REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY WEEKLY
] — —
No. 32] NEW DELHI, AUGUST 6— AUGUST 12, 2017, SATURDAY/ SRAVANA 15—SRAVANA 21, 1939
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
II— — ii
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
—दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2) की धारा 24 की उप धारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए कें द्र सरकार श्री भारत बी. बादामी, एडवोके ट को, मुम्बई, महाराष्ट्र के विशेष न्यायालय (सीबीआई के स) में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना (के .अ.ब्यूरो) द्वारा दायर आरसी 12(एस)/2015, सीबीआई, एससी-I, नई दिल्ली (शीना बोरा हत्या के स) और अपील / संशोधन और उनसे जुड़े अन्य मामलों के अभियोजन के लिए उनकी नियुक्ति की तिथि से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा काउं सेल को सौंपे गए मामले के निपटान तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।
[
II] 4607 GI/2017
(4565)4566 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2017
S.O. 1803.—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 Bharat B. Badami, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of RC 12(S)/2015, CBI, SC-I, New Delhi (Sheena Bora Murder case) instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (C.B.I.) in the Special Court (CBI Cases) at, Mumbai, Maharashtra and appeals / revisions and other matters connected therewith and incidental thereto for a period of three years from the date of appointment or disposal of the case entrusted to the counsel or till further orders whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 225/03/2017-AVD-II]
S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
—
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
New Delhi, the 1st August, 2017
S.O. 1804.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the Directorate General of Vigilance (Hqrs), Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi; North Zonal Unit, Directorate General of Vigilance, Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi and Lucknow Zonal Unit, Directorate General of Vigilance, Central Board of Excise & Customs, Lucknow under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80 percent staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-11017/1/2016-AD (Hindi-4)]
Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Jt. Director (O.L.)
(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1805.—भारतीय लघु उद्योग विकास बैंक अधिनियम, 1989 (1989 का 39) की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (2) के साथ
पठित धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री मोहम्मद मुस्तफा,
आईएएस (यूपी:1995), संयुक्त सचिव, वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग को पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवाII (ii) 4567 अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय लघु उद्योग विकास बैंक (सिडबी) के अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक (सीएमडी) के पद पर नियुक्त करती है।
[फा.सं. 17/4/2017-आईएफ-II]
सौम्यजित घोष, अवर सचिव
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 4th August, 2017
S.O. 1805.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section (6) read with sub- section (2) of Section 6 of the Small Industries Development Bank of India Act, 1989 (39 of 1989), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Mohammad Mustafa, IAS (UP:1995), Joint Secretary, Department of Financial Services as Chairman & Managing Director (CMD) in Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) on deputation basis, for a period of three years from the date of taking over charge of the post, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 17/4/2017-IF-II]
SOUMYAJIT GHOSH, Under Secy.
—
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2017
S.O. 1806.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Manish Kumar, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, St. Petersburg to perform the Consular services with effect from 25th July, 2017.
[No. T-4330/01/2017]
PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)4568 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] रेल मंत्रालय
(रेलवे बोर्ड)
नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2017
का.आ. 1807.—रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड), राजभाषा नियम 1976 (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) के नियम 10 के उपनियम(2) और (4) के अनुसरण में मध्य रेलवे के सोलापुर मंडल के लातुर रेलवे स्टेशन कार्यालय, जहां 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ्ान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है।
[सं. हिंदी 2015/रा.भा.-1/12/2]
के . पी. सत्यानंदन, निदेशक (राजभाषा )
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2017
S.O. 1807.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursurance of Sub Rule(2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language Rules, 1976 (use for the Official purposes of the Union) hereby, notify the Latur Railway Station Office of Solapur Division of Central Railway, where 80% or more Officers/Employeess have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. Hindi 2015/O.L.-1/12/2] K. P. SATHYANANDAN, Director (O.L.)
नई दिल्ली, 8 जून, 2017
का.आ. 1808.—रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड), राजभाषा नियम 1976 (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) के नियम 10 के उपनियम(2) और (4) के अनुसरण में दिल्ली स्थित राइट्स लिमिटेड के निरीक्षण कार्यालय, उत्तरी क्षेत्र, दिल्ली जहां 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ्ान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है।
[सं. हिंदी 2015/रा.भा.-1/12/2 भाग-I]
के . पी. सत्यानंदन, निदेशक (राजभाषा)
New Delhi, the 8th June, 2017
S.O. 1808.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursurance of Sub Rule(2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language Rules, 1976 (use for the Official purposes of the Union) hereby, notify the RITES LIMITED, Inspection Office, North Region, Delhi, where 80% or more Officers/Employeess have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. Hindi 2015/O.L.-1/12/2 Pt.-I]
K. P. SATHYANANDAN, Director (O.L.)
नई दिल्ली, 2 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1809.—रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड), राजभाषा नियम 1976 (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) के नियम 10 के उपनियम(2) और (4) के अनुसरण में मंडल रेल प्रबंधक कार्यालय/ रांची, दक्षिण पूर्व रेलवे, जहां 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ्ान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है।
[सं. हिंदी 2015/रा.भा.-1/12/2 भाग-II]
के . पी. सत्यानंदन, निदेशक (राजभाषा)II (ii) 4569
New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2017
S.O. 1809.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursurance of Sub Rule(2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language Rules, 1976 (use for the Official purposes of the Union) hereby, notify the Divisonal Railway Manager`s, Ranchi Office of South Eastern Railway, where 80% or more Officers/Employeess have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. Hindi 2015/O.L.-1/12/2 Pt.-II]
K. P. SATHYANANDAN, Director (O.L.) नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई, 2017 केंद्रीय सरकार, राजभा ाा (संघ के षासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में विद्युत मंत्रालय के प्रषासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन एसजेवीएन लिमिटेड के एसजेवीएन थर्मल प्रा. लिमिटेड, बक्सर थर्मल पावर प्रोजेक्ट, द्वितीय तल, नवदुर्गा कॉम्पलेक्स, अम्बेडकर चौक, बक्सर (बिहार)-802103 तथा देवसारी जल विद्युत परियोजना, एसजेवीएन लिमिटेड, डाकघर-थराली, जिला-चमोली, उत्तराखण्ड, जिनके 80 प्रतिषत कर्मचारीवृंद ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है।
अंजू भल्ला, संयुक्त सचिव (प्रषा.)
MINISTRY OF POWER
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2017
S.O. 1810.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify BUXAR THERMAL POWER PROJECT, 2nd Floor Navdurga Complex, Ambedkar Chowk, Buxer (Bihar)-802103 and DEVSARI HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT, SJVN Ltd., Post Office-Tharali, Dist-Chamoli, Uttarakhand of the SJVN Ltd. Under the administrative control of Minisrty of Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. 11017/10/2013-Hindi]
ANJU BHALLA, Jt. Secy. (Adm.)
पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1811.—के न्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप (ओड़िशा) से हैदराबाद (तेलंगाना) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा "पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन" बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और के न्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इस से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अत: अब, के न्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम,1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उस में4570 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री दिल्लीप कु मार महांति, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, तृतीय तल, आलोक भारती टावर ,शहीद नगर,भुवनेश्वर -751007, ओड़िशा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा I
| अनुसूची | ||||
| तहसील - रणपुर | जिला - नयागढ़ | राज्य -ओड़िशा | ||
| गाँव का नाम | प्लॉट नं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
नरसिंहपुर 2868 00 02 63
2869 00 05 68
2870 00 04 03
2870/4019 00 01 42
2823 00 00 70
2824 00 05 99
2822 00 00 97
2821 00 02 53
2820 00 01 95
2818 00 01 51
2819 00 02 13
2795 00 04 20
2792 00 00 16
2791 00 02 10
2783 00 02 27
2782 00 01 88
2949 00 00 20
2775 00 04 93
2962 00 00 92
2774 00 02 66
2773 00 03 47
2963 00 00 24
II (ii)
4571
2970 00 01 90
2971 00 01 97
2972 00 01 87 2974 00 04 04 2975 00 00 10 2975/4164 00 01 12 2765 00 01 22 2764 00 01 21 2967/4043 00 01 06 2754 00 01 01 2754/4029 00 00 87 2753 00 02 48 2979 00 00 80 2751 00 07 87 3012 00 00 95 3013 00 01 27 3011 00 00 10 3014 00 02 44 3015 00 03 24 3033 00 01 70 3032 00 03 32 3039 00 00 63 3031 00 06 78 3030 00 00 10 4040 00 01 72 3040 00 01 76 3042 00 01 85 3042/4158 00 01 59 3046 00 03 444572 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3045 00 00 873044 00 03 44
3065 00 02 80 3066 00 00 10 3070 00 01 58 3071 00 02 12 3074 00 02 22 3075 00 04 16 3076 00 00 41 3104 00 00 27 3103 00 04 07 3102 00 02 60 3170 00 01 45 3159 00 03 47 3169 00 01 30 3169/4154 00 00 88 3168 00 00 18 3160 00 05 24 3157 00 01 29 3156 00 02 52 3155 00 01 54 3154 00 00 37 3145 00 04 89 3144 00 01 52 3146 00 03 21 3133 00 00 10 3131 00 03 08 3127 00 03 94 2543 00 00 10II (ii) 4573 2561 00 00 95 2558 00 06 11
2559 00 05 91 2557 00 02 76 2560 00 00 11 2556 00 00 22 2563 00 02 81 2564 00 02 03 2588 00 04 00 2566 00 00 51 2567 00 02 49 2568 00 03 96 2569 00 03 77 2570 00 02 04 2573 00 03 14 2574 00 01 59 2575 00 04 30 4014 00 00 79 2578 00 00 54 2330 00 00 78 2581 00 00 62 2331 00 00 55 2205 00 05 01 2211 00 00 36 2204 00 05 44 2178 00 03 27 2179 00 04 13 2180 00 00 84 2168 00 01 084574 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2166 00 01 82 2157 00 00 10
2165 00 05 75 2171 00 00 68 2164 00 05 91 2163 00 00 13 2162 00 05 12 2172 00 00 69 2110 00 01 65 2110/4004 00 02 62 2111 00 02 05 2112 00 06 22 2113 00 00 10 2086 00 07 29 2087 00 00 16 2076 00 04 47 2075 00 07 26 2065 00 00 15 2064 00 06 15 1913 00 04 08 1914 00 00 24 1920 00 03 61 1921 00 03 31 1922 00 05 09 1923 00 05 24 1927 00 00 12 1924 00 02 54 1858 00 04 02 1925 00 00 37II (ii) 4575 1856 00 07 55 1855 00 02 16
1838 00 00 60 1839 00 05 96 1840 00 06 92 1835 00 02 84 1841 00 00 24 1830 00 0 10 1829 00 04 21 1829/4256 00 04 21 1824 00 00 46 1828 00 03 25 1827 00 02 81 1826 00 00 63 1695 00 01 15 1696 00 04 75 1702 00 04 23 1701 00 00 10 1722 00 00 10 1723 00 01 51 1724 00 02 57 1725 00 02 51 1719 00 00 11 1718 00 01 17 1717 00 01 66 1716 00 03 48 1730 00 00 27 1731 00 00 10 1713 00 04 204576 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1734 00 01 66 1735 00 03 56
50 00 05 28
46 00 01 67
43 00 00 65
47 00 01 58
48 00 04 68
40 00 07 66
41 00 00 10
39 00 03 00
32 00 00 44
33 00 03 13
35 00 01 71
36 00 01 98
करड़ापलि 145 00 11 58
148 00 02 88
149 00 02 96
159 00 04 18
151 00 04 42
154 00 04 37
175 00 03 26
176 00 08 80
190 00 01 56
189 00 02 43
194 00 00 15
195 00 04 27
193 00 00 10
198 00 04 16
II (ii)
4577
224 00 00 10
222 00 01 59
221 00 02 14
218 00 03 72
220 00 00 23
219 00 02 31
217 00 02 87
216 00 00 22
215 00 04 73
105 00 02 44
96 00 02 48
95 00 01 44
94 00 00 42
98/973 00 00 22
93 00 02 25
92 00 01 57
91 00 00 30
97 00 03 72
1 00 03 33
लतार 1182 00 03 26
1165 00 02 26
1178 00 01 01
1177 00 07 10
1174 00 03 28
1173 00 03 47
1147 00 06 89
1144 00 08 56
1143 00 00 34
4578 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1114 00 05 41
1120 00 09 67
1083 00 00 69 1082 00 02 95 1087 00 02 59 1077 00 06 77 1078 00 00 63 1076 00 01 82 1007 00 04 55 1009 00 05 86 1015/1208 00 07 19 1018 00 00 65 1017 00 05 81 1024 00 03 36 1029 00 01 27 1029/1239 00 00 94 1029/1243 00 02 11 1035 00 03 38 1039 00 04 03 1044 00 03 59 325 00 06 63 323 00 03 35 324 00 03 60 316 00 03 23 315 00 02 42 313 00 02 50 312 00 01 09 312/1254 00 01 14 306 00 05 74II (ii) 4579 307 00 00 37 279 00 02 99
277 00 02 66 276 00 01 45 270 00 01 46 265 00 02 95 266 00 00 10 255 00 01 68 255/1200 00 00 64 253 00 02 98 249 00 01 33 248 00 01 57 243 00 02 71 242 00 00 10 234 00 02 22 235 00 00 33 220 00 03 41 217 00 00 16 218 00 04 05 204 00 04 00 205 00 02 20 179 00 04 00 177 00 00 65 178 00 01 34 176 00 05 20 173 00 03 18 170 00 01 31 172 00 03 15 171 00 00 504580 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 117 00 00 18 118 00 05 07
110 00 03 90
119 00 05 89
108 00 01 09
109 00 05 54
99 00 02 64
100 00 02 27
70 00 02 42
बलरामपुर 937 00 00 16
937/1706 00 00 13
938 00 08 08
936 00 08 62
962 00 01 76
963 00 02 44
964 00 00 77
965 00 03 11
966 00 01 38
961 00 03 37
968 00 04 61
969 00 02 06
930/1640 00 00 20
930 00 04 44
1025 00 02 51
929 00 00 45
1026 00 04 64
1027 00 09 43
1030 00 01 98
II (ii)
4581
1054 00 07 83
1053 00 00 85 1064 00 07 78 1065 00 12 43 1085 00 01 01 1086 00 03 77 1087 00 05 50 1091 00 01 47 1092 00 02 63 1095 00 02 66 1107 00 03 62 1108 00 06 84 1117 00 05 15 1118 00 01 31 1119 00 00 10 1120 00 05 48 1121 00 00 81 822 00 05 34 824 00 00 73 821 00 04 10 811 00 05 84 809 00 04 86 804/1647 00 02 66 802 00 02 67 759 00 05 02 754 00 05 21 753 00 00 14 753/1669 00 01 23 746 00 07 814582 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 738 00 04 13 737 00 01 23
730 00 01 38 730/1673 00 02 53 729 00 00 37 720 00 04 59 719 00 02 00 721 00 00 10 717 00 05 30 716 00 07 82 708 00 06 26 653 00 00 97 654 00 03 58 655 00 00 52 656 00 03 81 657 00 02 98 387 00 00 40 387/1676 00 00 32 386/1568 00 05 55 398 00 19 64 363 00 02 53 363/1731 00 02 19 364 00 00 28 365 00 01 52 366 00 03 09 367 00 00 42 367/1661 00 03 79 362 00 00 10 362/1666 00 00 11II (ii) 4583 199 00 09 31 200 00 04 31
197 00 00 10
201 00 05 23
190 00 11 97
189 00 00 42
191 00 01 61
1 00 07 98
66 00 01 14
32 00 07 73
60 00 00 51
60/1678 00 00 51
33 00 04 09
59 00 01 54
35 00 05 47
35/1719 00 01 12
35/1721 00 01 12
43 00 00 87
44 00 20 32
45 00 00 29
46 00 00 70
47 00 01 12
48 00 01 04
बांकपुर 284 00 02 94
284/650 00 01 43
285 00 07 63
291 00 00 44
289 00 05 12
4584 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
277 00 05 21
276 00 05 62
268 00 01 75
275 00 00 90
269 00 07 66
270 00 09 43
255 00 01 36
254 00 02 54
253 00 05 40
252 00 00 59
251 00 04 17
250 00 00 87
249 00 01 16
श्यामघन पुर 637 00 07 32
668 00 6 92
667 00 01 35
660 00 05 06
665 00 07 17
664 00 01 81
649 00 00 7
495 00 06 28
496 00 03 63
497 00 02 26
494 00 00 42
490 00 14 08
478 00 02 62
479 00 00 32
467 00 12 66
II (ii)
4585
465 00 03 72
जगन्नाथ पुर 541 00 01 96
541/731 00 00 77
541/732 00 05 74
541/744 00 00 32
541/751 00 00 32
541/797 00 00 45
543 00 01 17
540 00 06 28
539 00 02 95
535 00 00 94
531 00 00 28
531/750 00 00 23
531/769 00 00 15
532 00 05 59
513 00 03 51
512 00 03 03
512/730 00 02 46
509 00 03 14
508 00 06 55
496 00 04 45
494 00 05 37
485 00 03 54
485/763 00 01 18
481 00 02 77
481/771 00 01 66
479 00 00 10
480 00 02 08
480/777 00 02 81
4586 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
453 00 04 43
450 00 04 63
435 00 06 86 427 00 04 79 427/725 00 01 48 427/746 00 00 13 424 00 05 16 416 00 05 45 409 00 04 90 410 00 01 66 395 00 02 87 391 00 03 44 393 00 01 52 392 00 02 29 390 00 01 67 376 00 03 46 375 00 00 17 370 00 00 48 371 00 03 63 362 00 03 52 361 00 00 10 361/765 00 00 10 359 00 06 89 350 00 00 75 349 00 01 57 348 00 03 05 345 00 05 02 342 00 00 26 342/719 00 00 29II (ii) 4587 86 00 09 67 87 00 04 48
87/724 00 01 13
87/727 00 01 86
87/741 00 01 72
87/742 00 02 81
87/743 00 01 13
87/783 00 00 71
89 00 04 48
71 00 00 10
