3931 GI/2017

(3787)

jftLVªh la

(,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

]

ubZ fnYyh]

tqykbZ

—

tqykbZ

] 2017] 'kfuokj@

kk<+

—

kk<+

] 193

No. 27]

NEW DELHI, JULY 2—JULY 8, 2017, SATURDAY/ ASADHA 11—ASADHA 17, 1939

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)

dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;

(dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh]

twu] 2017

1579

—

dsUnz

ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 (1974 dk vf/fu;e la

2) dh /kjk 24 dh mi/kjk

(8) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

f'keyk fLFkr fgekpy izns'k mPp U;k;ky; esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk (lhchvkbZ)

}kjk vUosf"kr ekeyksa esa rFkk buls mRiUu izklafxd vU; ekeyksa vfHk;kstu] vihy vFkok iqujh{k.k dk lapkyu djus ds fy, Jh

va'kqy caly] vf/oDrk dks fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk

(dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks) esa mudh fu;qfDr dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kksZa ds fy,

vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :Ik esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[

iQk

225@06@2017&,

-II]

vkj

f=kikBh] voj lfpo

3788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2017

S.O. 1579.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No.2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Anshul Bansal, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in the Himachal Pradesh

High Court at Shimla for conducting the prosecution, appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of the cases

investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) for a period of three years from the date of appointment

or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/06/2017-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

fo|qr

ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh]

twu] 2017

1580

—

dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi

fu;e (4) ds vuqlj.k esa fo|qr ea=kky; ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu ,uVhihlh fyfeVsM ds lksykiqj lq

ij FkeZy ikoj izkstsDV] xzke &

iQrsgkoknh] iksLV&gksVxh LVs'ku] rkyqdk lkmFk lksykiqj] ftyk&lksykiqj&413215 (egkjk"Vª) rFkk rkypsj lqij FkeZy ikoj LVs'ku]

iksLV&nhif'k[kk] ftyk & vaxqy &759147 (vksfM'kk)] ftuds 80 izfr'kr deZpkjho`an us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d K

ku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

dks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gSA

[

11017@10@2013&fganh]

vatw HkYyk] la;qDr lfpo (iz'kk

)

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2017

S.O. 1580.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of the Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use of Official Purpose

of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify Solapur Super Thermal Power Project, Village

Fatatewadi, P.O. Hotgi Station, Taluka South Solapur, Distt: Solapur, Maharastra-413 215 and Talcher Super Thermal

Power Station, P.O. Deepshikha, Distt : Angul, Orissa-759-147 of the NTPC Ltd. Under the administrative control of

Ministry of Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 11017/10/2013-Hindi]

ANJU BHALLA, Jt. Secy. (Adm.)

dks;yk

ea=kky;

ubZ

fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2017

dk-vk- 1581-—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 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh] Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi&[kaM ¼iia½] rkjh[k 2 twu]

2017 esa izdkf’kr Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;kad dk- vk- 1771¼v½] rkjh[k 31 ebZ] 2017 ds izdk’ku ij]

mDr vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ¼ftls blesa blds i’pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS½ vkSj Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds lHkh

vf/kdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 dh mi/kkjk ¼a1½ ds v/khu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;afrd :i ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa

fufgr gks x, Fks(

vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM] Mkd?kj la[;k 60]

ftyk& fcykliqj&495006 ¼NRrhlx<+½ ¼ftls blesa blds i’pkr~ ljdkjh dEiuh dgk x;k gS½] ,sls fuca/kuksa vkSj ’krksZa dk tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj bl fufeRr vf/kjksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu djus ds fy;s rS;kj gS(

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 11 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr ’kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs’k

nsrh gS fd bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe;ksa esa ;k Hkwfe;ksa ij ds lHkh vf/kdkj] rkjh[k 2 twu] 2017 ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj

fufgr cus jgus dh ctk;] fuEufyf[kr fuca/kuksa vkSj ’krksZa ds v/;/khu] mDr ljdkjh dEiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~ %&

(ii)

3789

¼1½

ljdkjh dEiuh] mDr vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu ;Fkk vo/kkfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh ckcr~

fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ djsxh(

¼2½

mDr ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk ’krZ ¼1½ ds v/khu] dsUnzh; ljdkj dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kkj.k djus ds iz;kstu ds fy;s mDr

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 14 ds v/khu ,d vf/kdj.k dk xBu fd;k tk,xk rFkk ,sls fdlh vf/kdj.k vkSj ,sls vf/kdj.k dh lgk;rk djus

ds fy;s fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/kksa esa mixr lHkh O;;] ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk ogu fd;s tk,axs vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k

ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds fy;s ;k mlds laca/k esa lHkh fof/kd dk;Zokfg;ksa ftlds v/khu vihy Hkh gS] ds laca/k esa] lHkh O;; Hkh] blh

izdkj mDr ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk ogu fd;s tk;saxs(

¼3½

ljdkjh dEiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa dh] ,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/k esa] {kfriwfrZ djsxh tks bl izdkj

fufgr mDr Hkwfe;ksa esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo:) fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa

ds laca/k esa vko’;d gks (

¼4½

ljdkjh dEiuh dks] dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk] mDr Hkwfe;ksa vkSj vf/kdkjksa dks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr

djus dh ’kfDr ugha gksxh ( vkSj

¼5½

ljdkjh dEiuh] ,sls funs’kksa vkSj ’krksZa dk] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko’;d gks] mDr Hkwfe;ksa ds fof’k"V {ks=ksa ds

fy;s fn, tk,a ;k vf/kjksfir dh tk,] ikyu djsxhA

[Qk- la- 43015@26@2017&,y,vkbZvkj]

vkj- ,l- ljkst] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2017

S.O. 1581.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Coal, number S.O. 1771(E), dated the 31^st May, 2017 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section

3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 2^nd June, 2017 issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the lands and all rights

in or over the land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land)

vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said

Act;

And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road,

P. B. No. 60, District-Bilaspur-495006, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the Government company) is willing to

comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby direct that all the rights in or over the said lands so vested shall with effect from the

2^nd June, 2017 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government company,

subject to the following terms and conditions, namely:—

(1)

the Government company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of

compensation, interest, damages and the like as determined under the provisions of the said Act;

(2)

a Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act for the purpose of determining the amounts

payable to the Central Government by the Government company under condition (1), and all expenditure incurred in

connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the said Tribunal shall be borne by the Government

company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings, including appeals, for or in

connection with the rights in or over the said lands, so vested, shall also be borne by the Government company;

(3)

the Government company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other

expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its

officials regarding the rights in or over the said lands so vested;

(4)

the Government company shall have no power to transfer the said lands and the rights to any other persons

without the prior approval of the Central Government; and

(5)

the Government company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the

Central Government for particular areas of the said lands as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/26/ 2017–LAIR]

R. S. SAROJ , Under Secy.

3790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

IksVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl

ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 22 twu] 2017

1582

—केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िै कक पंजाब राज्य में गांव झुहगयां,

हजला: शिीद भगतससंि नगर से हिमाचल प्रदेश के गांव पेखुबेला, हजला: उना तक पेट्रोहलयम उत्पादों के पररविन के हलए

इंहियन ऑयल कापोरेशन हलहमटेि द्वारा पीएजेपीएल- उना ब्ांच पाइपलाइन हबछाई जानी चाहिए ।

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार को यि प्रतीत िोता िै कक ऐसी पाइपलाइन हबछाने का प्रयोजन के हलए ऐसी भूहम हजसके

भीतर पाइपलाइन हबछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव िै और जो इस अहिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित िै, के उपयोग के

अहिकार का अजिन करना आवश्यक िै ।

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोहलयम और खहनज पाइपलाइन (भूहम में उपयोग के अहिकार का अजिन)

अहिहनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की िारा 3 की उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शहियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उस भूहम में

उपयोग के अहिकार का अजिन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती िै ।

कोई व्यहि, जो उि अनुसूची में वर्णित भूहम से हितबद्ध िै, उि अहिहनयम, की िारा 3 की उपिारा (1) के अिीन

जारी की गयी अहिसूचना से युि भारत के राजपत्र की प्रहतयां सािारण जनता को उपलब् ि करा कदये जाने की तारीख से

इक्कीस कदनों के भीतर, उसमें उपयोग के अहिकार का अजिन या भूहम के नीचे पाइपलाइन हबछाए जाने के संबंि में आक्षेप,

हलहखत रूप मे श्री देवराज शमाि, सक्षम प्राहिकारी, इंहियन ऑयल कापोरेशन हलहमटेि, (पाइपलाइन प्रभाग) पीएजेपीएल-

उना ब्ांच पाइपलाइन पररयोजना, 346, कमला कुंज, िी. सी. कालोनी, उना (हिमाचल प्रदेश)-174303 को कर सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला – उना

राज्य – जिमाचल प्रदेश

क्र. सं.

तिसील का

नाम

गांव का नाम

िदबस्त नं.

मुरब्बा// ककला तथा

खसरा सं.

