot be imagined. Termination/

dismissal of his service without giving opportunity for his

defence is illegal. It is in violation of natural justice. That

initiation of fresh proceeding after 14 years amounts to

jeopardie. Entertaining complaints after 14 years and

conducting enquiry is illegal. On such grounds, workman

is praying for his reinstatement with backwages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/4

opposing relief claimed by workman. IInd party did not

dispute workman was appointed as labour in Bijuri colliery

on 27-4-84. That IInd party was not supplied with copy of

the letter dated 3-7-89 alleged to have been issued by Sr.

Personal Manager. Therefore comments in that regard are

not given. IInd party was also not supplied copies of

certificate issued by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat and copy

of affidavit. Therefore IInd party reserved its comments

on above points. As per contentions in statement of claim

of workman, enquiry conducted in 1989 and he was

terminated in 1993. The period comes only 4 years and not

14 years as claimed by him. It is further submitted that

SECL acquired land of Behraband Pilot Mine which as per

guidelines of MP Rehabilitation Scheme, a land oustee or

his representative was to be given employment. Shri

Chamru represented himself to be Borelal and secured

employment in the mine. On 24-7-84, complaint was

received from Kamla S/o Bisahu Kewat and six others

addressed to Chief Vigilance Officer dated 12-12-92. It was

alleged in the statement of claim that Borelal has secured

employment by personation, his correct name is Chamru.

He obtained employment fraudulently. That after receiving

complaint, enquiry was conducted on 2-1-93 by Officer

Sinha, Dy. CME, Narayan Jha Manager, Beby Singh,

Dy.Personel Manager. Enquiry Report was submitted on

2-1-93. It was found that Borelal has personated. His correct

name was Chamru. After considering findings of Enquiry

Committee, workman was terminated. It is submitted that

workman secured employment by Practicing fraud. No

chargesheet was issued to him as said act is not covered

as misconduct. Workman was given opportunity for his

defence. On such ground, IInd party prays for answering

reference in its favour.

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 Sub Area

Manager, Bijuri sub Area of SECL in

dismissing Shri Barelal Rawat

S/o Shri Babuli, Loader Bijuri

colliery from company services

w.e.f. 4-2-93 is legal and justified?

In Negative

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his service

on the ground of securing employment fraudulently by

personation. IInd party filing Written Statement supports

the order of termination of workman. The order of

termination of workman Exhibit W-1 is admitted by IInd

party.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. Workman

has stated that in the year 1989 some one had complained

that he secured employment with his wrong name of

Borelal. Workman had produced certificate of Gram

Panchayat, his personal affidavit with photograph is also

produced by him. He was exonerated from the allegations

in complaint. After 14 years, again false complaint was

filed and he was terminated vide order dated 3-2-93. He

has stated that order was passed. Workman says that his

name is Borelal Alias name is Chamru name of his father is

Babuli alias Deena. His services were terminated in

violation of natural justice on false complaint. He was not

given opportunity for his defence.

In his cross-examination, workman says he got

service after interview. He doesnot know contents of his

affidavit. He got service in 1983-84. After interview,

document was not received by him. appointment letter

was received by post. He further says that he is resident

of Jamunia Tola earlier district shahdol presently called as

Annupur. Name of his father is Deena alias Baboli. He is

only son of his father. He has two sisters Munni and Billu,

both are married. His elder sister is married at Pipara

Mantolia, Kothi. He denies that he got service as land

oustee. His land was not found satisfactory. However no

chargesheet was issued to workman. Witness further says

workman was not given opportunity for his cross-

examination. Witness of management has deposed adverse

to IInd party. He was cross-examined by counsel for IInd

party Shri A.K.Shashi. in his cross-examination by counsel

for IInd party above witness says he is working as General

Manager of SECL. Report M-3 given by him is correct.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Statement of Borelal was recorded. In his cross-examination

the witness says signature of workman was not obtained

in Exhibit M-3 therefore credibility of report Exhibit M-3 is

not free from suspicion. Management’s witness Khemlal

and Samlu, Borelal in their affidavit of evidence have stated

that workman secured employment in name of Carelal. His

name was chamru. Kamla in his cross-examination says

that documents of election name of workman is recorded

as Borelal is not known to him. he admits that he has

quarrel with chamru w.r.t. light. Proceedings are pending.

His house is adjourning to house of Chamru. Samru did

not appeared in cross-examination. Babulal in his cross-

examination says that his name was not registered in

Employment Exchange office. He did not complained that

workman had secured employment in his name. he did not

report to police that there is no person by name Chamru in

his village. That Chamru has two sisters Bitti and Nanbai.

The evidence of management’s witnesses is not

consistent. MW-1 has enmity with Chamru w.e.f. land

dispute. Document Exhibit M-2 voer list name of Chamru

is appearing at Sl.No.151 name of Barelal is Sl.No.143.

volume of documents are produced by workman – ration

card, Identity Card, Marksheet . In all, his name is recorded

as Borelal. The evidence adduced by management is not

sufficient to hold that name of workman is not Borelal S/o

Baboli. Management’s witness Shri Borelal himself says

that he did not complained to police. IInd party has not

produced documents about land of Shri Chamru for mine

and the workman was appointed as land oustee. Therefore

the ground for termination of workman are not justified.

for above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Negative.

10.

Point No.2- the allegation in complaint received by

management that workman secured employment by

personation in name of Borelal are not established. The

documents about appointment of workman as land oustee

are not produced. However the workman is terminated

after complaint was received about securing employment

by personation. The Fact Finding Committee was

constituted. After receiving report, services of workmen

were terminated. Management has justified reasons for

termination but reasons are found not proved therefore

the workman deserves reinstatement but without back

wages. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of the Sub Area Manager, Bijuri sub Area of

SECL in dismissing Shri Barelal Rawat S/o Shri

Babuli, Loader Bijuri colliery from company services

w.e.f. 4-2-93 is not legal and proper.

(2)

IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with

continuity of service but without backwages.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 27-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- lh- ,y-] ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@

Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 106@2000) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@12@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@579@1999&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th December, 2014

S.O. 27.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 106/

2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of Mohan Collery of WCL,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 24/12/2014.

[No. L-22012/579/1999-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/106/00

The President,

Coal Mines Engineering

Workers Association,

PO Palachourai,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

The Manager,

Mohan Colliery of WCL,

Po Junnardeo,

Distt. Chhindwara

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 2^nd day of December, 2014

As per letter dated 20-6-00 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/

579/99/IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Mohan

Colliery of Ambara Sub Area of WCL, PO Ambara,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in not promoting Shri

S.K.Sahota, Elec. Foreman Grade B as Elec.

Supervisor Grade-A is justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim through

Coal Mines Engineering workers Association at Page3.

Case of Ist party workman is that workman Shri S.K.Sahota

was appointed on 1-1-1973 as electrician Category IV. His

date of birth was 29-4-44. On 1-1-1974, he was transferred

to Mohan Colliery, WCL. After completion of 15 years

service, he was promoted on 8-4-88 as Electric Foreman

Grade B in pay Scale Rs. 810-1586. That Shri S.K.Sahota

Electric Foreman was working as Electrical Supervisor

Grade A Foreman in-charge from 1988. Work of Electric

supervisor Grade A was extracted form him at Moari Project,

Mohan Colliery and other collieries. That as per circular

issued by WCL, Nagpur dated 26-12-89, the work for 3

years on Grade B post, promotion to the post of Supervisor

Grade A is required to be given. Workman was not given

promotion to Electric Supervisor Grade A. Ist party is

praying promotions to the post of Supervisor Group A

with consequential benefits.

IInd party management filed Written Statement at

Page 4/1 to 4/4. Claim of Ist party workman is opposed. It

is submitted that service conditions of employees in Coal

Industry are covered by NCWA. Joint Bipartite committee

for coal industry consisting representations of

management and Central Trade Union namely INTUC,

HMS, BMS, AITUC & CITU. The Joint Bipartite Committee

issues instructions for implementing the provisions of

NCWA. Shri S.K.Sahota was working as Foreman Electrical

at Mohan Colliery. The promotional channel of employees

working in E & M Personnel are given cadre scheme

attached with NCWA. As per cadre scheme for E & M

(Personnel)- for promotion from post of Electrical Helper

to post of Foreman Incharge or Electrical Supervisor Grade

A, the person should be qualified with electrical

Supervisor’s Certificate Mining and Electrical Supervisor’s

Certificate surface along with requisite experience in T &

S Grade B. persons possessing supervisor’s certificate in

mining is entitled for promotion up to T&S Grade B as

Foreman. Unless a person possess both supervisor’s

certificate in mining and supervisor’s certificate in surface,

he is not eligible for promotion to the post of Electrical

supervisor in T&S Grade A. that Shri S. K. Sahota possess

Electrical Supervisor certificate in Mining part only. He is

not eligible for promotion to the post of Electric Supervisor

T&S Grade A. It was the reason workman was not

considered by DPC held at area level. Workman holds

certificate of electrical Supervisor in Mining. He was given

promotion to the post of Foreman Electric T&S Grade B.

he was not considered for post of Electric Supervisor Grade

A. Above contentions are reiterated by IInd party

emphasizing that as workman is not holding certificate of

Electric Supervisor Surface is not entitled to promotion.

The promotion cannot be claimed as right. The promotions

are based on consideration of eligibility, qualification

required experience of suitability. Availability of vacancy,

administrative requirement.

The appointment and transfer to Mohan Colliery of

workman is not disputed. The promotion of workman to

the post of electrical Supervisor Grade B is also not

disputed. Workman was authorized to hold post of

Electrical Supervisor. He was not authorized to hold post

of Electric Supervisor T&S Grade A. while passing of

certificate of Electrical Supervisor, the workman was

working as Asstt. Foreman in T&S Grade C. With respect

to circular dated 26-12-89 by Personnel Manager, WCL,

Nagpur, IInd party submits that said circular is clear that

growth of Electric Supervisor T&S Grade B will be given

in accordance with the cadre scheme. As per cadre scheme,

workman was promoted to Electric Foreman T&S Grade B.

as workman was not possessing required qualification, he

was not entitled to post of Electric Supervisor T&S Grade

A. on such ground, IInd party prays that reference be

answered in its favour.

Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 5/1

to 5/2 reiterating its contentions in statement of claim.

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 Negative

management of Mohan Colliery

of Ambara Sub Area of WCL,

PO Ambara, Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

in not promoting Shri S.K.Sahota,

Elec. Foreman Grade B as Elec.

Supervisor Grade-A is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Though workman is claiming promotion to the post

of Electric Supervisor Grade A, he has pleaded in statement

of claim that as per Circular dated 26-12-89, after working

for 3 years in Grade B, promotion to the post of Grade A

Electric Supervisor was required to be given. Said circular

is not produced by workman . Workman has not adduced

evidence in support of his evidence. However the

documents produced by workman are admitted by IInd

party. Exhibit W-1, 1-A is authorization certificate issued

to workman as Electric Supervisor. Exhibit W-1(b) workman

was appointed as workmen Inspector(Elec.), Mohan

colliery on 19-2-90. Exhibit W-1(c) workman was authorized

to look after functions of 11-12 Incline along with duties

assigned at Maori Incline. Exhibit W-1(d) – workman was

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

authorised to substitute workmen Inspector electrical

during absence of Shri Safut Khan W.I (Elec) under Mines

Rules. Exhibit W-1(e) workman S.K.Sahota was transferred

to Sub-Statiion on 8-12-00. Exhibit W-1(f) workman was

appointed and authorized as electrical Supervisor Mohan

Colliery in 1988. Exhibit W-2 is office order workman

Shri S. K. Sahota was promoted to Electrical T&S Grade B

on 8-4-88. Exhibit W-3 is competency certificate issued by

MP Board for Electrical Instruments Mining. Documents

at Page 5/4, 5/5 admitted by IInd party are not legible.

Management produced cadre scheme at Exhibit M-

1. In Para 3.1 provides- The promotional channel for various

categories of Electrical and Mechanical discipline shall

be as per annexure hereto. The said annexure only indicate

the qualifications and experience to be possessed by the

Departmental candidates included in the cadre from time

to time for the purpose of eligibility for selection/

promotion of candidates as specified in the scheme.

Annexure VII in the cadre scheme at Sl.No.7 related to

Foreman Incharge Grade A Pay Scale Rs. 1387-75-2137-80-

2537, minimum qualification required is matriculate and

Electrical Supervisor Certificate valid for mines. Eligibility

for promotion 3 years experience as Foreman Electrical.

Annexure VII doesnot prescribe that candidate should

possess qualification matriculate and electrical

supervisorship certificate (surface). Exhibit M-2 is

competency certificate issued to workman in mining. Office

order Exhibit M-3 shows that as per order dated 16-2-96

on recommendations of DPC, the candidates were

promoted to post of Foreman Electrical T&S Grade B were

promoted to the post of Foreman Incharge Grade A. name

of Ist party workman is not appearing in said order. 9

persons were promoted. The copy of recommendation of

DPC Committee is produced at Exhibit M-3. The cadre

scheme for Foreman Incharge, the minimum qualification

for Foreman Incharge T&S Grade A is shown Matric and

electrical Supervisor Certificate valid for mines. The

experience 3 years as foreman electrical. Mode of promotion

DPC/Trade Test. The said document also doesnot show

that certificate of electrical Supervisor Surface is required

for promotion to the post of electrical Supervisor, T&S

Grade A. Thus contentions of IInd party on above point

are not supported by any of the documents.

Management’s witness Jeetendra Prasad in affidavit

of his evidence stated that the employ should have

obtained electrical Supervisor Certificate in both part i.e.

mining and surface part after acquiring requisite experience

in T&S Grade B and qualification is entitled for promotion

to the post of Electrical Supervisor in T&S Grade A. Unless

and until a person possess both supervisor’s certificate in

mining and supervisors certificate in surface is not eligible

for promotion to the post of electrical Supervisor in T&S

Gr-A. In his cross-examination, management’s Witness

says promotion in Grade B clears experience in passing

matric and electrical supervisor Certificate are necessary.

That those circular was issued providing experience

promotions from Grade C to B. The qualifications are not

for promotion from Grade B to A. said circular is not

produced by management. Documents Exhibit W-1(a) to

(e) shows that workman was authorized to work as

electrical Supervisor. Workman was promoted to the post

of Foreman Electrical T&S Grade B from 8-4-88- Document

Exhibit W-2. He was not considered for promotion to the

post of Electrical Supervisor Grade A when 9 other

employees were promoted as per order dated 16-2-96

Exhibit M-3. The contentions of IInd party that for

promotion to the post of Electrical Supervisor Grade A,

the competency certificate Electrical Supervisor Mining

and surface are required is not supported by any

documents produced on record. The document on record

clearly shows that workman was wrongly denied promotion

to the post of Electrical Supervisor Grade A for the reasons

that he was not holding competency certificate of Electric

Supervisor T&S Surface. The requirement of such

certificate is not established from any of the documents

discussed above. For above reasons, I record my finding

in Point No.1 in Negative.

10.

Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.1,

workman is wrongly denied promotion to the post of

Electrical Supervisor T&S Grade A, when other persons

were promoted to the said post on 16-2-96, workman was

promoted to Electrical Grade B in 1988. He had experience

more than 7 years but he was not considered for promotion.

Therefore workman who was illegally denied promotion

to the post of Electrical Supervisor Grade A was

discriminated illegally, workman Shri S.K.Sahota therefore

deserves promotion to the post of Electrical Supervisor

T&S Grade A w.e.f. 16-2-96 when other persons were

promoted. However the order of reference was made on

20-6-00 therefore the workman cannot be given benefit of

promotional post retrospectively. The benefit to the

promotional post needs to be given from date of order of

reference. Workman is entitled to be considered for

promotional post of Electrical Supervisor T&S Grade A

from 20-6-00. Accordingly I record my finding in Point

No.2.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Mohan Colliery of

Ambara Sub-Area of WCL, PO Ambara, Distt.

Chhindwara (MP) in not promoting Shri S.K.Sahota,

Elec. Foreman Grade B as Elec. Supervisor Grade-A

is not proper and legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to consider Ist party workman

Shri S.K.Sahota for promotion to the post of

Electrical SupervisorT&S Grade A from 20-6-00 with

consequential monetary benefits.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 28-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- bZ- lh- ,y-]

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 170@93]

175@93] 176@93 ,.M 177@93) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@284@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&II)

la- ,y&22012@152@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&II)

la- ,y&22012@153@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&II)

la- ,y&22012@156@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&II)º

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th December, 2014

S.O.

28.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 170/93,

175/93, 176/93 & 177/93) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown

in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

management of SECL, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 24/12/2014.

[No. L-22012/284/1993-IR(C-II)

No. L-22012/152/1993-IR(C-II)

No. L-22012/153/1993-IR(C-II)

No. L-22012/156/1993-IR(C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN

CASE NO.CGIT/LC/R/170/93

Shri Ramdhani, S/o Daneshwar,

PO Batgaon Colliery,

Distt. Surguja

...Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Bisrampur area of SECL,

PO Bisrampur Colliery,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

...Management

CASE NO.CGIT/LC/R/175/93

Shri Roop Sai,

S/o Shri Gwaluram

Rajnishore Nagar, PO Batara

Distt. Surguja

...Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Bisrampur area of SECL,

PO Bisrampur Colliery,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

...Management

CASE NO.CGIT/LC/R/176/93

Shri Mohar Sai, S/o Shri Amarsai,

Vill Sudamanagar, PO Batara

Distt. Surguja

...Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Bisrampur area of SECL,

PO Bisrampur Colliery,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

...Management

CASE NO.CGIT/LC/R/177/93

Shri Somar Sai,

S/o Shri Sobhit Ram,

Vill Sirki, PO Batara,

Distt. Surguja

...Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Bisrampur area of SECL,

PO Bisrampur Colliery,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 8^th day of December, 2014

1. (a)

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No.L-22012/284/93-IR(C-II) dated

26-8-93 has referred the following dispute for

adjudication by this tribunal:-

“ Whether the action of the Sub-Area Manager,

Bhatgaon Sub-Area of Bisrampur Area of SECL in

not giving an opportunity to the following

retrenched workers to offer themselves for re-

employment is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief these workers are entitled to?"

1. Shri Ram Dhani S/o Dhaneshwar, 2. Shri Nandlal

S/o Manbodh, 3. Shri Sahal Ram S/o Sobaran,

4. Shri Ram Prasad S/o Dalsai.

(b) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No.L-22012/152/93-IR(C-II) dated

1-9-93 has referred the following dispute for

adjudication by this tribunal:-

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“ Whether the action of the Sub-Area Manager,

Bhatgaon Sub-Area of Bisrampur Area of SECL in

not giving an opportunity to the following

retrenched workers to offer themselves for re-

employment is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief these workers are entitled to?"

1. Shri Roop Sai, S/o Gawaturan, 2. Shri Jagmohan

S/o Shri Sohanran, 3. Shri Suran Sai S/o Shri

Sawrupan, 4. Shri Chetan S/o Baldeo.

its Notification No.L-22012/153/93-IR(C-II) dated

1-9-93 has referred the following dispute for

adjudication by this tribunal:-

“ Whether the action of the Sub-Area Manager,

Bhatgaon Sub Area of Bisrampur Area of SECL in

not giving an opportunity to the following

retrenched workers to offer themselves for

reemployment is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief these workers are entitled to?-

1. Shri Suri Mohar Sai, S/o Amarsai, 2. Shri Ram Dil,

S/o Shri Chanduwa, 3. Shri Jaikaran S/o Jailal,

4. Shri Bolsai, S/o Ramphal.

(d) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No.L-22012/156/93-IR(C-II) dated

1-9-93 has referred the following dispute for

adjudication by this tribunal:-

“ Whether the action of the Sub-Area Manager,

Bhatgaon Sub-Area of Bisrampur Area of SECL in

not giving an opportunity to the following

retrenched workers to offer themselves for re-

employment is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief these workers are entitled to?"

1. Shri Somar Sai S/o Sobheet Ram, 2. Shri

Hiralal S/o Jokhanram, 3. Shri Bhagat Ram

S/o Sivratan, 4. Shri Daduram S/o Ranjit.

The terms of reference relates to identical matter but

names of employees are varying. All those reference were

clubbed together for hearing and disposal as per order

dated 13-7-95. R/170/93 is treated as leading case. The

evidence of parties is recorded in it.

Statement of claim is submitted by Ist party workman

in R/170/93 at Page 5 to 7, identical statement of claim are

submitted by workman at R/175/93 at Page 2/1 to 2/2,

R/176/93 at 2/1 to 2/2 & R/177/93 at page 2/1 to 2/2. Case of

Ist party workman in all cases is that they were employed

with Party No.2 during 1982 to 1987 at Bhatgaon Colliery

as casual labours. They were getting bonus for the period

1984 to 1986. Their services were terminated in violation

of Section 25-F of ID Act, which amounted to unfair labour

practice, retrenchment of their service is illegal. That those

workmen were not paid retrenchment compensation,

certificate of retrenchment was not given to them. IInd

party did not prepare any seniority list of retrenched

persons so that Ist party could be re-employed. That Ist

party workman have not been reinstated or re-employed

by IInd party though IInd party required new hands day

to day right from 1987 thereby IInd party is alleged to

have violated Section 25 H of I.D.Act, it is further submitted

that junior labours Vishwanath, Vishwanath Toppe,

Anirudh, Kuleshwar, Jeetram unskilled labour are given

employment by IInd party ignoring their seniorities.

Principles of first come last go was not followed by IInd

party. On such grounds workman prays for reinstatement

with back wages.

Statement of claims are also submitted by individual

employees Nandlal, Ramdhani in R/170/93.

IInd party submitted Written Statement in R/170/93

at Page 165 to 171. Identical Written Statements are

submitted by IInd party in R/175/93 at Page 14/1 to 14/4,

in R/176/93 at Page 13/1 to 13/4, in R/177/93 at Page 7/1 to

7/4. The contentions of IInd party in all references is similar.

That SECL is a company registered under company’s Act.

Project is colliery under SECL. Casual workers are engaged

for carrying out work of civil and miscellaneous nature of

company work. Their services are terminated automatically

when the work ends. Ist party workman were never

appointed by management. They have completed 240 days

work at surface or 190 days underground. The details of

working days of those workmen in surface are shown in

para-7 of the Written Statement in R/170/93. The workman

in R/175/93. It is reiterated that workman has not completed

240 days continuous service. That in R/170/93, Ramdhani

had completed 195 days in 1981, 191 days in 1982, Nandlal

completed 135 , 181, 102 days during the year 1981, 82, 83

respectively. Ramprasad completed 116 days in 1981, 166

days in 1982. It is submitted that the services of workmen

were terminated as a result of non renewal of contract. It

did not amount to retrenchment/ illegal retrenchment. All

adverse contentions of workman that they were

continuously working from 1982 to 1987 at Bhatgaon is

denied. IInd party denies that termination of workman is

in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. violation of Section

25-G, H is also denied. IInd party prays that reference be

answered in its favour.

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

Sub-Area Manager, Bhatgaon

Sub-Area of Bisrampur Area of

SECL in not giving an opportunity

to the retrenched workers to offer

themselves for re-employment is

legal and justified?

In Negative

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Learned counsel for Ist party Mrs. Mahawar submits

that workman in all above references worked with IInd

party from 1982 to 1987. Bonus was paid for the year 1984

& 85. That no bonus was paid in 1987, their services are

retrenched without notice. That all those workmen had

completed 240 days continuous service. Reliance is also

placed on Document M-1 to 103. That juniors Vishwanath

and Dhansai and others are continued. That management’s

witness Shri G.C.Chanda and B.K.Srivastava in evidence

deny their signatures on certificates. That juniors are

continued. There is no evidence about forgery of

certificates. No report was submitted to police in that

regard. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri A.K.Shashi

submits that muster rolls are not produced. Bonus register

shows working days. Juniors are not examined. Exhibit

W-1 to W-11 are typed on same date. Shri G. C. Chanda &

B. K. Srivastav denied their signatures. Those documents

are not examined by handwriting expert. Any of the

employees have not completed 240 days continuous

working. Workmen were engaged as casuals. Their names

were not sponsored through Employment Exchange. Only

few workmen have entered in witness box. All the workmen

are not examined. There is no evidence on what basis

these certificates W-1 to W-11 were issued. That evidence

of Ramdhani and others is identical that they worked

intermittently during 1983-84 in E&M Section. Payment of

wages, the certificate Exhibit W-1 to W-11 relates to period

86-87. Certificates issued by Dy.Chief Mining were that

the dispute is raised after 7 years. The terms of reference

restricted to denial of re-employment under Section 25 H

of I.D.Act. Reliance is placed on certain authorities by

counsel for both parties. Learned counsel for workman

Mrs.Mahawar pointed out my attention to evidence in

cross-examination of Nandlal Witness No.3 Sahalram

Ramdeen and others. It is emphasized that muster roll,

certificates issued on different dates are not false.