70 00 04 93
91 00 00 91
68/705 00 00 10
69 00 00 96
64 00 01 85
64/711 00 01 06
64/712 00 02 12
64/713 00 02 12
64/740 00 00 10
51/680 00 00 19
52 00 04 60
51 00 03 15
53 00 00 20
54 00 04 04
56 00 05 71
45 00 06 16
सानगड़ 519 00 03 04
527 00 04 15
4588 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
528 00 03 07
525 00 02 92
513 00 00 21
524 00 05 95
523 00 04 24
515 00 07 06
516 00 09 14
484 00 09 66
486 00 01 25
487/1708 00 03 13
488 00 02 04
489 00 01 02
494 00 05 05
493 00 01 13
426 00 03 99
428 00 08 78
415 00 07 12
409 00 00 86
410 00 08 86
399 00 04 59
360 00 01 88
जदुपुर 317 00 01 58
293 00 00 87
292 00 03 39
291 00 02 31
290 00 03 19
289 00 01 69
274 00 06 92
II (ii)
4589
275 00 03 87
267 00 01 77
265 00 05 79
266 00 00 10
264 00 02 74
256 00 07 21
58 00 03 28
57 00 13 51
60 00 06 42
40 00 09 04
37 00 01 84
34 00 02 75
33 00 00 18
32/335 00 00 34
35 00 11 93
26 00 04 43
27 00 02 02
25 00 02 23
27/334 00 00 10
13 00 04 97
थाननगर 384 00 09 05
385 00 01 03
386 00 02 39
386/566 00 02 39
375 00 03 98
374 00 01 37
374/571 00 00 53
373 00 08 01
4590 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
391 00 00 10
366 00 10 56
365 00 03 39
362/551 00 00 10
362 00 00 10
363 00 00 61
364 00 04 64
399 00 04 94
399/582 00 03 26
316 00 00 10
317 00 08 12
318 00 00 71
335 00 01 79
334 00 04 79
320 00 05 64
320/539 00 00 60
311 00 00 10
310 00 04 15
310/545 00 03 13
1 00 04 05
पिम्पल 1552 00 01 92
1213 00 02 98
1212 00 00 71
1212/1751 00 00 71
1210 00 04 55
1208 00 00 46
1208/1755 00 00 46
1208/1754 00 00 98
1208/1758 00 00 98
II (ii)
4591
1220 00 04 31
1207 00 11 34
1204 00 04 29
1205 00 02 16
1202 00 00 92
1203 00 02 76
1196 00 05 27
1170 00 00 21
1195 00 05 24
1189 00 06 99
1188 00 00 10
1190 00 00 49
1187 00 04 47
105 00 07 24
103 00 00 76
104 00 07 46
कं किया 2554 00 02 23
2555 00 06 62
2559 00 01 96
2560 00 04 79
2561 00 01 11
2562 00 03 11
2551 00 00 29
2572 00 00 06
2563 00 04 72
2564 00 11 58
2542 00 01 81
2535 00 00 61
4592 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2530 00 00 11
2531 00 03 94
2532 00 03 33 2533 00 01 64 2522 00 00 08 2289 00 01 39 2288 00 02 16 2287 00 02 75 2286 00 04 21 2278 00 00 34 2279 00 03 61 2276 00 08 49 2275 00 00 09 2265 00 07 65 2266 00 01 82 2268 00 00 10 2255 00 01 14 2254 00 01 77 2235 00 00 41 2236 00 00 85 2234 00 00 11 2233/2617 00 04 92 2233 00 07 07 2230 00 00 03 2346 00 01 70 2229 00 06 49 2348 00 00 48 2227 00 07 42 2226 00 05 83II (ii) 4593 2351 00 01 00 2352 00 21 73
2369 00 04 81 2368 00 04 07 2367 00 01 92 2364 00 08 38 2365 00 02 34 2394 00 01 57 1926 00 08 06 1926/2698 00 07 19 1928 00 00 60 1958 00 03 47 1929 00 02 67 1957 00 10 20 1955 00 02 25 1956 00 01 29 1946 00 01 88 1951 00 00 96 1950 00 00 03 1949 00 01 18 1947 00 09 39 1945 00 00 33 1812/2650 00 03 40 1812/2649 00 01 45 1812 00 01 98 1820 00 08 89 1819 00 00 88 1821 00 00 94 1835 00 03 964594 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1833 00 01 80 1836 00 03 12
1837 00 04 88 1831 00 00 93 1838 00 11 89 1840 00 03 62 1839 00 01 52 1841 00 05 40 1842 00 06 36 1830 00 00 57 1843 00 03 67 1844 00 00 16 952 00 04 20 953 00 09 67 954 00 03 58 946 00 08 58 961 00 02 60 965 00 03 57 964 00 01 43 966 00 04 07 963 00 00 32 967 00 00 29 968 00 07 62 972 00 01 58 973 00 02 53 974 00 00 26 971 00 01 40 969 00 02 23 976 00 00 61II (ii) 4595 884 00 06 37
883 00 00 02 887 00 07 07 885 00 02 35 2615 00 01 67 886 00 00 27 880 00 03 32 875 00 04 40 874 00 00 97 876 00 02 11 873 00 06 86 725 00 00 45 872 00 00 07 870 00 01 63 869 00 05 69 871 00 01 43 867 00 03 66 866 00 02 31 862 00 04 89 863 00 06 01 864 00 00 10 821 00 00 39 817 00 06 80 816 00 00 82 815 00 00 26 818 00 02 79 813 00 00 12 814 00 08 02 809 00 06 604596 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 810 00 07 99
806 00 00 08
805 00 01 44
कोलथपांगी 342 00 01 85
51 00 49 50
252 00 00 55
261 00 00 31
52 00 12 63
143 00 02 65
146 00 03 85
145 00 03 84
150/328 00 00 69
158 00 05 65
157 00 04 25
196 00 00 03
161 00 02 35
193 00 02 48
194 00 00 76
162 00 00 01
192 00 02 67
189 00 02 16
190 00 00 86
191 00 01 00
283 00 00 07
171 00 09 68
172 00 00 79
बाउँ शगड़ 1961 00 14 54
II (ii)
4597
1975 00 07 28
1989 00 02 30
1974 00 02 72 1989/2257 00 02 43 1991 00 05 18 1992 00 06 35 1973 00 00 32 1972 00 00 17 1895 00 00 13 1994 00 23 73 1993 00 00 59 1825 00 05 36 1826 00 00 10 1824 00 02 25 1813 00 08 75 1814 00 08 04 1782 00 01 05 1782/2331 00 02 33 1783 00 01 09 1784/2239 00 00 38 1781 00 03 01 1784 00 01 19 1780 00 01 90 1779 00 03 98 1777 00 02 09 1778 00 03 58 1741 00 00 46 1742 00 09 08 1746 00 01 364598 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1744 00 06 74 1713 00 01 54
1714 00 01 66 1712 00 04 04 1706 00 00 01 867 00 02 07 1705 00 04 84 433 00 04 85 434 00 07 90 448 00 03 38 447 00 02 75 446 00 00 66 445 00 04 43 452 00 00 76 453 00 02 40 454 00 06 44 458 00 02 61 459 00 02 57 466 00 14 47 466/2240 00 00 74 351 00 02 66 351/2484 00 01 44 467 00 03 42 349 00 04 67 350/2263 00 02 70 347 00 00 10 348 00 06 25 297 00 05 97 296 00 01 99II (ii) 4599 567 00 08 61 566 00 01 74
568 00 11 89 569 00 02 01 570 00 00 03 571 00 02 10 582 00 00 56 576 00 03 99 572 00 03 80 575 00 02 19 575/2195 00 00 59 575/2205 00 01 95 630 00 05 34 629 00 06 27 628 00 05 38 627 00 00 43 658 00 02 47 658/2357 00 01 12 658/2329 00 00 94 656 00 00 04 643 00 05 14 641 00 00 17 640 00 07 27 639 00 08 88 645/2278 00 00 11 637 00 02 20 732 00 00 29 733 00 04 90 734 00 03 304600 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 739 00 03 53 740 00 01 85
741 00 01 41
742 00 01 54
743 00 01 24
744 00 01 10
745 00 01 37
747 00 00 55
746 00 03 92
756 00 01 12
808 00 03 24
757 00 00 16
807 00 04 73
818 00 02 37
819 00 06 51
806 00 04 33
822 00 00 07
821/2200 00 01 323
821 00 04 22
820 00 01 03
865 00 01 25
866 00 04 22
काकलमा 747 00 01 95
747/1029 00 05 85
747/1325 00 01 35
747/1347 00 04 50
763 00 00 78
747/1030 00 00 85
II (ii)
4601
766/1061 00 03 31 766/1060 00 04 75 768 00 11 64 769 00 00 11 739 00 02 00 739/1448 00 00 85 738 00 05 46 738/1449 00 01 14 734 00 00 81 734/1020 00 03 06 734/1021 00 01 25 733 00 03 58 735 00 00 65 725 00 05 07 732 00 10 29 726 00 02 79 726/1287 00 09 78 726/1323 00 01 14 584 00 01 09 583 00 00 96 582 00 00 77 809 00 06 51 810 00 08 23 811 00 00 60 808 00 02 78 814 00 08 00 813 00 00 10 817 00 05 15 819 00 01 554602 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 832 00 16 16
833 00 00 85 838 00 01 81 826 00 00 43 506 00 14 23 510 00 02 61 504 00 05 45 516 00 06 29 516/1435 00 02 03 516/1025 00 00 53 517 00 07 39 517/1414 00 02 20 517/1586 00 01 67 522 00 08 37 491 00 01 39 471 00 14 76 470 00 02 41 469 00 01 20 473/1193 00 00 53 473 00 01 54 473/1194 00 02 66 473/1195 00 04 96 473/1064 00 02 29 473/1207 00 01 04 473/1208 00 00 58 474 00 05 12 473/1209 00 02 03 474/996 00 02 57 251/1246 00 00 10 251/1247 00 00 19II (ii) 4603
252/1249 00 05 10 252/1248 00 01 95 252 00 00 80 252/1250 00 03 20 252/1251 00 01 43 247 00 00 54 271 00 15 18 272 00 02 28 270 00 02 72 278 00 00 76 279 00 03 22 280 00 00 10 282 00 03 16 284 00 07 93 228 00 03 40 228/1368 00 01 70 285 00 00 53 182/1116 00 12 78 182/1117 00 01 42 182 00 03 27 182/1115 00 04 00 184 00 12 58 186 00 09 80 187 00 04 06 188 00 04 02 173 00 18 11 189 00 00 59 189/1107 00 11 65 189/1106 00 07 95 173/1105 00 10 704604 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
173/1104 00 02 67
173/1103 00 06 79
173/1102 00 00 10
168 00 23 80
173/1099 00 01 86
173/1098 00 07 81
173/1097 00 11 31
171/1096 00 07 64
171/1095 00 07 01
160 00 00 10
157 00 04 11
139 00 04 07
139/1401 00 00 76
139/1402 00 00 53
140 00 08 06
141 00 04 56
137/1121 00 11 79
136 00 11 15
136/1581 00 02 99
136/1582 00 02 00
993 00 01 64
मर्धकोट 28/450 00 00 37
28/483 00 01 51
28/536 00 00 80
28 00 02 30
26 00 04 68
25 00 05 31
24 00 04 65
II (ii)
4605
गोपिनाथपुर 323 00 03 45
323/378 00 00 84
281/343 00 02 94
281 00 05 31
281/341 00 03 33
282 00 03 73
322 00 05 35
321 00 00 21
321/390 00 01 16
283/375 00 00 10
315 00 00 10
316 00 05 90
314 00 06 61
298 00 03 60
300 00 06 80
302 00 04 80
303 00 04 53
306 00 03 51
305 00 06 85
304 00 00 10
251 00 02 94
250 00 03 26
250/414 00 01 30
250/358 00 06 87
234 00 00 94
237 00 00 91
236 00 04 43
235 00 06 81
223 00 11 20
4606 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