क्षेत्रफल

िेक्टयर

एयर

वगि मीटर

िरोली

बाथिी

476

1306 रास्ता

997 रास्ता

1300

1301

998

1279

1280

1037

1036

1038

1039

(ii)

3791

1040

1043

1061

1073

1071

1072

1070

1069

1068

1076

1077

1135

1133

1134

1125

1124

1121

1120

1117

1116

930 रास्ता

929

928

927

3792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

104

103

102

101

100

116

122

136

125

124

127

133

134

132

148

301 रास्ता

302

िरोली

केलुवा

3132

3130

3128

3127

3039

3043

3041

3042

3060

(ii)

3793

3055

3059

3097

3092

3091

3093

3090

3088

3089

3085

3084

3083

3302

2920

2919

2931

2933

2934

2917

2935

2916

2936

2940

2947

2946

2948

2950

2952

2953

3794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2954

2643

2645

2646

2651

िरोली

बाथू

475

1892

1895

1895/1

1894

1897

1898

1901

1901/1

1911

1910

1909

1912

1908

1860

1861

1867

1865

1862

1864

1854

1855

1824

1990

1822

(ii)

3795

1823

1819

1821

1817 रास्ता

1801 रास्ता

1810

1809

1808

1807

1560

1559

1553

1563

1562

1564

1566

1567

1590

1586

1581

1582

1579

1502

1499

1497

1498

1493

1666

1667

3796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1668

1669

1485

1670

1671

1672

1673

1676

1677

1679

1680

1681

1684/1

िरोली

बट खुदि

474

1376

1377

1384

1385

1396

1395

1397

1442

1404

1405

1406

1403

1407

1408

1409

1412

(ii)

3797

1411

1410

1441

1440

1439

1438

1437

1456

1457

1454

1468

1467

1466

1469

1465

1470

1471

1482

1481

1486

1503

1490

1504

1510

1509

1508

1505

1507

1313

3798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1314

1318

1317

1320

1321

1323

1324

1288

1293

1290

1289

1286

1287

1291 रास्ता

1292 रास्ता

1262

1261

1250

1249

1246

1243

1242/1

1242

1241

1239

100

1236

1238

1237

1232

(ii)

3799

1231

1230

2174/1688

2173/1688

2172/1688

1682

1690

1691

1692

1696

1718

1719

1697

1710

1717

1707

1708

1709

1711

िरोली

बट कला

473

678 // 21/3

678 // 21/4

678 // 20/2

678 // 20/1

678 // 11/2

678 // 11/1

678 // 10/1

682 रास्ता

678 // 10/2/2

678 // 10/2/1

3800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

678 // 1/2

679 // 6/4/1

679 // 6/3

679 // 6/1

679 // 5/3

679 // 5/2

679 // 5/1

669 // 25/3

669 // 25/2

669 // 25/1

669 // 16/1

669 // 15/2

669 // 17/1

िरोली

टिलीवाल

हनचला

472

154

168

169

171

175

185

189

201 नाला

223

222

221

224

226

226/1

227

(ii)

3801

388

228 रास्ता

369

253

312 रास्ता

363

254

255

362

360

317

318

316

315

314/2

319

314/1

313

िरोली

टिलीवाल

उपरला

472

479

478

477 रास्ता

470

475

476

414

413

414/1

515

3802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

411 रास्ता

409

407

386

389

390

390/1

391

377

376

375

371

368

367

366

359

358

360

361

353 रास्ता

339

307

338

309

310

298

िरोली

मानुवाल

471

2552

2562

2551

(ii)

3803

2548

2549

2550

2564

100

2567

2568

2570

2571 रास्ता

2572

2982

2983

2981

2574

2577

2980

2578

2580

2582

2583

2581

2600

2601

2605

2604

2602

2603

2629

2626

2628

3804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2627

2651

2650

2653

2652

2655

2656

2659

2660

2654

2662

2661

2663

2675

2674

2664

2671

2672

2673

2677

2701

2700

2699

2698

2697

2696

2693

2707

2708

(ii)

3805

2709

2721

3492/2727

3499/2730

2728

3495/2729

3496/2729

2688 रास्ता

िरोली

थेि

471

2481 रास्ता

2126

2127

2128

2129

2136

2135

2138

2150

2139

2140

2149

2141

2142

2143

2144

2145

2445

2442

2443

2444

3806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2440 रास्ता

2260

2358

2262

2357

2356

2355

2354

2292

2291

2290

2293

2294

2296

2295

2286

2298

2299

2302

2303

2304

2305

2306

2307

2308

2324

2318

2317

2316

(ii)

3807

2401

2402

िरोली

नांगल खुदि

471

2781

2783

2785

2784

2787

2789

2788

2833

2823

2824

2832

2822

2825

2828

2827

2826

2841

2943 रास्ता

2942

2940

2939

2913

2937

2935

2934

2933

2932

3808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2926

2924

2925

2923

2920

िरोली

ललिी

470

6440

6464

6439

6445

6441

6442

6444

6443

6459

6458

6460

6457

उना

उदयपुर

224

1204

1203

1202

1199

1198

1197

1137

1138

1140

1141

1245/1155

1244/1155

(ii)

3809

1156

1160

1158

1159

1173

953

1176

1175

उना

फतेिपुर

223

1881 रास्ता

1880

1879

1902

1903

1904

1905

1908

1907

1910

1909

1919

1918

1915

1926

1914

1927

1929

1925

1928

1923

3810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1949

1952

1950

1951

1967

1972

1966

1965

1985

1973

1984

1986

1988

1638

1631

1630 रास्ता

1632

1633

1629

1634 रास्ता

1635

1626 रास्ता

1627

1603

1605

1608

1609

1607

1610

(ii)

3811

1611

1612

1493

1492

उना

नंगड़ा

उपरला

222

2463

2464

2466 रास्ता

उना

नंगड़ा

हझकला

222

2169

2159

2156

2155

2154

2153

2112

1889

1888

1887

1877

1878

1879

1874

1873

1872

1869

1868

1867

1866

1862

3812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1863

1864

1858

1857

1856

1850

1851

1846 रास्ता

1828

1829

1830

1832

1831

1821

1820

1813

1812

1811

1656

1655

1657

1658

1659

1660

1384

1383

1662

1382

1377 रास्ता

(ii)

3813

1663

1359

1358

1338

1336

1337

1335

1330

1667

1329

1323

1324

1325

1303

1302

1672

1673

1674

1675

1295

1296

1294

1293

1286

1285

1289

1284

1287

1288

3814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1281

1182

1135

994

993

992

996

995

997

996

1008

1007

999

1006

1005

1003

1004

1013

2186/818 रास्ता

437

436

435

434

433

452

463

465

466

467

100

(ii)

3815

470

396

395

394

391

392

393

477

379

378

478

377

372

495

370

371

369

356

367

368

366

360

365

364

273

272

271

269

270

3816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

258

256

257

509

510

240

239

515

238

516

519

518

523

528

522

532

123

122

533

535

534

537

570

569

568

567

538

566

565

(ii)

3817

549

564

555

556

557

558

553

उना

पेखुबेला

1008

1016

1011

1015

1014

1013

[फा. सं. आर-25011/20/2017-ओआर-I]

पवन कुमार, अवर सहचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2017

S.O. 1582.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for

the transportation of Petroleum Products from Village : Jhungian, District : Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar of Punjab State

to Village: Pekhubela, District : Una of Himachal Pradesh, PAJPL - Una Branch Pipeline should be laid by the Indian

Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to

acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the

Schedule annexed to this notification.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the petroleum and Mineral

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its

intention to acquire the right of user therein.

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may within 21 days from the date on which the copies

of this notification issued under sub-section (1) of the section 3 of said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are

made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein of laying of the

pipeline under the land to Shri. Devraj Sharma, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, PAJPL-Una Branch

Pipeline Project, 346, Kamla Kunj, D.C. Colony, Una (Himachal Pradesh) -174303.

3818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

District : Una

State : Himachal Pradesh

Sr. No.

Name of

Tehsil

Name of

Village

Hadbast

No.

Murabba//Killa OR

Khasara No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq. mtr.