Considering tenor of argument, the evidence on

record needs to be considered. Shri Ramdhani in his

affidavit of evidence claimed that he and other employee

Nandlal. Sahalram, Ramprasad, Roopsahay, Jagmohan,

Suransai, Ramdin, Jadkaran, Heeralal were working with

IInd party from 1982 to 1987 as casual labour at Bhatgaon

Colliery. They were paid bonus in 1984-85, 86 but not in

1987. That junior employees Vishwanath, Jokhan, Jeetram

were working as watchman semiskilled employees. In his

cross-examination, said witness says in 1982-83, he was

independently working when the work was available. He

was unable to tell his age. He was working in E&M Section

as casual labour. He was working under Mr. Chandra.

Wages were paid by clerk Vargese. He was paid monthly

wages after depositing pay slips. He did not work under

contractor. He was unable to tell whether amount of PF

was deducted from his wages. His name was not sponsored

through Employment Exchange. After 1987, he was not

provided work. Along with him, 33 persons were working.

At relevant time, work was continued till 24 hours. He was

not able to tell reasons for his discontinuation. He had no

quarrel with anyone. Presently he was working with

contractor. The labours who were regularized their names

were sponsored through Employment Exchange. He was

not given Identity Card. He is not educated. He worked

continuously for six months. Affidavit of Nandlal is on

identical points. In his cross-examination, Nandlal says

that he was acquainted with Shri Chandra. He was not

working at his residence. Initially he was working under

contractor. He was taken on work by Shri Chandra, name

of contractor was P. P. Singh, at the time of his evidence,

he was working under contractor. His name was not

sponsored through Employment Exchange. He was not

interviewed. Written appointment letter was not given to

him. He was not issued certificate about payment of PF.

He received amount of arrears but he was unable to tell his

details. That he worked for 7 years during 1980 to 1987. He

was submitting the report. Mr. Chandra had stopped him

from work. After his discontinuation, the employees were

sponsored through Employment Exchange were recorded.

Affidavit of witness Shri G.C.Dhandra and B.K.Srivastava

are separately filed w.r.t. employees in all matters. Both of

them claims that they were not authorized to issue

certificates produced by applicants. Those certificates

were not issued by them. Mr. Chandra in his cross-

examination says in June 1982 he was posted at Bhatgaon

Colliery. Prior to it, he was not posted in said colliery. The

muster roll in Exhibit M-1 bears his signature w.r.t. contents

of Para 1 & 3 of his affidavit, no report was submitted to

police. Shri B.K.Srivastava in his cross-examination says

from November 1980 to May 88, he was posted at

Bhatgaon Colliery. Muster rolls Exhibit M-1 Page 64 to 67

and other pages bears his signature. No report was

submitted to police about forgery on the certificates issued

and contents of Para 1 & 3 of his affidavit. In his re-

examination, Mr. Bannerjee says that at the time of his

evidence, he was working in NCL Orissa. Prior to it, he

was working in SECL. He got knowledge about production

of forged certificates in the year 2000. From 1980 to 88, he

was not working as Chief Engineer in Bhatgaon colliery.

He did not advise SECL to submit documents to

handwriting expert.

The record shows that notes of arguments were

submitted longback in the year 2006 on behalf of both

parties. However affidavit of Nandlal, Sahanram, Ramdeen,

Suran Sai,. Heeralal, Chetan Sai, Dinesh Kumar, Roop Sai,

Jai Karan, Jagmohan are filed in the year 2013. That

certificate issued by Dy.Chief Engineer Bhatgaon. From

their evidence, documents W-3 to W-11 are proved. In

their cross-examination, those witnesses reiterates that

those certificates Exhibit W-3 to W-11 were given to them

by Chandra and Shri Srivstava. All the witnesses supported

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

their claim. They have denied suggestion that the

certificate produced are false. Shri Suran Sai in his cross-

examination says that he cannot tell what is written in

affidavit of his evidence. That he was not working at

residence of Shri Subhash or Chandra. The certificates

were given by both of them. Heeralal in his cross-

examination denies certificates were given by Shri Chandra

and Sri Srivastava after their retirement. He admits that

certificate was given to them so that they can get service.

Chetan Sai in his cross examination says that certificate

was given to him for getting employment in some other

place after getting employment in some other place after

giving certificate he was discontinued. Dinesh Kumar was

not cross-examined. His evidence remained unchallenged.

Shri Roop Sai denies that certificate W-7 is forged. Jaikaran

in his cross-examination reaffirms that Exhibit W-8 was

given to him by Chandra and Srivastva. Thereafter he was

discontinued. Both officers have retired. Jagmohan in his

cross-examination was unable to tell Chandra and

Shrivastava have retired from service. He denies that he

was working at their residence. That certificate Exhibit

W-9 bear signature of both the officers. He denies that as

he was working at their residence, such certificate was

issued. Certificates Exhibit W-3 to W-11 shows that

employees were working as casual labours during 1980 to

1987 and payment of bonus during the year 1984, 85, 86.

Exhibit W-6 shows Ramdeen was working during 1980 to

1984 as casual mazdoor. Exhibit W-3,5,9 shows they were

working as casual employees in 1980 to 1987. The evidence

is carefully considered shows those employees are

illiterate persons. No report was submitted to police that

they had obtained those certificates making forgery. All

the certificates are typed bearing signature of Mr.

G.C.Chandra, Shri D. K. Srivastava.

10.

Shri G. C. Chandra filed affidavit of evidence denying

contentions of workman and issue of certificate. In his

cross, Shri G.C.Chandra says that certificates W-3 to W-11

must be bearing seal of his office. That he had no

knowledge of certificates W-3 to W-11 therefore there was

no question of submitting report to police. The copies of

muster roll are also produced in the matter. However for

want of proper evidence, those documents have not been

exhibited. If case of IInd party in Written Statement is

considered, that it is pleaded that those workers were

engaged as casual workman as per exigencies. The evidence

of Ist party workmen cannot be discarded. The evidence

on record that those employees were working during 1980

to 1987 cannot be disbelieved.

11.

Terms of reference relates to denial of appointment

to the retrenched workers to offer themselves for

employment. The evidence of all those workmen is cogent

that they were discontinued from 1987.

12.

Learned counsel for workman submitted citations

along with notes of arguments.

In case of Negungadi Bank Ltd. Versus K. P.

Madhavankutty reported in AIR-2000-I LLJ 561.

Ratio relates to dismissal of employee after enquiry

has no bearing to present controversy between

parties.

In case of K. Rajan Versus Kerala State Electricity

Board reported in 1992 LAB.I.C.1208 Ratio held is

w.r.t. Section 2(oo)(bb) , Section 25-H retrenchment

doesnot include termination of service of workman

as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment.

The contentions of IInd party in WS are that the

workmen were engaged as casual employees as per

exigencies. It is not case of IInd party that workmen

were engaged on contract basis for subsequent

period. Therefore the ratio cannot be beneficially

applied to case at hand.

13.

At the time of oral argument, counsel for Ist party

Mrs. Mahawar relied on AIR-1986-SC-123, AIR-1966-SC-

67. However said citations are not made available. Learned

counsel for IInd party A.K.Shashi emphasized that

workmen were not retrenched employees and therefore

they are not entitled to re-employment provided under

Section 25-H of I.D.Act. The evidence of employees is

they were working with IInd party from 1980 to 1987. The

certificate of working Exhibit W-3 to W-11 donot show

working days of the employees.

Section 25 H of I.D.Act provides-

Re-employment of retrenched workmen.- Where any

workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes

to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in

such manner as may be prescribed, give an

opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are

citizens of India to offer themselves for re-

employment.

The legal position w.r.t. scope of Section 25-H is

elaborated in Commentary of I.D.Act by Y.V.Sanyasi

Row & Y.Ramesh -IInd Edition Page 367, Note-10

provides. In case employer proposes to take into

employment any person, opportunity has to be given

to retrenched workman. Continuous service is not a

requirement for applicability of provisions of Section

25-G and 25-H.

Said commentary is based on ratio held in case of

Balram versus Union of India. Language used in

Section 25-H refers to retrenched workman without

specifying number of working days. When those

employees were working from 1980 to 1987 and they

were discontinued, certainly it amounts to

retrenchment. The right of re-employment under

Section 25-H of I.D.Act is not restricted only to

employees illegally retrenched. Therefore, I record

my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

14.

Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.1 the

denial of employment to employees in those references is

illegal. However some employees appears to have died.

They cannot be re-employed. I record my finding in Point

No.2 accordingly.

15.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the Sub Area Manager, Bhatgaon Sub

Area of Bisrampur Area of SECL in not giving an

opportunity to the retrenched workers to offer

themselves for re-employment is not legal and

proper.

(2)

IInd party is directed to provide re-employment

under Section 25-H of I.D.Act to surviving workmen

in R/170/93, 175 to 177/93 but without backwages.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 29-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Nkouh dk;Zdkjh

vf/dkjh] Nkouh cksMZ] bankSj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj 41@2011) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&13011@4@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th December, 2014

S.O.

29.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/

LC/R/41/2011) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Cantonment

Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Indore and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 22/12/2014.

[No. L-13011/4/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/41/2011

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE

The President,

Cantonment Board Karmchari Sangh,

Mhow

...Workman/Union

Versus

The Cantonment Executive Officer,

Cantonment Board,

Mhow, Indore

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11^th day of December, 2014

As per letter dated 11-5-2011 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-13011/

4/2010-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the workman Shri Rajendra Kumar Varun

is entitled for pay scale of Heavy Motor Vehicle

Driver as per Memorandum of Settlement between

the Employer and Employee? Whether he is entitled

for the pay scale of 1150-1800 from 1986 and arrears

thereof? If so, what relief he is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Even after issuing notices, the Union didnot

participate in the proceeding, no statement of claim is filed.

Ist party is proceeded exparte on 31-1-14.

IInd party management also not filed Written

Statement. From conduct of the parties, it is clear that the

parties are not pursuing or participating in the dispute.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

“ Reference is disposed off as No Dispute Award for

failure of parties to participate in reference

proceeding”

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 30-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj]

fcykliqj foHkkx ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj 52@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@419@1999&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th December, 2014

S.O.

30.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/

LC/R/52/2000) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

employers in relation to the management of the Department

of Telecommunication, Bilaspur and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 22/12/2014.

[No. L-40012/419/1999-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/52/00

Smt. Pratima Mahilong,

Ku. Gitika Mahilong,

Ku. Monika Mahilong LRs of

Deceased Shri Girish Kumar Mahilong,

Near Mahamaya Mandir,

Ganeshnagar,

Bilaspur

...Workman/LRs

Versus

Divisional Engineer,

Telecom Department,

Optical Fibre cable Project,

Rajkishore Nagar,

Bilaspur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 8^th day of December, 2014

As per letter dated 2-3-00 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-40012/

419/99/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Divisional

Engineer, OFC Project, Telecom Deptt. Bilaspur in

terminating the services of Shri Girish Kumar

Mahilong, Driver is justified? If not, to what relief

the said workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 3/1 to 3/6. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

engaged as Driver in office of Divisional engineer,

telephone department, Optical fibre cables, Bilaspur from

October 96 to June 98. He worked with devotion. He worked

more than 240days during each of the year. In June 1998,

his services were orally terminated without assigning any

reasons. Termination of his service is in violation of Section

25-F of I.D.Act. he was not given notice, retrenchment

compensation was not paid to him. Junior employees were

continued after termination of his service. He was not given

opportunity of reemployment. As such IInd party violated

section 25-F, G, H of I.D.Act.

Workman further submits that he was sent for duty

outside. He was paid TA, DA. He was also sent for election

duty. He has taken entries in logbook. He worked more

than 240ays continuous service. His services are terminated

in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. On such ground,

he prays for his reinstatement with back wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to 10/

3. IInd party submits that Divisional Engineer Telecom

Optical fibre Project, Bilaspur comes under Ministry of

Comm8unication having independent office of General

Manager, Telecom. The nature of work conducted by

management is purely execution of projects within definite

time. The work of the management is limited. In most of

the cases, staff is borrowed from regular establishment.

Workman is engaged in Optical fibre in Bilaspur for 4-5

years. The divisional Engineer started project in 1997. He

was assisted by 5 Sub Divisional Engineers. It was

essential for engineers to be mobile, four wheeler mainly

jeeps were borrowed from regular establishment of Telecom

Deptt. On top priority, Optical Fibre were required to be

laid between Raigarh to Jaspur Nagar. Normally 4 wheelers

were lend to management. Driver used to be provided.

However in present matter, vehicle was made available.

Management was required to engage services of casual

labour on daily wages. It is emphasized that the workman

was engaged as casual employee. He was not recruited or

appointed through Employment Exchange as per

recruitment rules. Workman rendered continuous service

is denied. That he not completed 240 days. There was no

question of termination of his service as the scheme was

completed. His services were no longer required. On such

ground, IInd party prays reference be answered in its

favour.

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

management of Divisional

Engineer, OFC Project,

Telecom Deptt. Bilaspur in

terminating the services of

Shri Girish Kumar Mahilong,

Driver is justified?

In Negative.

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Case of Ist party workman is that he was working as

Driver from October 96 to June 98. He claims to have

completed 240 days continuous service. IInd party denied

material contentions of workman.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting

his contentions inn statement of claim. That he worked as

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

Driver of IInd party from October 96 to June 98. He worked

more than 240 days. After termination of his service

Anandram, Suresh, Prakash, Fularam was engaged as

Driver by IInd party. He was not given opportunity to

work. Principles of last come first go was not followed. He

was not paid retrenchment compensation. Permission for

retrenchment was not taken from Government. In his cross-

examination workman says his name was enrolled in

Employment Exchange. He received information about

recruitments in office of IInd party. He was not given

appointment letter. He was engaged orally. He was working

as Driver since beginning. He says that he cannot tell

whether he completed 240 days service but he relies entries

in logbook. There is evidence in re-examination, documents

Exhibit W-4, 4(a) are proved. The evidence of workman

remained unchallenged as management failed to cross-

examine workman.

The evidence of workman is further supported by

documents Exhibit W-1, W-3 certificate of his working days

for the period October 96 to June 98. Said certificate is

admitted by management. There is no interruption in period

of working on workman. The copies of logbook are

produced at Exhibit W-4 and management produced the

same t Exhibit M-1 to M-18. Those documents corroborates

evidence of workman. He was working as Driver. Payment

receipts are produced by management at Exhibit M-19 to

M-31. The unchallenged evidence of workman

corroborated by documentary evidence discussed above

is sufficient to hold that workman was continuously

working from October 96 to June-98.

Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness

Shri Y.PTekame Management’s witness says that

management was required to execute project of Optical

Fibre during the period 4-5 years in 1997. Management

was required to engage services of casual labour on daily

wages. Workman was engaged as Driver as he possessed

Driving Licence. He was appointed on daily wages. He

was not sponsored through Employment Exchange.

Recruitment rules were not followed in his appointment.

Management’s witness in his cross-examination says that

log book is maintained by Driver. It bears signature of

Driver. He cannot identify the signature of workman in

Lok Book Exhibit M-p1 to M-18. The project of laying

optical fibre of their department was 4-5 years. No

document of said project are produced. Workman was not

informed in writing that his appointment was for 4-5 years.

Witness of management denies workman was working for

25 days every month. As workman remained absent, no

departmental procedure was initiated against him. Witness

explained that workman was engaged on casual basis, no

such proceedings were initiated. Witness of management

denies that workman was working as Driver from October

96 to June 98. He was unable to tell when regular driver

were absent, workman was engaged in their place. The

management’s witness was unable to pay from 96 to 98,

how many regular employees were working inn

department. From evidence of management’s witness, it is

clear that he has no knowledge about affairs of office in

IInd party. On the other hand, evidence of workman is

supported by documents. It is proved that services are

terminated without notice, without compensation, though

the workman was continuously working from October 06

to June-08 for a period of about 2 years. On the point of

proof of completion of 240 days continuous service, initial

burden lies on workman and the same shifts on the

employee , reliance is placed on ratio held in 2010-MPLJ-

457. In present case, the evidence itself is clear about

workman and is corroborated by documents that workman

completed 240 days service. The termination of services

of workman is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act.

Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

10.

Point No.2- in view of my finding in Point No.1,

termination of service of workman is illegal, question arises

whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with

backwages. Evidence in cross-examination of workman

shows that he was not given appointment letter. He was

orally appointed. He was not interviewed before his

appointment. Workman was working hardly about

22 months therefore workman cannot be granted

reinstatement with backwages. In my considered view,

reasonable compensation deserves to be awarded.

Considering period of working of workman less than

2 years, compensation Rs. 60,000 would be just and proper.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Divisional Engineer,

OFC Project, Telecom Deptt. Bilaspur in terminating

the services of Shri Girish Kumar Mahilong, Driver

is not proper and legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.

60,000to workman within 30 days from the date of

publication of award.

In case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest

per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 31-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj]

fcykliqj foHkkx ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj 193@1993) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@81@1992&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 26th December, 2014

S.O.

31.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/

LC/R/193/1993) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Department

of Telecommunication, Bilaspur and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 22/12/2014.

[No. L-40012/81/1992-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/193/93

Shri Tularam,

S/o Shri Arahit Yadav,

Telegraph Store,

Nr. Railway Post Office,

PO & Distt. Bilaspur(CG),

...Workman

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer (Telegraphs),

Department of Telecommunication,

PO & Distt. Bilaspur (CG)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 12^th day of December, 2014

As per letter dated 17-9-93 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-40012/

81/92-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Sub

Divisional Officer (Telegraphs), Bilaspur in

retrenching Shri Tula Ram S/o shri Arhiti Yadav w.e.f.

10-10-90 is justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled

to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 6/1 to 6/4. Case of workman is that he was employee

of IInd party No.2. He was continuously working as casual

labour from 2-10-81 to 15-10-90. His services were

terminated without enquiry for unauthorized absence. From

August 84 to Sept 85- 6 months, from February 86 to

November 86-10 months, November 88 to December 88,

Feb 89 to June 89. That workman was paid one month’s

notice pay Rs. 1035/-. He was not paid retrenchment

compensation. Workman reiterates that he had completed

240 days continuous service. His services are terminated

without enquiry, without paying retrenchment

compensation. He was given artificial breaks to avoid

regularization in service. Department is introducing

contract system in violation of provisions of CL(R&A)Act,

1970. On such ground, workman is praying for setting

aside order of his removal from service.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 4/1 to 4/4

opposing relief claimed by workman. It is submitted that

workman was working as casual labour intermittently. The

working days from 81-82 to 90-91 re-shown in Written

Statement. It is further submitted that workman was not

continuously working. He used to remain unauthorisely

absent. As per policy laid down by CGMT, Bhopal dated

12-1-90 w.r.t. casual labours, workman could not be retained

in service. Workman was paid one month’s pay. Workman

could not be continued in service. He has unauthorisely

absent. It is denied that artificial breaks were given to him.

IInd party submits that termination of without is proper

and legal.

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

management of Sub Divisional

Officer (Telegraphs), Bilaspur in

retrenching Shri Tula Ram

S/o shri Arhiti Yadav w.e.f.

10-10-90 is justified?

In Negative

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

orders.

REASONS

In Written Statement filed by management, working

days of workman are shown. Workman was discontinued

in Sept-90. His working days are calculated till October 89,

his working days come more than 240 days during 12

preceding months. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence

stating that he was dismissed from service for unauthorized

absence. IInd party in Written Statement pleaded that one

month’s notice pay Rs. 1035/- was paid to workman. Written

Statement is silent about any enquiry conducted against

workman. The document Exhibit W-1 admitted by workman

shows his working days from 1981 to 1985 till December

89. The working days of workman shown in Written

Statement till 90-91 are not shown in Exhibit M-1. Workman

admits payment of one month’s pay. However workman

was not paid retrenchment compensation. Calculating his

service, workman was working from 1980 to 1990. Evidence

of workman in cross-examination shows his name was not

sponsored through Employment Exchange. He was not

called for interview. He was not medically examined.

Appointment letter was not issued to him. he denies that

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

he was engaged as casual labour intermittently as per

exigencies. He admits one month’s pay paid to him before

termination of his service. Management’s witness Shri A.

K. Minj tried to support contentions of IInd party that

workman did not work continuously remained

unauthorized absent. One month’s pay was paid to

workman before dismissing his service. Written Statement

and evidence of IInd party is silent about preparing list of

retrenched employees following principles of last come

first go as such termination of workman is in violation of

Section 25-F of I.D.Act. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

Point No. 2—workman was working as casual

employee, his name was not sponsored through

Employment Exchange. He was not called for interview.

Appointment letter was not given to him. However

considering his spread over working period from 1981 to

1991 appropriate compensation deserves to be paid. In

my considered view, compensation Rs. One Lakh would

be appropriate. Accordingly, I record my finding in Point

No. 2.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Sub-Divisional

Officer (Telegraphs), Bilaspur in retrenching Shri Tula

Ram S/o Shri Arhiti Yadav w.e.f. 10-10-90 is not legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. One

Lakh to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award.

In case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest

per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 32-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jsyos HkrhZ cksMZ

Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj 251@1991) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 22@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@42@1991&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th December, 2014

S.O.

32.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/

LC/R/215/1991) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Railway

Bharti Board, Bhopal and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 22/12/2014.

[No. L-42011/42/1991-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/215/91

Shri Radhelal Aharwar,

S/o Shri Tulsiram Rag,

Post President, Rashtriya Chaturth

Shreni Rail Mazdoor Congress ( INTUC),

4, Heerapura, Jhansi.

...Workman

Versus

President,

Railway Bharti Board,

D-17, Machna Colony,

Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 2^nd day of December, 2014

As per letter dated 12-11-91 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-

42011/42/91-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates

to:

“Whether the action of the Railway Recruitment

Boards in terminating the services of Shri Radheylal

Aherwar was justified? If not, to what relief, the

workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference notices were issued to the

parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at pages

3/1 to 3/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he was

engaged as casual labour from 1-8-87 by management of

IInd party. He completed service more than 120 days as

per para 2501 of Railway Establishment Manual. He

acquired status of temporary employee. He continuously

worked with devotion till 31-1-90. The employee

discontinued his service from 1-2-90 without notice or

order in writing. That Junior employees were continued in

service. Principles of first come last go were not followed.

That as per letter dated 2-8-89, the employee had sent him

for screening for permanent post. The screening test was

conducted of workman. From 22-1-1985, he was working

under Railway Selection Board. His services were

discontinued from 1-2-90 without any notice is illegal.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

IInd party further submits that he was not terminated,

dismissed or discharged by his employer. Provisions of

Section 25-F, H of I.D.Act were not followed while

discontinuing his service. Junior employees to work are

continued. Any kind of enquiry about misconduct was

not conducted against him. Ratio held in various cases is

referred by Ist party and it is submitted that workman be

reinstated with consequential benefits.

IInd party submitted Written Statement at pages 13/1

to 13/3. IInd party submits that as per policy of Railway

Board, casual labour cannot be engaged unless he got

genuine casual labour card. Genuine card is issued by

authority under whom the workman had worked. That

many casual labours gain employment as casual labour

producing casual labour card never issued by any

authority. Workman obtained employment w.e.f. 14-8-87

on basis of card which was not genuine. Workman was

issued showcause notice dated 30-3-90 to explain about

the service card submitted by him. IInd party submits that

the contentions w.r.t. principles about last come first go is

denied as misconceived. It is reiterated by IInd party that

workman had secured employment on basis of casual

service card not issued by the authorities, it was found

bogus. Though workman was given opportunity to explain

how he obtained casual card, workman had failed to

explain. He had no right to continue as casual labour.

Workman had not disclosed source of casual card on which

he secured employment. It is further submitted that

management of IInd party deals with selection and

recruitment is not an industry under ID Act. On such

contentions, IInd party prays to answer reference in favour

of management.

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 Railway

In Negative.

Recruitment Boards in terminating

the services of Shri Radheylal

Aherwar was justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Workman is challenging termination of his service

alleging violation of Section 25-F, G of I.D. Act. affidavit

of his evidence is filed. He has stated that he was working

from 1-8-87 as casual labour. He worked more than 120 days

as casual labour as per Para 2501 of Railway Establishment

Manual. He acquired temporary status. He worked with

devotion till 31-1-90. He was discontinued without notice

from 1-2-90/. He was not terminated, dismissed or

discharged. His discontinuation is in violation of Section

25-F of I.D.Act. Workman further stated that he was called

for appointment of casual labour on 12-6-85 having Roll

No. 112303. He had successfully passed test. In his cross-

examination, workman says appointment letter was not

given to him, termination order in writing was not given to

him before his termination. He was not issued showcause

notice. He denies that before termination of his service,

showcause notice about fake service card was issued.

After termination of his service in 1990, he submitted

representation to management. Any document in that

regard is not produced. Workman has produced

document Exhibit W-1, call letter for test conducted on

26-8-85. Exhibit W-2 Medical Fitness Certificate. W-3 call

letter dated 12-6-85, W-4 to W-6 are copies of Railway

Passes. W-1 & W-3 shows that the candidates belonging

to SC were given benefit of one side travelling expenses.