219 00 11 31
218 00 04 12
218/419 00 04 12
194/356 00 03 92
194/357 00 07 23
194 00 00 19
193 00 01 60
192 00 11 68
191 00 08 50
190 00 06 10
188/348 00 02 16
188 00 08 34
186 00 05 23
187 00 17 78
खतिआ 3887 00 03 76
3889 00 04 37
3881 00 04 78
3874 00 03 92
3874/4663 00 03 92
3876 00 01 55
3875 00 04 63
3873 00 00 37
3872 00 00 28
3870 00 10 23
3871 00 04 18
3869 00 18 44
3627 00 06 41
3629 00 04 59
II (ii)
4607
3631 00 05 39
3715 00 05 83
3716 00 00 30 3709 00 01 06 3707 00 04 34 3708 00 00 40 3704 00 00 31 3705 00 04 29 3703 00 00 53 3697 00 02 47 3698 00 05 65 3696 00 00 98 3696/5870 00 00 48 3695 00 09 69 3745 00 00 10 3745/4607 00 00 10 3747 00 07 66 3749 00 04 79 3750 00 03 91 3535 00 01 12 2542 00 01 19 3534 00 01 10 3479 00 00 56 3478 00 02 04 3477 00 08 70 3425 00 00 13 3426 00 01 72 3476 00 01 59 3475 00 00 994608 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3463 00 00 113462 00 01 73
3431 00 01 14 3461 00 04 30 3460 00 05 11 3454 00 05 32 3457 00 00 29 3456 00 01 03 3455 00 01 50 3443 00 05 53 3442 00 00 10 3442/4344 00 01 84 3054 00 08 23 3055 00 01 16 3053 00 00 35 3056 00 08 54 2961 00 00 92 2960 00 05 82 2959 00 00 49 2956 00 03 48 2958 00 03 36 2929 00 05 30 2928 00 02 79 2930 00 02 38 2927 00 02 41 2926 00 06 80 2921 00 11 76 2842 00 01 58 2843 00 09 09II (ii) 4609
2845/4191 00 00 552845 00 00 13
2803 00 01 41 2802 00 00 44 2804 00 02 56 2801 00 00 10 2805 00 01 40 2811 00 00 64 2800 00 00 10 2806 00 01 25 2807 00 01 05 2808 00 01 29 2809 00 01 16 2811/4070 00 00 29 2810 00 00 10 2739 00 03 49 2737 00 00 76 2740 00 04 13 2736 00 00 31 2735 00 03 47 2684 00 01 76 2685 00 03 94 2733 00 00 25 2686 00 04 81 2683 00 01 21 2687 00 09 84 1612 00 06 88 1597 00 04 74 1611 00 00 204610 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1610 00 00 10 1609 00 01 05
1614 00 04 50 1615 00 00 52 1605 00 00 12 1604 00 00 10 1616 00 01 11 1603 00 01 27 1618 00 03 00 1602 00 01 28 1619 00 11 07 1498 00 00 36 1619/4144 00 01 61 1621/4136 00 00 30 1620 00 04 67 1471 00 00 17 1477 00 00 85 1476 00 10 67 1484 00 00 42 1486 00 00 66 1437 00 06 46 1436 00 00 24 1435 00 04 01 1435/4287 00 04 47 1434 00 01 35 1412 00 03 85 1411 00 00 10 1413 00 03 28 1414/4133 00 01 24II (ii) 4611 1414 00 03 98 1397 00 02 62
1398 00 00 44 1388 00 05 07 1387 00 01 24 1386 00 00 87 1385 00 01 30 1379 00 01 86 1380 00 04 27 1376 00 00 74 1381 00 02 32 1382 00 00 41 1648 00 00 92 1649 00 00 91 1650 00 01 11 1688 00 01 46 1706 00 09 18 1689 00 01 41 1690 00 03 70 1690/4420 00 00 90 1690/4595 00 01 63 1690/5900 00 01 63 1702 00 05 58 1702/4596 00 01 82 1701 00 00 85 1703 00 08 19 1774 00 01 87 1766 00 08 62 1765 00 00 124612 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1764 00 07 85
टनकापलि 35 00 03 22
39 00 03 82
36 00 01 60
38 00 00 10
37/576 00 04 96
40 00 01 57
40/617 00 00 35
40/629 00 00 29
40/631 00 01 34
42 00 08 93
42/416 00 01 59
42/604 00 01 89
42/628 00 01 72
42/630 00 01 03
48 00 05 04
47 00 05 50
43 00 00 93
45 00 10 08
44 00 00 62
56 00 21 12
117 00 02 24
140 00 04 46
160 00 03 48
159 00 01 75
161 00 01 95
158 00 00 10
157 00 04 06
II (ii)
4613
155 00 00 45154 00 03 64
171 00 00 17 172 00 06 67 152 00 00 97 173 00 00 21 151 00 02 11 179 00 00 31 150 00 01 61 149 00 04 15 180 00 05 57 188 00 03 75 186 00 00 45 187 00 10 38 198 00 09 08 193 00 00 98 197/584 00 03 56 196 00 08 18 282 00 00 10 283/553 00 03 85 283 00 02 78 288 00 00 86 291 00 01 17 292 00 01 31 296 00 02 81 297 00 02 40 298 00 02 68 299 00 02 34 300 00 02 334614 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
गोड़िमड़ा 1274 00 05 901273 00 01 04
1272 00 00 40 1271 00 07 10 1270 00 07 31 1269 00 04 10 1282 00 05 27 1285 00 22 38 1285/2000 00 09 77 1292 00 05 70 1293 00 03 82 1294 00 00 68 1295 00 08 06 1297/1942 00 00 88 1297/1943 00 02 88 1297 00 05 32 1298 00 02 49 1760 00 04 98 1300 00 01 55 1754 00 10 54 1755 00 00 10 1753 00 03 09 1752 00 04 50 1751 00 04 89 1742 00 01 53 1620 00 02 75 1619 00 01 58 1618 00 01 12 1614/1963 00 02 10II (ii) 4615 1615 00 03 19 1614 00 04 98
1610 00 03 46 1611 00 04 35 1606 00 02 09 1604 00 03 38 1605 00 01 57 1602 00 02 37 1594 00 08 01 1593 00 00 10 1592 00 03 66 1589 00 00 10 1590 00 02 62 1569 00 16 78 1575 00 00 30 1574 00 01 59 1572 00 01 35 1571 00 03 38 1570 00 08 94 1579 00 00 10 1550 00 01 95 1551 00 06 74 1554 00 03 66 1553 00 01 59 1555 00 04 21 1541 00 00 17 1540 00 01 29 1539 00 02 71 1538 00 01 834616 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1512 00 01 79 1513 00 14 95
1514 00 06 05
1463/1902 00 03 01
1467 00 01 75
1494 00 06 08
1493 00 06 29
1492 00 04 96
1488 00 04 07
1487 00 01 17
1473 00 00 76
1477 00 11 80
मालिसाहि 1178 00 02 25
1168 00 00 77
1167 00 01 15
1166 00 00 64
1141 00 00 40
1141/1562 00 03 60
1143 00 01 09
1144 00 06 23
1145 00 03 85
1150 00 00 10
1153 00 00 10
1152 00 01 49
1151 00 02 26
1119 00 01 36
1119/1564 00 01 59
1118 00 02 32
1118/1654 00 00 66
II (ii)
4617
1117 00 00 97
1085 00 00 10 1116 00 01 21 1114 00 01 81 1115 00 00 85 1113 00 04 02 1088 00 04 02 1089 00 03 74 1092 00 00 29 1091 00 00 88 1090 00 00 88 680 00 00 18 698 00 01 29 682 00 06 47 683 00 06 47 685 00 08 32 692 00 00 10 686 00 00 10 687 00 11 77 688 00 01 20 471 00 02 10 468 00 01 84 467 00 00 93 469 00 03 60 470 00 01 16 258 00 02 84 257 00 00 29 259/1552 00 00 29 259 00 14 454618 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
143/1610 00 00 16142 00 02 93
144 00 02 66
140 00 00 61
145 00 03 04
152 00 00 10
146 00 03 60
129 00 00 73
128 00 01 82
130 00 01 00
131 00 00 21
127 00 04 71
126 00 04 03
100 00 03 56
99 00 03 03
73 00 04 95
73/1545 00 07 62
74 00 05 70
72 00 00 25
71 00 02 81
64 00 02 76
65 00 03 56
66 00 07 18
67 00 03 09
रंकदेउलि 266 00 00 94
266/1979 00 00 99
267 00 08 03
268 00 03 51
II (ii)
4619
167 00 02 68
166 00 02 29
170 00 00 10 164 00 02 67 165 00 01 76 161 00 01 67 162 00 03 56 160 00 07 02 160/1980 00 01 24 160/2066 00 06 40 157/1760 00 00 19 156 00 03 16 156/1970 00 03 15 157 00 00 85 138 00 00 84 136 00 00 82 135 00 00 37 134 00 03 02 139 00 04 60 133 00 05 86 140 00 00 25 128 00 02 58 129 00 01 03 130 00 01 59 106 00 00 93 107 00 01 63 103 00 01 04 108 00 02 02 102 00 01 734620 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 94 00 00 71 100 00 02 37
95/1856 00 00 65
96 00 04 70
95 00 00 58
85 00 04 63
83 00 03 22
57 00 00 10
57/1846 00 03 11
58 00 02 21
59 00 03 31
61 00 03 39
60 00 00 10
62 00 00 10
63 00 01 81
64 00 02 62
16 00 00 79
65 00 02 89
66 00 02 94
15 00 00 55
बादभुइँ 1198/1361 00 01 20
1198/1411 00 01 56
1198/1412 00 10 06
1198 00 20 74
1200 00 03 05
1199 00 00 15
1165 00 01 57
1165/1365 00 00 24
II (ii)
4621
1155 00 02 05
1156 00 00 95 1153 00 00 43 1157 00 03 30 1158 00 03 05 1159 00 02 65 1118 00 04 09 1106 00 03 83 1115 00 00 10 376 00 11 60 1111 00 05 75 380 00 02 34 381 00 02 21 379 00 02 06 378 00 01 18 382 00 03 64 383 00 00 10 325 00 00 96 326 00 02 26 327 00 01 22 328 00 01 96 323 00 01 20 324 00 02 56 404 00 06 44 403 00 00 47 406 00 01 37 407 00 04 58 408 00 01 09 410 00 00 594622 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 412 00 00 43
411 00 00 91 415 00 03 26 427 00 00 21 430 00 01 38 429 00 02 85 426 00 00 10 428 00 08 58 438 00 02 29 584 00 00 16 444 00 01 97 583 00 09 88 580 00 09 98 567 00 00 10 564 00 00 93 563 00 06 43 560 00 00 80 561 00 02 43 562 00 00 36 193 00 02 96 559 00 01 62 558 00 00 51 682 00 01 34 683 00 05 58 684 00 01 79 685 00 02 28 688 00 00 10 687 00 02 44 687/1414 00 01 22II (ii) 4623 690 00 02 53
691 00 02 63 695 00 00 10 918 00 01 23 763 00 02 54 762 00 04 92 759 00 01 46 760 00 07 16 715 00 01 80 757 00 01 07 719 00 06 46 756 00 00 10 723 00 03 99 722 00 00 51 724 00 09 78 725 00 00 64 727 00 08 46 727/1380 00 00 52 728 00 07 94 737 00 05 24 731 00 00 31 732 00 01 21 734 00 03 51 735 00 00 90 829 00 01 57
[फा.सं. आर-25011/25/2017-ओआर-I/13717]
पवन कु मार, अवर सचिव4624 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2017
S.O. 1811.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip (Odisha) to Hyderabad (Telangana),"Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline" should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Dillip Kumar Mohanty, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 3rd Floor, Alok Bharati Tower, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar- 751007, (Odisha).