Haroli

Bathari

476

1306 Rasta

997 Rasta

1300

1301

998

1279

1280

1037

1036

1038

1039

1040

1043

1061

1073

1071

1072

1070

1069

1068

1076

1077

1135

1133

1134

(ii)

3819

1125

1124

1121

1120

1117

1116

930 Rasta

929

928

927

104

103

102

101

100

116

122

136

125

124

127

133

3820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

134

132

148

301 Rasta

302

Haroli

Keluwa

3132

3130

3128

3127

3039

3043

3041

3042

3060

3055

3059

3097

3092

3091

3093

3090

3088

3089

3085

3084

3083

3302

2920

(ii)

3821

2919

2931

2933

2934

2917

2935

2916

2936

2940

2947

2946

2948

2950

2952

2953

2954

2643

2645

2646

2651

Haroli

Bathu

475

1892

1895

1895/1

1894

1897

1898

1901

1901/1

1911

3822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1910

1909

1912

1908

1860

1861

1867

1865

1862

1864

1854

1855

1824

1990

1822

1823

1819

1821

1817 Rasta

1801 Rasta

1810

1809

1808

1807

1560

1559

1553

1563

1562

(ii)

3823

1564

1566

1567

1590

1586

1581

1582

1579

1502

1499

1497

1498

1493

1666

1667

1668

1669

1485

1670

1671

1672

1673

1676

1677

1679

1680

1681

1684/1

Haroli

Bat Khurd

474

1376

3824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1377

1384

1385

1396

1395

1397

1442

1404

1405

1406

1403

1407

1408

1409

1412

1411

1410

1441

1440

1439

1438

1437

1456

1457

1454

1468

1467

1466

1469

(ii)

3825

1465

1470

1471

1482

1481

1486

1503

1490

1504

1510

1509

1508

1505

1507

1313

1314

1318

1317

1320

1321

1323

1324

1288

1293

1290

1289

1286

1287

1291 Rasta

3826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1292 Rasta

1262

1261

1250

1249

1246

1243

1242/1

1242

1241

1239

100

1236

1238

1237

1232

1231

1230

2174/1688

2173/1688

2172/1688

1682

1690

1691

1692

1696

1718

1719

1697

1710

(ii)

3827

1717

1707

1708

1709

1711

Haroli

Bat Kalan

473

678 // 21/3

678 // 21/4

678 // 20/2

678 // 20/1

678 // 11/2

678 // 11/1

678 // 10/1

682 Rasta

678 // 10/2/2

678 // 10/2/1

678 // 1/2

679 // 6/4/1

679 // 6/3

679 // 6/1

679 // 5/3

679 // 5/2

679 // 5/1

669 // 25/3

669 // 25/2

669 // 25/1

669 // 16/1

669 // 15/2

669 // 17/1

Haroli

Tahliwal

Nichala

472

154

3828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

168

169

171

175

185

189

201 Nala

223

222

221

224

226

226/1

227

388

228 Rasta

369

253

312 Rasta

363

254

255

362

360

317

318

316

315

(ii)

3829

314/2

319

314/1

313

Haroli

Tehliwal

Upparla

472

479

478

477 Rasta

470

475

476

414

413

414/1

515

411 Rasta

409

407

386

389

390

390/1

391

377

376

375

371

368

367

3830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

366

359

358

360

361

353 Rasta

339

307

338

309

310

298

Haroli

Manuwal

471

2552

2562

2551

2548

2549

2550

2564

100

2567

2568

2570

2571 Rasta

2572

2982

2983

2981

2574

2577

(ii)

3831

2980

2578

2580

2582

2583

2581

2600

2601

2605

2604

2602

2603

2629

2626

2628

2627

2651

2650

2653

2652

2655

2656

2659

2660

2654

2662

2661

2663

2675

3832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2674

2664

2671

2672

2673

2677

2701

2700

2699

2698

2697

2696

2693

2707

2708

2709

2721

3492/2727

3499/2730

2728

3495/2729

3496/2729

2688 Rasta

Haroli

Theh

471

2481 Rasta

2126

2127

2128

2129

2136

(ii)

3833

2135

2138

2150

2139

2140

2149

2141

2142

2143

2144

2145

2445

2442

2443

2444

2440 Rasta

2260

2358

2262

2357

2356

2355

2354

2292

2291

2290

2293

2294

2296

3834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2295

2286

2298

2299

2302

2303

2304

2305

2306

2307

2308

2324

2318

2317

2316

2401

2402

Haroli

Nangal Khurd

471

2781

2783

2785

2784

2787

2789

2788

2833

2823

2824

2832

2822

(ii)

3835

2825

2828

2827

2826

2841

2943 Rasta

2942

2940

2939

2913

2937

2935

2934

2933

2932

2926

2924

2925

2923

2920

Una

Laladi

470

6440

6464

6439

6445

6441

6442

6444

6443

6459

3836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6458

6460

6457

Una

Udaypur

224

1204

1203

1202

1199

1198

1197

1137

1138

1140

1141

1245/1155

1244/1155

1156

1160

1158

1159

1173

953

1176

1175

Una

Fatehpur

223

1881 Rasta

1880

1879

1902

1903

1904

(ii)

3837

1905

1908

1907

1910

1909

1919

1918

1915

1926

1914

1927

1929

1925

1928

1923

1949

1952

1950

1951

1967

1972

1966

1965

1985

1973

1984

1986

1988

1638

3838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1631

1630 Rasta

1632

1633

1629

1634 Rasta

1635

1626 Rasta

1627

1603

1605

1608

1609

1607

1610

1611

1612

1493

1492

Una

Nangran

Upparla

222

2463

2464

2466 Rasta

Una

Nangran

Jhikla

222

2169

2159

2156

2155

2154

2153

(ii)

3839

2112

1889

1888

1887

1877

1878

1879

1874

1873

1872

1869

1868

1867

1866

1862

1863

1864

1858

1857

1856

1850

1851

1846 Rasta

1828

1829

1830

1832

1831

1821

3840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1820

1813

1812

1811

1656

1655

1657

1658

1659

1660

1384

1383

1662

1382

1377 Rasta

1663

1359

1358

1338

1336

1337

1335

1330

1667

1329

1323

1324

1325

1303

(ii)

3841

1302

1672

1673

1674

1675

1295

1296

1294

1293

1286

1285

1289

1284

1287

1288

1281

1182

1135

994

993

992

996

995

997

996

1008

1007

999

1006

3842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1005

1003

1004

1013

2186/818 Rasta

437

436

435

434

433

452

463

465

466

467

100

470

396

395

394

391

392

393

477

379

378

478

377

372

495

(ii)

3843

370

371

369

356

367

368

366

360

365

364

273

272

271

269

270

258

256

257

509

510

240

239

515

238

516

519

518

523

528

3844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

522

532

123

122

533

535

534

537

570

569

568

567

538

566

565

549

564

555

556

557

558

553

Una

Pekhubela

1008

1016

1011

1015

1014

1013

[F. No. R-25011/20/2017-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

(ii)

3845

ubZ fnYyh] 29 twu] 2017

1583

—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko”;d izrhr gksrk gS fd rfeyukMw jkT; ds lsye dks

dsjy jkT; esa Hkkjr iSVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM+ dh dksfPp fjQkbujh ls rjyhd`r isVªksfy;e xSl ds ifjogu ds fy,] ,d

ikbiykbZu dksfPp lsye ikbiykbZu çkbosV fyfeVsM+ }kjk fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,;

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, ;g vko”;d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh Hkwfe esa] tks blls

mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS] ftlesa mDr ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus dk izLrko gS] mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk, ;

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] IksVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e 1962 ¼1962

dk 50½] dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ml Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu

djus ds vius vk”k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS;

dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks bl vf/klwpuk ls ;qDr Hkkjr ds jkti=

dh izfr;k¡ lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds fy;s

mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds lEcU/k esa Jh c'khjdqatw ,] l{ke çkf/kdkjh ] dksfPp lsye ikbiykbZu çkbosV

fyfeVsM ] d#.k ,aDyso] f}rh; ry] Mksj u- ch& 2] ,l ,u taD'ku] fjQkbZujh jksM] ;wfu;u cSad v‚Q bafM;k ds lkeus]

f=iqfuFkqjk] ftyk ,sjukdqye] dsjy & 682309 dks fyf[kr :Ik esa vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA

vuqlwph

jkT;

dsjy

ftyk

,sju

kdqye

rkyqd

dqUukFkqukMw

uke xzke

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,fj;k

Áfr oxZehVj

(1)

(2)

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

iqFkSudqfjLlw ¼[k.M la- 37½

92@13

92@8

93@12

93@13

93@7

94@1

94@10

94@11

94@14

94@15

94@16

94@17

94@18

94@19

94@2

94@20

94@21

94@22

94@3

94@4

94@7

94@8

94@9

100@38

100@10

100@11

100@12

100@13

3846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

iqFkSudqfjLlw ¼[k.M la- 37½

100@14

100@15

100@16

100@17

100@33

141@10

141@12

141@13

141@2

141@3

141@4

141@6

142@10

142@11

142@12

142@14

142@15

142@16

142@17

142@18

142@19

142@20

142@21

142@7

142@9

145@2

145@3

145@4

145@5

146@1

146@16

146@12

146@13

146@14

146@15

146@18

146@19

146@2

146@20

146@21

146@22

146@23

146@24

146@25

146@3

146@4

146@5

146@7

146@8

146@9

150@1

150@10

150@12

(ii)