Management’s witness Shri Sadhna Bhargav in his

affidavit of evidence says letter was sent to workman

on 21-8-87 calling his explanation about casual card

No. 463576. As per letter dated 15-1-90, Sr. Divisional

Account Officer Jhansi informed that casual labour card

No. 463576 was bogus and directed to initiate action

against concerned person. As per letter dated 30-3-90,

workman was called to explain about bogus card within

7 days. Workman had not submitted his explanation.

Management’s witness in his cross-examination

says that disputed casual card is not produced. She claims

ignorance about said card. That casual card must have

been ceized by Account section. She has no personal

knowledge about it. The casual card was issued by Jhansi

office. She was not working in Jhansi office at relevant

time, she was working in Bhopal office from March 09. She

was not working when documents M-1 to M-3 were issued.

She has no personal knowledge about those documents.

Her affidavit is filed as per office record. as per record,

workman was working from 14-8-87. She claims ignorance

when his services were terminated. She claims ignorance

whether any enquiry were conducted before terminating

services of workman. The documents regarding termination

of services of workman were not available. Evidence of

workman that as per Para 25-1 of Railway Establishment

Manual, the acquired status of temporary employees is

not shattered in his cross-examination. When workman

was working from 14-8-87 and his services were

discontinued from 1-1-1990, it is clear that as per Para

2501 of Railway Establishment Manual, workman had

acquired status of temporary employee without conducting

any kind of enquiry whether casual service card produced

by him was bogus, his services were terminated. The notice

alleged to have been issued on 30-3-90 is not produced on

record. workman says that his services are terminated from

1-2-90. Even if contentions of IInd party are accepted such

notice is received on 30-3-90 would certainly be

subsequent to termination of his service. Notice is

produced at Exhibit M-3 is subsequent act after termination

of service of workman to cover up termination of his

service. The legal position is clear that the employ

acquiring temporary status in service cannot be terminated

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

without enquiry. IInd party has not conducted any enquiry

against workman before terminating his services, therefore

termination of workman cannot be said proper and legal.

For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Negative.

Point No.2- Termination of services of Ist party

workman is found illegal as per my finding in Point No.1,

question arises whether workman is entitled for

reinstatement with backwages. He prays for reinstatement.

Workman has not disclosed whether he was employed or

unemployed after termination of his service. The evidence

of management’s witness Sadhna is also silent whether

workman was in gainful employment after termination of

his service. Considering above aspects, in my considered

view, reinstatement of workman with 20 % backwages will

be appropriate. Accordingly, I record my finding in Point

No. 2.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the Railway Recruitment Boards in

terminating the services of Shri Radheylal Aherwar

is not proper and legal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with

continuity of service and 20 % back wages.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award.

In case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest

per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 33-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM] jk;iqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj 70@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹iQk- la- ,y&40012@63@2009&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th December, 2014

S.O.

33.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/

LC/R/70/2009) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Raipur and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 22/12/2014.

[No. L-40012/63/2009-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/70/09

Shri Subhash Kumar Thakur,

S/o Shri Damodaran Thakur,

C/o Shri pramod Singh,

Advocate, Choprapara, Ambikapur,

Surguja (CG)

...Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Telecom, BSNL,

Chhattisgarh Telecom Circle,

Raipur.

The Telecom District Manager,

BSNL, Behind Doorsanchar Bhawan,

Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 10^th day of December, 2014

As per letter dated 24-7-09 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-40012/

63/09-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the contract between the management of

BSNL, Ambikapur and their contractor with regard

to employment of Shri Subhash Kumar Thakur is

sham and bogus? If yes, whether the action of the

management in terminating his services w.e.f. 9-5-08

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at

pages 1 to 4. Case of Ist party is that he was employed as

Motor Driver in 96 to drive State owned Vehicle MP 27 B-

4455 by DTO Office of Telecom District Engineer,

Ambikapur. That after formation of BSNL, his services

were utilized by the office of IInd party for various offices.

The pay of Ist party was increased to Rs.3500 per month

from May -08. Workman submits that there was no contract

in existence tin the year 2000-01. Workman was employed

in BSNL office, Ambikapur. He worked without break for

12 years against sanctioned post of Driver. He had

continuously worked more than 240 days during each of

the calendar year 96 to 2008. Workman had tried for his

absorption against vacant post of Driver in BSNL Office,

Ambikapur. However he was not regularized by the

management on the ground that he was outsider. That

suddenly he was terminated without notice. Workman

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

claims ignorance about reasons for his termination. He

submits that his termination is in violation of Section 25-F

of I.D.Act. It amounts to retrenchment. That more than

1000 employees are working with IInd party. IInd party

has terminated him from service as he had participated in

formation of BSNL Theka Mazdoor Union Registration

No. 197 under Trade Union Act 1926. That said Union had

submitted charter of various demands. It was the reason

for his termination. Ist party workman further reiterates

his termination is without notice. No retrenchment

compensation is paid to him. IInd party has violated

Section 25-F, G. H of I.D.Act. He prays for his reinstatement

with back wages.

IInd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of

workman. It is denied that initially workman was engaged

as Motor Driver in 1996 by DOT Ambikapur. That

instructions are issued by Govt. of India dated 30-3-85 to

stop fresh recruitment of casual labours for any kind of

work. The workman was not employed in DOT Office. That

on 1-10-00, after formation of BSNL, services of workman

were utilized. He was deployed by contractor for specific

work on required basis. The wages were being paid to

contractors who was awarded contract of caretaking and

house keeping. As workman was never appointed by

department, there was no question of his termination or

removal from service. As workman was not regular

employer in department, there is no question of his

termination or illegal retrenchment. Workman never

represented his grievance before management orally or in

writing. IInd party denies violation of Section 25-F, G, H,N

of ID Act.

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 contract between

In Affirmative

management of BSNL Ambikapur

and their contractors w.e.r.

employment of Shri Subhash

Kumar Thakur is sham and

bogus?

(ii)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management in terminating his

services w.e.f. 9-5-08 is legal and

justified?

(iii)

If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

Point No.1, 2- The workman submits that he was in

employment of IInd party as Driver from 1996. His services

are terminated in violation of Section 25-F, N of ID Act on

9-5-08. IInd party denies employer employee relationship.

That after formation of BSNL in October 2000, the services

of workmen were utilized in same manner through

contractor the caretaking and house keeping.

Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting

his claim that he was working as motor driver with IInd

party from 96 to 2008. He was orally terminated on 9-5-08.

That he had completed 240 days continuous service.

Initially he was paid Rs.1700 per month. Wages were

increased to Rs.3500. That he had given option for regular

appointment as Driver but he was not appointed on regular

basis for the reasons he was outsider. Workman has

produced documents Exhibit W-1, W-2. Exhibit W-3(1) to

(54) , Exhibit W-4, W-5, W-6. I will deal with those

documents at later part. Workman in his cross-examination

says before he was engaged with IInd party, post was not

advertised. Some driver had called him. the driver was not

acquainted with him. His name was not sponsored through

Employment Exchange. He has not submitted application

for selection. He did not face oral interview. Appointment

letter was not given to him. He was paid his salary by clerk

in the office. During the year 2000-01, he was working

under contractor.

Management’s witness Ravishankar also stated in

his affidavit that Ist party workman was employed through

contractor. Zerox copy of documents about the contract

are produced. The documents shows that M/s. Salauddin

Siddique and Param Jeet Singh Basu submitted contract

for house keeping and driving of departmental vehicle.

However the evidence of workman shows that he was

paid wages by clerk in office. No evidence is adduced that

workman was paid his salary by contractor. The

contentions of IInd party that workman was employed

through contractor cannot be accepted as no evidence is

adduced that establishment of IInd party is registered

under CL(R&A)Act, 1970 required under Section-7. No

evidence is also adduced that the contractors were holding

licence required as per Section 12 of CL(R&A) Act, 1970.

The documents w.r.t. contract appears only paper work.

The workman was actually working as driver on

establishment of IInd party. Workman has stated that he

was working from 96 to 2008. He completed 240 days

continuous service. He was terminated without notice, no

retrenchment compensation was paid to him. The

documents Exhibit W-1 experience certificate issued by

Sub-Divisional Engineer shows that workman was working

in IInd party from 93 to 2003-04 as Driver. Exhibit W-2

shows applications submitted by workman to Sub-

Divisional Engineer for purchase of 3 tyres for vehicle

No. MP-27B4455. However the documents Exhibit W-3/1

to 3/54, the purchase receipt of diesel are found in name

of Ambika Transport. Those documents appears

inconsistent with evidence of workman. Workman has

produced insurance policy to Vehicle No. MP-25B4455 at

Exhibit W-4. Said document bears signature of the

workman. Exhibit W-5 is receipt of fine Rs.700 paid in name

of workman for offence under Section 279, 337 of IPC.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

From said receipt, it is not clear whether Vehicle MP 27 B

4455 was involved in the accident. The evidence of

workman about he was working with IInd party as Driver

from 96 to 08 is not shattered. The contentions of IInd

party that workman was engaged through contractor

cannot be said legal as the establishment of IInd party

was not registered under Contract Labour (Regulation &

Abolition)Act 1970. Neither contractor was holding

licence therefore the evidence of workman that he was

working as Driver in establishment of IInd party cannot

be discarded. Workman in his cross-examination says that

the fuel in the Vehicle was supplied through contractor.

He had not gone for filling fuel in the vehicle. He had

come to know about it from other persons cannot support

claim of IInd party as contractor was not holding licence.

The establishment was not registered. The evidence in

cross-examination of management’s witness shows that

he was working in Telecom office, Ambikapur from January

2002. During said period, workman was also working in

said office as Driver. That the management’s witness had

seen letter dated 22-11-04 relating to contractors. The

copies of bills payments made, that attendance of workman

was not maintained by department. It was maintained by

contractor. Workman was not served with notice of

termination. No retrenchment compensation was paid to

him. the evidence clearly shows that as establishment of

IIInd party was not registered under CL(R&A)Act, the

contractor was not holding licence. Workman working in

establishment of IInd party was employee of IInd party.

His services are terminated without notice though

retrenchment compensation is paid. The termination of

services of Ist party workman is in violation of Section 25-

F of ID.Act, for above reasons, I record my finding in

Point No.1 in Affirmative, Point No.2 in Negative.

Point No.3- in view of my finding on Point No.2,

termination of workman is illegal for violation of Section

25-F of ID Act, question arises whether workman is entitled

for reinstatement with backwages. The evidence in cross-

examination of workman shows that he was not appointed

following selection process. Therefore reinstatement of

workman would not be justified. Reasonable compensation

would be appropriate. Considering workman was working

from 96 to 2008, compensation Rs. 2 Lakh would be

justified. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.3.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The contract between management of BSNL

Ambikapur and their contractors w.e.r. employment

of Shri Subhash Kumar Thakur is sham and bogus.

(2)

The action of the management in terminating his

services w.e.f. 9-5-08 is not legal and proper.

(3)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 2

Lakhs to the workman.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days from the date of notification of award.

In case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest

per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 34-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj izca/d Hkkjr

lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] djkSyh ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 66@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 22@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@48@2007&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2014

S.O.

34.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 66/2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Ltd., Karauli and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 22/12/2014.

[No. L-40012/48/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

vuqcU/k

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

t;iqj

lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 66@2007

Hkjr ik.Ms;

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

jsQjsUl ua- la- ,y-&40012@48@2007–IR (DU) fnukad 26@10@2007

Shri Dileep Harijan

S/o. Shri Agura Ran Harijan,

Mohan Nagar, Hindaun City,

Distt.- Karauli (Rajasthan)

v/s

The Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Hindaun City,

Karauli

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls

% Jh jktdqekj xks;y&,MoksdsV

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls

% Jh Vh-ih-’kekZ &,MoksdsV

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

% iapkV %

fnukad % 27-11- 2014

dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 10

mi/kkjk 1 [k.M+ ¼?k½ ds vUrxZr fnukad 26-10-2007 ds vkns’k ls izsf”kr fookn

ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lafLFkr gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk

izsf”kr fookn fuEuor~ gS %&

‘Whether the action of the management of BSNL, in

terminating the services of their workman Shri Dileep

Harijan w.e.f.01/03/2007, is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to?’

;kfpdk esa fn;s x;s rF;ksa ds vuqlkj laf{kIrr% ;kph dk dFku gS fd

lu~ 1995 esa ebZ vkSj twu ds e/; ;kph us foi{kh ds ;gka lQkbZ okyk ¼Lohij½

ds in ij 150 :Ik;s izfrekg dh nj ls Hkqxrku ij lsok esa izos’k fd;kA lsok

esa izfof”V ds le; ;kph dks dksbZ fu;qfDr i= ugha fn;k x;k FkkA le;≤

ij lsok ds nkSjku foi{kh us izkFkhZ dh osru esa o`f) dh vkSj lu~ 2000 esa ;kph

dh vfUre osru 900 :Ik;s ekfld FkhA

vkxs izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku gS fd mlus ik”kZn ¼dkiksZjsV½ ds in gsrq pquko

yM+k vkSj thrk vkSj bl pquko esa thr ds dkj.k izkFkhZ us viuh iRuh dks

foi{kh ds ;gka lQkbZ lsok gsrq yxk fn;k] tgka izkFkhZ dh iRuh us uxj fuxe ds

vxys pquko rd dke fd;kA vkxs izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku gS fd ik”kZn ds

dk;Zdky ds ckn ;kph iqu% lu~ 2005 esa foi{kh dh lsok esa ‘kkfey gks x;k

vkSj 28 Qjojh 2007 rd dk;Z fd;kA fnukad 1-3-2007 dks foi{kh us ;kph dh

lsok,a fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk,a vkSj fcuk uksfVl fn;s lekIr dj nh vkSj ;kph

dh txg nwljs deZpkjh dh fu;qfDr Bsdsnkj ds tfj;s dj nhA foi{kh ds mDr

d`R; ds lEcUèk esa ;kph us dgk gS fd foi{khx.k dk mDr dk;Z iw.kZr% vuqfpr]

fof/k fo:) vkSj lqLFkkfir uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kUr ds fo:) gSA

;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd foi{kh ds d`R; ls vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e

1947 dh /kkjk 25&th] 25&,p vkSj 25&,u vkSj Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn

21 dk mYya?ku gqvk gS vr% lsok lekfIr dk vkns’k fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA

;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd foi{kh ds }kjk ;kph dh lsok lekfIr dj fn;s

tkus ds ckn ;kph us lgk;d Je vk;qDr ,oa le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ¼dsUnzh;½]dksVk

ds le{k vkosnu izLrqr dhA lgk;d Je vk;qDr ,oa le>kSrk vf/kdkjh us

mHk;i{k dh lquokbZ fd;s tkus ds ckn ekeys dks Je U;k;kf/kdj.k dks

fu.kZ;kFkZ Hkst fn;kA

izLrj 8 esa ;kph us ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd ;kph us foi{kh ds ;gka yEcs

le; rd lsok dh gS vkSj dk;Z dh izd`fr fu;fer ,oa vko’;d Lo:Ik dh gS

blfy;s izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr vln~Hkkoukiw.kZ ,oa vU;k;iw.kZ gSA ;g Hkh dgk

x;k gS fd foi{kh dkiksZjs’ku ds LVSf.Max vkMZj esa foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks lsok ls

gVk;s tkus esa viuk;h x;h izfdz;k dh vuqefr ugha gS vkSj u gh vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 esa nh x;h izfdz;k dks viuk;s fcuk izkFkhZ dks gVk;k tk

ldrk gSA

vr% izkFkhZ us ;g izkFkZuk dh gS fd foi{kh dks funsZf’kr fd;k tk;s fd

lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ls foi{kh ;kph dks lsok esa leLr iwoZorhZ osru vkSj

HkRrksa ds lkFk iquLFkkZfir djsaA ;g Hkh izkFkZuk dh x;h gS fd izR;FkhZx.k dks

funsZf’kr fd;k tk;s fd ;kfpdk izLrqr djus dh frFkh ls ;kfpdk fuLrkj.k

dh frFkh rd ;kph dks fuokZg HkRrk@U;wure osru iznku djsaA

;kfpdk ds fo:) oknksÙkj izLrqr dj izR;FkhZx.k us ;kfpdk ds izLrj 1]

2] 3] 4] 5] 6] 7] 8] 9 ds dFku dks vLohdkj fd;k gS vkSj vfrfjDr dFku esa

;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd fg.M+kSu nwjHkk”k esa lQkbZ deZpkjh dk dksbZ in ugha gS

rFkk uk gh izkFkhZ dks dHkh lQkbZ deZpkjh ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k gSA

izkFkhZ }kjk tks rF; crk;s x;s gS og xyr o eux<ar gksus ds dkj.k Lohdkj

fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA izkFkhZ dh dHkh Hkh fdlh in ij fdlh :Ik esa fu;qfDr

ugha dh x;h blfy;s mls gVkus ;k uk gVkus dk dksbZ eryc gh ugha gSA ;g

Hkh dgk x;k fd nwjHkk”k dsUnz dh lQkbZ dh O;oLFkk Bsdk i)fr ds vk/kkj ij

dh tkrh gS vkSj blh izdkj dh tk jgh gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd foi{kh foHkkx

}kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&th ,oa 25 ,p dk mYya?ku ugha

fd;k x;k gS rFkk fdlh Hkh fu;e dh vogsyuk ugha dh gS rFkk izkFkhZ }kjk

dHkh Hkh 240 fnu dk dk;Z iwjk ugha fd;k x;k gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd tc

izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ugha dh x;h rks lsok lekfIr dk dksbZ vFkZ ugha gS vkSj izkFkhZ

us Hkze dh fLFkfr cukdj rFkk rF;ksa dks fNikdj U;k;ky; dks xqejkg djus dh

dksf’k’k dh gS vr% izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk fujLr dh tk;A

10-

tckcqytckc esa izkFkhZ }kjk ;kfpdk ds dFku dh iqujko`fÙk dh x;h gSA

tckcqytckc esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ ,oa vU; Jfedx.kksa dk Hkqxrku

foi{khx.k }kjk gh izfrfnu ds fglkc ls fd;k tkrk Fkk rFkk Bsdsnkj }kjk ugha

fd;k tkrk FkkA bl lEcUèk esa uxn Hkqxrku ls lEcfUèkr okmpj fd QksVksizfr

tckcqytckc ds lkFk layXu gS ftlls Hkqxrku dh fLFkfr Li”V gSA tckcqytckc

ds lkFk AW-1 yxk;r AW-5 Hkqxrku ls lEcfUèkr okmpj dh QksVksizfr;ka

layXu dh x;h gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd okmpj ls Li”V gS fd foi{khx.k

}kjk deZpkfj;ksa dks Loa; fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk Bsdsnkj }kjk ugha fu;qDr

fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ us yEcs le; rd foi{kh ds ;gka deZpkjh dh gSfl;r ls

lsok dh gSA

11-

;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa izkFkhZ }kjk vfHkys[kh; lk{; ds :Ik esa AW-1

yxk;r AW-5 Hkqxrku okmpj dh QksVksizfr;ka tckcqytckc ds lkFk izLrqr

dh x;h gSA blds vfrfjDr ;kph fnyhi gfjtu dk ‘kiFk&i= lk{; esa izLrqr

fd;k x;k gSA foi{k }kjk ;kph dh ‘kiFk&i= ds fo:) izfrijh{kk fnukad

9-10-2012 dks dh x;h gSA

12-

foi{k dh rjQ ls dksbZ izys[kh; lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA foi{kh

lk{kh Jh fouksn dqekj caly iq= Jh vkSeizdk’k caly] mie.My vfHk;Urk dh

‘kiFk&i= lk{; esa izLrqr dh x;h gS vkSj ;kph i{k }kjk lk{kh dh izfrijh{kk

fnukad 19-2-2013 dks dh x;h gSA

13-

eSusa mHk;i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dh cgl lquh rFkk i=koyh dk

lE;~d voyksdu fd;kA mHk;i{k }kjk fyf[kr cgl Hkh izLrqr dh x;h gS tks

i=koyh esa layXu gSA

14-

;kph ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh x;h gS fd lu~

1995 ls ;kph foi{kh ds foHkkx esa dk;Zjr Fkk vkSj mlds osru esa le;≤

ij c<+ksrjh Hkh feyrh jgh ftlds vk/kkj ij lu~ 2000 esa izkFkhZ dk osru 900

:Ik;s izfrekg gks x;kA mlds ckn ;kph us iqu% 2005 ls 28-2-2007 rd dk;Z

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

fd;kA lu~ 2000 ls 2005 dh vofèk esa ;kph dh iRuh }kjk dk;Z fd;k x;k

ftldk [k.M+u foi{kh }kjk ugha fd;k x;kA ;g cgl Hkh fd x;h gS fd izkFkhZ

ds Bsds ij fu;qDr gksus ds lEcUèk esa foi{k }kjk dksbZ izys[kh; lk{;

U;k;kfèkdj.k ds le{k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj foi{k us izfrijh{kk ds

nkSjku ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd deZpkfj;ksa dks Hkqxrku] Hkqxrku okmpj ls foHkkx

}kjk fd;k tkrk Fkk u fd Bsdsnkj }kjk fd;k tkrk Fkk] ftlls ;g izxV gksrk

gS fd izkFkhZ rFkk vU; deZpkjh foi{kh ds }kjk dh x;h fu;qfDr ds vk/kkj ij

foi{kh dh lsok esa FksA ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h gS fd foi{k }kjk viuh fyf[kr

cgl esa ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks dHkh fu;qfDr ugha nh x;h vkSj

;g cgl Hkh dh x;h gS fd izkFkhZ Loa; dke NksMdj pyk x;k tks ijLij

fojksè?kHkklh gSA foi{k us ;g Hkh fyf[kr cgl esa mYys[k fd;k gS fd fdlh

dSys.Mj o”kZ esa izkFkhZ us 240 fnu dke ugha fd;k blls ;g tkfgj gksrk gS fd

izkFkhZ foi{kh ds ;gka dk;Zjr Fkk ysfdu foi{kh }kjk U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k

izkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr iaftdk ugha izLrqr dh x;h gSA fyf[kr cgl esa izkFkhZ i{k

us ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd foi{k }kjk /kkjk 25 th] 25 ,p ,oa 25 ,u dk

mYy?kau fd;k x;k gS vr% o”kZ 1995 ls izkFkhZ dks fu;fer lsokjr ekurs gq,

le;≤ ij feyus okys leLr ifjykHkksa ds lkFk lsok esa okil foi{k }kjk

fy;s tkus ds lEcUèk esa vuqrks”k iznku fd;k tk;A

15-

foi{k dh rjQ ls fyf[kr cgl esa ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ

dks dHkh fu;qfDr i= ugha fn;k x;k rFkk mls dsoy fdlh fo’ks”k dk;Z ds fy;s

dk;Z ij j[kk x;k Fkk vkSj foHkkx esa dk;Z u gksus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ Loa; pyk

x;kA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd fg.M+kSu nwjHkk”k dsUnz esa lQkbZ deZpkjh dk dksbZ

in ugha gS vkSj u gh izkFkhZ dh bl in ij fu;qfDr dh x;h RkFkk izkFkhZ us dHkh

Hkh o”kZ esa 240 fnu yxkrkj dk;Z ugha fd;kA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd nwjHkk”k

dsUnz dh lQkbZ O;oLFkk Bsdk i)fr ds vk/kkj ij dh tkrh gS vkSj dh tk jgh

gS] izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk ,slk dksbZ fjdkMZ i=koyh ij ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gS

ftlls ;g Li”V gks fd mlus yxkrkj dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZ us viuh izfrijh{kk esa

Loa; dgk gS fd dHkh og lQkbZ djus tkrk Fkk dHkh mlds LFkku ij mldh

iRuh tk;k djrh Fkh ftlls ;g tkfgj gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk yxkrkj dk;Z djus

dk dFku xyr vkSj eux<ar gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks dHkh

fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZ vr% mldks gVkus dk iz’u ugha mBrk] Jfed Loa; dk;Z

NksMdj pyk x;k FkkA foi{kh foHkkx esa vkdfLed dk;Z Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls

djok;k tkrk gSA foHkkx }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 th ,oa