| SCHEDULE | ||||
| Tehsil : RANAPUR | District : NAYAGARH | State : ODISHA | ||
| Name of the Village | Plot No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
NARASINHAPUR 2868 00 02 63
2869 00 05 68
2870 00 04 03
2870/4019 00 01 42
2823 00 00 70
2824 00 05 99
2822 00 00 97
2821 00 02 53
2820 00 01 95
2818 00 01 51
2819 00 02 13
2795 00 04 20
2792 00 00 16
2791 00 02 10
2783 00 02 27
2782 00 01 88
2949 00 00 20
2775 00 04 93
II (ii)
4625
2773 00 03 47
2963 00 00 24
2964 00 02 36 2970 00 01 90 2971 00 01 97 2972 00 01 87 2974 00 04 04 2975 00 00 10 2975/4164 00 01 12 2765 00 01 22 2764 00 01 21 2967/4043 00 01 06 2754 00 01 01 2754/4029 00 00 87 2753 00 02 48 2979 00 00 80 2751 00 07 87 3012 00 00 95 3013 00 01 27 3011 00 00 10 3014 00 02 44 3015 00 03 24 3033 00 01 70 3032 00 03 32 3039 00 00 63 3031 00 06 78 3030 00 00 10 4040 00 01 72 3040 00 01 76 3042 00 01 85 3042/4158 00 01 59 3046 00 03 44 3043 00 00 63 3045 00 00 87 3044 00 03 44 3065 00 02 80 3066 00 00 10 3070 00 01 584626 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3074 00 02 22 3075 00 04 16
3076 00 00 41 3104 00 00 27 3103 00 04 07 3102 00 02 60 3170 00 01 45 3159 00 03 47 3169 00 01 30 3169/4154 00 00 88 3168 00 00 18 3160 00 05 24 3157 00 01 29 3156 00 02 52 3155 00 01 54 3154 00 00 37 3145 00 04 89 3144 00 01 52 3146 00 03 21 3133 00 00 10 3131 00 03 08 3127 00 03 94 2543 00 00 10 2544 00 06 26 2561 00 00 95 2558 00 06 11 2559 00 05 91 2557 00 02 76 2560 00 00 11 2556 00 00 22 2563 00 02 81 2564 00 02 03 2588 00 04 00 2566 00 00 51 2567 00 02 49 2568 00 03 96 2569 00 03 77 2570 00 02 04II (ii) 4627 2575 00 04 30
4014 00 00 79 2578 00 00 54 2330 00 00 78 2581 00 00 62 2331 00 00 55 2205 00 05 01 2211 00 00 36 2204 00 05 44 2178 00 03 27 2179 00 04 13 2180 00 00 84 2168 00 01 08 2167 00 02 45 2166 00 01 82 2157 00 00 10 2165 00 05 75 2171 00 00 68 2164 00 05 91 2163 00 00 13 2162 00 05 12 2172 00 00 69 2110 00 01 65 2110/4004 00 02 62 2111 00 02 05 2112 00 06 22 2113 00 00 10 2086 00 07 29 2087 00 00 16 2076 00 04 47 2075 00 07 26 2065 00 00 15 2064 00 06 15 1913 00 04 08 1914 00 00 24 1920 00 03 61 1921 00 03 31 1922 00 05 094628 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1927 00 00 12 1924 00 02 54
1858 00 04 02 1925 00 00 37 1857 00 03 70 1856 00 07 55 1855 00 02 16 1838 00 00 60 1839 00 05 96 1840 00 06 92 1835 00 02 84 1841 00 00 24 1830 00 0 10 1829 00 04 21 1829/4256 00 04 21 1824 00 00 46 1828 00 03 25 1827 00 02 81 1826 00 00 63 1695 00 01 15 1696 00 04 75 1702 00 04 23 1701 00 00 10 1722 00 00 10 1723 00 01 51 1724 00 02 57 1725 00 02 51 1719 00 00 11 1718 00 01 17 1717 00 01 66 1716 00 03 48 1730 00 00 27 1731 00 00 10 1713 00 04 20 1733 00 04 02 1734 00 01 66 1735 00 03 56 50 00 05 28II (ii) 4629 47 00 01 58 48 00 04 68
40 00 07 66
41 00 00 10
39 00 03 00
32 00 00 44
33 00 03 13
35 00 01 71
36 00 01 98
KARARAPALI 145 00 11 58
148 00 02 88
149 00 02 96
159 00 04 18
151 00 04 42
154 00 04 37
175 00 03 26
176 00 08 80
190 00 01 56
189 00 02 43
194 00 00 15
195 00 04 27
193 00 00 10
198 00 04 16
238 00 17 16
239 00 01 40
224 00 00 10
222 00 01 59
221 00 02 14
218 00 03 72
220 00 00 23
219 00 02 31
217 00 02 87
216 00 00 22
215 00 04 73
105 00 02 44
96 00 02 48
95 00 01 44
4630 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
98/973 00 00 2293 00 02 25
92 00 01 57
91 00 00 30
97 00 03 72
1 00 03 33
LATAR 1182 00 03 26
1165 00 02 26
1178 00 01 01
1177 00 07 10
1174 00 03 28
1173 00 03 47
1147 00 06 89
1144 00 08 56
1143 00 00 34
1116 00 09 80
1114 00 05 41
1120 00 09 67
1083 00 00 69
1082 00 02 95
1087 00 02 59
1077 00 06 77
1078 00 00 63
1076 00 01 82
1007 00 04 55
1009 00 05 86
1015/1208 00 07 19
1018 00 00 65
1017 00 05 81
1024 00 03 36
1029 00 01 27
1029/1239 00 00 94
1029/1243 00 02 11
1035 00 03 38
1039 00 04 03
1044 00 03 59
325 00 06 63
II (ii)
4631
316 00 03 23
315 00 02 42
313 00 02 50 312 00 01 09 312/1254 00 01 14 306 00 05 74 310 00 00 10 307 00 00 37 279 00 02 99 277 00 02 66 276 00 01 45 270 00 01 46 265 00 02 95 266 00 00 10 255 00 01 68 255/1200 00 00 64 253 00 02 98 249 00 01 33 248 00 01 57 243 00 02 71 242 00 00 10 234 00 02 22 235 00 00 33 220 00 03 41 217 00 00 16 218 00 04 05 204 00 04 00 205 00 02 20 179 00 04 00 177 00 00 65 178 00 01 34 176 00 05 20 173 00 03 18 170 00 01 31 172 00 03 15 171 00 00 50 116 00 07 52 117 00 00 184632 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 110 00 03 90 119 00 05 89
108 00 01 09
109 00 05 54
99 00 02 64
100 00 02 27
70 00 02 42
BALARAMPUR 937 00 00 16
937/1706 00 00 13
938 00 08 08
936 00 08 62
962 00 01 76
963 00 02 44
964 00 00 77
965 00 03 11
966 00 01 38
961 00 03 37
968 00 04 61
969 00 02 06
930/1640 00 00 20
930 00 04 44
1025 00 02 51
929 00 00 45
1026 00 04 64
1027 00 09 43
1030 00 01 98
1031 00 01 41
1029 00 05 15
1054 00 07 83
1053 00 00 85
1064 00 07 78
1065 00 12 43
1085 00 01 01
1086 00 03 77
1087 00 05 50
1091 00 01 47
1092 00 02 63
II (ii)
4633
1108 00 06 84
1117 00 05 15
1118 00 01 31 1119 00 00 10 1120 00 05 48 1121 00 00 81 822 00 05 34 824 00 00 73 821 00 04 10 811 00 05 84 809 00 04 86 804/1647 00 02 66 802 00 02 67 759 00 05 02 754 00 05 21 753 00 00 14 753/1669 00 01 23 746 00 07 81 745 00 02 40 738 00 04 13 737 00 01 23 730 00 01 38 730/1673 00 02 53 729 00 00 37 720 00 04 59 719 00 02 00 721 00 00 10 717 00 05 30 716 00 07 82 708 00 06 26 653 00 00 97 654 00 03 58 655 00 00 52 656 00 03 81 657 00 02 98 387 00 00 40 387/1676 00 00 32 386/1568 00 05 554634 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 363 00 02 53 363/1731 00 02 19
364 00 00 28
365 00 01 52
366 00 03 09
367 00 00 42
367/1661 00 03 79
362 00 00 10
362/1666 00 00 11
208 00 01 43
199 00 09 31
200 00 04 31
197 00 00 10
201 00 05 23
190 00 11 97
189 00 00 42
191 00 01 61
1 00 07 98
66 00 01 14
32 00 07 73
60 00 00 51
60/1678 00 00 51
33 00 04 09
59 00 01 54
35 00 05 47
35/1719 00 01 12
35/1721 00 01 12
43 00 00 87
44 00 20 32
45 00 00 29
46 00 00 70
47 00 01 12
48 00 01 04
BANKAPUR 284 00 02 94
284/650 00 01 43
285 00 07 63
291 00 00 44
II (ii)
4635
277 00 05 21
276 00 05 62
268 00 01 75
275 00 00 90
269 00 07 66
270 00 09 43
255 00 01 36
254 00 02 54
253 00 05 40
252 00 00 59
251 00 04 17
250 00 00 87
249 00 01 16
SHYAMAGHAN PUR 637 00 07 32
668 00 6 92
667 00 01 35
660 00 05 06
665 00 07 17
664 00 01 81
649 00 00 7
495 00 06 28
496 00 03 63
497 00 02 26
494 00 00 42
490 00 14 08
478 00 02 62
479 00 00 32
467 00 12 66
466 00 02 07
464 00 07 33
465 00 03 72
JAGANNATH PUR 541 00 01 96
541/731 00 00 77
541/732 00 05 74
541/744 00 00 32
541/751 00 00 32
4636 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
543 00 01 17
540 00 06 28
539 00 02 95 535 00 00 94 531 00 00 28 531/750 00 00 23 531/769 00 00 15 532 00 05 59 513 00 03 51 512 00 03 03 512/730 00 02 46 509 00 03 14 508 00 06 55 496 00 04 45 494 00 05 37 485 00 03 54 485/763 00 01 18 481 00 02 77 481/771 00 01 66 479 00 00 10 480 00 02 08 480/777 00 02 81 453 00 04 43 450 00 04 63 435 00 06 86 427 00 04 79 427/725 00 01 48 427/746 00 00 13 424 00 05 16 416 00 05 45 409 00 04 90 410 00 01 66 395 00 02 87 391 00 03 44 393 00 01 52 392 00 02 29 390 00 01 67 376 00 03 46II (ii) 4637 371 00 03 63 362 00 03 52
361 00 00 10 361/765 00 00 10 359 00 06 89 350 00 00 75 349 00 01 57 348 00 03 05 345 00 05 02 342 00 00 26 342/719 00 00 29 343 00 01 71 86 00 09 67 87 00 04 48 87/724 00 01 13 87/727 00 01 86 87/741 00 01 72 87/742 00 02 81 87/743 00 01 13 87/783 00 00 71 89 00 04 48 71 00 00 10 70 00 04 93 91 00 00 91 68/705 00 00 10 69 00 00 96 64 00 01 85 64/711 00 01 06 64/712 00 02 12 64/713 00 02 12 64/740 00 00 10 51/680 00 00 19 52 00 04 60 51 00 03 15 53 00 00 20 54 00 04 04 56 00 05 71 45 00 06 164638 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 519 00 03 04 SANAGARH 527 00 04 15
526 00 01 13
528 00 03 07
525 00 02 92
513 00 00 21
524 00 05 95
523 00 04 24
515 00 07 06
516 00 09 14
484 00 09 66
486 00 01 25
487/1708 00 03 13
488 00 02 04
489 00 01 02
494 00 05 05
493 00 01 13
426 00 03 99
428 00 08 78
415 00 07 12
409 00 00 86
410 00 08 86
399 00 04 59
360 00 01 88
JADUPUR 317 00 01 58
293 00 00 87
292 00 03 39
291 00 02 31
290 00 03 19
289 00 01 69
274 00 06 92
288 00 00 10
275 00 03 87
267 00 01 77
265 00 05 79
266 00 00 10
264 00 02 74
II (ii)
4639
57 00 13 51
60 00 06 42
40 00 09 04
37 00 01 84
34 00 02 75
33 00 00 18
32/335 00 00 34
35 00 11 93
26 00 04 43
27 00 02 02
25 00 02 23
27/334 00 00 10
13 00 04 97