3847

iqFkSudqfjLlw ¼[k.M la- 37½

150@14

150@16

150@17

150@19

150@21

150@7

150@8

150@9

dqUukFkqukMw ¼[k.M la- 36½

300@10

301@10

301@11

301@14

301@15

301@16

301@17

301@18

301@19

301@4

301@5

301@6

301@7

301@8

301@9

305@1

305@12

305@13

305@6

305@7

306@2

306@3

323@3

324@1

325@1

325@2

325@3

325@4

326@3

326@4

326@5

326@7

327@11

327@9

330@6

330@7

336@1

336@2

336@3

336@4

336@6

336@8

336@9

339@2

3848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dqUukFkqukMw ¼[k.M la- 36½

339@3

350@1

350@2

350@3

350@4

350@5

350@6

350@7

354@1

354@2

354@3

354@5

357@1

357@2

358@2

360@1

360@2

360@3

360@4

378@10

383@5

384@10

384@11

385@1

385@2

385@3

385@4

385@5

385@6

385@7

385@8

ekjefifYy ¼[k.M la- 23½

1@8

1@11

1@12

1@13

3@9

3@11

jkT;

dsjy

ftyk

,sjukdqye

rkyqd

d.k;Uuwj

uke xzke

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,fj;k

Áfr oxZehVj

fr#okudqye ¼[kaM la- 10½

567@3

jkT;

dsjy

ftyk:

,sjukdqye

rkyqd:

vky

qok

uke xzke

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,fj;k

Áfr oxZehVj

ikjDdMoq ¼[k.M la- 4½

120@1

120@09

(ii)

3849

ikjDdMoq ¼[k.M la- 4½

120@10

120@11

120@5

120@6

120@7

120@8

121@1

121@2

121@3

122@1

122@8

122@13

122@16

122@19

124@2

jkT;

dsjy

ftyk:

f='kqj

rkyqd

pkyDdqMh

uke xzke

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,fj;k

Áfr oxZehVj

fd"kDdeqjh ¼[k.M la- 49½

535@1

535@2

535@4

872@1

872@2

874@1

874@2

875@1

875@2

875@4

878@5

879

880@3

jkT;

dsjy

ftyk:

,sjukdqye

rkyqd

vkyqok

uke xzke

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,fj;k

Áfr oxZehVj

eVwj ¼[k.M la- 27½

1@11

1@12

3850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

eVwj ¼[k.M la- 27½

1@13

3@1

3@2

3@25

3@5

3@6

4@1

4@2

7@1

7@10

7@11

7@2

7@3

7@7

7@8

7@9

9@1

9@2

9@22

9@6

264@8

264@7

265@10

265@2

265@5

265@6

265@7

265@8

265@9

266

324@9

333@13

vaxekyh ¼[k.M la- 12½

88@2

88@3

88@4

88@6

89@6

89@7

89@8

90@1

90@2

90@3

90@4

110@11

110@2

110@3

110@4

110@5

110@7

110@8

110@9

113@1

(ii)

3851

vaxekyh ¼[k.M la- 12½

204

116@1

116@2

116@3

117@1

117@2

117@3

117@4

118@1

118@2

118@5

118@6

207@1

207@15

207@6

207@7

207@8

208@3

209@1

209@16

209@2

209@3

209@4

209@5

215@1

215@10

215@12

215@8

215@9

216@1

216@10

216@12

216@13

216@14

216@2

216@3

216@4

216@8

vaxekyh ¼[k.M la- 11½

589

590

637

642

rqjowj ¼[k.M la- 13½

92@1

92@5

92@6

92@7

92@8

92@9

93@10

93@2

93@3

3852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

rqjowj ¼[k.M la- 13½

93@9

100@1

100@3

100@4

100@5

101@1

101@10

101@11

101@15

101@2

101@3

101@4

101@5

101@6

101@9

102@10

102@11

102@12

102@13

102@14

102@15

102@7

102@8

102@9

104@2

104@6

104@7

104@8

104@9

109

oMDdqEckxe ¼[k.M la- 28½

158@11

206@6

210@3

263@2

268@11

[Qk- la- vkj&31015@4@2015@37111&vksvkj&II]

Ikou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2017

S.O. 1583.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for

the transport of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Kochi Refinery of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in the State of

Kerala to Salem in the State of Tamil Nadu and that the a pipeline should be laid by M/S Kochi – Salem pipeline

Private Ltd;

And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipelines, it is

necessary to acquire the right of user in the lands under which such pipelines are proposed to be laid described in the

schedule annexed to this notification;

Now therefore in the exercise of powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (Central Act 50 of 1962) the Central Government

hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein.

Any person, interested in land described in the said schedule may, within 21 days from the date on which the

copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in

writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying or the pipeline under the land to Sri. Basheerkunju. A,

Competent Authority, Kochi-Salem Pipeline Private Ltd, Karun Enclave 2^nd floor, Door No. B2, S. N. Junction,

Refinery Road, Opp: Union Bank of India, Tripunithura, Pin – 682 301.

(ii)

3853

SCHEDULE

STATE : KERALA

DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM TALUK : KUNNATHUNADU

VILLAGE

SURVEY

NUMBERS

AREA

HECTARES

ARES

SQ: METERS

PUTHENKURISSU BLOCK. No. 37

92/13

92/8

93/12

93/13

93/7

94/1

94/10

94/11

94/14

94/15

94/16

94/17

94/18

94/19

94/2

94/20

94/21

94/22

94/3

94/4

94/7

94/8

94/9

100/38

100/10

100/11

100/12

100/13

100/14

100/15

100/16

100/17

100/33

141/10

141/12

141/13

141/2

141/3

141/4

141/6

142/10

142/11

`95

142/12

142/14

142/15

142/16

142/17

142/18

142/19

142/20

142/21

142/7

3854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

PUTHENKURISSU BLOCK. No. 37

142/9

145/2

145/3

145/4

145/5

146/1

146/16

146/12

146/13

146/14

146/15

146/18

146/19

146/2

146/20

146/21

146/22

146/23

146/24

146/25

146/3

146/4

146/5

146/7

146/8

146/9

150/1

150/10

150/12

150/14

150/16

150/17

150/19

150/21

150/7

150/8

150/9

KUNNATHUNADU BLOCK. NO. 36

300/10

301/10

301/11

301/14

301/15

301/16

301/17

301/18

301/19

301/4

301/5

301/6

301/7

301/8

301/9

305/1

305/12

305/13

305/6

(ii)

3855

KUNNATHUNADU BLOCK. No. 36

305/7

306/2

306/3

323/3

324/1

325/1

325/2

325/3

325/4

326/3

326/4

326/5

326/7

327/11

327/9

330/6

330/7

336/1

336/2

336/3

336/4

336/6

336/8

336/9

339/2

339/3

350/1

350/2

350/3

350/4

350/5

350/6

350/7

354/1

354/2

354/3

354/5

357/1

357/2

358/2

360/1

360/2

360/3

360/4

378/10

383/5

384/10

384/11

385/1

385/2

385/3

385/4

385/5

385/6

385/7

385/8

MARAMPILLY BLOCK. No. 23

1/8

3856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MARAMPILLY BLOCK. No. 23

1/11

1/12

1/13

3/9

3/11

STATE : KERALA

DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM

TALUK : KANAYANNUR

VILLAGE

SURVEY

NUMBERS

AREA( APPROX)

HECTARES

ARES

SQ MTRS

THIRUVANKULAM BLOCK. No. 10

567/3

STATE : KERALA

DISTRICT : TRISSUR TALUK : CHALAKUDI

VILLAGE

SURVEY

NUMBERS

AREA

HECTARES

ARES

SQ: METERS

KIZHAKKUMURI BLOCK. No. 49

535/1

535/2

535/4

872/1

872/2

874/1

874/2

875/1

875/2

875/4

878/5

879

880/3

STATE : KERALA

DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM TALUK : ALUVA

VILLAGE

SURVEY

NUMBERS

AREA

HECTARES

ARES

SQ: METERS

PARAKKADAVU BLOCK. No. 4

120/1

120/09

120/10

120/11

120/5

120/6

120/7

120/8

121/1

121/2

121/3

122/1

122/8

122/13

122/16

122/19

124/2

MATTOOR BLOCK. No. 27

1/11

1/12

1/13

3/1

(ii)

3857

MATTOOR BLOCK. No. 27

3/2

3/25

3/5

3/6

4/1

4/2

7/1

7/10

7/11

7/2

7/3

7/7

7/8

7/9

9/1

9/2

9/22

9/6

264/8

264/7

265/10

265/2

265/5

265/6

265/7

265/8

265/9

266

324/9

333/13

ANGAMALI BLOCK. No. 12

88/2

88/3

88/4

88/6

89/6

89/7

89/8

90/1

90/2

90/3

90/4

110/11

110/2

110/3

110/4

110/5

110/7

110/8

110/9

113/1

3858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANGAMALI BLOCK No.12

204

116/1

116/2

116/3

117/1

117/2

117/3

117/4

118/1

118/2

118/5

118/6

207/1

207/15

207/6

207/7

207/8

208/3

209/1

209/16

209/2

209/3

209/4

209/5

215/1

215/10

215/12

215/8

215/9

216/1

216/10

216/12

216/13

216/14

216/2

216/3

216/4

216/8

ANGAMALI BLOCK. No. 11

589

590

637

642

THURAVOOR BLOCK No. 13

92/1

92/5

92/6

92/7

92/8

92/9

93/10

93/2

(ii)

3859

THURAVOOR BLOCK No. 13

93/3

93/9

100/1

100/3

100/4

100/5

101/1

101/10

101/11

101/15

101/2

101/3

101/4

101/5

101/6

101/9

102/10

102/11

102/12

102/13

102/14

102/15

102/7

102/8

102/9

104/2

104/6

104/7

104/8

104/9

109

VADAKKUMBHAGAM BLOCK

No. 28

158/11

206/6

210/3

263/2

268/11

[F. No. R-31015/4/2015/37111-OR-II]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

,oa

jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYy

twu] 2017

1584

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

egkizca/d]

vk;q/ dkj[kkuk] [kefj;k] tcyiqj

,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa 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 134@2001

) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 0

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&

14012

@20

&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks

'kh

]

mi funs

'kd

3860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2017

S.O. 1584.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Case No. CGIT/LC/R 134/2001) of the Central Government Industrial

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

relation to the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 08.06.2017.