25 ,p dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k x;k gSA pwafd foHkkx dk dk;Z Bsds ij djok;k

tkrk gS blfy;s Bsdsnkj dk;Z dks fdu O;fDr;ksa ls dSls dk;Z djokrk gS bl

lEcUèk esa foHkkx dh dksbZ ftEesnkjh ugha curh gSA pwafd Bsds dh lafonk dh

lekfIr ij j[ks x;s Jfed Lor% gh gVk fn;s x;s Fks vr% Jfed ds in ij

fu;qfDr fdlh Hkh dfu”d O;fDr dks ugha nh xbZA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd

foHkkx esa dk;Z Bsds ij djok;k tkrk gS vr% Bsdsnkj fdu O;fDr;ksa ls dSls

dk;Z djokrk gS mu O;fDr;ksa ds lEcUèk esa foHkkx dh dksbZ ftEesnkjh ugha

curhA

16-

fyf[kr cgl ds izLrj 7 esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd foHkkx Hkkjr ljdkj

ds fn’kk funZs’kkas dk ikyu djrs gq, dk;Z dks vUtke nsrk gSA foHkkx esa

fu;qfDr ds fy, dksbZ vf/kdkjh rc rd vf/kd`r ugha gS tc rd dh jkstxkj

dk;kZy; }kjk Jfed dk uke fu;qfDr ds fy;s vuqeksfnr u gksA izkFkhZ dks

dHkh Hkh laoS/kkfud fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZ vkSj dsoy Bsds iz.kkyh ds vk/kkj ij

izkFkhZ us dk;Z fd;k gks rks og fof/klEer fu;qfDr ugha gSA fyf[kr cgl ds

izLrj 8 esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd foHkkx }kjk Jfed dks dHkh fu;ksftr ugha

fd;k x;k] izkFkhZ dks dsoy ek= vkdfLed Jfed ds :Ik esa j[kk x;k Fkk vkSj

dksbZ fu;qfDr i= tkjh ugha fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dks dksbZ

lsokeqfDr i= nsuk vko’;d ugha gS ,oa izkFkhZ us dHkh Hkh 240 fnu ls T;knk

dk;Z ugha fd;k] vr% izkFkhZ dksbZ vuqrks”k ikus dk gdnkj ugha gS rFkk LVsVesUV

vkWQ Dyse [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA

17-

mHk;i{k ds vfHkcpuksa vkSj izLrqr mijksDr cgl ds vk/kkj ij fuLrkj.k

ds fy;s fuEu okn fcUnq mRiUu gksrs gS %&

Okkn&fcUnq

D;k izkFkhZ fnyhi gfjtu foi{kh ds v/khu fu;qDr lQkbZ deZpkjh gS

rFkk mls foi{kh }kjk fnukad 1-3-2007 dks lsokeqfDr fd;k x;k \

D;k izkFkhZ fnyhi gfjtu us lsok lekfIr dh frfFk 1-3-2007 ds

Bhd iwoZ dys.Mj o”kZ esa yxkrkj 240 fnu rd foi{kh ds v/khu

dk;Z fd;k gS \

D;k foi{kh }kjk /kkjk 25 th vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dk

mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS \

D;k foi{kh }kjk /kkjk 25 ,p vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dk

mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS \

vuqrks”k ftls ;kph ikus dk gdnkj gS\

fuLrkj.k okn&fcUnq la[;k ,d %&

18-

;g okn bl vk’k; dk gS fd D;k izkFkhZ fnyhi gfjtu foi{kh ds

vèkhu fu;qDr lQkbZ deZpkjh gS rFkk mls foi{kh }kjk fnukad 1-3-2007 dks

lsokeqä fd;k x;kA

19-

mDr okn fcUnq ds lEcUèk esa ;g mYys[kfu; gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk LVsVesUV

vkWQ Dyse esa ebZ vkSj twu 1995 ds e/; esa lQkbZ deZpkjh ds :Ik esa foi{kh

ds ;gk¡ 150 :i;s ekfld osru ij lsok esa ‘kkfey gksus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k

gSA foi{kh }kjk oknksÙkj esa izkFkhZ dks lsok esa fu;qDr djus ds rF; ls Li”V :Ik

ls bUdkj fd;k x;k gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k izkFkhZ dks dksbZ fu;qfDr gh ugha nh

xbZ rks mls foi{kh }kjk lsok eqDr djus dk iz’u ugha mBrk gSA mDr rF; ,oa

ifjfLFkfr esa ;g rF; fl) djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ ij gS fd mls foi{kh us ebZ&twu

1995 ds e/; vius ;gka lsok esa fu;qDr fd;kA i=koyh ij ;kph i{k }kjk

izLrqr bl lEcUèk esa dksbZ fu;qfDr i= vFkok mldh izfrfyfi izLrqr ugha dh

x;h gSA ;kph us Loa; ;kfpdk ds izLrj 1 esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mls dksbZ

fu;qfDr i= ugha fn;k x;k FkkA bl lEcUèk esa tgk¡ rd ekSf[kd lk{; dk

iz’u gS izkFkhZ us vius nkok i= ds leFkZu esa ‘kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;k gS vkSj

izfrijh{kk esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mls dksbZ fu;qfDr i= ugha fn;k x;k FkkA

;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd tc mldks ukSdjh ij yxk;k x;k ml le; foi{kh

}kjk dksbZ ukSdjh gsrq foKfIr tkjh ugha dh x;h FkhA vkxs izfrijh{kk esa lk{kh

us ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd mls lQkbZ dk;Z ds fy, j[kk x;k Fkk vkSj o”kZ

1995 ls mlls yxkrkj dke fd;kA mldks foi{kh foHkkx us dk;Z ij yxk;k

vkSj dk;Z djok;kA o”kZ 2007 ds ckn foi{kh us Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls dk;Z

djokuk ‘kq: dj fn;kA ;g Hkh dgk gS fd mlus 28 Qjojh 2007 rd dk;Z

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fd;k vkSj mlds ckn Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls dk;Z gks jgk gSA mlus ftruh vofèk

rd dk;Z fd;k mldk Hkqxrku mls fey x;k gSA izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k

gS fd mls vLFkk;h :Ik ls j[kk x;k Fkk ;g ckr lgh gS ysfdu ;g lgh ugha

gS tc dke gksrk Fkk rc gh mls cqyk;k tkrk FkkA vkxs lk{; esa izkFkhZ us ;g

dgk gS fd lu~ 2000 ds ckn izkFkhZ rFkk mldh iRuh nksuksa gh dk;Z djrs Fks

dHkh lk{kh dk;Z dj ysrk Fkk dHkh mldh iRuh dk;Z dj ysrh FkhA dHkh og

pyk tkrk Fkk rks dHkh mldh iRuh pyh tkrh FkhA lk{kh us vkxs dgk gS fd

;g dguk lgh ugha gS fd foHkkx esa nksuksa dks fu;qfDr ugha nh rFkk tc&tc

dke gksrk Fkk rc dke gsrq cqyk ysrs FksA ;gka ij ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ

ds LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds izLrj rhu vkSj pkj esa dFku ds vuqlkj lu~ 2000

esa ik”kZn pqus tkus ds ckn og lu~ 2005 rd dke ij ugha x;k vkSj mldh

txg mldh iRuh tkrh Fkh] vr% izkFkhZ dh lk{; dh izfrijh{kk dk ;g dFku

xyr vkSj >wB gS fd lu~ 2000 ds ckn izkFkhZ vkSj mldh iRuh nksuksa gh dk;Z

djrs FksA

20-

izkFkhZ dh lk{; dh izfrijh{kk ds mDr va’k ls ;g Lor% lkfcr gS fd

izkFkhZ dh foi{kh ds ;gka fu;qfDr ,o¡ yxkrkj dk;Z djus ds dFku dh iqf”V ugha

gksrh gSA bl lEcUèk esa i=koyh ij dksbZ izys[k ugha izLrqr gS ftlls izkFkhZ ds

dFku dks leFkZu feysaA

21-

izkFkhZ us ;kfpdk esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd tc og ik”kZn dk pquko

thrk Fkk rks ml vofèk esa mldh txg mldh iRuh dk;Z djus ds fy, tkrh

Fkh vkSj ik”kZn dk dk;Zdky lekIr gksus ds ckn lu~ 2005 esa mlus iqu% foi{kh

ds ;gka lsok esa lfEefyr gksdj 28 Qjojh 2007 rd dke fd;kA bl vofèk

esa Hkh izkFkhZ }kjk foi{kh ds ;gka dke djus ds lEcUèk esa osru Hkqxrku ls

lEcfUèkr vFkok gkftjh ls lEcfUèkr dksbZ vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS

ftlls izkFkhZ ds dFku dk leFkZu gksA

22-

izkFkhZ i{k dh rjQ ls tckcqytckc ds lkFk ik¡p Hkqxrku lEcfUèkr

okmpj izLrqr fd;s x;s gS tks fuEuor gS %&

dz- Ukke

dk;Z

Hkqxrku nSfud etnwjh nj

la-

vofèk

jkf’k x fnuksa dh la[;k

Lqkjs’kh iRuh jkef[kykMh

01-01-2005 ls 07-01-2005

210

30 x 7

lEirckbZ iRuh fnyhi okfYedh 08-01-2005 ls 14-01-2005

210

30 x 7

lEirckbZ iRuh fnyhi okfYedh 23-01-2005 ls 31-01-2005

270

30 x 9

yPNks iRuh Jh jkeds’k

01-04-2005 ls 07-04-2005 210

30 x 7

foeyk iRuh Jh txnh’k

08-04-2005 ls 15-04-2005

210

30 x 7

mijksDr Hkqxrku okmpj dks n’kkZrs gq, ekSf[kd cgl ds nkSjku izkFkhZ

i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd mDr Hkqxrku

okmpj ;g n’kkZrs gS fd Hkqxrku Bsdsnkj }kjk ugha cfYd foHkkx }kjk fd;k

tkrk Fkk ftlls bl rF; dh iqf”V gksrh gS fd foi{k dk ;g dguk xyr gS

fd dk;Z Bsds ij gksrk Fkk vkSj Hkqxrku Hkh Bsdsnkj gh djrk Fkk ysfdu izkFkhZ

i{k dh cgl ls bl rF; dks cy ugha feyrk gS fd izkFkhZ foi{kh ds ;gk¡ nSfud

;k ekfld osru ij fu;qDr Fkk D;ksafd okmpj izkFkhZ ls lEcfUèkr ugha gSa vkSj

nSfud nj ij etnwjh dk Hkqxrku iznf’kZr djrs gSA blls izkFkhZ ds ekfld osru

Hkksxh gksus ds rF; dk Hkh [k.Mu gksrk gSA lHkh okmpj tuojh vkSj vizSy 2005

ds gS vkSj bu vfHkys[kksa ds lEcUèk esa fouksn dqekj cUly] mi e.My vfHk;Urk]

nwjHkk”k us izfrijh{kk esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ;s lHkh ikWpksa vfHkys[k foi{kh

foHkkx ds gS vkSj lQkbZ ds Hkqxrku ls lEcfUèkr gS vkSj ftu yksxksa us Bsdk

i)fr ykxw gksus ls igys lQkbZ dk dk;Z fd;k muds Hkqxrku ls lEcfUèkr

okmpj foHkkx esa gksxsaA caly us dgha lk{; esa ;g mYys[k ugha fd;k gS fd Bsdk

i)fr 2005 esa ykxw Fkh ;k ugha FkhA fnyhi }kjk izfrijh{kk esa ;g Lohdkj

fd;k x;k gS fd o”kZ 2007 ds ckn foi{k us Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls lQkbZ dk

dke djokuk pkyw dj fn;k vkSj 28 Qjojh 2007 ds ckn Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e

ls gh dk;Z gks jgk gS vr% mDr ik¡p Hkqxrku okmpj ls izkFkhZ ds i{k esa dksbZ

enn ugha yh tk ldrh gS D;ksafd dksbZ Hkh okmpj izkFkhZ fnyhi gfjtu dks

Hkqxrku ls lEcfUèkr ugha gSA dzekad 3 ij Jh fnyhi gfjtu dh iRuh }kjk

23-1-2005 ls 31-1-2005 rd dsoy 9 fnu dk;Z djuk n’kkZ;k x;k gS vkSj

30 :- nSfud etnwjh dh nj ls 270 :- dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA fnyhi

gfjtu ds dFkukuqlkj vxj mudh ckr lgh ekuh tk; dh muds LFkku ij

muds ik”kZn jgus ds nkSjku mudh iRuh dk;Z djus tkrh Fkh rks fd;s x;s

Hkqxrku ds vk/kkj ij fnyhi gfjtu dk ;kfpdk esa ;g dFku xyr lkfcr

gksrk gS fd mudks ekfld osru Hkqxrku ij j[kk x;k Fkk vkSj lu~ 2000 esa

mudk ekfld osru 900 :- Fkk D;ksafd mudh iRuh dks n’kkZ;k x;k Hkqxrku

nSfud nj ij n’kkZ;k x;k gS vkSj tuojh 2005 esa dsoy 16 fnu dk;Z djuk

n’kkZ;k gSA

23-

;gka ij bl rF; dk mYys[k Hkh egRoiw.kZ gS fd izkFkhZ i{k }kjk viuh

iRuh rFkk vU; O;fDr;ksa ds lEcUèk esa Hkqxrku okmpj izLrqr fd;k x;k gS

ysfdu vius lEcUèk esa dksbZ okmpj ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlls mudh

foi{kh ds ;gka lsok fd;s tkus ds rF; dk leFkZu gks ldsaA mYys[kuh; gS fd

mDr Hkqxrku okmpjksa ls izkFkhZ i{k }kjk cgl ds nkSjku bl fcUnq ij cy fn;k

x;k fd Hkqxrku okmpj ftu fnuksa tkjh fd;s x;s gS ml le; Hkqxrku Bsdsnkj

ds ek/;e ls ugha fd;k tkrk Fkk cfYd foHkkx }kjk fd;k tkrk Fkk vkSj

foHkkx }kjk Hkqxrku fd;s tkus ds dkj.k ;g ekuk tk; fd deZpkjhx.k

Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls ugha cfYd lh/ks foHkkx }kjk lsok esa fu;qDr fd;s x;s FksA

izkFkhZ i{k dh mDr cgl dks vxj blh :Ik eas xzg.k dj fy;k tk; ftl :Ik

esa cgl izLrqr fd x;h gS fQj Hkh ;kph i{k }kjk vius O;fDrxr Hkqxrku ds

lEcUèk esa lu~ 1995 ls ysdj lu~ 2005 vFkok mlds ckn dh vofèk dk dksbZ

Hkqxrku okmpj izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlls mlds foi{kh ds lsok esa gksus

dh iqf”V gks ldsA

24-

mDr leLr O;k[;k o fo’ys”k.k ds vk/kkj ij eS bl fu”d”kZ ij gwW fd

izkFkhZ i{k ;g rF; fl) djus esa vlQy gS fd og foi{kh ds ;gka ekfld osru

ij o”kZ 1995 ds ebZ vkSj twu ds e/; lQkbZ deZpkjh ds in ij fu;qDr gqvk

Fkk vkSj bl rF; dks fl) djus esa Hkh vlQy gS fd foi{k }kjk mldh lsok

1-03-2007 dks lekIr dh x;h vkSj ;g rF; Hkh fl) djus esa vlQy gS fd

ik”kZn ds dk;Zdky ds ckn lu~ 2005 ¼frfFk vKkr½ ls fnukad 28-2-2007 rd

foi{kh ds ;gka lQkbZokyk ¼Lohij½ ds in ij dk;Z fd;kA ;g okn fcUnq

rn~uqlkj ;kph ds fo:) udkjkRed fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA

25-

fuLrkj.k okn&fcUnq la[;k 2 %& ;g okn&fcUnq bl vk’k; dk gS fd

D;k izkFkhZ us lsok lekfIr dh frfFk 1-3-2007 ds iwoZ dSys.Mj o”kZ esa 240 fnu

rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k gS\ bl lUnHkZ esa mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ bl rF; dks

fl) djus esa vlQy gS fd foi{k }kjk mls lsok easa j[kk x;k rFkk mls dksbZ

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

fu;qfDr iznku dh x;hA tgka rd fnukad 1-7-2003 ds Bhd iwoZ ,d o”kZ esa

240 fnu rd yxkrkj dk;Z djus dk iz’u gS ;kfpdk esa ;kph us mYys[k fd;k

gS fd o”kZ 2005 ls 28-2-2007 rd mlus foi{kh ds ;gka dk;Z fd;kA lk{; esa

izLrqr ‘kiFk&i= esa Hkh lk{kh us ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd ik”kZn dk dk;Zdky

iwjk gksus ds ckn 2005 esa mlus viuh iRuh ds LFkku ij iqu% foi{kh ds ;gka

dk;Z ij ‘kkfey gks x;k vkSj fnukad 28-2-2007 rd dk;Zjr jgk ysfdu 2005

esa dk;Z ij ‘kkfey gksus ds lEcUèk esa dksbZ lk{; i=koyh ij ugha gS dsoy

‘kiFk&i= esa dFku ek= gS vkSj u bl ckr dk mYys[k gS fd 2005 esa lsok esa

fdl rkjh[k dks dk;Z ij ‘kkfey gqvkA izfrijh{kk esa Loa; izkFkhZ us Lohdkj

fd;k gS fd dHkh dke Loa; ;kph dj ysrk Fkk vkSj dHkh mldh iRuh dj ysrh

FkhA dHkh Loa; izkFkhZ pyk tkrk Fkk rks dHkh mldh iRuh pyh tkrh FkhA ;g

Hkh dgk gS fd ;g lgh ugha gS fd foHkkx esa nksuksa dh fu;qfDr ugha FkhA lk{;

dh mDr fLFkfr ls Lor% Li”V gS fd izkFkhZ bl rF; dks fl) djus esa vlQy

gS fd mlus fnukad 1-3-2007 ds iwoZ dSys.Mj o”kZ esa 240 fnu rd yxkrkj

dk;Z fd;kA Ik=koyh ij ;kph }kjk viuh dk;Z ij mifLFkfr vFkok osru

Hkqxrku ds lEcUèk esa dksbZ fooj.k ugha izLrqr gS ftlls ;g izdV gks fd mlus

fdl fnu Ok”kZ 2005 esa ik”kZn dk dk;Zdky lekIr gksus ij foi{kh ds ;gk¡ dk;Z

ij lfEefyr gqvkA bl ckr dk Hkh dksbZ lk{; ugha gS fd foi{kh vkSj izkFkhZ ds

chp dksbZ vuqcU/k Fkk fd foi{kh izkFkhZ dh txg mlds ik”kZn ds dk;Zdky

ds nkSjku mldh iRuh dh lsok izkIr djsxkA mDr O;k[;k ,o¡ fo’ys”k.k ds

vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu”d”kZ ij gw¡ fd izkFkhZ dfFkr lsokeqfDr dh frfFk

fnukad 01-03-2007 ds iwoZ ,d dys.Mj Ok”kZ esa yxkrkj 240 fnu lsok djus ds

rF; dks fl) djus vlQy gSA ;g okn fcUnq rn~uqlkj izkFkhZ ds fo:)

udkjkRed :Ik esa fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA

26-

fuLrkj.k okn fcUnq la[;k 3 %& ;g okn fcUnq bl vk’k; dk gS fd

D;k foi{kh }kjk /kkjk 25&th vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dk mYya?ku fd;k

x;k gS\ /kkjk 25&th esa fuEu O;oLFkk gS % &

^^/kkjk 25&N esa NaVuh ds fy, izfØ;k& tgka fd fdlh vkS|ksfxd

LFkkiu ds fdlh ,sls deZdkj dh] tks Hkkjr dk ukxfjd gS NaVuh dh

tkuh gks vkSj ;g ml LFkkiu ds deZdkjksa ds fdlh fof’k”V izoxZ dk

gks] ogka] rc ds flok; tcfd fu;kstd ,sls dkj.kksa ls] ftUgsa vfHkfyf[kr

fd;k tk,xk] fdlh vU; deZdkj dh NaVuh djrk gS] fu;kstd vkSj

deZdkj ds chp bl fufeÙk gq, fdlh djkj ds vHkko esa fu;kstd]

ekewyh rkSj ls vkSj ml deZdkj dh NaVuh djsxk] tks ml izoxZ esa

fu;ksftr fd;k tkus okyk vfUre O;fDr gksA**

27-

bl lEcUèk esa ;kfpdk esa izLrj 5 eas ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls ;g mYys[k

fd;k x;k gS fd foi{k }kjk ;kph dks lsok ls /kkjk 25 th] /kkjk 25&,p] /kkjk

25&,u ,o¡ vuqPNsn 21 Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds izkfo/kku ds mYya?ku esa gVk;k

x;k gSA mDr /kkjk 25&th ds izko/kku ds vuqlkj ;fn fu;ksDrk }kjk NaVuh

dh tkuh gS rks fu;ksDrk vkSj deZdkj ds chp fdlh djkj ds vHkko esa ml

deZdkj dh NaVuh igys dh tkosxh tks lcls ckn esa fu;qDr gqvk gSA izkFkhZ

}kjk viuh ;kfpdk esa vFkok ‘kiFk&i= ds ek/;e ls izLrqr lk{; esa LD; bl

ckr dk mYys[k ugha fd;k gS fd foi{kh ds ;gka fu;qDr ;kph ds l–’k

deZdkjksa esa Loa; ;kph dh D;k fLFkfr Fkh vkSj laLFkku esa vfUre deZdkj dkSu

Fkk\ blds fo:) ;kph us Loa; viuh izfrijh{kk esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS gS fd

28 Qjojh 2007 rd mlus dke fd;k vkSj mlds ckn ls Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls

dk;Z gks jgk gSA ;kph us ;g dgha ugha dgk gS fd mlls dfu”d O;fDr dks

lsok esa j[krs gq, mls gVk fn;k x;k gS vkSj og O;fDr dkSu gS\ vr% mDr

fLFkfr ls ;g fu”d”kZ fudyrk gS fd ;kph ds ekeys esa foi{k }kjk /kkjk

25&th vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku dk mYya?ku lkfcr ugha gSA

28-

tgkW rd /kkjk 25&,u vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds mYya?ku dk

iz’u gS ;kph ;g rF; fl) djus esa vlQy gS fd mlds dFkukuqlkj lu~ 2005

esa lsok esa iqu% vkus ds ckn yxkrkj ,d lky rd foi{kh ds ;gka og dk;Z

fd;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk yxkrkj lsok u djus ds ifj.kkeLo:Ik /kkjk 25&,u ds

izko/kku izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa vkdf”kZr ugha gksrs gSA lu 1995 esa izkFkhZ us igyh

ckj foi{kh dh lsok esa 150 :- izfrekg dh nj ls izfof”V dk mYys[k fd;k gS

ysfdu 1995 ls 2005 ds chp dh vofèk esa Hkh izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds ;gka yxkrj

,d lky lsok djus dk rF; lkfcr ugha fd;k gS vkSj i=koyh ij bl lEcUèk

esa izkFkhZ ds dFku vkSj ‘kiFk&i= ds vfrfjDr dksbZ Bksl lk{; ugha gSA mDr

leLr O;k[;k o fo’ys”k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu”d”kZ ij gwW fd ;kph i{k }kjk

/kkjk 25&th vFkok 25&,u vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kku dk

mYya?ku lkfcr ugha fd;k x;k gS] ;g okn fcUnq rn~uqlkj izkFkhZ ds fo:)

udkjkRed fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA

29-

fuLrkj.k okn&fcUnq la[;k 4 %&;g okn&fcUnq bl vk’k; dk gS fd

D;k foi{kh }kjk /kkjk 25&,p vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dk mYya?ku izkFkhZ

dh lsok ds ekeys esa fd;k x;k gS\ /kkjk 25&,p vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e

dk izko/kku fuEuor gS%&

**/kkjk 25&t- NaVuh fd, x, deZdkjksa dk iqu% fu;kstu& tgka fd

fdUgha deZdkjksa dh NaVuh dh tkrh gS vkSj fu;kstd fdUgha O;fDr;ksa

dks vius fu;kstu esa j[kus dh izLFkkiuk djrk gS] ogka og mu NaVuh

fd, x, deZdkjksa dks] tks Hkkjr ds ukxfjd gSa] ,slh jhfr ls] tSlh

fofgr dh tk,] ;g volj nsxk fd iqu% fu;kstu ds fy, vius dks

izLFkkfir djsa vkSj NaVuh fd, x, mu deZdkjksa dks tks iqu% fu;kstu

ds fy, vius dks izLFkkfir djsa vU; O;fDr;ksa ij vf/keku feysxkA**

30-

mDr izko/kku esa ;g O;oLFkk gS fd ;fn fdlh deZdkj dh NaVuh dh

tkrh gS vkSj mlds ckn fu;kstd fdUgha O;fDr;ksa dks vius fu;kstu esa j[kuk

pkgrk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa NaVuh fd;s x;s deZdkj dks iqu% fu;kstu dk

volj igys fn;k tk;sxk vkSj ;fn NaVuh fd;k deZdkj iqu% fu;kstu dk

bPNqd gS rks mls vU; O;fDr;ksa dh rqyuk esa ojh;rk nh tkosxhA izkFkhZ }kjk

Loa; viuh izfrijh{kk esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd mls gVkus ds ckn mldh

txg vU; O;fDr dks foi{k }kjk ugha yxk;k x;k gS vkSj foi{k Bsdsnkj ds

ek/;e ls dk;Z djok jgk gSA ;kfpdk esa vFkok lk{; esa dgh bl ckr dk

mYys[k ugha gS fd foi{k us izkFkhZ dks gVkdj vU; O;fDr dks j[k fy;k gSA

foi{kh lk{kh fouksn dqekj caly dh izfrijh{kk esa Hkh ,slk dksbZ lq>ko ugha

fn;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ ds lsok ls gVkus ds ckn foi{k us fdlh O;fDr dks

fu;qfDr nhA vr% foi{k }kjk /kkjk 25&,p vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds

izko/kku dk mYya?ku ;kph i{k lkfcr ugha dj ldk gSA ;g okn fcUnq rn~uqlkj

izkFkhZ ds fo:) udkjkRed fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA

31-

izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh x;h gS fd foi{k

}kjk izkFkhZ dh lsok ds lEcUèk esa rFkk osru Hkqxrku ds lEcUèk esa dksbZ fooj.k

ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vkSj bl lEcUèk esa Hkh dksbZ fooj.k izLrqr ugha fd;k