THANNAGAR 384 00 09 05
385 00 01 03
386 00 02 39
386/566 00 02 39
375 00 03 98
374 00 01 37
374/571 00 00 53
373 00 08 01
372 00 00 31
391 00 00 10
366 00 10 56
365 00 03 39
362/551 00 00 10
362 00 00 10
363 00 00 61
364 00 04 64
399 00 04 94
399/582 00 03 26
316 00 00 10
317 00 08 12
318 00 00 71
335 00 01 79
334 00 04 79
320 00 05 64
4640 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
311 00 00 10310 00 04 15
310/545 00 03 13
1 00 04 05
PIMPAL 1552 00 01 92
1213 00 02 98
1212 00 00 71
1212/1751 00 00 71
1210 00 04 55
1208 00 00 46
1208/1755 00 00 46
1208/1754 00 00 98
1208/1758 00 00 98
1220 00 04 31
1207 00 11 34
1204 00 04 29
1205 00 02 16
1202 00 00 92
1203 00 02 76
1196 00 05 27
1170 00 00 21
1195 00 05 24
1189 00 06 99
1188 00 00 10
1190 00 00 49
1187 00 04 47
105 00 07 24
103 00 00 76
104 00 07 46
KANKIA 2554 00 02 23
2555 00 06 62
2559 00 01 96
2560 00 04 79
2561 00 01 11
2562 00 03 11
2551 00 00 29
II (ii)
4641
2564 00 11 58
2542 00 01 81
2535 00 00 61 2534 00 09 46 2530 00 00 11 2531 00 03 94 2532 00 03 33 2533 00 01 64 2522 00 00 08 2289 00 01 39 2288 00 02 16 2287 00 02 75 2286 00 04 21 2278 00 00 34 2279 00 03 61 2276 00 08 49 2275 00 00 09 2265 00 07 65 2266 00 01 82 2268 00 00 10 2255 00 01 14 2254 00 01 77 2235 00 00 41 2236 00 00 85 2234 00 00 11 2233/2617 00 04 92 2233 00 07 07 2230 00 00 03 2346 00 01 70 2229 00 06 49 2348 00 00 48 2227 00 07 42 2226 00 05 83 2350 00 17 12 2351 00 01 00 2352 00 21 73 2369 00 04 81 2368 00 04 074642 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2364 00 08 38 2365 00 02 34
2394 00 01 57 1926 00 08 06 1926/2698 00 07 19 1928 00 00 60 1958 00 03 47 1929 00 02 67 1957 00 10 20 1955 00 02 25 1956 00 01 29 1946 00 01 88 1951 00 00 96 1950 00 00 03 1949 00 01 18 1947 00 09 39 1945 00 00 33 1812/2650 00 03 40 1812/2649 00 01 45 1812 00 01 98 1820 00 08 89 1819 00 00 88 1821 00 00 94 1835 00 03 96 1834 00 03 12 1833 00 01 80 1836 00 03 12 1837 00 04 88 1831 00 00 93 1838 00 11 89 1840 00 03 62 1839 00 01 52 1841 00 05 40 1842 00 06 36 1830 00 00 57 1843 00 03 67 1844 00 00 16 952 00 04 20II (ii) 4643 946 00 08 58 961 00 02 60
965 00 03 57 964 00 01 43 966 00 04 07 963 00 00 32 967 00 00 29 968 00 07 62 972 00 01 58 973 00 02 53 974 00 00 26 971 00 01 40 969 00 02 23 976 00 00 61 970 00 01 29 884 00 06 37 883 00 00 02 887 00 07 07 885 00 02 35 2615 00 01 67 886 00 00 27 880 00 03 32 875 00 04 40 874 00 00 97 876 00 02 11 873 00 06 86 725 00 00 45 872 00 00 07 870 00 01 63 869 00 05 69 871 00 01 43 867 00 03 66 866 00 02 31 862 00 04 89 863 00 06 01 864 00 00 10 821 00 00 39 817 00 06 804644 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
815 00 00 26818 00 02 79
813 00 00 12
814 00 08 02
809 00 06 60
808 00 01 75
810 00 07 99
806 00 00 08
805 00 01 44
KOLATHAPANGI 342 00 01 85
51 00 49 50
252 00 00 55
261 00 00 31
52 00 12 63
143 00 02 65
146 00 03 85
145 00 03 84
150/328 00 00 69
158 00 05 65
157 00 04 25
196 00 00 03
161 00 02 35
193 00 02 48
194 00 00 76
162 00 00 01
192 00 02 67
189 00 02 16
190 00 00 86
191 00 01 00
283 00 00 07
171 00 09 68
172 00 00 79
BAUNSHAGARH 1961 00 14 54
1962 00 02 07
1975 00 07 28
1989 00 02 30
II (ii)
4645
1991 00 05 18
1992 00 06 35
1973 00 00 32 1972 00 00 17 1895 00 00 13 1994 00 23 73 1993 00 00 59 1825 00 05 36 1826 00 00 10 1824 00 02 25 1813 00 08 75 1814 00 08 04 1782 00 01 05 1782/2331 00 02 33 1783 00 01 09 1784/2239 00 00 38 1781 00 03 01 1784 00 01 19 1780 00 01 90 1779 00 03 98 1777 00 02 09 1778 00 03 58 1741 00 00 46 1742 00 09 08 1746 00 01 36 1743 00 00 68 1744 00 06 74 1713 00 01 54 1714 00 01 66 1712 00 04 04 1706 00 00 01 867 00 02 07 1705 00 04 84 433 00 04 85 434 00 07 90 448 00 03 38 447 00 02 75 446 00 00 664646 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
452 00 00 76453 00 02 40
454 00 06 44 458 00 02 61 459 00 02 57 466 00 14 47 466/2240 00 00 74 351 00 02 66 351/2484 00 01 44 467 00 03 42 349 00 04 67 350/2263 00 02 70 347 00 00 10 348 00 06 25 297 00 05 97 296 00 01 99 295 00 00 09 567 00 08 61 566 00 01 74 568 00 11 89 569 00 02 01 570 00 00 03 571 00 02 10 582 00 00 56 576 00 03 99 572 00 03 80 575 00 02 19 575/2195 00 00 59 575/2205 00 01 95 630 00 05 34 629 00 06 27 628 00 05 38 627 00 00 43 658 00 02 47 658/2357 00 01 12 658/2329 00 00 94 656 00 00 04 643 00 05 14II (ii) 4647 639 00 08 88 645/2278 00 00 11
637 00 02 20
732 00 00 29
733 00 04 90
734 00 03 30
738 00 00 98
739 00 03 53
740 00 01 85
741 00 01 41
742 00 01 54
743 00 01 24
744 00 01 10
745 00 01 37
747 00 00 55
746 00 03 92
756 00 01 12
808 00 03 24
757 00 00 16
807 00 04 73
818 00 02 37
819 00 06 51
806 00 04 33
822 00 00 07
821/2200 00 01 323
821 00 04 22
820 00 01 03
865 00 01 25
866 00 04 22
KAKLAMA 747 00 01 95
747/1029 00 05 85
747/1325 00 01 35
747/1347 00 04 50
763 00 00 78
747/1030 00 00 85
764 00 07 84
766/1061 00 03 31
4648 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
768 00 11 64
769 00 00 11
739 00 02 00 739/1448 00 00 85 738 00 05 46 738/1449 00 01 14 734 00 00 81 734/1020 00 03 06 734/1021 00 01 25 733 00 03 58 735 00 00 65 725 00 05 07 732 00 10 29 726 00 02 79 726/1287 00 09 78 726/1323 00 01 14 584 00 01 09 583 00 00 96 582 00 00 77 809 00 06 51 810 00 08 23 811 00 00 60 808 00 02 78 814 00 08 00 813 00 00 10 817 00 05 15 819 00 01 55 818 00 06 67 832 00 16 16 833 00 00 85 838 00 01 81 826 00 00 43 506 00 14 23 510 00 02 61 504 00 05 45 516 00 06 29 516/1435 00 02 03 516/1025 00 00 53II (ii) 4649 517/1586 00 01 67 522 00 08 37
491 00 01 39 471 00 14 76 470 00 02 41 469 00 01 20 473/1193 00 00 53 473 00 01 54 473/1194 00 02 66 473/1195 00 04 96 473/1064 00 02 29 473/1207 00 01 04 473/1208 00 00 58 474 00 05 12 473/1209 00 02 03 474/996 00 02 57 251/1246 00 00 10 251/1247 00 00 19 252/1249 00 05 10 252/1248 00 01 95 252 00 00 80 252/1250 00 03 20 252/1251 00 01 43 247 00 00 54 271 00 15 18 272 00 02 28 270 00 02 72 278 00 00 76 279 00 03 22 280 00 00 10 282 00 03 16 284 00 07 93 228 00 03 40 228/1368 00 01 70 285 00 00 53 182/1116 00 12 78 182/1117 00 01 42 182 00 03 274650 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 184 00 12 58 186 00 09 80
187 00 04 06
188 00 04 02
173 00 18 11
189 00 00 59
189/1107 00 11 65
189/1106 00 07 95
173/1105 00 10 70
173/1104 00 02 67
173/1103 00 06 79
173/1102 00 00 10
168 00 23 80
173/1099 00 01 86
173/1098 00 07 81
173/1097 00 11 31
171/1096 00 07 64
171/1095 00 07 01
160 00 00 10
157 00 04 11
139 00 04 07
139/1401 00 00 76
139/1402 00 00 53
140 00 08 06
141 00 04 56
137/1121 00 11 79
136 00 11 15
136/1581 00 02 99
136/1582 00 02 00
993 00 01 64
MARDKOTA 28/450 00 00 37
28/483 00 01 51
28/536 00 00 80
28 00 02 30
26 00 04 68
25 00 05 31
24 00 04 65
GOPINATHAPUR 323 00 03 45II (ii) 4651 323/378 00 00 84281/343 00 02 94
281 00 05 31 281/341 00 03 33 282 00 03 73 322 00 05 35 321 00 00 21 321/390 00 01 16 283/375 00 00 10 315 00 00 10 316 00 05 90 314 00 06 61 298 00 03 60 300 00 06 80 302 00 04 80 303 00 04 53 306 00 03 51 305 00 06 85 304 00 00 10 251 00 02 94 250 00 03 26 250/414 00 01 30 250/358 00 06 87 234 00 00 94 237 00 00 91 236 00 04 43 235 00 06 81 223 00 11 20 222 00 09 22 219 00 11 31 218 00 04 12 218/419 00 04 12 194/356 00 03 92 194/357 00 07 23 194 00 00 19 193 00 01 60 192 00 11 68 191 00 08 504652 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
188/348 00 02 16188 00 08 34
186 00 05 23
187 00 17 78
KHATIA 3887 00 03 76
3889 00 04 37
3881 00 04 78
3874 00 03 92
3874/4663 00 03 92
3876 00 01 55
3875 00 04 63
3873 00 00 37
3872 00 00 28
3870 00 10 23
3871 00 04 18
3869 00 18 44
3627 00 06 41
3629 00 04 59
3630 00 05 63
3631 00 05 39
3715 00 05 83
3716 00 00 30
3709 00 01 06
3707 00 04 34
3708 00 00 40
3704 00 00 31
3705 00 04 29
3703 00 00 53
3697 00 02 47
3698 00 05 65
3696 00 00 98
3696/5870 00 00 48
3695 00 09 69
3745 00 00 10
3745/4607 00 00 10
3747 00 07 66
3749 00 04 79
II (ii)
4653
2542 00 01 19
3534 00 01 10
3479 00 00 56 3478 00 02 04 3477 00 08 70 3425 00 00 13 3426 00 01 72 3476 00 01 59 3475 00 00 99 3430 00 05 60 3463 00 00 11 3462 00 01 73 3431 00 01 14 3461 00 04 30 3460 00 05 11 3454 00 05 32 3457 00 00 29 3456 00 01 03 3455 00 01 50 3443 00 05 53 3442 00 00 10 3442/4344 00 01 84 3054 00 08 23 3055 00 01 16 3053 00 00 35 3056 00 08 54 2961 00 00 92 2960 00 05 82 2959 00 00 49 2956 00 03 48 2958 00 03 36 2929 00 05 30 2928 00 02 79 2930 00 02 38 2927 00 02 41 2926 00 06 80 2921 00 11 76 2842 00 01 584654 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2846 00 00 10