[No. L-14012/30/2001-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/134/2001

Shri O.P.Yadav, President,

Ordnance Labour Union.

H.No.61/8, Bhantallia,

Hanumantal, Behind Police Station,

Jabalpur.

…Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Ordnance factory,

Khamaria,

Jabalpur.

… Management

AWARD

Passed on this 4^th day of May 2017

1. As per letter dated 14-8-2001 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-14012/30/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur (MP) in removing the

services of Shri Mohan, Labour B.T.No.PESA/76/63729 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 3/1 to 3/5. Case of workman is that he was appointed as labour in establishment of 2^nd party, OFK,

Jabalpur on 2-1-84. His service record was unblemished. Chargesheet was served on him on complaint. On 8-

4-95, he was suspended. Chargesheet under Rule 14 ccs CCA Rules 1965 was served on him on 20-11-96

after inordinate delay of 19 months. Workman further submits that prevalous allegations were made against

him in chargesheet of impersonation. He denied charges submitting his reply. That Departmental Enquiry was

initiated against him. That the prosecution witnesses did not depose anything against him. On 18-8-98,

Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding workman not guilty of charges. Management disagreed with

findings of Enquiry Officer and revised findings were recorded. On the basis of revise findings punishment of

removal was imposed against him. Appeal by workman was rejected by Appellate Authority.

3. Workman further submits that in order to establish charge of impersonation, it was necessary to

examine Raghunath S/o Shiv without examining said person. The charge cannot be proved. That management

failed to prove employment card No. 8/13663/67 before Enquiry Officer. In absence of said employment card,

charge of fraudulently seeking employment could not be proved. That Disciplinary Authority has no

authority to go beyond the record of Enquiry Proceedings as per Rule 15 CCS CCA Rule 1965. That

punishment imposed against him is contrary to the principles of natural justice. On such ground, workman

prays for his reinstatement with backwages.

4. 2^nd party management filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/2 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party

management submits that anonymous complaint was received on 1-6-90 that Mohan S/o Jhaku who employed

(ii)

3861

in GIF and another person in name of Mohan is employed in OFK . on receipt of said complaint, General

Manager, GIF vide letter dated 10-8-90 referred matter to Ordnance Factory Khamaria forwarding details of

employees employed in GIF. Management of GIF also written letter 20-7-90 to District Employment Officer,

Jabalpur informing that Mohanlal is appointed in GIF on 10-10-79 as Labour Grade B. Management received

information that another man having same particulars is working in Ordnance Factory, Jabalpur. The matter

was requested to be inquired, details of both persons are given in Para 2 of the Written Statement. Particulars

of Mohanlal employed in GIF name of his father is shown Jukhai Caste Chamar, SC, Address- Amanala

Behind Primary School Ranjhi, Jabalpur. Registration No. S/13663/67- date of registration 15-12-67.

Particulars of Mohan employed in OFK , father’s name Jukhai, Caste ST, Address Amanala Behind Primary

School, Ranjhi, Jabalpur Employment Registration No. S/13663/97 date of registration 15-12-67. That board

of enquiry was constituted appointing Shri Murarilal, Works Manager. Board of enquiry recorded statements

of shri K.Sadasivan, Sakhare, LDC, Mohan etc. that Board of Enquiry submitted his report. Particulars of

Mohanlal working in GIF and Mohan employed in OFK are given in para 4 of the written statement. Card No.

of Mohan working in Ordnance Factory Khamaria is shown 13663/67 whereas Card number of Mohanlal is

shown S/13603/67. Chargesheet was issued to workman on 20-11-66. Charges alleged against workman

pertain to workman was working as labour in Ordnance Factory, Jabalpur by impersonation adopting unfair,

fraudulent means. That he had submitted false declaration at the time of securing employment in the factory.

That workman working as labour was found involved in an act committed at the time of recruitment

unbecoming on part of Government. That Bansilal secured employment as labour in ORK, Jabalpur by

impersonation producing fake registration card No. S/13603/67 dated 15-12-67. Shri M.V.S.R.Chandramukti

was appointed as Enquiry Officer, R.K.Dhar as Presenting Officer. Subsequently Shri Mukhopadhyay was

appointed as Presenting Officer in place of Dhar. The details of enquiry conducted against workman are

narrated in para-7. Statements of management’s witnesses were recorded. Workman was allowed to cross

examine all witnesses. The statements of two defence witnesses was recorded. Enquiry Officer submitted his

findings recommending further investigation by Civil Authority. Disciplinary Authority disagreed findings

and held that charges alleged against workman are proved. After issuing showcause notice, punishment of

removal from service was imposed. 2^nd party reiterates that punishment of removal is proper and legal.

5. Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/3 reiterating contentions in statement of claim.

6. Management submitted rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/4 reiterating his contentions in Written statement.

7. As per order dated 13-9-13, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.

8. Considering pleadings on record and findings on enquiry, 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 misconduct alleged against workman

is proved from evidence in Enquiry proceedings?

In Negative

(ii)

Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed

against workman is proper and legal?

In Negative

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

As per final order.

REASONS

9. Point No.1 The term of reference pertains to legality of order of removal of workman from service. As

per order dated 13-9-13, enquiry conducted against workman is held legal. Question whether charges alleged

against workman are proved or not needs to be decided considering evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Enquiry

Officer in his report Exhibit M-10 recorded his findings on Article 1 to 3 is established. In para8, Enquiry

Officer observed the prosecution failed to prove charges framed except that the duplicate was not issued

against Card No. S/13663/67. Enquiry Officer recommended that the case be referred to Civil Authorities for

verification. It is clear that Enquiry Officer was confused while recording his finding. The findings of Enquiry

Officer were revised by Disciplinary Authority giving the reasons holding that the charges against workman

were proved. The order of punishment is produced at Exhibit M-11. Appeal preferred by workman was

rejected. During course of argument, learned counsel for workman Vijay Tripathi emphasized that while

passing order of removal, the evidence is not discussed. In M-11, Disciplinary Authority has endorsed that he

had gone through the evidence. Representation submitted by workman. He had disagreed with the reasons

given by Enquiry Officer. While passing order of dismissal, discussion of minute details of evidence cannot be

expected. Order passed in appeal is produced at Exhibit M-14.

10. Documents of enquiry are produced. After receiving complaint, the matter was investigated and after

receiving report of investigation dated 10-8-90, chargesheet was issued to workman. In Enquiry Proceedings,

3862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

statements of management’s witnesses K.Sadasivan chargeman, R.C.Sakhare LDC. Statement of Mohan

employee working as labour in OFK have been recorded. Statement of two defence witnesses was also

recorded. Witness of management N.K.Yadav Employment Exchange Officer in his statement at Page 49 of

record of enquiry says that Employment Exchange Card issued for 3 years and is renewed periodically. It is

not possible to issue two Employment Exchange cards of same numbers. In reply to question, he says that

fortnight time is required for furnishing details of Employment Exchange Card No. S/13663/67. On

investigation, the particulars of Mohan Jukhai working in OFK were recorded, name of his father Jukhai

caste-Chamar, Amranala Behind Primary School, Card No. 13663/67 in 1979 to GIF & 1983 to OFK.

However Mr.Murarilal who had conducted enquiry was not examined.

11. In his statement, Shri K.Sadasivan chargeman has stated before Enquiry Officer that list forwarded by

Employment Exchange, call letters were issued from Exchange, it seems that Registration No. S/13603/67.