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

x;k gS fd izkFkhZ foi{kh ds ;gka Bsds ij fu;qDr Fkk vr% foi{k ds fo:)

vfHkys[kksa dks izLrqr ugha djus ds lEcUèk esa izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk xzg.k dh tkuh

pkfg, ,o¡ izkFkhZ dk nkok vkKIr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A blds fo:) foi{k ds

fo}ku vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh x;h gS fd izkjfEHkd rkSj ij vius

dFku dks fl) djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ i{k ij gS ftls vius LorU= lk{; ls viuk

ekeyk fl) djuk pkfg, vkSj foi{k dh dfe;ksa ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ i{k dksbZ

ykHk izkIr ugha dj ldrkA ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h gS fd izkFkhZ foi{kh ds ;gka

fu;qDr ugha jgk gS vkSj mlus lkjs eux<ar dFku izLrqr fd;s gSA izkFkhZ dk ;g

dFku Hkh eux<ar gS fd ik”kZn jgus ds nkSjku mldh iRuh mldh txg dk;Z

djrh Fkh D;ksafd foi{kh Hkkjr ljdkj dk laxBu gS tgka fdlh vf/kdkjh }kjk

mDr izdkj dh vuqefr iznku ugha dh tk ldrhA ;kph i{k dh mDr cgl ds

lEcUèk esa ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd Loa; izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ds le; vkSj Lo:Ik ds

lEcUèk esa izLrqr dFku esa ,d:irk ugha gSA ;kph us ;kfpdk esa viuh fu;qfDr

dk Lo:Ik ekfld osru Hkksxh crk;k gS tcfd tckcqytoko esa Loa; dks nSfud

osru Hkksxh gksuk izLrj 1 esa Lohdkj fd;k gSA tgka rd foi{k }kjk vfHkys[k

izLrqr u djus ds dkj.k izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk xzg.k fd;s tkus dk iz’u gS vFkok

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds fofHkUu izko/kkuksa ds mYya?ku dk iz’u gS] bl

lEcUèk esa 2006] lqizhe dksVZ ¼,y-,.M ,l-½] 38 esa ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky;

}kjk nh x;h fof/k O;oLFkk mYys[kuh; gSA

32-

2006 lqizhe dksVZ ¼,y-,.M ,l-½] 38] lqjsUnz uxj ftyk iapk;r &

vihykFkhZ cuke ng~;kHkkbZ vej flag & izR;FkhZ esa izdj.k ds rF;kuqlkj izR;FkhZ

dh lsok 15-8-85 ds vkns’k ls lekIr dj nh x;h FkhA lsok lekfIr ds yxHkx

lkr lky ckn fnukad 01-6-92 dks izR;FkhZ us vihykFkhZ dks lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk

dh uksfVl Hksth vkSj vUrr% izR;FkhZ dh lsok lekfIr dk fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u

gsrq vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k dks lqiqnZ fd;k x;kA

33-

izR;FkhZ us vius LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse esa ;g mYys[k fd;k fd og lsok

lekfIr ds vkns’k fnukad 15-8-85 rd 10@& :i;s nSfud etnwjh ij

vihykFkhZ dh lsok esa Fkk ,oa lsok lekfIr ds vkns’k fuxZr gksus ds iwoZ

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;kA Je

U;k;ky; ds le{k izR;FkhZ dh rjQ ls ,d vkosnu vihykFkhZ dks funsZ’k tkjh

djus ds fy, izLrqr gqbZ fd vihykFkhZ 1976 ls 1986 rd dh lsok vofèk dk

osru jftLVj ,oa eLVj jksy izLrqr djsaA vihykFkhZ us LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse ds

fo:) ;g dFku izLrqr fd;k fd izR;FkhZ Loa; dke ij vkuk cUn dj dj fn;k

,oa mls dksbZ LFkk;h fu;qfDr ugha nh x;h FkhA og eqrQdkZ dk;kZsa ds fy,

fu;qDr Fkk rFkk tc dke gksrk Fkk rks mls cqyk fy;k tkrk FkkA ;g Hkh dgk

x;k fd deZpkjh us lsoklekfIr ds Bhd iwoZ iwoZorhZ 12 ekgksa esa 240 fnu rd

yxkrkj dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd mlus lu~ 82] 83 vkSj 84

esa dze’k% 114] 63 vkSj 124 fnu dk;Z fd;k gS vr% mldh lsok,a lekIr djus

ds iwoZ /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e esa nh x;h izfdz;k dk

vuqikyu djus dh fof/kd vko’;drk ugha FkhA

34-

izR;FkhZ us Loa; dks lk{; esa izLrqr dj l’kiFk dgk fd og nl lky

rd 470@& :i;s izfrekg ds osru ij fu;qDr FkkA vihykFkhZ dh rjQ ls ,d

deZpkjh us lk{; esa mifLFkr gksdj dgk fd deZpkjh us dHkh Hkh ,d o”kZ esa

240 fnu dke ugha fd;kA Je U;k;ky; us izR;FkhZ ds lk{; ij Hkjkslk fd;k

vkSj eLVj jksy rFkk 1976 ls 86 rd dh osru jftLVj u izLrqr djus ij

izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk xzg.k dj ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd izR;FkhZ us 240 fnu ls

T;knk dk;Z fd;k vr% mldh lsokeqfDr voS/kkfud FkhA Je U;k;ky; us /kkjk

25 ¼,Q½] 25 ¼th½ ,oa 25 ¼,p½ dh izfdz;k dk ikyu u djus ds dkj.k

deZpkjh dks iquLFkkZiuk ds fy, vknsf’kr fd;k ,oa lkFk gh fiNys osru dh 20

izfr’kr /kujkf’k vnk djus dk funsZ’k fn;kA

35-

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us Je U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh

iqf”V dh rFkk Je U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihykFkhZ dh ;kfpdk [kkfjt

dhA ,dy ihB ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB us

ysVlZ isVsaV vihy fujLr dh ,oa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd Je U;k;ky; us lgh

vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd deZpkjh us ekSf[kd lk{; ls vius dFku lkfcr fd;k

gSA ekuuh; [k.MihB us Je U;k;ky; }kjk osru iaftdk] eLVj jksy] rFkk

deZpkfj;ksa dh ofj”Brk lwph u izLrqr djus ij xzg.k dh x;h izfrdwy

vo/kkj.kk dks Hkh lgh Bgjk;kA Je U;k;ky; us ;g Hkh vo/kkfjr fd;k fd

izR;FkhZ dh rqyuk esa ,oa dfu”d deZpkjh dh lsok fu;fer :Ik ls tkjh j[kh

x;h vkSj izR;FkhZ dh lsok lekIr dj nh x;hA

36-

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh

[k.MihB ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihykFkhZ dh ;g cgl Fkh fd ekuuh; loksZPp

U;k;ky; us vius vusd fu.kZ;ksa esa vR;Ur Li”V :Ik ls ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS

fd izkjfEHkd rkSj ij fl) djus dk nkf;Ro deZpkjh ij gS fd lsok lekfIr dh

frfFk ds iwoZ ,d o”kZ esa deZpkjh us 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gS tks nkf;Ro fuokZg

djus esa deZpkjh vlQy jgk gSA ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h fd 10 lky dk

vfHkys[k izLrqr u djus ij izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk xzg.k djus dh dksbZ otg ugha

FkhA izR;FkhZ dh rjQ ls ;g cgl dh x;h Je U;k;ky; us izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk

vfHkys[kksa ds lEcUèk esa xzg.k djds Je U;k;ky; us lgh fd;k gS D;ksafd

fu;kstd ds dCts esa vfHkys[k Fks vr% Je U;k;ky; }kjk ekax fd;s tkus ij

mls izLrqr djuk fu;ksDrk dk drZO; FkkA ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h fd vfHkys[k

fu;ksDrk ds dCts esa gS blfy, mldk nkf;Ro gS fd og fl) djs fd lEcfUèkr

vofèk esa deZpkjh us 240 fnu dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA

37-

mHk;i{k dh mDr cgl ds ifjis{; esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us /kkjk

2 ¼vksvks½] /kkjk 25 ¼ch½ ,oa 25 ¼,Q½ dh Li”V ,oa cks/kxE; O;k[;k djrs gq,

izLrj 8 i‘“B 43 esa deZpkjh }kjk rF;ksa dks fl) djus ds nkf;Ro ds lEcUèk

esa rFkk NVuh dh oS/kkfudrk ds lEcUèk esa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS] “To

attract provisions of Section 25-F, the workman claiming

protection under it, has to prove that there exists

relationship of employer and employee; that he is a

workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act;

the establishment in which he is employed is an industry

within the meaning of the Act and he must have put in not

less than one year of continuous service as defined by

Section 25- B under the employer. These conditions are

cumulative. If any of these conditions is missing the

provisions of Section 25 –F will not be attracted. To get

relief from the court the workman has to establish that he

has right to continue in service and that his service has

been terminated without complying with the provisions

of Section 25-F of the Act.

38.

The section postulates three conditions to be

fulfilled by an employer for getting a valid retrenchment,

namely:-

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

(i)

one month’s clear notice in writing indicating the

reasons for retrenchment or that the workman

has been paid wages for the period of notice in

lieu of such notice;

(ii)

payment of retrenchment compensation which

shall be equivalent to 15 day’s average pay for

every completed year of continuous service or

any part thereof, in excess of six months;

(iii)

a notice to the appropriate Government in the

prescribed manner.”

39-

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us izLrj 10 esa ¼1980½ 4 ,l-lh-lh i`“B 443]

lqjsUnz dqekj oekZ cuke lsUVªy xoZesaUV b.MLVªh;y fVªC;wuy de yscj dksVZ esa

vius iw.kZihB ds QSlys lfgr vusd QSlyksa dk mYys[k ,oa mudh O;k[;k djrs

gq, ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd ;g fl)kUr gS fd fl) djus dk nkf;Ro

deZpkjh ij gS fd og n’kkZ;s fd dfFkr NVuh dh frfFk ds Bhd iwoZ ,d o”kZ

esa mlus 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gS vkSj ;g nkf;Ro Hkh mlh ij gS og Loa; ds

Lkk{; esa ifjf{kr djkus ds vfrfjDr lk{; izLrqr djsaA

40-

fu.kZ; ds iz’rj 18 esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us mYys[k fd;k gS fd

izR;FkhZ dh rjQ ls ekSf[kd lk{; ds vfrfjDr dksbZ lk{; 240 fnu dk;Z djus

ds lEcUèk esa ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] u osru ;k etnwjh ds lEcUèk esa dksbZ

jlhn] ;k vfHkys[k ;k vkns’k izLrqr gS] u dksbZ lgdeZpkjh ifjf{kr djk;k x;k]

u gh fu;ksDrk }kjk izLrqr eLVj&jksy ij dksbZ [k.M+u izLrqr fd;k x;kA

41-

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k gS fd ;g vlEHko gS

fd deZpkjh tks bruh yEch lsok djus dk nkok djrk gS mlds ikl fu;ksDrk

ds v/khu lsok esa yxs jgus rFkk dk;Z dh izd‘fr ds lEcu/k esa dksbZ vfHkys[kh;

lk{; ugha gksxkA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vo/kkfjr fd;k fd deZpkjh us

240 fnu rd dk;Z es layXu jgus ds rF; dks fl) djus ds nkf;Ro dk fuokZg

ugha fd;k gS ,oa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us fu;ksDrk }kjk 10 o”kZ dk

vfHkys[k u izLrqr djus ds lEcUèk esa izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk xyr xzg.k dh gSA

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd izR;FkhZ dh lsok lekfIr

ds iwoZ izR;Fkh dks /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ dh lqj{kk vFkok vuqikyu dk vf/kdkj ugha

FkkA

42-

/kkjk 25 ¼th½ ,oa 25 ¼,p½ ds vuqikyu ds lEcUèk esa ;g lk{; Fkk fd

nSfud osru Hkksxh dh lwph dk j[kj[kko vihykFkhZ }kjk ugha fd;k tkrkA bl

lEcu/k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd deZpkjh dh

fu;fer lsok ds vHkko esa vihykFkhZ ls nSfud osru Hkksfx;ksa dh ofj”Brk lwph

ds j[k j[kko dh mEehn ugha dh tk ldrh gSA vfHkys[kkas dh ekax ij

vihykFkZhZ }kjk u izLrqr fd;s tkus ij /kkjk 114 (III) ¼th½ Hkkjrh; lk{;

vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr U;k;ky; }kjk izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk xzg.k fd;s tkus ds

lEcUèk esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd ,slh vo/kkj.kk

xzg.k djus iwoZ U;k;ky; ds le{k deZpkjh }kjk bl ckr dk lk{; izLrqr

djuk gksxk fd dksbZ ofj”Brk lwph vfLrRo esa gS vU;Fkk izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk

xzg.k djus dh vuqrks”k ugha iznku dh tk ldrhA U;k;ky; }kjk izfrdwy

vo/kkj.kk xzg.k djus gsrq vf/kdkj iznRr gksus ds fy, U;k;ky; dks lUrq”V

gksuk vfuok;Z gS fd lk{; vfLrRo esa gS vkSj mls fl) fd;k tk ldrk FkkA

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us rnuqlkj vihy Lohdkj dhA

43-

orZeku ekeys ds rF; ,o¡ ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f”Vxr j[k ;g Li”V gS

fd ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk iznÙk mDr fof/k O;oLFkk orZeku ekeys esa

ykxw gksrh gSA izkFkhZ ds Loa; ds lk{; ,o¡ dFku ds vuqlkj mlds nSfud

osruHkksxh gksus ds dkj.k /kkjk 25 th ,o¡ 25 ,p ds izko/kku mlds ekeys esa

vkdf”kZr ugha gksrs gS vkSj izkFkhZ dks /kkjk 25 th ,o¡ 25 ,p dh lqj{kk vFkok

vuqikyu ikus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA

44-

i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa] mlds leFkZu esa mHk;i{k }kjk izLrqr lk{; rFkk

lEcfUèkr rF; ,o¡ ifjfLFkfr;ksa] l`ftr okn fcUnqvksa ij izkIr fu”d”kZ vkSj mDr

n`“VkUr esa nh xbZ fof/k O;oLFkk dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, eSa bl fu”d”kZ ij gw¡ fd

izkFkhZ i{k bl rF; dks fl) djus esa vlQy gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr fd

frfFk 1-3-2007 ds Bhd iwoZ izkFkhZ us ,d dyS.Mj Ok”kZ esa 240 fnu fu;fer lsok

dh gS vkSj foi{kh dh lsok esa fu;qDr gksus ds rF; dks Hkh izkFkhZ i{k fl) ugha

dj ldk gS] rn~uqlkj Hkkjrh; lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM }kjk fnukad 1-3-2007 ls

izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr dk vkns’k fof/kd ,o¡ U;k;laxr gS rFkk izkFkhZ deZdkj

Jh fnyhi gfjtu ;kfpr vuqrks”k ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA izkFkhZ dh LVsVesUV

vkWQ Dyse [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS ,o¡ rn~uqlkj [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA U;k;fu.kZ;u

gsrq izsf”kr funsZ’k dk mRrj mDr izdkj fn;k tkrk gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr

fd;k tkrk gSA

Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

ubZ fnYyh] 29 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 35-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jktLFkku

,VkWfed ikoj LVs'ku dh ;wfuV] jkorHkkVk ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 14@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@131@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2014

S.O.

35.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 14/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station

Unit, Rawatbhata and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 22/12/2014.

[No. L-42011/131/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

I.D. 14/2014

Reference No.L-42011/131/2013-IR(DU)

Dated: 6.3.2014

The Secretary,

Parmanu Vidyut Karmachari

Union (CITU), Office CITU Union,

Phase 2, Rawatbhata (Kota)-323305.

V/s

Site Executive Director,

Rajasthan Atomic Power

Station Unit, R.R.Site,

Rawatbhata (Kota).

AWARD

25.11.2014

The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 & 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:-

^^D;k vizkFkhZ izca/ku }kjk Jh pqUuhyky dk;Zn+{k ch flfoy vuqHkkx dks

dk;Zn{k lh ds in ij inksUufr ykHk ls oafpr j[ks tkus dh dk;Zokgh

oS?k o U;k;ksfpr gS\ ;fn ugh rks izkFkhZ deZpkjh fdl jkgr dk o dc

ls ikus dk gdnkj gS+\**

After receipt of reference notices were sent to both

the parties fixing 24.6.2014 for filing statement of claim. On

24.6.2014 Sh. Kuldip Aswal, Advocate learned counsel for

applicant appeared on behalf of applicant & alleged to

file authority & statement of claim from the applicant side.

Sh. Dharmendra Jain, Advocate came in appearance on

behalf of opposite party & alleged to file authority from

the opposite side on next date. Next date 8.9.2014 was

fixed for filing authority from both the side & statement of

claim from the applicant side. None appeared from both

the side on 8.9.2014. There was advocate strike on 8.9.2014

hence, 24.11.2014 was fixed by the tribunal adjourning the

proceeding for the day on its own motion for filing

statement of claim. On 24.11.2014 none appeared for the

applicant side hence, opportunity for filing statement of

claim was closed in view of the fact that applicant is not

showing any interest in filing the statement of claim &

bringing the reference to a logical conclusion. It is

important to note that on 24.11.2014 when case was taken

up for hearing learned representative of the opposite party

appeared & alleged that another CGIT case no.13/2014 is

pending before this tribunal which is based exactly on the

same reference as in the present case. From perusal of

CGIT case no. 13/2014 it is clear that reference is exactly

same as in the present case. In that view of the matter I am

of the view that one file will be sufficient to answer the

reference & there is no need to proceed with two cases

parallely. Accordingly, this reference being earlier than

CGIT case no.13/2014 is disposed for want of statement of

claim in absence of applicant.

It is pertinent to note that vide Labour Ministry’s

order dated 6.3.2014 applicant was directed to file statement

of claim with complete relevant documents & list of

witnesses with the tribunal within 15 days from the receipt

of above order of reference forwarding the copy of

statement of claim to each of the opposite parties involved

in this dispute but applicant failed to file statement of

claim in compliance of that order also. In above fact &

circumstances, it is clear that beside the order of the Labour

Ministry, notices sent by tribunal also have failed to initiate

the applicant for submitting the statement of claim.

Applicant has neither filed statement of claim on the

direction of Ministry nor on receipt of notice sent by the

tribunal. It appears that applicant is not interested & willing

in submitting the claim for adjudication. In the above

circumstances & in the absence of material brought on

record it is not possible to adjudicate the reference under

consideration, therefore, “No Claim Award” is passed in

this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 36-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jktLFkku

,VkWfed ikoj LVs'ku dh ;wfuV] jkorHkkVk ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 12@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@130@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2014

S.O.

36.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 12/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station

Unit, Rawatbhata and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 22/12/2014.

[No. L-42011/130/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D.12/2014

Reference No.L-42011/130/2013-IR(DU)

Dated: 11.2.2013

General Secretary

Rajasthan Atomic Project Karamchari

Sangh, (Intuc), Intuc Office,

Pratap Circle, PO- Bhabhanagar,

Rawatbhata via Kota.

V/s

Executive Director (Site)

Rajasthan Atomic Electricity House

R.R.Site, Rawatbhata via Kota.

AWARD

25.11.2014

The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of Sub-Section 1 & 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication:-

^^D;k vizkFkhZ izca/ku }kjk Jh ch] vkj] jkor ts] lh] , ch dsUVhu dks

fnukad 01-04-2009 ls ,e] ,] lh] ih] ds rgr Qkbusafl;y vixzsMs’ku

ugha fn, tkus dh dk;Zokgh oS?k o U;k;ksfpr gS\ ;fn ugha rks izkFkhZ

deZpkjh fdl jkgr dk o dc ls ikus dk gdnkj gS\**

After receipt of reference notices were sent to both

the parties fixing 24.6.2014 for filing statement of claim. On

24.6.2014 Sh. Kuldip Aswal, Advocate learned counsel for

applicant appeared on behalf of applicant & alleged to file

authority & statement of claim from the applicant side. Sh.

Dharmendra Jain, Advocate came in appearance on behalf

of opposite party & alleged to file authority from the

opposite side on next date. Next date 8.9.2014 was fixed

for filing authority from both the side & statement of claim

from the applicant side. None appeared from both the side

on 8.9.2014. There was advocate strike on 8.9.2014 hence,

24.11.2014 was fixed by the tribunal adjourning the

proceeding for the day on its own motion for filing

statement of claim. On 24.11.2014 none appeared for the

applicant side hence, opportunity for filing statement of

claim was closed in view of the fact that applicant is not

showing any interest in filing the statement of claim &

bringing the reference to a logical conclusion. It is

important to note that on 24.11.2014 when case was taken

up for hearing learned representative of the opposite party

appeared & alleged that another CGIT case no.27/2014 is

pending before this tribunal which is based exactly on the

same reference as in the present case. From perusal of

CGIT case No. 27/2014 it is clear that reference is exactly

same as in the present case. In that view of the matter I am

of the view that one file will be sufficient to answer the

reference & there is no need to proceed with two cases

parallely. Accordingly, this reference being earlier than

CGIT case No.27/2014 is disposed for want of statement

of claim in absence of applicant.

It is pertinent to note that vide Labour Ministry’s

order dated 11.2.2013 applicant was directed to file

statement of claim with complete relevant documents &

list of witnesses with the tribunal within 15 days from the

receipt of above order of reference forwarding the copy of

statement of claim to each of the opposite parties involved

in this dispute but applicant failed to file statement of

claim in compliance of that order also. In above fact &

circumstances, it is clear that beside the order of the Labour

Ministry, notices sent by tribunal also have failed to initiate

the applicant for submitting the statement of claim.

Applicant has neither filed statement of claim on the

direction of Ministry nor on receipt of notice sent by the

tribunal. It appears that applicant is not interested & willing

in submitting the claim for adjudication. In the above

circumstances & in the absence of material brought on

record it is not possible to adjudicate the reference under

consideration, therefore, “No Claim Award” is passed in

this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 37-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mi eaMy

vfèkdkjh (VsyhxzkiQ)] jk;x<+ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj 127@2000) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@146@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2014

S.O.

37.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No.

CGIT/LC/R/127/2000) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the employers in relation to the management of the Sub-

Divisional Officer (Telegraphs), Raigarh and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 22/12/2014.

[No. L-42012/146/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/127/00

Shri Amar Singh Soni,

S/o Late Tara Bahadur Soni,

Telephone Exchange,

Raigarh

...Workman

Versus

Sub-Divisional Officer (Telegraphs),

Raigarh

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 18^th day of November, 2014

As per letter dated 30-6-00 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-40012/

146/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of Sub-Divisional Officer

(Telegraphs), Raigarh (MP) in terminating the

services of Shri Amar Singh Soni, Ex-casual worker

w.e.f. 1-1-1997 is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of

claim at Page 2/1 to 2/2. Case of Ist party workman is that

he was working at casual mazdoor under Sub-Division

Officer, Telephone Raigarh from 16-11-92, his working days

are shown in Para-2 of his statement of claim – 11 days in

1992, 305 days in 1993, 290 days in 1994, 295 days in 1995

& 303 days in 1996. Workman submits that he was

employed for installation and maintenance of telephone

lines. He was terminated from 1-1-97. However he

continued to be employed though contractor that he was

paid till 31-12-96. His wages were reduced by Rs. 300-400

pm from 1-1-1997. Notice was not served on him, he was

not paid compensation for pay in lieu of notice. The

termination of his service by IInd party is illegal. However

workman has prayed for temporary status/regularization

of his services.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/4.

It is submitted that workman is challenging action of IInd

party in not allowing him temporary status and

consequential benefits. It is submitted that casual workers

were engaged by deptt. for targeted work on daily wages.

The workers were not engaged on regular basis. The

contracts of departmental casual labors on muster roll is

automatically terminated on expiry of stipulated time at

end of every month. For next month such labour is not

deployed if he desires to work either under same Officer or

other therefore termination of service of workman doesnot

arise. Workman was engaged as casual labour on 7-11-89.

He is not entitled to benefit of said scale. It is reiterated

that workman was not engaged during 31-3-85 to 22-6-88.

Workman was not continuing in service. He remained

absent for more than 365 days. Workman did not work on

muster roll as per available records. Workman was daily

wager. There was no question of termination of his service.

Workman has started his own job. Workman doesnot fulfill

requirements of the scheme for regularization. All other

adverse contentions of workman are denied. It is submitted

that workman is not entitled for regularization.

Workman died during pendency of reference

proceeding, his LRs are brought on record.

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

In Affirmative

Sub Divisional Officer

(Telegraphs), Raigarh (MP)

in terminating the services

of Shri Amar Singh Soni,

Ex-casual worker w.e.f.