2845/4191 00 00 55 2845 00 00 13 2803 00 01 41 2802 00 00 44 2804 00 02 56 2801 00 00 10 2805 00 01 40 2811 00 00 64 2800 00 00 10 2806 00 01 25 2807 00 01 05 2808 00 01 29 2809 00 01 16 2811/4070 00 00 29 2810 00 00 10 2739 00 03 49 2737 00 00 76 2740 00 04 13 2736 00 00 31 2735 00 03 47 2684 00 01 76 2685 00 03 94 2733 00 00 25 2686 00 04 81 2683 00 01 21 2687 00 09 84 1612 00 06 88 1597 00 04 74 1611 00 00 20 1613 00 02 40 1610 00 00 10 1609 00 01 05 1614 00 04 50 1615 00 00 52 1605 00 00 12 1604 00 00 10 1616 00 01 11II (ii) 4655 1602 00 01 28 1619 00 11 07
1498 00 00 36 1619/4144 00 01 61 1621/4136 00 00 30 1620 00 04 67 1471 00 00 17 1477 00 00 85 1476 00 10 67 1484 00 00 42 1486 00 00 66 1437 00 06 46 1436 00 00 24 1435 00 04 01 1435/4287 00 04 47 1434 00 01 35 1412 00 03 85 1411 00 00 10 1413 00 03 28 1414/4133 00 01 24 1415 00 00 36 1414 00 03 98 1397 00 02 62 1398 00 00 44 1388 00 05 07 1387 00 01 24 1386 00 00 87 1385 00 01 30 1379 00 01 86 1380 00 04 27 1376 00 00 74 1381 00 02 32 1382 00 00 41 1648 00 00 92 1649 00 00 91 1650 00 01 11 1688 00 01 46 1706 00 09 184656 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1690 00 03 70 1690/4420 00 00 90
1690/4595 00 01 63
1690/5900 00 01 63
1702 00 05 58
1702/4596 00 01 82
1701 00 00 85
1703 00 08 19
1774 00 01 87
1766 00 08 62
1765 00 00 12
1768 00 09 30
1764 00 07 85
TANKAPALI 35 00 03 22
39 00 03 82
36 00 01 60
38 00 00 10
37/576 00 04 96
40 00 01 57
40/617 00 00 35
40/629 00 00 29
40/631 00 01 34
42 00 08 93
42/416 00 01 59
42/604 00 01 89
42/628 00 01 72
42/630 00 01 03
48 00 05 04
47 00 05 50
43 00 00 93
45 00 10 08
44 00 00 62
56 00 21 12
117 00 02 24
140 00 04 46
160 00 03 48
159 00 01 75
II (ii)
4657
157 00 04 06
156 00 04 2
155 00 00 45
154 00 03 64
171 00 00 17
172 00 06 67
152 00 00 97
173 00 00 21
151 00 02 11
179 00 00 31
150 00 01 61
149 00 04 15
180 00 05 57
188 00 03 75
186 00 00 45
187 00 10 38
198 00 09 08
193 00 00 98
197/584 00 03 56
196 00 08 18
282 00 00 10
283/553 00 03 85
283 00 02 78
288 00 00 86
291 00 01 17
292 00 01 31
296 00 02 81
297 00 02 40
298 00 02 68
299 00 02 34
300 00 02 33
301 00 01 71
GORIMARA 1274 00 05 90
1273 00 01 04
1272 00 00 40
1271 00 07 10
1270 00 07 31
4658 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1282 00 05 27
1285 00 22 38
1285/2000 00 09 77 1292 00 05 70 1293 00 03 82 1294 00 00 68 1295 00 08 06 1297/1942 00 00 88 1297/1943 00 02 88 1297 00 05 32 1298 00 02 49 1760 00 04 98 1300 00 01 55 1754 00 10 54 1755 00 00 10 1753 00 03 09 1752 00 04 50 1751 00 04 89 1742 00 01 53 1620 00 02 75 1619 00 01 58 1618 00 01 12 1614/1963 00 02 10 1616 00 02 08 1615 00 03 19 1614 00 04 98 1610 00 03 46 1611 00 04 35 1606 00 02 09 1604 00 03 38 1605 00 01 57 1602 00 02 37 1594 00 08 01 1593 00 00 10 1592 00 03 66 1589 00 00 10 1590 00 02 62 1569 00 16 78II (ii) 4659 1572 00 01 35 1571 00 03 38
1570 00 08 94
1579 00 00 10
1550 00 01 95
1551 00 06 74
1554 00 03 66
1553 00 01 59
1555 00 04 21
1541 00 00 17
1540 00 01 29
1539 00 02 71
1538 00 01 83
1537 00 02 88
1512 00 01 79
1513 00 14 95
1514 00 06 05
1463/1902 00 03 01
1467 00 01 75
1494 00 06 08
1493 00 06 29
1492 00 04 96
1488 00 04 07
1487 00 01 17
1473 00 00 76
1477 00 11 80
MALISAHI 1178 00 02 25
1168 00 00 77
1167 00 01 15
1166 00 00 64
1141 00 00 40
1141/1562 00 03 60
1143 00 01 09
1144 00 06 23
1145 00 03 85
1150 00 00 10
1153 00 00 10
4660 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1151 00 02 26
1119 00 01 36
1119/1564 00 01 59 1118 00 02 32 1118/1654 00 00 66 1117 00 00 97 1085 00 00 10 1116 00 01 21 1114 00 01 81 1115 00 00 85 1113 00 04 02 1088 00 04 02 1089 00 03 74 1092 00 00 29 1091 00 00 88 1090 00 00 88 680 00 00 18 698 00 01 29 682 00 06 47 683 00 06 47 685 00 08 32 692 00 00 10 686 00 00 10 687 00 11 77 688 00 01 20 471 00 02 10 468 00 01 84 467 00 00 93 469 00 03 60 470 00 01 16 258 00 02 84 257 00 00 29 259/1552 00 00 29 259 00 14 45 143 00 00 25 143/1610 00 00 16 142 00 02 93 144 00 02 66II (ii) 4661 152 00 00 10 146 00 03 60
129 00 00 73
128 00 01 82
130 00 01 00
131 00 00 21
127 00 04 71
126 00 04 03
100 00 03 56
99 00 03 03
73 00 04 95
73/1545 00 07 62
74 00 05 70
72 00 00 25
71 00 02 81
64 00 02 76
65 00 03 56
66 00 07 18
67 00 03 09
RANKDEULI 266 00 00 94
266/1979 00 00 99
267 00 08 03
268 00 03 51
168 00 00 17
167 00 02 68
166 00 02 29
170 00 00 10
164 00 02 67
165 00 01 76
161 00 01 67
162 00 03 56
160 00 07 02
160/1980 00 01 24
160/2066 00 06 40
157/1760 00 00 19
156 00 03 16
156/1970 00 03 15
4662 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
138 00 00 84 136 00 00 82 135 00 00 37 134 00 03 02 139 00 04 60 133 00 05 86 140 00 00 25 128 00 02 58 129 00 01 03 130 00 01 59 106 00 00 93 107 00 01 63 103 00 01 04 108 00 02 02 102 00 01 73 101 00 02 40 94 00 00 71 100 00 02 37 95/1856 00 00 65 96 00 04 70 95 00 00 58 85 00 04 63 83 00 03 22 57 00 00 10 57/1846 00 03 11 58 00 02 21 59 00 03 31 61 00 03 39 60 00 00 10 62 00 00 10 63 00 01 81 64 00 02 62 16 00 00 79 65 00 02 89 66 00 02 94 15 00 00 55II (ii) 4663 1198 00 20 74 1200 00 03 05
1199 00 00 15 1165 00 01 57 1165/1365 00 00 24 1154 00 00 17 1155 00 02 05 1156 00 00 95 1153 00 00 43 1157 00 03 30 1158 00 03 05 1159 00 02 65 1118 00 04 09 1106 00 03 83 1115 00 00 10 376 00 11 60 1111 00 05 75 380 00 02 34 381 00 02 21 379 00 02 06 378 00 01 18 382 00 03 64 383 00 00 10 325 00 00 96 326 00 02 26 327 00 01 22 328 00 01 96 323 00 01 20 324 00 02 56 404 00 06 44 403 00 00 47 406 00 01 37 407 00 04 58 408 00 01 09 410 00 00 59 409 00 01 19 412 00 00 43 411 00 00 914664 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 427 00 00 21 430 00 01 38
429 00 02 85 426 00 00 10 428 00 08 58 438 00 02 29 584 00 00 16 444 00 01 97 583 00 09 88 580 00 09 98 567 00 00 10 564 00 00 93 563 00 06 43 560 00 00 80 561 00 02 43 562 00 00 36 193 00 02 96 559 00 01 62 558 00 00 51 682 00 01 34 683 00 05 58 684 00 01 79 685 00 02 28 688 00 00 10 687 00 02 44 687/1414 00 01 22 689 00 00 69 690 00 02 53 691 00 02 63 695 00 00 10 918 00 01 23 763 00 02 54 762 00 04 92 759 00 01 46 760 00 07 16 715 00 01 80 757 00 01 07 719 00 06 46II (ii) 4665 722 00 00 51 724 00 09 78
725 00 00 64 727 00 08 46 727/1380 00 00 52 728 00 07 94 737 00 05 24 731 00 00 31 732 00 01 21 734 00 03 51 735 00 00 90 829 00 01 57
[F. No. R-25011/25/2017-OR-I/13717]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1812.—के न्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप (ओड़िशा) से हैदराबाद (तेलंगाना) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा "पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन" बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और के न्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि मे जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है ओर जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अत:अब, के न्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम,1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री दिल्लीप कु मार महांति, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, तृतीय तल, आलोक भारती टावर ,शहीद नगर,भुवनेश्वर - 751007, ओड़िशा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा I
| अनुसूची | ||||
| तहसील-कणास | जिला - पुरी | राज्य-ओड़िशा | ||
| गाँव का नाम | प्लॉट नं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
अँलाजोड़ि 1134 00 07 `03 4666 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1136 00 09 46
1137 00 02 `04 1347 00 13 33 1325 00 06 52 1326 00 00 10 1324 00 02 47 1328 00 03 00 1329 00 00 68 1317 00 02 75 1327 00 01 87 1331 00 00 63 1330 00 02 82 1314 00 10 70 1312 00 00 39 1315 00 04 71 1311 00 05 00 1310 00 03 49 1293 00 02 57 1294 00 08 16 1290 00 02 16 1295 00 03 60 1296 00 09 97 1284 00 05 37 1270 00 02 65 1272 00 18 36 1271 00 00 57 1263 00 01 49II (ii) 4667 1262 00 05 58
1246 00 12 51 1249 00 05 84 1247 00 02 16 1248 00 00 33 1250 00 04 74 1251 00 03 92 1252 00 04 33 1253 00 01 40
[फा.सं. आर-25011/11/2017/48396-ओआर-I/13764]
पवन कु मार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2017
S.O. 1812.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip (Odisha) to Hyderabad (Telangana), "Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline" should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Dillip Kumar Mohanty, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 3rd Floor, Alok Bharati Tower, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar- 751007, (Odisha).