Statement of K.Sadasivan chargeman clearly shows that list of Employment Exchange, interview call

No.44/83 dated 5-9-83 Card No. S-13603/67 was mentioned when individual was called for interview, he

submitted his Employment Exchange Card bearing No. 13663/67. The age in the card indicated 1943 whereas

in list sponsored by Employment Exchange was mentioned 1949. It refers to the date of birth. In his statement,

R.C.Sakhare LDC says while preparing service book of workman, Employment Exchange Card and interview

letter was checked by him were kept with service book. however in his further statement, said witness says

workman had put his thump mark. He has not produced his documents about education. Workman has shown

his inability to produce educational documents. Evidence of Shri R.C.Sakhare LDC is also clear that he had

checked only interview call, Employment Exchange card was enclosed with the interview letter. Statement of

workman was recorded. In his statement, workman says he is not educated. In 1990, he learnt to sign and he

could read with continuity. Workman says he had committed mistake by signing the document. Date of birth

was 28-12-56, his father was in service of OFK and retired around year 1981. His mother received pension.

He has given details of his relatives Fulwabai-17 yrs, Suman Bai-14 yrs, Rekha bai- 12 yrs, Rupa Bai-10 yrs,

Smt Foolbasiya bai was his mother. In his further statement, workman says Employment Exchange Card of his

brother Mohan and himself were prepared on same date. He has declared his name as Sohanlal. When card

was issued, his name was written Mohan, why he did not correct the card, workman did not explained. As he

had received called letter. Statement of Mohan working in GIF was also recorded. He has given details of his

family, name of rather was Jhukai, his father was dead. That his brother by name Mohan was in service from

980. His mother Fulbasia bai received pension. The attestation form submitted by workman at Page 8, age of

workman was shown 27 years, his date of birth comes to 956. Statements of witnesses Mohanlal Choudhary

shows that Mohan working in OFK is not related to him. That he used to sign in his name Mohanlal. He

passed 7^th standard at the time of joining service at GIF. He submitted original Employment Exchange Card at

GIF. This card was never lost. He deposited certificate of passing 7^th standard. Name of his mother was

Draupati. After his appointment in GIF, he was staying in rental accommodation at different places. In his

cross, he says he deposited Employment Card at GIF. He given its intimation to Employment Exchange. He

claims ignorance whether anyone else by name Mohan is employed anywhere. That he is not related to Mohan

employed in OFK. That he got employment on the basis of his Employment Card. In his statement, MVSR

Murthy says he got information about E Card No. 13603/67, 13663/67 from records available. Card No.

13603/67 pertain to Mohan S/o Jhukai Card No. 13663/67 pertain to Raghunath S/o Shiv Chamar. The address

of both persons are given in his statement. In his cross-examination, said witness says as per existing records,

there is no entry w.r.t. Card No. S-13603/67. That there is no entry w.r.t. Card No. S-13663/67. The record are

not available. Witness was unable to tell whether Card No. S-13663/67 was bearing seal of Employment

Exchange.

12. Two witnesses Maniklal and Kallo were examined as Defence Witnesses. Their whole evidence is

devoted on the point that Mohan working in OFK was residing in their locality. They were unable to tell other

details of family of said Mohan. Evidence on record clearly shows that Card No. S-13603/67 was issued in

name of Mohan working in GIF and not in name of workman. Card No. 13663/67 was issued in name of

Raghunath and not in name of workman. Workman had submitted call letter in which Card No. 13603/67 was

mentioned. As per statement of management’s witness Sadasivan, when workman was called for interview he

submitted Employment Exchange Card No. 13663/67. As per evidence, said card was issued in name of

Raghunath. Any of the Employment Exchange Card were not issued in name of workman. It is clear that

workman had secured employment on basis of Employment Exchange Card issued in name of other person.

Evidence is clear that workman had not impersonated. Information was given by workman in attestation form.

He had put his thump mark. Management’s witness R.C.Sakhare, LDC when prepared service book,

workman had not submitted documents about educational qualification, Employment Exchange Card was not

produced. The evidence in enquiry proceedings proves that Ist party workman secured employment as labour

B Grade on the basis of Employment Exchange Card in name of other persons and as such adopting unfair

means. However charge of impersonation cannot be proved. Charge No.2 about submitting false declaration

also cannot be proved. As management’s witness Sakhare LDC did not take care while preparing service

book. evidence doesnot show information submitted by workman in attestation form was false as Employment

(ii)

3863

Exchange Card is not mentioned in attestation form. Article 3 alleged against workman pertains to Ist party

workman functioning in OFK as labour B Grade when workman was not holding Employment Exchange Card

under which he claimed the employment conduct of workman is certainly of nature of unbecoming on part

Government Servant. In this regard, learned counsel for Ist party Shri Vijay Tripathi relies on ratio held in

case between

Union of India and others versus Gyan Chand Chattar reported in 2009(12)SCC-78. Their lordship dealing

with service law held standard of proof in Departmental Enquiry. The proof and suspicion are different.

Ratio held in case between Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others reported in

2009(2)SCC-570. Their Lordship held mere production of documents is not enough, contents of documentary

evidence has to be proved by examining witnesses.

Ratio held in both cases cannot be applied to present case. Evidence of management’s witness discussed above

is clear that either of the Card No. S-13663/67 & S-13603/67 were not issued in name of workman. Both the

cards were issued in name of other persons. there is no question of proving FIR. Findings of competent

authority are supported form evidence of management’s witness. Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri

A.K.Shashi relied on ratio held in case between-

R.S.Saini versus State of Punjab and others reported in 1999(8)SCC-90. Their Lordship dealing with scope of

judicial review held if there is some evidence to reasonably support finding of inquiring authority the court in

exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not reverse the finding on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.

In case between State Bank of India versus Ramesh Dinkar Punde reported in 2006(9)SCC-212. Their

Lordship dealing with scope of judicial review held re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible.

In case of State of Haryana and another versus Ratan Singh reported in 1977(2)SCC-491. Their Lordship held

in Domestic enquiry, strict rules of evidence not applicable but fair play and natural justice applies.

In case between West Bokaro Colliery versus Ram Pravesh Singh reported in 2009-I-LLJ-220(SC). Their

Lordship held standard of proof in departmental enquiry proceedings is different from that of criminal cases.

CCS CCA Rule 15(2) provides that Disciplinary Authority can disagree with findings of Enquiry Officer

giving the tentative reasons. Disciplinary Authority before disagreeing with the findings of Enquiry Officer

had given opportunity to Ist party workman for submitting his representation.

Considering ratio in above cited cases, evidence of management’s witnesses discussed above needs no re-

appreciation. Evidence is sufficient to establish partly charge No.1 and charge No.3 fully proved. Accordingly

I record my finding in Point No.1.

13. Point No.2- As per my finding in Point No.1 Article of charge No.1 is partly proved to the extent that

workman secured employment as labour Grade B on the basis of Employment Exchange Card issued in name

of other person. Such conduct on his part is of nature of unbecoming on part of Government servant. Question

remains for consideration is whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Charge of

impersonation is not established. Evidence on record is clear that workman had secured employment using

Employment Exchange Card of other persons. However he had not submitted false information in attestation

form workman had put his thump mark on attestation form. The gravity of the charges proved against

workman is of lesser gravity than original charges alleged against him about personation and submitting false

declaration. Evidence of management’s witness Sakhare LDC was not diligent while preparing service book

of Ist party workman. Workman was engaged as labour Grade B since 2-1-84 till his removal from 29-7-99 for

about 15 years. Considering above aspects of the matter, punishment of removal from service appears too

harsh. In my considered view, the punishment of removal deserves to be modified to compulsory retirement.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

14. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the management of Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur (MP) in removing the services of

Shri Mohan is not legal. Punishment of removal is modified to punishment of compulsory retirement.

(2) 2^nd party is directed to allow all retiral benefits to workman as per rules.

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

3864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 2

twu] 2017

1585

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ofj"B

v/h{kd VsyhxzkiQ ;krk;kr

]

bankS

,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa 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;]

tcyiq

j ds iapkV (

dsl la

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@

@20

) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 0

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la

,y&4

@20

&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsUæ tks

'kh

]

mi funs

'kd

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2017

S.O. 1585.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Case No. CGIT/LC/R/26/2002) of the Central Government Industrial

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

relation to the Senior Superintendent Telegraph Traffic, Indore and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 08.06.2017.

[No. L-40012/274/2001-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/26/2002

Smt. Rekha Bai, Deepak Saxena,

Ankit Saxena, Anjali Saxena- LRs of

Late Shri S.N.Saxena,

C/o Shri Dinesh Nigam,

Lokmanya Tilak School,

Opp Lind Gate, Vivekanand Colony,

Chitragupt Bhaw,

Ujjain

…Workman

Versus

Sr. Supdt. Telegraph Traffic,

Indore Division,

Indore

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 27^th day of April, 2017

As per letter dated 23-1-2002 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-40012/274/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Sr.Supdt. Telegraphy Traffic, Indore Division, Indore in

terminating the services of Shri S.N.Saxena w.e.f. 1-5-84 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled for?”