1-1-1997 is justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

LRs of workman is not

workman is entitled to?”

entitled to any relief.

REASONS

As per terms of reference, legality of termination of

service of workman is challenged. Workman died during

pendency of reference, his LRs are brought on record.

though widow of workman filed affidavit of her evidence,

she failed to appear for her cross-examination. Her evidence

cannot be considered. Management’s witness Shri C. R.

Raj filed affidavit of his evidence supporting contentions

of management that workman was engaged as casual

labour. He was not working prior to 31-3-1985, he was not

continued to work on 7-11-1989. Workman is not fulfilling

conditions of working 240 days in a year. He is not entitled

for regularization. Evidence of management witness

remained unchallenged. There is no reason to discard his

evidence. For reasons discussed above, I record my finding

in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of Sub-Divisional Officer (Telegraphs),

Raigarh (MP) in terminating the services of Shri Amar

Singh Soni, Ex-casual worker w.e.f. 1-1-1997 is legal

and proper.

(2)

LRs are not entitled for any relief.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 38-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ljdkjh viQhe

vkSj mi{kkj iQSDVªjh] uhep ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj la[;k 58@2011) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@94@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2014

S.O.

38.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/

LC/R/58/2011) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Government Opium

& Alkaloid Factory, Neemuch and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 22/12/2014.

[No. L-42011/94/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/58/2011

Shri Shrikant Palohia,

R/oJ-11, Alkaloid Colony,

Neemuch

...Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 24^th day of November, 2014

As per letter dated 25-5-2011 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-42011/

94/2010-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Opium

& Alkaloid Factory, Neemuch in terminating the

services of Shri Shrikant Palohia by way of

compulsory retirement w.e.f. 14-6-2010 is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

As per order dated 25-5-2011, the dispute between

parties is referred for adjudication. Notices were issued to

parties dated 22-9-2011, 25-4-12, 27-2-13, 9-7-13, 19-11-13,

16-6-14 & 18-7-14. Despite of repeated notices issued,

parties have not participated in reference proceeding. It

appears that Ist party is not interested to prosecute its

claim under reference and IInd party has also not shown

interest to participate in the reference proceeding. Under

such set of facts, no dispute award is passed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 39-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vk;q/ fuekZ.kh]

tcyiqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj la[;k 148@1992) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22@12@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14012@109@1991&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2014

S.O.

39.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/

LC/R/148/1992) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of the Ordnance

Factory, Jabalpur and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 22/12/2014.

[No. L-14012/109/1991-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/148/92

Shri Tarachand

C/o Shri R.C.Shrivastava, Advocate,

B-46/1, Ratan Nagar,

Jabalpur.

...Workman

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

General Manager,

Ordnance Factory,

Khamaria,

Jabalpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 26^th day of November, 2014

As per letter dated 27-7-92 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-14012/

109/91-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Ordnance

Factory, Khamaria, MP in terminating the services

of Shri Tarachand, Ex-T. No. YD/353/63779 w.e.f.

15-1-91 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled to?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 5/1 to 5/2. Case of Ist party is that he was employed

with IInd party. His service record was excellent, workman

was served with charge sheet alleging forgery of signature

of Shri Rajesh Kumar EST/13, drawing his payment.

Workman had denied charges, enquiry was initiated

against him. Enquiry Officer held charges against workman

proved. On report of Enquiry Officer, he was dismissed

from service, workman pleaded that he was not given

opportunity for his defence. Relevant documents were

not shown to him during Enquiry Proceedings. Enquiry

was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice.

The findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. Workman

prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 3/1 to 3/2.

Case of IInd party is that Shri Rajesh Kumar Token No.YD/

353/63779 was its employee. He did not receive its payment

for December 1989 as he was absent on day of payment. It

was found that on pay roll of December 1989, payment of

Shri Rajesh Kumar was received though he was absent.

The complaint in writing was received. On investigation,

it was found that workman forged signature of Shri Rajesh

Kumar on register and received salary of Rs. 328.05 when

Shri Rajesh Kumar was absent. That after issuing charge

sheet, workman had denied charges against him, enquiry

was conducted against workman allowing opportunity for

his defence. After receiving report of Enquiry Officer,

penalty of dismissal was imposed by General Manager. It

is further submitted that penalty of reduction of pay was

also imposed by General Manager. Appeal was preferred

by workman. That in Ordnance Factory Khamaria, Jabalpur,

there are several thousands employees. The misconduct

committed by workman is of serious nature. In the interest

of harmony among Govt. servants, it is necessary to

discourage such acts. On such grounds, IInd party prays

for rejection of claim of workman.

As per order dated 30-6-2014, dealing with

preliminary issue, it was held that no enquiry was

conducted against workman before imposing punishment

on him.

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 Negative

management of Ordnance

Factory, Khamaria, MP in

terminating the services of

Shri Tarachand,

Ex-T. No.YD/353/63779 w.e.f.

15-1-91 is legal and justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

In view of order dated 13-6-04, it was found that no

enquiry was conducted against workman before imposing

punishment of dismissal against him. IInd party was given

opportunity to prove misconduct adducing evidence.

However IInd party failed to adduce evidence to prove

any misconduct alleged against workman, as such no

evidence is adduced by IInd party to prove misconduct

on part of workman. Workman has filed affidavit of evidence

denying forgery of documents of receiving pay of Shri

Rajesh Kumar. Management’s witness Shri B.B.Singh filed

his affidavit that enquiry was conducted against workman

about the allegation that workman had forged signature

of Shri Rajesh Kumar and received his pay Rs. 328.05. in

his cross-examination, management’s witness denied

suggestion that workman was terminated from service

without conducting enquiry. However record of enquiry

is not produced by IInd party. In absence of any evidence

to prove charges alleged against workman, the punishment

of dismissal from service imposed on workman is illegal.

For above reasons, I record my finding on Point No.1 in

Negative.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1,

punishment of dismissal against workman is illegal,

question arises whether workman is entitled for

reinstatement with full backwages. Workman is dismissed

from service for charges of forgery receiving salary of

Shri Rajesh Kumar. The charges are not supported by any

evidence therefore order of dismissal of workman cannot

be sustained. It deserves to be quashed and set-aside.

The evidence of workman and witness of management is

not clear about gainful employment of workman.

Considering Ist party workman was terminated in 1991

and there is no clear evidence about his gainful

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

employment, in view considered view, reinstatement of Ist

party workman with 40 % backwages would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Ordnance Factory,

Khamaria, MP in terminating the services of Shri

Tarachand, Ex-T.No.YD/353/63779 w.e.f. 15-1-91 is

not legal and proper.

(2)

IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with

continuity of service with 40 % backwages.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 40-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos]

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k] t;iqj ds LFkku ij vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k t;iqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 60@1991) ds 'kqf¼dj.k i=k dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@10@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@32@1991&vkbZvkj (ch-&1)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2014

S.O.

40.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Corrigendum on Award

(Ref. No. 60/1991) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur it may be read as

Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of the

Western Railway and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 14/10/2014.

[No. L-41012/32/1991-IR(B-I)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

vuqcU/k

dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj

dsl ua0 lh-vkbZ-Vh- 60@1991

jSQjSal % dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns’k dzekad

,y&41012@32@91& vkbZ-vkj-¼Mh-;w-½ fnukad 30-10-1991

?khlwyky iq= Jh cq)kjke fV-ua- 24405]

bySDVªksIysMj xzsM&II]

vkxsZukbftax lhdszVjh]

if’pe jsyos deZpkjh ifj”kn]

jsyos DokVZj la[;k 1188@,] jkexat jsyos dkWyksuh]

vtesj&305001

---izkFkhZ

cuke

1- egkizca/kd] if’pe jsyos] ppZxsV] cEcbZA

2- eq[; dkj[kkuk izca/kd] yksdks vtesjA

3- mi eq[; ;kaf=d vfHk;ark dSjst dk0 vtesjA

---vizkFkhZx.k

mifLFkr

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh% Jh gseUr dqekj tSu+] vkj-,p-ts-,l-

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls

Jh fodze flag uSu

vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls

Jh iw.kZsUnz ‘kekZ

fnukad vokMZ % 07-02-2014

vokMZ

Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; dh vkKk dzekad 41012@32@91

fnukad 30-10-1991 ls fuEu vuqlwph dk fookn “Whether the the

action of the management of Western Railway, Ajmer in

terminating the services of Shri Ghisulal, Electroplater,

T, No. 24405/25 in C&W at Ajmer w.e.f. 08.01.88 is justified?

If not, to what relief the workmen concerned is entitled

to?” vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks izkIr gqvk gSA

izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls LVsVeSaV vkWQ Dyse is’k dj dFku fd;k fd

izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fnukad 02-05-76 dks dYpjy LiksVZ dksVs ds vk/kkj ij

[kyklh ds in ij dSfjt dkj[kkus esa gq;h FkhA izkFkhZ }kjk viuh HkrhZ ds le;

viuh ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ,oa tUe frfFk dk dksbZ izek.k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k

Fkk] dsoy ?kjokyksa ds crk;s vuqlkj tUefrfFk fy[kok;h Fkh vkSj QkeZ Hkjus

okys fyfid ,oa lfoZl ‘khV Hkjus okys ckcw us mls vkBoha ikl fy[k fn;k FkkA

izkFkhZ dks dsoy ukVd esa lQy ,oa lcy vfHku; ds izn’kZu ds vk/kkj ij gh

ukSdjh esa fy;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ ds fo:) f’kdk;r djus okys O;fDr us dksbZ Hkh

izek.ki= izLrqr ugha fd;k fd izkFkhZ dksbZ ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk j[krk gS ;k vk;q

xyr gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk foHkkxh; tkap esa vfu;ferrk cjrrs gq;s foHkkxh; tkap

dj xyr <ax ls lsoki`Fkd dj fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk lsoki`Fkd vkns’k ds

fo:) vihy dh x;h] ftldk dksbZ mRrj ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ lsoki`Fkd dh

fnukad ls gh csjkstxkj gSA vr% izkFkhZ dks iqu% lsok esa fy;k tkdj lHkh

ykHk&ifjykHk fnyk;s tkosaA

vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj

izkjfEHkd vkifRr dh fd izkFkhZ Jfed dh ifjHkk”kk esa ugha vkrk gS rFkk

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr bl fookn dks lquus

dk vf/kdkj U;k;kf/kdj.k dks ugha gSA izkFkhZ }kjk fu;qfDr ds le; xyr

tUefrfFk ,oa ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk fn;s tkus ij fu;ekuqlkj ukSdjh ls gVk;k x;k

gSA xq.kkoxq.k ij vizkFkhZx.k dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr dYpjy dksVk

ls ugha dh tkdj vu,izwCM lClhV~;wV [kyklh ds in ij fnukad 02-07-76 dks

dh x;h FkhA izkFkhZ }kjk HkrhZ ds le; viuh ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk vkBoha crk;h

x;h Fkh rFkk lk{;kadu izi= Hkh is’k fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlesa vkBoha d{kk

mRrh.kZ o Ldwy NksM+us dh rkjh[k 02-07-62 fy[kh gq;h FkhA jsyos iz’kklu }kjk

izkFkhZ dh vk;q o ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dh lacaf/kr fo|ky; ls tkap djus ij] izkFkhZ

dk mDr ‘kkyk esa v/;;ujr ugha gksuk vkSj vkBoha d{kk mRrh.kZ ugha djuk

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ik;s tkus ij fu;ekuqlkj izkFkhZ ds fo:) xyr rF; crkdj ukSdjh izkIr

djus ds vkjksi esa foHkkxh; tkap djkdj vkjksi fl) ik;s tkus ij fnukad

08-01-88 dks lsoki`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA tks fof/k vuwdwy gSA vr% Dyse [kkfjt

fd;k tkosA

U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns’k fnukad 05-10-98 }kjk foHkkxh; tkap dks

v’kq) ,oa vuqfpr ?kksf”kr fd;k x;kA foi{kh dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; is’k ugha

gksus ij fnukad 19-05-99 dks lk{; foi{kh can dh x;hA lk{; izkFkhZ esa Lo;a

izkFkhZ Jh ?khlwyky dk ‘kiFk i= is’k gqvk gSA

U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns’k fnukad 23-08-99 }kjk izkFkhZ dks varfje jkgr

ds :i esa ipkl izfr’kr osru vnk djus ds vkns’k fn;s x;sA foi{kh }kjk

vUrfjr jkgr dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;s tkus ij U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk vokMZ fnukad

31-07-2000 }kjk izkFkhZ dks iqu% lsok esa fy;k tkdj fiNys osru HkRrksa lfgr

lsok esa fy;s tkus dk vkns’k fn;k x;kA

vizkFkhZx.k }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa mDr vokMZ ds fo:) fjV

;kfpdk is’k fd;s tkus ij ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk iqu% izdj.k dk

xq.kkoxq.k ij fuLrkj.k fd;s tkus ds vkns’k fn;s x;sA

mHk; i{kksa dh cgl lquh x;hA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fnukad 02-07-76 dks

dYpjy LiksVZl dksVs ls [kyklh ,oth ds in ij vLFkk;h :i ls dh x;h Fkh]

ftls ckn esa LFkk;h dj fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks O;kolkf;d ijh{kk mRrh.kZ djus

ij fnukad 15-11-1980 dks bySDVªksIysVj xzsM&I ,oa fnukad 03-04-86 dks

bysDVªksIysVj xszM&II ds in ij inksUur fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dk rdZ

gS fd foi{kh dh vksj ls izkFkhZ ds fu;ferhdj.k] inksUufr] lfoZl cqd vkfn

U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns’k ds ckotwn izLrqr ugha fd;s x;s gSaA mDr fjdkMZ [kksus

ds laca/k esa dksbZ fjdkMZ is’k ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd

foi{kh }kjk [kyklh ds in ij D;k fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk Fkh] bl laca/k esa dksbZ

foKkiu rFkk fu;e is’k ugha fd;s x;s gSaA izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fdl dksVs ds

rgr dh x;h] bl laca/k esa Hkh dksbZ izys[k is’k ugha fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ

izfrfuf/k dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds laca/k esa dksbZ izek.k&

i= is’k ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj tUe frfFk ekrk&firk ds crk;s vuqlkj

fy[kk;h x;h gSA izkFkhZ }kjk dksbZ QthZ nLrkostkr~ izLrqr dj ukSdjh izkIr ugha

dh x;h gSA foi{kh dh vksj ls U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k vkt rd iwjk fjdkMZ

izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA fnukad 05-10-98 dks foHkkxh; tkap dks v’kq)

?kksf”kr fd;k tk pqdk gSA foi{kh dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; is’k ugha gq;h gSA tkap

esa izkFkhZ dks nLrkostkr miyC/k ugha djk;s x;sA tkap vf/kdkjh ,oa foHkkxh;

izfrfuf/k dc fu;qDr fd;s x;s vkSj bldh lwpuk Hkh izkFkhZ dks ugha nh x;hA

izkFkhZ dks O;fDrxr lquokbZ dk volj ugha fn;k x;kA tkap izfrosnu dh izfr

miyC/k ugha djkbZ x;hA izkFkhZ dks fnukad 08-01-88 dks lsoki`Fkd dj fn;k

x;kA ftlds fo:) izkFkhZ }kjk vH;kosnu fnukad 07-09-87 dks is’k fd;k

x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vihy] fjohtu nksuksa [kkfjt dj nh x;haA foi{kh dks

fuokZg HkRrs dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;s tkus ij U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk foi{kh ds fo:)

fnukad 31-7-2000 dks vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tk pqdk gSA foi{kh dh vksj ls izkFkhZ

dks fuokZg HkRrs dk vkt rd Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk iwjh tkap esa

;gh dFku fd;k x;k gS fd og i<+k&fy[kk ugha gS] og dsoy gLrk{kj djuk

gh tkurk gSA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dk dFku gS fd foi{kh }kjk U;k;kf/kdj.k dks

jsQjsal lquus dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gksus ds laca/k esa foi{kh jsQjsal dks pSysat djrs]

vc brus o”kksZ ckn ;g rdZ ugha fn;k tk ldrkA vr% izkFkhZ dks iqu% lsok esa

fy;s tkus rFkk fiNys osru&HkRrs rFkk lHkh ykHk fnyk;s tkus dk vokMZ ikfjr

fd;k tkosA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d n`”Vkar

is’k fd;s x;s gSa %&

1992 ysc vkbZ lh 2391 ¼,l-lh-½ LVsV vkWQ iatkc o vU; cuke jke

flag

2001 II ,y ,y ts 1721 ¼enzkl½ eSustesaV vkWQ vkWjks QwM fy- cuke

ih-vks-

¼1999½ 1 ,l lh lh 517 uhrk dfIy’k cuke ih-vks- yscj dksVZ o

vU;A

¼1999½ 1 ,l lh lh 529 LVsV vkWQ xqtjkr o vU; cuke lw;Zdkar

pquhyky

foi{kh ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dh ifjHkk”kk esa

ugha vkrk gSA U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vkS0fo0vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk 7 d¼1½ ds rgr

lquus o fuf.kZr djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd

izkFkhZ }kjk fu;qfDr ds le; 08-11-76 ds lk{;kadu i= ds dkWye la[;k 10 esa]

ftls jktif=r vf/kdkjh ls lR;kfir djkdj o vius gLrk{kj dj is’k dh x;h

Fkh] ftlesa izkFkhZ ds fo|ky; dk uke jk0m0izk0fo|ky; vyoj xsV] vtesj]

fo|ky; esa izos’k dh fnukad 08-09-1959] fo|ky; NksM+us dh fnukad 02-07-1962

rFkk ;ksX;rk vkBoha ikl fy[kh gq;h FkhA izkFkhZ ds tUefrfFk o ‘kS{kf.kd

;ksX;rk dk lR;kiu djkus ij jkt0m0izk0fo0 vyoj xsV] vtesj ds iz/kkukpk;Z

us vius i= fnukad 22-10-86 o 13-12-86 esa Li”V fd;k fd mDr fo|ky;

1961 rd NBoha d{kk rd Fkk rFkk mlds ckn vkBoha rd esa ifjofrZr fd;k

x;kA vr% Jh ?khlwyky dk fo|ky; esa v/;;u djuk ,oa vkBoha mRrh.kZ gksuk

nksuksa gh xyr gSA izkFkhZ }kjk fu;qfDr ds fy;s xyr rF; ,oa izek.ki= fn;s

tkus ij vkjksi i= tkjh dj fu;ekuqlkj foHkkxh; tkap djk;h x;h] ftlesa

vkjksi lgh ik;s tkus ij lsoki`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ us tkap fjiksVZ ls Hkh

larq”V gksuk crk;k gSA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk fyfid }kjk ;ksX;rk Hkjk tkuk

crk;k gS] ysfdu ;g ;ksX;rk Hkh izkFkhZ ds dgs tkus ij gh fyfid }kjk Hkjh

gksxh] blesa fyfid dk D;k bUVsa’ku FkkA izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd [kyklh ds

in gsrq vkBoha d{kk mRrh.kZ gksuk vko’;d gSA izkFkhZ ds vkBoha mRrh.kZ ugha ik;s

tkus ij mls lsoki`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vihy dks Hkh lkjghu

ekudj n.M ;Fkkor j[kk gSA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk viuh ;kfpdk esa viuh

tUefrfFk o ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds izek.ki= is’k ugha djus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha

crk;k gSA izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk ugha j[kus ds

dkj.k izkFkhZ dks lsoki`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr Dyse [kkfjt fd;s

tkus ;ksX; gSA vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d

n`”Vkar is’k fd;s x;s gSa &

¼2012½ 8 ,l lh lh 748 tSusUnz flag cuke LVsV vkWQ mRrj izns’kA

10-

mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZa dk euu fd;kA i=koyh dk xgurk ls voyksdu

o v/;;u fd;k x;kA

izkFkhZ Jh ?khlwyky dh fu;qfDr fnukad 01-07-76 dks fnukad 02-07-76

ls fjDr [kyklh ds in ds fo:) vLFkk;h vsoth [kyklh ds in ij

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

vLFkk;h :i ls dh x;h FkhA izkFkhZ Jh ?khlwyky }kjk fnukad 02-07-76

dks mDr in ij dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k x;kA fnukad 15-02-80 ds vkns’k

}kjk izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fnukad 02-07-76 ls [kyklh ds in ij fu;fer

:i ls ekuh x;h gSA izkFkhZ dks O;kolkf;d ijh{kk mRrh.kZ djus ij

fnukad 15-04-80 ls bysDVªksIysVj xzsM&I ds in ij ,oa vkns’k fnukad

07-05-86 }kjk bysDVªksIysVj ds in ij inksUur fd;k x;k gSA

11-

foHkkxh; tkap dks U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns’k fnukad 05-10-98 }kjk

v’kq) ,oa vuqfpr ?kksf”kr fd;k x;k gSA foi{kh dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; is’k ugha

gksus ij U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk lk{; foi{kh fnukad 19-05-99 dks can dh x;h rFkk

lk{; izkFkhZ esa Lo;a izkFkhZ dk ‘kiFk i= is’k gqvk gS] ftlls foi{kh izfrfuf/k }kjk

izfrijh{kk ugha dh x;h gSA izkFkhZ ?khlwyky us vius ‘kiFk i= esa c;ku fd;k gS

fd izkFkhZ }kjk viuh fu;qfDr ds le; dHkh Hkh Lo;a dks vkBoha mRrh.kZ ugha

crk;k x;k rFkk mldh fu;qfDr ukVd dksVs ds vk/kkj ij gksuk dFku fd;k

gSA izkFkhZ Jfed us vius c;kuksa esa crk;k gS fd foi{kh }kjk mldh fu;qfDr ds

le; cuk;h x;h lfoZl ‘khV] O;fDrxr i=koyh U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k is’k

ugha dh x;h gSA foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ ?khlwyky ls dksbZ izfrijh{kk ugha dh x;h

gSA vr% izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr lk{; vdkV~; gSA

12-

foi{kh izfrfuf/k dh vksj ls ;g rdZ fn;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk

fnukad 08-11-76 dks is’k lk{;kadu izi= esa viuh tUefrfFk 15-04-1947

rFkk Lo;a dks jk0m0izk0fo|ky;] vyoj xsV] vtesj ls vkBoha d{kk mRrh.kZ

gksuk vafdr fd;k gSA mDr fo|ky; ls ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dh lR;kiu djkus ij

izkFkhZ mDr fo|ky; esa v/;;u ugha djuk rFkk vkBoha mRrh.kZ ugha gksuk crk;k

gSA esjs fouez er esa fdlh Hkh fu;qfDr ds fy;s igys foKkiu izdkf’kr fd;k

tkrk gS] mlh ds mijkar fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k viukdj fu;qfDr iznku dh tkrh gSA

foi{kh }kjk fopkj.kh; izdj.k esa ,slk dksbZ foKkiu is’k ugha fd;k x;k gS] fd

[kyklh ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq dksbZ foKkiu izdkf’kr fd;k x;k gksA foi{kh

}kjk [kyklh ds in gsrq fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk vkBoha mRrh.kZ gksuk crk;k gS] ijUrq

foi{kh }kjk ,sls dksbZ lsokfu;e is’k ugha fd;s gSa] ftuesa ;g vafdr gks fd

[kyklh ds in dh fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk vkBoha mRrh.kZ gSA vr% foi{kh }kjk

foKkiu] lsok fu;e U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k is’k ugha djuk foi{kh ds izfr

izfrdwy vo/kkj.kk izdV djrk gSA

13-

izkFkhZ }kjk vius rdksZa esa viuh fu;qfDr dYpjy LiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij

fd;k tkuk crk;k gS] ijUrq foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dh U;k;ky; ds vkns’k ds

ckotwn O;fDrxr i=koyh is’k ugha dh x;h] ftlls ;g fl) ugha gks ldrk

fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fdl dksVs esa gq;hA foi{kh }kjk U;k;ky; vkns’k ds

ckotwn okafNr nLrkostkr~ is’k ugha djuk foi{kh dh vksj izfrdwy vo/kkj.k

izdV djrk gSA

14-

esjs fouez er esa fdlh Hkh fu;qfDr ls iwoZ fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk laca/kh izek.k

i=ksa dk lR;kiu djus ds mijkar gh fu;qfDr iznku dh tkrh gSA izkFkhZ

?kklwyky dks fnukad 02-07-76 ls [kyklh ds in ij fu;qfDr nh x;h gS vkSj

izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 08-11-76 dks lk{;kadu izi= is’k fd;k x;k gS] tks fu;qfDr

ds 04 ekg ckn is’k fd;k x;k gSA lk{;kadu izi= ds dkWye la[;k 07 esa izkFkhZ

dh tUe frfFk fnukad 15-04-1947 rFkk dkWye la[;k 10 esa izkFkhZ dh ‘kS{kf.kd

;ksX;rk vkBoha mRrh.kZ vafdr gSA izkFkhZ }kjk fu;qfDr ds le; dksbZ Hkh

izek.k&i= is’k ugha djuk rFkk ekrk&firk ds crk;s vuqlkj tUe frfFk vafdr

djkuk crk;k x;k gSA foi{kh }kjk Hkh ,slk dgha ugha dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ us

QthZ vkBoha mRrh.kZ dh vadrkfydk fu;qfDr ds le; is’k dh gksA izkFkhZ }kjk

laiw.kZ tkap esa] tokc rFkk cgl esa ;gh dgk x;k gS] fd og i<+k&fy[kk ugha gS]

og dsoy gLrk{kj djuk tkurk gSA lk{;kadu izi= Hkh izkFkhZ }kjk Lo;a Hkjdj

is’k ugha fd;k x;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa bl rdZ ij fo’okl ugha fd;k tk ldrk

fd izkFkhZ }kjk viuh fu;qfDr ds le; viuh ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk vkBoha mRrh.kZ

crk;h x;h gksA oSls Hkh izkFkhZ us viuh HkrhZ dYpjy LiksVZ dksVs ds rgr gksuk

crk;k gSA foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dh O;fDrxr i=koyh vkSj fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk

vkBoha mRrh.kZ gksus ckcr~ dksbZ lsokfu;e is’k fd;s x;s gS vkSj u gh bl laca/k esa

dksbZ ekSf[kd lk{; foi{kh dh vksj ls U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k is’k dh x;h gSA

vr% foi{kh izfrfuf/k dh ;g vkifRr Lohdkj dh tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA

15-

esjs fouez er esa [kyklh ds in gsrq fdlh rduhdh f’k{kk dh

vko’;drk ugha gksrh gSA mDr in ij dk;Z dh izd‘fr dks Hkh dalhMj djrs

gq;s fu;qfDr iznku dh tk ldrh gSA foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa mldh

fu;qfDr fnukad 02-07-76 ls fu;fer ekuh x;h gSaA izkFkhZ dks mlds lsokdky

esa O;kolkf;d ijh{kk mRrh.kZ djus ij bysDVªksIysVj xzsM&I ,oa bysDVªksIysVj

xszM&II ds in ij inksUur fd;k x;k gSA fdlh Hkh inksUufr ls iwoZ mlds

lsokdky esa dksbZ izfrdwy izfof”V ugha gksus ,oa fu;fer lsok gksus ds mijakr gh

fdlh deZpkjh dks inksUufr iznku dh tkrh gSA izkFkhZ dks mlds lsokdky esa

nks ckn inksUufr iznku dh x;h gSA ftlls ;g lkfcr gksrk gS fd mldh

lsok;sa fu;fer Fkha ,oa mlds lsokdky esa dksbZ izfrdwy izfof”V vafdr ugha FkhA

16-

foi{kh dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`“Vkar ¼2012½ 8 ,l lh lh 748

tSusUnz flag cuke LVsV vkWQ mRrjizns’k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk

izfrikfnr fl)kar voS/k fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa gS] tcfd fopkj.kh; izdj.k esa

izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fu;fer fu;qfDr gSA vr% mDr U;kf;d n`“Vkar gLrxr

izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k gLrxr izdj.k esa ykxw

ugha gksrk gSA

17-

foi{kh }kjk ;g vkifRr dh x;h gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dh ifjHkk”kk esa

ugha vkrk gS vkSj U;k;kf/kdj.k dks jsQjsal lquus o fuf.kZr djus dk vf/kdkj

ugha gSA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ,oa loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk fofHkUu

U;kf;d n`“Vkarksa esa ;g fl)karksa izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd U;k;kf/kdj.k dk

{ks=kf/kdkj jsQjsal ds fookfnr fcUnq rd gh gS vkSj U;k;kf/kdj.k jsQjsal ls ckgj

tkdj fuf.kZ; ugha ns ldrkA vr% U;k;kf/kdj.k dks izkIr jsQjsal esa fookfnr

fcUnq ij gh viuk fu.kZ; ikfjr djuk gSA vr% foi{kh izfrfuf/k dh mDr

vkifRr Lohdkj dh tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA

18-

izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`“Vkarksa dk eSaus ckjhdh ls

v/;ksikar fouezrkiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA mijksDr lHkh n`“Vkarksa ds rF; ,oa

ifjfLFkfr;kWa gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls lekurk j[krs gSa] vr%

mDr lHkh U;kf;d n`“Vkar izkFkhZ ds dsl esa ykxw gksrs gSaA ftudk izHkko ;Fkksfpr

:i ls Åij foospuk esa fn;k x;k gSA

19-

mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i izdj.k esa fuEu vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkrk

gS %&

vokMZ

**izkFkhZ Jh ?khlwyky dks foi{kh jsyos izca/ku }kjk fnukad 08-01-88 ls

lsoki`Fkd fd;k tkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gSA mDr lsoki`Fkd vkns’k

vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ Jh ?khlwyky fnukad 08-01-88 ls iqu%

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lsok esa vkus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk fnukad 08-01-88 ls izkFkhZ dh

fu;fer lsok ekuh tkosxhA pwWafd izkFkhZ ?khlwyky viuh lsokfuo`fr dh

vf/kokf”kZdh vk;q iw.kZ dj pqdk gS] vr% izkFkhZ lHkh lsokfuo`fRr ykHk&ifjykHk

izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA fnukad 08-01-88 ls lsokfuo`fRr fnukad

rd lHkh osru ykHk&ifjykHk uks’kuy :i ls izkFkhZ dks ns; gksaxs ysfdu

lHkh lsokfuo`fRr ykHk&ifjykHk uxn esa ns; gksaxsA**

gseUr dqekj tSu] U;k;k/kh’k

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 41-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½

dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k CkaSd vkWQ jktLFkku fy- ds

izcaèkrarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] t;iqj ds LFkku ij

vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 40@91½ ds ’kqf)dj.k i=

dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-11-2014 izkIr gqvk Fkk 1

¹la- ,y&12012@237@1991&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2014

S.O.

41.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Corrigendum on Award

No. (Ref. No. 40/91) published on 25.112014.Instead Cent.

Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur it may be

read as Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 18/11/2014.

[No. L-12012/237/91-IR(B-I)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

vuqca/k

dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj

dsl ua0 lh-vkbZ-Vh- 40@91

jSQjSal% dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns’k dzekad

,y&12012@237@91&vkbZ-vkj-¼ch-3½ fnukad 13-08-1991

Jh feB~Bw flag pkSgku iq= Jh lokbZ flag]

Hkw0iw0 prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh]

xkao dkyhUtj iks0 dkyhUtj] ok;k C;koj]

ftyk&vtesj] jkt- }kjk Jh dku flag jkBkSM+]

IykWV uacj 858] nsoh uxj]

‘;ke uxj iksLV vkfQl ds ihNs]

U;w lkaxkusj jksM] lks<+kyk] t;iqjA

---izkFkhZ

cuke

egkizca/kd]

vkbZ-lh-vkbZ-lh-vkbZ- cSad fy-]

ljnkj iVsy ekxZ]

lh&Ldhe] t;iqjA

---vizkFkhZ

mifLFkr

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh % Jh gseUr dqekj tSu] vkj-,p-ts-,l-

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls

Jh vkj-lh- tSu

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls

Jh vkyksd Qrgiqfj;k

fnukad vokMZ % 18-10-2013

vokMZ

dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh us mijksDr vf/klwpuk ds tfj;s

bl vk’k; dk fookn bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq funsZf’kr fd;k gS fd

"Whether the action of the management of the Bank of

Rajasthan Ltd. Central Office Jaipur in dismissing Sh. Mittu

Singh w.e.f. 16.03.90 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to?”

fookn tks Hkstk x;k mlds laca/k esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls LVsVeSaV vkWQ

Dyse is’k gqvk fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds LFkkbZ in ij

283@&:0 ekgokjh ij fu;ksftr fd;k x;kA mlds ckn vU; vkns’kksa ls izkFkhZ

dh vof/k le; le; ij c<+kbZ tkrh jghA izkFkhZ dks feF;k rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr

,d vkjksi i= fnukad 30-08-88 fn;k x;kA ftlesa tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk

izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)karksa ds foijhr tkap dk;Zokgh iw.kZ dj izkFkhZ ij yxk;s

x;s vkjksi dks lgh ekukA izkFkhZ }kjk dh x;h ;k=k ds laca/k esa lgh rF;

izLrqr djus ij Hkh mls fjdkMZ ij ugha fy;k vkSj u gh muds c;ku fy;s x;s

rFkk jsyos fVfdVksa dk lR;kiu djk;s fcuk jsyos }kjk pkgh x;h lwpuk ds laca/k

esa mlds c;ku fy;s fcuk gh] lwpuk dks lgh ekudj vkjksi lkfcr eku fy;k

x;kA izkFkhZ dks vius cpko esa lquokbZ dk volj ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk

viuh lsokeqfDr ds fo:) l{ke vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr vihy Hkh izLrqr

rF;ksa ij xkSj fd;s cuk gh fujLr dj nh x;hA blds ckn ,d f’kdk;r bl

laca/k esa lgk;d Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½ dks izLrqr dh xbZ ftlij vizkFkhZ dks

le>kSrk okrkZ gsrq vkeaf=r fd;k x;k ysfdu dksbZ le>kSrk ugha gksus ls

mijksDr fookn Hkstk x;k gSA izkFkhZ us ,y-,Q-lh- ds fcy ds Hkqxrku ds fy;s

dksbZ /kks[kk/kM+h o csbekuh ugha dh] cfYd cSad Lo;a us tkucw>dj mls ukSdjh

ls fudkyus ds fy;s iwokZxzg ls xzflr gksdj ,slk fd;k gS] tks vlaoS/kkfud gSA

izkFkhZ ds fo:) leLr dk;Zokgh le>kSrk 1966 dh /kkjk 19 ds foijhr dh

x;h gSA izkFkhZ }kjk cSad esa djhc 16&17 o”kZ rd fcuk fdlh f’kdk;r ds lsok

vfiZr dh gSA vr% izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr dks vuqfpr ,oa voS/k rFkk ‘kwU; djkj

fn;k tkdj fiNyk osru lsokvksa rFkk leLr lqfo/kkvksa lfgr lsok esa cgky

djus dk vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkosA

vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls tokc is’k gqvkA vkjafHkd vkifÙk;ksa esa crk;k

fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr 10-1-85 ls 30-3-85 rd gh dh xbZ Fkh ,oa fnukad

30-3-85 dks gh mldh lsok Lor% lekIr gks xbZA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g fookn

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

8 o”kZ ckn yk;k x;k gS ftldk dksbZ larks”kizn dkj.k ugha n’kkZ;k x;k gS vr%

jSQjSal ek= blh vk/kkj ij [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA nwljk ,srjkt+ ;g jgk gS fd

izkFkhZ dks ,d fuf’pr vof/k ds fy, fu;qfDr nh xbZ Fkh] mDr vof/k ds

lekIr gksus ij mldh lsok Lor% gh lekIr gks tkrh gS vr% /kkjk

2¼00½¼chch½ vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dk jsQjSal pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA

enokj mRrj izLrqr djrs gq, crk;k fd izkFkhZ dks izf’k{kq ds :i esa

fnukad 24-07-74 dks fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ dks fnukad 30-08-88 dks

,d vkjksi i= fn;k x;k] ftlesa tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk fu;ekuqlkj tkap iw.kZ

djus ij mls nks”kh ekudj vuq’kklfud vf/kdkjh }kjk mls O;fDrxr lquokbZ

dk volj nsrs gq;s iz’uxr n.Mkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] tks lgh gSA tgka rd

izkFkhZ ds iwoZ ds vkpj.k dk loky gS] mls iwoZ esa Hkh cSad ds lkFk /kks[kk/kM+h

djus ds dkj.k c[kkZLr fd;k x;k fdUrq vihyh; vf/kdkjh us izkFkhZ ds fo:)

uje :[k viukrs gq;s dsoy ikap osru o`f) lap;h izHkko ls jksdus ds n.M ls

nf.Mr fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ ds fo:) le>kSrk 1966 dh /kkjk 19 ds foijhr

dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh x;hA tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk mls cpko o lquokbZ dk iwjk

volj nsrs gq;s izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)karksa ds vuqlkj tkap iw.kZ dj vkjksi

lkfcr ekuk gSA vr% izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr Dyse [kkfjt fd;k tkosA

U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns’k fnukad 14-12-95 }kjk ?kjsyw tkap dks v’kq) o

vuqfpr ?kksf”kr fd;k x;kA lk{; vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls Jh Hkxor flag esgrk

,oa Jh ds-,u-ikjhd ds ‘kiFk i= is’k gq;s] ftuls izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k us ftjg dh

gSA lk{; izkFkhZ esa Jfed }kjk Lo;a dk ‘kiFk i= is’k fd;k x;k] ftlls

vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k us ftjg dh gSA

U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns’k fnukad 17-12-2012 }kjk vizkFkhZ fn cSad vkWQ

jktLFkku fy- dk vkbZ-lh-vkbZ-lh-vkbZ- cSad fy- esa lafoy;u gks tkus ds dkj.k

egkizca/kd] vkbZ-lh-vkbZ-lh-vkbZ- cSad fy- dks i{kdkj cuk;k x;kA

mHk; i{kksa dh cgl lquh x;hA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk ?kjsyw tkap

dks v’kq) ?kksf”kr fd;k x;k gSA fof/k dk ;g lqLFkkfir fl)kar gS fd ?kjsyw

tkap ds vuqfpr ,oa voS/k ?kksf”kr fd;s tkus ds i’pkr~ ?kjsyw tkap esa izLrqr

lk{; dks eSVsfj;y vkWu fjdkMZ ugha ekuk tk ldrk rFkk ,slh tkap ds nkSjku

vkbZ lk{; dks vkjksi fl) gksus dk vk/kkj ugha ekuk tk ldrkA vizkFkhZ

izfrfuf/k }kjk ?kjsyw tkap esa vkbZ lk{; ds vk/kkj ij vkjksi fl) gksuk crk;k

gS] ysfdu foi{kh izfrfuf/k dk rdZ Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA vU;Fkk Hkh

?kjsyw tkap esa fn;s x;s c;kuksa ls izkFkhZ ds fo#) vkjksi fl) ugha gksrkA izkFkhZ

ij yxk;s x;s vkjksi dks fl) djus ds fy;s cSad dh vksj ls izLrqr xokg Jh

Hkxor flag esgrk us dsoy ?kjsyw tkap ds fjdkMZ is’k fd;k gS] ftls

U;k;kfèkdj.k }kjk vuqfpr ,oa voS| ?kksf”kr fd;k tk pqdk gS] vr% Jh Hkxor

flag ds c;kuksa dk dksbZ egRo ugha gSA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr nwljs xokg ds-

,u- ikjhd us dsoy izn’kZ ,e&1 ls ,e&8 rd ds nLrkostksa dks iznf’kZr fd;k

gSA mDr xokg us Hkh vius c;kuksa esa ,slk dksbZ dFku ugha fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ o

mlds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa us C;koj ls mn;iqj rFkk tks/kiqj ls jkensojk dh ;k=k

ugha dh ;k izkFkhZ us cSad ls xyr :i ls 310 #- dk Hkqxrku izkIr djus dh

dksf’k’k dhA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd foi{kh izfrfuf/k dh laiw.kZ cgl

izn’kZ ,e&4 o izn’kZ ,e&6 ij vk/kkfjr gS] mDr nLrkost dks fy[kus okys

O;fDr;ksa dks U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k u rks lk{; esa is’k fd;k x;k vkSj u gh

izkFkhZ dks muls ftjg dk volj fn;k x;k] blfy;s buds vk/kkj ij vkjksi

lkfcr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA tgkWa rd izkFkhZ ij cSad ls xyr :i ls 310 #-

ds Hkqxrku izkIr djus dk vkjksi dk iz’u gS] ;g vkjksi Hkh lk{; ds vHkko esa

fl) ugha ekuk tk ldrkA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dk dFku gS fd f}rh; Js.kh dk

fVfdV ;k=k lekIr gksus ij jsyos LVs’ku ij nsuk gksrk gS vkSj ;k=k djus ij

,y-,Q-lh- fcy esa mlds uEcj Hkh vafdr djuk vko’;d ugha gSA laHkor;k

izkFkhZ dks uEcj vafdr djus dks dgk x;k gks vkSj mlus viuh ;kn~nk’r ds vk/

kkj ij uEcj fy[k fn;s gksA ysfdu bl dkj.k ls vkjksi fl) ugha ekuk tk

ldrkA izkFkhZ ij ykWl vkWQ dkufQMsal dk dksbZ vkjksi ugha gSA izkFkhZ dks iwoZ

esa fn;s x;s n.M dk bl tkap esa dksbZ izHkko ugha gSA vr% izkFkhZ ij yxk;k x;k

vkjksi izLrqr lk{; ls lkfcr ugha gksrk gSA vr% lsokeqfDr vkns’k vikLr dj

izkFkhZ dks fiNys iw.kZ osru o vU; lHkh ifjykHkksa lfgr lsok esa cgky fd;k

tkosA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d n`“Vkar is’k

fd;s x;s gSa %&

01-

1999 ¼81½ ,Q ,y vkj uhrk dfIy’k cuke ih-vks- yscjdksVZ o vU;A

02-

1981 MoY;w ,y ,u ¼;w lh ½ 457 ¼jkt- Mh-ch-½ ve‘ryky cuke LVsV

vkWQ jkt-

03-

1971 ¼23½ ,Q ,y vkj 273 cjsyh bysfDVªflVh lIykbZ dkW- fy- cuke

Jfed o vU;

04-

2003¼8½ ,llhlh 745 ucZnk nsoh xqIrk cuke fojsUnz dqekj t;loky

o vU;A

05-

2009¼2½ ,lhlh 570 :i flag usxh cuke iatkc us’kuy cSad o vU;A

06-

1970 II ,y ,y ts&I ¼,l lh½ Vªsoudksj VkbVsfu;e izks- fy- cuke

JfedA

vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k us viuh cgl esa crk;k fd izkFkhZ }kjk ,y-,Q-lh-

fcy izn’kZ ,e&1 1470 #- ds Hkqxrku gsrq is’k fd;k x;kA ftlesa fnukad 27-

01-87 dks C;koj ls mn;iqj ,oa fnukad 29-01-87 dks tks/kiqj ls jkensojk dh

;k=k djuk crk;k gS] ijUrq mDr ;k=k ds tks fVfdV uacj izkFkhZ }kjk crk;s x;s

gSa] os u rks C;koj ls tkjh gq;s gSa vkSj u gh tks/kiqj ls tkjh gq;s gSa] ;g rF;

jsyos iz’kklu dh fjiksVZ izn’kZ ,e&4 ,oa ,e&6 ls lkfcr gksrk gSA izkFkhZ ij

yxk;s x;s vkjksi dks fl) djus gsrq Jh dey u;u ,oa Hkxor flag esgrk dks

is’k fd;k x;k gS] ftudh lk{; ls izkFkhZ ij yxk;s x;s vkjksi fl) gksrk gSA

izkFkhZ us viuh izfrijh{kk esa Hkh izn’kZ ,e&1 cSad dks nsuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA

izkFkhZ dks iwoZ esa Hkh cSad ds lkFk /kks[kk/kM+h djus ds vkjksi esa lsokeqDr fd;k

tk pqdk gS] ftlesa vihy djus ij vihyh; vf/kdkjh }kjk uje #[k viukdj

izkFkhZ dks ikap okf”kZd osru o`f);kWa lap;h izHkko ls jksds tkus dk n.M fn;k gSA

izkFkhZ }kjk <kbZ o”kZ ds cPps dk Hkh iwjk fVfdV ysuk crk;k gS] tcfd <kbZ o”kZ

ds cPps dk dksbZ fVfdV ugha yxrk gSA izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 29-01-87 dks jkr

10-30 cts mn;iqj ls jokuk gksdj fnukad 30-01-87 dks jkensojk lqcg igaqpuk

crk;k gS vkSj fnukad 30-01-87 dks jkensojk ls vtesj ds fy;s jokuk gksuk

crk;k gS] tks fd laHko ugha gSA izkFkhZ }kjk izfrijh{kk esa fiNys n.M dks Hkh

Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA vr% izkFkhZ ij yxk;k x;k vkjksi iw.kZr;k fl) gksrk gSA

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vr% Dyse [kkfjt fd;k tkosA vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa

fuEu U;kf;d n‘“Vkar is’k fd;s x;s gSa %&

01-

1998 ,y ,y vkj 861 ¼,l-lh-½ bafM;u dkmafly vkWQ eSMhdy

fjlpZ o vU; cuke MkW- vfuy dqekj ?kks”k o vU;A

02-

2004¼104½ ,Qtsvkj ¼,l-lh-½ 715 bathfu;fjax y?kq m|ksx ,EiykW;h

;wfu;u cuke tt yscj dksVZ o vU;A

1998 MoY;w ,y lh ¼;w-lh-½ ist 703 vkj,lvkjVhlh cuke tt

bUMfLVª;y fVªC;quy o vU;A

10-

mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZ dk euu fd;k ,oa izLrqr U;kf;d n`“Vkarksa dk

v|ksikar ckjhdh ls llEeku v/;;u o voyksdu fd;kA

11-

i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks ,d vkjksi i=

fnukad 30-08-88 dks bl vk’k; dk tkjh fd;k x;k fd vki }kjk izLrqr ,y-

,Q-lh- fcy esa fnukad 27-01-87 dks fVfdV la[;k 81792 ls 81798 ds }kjk

C;koj ls mn;iqj ,oa fnukad 29-01-87 dks fVfdV la[;k 08546 ls 08551

}kjk tks/kiqj ls jkensojk jsyos }kjk f}rh; Js.kh esa vki ,oa vkids ifjokjtu

}kjk ;k=k djuk ,oa dze’k% #- 175@& ,oa 126@& [kpZ gksuk n’kkZ;k] ftudh

tkap djkus ij mijksDr uEcjksa ds fVfdVksa }kjk ;k=k ugha djus ,oa cSad ls

xyr :i ls 301@&:- dk Hkqxrku izkIr djus dk vkjksi yxk;k x;kA mDr

vkjksi ds laca/k esa U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk ?kjsyw tkap dks v’kq) ?kksf”kr fd;k x;k

gSA vr% vc U;k;kf/kdj.k dks ;gh ns[kuk gS fd U;k;kf/kdj.k esa izLrqr lk{;

ls izkFkhZ ij vkjksi lkfcr gksrk gS vFkok ughaA vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls Jh

Hkxor flag ,oa ds-,u- ikjhd }kjk U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k lk{; is’k dh x;hA

xokg ds-,u- ikjhd us vius c;kuksa esa feB~Bw flag }kjk fnukad 23-04-87 dks

,y-,Q-lh- fcy izn’kZ ,e&1 dk Dyse izLrqr djuk crk;k gS] ftlds lkFk

izkFkhZ }kjk ,d LVsVesaV o fdjk;s dh jlhnsa o cl dh fVfdV bR;kfn is’k fd;s

x;sA bl rF; dks izkFkhZ us viuh izfrijh{kk esa Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gSA mDr xokg

}kjk izkFkhZ }kjk crk;h fVfdV uacjksa dh lR;rk dh tkap djus ds fy;s fnukad

19-08-87 dks jsyos ekLVj dks ,d i= fy[kk x;k] tks izn’kZ ,e&2 gS] ftl ij

xokg Jh ikjhd us vius gLrk{kj gksuk crk;k gSA ftldk tokc izn’kZ ,e&4

gSA blh izdkj tks/kiqj ls jkensojk dh ;k=k dh fVfdV la[;k dh lR;rk dh

tkap ds fy;s ,d i= xokg us vius gLrk{kj ls tkjh djuk crk;k gS] tks izn’kZ

,e&5 gS] ftldk tokc izn’kZ ,e&6 gSA mDr nLrkost ds voyksdu ls ;g

izrhr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk izn’kZ ,e&1 ,y-,Q-lh- fcy Dyse ckcr~ is’k fd;k

x;k gS] ftlesa izkFkhZ }kjk C;koj ls mn;iqj dh ;k=k fVfdV uacj 81792 ls

81798 ds tfj;s djuk crk;kA mDr fVfdVksa ds uacjksa dh lR;rk dh tkap

djkus ij izn’kZ ,e&4 }kjk LVs’ku lqizhVsaMsaV] C;koj }kjk mDr fVfdVsa fnukad

27-01-87 dks C;koj ls f}rh; Js.kh dh tkjh ugha gksuk crk;kA blh izdkj

mRrj jsyos izca/ku }kjk Hkh izn’kZ 06 }kjk izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr tks/kiqj ls jkenosjk

dh fVfdV la[;k 08546 ls 08551 tks/kiqj ls tkjh ugha gksuk crk;k gSA vr%

esjs fouez er esa izkFkhZ }kjk mDr QthZ fVfdV uacj crkdj xyr rjhds ls cSad

ls Hkqxrku mBkus dk iz;kl fd;k gSA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dk ;g rdZ jgk gS fd

mDr izn’kZ ,e&4 ,oa izn’kZ ,e&6 dh lR;rk dks lkfcr djus gsrq mDr

nLrkostkr~ tkjh djus okys dks lk{; esa is’k ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh muls

ftjg dk volj fn;k x;k gS] bl laca/k esa izLrqr mDr nksuksa gh nLrkostkr~

jsyos izca/ku }kjk tkjh gq;s gS] ftu ij jsyos dh eqnzk ,oa gLrk{kj nksuksa vafdr

gSA mDr nLrkostkr~ U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k iznf’kZr gq;s gSa vkSj iznf’kZr

nLrkost dh lR;rk ij lansg ugha fd;k tk ldrkA vr% izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dk

mDr rdZ Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr Dyse izn’kZ ,e&1

esa fnukad 29-01-87 dks mn;iqj ls tks/kqij dh ;k=k jsy }kjk djuk crk;k gS]

ftlesa ifjokj ds 07 tuksa dh fVfdV jkf’k 301 #- ds Hkqxrku gsrq Dyse fd;k

gS] tcfd izkFkhZ ds ifjokj ds 07 tuksa esa ls ,d ckyd <kbZ o”kZ dk gS vkSj <kbZ

o”kZ ds cPps dk jsy vFkok cl esa dgha Hkh dksbZ fVfdV ugha yxrk gSA vr% esjs

fouez er esa izkFkhZ }kjk xyr rjhds ls ,y-,Q-lh- fcy izLrqr dj 301@&:-

dk Hkqxrku izkFkhZ }kjk mBkuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA