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 4/1

to 4/2. Case of workman is that in 1972, he was engaged on daily wages, his services were confirmed as telegraphman

on 24-4-84. That his services were terminated on 25-2-85 without any reasons. That he completed 240 days continuous

service during each of the year. At the time of termination of his services, he was not served notice. Salary in lieu of

notice was not paid to him, he was not paid retrenchment compensation. After termination of his service, junior

employees were continued. Policy of first come last go was not followed. Termination of his service is in violation of

Section 25 N of ID Act. Workman further submits he was not given termination order in writing as per the standing

orders. He was not served chargesheet, enquiry was not conducted against him. On complaint by 2^nd party, he was

prosecuted for offence under Section 420, 468, 465 IPC in Criminal Case 73/99 before JFC, Ujjain. He was acquitted in

(ii)

3865

said case on 3-8-00. Termination of his service is illegal. On above contentions, Ist party prays for his reinstatement

with backwages.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/3 opposing claim of Ist party. That schedule of reference

shows termination of Ist party on 1-5-84. Services of Ist party were terminated on 25-2-85 and not on 1-5-84. The

services of Ist party were terminated on 25-2-85 and not on 1-5-84 as referred. Therefore reference has become invalid

and infructuous. 2^nd party further contends that workman was not engaged on daily wages as claimed by workman. If

workman as appointed on temporary basis on 1-5-84 as per letter dated 24-4-84. The contentions of workman in

statement of claim are incorrect. As per letter dated 22-2-85 from Sr. Suptd. Telegraph, office Indore, services of

workman were terminated on 25-2-85. 2^nd party denies that termination of workman is illegal. It is contented that

workman was habitually remaining absent and not performing his duty. His performance was poor. That in letter of

appointment dated 24-4-84, the services of workman can be terminated nay time without notice or assigning any

reasons. During service period, workman was charged for offence under 465 IPC as he produced false marksheet for

getting job. Workman was imprisoned for some months. It is alleged that workman was involved in rash driving and

other illegal activities. Management has lost confidence in workman due to said behaviour. Workman is not entitled to

any relief. His claim deserves to be dismissed.

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

Sr.Supdt. Telegraphy Traffic, Indore Division,

Indore in terminating the services of Shri

S.N.Saxena w.e.f. 1-5-84 is justified ?

Termination of workman from 22-2-85 is illegal.

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

As per final order.

REASONS

Point No.1 The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman on 1-5-84. In

Written Statement, 2^nd party has contented that workman was not terminated on 1-5-84 rather he was terminated on

22-2-85. Termination of workman on 22-2-85 is not in dispute between parties. The date of termination mentioned in

the schedule 1-5-84 is incorrect. It will not render dispute under re3ference illegal.

On the point, learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri R.S. Khare relies on ratio held in case between-

Tata Iron & Steel Co.Ltd. reported in 2014-1-SCC L&S-183. Their Lordship considered that reference is to be

worded. Reference presupposing respondent workmen are employees of appellant and that their services have been

transferred to M/s. L. held is clearly defective as it doesnot take care of the correct and precise nature of dispute

between the parties. On these suppositions, the limited scope of adjudication is confined to decide as to whether the

appellant is under an obligation to take back these workmen in service. Their Lordship quashed the reference,

directions issued to the Government to make fresh reference incorporating the real essence of the dispute without

prejudging issues from either perspective.

Ratio cannot be applied to case at hand. the date of termination shown in the order of reference is incorrect

1-5-84, the services of workman were undisputedly terminated on 22-2-85. Turning to merits of the controversy

between parties whether termination of workman is illegal, evidence on record needs to be considered.

Ist party filed affidavit of his evidence stating that he was engaged on daily wages in 1972. On 24-4-82, he was

appointed as telegraphman issuing the appointment order. his services were terminated on 25-2-85. He worked more

than 240 days during each of the years. That more than 100 employees are working in 2^nd party. Without holding

enquiry, his services were terminated, he was paid retrenchment compensation. Chargesheet was not issued to him. He

was prosecuted in criminal case 73/99 for offence under Section 420, 468, 465. He was acquitted in criminal case on

3-8-00. That he received order dated 11-11-75, he was continued in service. Termination of his service on 25-2-85 is

illegal. Ist party workman in his cross says he passed 8^th standard. He knows title English he had filed statement of

claim after receiving copy of order of reference. He had read order of appointment and attended duty at Ujjain.

Workman has admitted contents of Exhibit M-1 are correct.

Management’s filed affidavit of witness stating that he was appointed on daily wages on 24-4-84. His services

were terminated on 22-2-85. He completed more than 240 days continuous service. His services were not terminated on

1-5-84. That he had worked more than 240 days. Management’s witness in his cross says that workman has produced

bogus documents of passing 8^th standard exam. Bogus marksheet was produced therefore services of workman were

3866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

terminated. Any document is not available in that regard. In order of termination Exhibit W-1, reasons for termination

are not mentioned. Management’s witness explained that service record of workman as not proper. He was remaining

absent from duty. Therefore his services were terminated. Above reasons are not mentioned in order of termination

Exhibit W-2. Remaining absent from duty is covered as misconduct. There is no document that workman was served

with chargesheet or any enquiry was conducted against him. In reply to Exhibit W-3, management had written letter

Exhibit W-4. Management’s witness claims ignorance about the documents of 1975 and document dated 25-2-85. He

could not produce the documents. Management’s witness admits that documents about seniority are not available.

Workman was not paid retrenchment compensation.

Turning to documentary evidence, Exhibit W-1 is order of appointment dated 24-4-84 workman was appointed

as temporary telegraphman on temporary basis pay scale Rs.196-3-220. Exhibit W-2 is order of termination of

workman dated 22-2-85, W-29 is copy of same order of termination reasons for termination are not mentioned in

W-2(a) Exhibit W-3 is application submitted by workman for reinstating him in service after his acquittal in criminal

case on 3-8-00. Exhibit W-4 is letter given by management. Management had not taken any action after acquittal of

workman. The instructions were letter was forwarded to the central office for information and appropriate action.

Exhibit W-5 is copy of judgment in criminal case. Ist party workman was acquitted on 3-8-00. Reading of judgment

Exhibit W-5 shows that workman was prosecuted on report dated 22-7-85 by Sr.Suptd Telegraph, Indore. However it is

difficult to comprehend when report was submitted by Sr. Telegraph Indore on 22-7-85, how criminal case was

registered in 1999.

10.

Workman has produced appointment letter Exhibit W-6 which was issued on 10-11-75. Evidence of workman is

supported by Exhibit W-6 that he was appointed on 10-11-75. His services were terminated on 22-2-85. The evidence

of management’s witness that workman was appointed first time on 24^th April cannot be relied in view of appointment

letter Exhibit W-6. The evidence of management’s witness is about reasons of termination of service is not consistent.

His evidence is silent about prosecution of workman from report of Sr. Suptd, telegraph Division Indore. Evidence on

record shows that workman was continuously working since his appointment till date of his termination. Workman

worked more than 240 days during each of the year. His services were terminated without notice. Besides above,

workman was acquitted in criminal case as per judgment Exhibit W-5 in August 2000. On his application Exhibit W-3,

management did not take action, letter was forwarded to the superior authorities. Ist party workman is challenging

termination of his service on the ground that he was not paid retrenchment compensation. No enquiry was conducted

against him. Management’s witness in his cross says documents are not available about payment of retrenchment

compensation to workman or enquiry initiated against him.

11.

Learned counsel for Ist party Gehlod relies on ratio held in case between-

G.M.Tank versus State of Gujarat and others reported in 2006-SCC(L&S) 1121. Their Lordship dealing with

acquittal in criminal trial and sustainability of dismissal of employee concerned in case departmental enquiry and

criminal proceedings based on same set of facts, charges and evidence and witnesses. No evidence against employee to

hold him guilty. Employee honourably acquitted in criminal trial during pendency of proceedings challenged dismissal.

Finding to contrary recorded in departmental proceedings in such case held unjust, unfair and oppressive dismissal

order not sustainable.

In present case, 2^nd party management did not initiate enquiry. W.r.t. allegations that workman had produced

bogus marksheet of examination or his performance was not proper. Neither the management requested permission to

prove said misconduct. Considering ratio in above case, dismissal of workman after his acquittal in criminal case is

illegal.

Learned counsel for workman relies on ratio held in case between Jaipur Development Authority versus

Ramsahai reported in 2007(1)SCC(L&S) 518. Requirement of continuous work in terms of Section 25 B held the same

is not a requirement under Section 25 G and H.

Rather the case of workman is after acquittal in criminal case, he requested for reinstatement in service which

was not considered by the management. Ratio held in the case cannot be beneficially applied to case at hand.

12.

Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri R.S. Khare relies on ratio held in case between-

Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi and others reported in 2006(4)SCC-1. Their Lordship

dealing with casual labour/ temporary employee held such employees do not have any right to regular or permanent

public employment.

In view of Ist party workman was appointed in 1975 and confirmed in 1984 as per Exhibit W-1, 6 ratio held in

the case cannot be applied to case at hand.

13.

Considering evidence on record, it is established that termination of services of workman on 22-5-85 is illegal

for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman was acquitted in criminal case. Management did not seek permission

(ii)

3867

to prove any misconduct against him. Termination of services for any kind of misconduct without conducting enquiry

is illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.