12-

izkFkhZ dk iwoZ vkpj.k Hkh larks”kizn ugha jgk gSA izkFkhZ dks iwoZ esa Hkh

{ks=h; dk;kZy; ds i= fnukad 20-06-86 }kjk mlds fo:) /kks[kk/kM+h ds vkjksi

esa cSad dh lsokvksa ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k Fkk] ijUrq vihy vf/kdkjh }kjk izkFkhZ dh

vYi vk;q ,oa ikfjokfjd mRrjnkf;Ro dks ns[krs gq;s ,oa ekuoh; vk/kkj ij

fopkj djds izkFkhZ dks ikap okf”kZd osru o`f);kWa lap;h izHkko ls jksdus ds n.M

ls nf.Mr fd;k tk pqdk gSA vr% cSad ds izca/ku }kjk deZpkjh esa yksl vkWQ

dkWufQMsal gks tkuk Hkh izdV gksrk gSA deZpkjh ds lsoki`Fkd vkns’k esa Hkh bl

rF; dk mYys[k gSA

13-

mHk; i{kksa dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`“Vkarksa dk eSaus ckjhdh ls v/;ksikar

fouezrkiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk izLrqr lHkh n`“Vkarksa ds rF;

,oa ifjfLFkfr;kWa gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls Hkkjh fHkUurk j[krs

gSa] vr% mDr lHkh U;kf;d n`“Vkar izkFkhZ Jfed ds dsl esa ykxw ugha gksrs gaSA

14-

mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i izkFkhZ dk Dyse Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; ugha gS

vr% Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk Hksts x;s jSQjSal dk mRrj fuEu izdkj fn;k tkrk gS%

^^vizkFkhZ cSad izcU/ku }kjk Jh feBB~w flag] p0 Js0 deZpkjh dks fnukad

16-03-90 ls lekIr fd;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh mfpr ,oa oS/k gSA izkFkhZ

fdlh vuqrks”k dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA^^

15-

vokMZ vkt fnukad 18-10-2013 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj

lquk;k x;k tks dsUnz ljdkj dks izdk’kukFkZ fu;ekuqlkj Hkstk tkosA

gseUr dqekj tSu] U;k;k/kh'k

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 42-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½

dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k CkaSd Hkhyokjk vtesj {ks=h;

xkzehu cSd ds izca/k rarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaèk

esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k t;iqj ds

LFkku ij vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k t;iqj] iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 05@1992½ ds

’kqf}dj.k i= dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-11-2014 izkIr

gqvk Fkk 1

¹la- ,y&12012@141@1990&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2014

S.O.

42.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Corrigendum on Award

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

No. (Ref. 05/1992) published on 25.11.2014.Instead

Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur it

may be read as Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur as shown in

the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Bilwara Ajmer Kshetrya Gramin Bank

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 18/11/2014.

[No. L-12012/141/1990-IR(B-I)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

vuqca/k

dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj

dsl ua0 lh-vkbZ-Vh- 05@1992

jSQjSal% dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns’k dzekad

,y&12012@141@1990&vkbZ-vkj- (ch--I) fnukad 23-01-1992

Jh ,e- ,y- djkfM;k ekQZr tujy lhdszVjh]

xzkeh.k cSad ,EiykWbZt ;wfu;u]

37] rcsyk] xqykc iFk] pkSew gkml] lh&Ldhe]

t;iqjA

---izkFkhZ

cuke

v/;{k]

HkhyokM+k vtesj {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad]

lqHkk”k uxj] HkhyokM+kA

---vizkFkhZ

mifLFkr

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh% Jh gseUr dqekj tSu] vkj-,p-ts-,l-

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls

Jh vkj-lh- tSu

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls

Jh lqjsUnz flag

fnukad vokMZ % 10-04-2014

vokMZ

Hkkjr ljdkj dh mijksDr vf/klwpuk ds tfj;s fuEu vuqlwph dk fookn

“Whether Shri M.L. Karadia, officer of the Blilwara Ajmer

Kshetriya Gramin Bank is a workman of the bank as defined

in the Industrial Dispute Act 1947? If so, whether the action

of the bank management in extending the period of

probation of Shri M.L. Karadia was Justified? If not, to

what relief Shri Karadia is entitled to?” vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl

vf/kdj.k dks izkIr gqvk gSA

jSQjSal izkIr gksus ds ckn ntZ jftLVj fd;k tkdj izkFkhZ dks uksfVl

tkjh fd;s x;s fd os viuk LVsVeSaV vkWQ fMek.M is’k djsaA izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh

vksj ls Jh vkj-lh- tSu us LVsVeSaV vkWQ Dyse is’k fd;k rFkk i=koyh tokc

LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse gsrq yafcr FkhA bl izdze ij fnukad 10-04-2014 dks mHk;

i{kksa us tkfgj fd;k fd mHk; i{kksa ds chp jkthukek gks x;k gS vr% bl

izdj.k dks os pykuk ugha pkgrs gSaA

pwafd Jfed ,oa izca/ku ds chp jkthukek gks pqdk gS vkSj Jfed dh

izdj.k dks vkxs pykus esa :fp ugha gSA vr% izdj.k esa fuEu vokMZ ikfjr

fd;k tkrk gS %&

vokMZ

^^izkFkhZ Jh ,e-,y- djkfM;k ,oa izca/ku ds chp jkthukek gks tkus ,oa

izkFkh izfrfuf/k }kjk izdj.k dks vkxs pykus esa :fp ugha j[kus ds

dkj.k izkFkhZ Jh ,e-,y- djkfM;k bl jSQjsal ds tfj;s dksbZ jkgr ikus

dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA**

gseUr dqekj tSu] U;k;k/kh’k

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2014

dk-vk- 43-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼1947 dk 14½

dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k mrj iwoZ jsyos izca/kra= ds

lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k t;iqj ds LFkku ij vkSn~;ksfxd

vf/kdj.k t;iqj iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 5@99½ ds ’kqf)dj.k i= dks izdkf’kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-11-2014 izkIr gqvk Fkk 1

¹la- ,y&41011@50@1995&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2014

S.O.

43.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Corrigendum on Award

No. (Ref.5/99) published on 25.112014.Instead

Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur it may

be read as Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of North West Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 18/11/2014.

[No. L-41011/50/1995-IR(B-I)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer

vuqca/k

dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj

dsl ua0 lh-vkbZ-Vh- 5@1999

jSQjSal% dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns’k dzekad

,y&41011@50@95&vkbZ-vkj-¼ch-1½ fnukad 12-03-1997

egkea=h]

dStqvy yscj ;wfu;u tfj;s f’ko vorkj flag]

Mkxk Ldwy ds ikl]

chdkusj ¼deZpkjh Jh jkepUnz o vU;½

---izkFkhZ

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

cuke

egkizca/kd] mRrj if’pe jsyos eq[;ky;] t;iqjA

e.My dkfeZd vf/kdkjh] if’peh jsyos] chdkusjA

e.My v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark] mRrj if’pe jsyos] chdkusjA

lgk;d vfHk;Urk f}rh;] mRrj if’pe jsyos]

guqekux<+ taD’kuA

jsy iFk fujh{kd] mRrj if’pe jsyos] ,syukcknA

jsy iFk fujh{kd] mRrj if’pe jsyos] tSrlj]

ftyk xaxkuxjA

jsy iFk fujh{kd] mRrj if’pe jsyos]

JhxaxkuxjA

---vizkFkhZx.k

mifLFkr

ihVklhu vf/kdkjh% Jh gseUr dqekj tSu+] vkj-,p-ts-,l-

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls

Jh oh- ds- ekFkqj

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls

Jh cyfoUnz flag cjkM+

fnukad vokMZ % 10-10-2013

vokMZ

Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; dh vkKk Øekad 41011@50@95

fnukad 12-03-1997 ls fuEu vuqlwph dk fookn “Whether the

18 workmen whose names, date of empoyment and the

date of termination mentioned in the list annexed are

entitled for reinstatement with back wages? If not, to

what relief the workmen are entitled to and from the date”

vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks izkIr gqvk gSA

izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls LVsVeSaV vkWQ Dyse is’k dj dFku fd;k fd

lHkh Jfedx.kksa }kjk vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa ,d o”kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z

fd;k x;k gSA lHkh Jfedx.kksa dks mRrj jsyos us vius ekSf[kd vkns’k ls

lekIr dj eLVjksy ls muds uke dkV fn;sA Jfedx.kksa dh lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ

mUgsa ,d ekg dk uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh eqvkotk vkfn ugha

fn;k x;kA bl izdkj vizkFkhZ }kjk 25 ,Q] 25 th ,oa 25 ,p vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e 1947 dh ikyuk ugha dh x;h gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk vuQs;j yscj izsfDVl

dh uhfr viukrs gq;s vudh lsok vof/k dks ckj&ckj vukf/kd`r :i ls c<+k;k

x;k gSA vr% lHkh Jfedx.kksa dks iqu% lsok esa cgky dj lHkh ykHk&ifjykHk

fnyk;s tkosaA

vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse dk tokc is’k dj dFku

fd;k fd Jfedx.k }kjk yxkrkj 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gks] ,slk dksbZ

izys[k izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA Jfedx.kksa dks nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa fu/kkZfjr

le; ds fy;s Vªsd isVªksfyax ds dk;Z gsrq j[kk x;k FkkA Jfedksa dh lsok

vof/k fnukad 05-07-86 dks Lor% gh lekIr gks pqdh gSA Jfedx.kksa ij /kkjk

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gaSA vr% izkFkhZx.k

dk Dyse [kkfjt fd;k tkosA

fnukad 28-01-2005 dks U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk ,d vokMZ ikfjr dj ;g

vfHkfuf/kkZfjr fd;k x;k %&

01-

Jfed Hkaoj flag iq= es/kkjke o cnj flag iq= nqtZu flag dk dksbZ

Dyse is’k ugha gksus ds dkj.k bu nksuksa ds laca/k esa uks fMLiqV vokMZ

ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

02-

Hkaoj flag iq= :i flag ,oa tscj flag iq= nqtZu flag us Dyse is’k

fd;k gS] fdUrq mudk dksbZ fookn is’k ugha gqvk gS] vr% buds laca/k

esa dksbZ vokMZ ikfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

03-

gqlsu vCckl us dksbZ lk{; is’k ugha dh gSA n;kjke iq= eqa’khjke]

dsljkjke iq= fprjkjke] lqjs’k dqekj iq= jke dqekj o ‘kEHkwn;ky

iq= tks/kkjke us vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa 240 fnu dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA

vr% os dksbZ jkgr ikus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSaA

04-

‘ks”k lHkh Jfedx.k loZJh jkepUnz iq= dkywjke] jkeujs’k iq=

izHkwn;ky] jkepUnz iq= ‘;keyky] jes’k dqekj iq= jkefd’ku]

jkedqekj iq= lhrkjke] tokgj yky iq= chjcy] jkenqykjk iq=

ckcwjke] jke/kuh iq= ekrkQs;j] jketl iq= jkele>] ?ku’;ke iq=

Hkh[kw izlkn o cksnw [kka iq= lqYrku [kka dqy 11 Jfedksa dh

lsokeqfDr vuqfpr o voS| gS] ftls vikLr fd;k tkrk g vkSj ;s

Jfedx.k vius fiNys leLr osru ,oa vU; lHkh ykHk lfgr iqu%

lsok esa fu;ksftr gksus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA

05-

blds f[kykQ jsyos iz’kklu us ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fjV

;kfpdk is’k dh x;hA ftlesa ek= 07 o”kksZa dh nsjh tks

[email protected] ds }kjk dh x;h Fkh] ds vk/kkj ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; us Hkh blh fcUnq ij ekeys dks fjekaM fd;k gS fd 07 o”kZ

dh nsjh tks gq;h gS] mldk bl vf/kdj.k }kjk] tks vuqrks”k iznku

fd;k x;k gS] ml ij D;k izHkko iM+sxkA

06-

mDr vkns’k ds f[kykQ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB ds

le{k Lis’ky vihy is’k dh x;h] tks [kkfjt dh x;h vkSj

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; dh iqf”V

dh x;hA

07-

esjs fouez er esa vf/kla[;d Jfedx.k dks fnukad 05-07-86 dks lsok

ls fu”dkflr fd;k x;k gSA lHkh Jfedx.k vLFkk;h Jfed FksA fdlh Hkh

Jfed dks fu;qfDr i= nsdj LFkk;h in ij fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;kA ,slh n’kk

esa bl vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 28-01-05 dks tks fu”d”kZ fudkyk

x;k gS] u rks mls pSysat fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh ekuuh; ,dyihB }kjk ml

fu”d”kZ ckcr~ iqufoZospuk djus dk funsZ’k iznku fd;k x;k gSA vr% gekjs le{k

vc dsoy bruk eqn~nk jg x;k gS fd ftu 11 Jfedksa dks fiNys cdk;k osru

lfgr ,oa ykHk&ifjykHk lfgr iqu% lsok esa fy;s tkus dk tks vkns’k fn;k x;k

gS] ml vuqrks”k dks D;k lekIr fd;k tk ldrk gS ;k ml vuqrks”k esa dksbZ

la’kks/ku fd;k tk ldrk gSA bl lhek rd gh nksuksa i{kksa ds rdZ lqudj

fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tkuk gSA

08-

bl laca/k esa [email protected] ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us rdZ is’k fd;k

fd U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk fnukad 28-01-05 dks Jfedx.k ds i{k esa vokMZ ikfjr

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 3] 2015@ikS"k 13] 1936

fd;k x;k gSA fnukad 05-07-86 dks Jfedx.k dks lsoki`Fkd fd;k x;k gS]

tcfd izR;sd Jfedx.k }kjk 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k x;k gSA vizkFkhZ

}kjk Jfedx.k dks jsy iFk ds j[k&j[kko ds dk;Z ds fy;s fu;qDr fd;k x;k

Fkk] tks LFkkbZ izd`fr dk dk;Z gSA Jfedx.k }kjk 1983 ls 05-07-86 rd

yxkrkj dke fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZx.k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dk rdZ gS fd

Jfedx.k us tkucw>dj fookn nsjh ls is’k ugha fd;k cfYd fnukad 04-07-92

dks Jfedx.k ls dfu”B Jfedksa dks Ldzhfuax ds fy;s cqykdj mudks

fu;qfDr ns nh x;h vkSj Jfedx.k dks dksbZ fu;qfDr ugha nh x;hA ftl ij

fnukad 30-10-92 dks Jfedx.k }kjk fookn is’k dj fn;k x;kA vr% izkFkhZx.k

}kjk fookn tkucw>dj nsjh ls is’k ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% Jfedx.k iqu% lsok

esa fu;ksftr gksus ,oa leLr fiNyk ykHk&ifjykHk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA

izkFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d

n`“Vkar is’k fd;s x;s gSa%&

01-

2008&vkbZ&,y,yts 894 ¼,llh½ LVsV cSad vkWQ bf.M;k o vU;

cuke d`“.kk xzkeh.k cSad ,EiykW;t ;wfu;u o vU;A

02-

,-vkbZ-vkj- 1999 lqizhe dksVZ 1351 vtk;c flag cuke Jhfgan

dkWijsfVo ekdZsfVax de izkslsflax lfoZl lkslk;Vh fy-

03-

,-vkbZ-vkj- 2003 ,l-lh- 3553 ,l-,e- fuyktdj cuke VsyhdkWe

fMfLVªDV eSustj] dukZVdkA

04-

¼2010½ 1 ,llhlh 47 xouZesaV vkWQ xqtjkr cuke HkS[kqHkkbZ

es?kkthHkkbZ NkonkA

05-

2008 ¼116½ ,Q,yvkj 366 ,p-,y-vkj- ,.M Mh- dkW- fy- cuke

fueZy dqekj ¼,l-lh-½

09-

vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd ekuuh; U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk

07 o”kZ dh fMys ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k dks fjekaM fd;k gSA Jfedx.k nSfud

osru Hkksxh deZpkjh Fks] ftUgsa ,d Lisf’kfQd dk;Z ds fy;s j[kk x;k Fkk] tks

lekIr gks tkus ij mUgsa gVk fn;k x;kA Jfedx.k dks dksbZ fu;qfDr vkns’k

tkjh ugha fd;k vkSj u gh mudks lsok ls gVkus ds laca/k esa dksbZ vkns’k vizkFkhZ

dh vksj ls tkjh fd;k x;k gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk dksbZ ofj”Brk lwph rS;kj ugha dh

x;hA Jfedx.k ij vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izko/kku ykxw ugha

gksrs gSaA vr% Dyse [kkfjt fd;k tkosA vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk vius

rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d n`“Vkar is’k fd;s x;s gSa %&

01-

2002 ¼1½ MoY;w ,y lh jkt- 501 fMohtuy QksjsLV vkfQlj

cuke j?kqohjA

02-

1997 ¼2½ Mh,uts jkt- 670 bafM;u us’kuy cSad ,EiykW;t cuke

lsUVªy bUMfLVª;y fVªC;quyA

03-

2006 ¼4½ ,llhlh 1 LVsV vkWQ dukZVdk cuke mek nsohA

04-

2010¼III½ Mh-,u-ts- ¼,l-lh-½ 1019 lhfu;j lqizhVsaMsaV VsyhxzkQ

¼VªsfQd½ cuke larks”k dqekj

05-

2009 ¼15½ ,lhlhlh 327 txohj flag cuke gfj;k.kk LVsV

,xzhdYpjA

06-

,l-ch- lh-MoY;w- uacj 281@2012 fd’ku o vU; cuke tt yscj

dksVZ la[;k 02 esa fu.kZ; fnukad 08-01-2012 A

07-

2001 ¼1½ MoY;w ,ylh jkt- 592 jkexksiky lSuh cuke tt yscj

dksVZ A

10-

mHk; i{kksa dh cgl lquh x;h rFkk mHk; i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d

n`“Vkarksa dk ckjhdh ls v|ksikar fouezrkiwoZd voyksdu fd;k x;kA

11-

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d n`“Vkar 2010¼III½ Mh-,u-ts-

¼,l-lh-½ 1019 lhfu;j lqizhVsaMsaV VsyhxzkQ ¼VªsfQd½ cuke larks”k dqekj rFkk

,l-ch- lh-MoY;w- uacj 281@2012 fd’ku o vU; cuke tt yscj dksVZ la[;k

02 esa fu.kZ; fnukad 08-01-2012 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfu/kkZfjr

fd;k x;k gS fd bl rjg ds nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfedx.k ftUgksaus 1&2 o”kZ gh

dk;Z fd;k gks rks mudks lsok esa okfil fy;s tkus dk vkns’k rFkk cdk;k osru

HkRrksa ds fnyk;s tkus ds vkns’k dks mfpr ugha ekuk gS] cfYd ,sls ekeyksa esa

Jfedx.kksa dks ,deq’r {kfriwfrZ dh jkf’k fn;k tkuk mfpr ekuk gSA ekuuh;

loksZPp U;k;ky; rFkk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds uohure fu”d”kksZa dks

en~nsutj j[krs gq;s bu 11 Jfedx.kksa dks fiNyk osru ,oa vU; lHkh ykHk

fn;k tkuk rFkk lsok esa iqu% fu;ksftr djuk mfpr ugha le>rk gwWaA fu”dklu

ds 07 o”kZ ckn ;g nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfedx.k U;kf;d izfdz;k gsrq vk;s gSa] ;g

nsjh buds fy;s ?kkrd gSA mDr nksuksa U;kf;d n`“Vkarksa ds izdk’k esa izR;sd

[email protected] dks ipkl&ipkl gtkj :i;s {kfriwfrZ jkf’k ds :i esa

fn;s tkus ls U;k; ds m~ns’; dh iwfr gks tk;sxhA 2010¼III½ Mh-,u-ts- ¼,l-lh-½

1019 lhfu;j lqizhVsaMsaV VsyhxzkQ ¼VªsfQd½ cuke larks”k dqekj ds iSjk la[;k 08

esa bl ckjs esa egRoiw.kZ fn’kk&funsZ’k iznku djrk gSA blh rjg ,l-ch- lh-

MoY;w- uacj 281@2012 fd’ku o vU; cuke tt yscj dksVZ la[;k 02 esa

fu.kZ; fnukad 08-01-2012 ds vfUre nks iSjkxzkQ esa Hkh bl ckjs esa ekxZn’kZu

iznku djrs gSaA fygktk bu uohure U;kf;d n`“Vkarksa esa iznku fd;s x;s

fn’kk&funsZ’kksa ds eqrkfcd izR;sd Jfed dks dsoy ipkl&ipkl gtkj :i;s

{kfriwfrZ jkf’k vnk dj nsus ls U;k; ds mn~ns’; dh iwfrZ gks tk;sxhA izkFkhZx.k

ds Lrj ij fu”dklu ds ckn 07 o”kksZa rd dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh x;h vkSj bl

nsjh dk dksbZ larks”ktud dkj.k Hkh is’k ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% ;g nsjh {kE;

ugha gSA bl 07 o”kZ dh nsjh gks tkus ds dkj.k Jfedx.k lsok esa iquZfu;ksftr

gksus ,oa fiNyk ykHk&ifjykHk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSaA

12-

izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`“Vkarksa dk eSaus ckjhdh ls

v/;ksikar fouezrkiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA mijksDr lHkh n`“Vkarksa ds rF; ,oa

ifjfLFkfr;kWa gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls Hkkjh fHkUurk j[krs gSa]

vr% mDr lHkh U;kf;d n`“Vkar [email protected] ds dsl esa ykxw ugha gksrs

gSaA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`“Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa esa fn;s x;s

fn’kk&funsZ’k gLrxr izdj.k esa ykxw gksrs gSa] ftudk izHkko Åij foospuk esa

fn;k x;k gSA

13-

mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i izdj.k esa fuEu vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkrk

gS %&

01-

Jfed Hkaoj flag iq= es/kkjke o cnj flag iq= nqtZu flag dk dksbZ

Dyse is’k ugha gksus ds dkj.k bu nksuksa ds laca/k esa uks fMLiqV vokMZ

ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2015/PAUSA 13, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

02-

Hkaoj flag iq= :i flag ,oa tscj flag iq= nqtZu flag us Dyse is’k

fd;k gS] fdUrq mudk dksbZ fookn is’k ugha gqvk gS] vr% buds

laca/k esa dksbZ vokMZ ikfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

03-

gqlsu vCckl us dksbZ lk{; is’k ugha dh gSA n;kjke iq= eqa’khjke]

dsljk jke iq= fprjk jke] lqjs’k dqekj iq= jke dqekj o ‘kEHkw

n;ky iq= tks/kkjke us vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa 240 fnu dk;Z ugha fd;k

gSA vr% os dksbZ jkgr ikus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

04-

‘ks”k lHkh Jfedx.k loZJh jkepUnz iq= dkywjke] jke ujs’k iq=

izHkwn;ky] jkepUnziq= ‘;keyky] jes’k dqekj iq= jkefd’ku] jke

dqekj iq= lhrkjke] tokgj yky iq= chjcy] jkenqykjk iq= ckcw

jke] jke/kuh iq= ekrkQs;j] jketl iq= jkele>] ?ku’;ke iq=

Hkh[kw izlkn o cksnw [kka iq= lqYrku [kka dqy 11 Jfedksa dh

lsokeqfDr mfpr o voS| gS] Jfedx.k bl 07 o”kZ dh nsjh gks tkus

ds dkj.k Jfedx.k iqu% fu;ksftr gksus ,oa fiNyk ykHk&ifjykHk

izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gksaxsA mijksDr 11 Jfedx.kkasa esa ls

izR;sd Jfed x.k dks ipkl&ipkl gtkj :i;s {kfr iwfrZ jkf’k ds

:i esa fnyk;s tkrs gSaA

gseUr dqekj tSu] U;k;k/kh’k

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.