14.

Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 termination of services of workman is illegal, question remains

for consideration whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Learned counsel for 2^nd party Shri

R.S. Khare relies on ratio held in case between-

Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and another versus Gitam Singh reported in

2013(2)SCC(L&S) 369. Their Lordship considering termination of daily wager working for short period of 240 days

only awarded compensation Rs.50,000.

In present case, workman was continuously working from November 75 till termination of his service 22-2-85.

Ratio held in the case cannot be applied to case at hand.

Shri R.S. Khare also relies on ratio held in case between MP State Agro Industries Development corporation Ltd

and another reported in 2006(2)SCC-716. Their Lordship dealing with casual labour and right to regularization held

that only because a temporary employee completed 240 days would not confirm any legal right for regularization.

That daily wager doesnot hold a post as he was not appointed in accordance with provisions of act..

Workman was appointed on 24-4-85 (W-1) . Again in 1975, as per Exhibit W-6), 2^nd party has not pleaded any

thing that the appointment of workman was contrary to any rules. Therefore ratio held in case cannot be applied to case

at hand.

As per ratio held in Batala Coop Sugar Mills Ltd versus Sowaran Singh reported in 2005(8)SCC-481. Held

ownus to prove 240 days continuous service lies on workman. Evidence of workman is cogent that he was continuously

working from 1975 till termination of his service on 22-2-85. Workman has already established 240 days continuous

service as discussed while dealing with Point No.1.

Shri R.S. Khare also relies on unreported judgment between Union of India versus Ravendra Chandra Banerjee .

I have gone through the above cited judgment. The facts of present case are not comparable. The judgment cannot be

applied to present case.

Considering that services of workman are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. After his acquittal

in criminal case, workman was not allowed to resume duty. In view of judgment in G.M.Tank versus State of Gujarat

and others reported in 2006-SCC(L&S) 1121, dismissal of workman is illegal and therefore workman deserves to be

reinstated in service. So far as question of backwages is concerned, workman was terminated in 1985. He did not

immediately raised dispute. Only after his acquittal in criminal case on 3-8-00, workman prayed for his reinstatement

and dipute has been referred on 1-7-02. Workman had died and his LRs are brought on record. Death certificate

produced on record shows workman died on 6-1-16. Therefore reinstatement of workman is not possible. Considering

date of termination and his acquittal in criminal case in August 2000, compensation Rs.2,50,000 would be appropriate.

Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.

15.

In the result, award is passed as under :-

(1)

The action of the management of Sr.Supdt. Telegraphy Traffic, Indore Division, Indore in terminating the

services of Shri S.N.Saxena w.e.f. 1-5-84 is illegal.

(2)

Management is directed to pay compensation Rs.2,50,000 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] 28 twu] 2017

1586

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,llhlh,y

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|

ksfxd

vf/dj.k

&lg&

U;k;ky;]

gSnjkckn ds iapkV (

lanHkZ la

23@2010)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

201

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[

,y&

22013

2017

&vkbZvkj (

)]

jktsUæ ¯lg

]

vuqHkkx

vf/dkjh

3868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2017

S.O. 1586.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. SCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.06.2017.

[No. L-22013/2/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 12^th day of April, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. NO. 23/2010

Between :

Sri Sandella Sampath,

S/o Rajaiah,

C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,

Advocate, Flat No.G7,

Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,

Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad

…Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Srirampur, Adilabad District.

The Colliery Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

RK-5 Incline, Srirampur Area, Srirampur.

Adilabad District

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Sandella Sampath who worked as Badli Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this

petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No. RKP/Per/R/008/5370 dated 24.9.2002 issued by Respondent

No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner

into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other

attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler on 7.6.2000 and he was regular to his duties till the end of the year

2000. But during the year 2001 Petitioner suffered with illness and other family problems. While the matters stood

thus, charge sheet dated 4.2.2002 was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner could

work only for 73 days during the year 2001, which amounts to misconduct under company’s Standing Order No.25.25.

Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time of the enquiry, the Petitioner was not given any

opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer

held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed

from service vide order No. RKP/Per/R/008/5370 dated 24.9.2002. It is stated that during the course of the enquiry the

Petitioner has categorically stated that his inability to perform his duties regularly during the year 2001 was only on

account of his ill-health and other family problems. But without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was

(ii)

3869

dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents management in dismissing the Petitioner

from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered 2

years of continuous service in the Respondents’ management. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider

his case sympathetically, but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to

approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No. RKP/Per/R/008/5370 dated 24.9.2002 issued by the

Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate

the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner

was appointed in the Respondents’ company on 6.7.2000 under dependent employment. He was dismissed from

service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of

natural justice. The Petitioner has attended the enquiry fixed and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given

full, fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the

principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry

Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry

report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to

make representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is

proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has

gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take

a lenient view and lastly, the Respondents were constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in

fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to

him, and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is

justified and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 20.12.2011.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in

support of their claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the

punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Sandella Sampath is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III.

If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner

submitted that due to illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely.

Even in his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above fact but it has not been considered during the course of

the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the

Petitioner. When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his illness, and other family problems he could not be able

to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing

punishment. The authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Petitioner, and has given capital

punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the

Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed

by the Respondents’ company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to

maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.

Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his

illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty, the Petitioner has

remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry.

In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed.

After dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family

members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 26 years, he is now aged

about 33 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the

Petitioner being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to work

under the Respondents, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service. Admittedly several

modes of punishment are enumerated in company’s Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a first offender and has worked

3870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for more than one year under the Respondent. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management

should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by

the Respondents for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the

management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Sandella Sampath is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10.

Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service

to Sri Sandella Sampath is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has

already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given

a chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the

sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances

atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondents’

management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the

opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only

entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents’ management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

ORDER

Proceeding No. RKP/Per/R/008/5370 dated 24.9.2002 issued by Respondent No.1 is declared as illegal and is

hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Sandella Sampath be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e.,

Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the

company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is also

directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.

The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman

shall have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 190 musters in a year and the

management shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short

fall of attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman will not be terminated and he will

be cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of

attendance during one year of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice

and enquiry. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/ Natural disasters,

taking treatment in the company’s hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will

be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for appointment afresh.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 12^th day of

April, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 28 twu] 2017

1587

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,llhlh,y

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; l

jdkj

vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k

&lg&

U;k;ky;]

gSnjkckn ds iapkV (

lanHkZ la

40@2010)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

201

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[

,y&

22013

2017

&vkbZvkj (

)]

jktsUæ ¯lg

]

vuqHkkx

vf/dkjh

(ii)

3871

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2017

S.O. 1587.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. SCCL

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.06.2017.

[No. L-22013/2/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 12^th day of April, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. NO. 40/2010

Between :

Sri Barla Jayaraj,

S/o Manthaiah,

C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,

Advocate, Flat No.G7,

Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,

Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad

…Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri,

Adilabad District.

The Dy. General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

MK-4 Incline, Mandamarri Area,

Mandamarri, Adilabad District

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Barla Jayaraj who worked as Badli Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition

under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company

Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No. MMR/PER/D/072/6749 dated 27.12.2007 issued by Respondent No.1

as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into

service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant

benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler on 21.3.2000 and he was regular to his duties till the year 2004.

But during the year 2005 the Petitioner suffered with ‘Ameebic Liver Abscess C Brondal Asther’ and other family

problems. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 16.10.2006 was issued to the Petitioner by the

Respondents alleging that the Petitioner remained absent during the year 2005, which amounts to misconduct under

company’s Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time of the enquiry,

the Petitioner was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing on such

lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry

Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No. MMR/PER/D/072/6749 dated 27.12.2007. It is

3872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 8, 2017/ASADHA 17, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

stated that during the course of the enquiry the Petitioner has categorically stated that his inability to perform his duties

regularly during the year 2005 was only on account of his ill-health and other family problems. But without

considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the

Respondents management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the

principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered 5 years of continuous service in the Respondents’

management. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the management

did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned

order No. MMR/PER/D/072/6749 dated 27.12.2007 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside

the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other

attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner

was appointed in the Respondents’ company on 24.3.2000. He was dismissed from service on proved charges of

absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The

Petitioner has attended the enquiry fixed and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full, fair and

reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of

natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer

submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and

the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to make

representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and

it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone

through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a

lenient view and lastly, the Respondents were constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact

the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him,

and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified

and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

The domestic enquiry conducted in the present case is held as legal and valid vide order dated 17.9.2011.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in

support of their claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the

punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Barla Jayaraj is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III.

If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No.I : During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner

submitted that due to ‘Ameebic Liver Abscess C Brondal Asther’ and other family problems, the Petitioner could not

be able to attend his duty sincerely. Even in his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above fact but it has not

been considered during the course of the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from

service was imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his illness, and other family

problems he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered

his case while imposing punishment. The authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Petitioner, and

has given capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s

Standing Orders.