| SCHEDULE | ||||
| Tehsil : KANAS | District : PURI | State : ODISHA | ||
| Name of the Village | Plot No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
ANLAJORI 1134 00 07 `03
1140 00 00 29
4668 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1137 00 02 `04
1347 00 13 33
1325 00 06 52 1326 00 00 10 1324 00 02 47 1328 00 03 00 1329 00 00 68 1317 00 02 75 1327 00 01 87 1331 00 00 63 1330 00 02 82 1314 00 10 70 1312 00 00 39 1315 00 04 71 1311 00 05 00 1310 00 03 49 1293 00 02 57 1294 00 08 16 1290 00 02 16 1295 00 03 60 1296 00 09 97 1284 00 05 37 1270 00 02 65 1272 00 18 36 1271 00 00 57 1263 00 01 49 1273 00 02 40II (ii) 4669 1246 00 12 51
1249 00 05 84 1247 00 02 16 1248 00 00 33 1250 00 04 74 1251 00 03 92 1252 00 04 33 1253 00 01 40
[F. No. R-25011/11/2017/48396-OR-I/13764]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1813.— के न्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप (ओड़िशा)से हैदराबाद (तेलंगाना) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा "पारादीप-हैदराबादपाइपलाइन"बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और के न्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि मे जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है ओर जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है,उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अत:अब, के न्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम,1962 (1962का 50) की धारा 3की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री दिल्लीप कु मार महांति, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, तृतीय तल, आलोक भारती टावर ,शहीद नगर ,भुवनेश्वर -751007, ओड़िशा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा I
| अनुसूची | ||||
| तहसील- पिपिलि | जिला - पुरी | राज्य -ओड़िशा | ||
| गाँव का नाम | प्लॉट नं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
सिउला 366 00 07 66
390 00 04 18
4670 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
364 00 05 38 364/2960 00 00 55 364/2969 00 00 30 364/2976 00 00 61 364/2983 00 00 61 364/2709 00 05 28 363 00 11 27 357 00 05 53 356 00 04 81 355 00 04 29 353 00 06 05 329 00 07 28 328 00 14 65 320 00 00 10 258 00 02 55 248 00 01 48 232 00 10 09 246 00 00 75 245 00 08 56 239 00 13 28 237 00 00 29 238 00 09 38 236 00 00 54 210 00 00 66 211 00 00 10 205 00 15 03 204 00 01 39 220 00 07 19 230 00 05 21 233 00 05 77II (ii) 4671 231 00 01 05
229 00 03 12
227 00 08 02
224 00 01 42
100 00 01 61
99 00 00 89
98 00 01 19
91/2712 00 00 40
91 00 07 72
87 00 14 04
84 00 00 10
85 00 03 99
63 00 09 59
86 00 04 09
64 00 05 21
59 00 03 30
60 00 01 80
58 00 07 24
55 00 00 55
20 00 03 89
19 00 04 89
18 00 00 92
17 00 12 09
15 00 01 87
16 00 01 20
16/2249 00 00 48
गोबर्धनपुर 349 00 02 55
419 00 15 93
4672 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
429 00 11 25
430 00 07 16
431 00 05 31
407 00 08 51
गोबर्धनपुरसुलताननगर 177 00 14 24
176 00 14 66
167 00 00 13
166 00 00 10
168 00 01 08
169 00 01 67
173 00 04 30
172 00 02 33
375 00 00 66
463 00 06 14
459 00 06 86
460 00 00 85
458 00 00 27
457 00 01 68
429 00 05 35
430 00 04 43
431 00 01 02
432 00 10 47
435 00 08 79
436 00 02 81
440 00 05 17
437 00 01 49
439 00 05 60
410 00 01 19
II (ii)
4673
ओरकोल 328 00 15 88
328/506 00 02 10
317 00 04 81
327 00 02 21
320 00 11 78
312 00 00 30
293 00 07 83
292 00 00 57
294 00 04 58
296 00 01 32
295 00 03 47
291 00 03 95
290 00 08 45
286 00 05 53
285 00 05 96
402 00 01 97
443 00 20 92
450 00 00 30
453 00 07 10
452 00 02 38
451 00 06 12
मकरबा 123 00 01 12
71 00 04 00
70 00 04 05
73 00 17 07
84 00 00 10
116 00 07 30
4674 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
86 00 09 97
96 00 08 54
99 00 03 54
97 00 05 13
98 00 01 07
उजाणिपड़ा 218 00 07 71
213 00 00 28
214 00 37 00
230 00 00 84
232 00 01 53
233 00 04 67
234 00 02 38
235 00 01 54
231 00 04 24
248 00 00 55
284 00 20 25
283 00 00 10
292 00 15 64
321 00 00 82
भारतीपुर 1088 00 01 93
1092 00 01 95
1093 00 09 55
1094 00 07 02
1095 00 26 11
1096 00 01 96
1097 00 00 40
1098 00 11 29
1099 00 12 60
II (ii)
4675
1116 00 06 70 1119 00 12 78 1118 00 00 27 1118/1670 00 00 24 1583 00 00 26 1120 00 08 16 1121 00 01 59 1136 00 04 22 1143 00 05 63 1144 00 16 60 1151 00 04 08 1154 00 05 91 1153 00 00 93 1155 00 05 22 1157 00 09 67 1156 00 00 30 1158 00 01 31 1160 00 01 90 1161 00 01 11 1162 00 00 89 1164 00 02 25 1178 00 12 53 1179 00 09 65 1548 00 12 41 1549 00 06 01 1550 00 08 09 1564 00 10 58 1565 00 07 48 1566 00 00 104676 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1574 00 00 10
1573 00 08 60
हसनपुर 30 00 00 10
233 00 00 10
234 00 00 76
235 00 02 10
243 00 00 10
245 00 19 31
246 00 00 63
419 00 01 97
420 00 01 68
421 00 11 09
मकु न्दपुर 12 00 07 03
11 00 08 13
9 00 00 10
10 00 03 96
16 00 02 51
17 00 00 56
27 00 06 77
19 00 00 73
28 00 01 61
26 00 13 54
25 00 04 78
24 00 00 10
23 00 00 43
43 00 01 27
II (ii)
4677
46 00 11 93
48 00 00 10
47 00 00 64
53 00 07 80
54 00 02 54
55 00 10 03
56 00 13 47
57 00 00 43
बागेश्वरपुर 1651 00 00 97
1650 00 22 65
1652 00 00 10
1683 00 07 66
1683/1739 00 03 48
1682 00 00 10
1669 00 13 28
1681 00 02 41
1670 00 01 94
1673 00 13 21
1675 00 00 10
1674 00 00 45
1678 00 00 83
914 00 00 77
873 00 00 86
766 00 12 01
765 00 11 02
769 00 10 09
805 00 00 10
806 00 01 11
4678 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
807 00 12 88 802 00 01 62 801 00 08 48 800/1732 00 03 25 800 00 02 74 811 00 02 27 813 00 00 10 827 00 01 34 829 00 00 38 826 00 10 40 832 00 00 10 823 00 05 93 822 00 13 18 833 00 02 67 745 00 01 25 435 00 21 11 489 00 00 55 488 00 00 29 487 00 07 95 437 00 00 10 485 00 11 57 483 00 00 22 484 00 16 68 494 00 08 25 480 00 11 38 479 00 00 35 461 00 00 10 477 00 02 45 451 00 00 10 462 00 02 85II (ii) 4679
465 00 11 95
464 00 04 75
463 00 00 85
बरुण्डेइ 286 00 07 90
285 00 00 75
280 00 00 97
279 00 01 44
220 00 07 37
219 00 02 01
218 00 01 41
217 00 02 91
225 00 00 10
217/369 00 02 91
170 00 01 27
171 00 06 77
173 00 08 48
174 00 02 47
175 00 02 52
176 00 00 23
179 00 00 24
180 00 06 77
181 00 22 75
189 00 13 05
188 00 01 68
187 00 10 50
371 00 02 30
पाणिदोल 1640 00 01 42
4680 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1640/2902 00 02 14 1647 00 05 76 1646 00 03 64 1645 00 09 71 1645/2874 00 08 11 1642/2850 00 01 56 1642 00 06 62 1642/2900 00 03 06 1644 00 15 82 1644/2918 00 06 06 1688 00 01 08 1721 00 06 20 1720 00 00 90 1719 00 05 48 1718 00 01 41 1717 00 05 40 1713 00 10 93 1701 00 03 97 1702 00 09 91 1703 00 00 79 1708 00 01 43 1705 00 14 59 1699 00 00 77 1694 00 13 88 1693 00 01 34 1691 00 08 13 1690 00 05 65 2575 00 00 30 2572 00 01 55II (ii) 4681 2110 00 10 59
2558 00 04 85 2557 00 06 73 2551 00 03 44 2555 00 01 69 2556 00 08 31 2549 00 15 20 2120 00 01 08 2169 00 02 97 2169/2887 00 02 98 2183 00 01 58 2182 00 25 30 2185 00 08 80 2190 00 11 91 2189 00 00 86 2191 00 03 88 2196 00 17 61 2195 00 09 92 2194 00 02 32 2211 00 05 25 2212 00 00 30 2216 00 05 16 2215 00 01 83 2217 00 08 03 2220 00 05 87 2074 00 02 53 2073 00 00 27 2072 00 02 634682 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1975 00 07 62 1977 00 00 69 1976 00 04 76 1978 00 16 40 1978/2881 00 03 30 1981 00 09 65
[फा.सं. आर-25011/11/2017/48396-ओआर-I/13764]
पवन कु मार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2017
S.O. 1813.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip (Odisha) to Hyderabad (Telangana), "Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline" should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Dillip Kumar Mohanty, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 3rd Floor, Alok Bharati Tower, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar- 751007, (Odisha).
| SCHEDULE | ||||
| Tehsil : PIPILI | District : PURI | State : ODISHA | ||
| Name of the Village | Plot No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
SIULA 366 00 07 66
390 00 04 18
364 00 05 38
364/2960 00 00 55
364/2969 00 00 30
II (ii)
4683
364/2983 00 00 61
364/2709 00 05 28 363 00 11 27 357 00 05 53 356 00 04 81 355 00 04 29 353 00 06 05 329 00 07 28 328 00 14 65 320 00 00 09 258 00 02 55 248 00 01 48 232 00 10 09 246 00 00 75 245 00 08 56 239 00 13 28 237 00 00 29 238 00 09 38 236 00 00 54 210 00 00 66 211 00 00 10 205 00 15 03 204 00 01 39 220 00 07 19 230 00 05 21 233 00 05 774684 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 227 00 08 02
224 00 01 42
100 00 01 61
99 00 00 89
98 00 01 19
91/2712 00 00 40
91 00 07 72
87 00 14 04
84 00 00 10
85 00 03 99
63 00 09 59
86 00 04 09
64 00 05 21
59 00 03 30
60 00 01 80
58 00 07 24
55 00 00 55
20 00 03 89
19 00 04 89
18 00 00 92
17 00 12 09
15 00 01 87
16 00 01 20
16/2249 00 00 48
GOBARDHANPUR 349 00 02 55
II (ii)
4685
430 00 07 16
431 00 05 31
407 00 08 51
GOBARDHANPUR
SULTANNAGAR 177 00 14 24
176 00 14 66
167 00 00 13
166 00 00 10
168 00 01 08
169 00 01 67
173 00 04 30
172 00 02 33
375 00 00 66
463 00 06 14
459 00 06 86
460 00 00 85
458 00 00 27
457 00 01 68
429 00 05 35
430 00 04 43
431 00 01 02
432 00 10 47
435 00 08 79
436 00 02 81
440 00 05 17
437 00 01 49
4686 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORAKOL 328 00 15 88
328/506 00 02 10
317 00 04 81
327 00 02 21
320 00 11 78
312 00 00 30
293 00 07 83
292 00 00 57
294 00 04 58
296 00 01 32
295 00 03 47
291 00 03 95
290 00 08 45
286 00 05 53
285 00 05 96
402 00 01 97
443 00 20 92
450 00 00 30
453 00 07 10
452 00 02 38
451 00 06 12
MAKARABA 123 00 01 12
71 00 04 00
70 00 04 05
II (ii)
4687
116 00 07 30
85 00 00 30
86 00 09 97
96 00 08 54
99 00 03 54
97 00 05 13
98 00 01 07
UJANIPADA 218 00 07 71
213 00 00 28
214 00 37 00
230 00 00 84
232 00 01 53
233 00 04 67
234 00 02 38
235 00 01 54
231 00 04 24
248 00 00 55
284 00 20 25
283 00 00 10
292 00 15 64
321 00 00 82
BHARATIPUR 1088 00 01 93
1092 00 01 95
1093 00 09 55
4688 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1096 00 01 96
1097 00 00 40 1098 00 11 29 1099 00 12 60 1116 00 06 70 1119 00 12 78 1118 00 00 27 1118/1670 00 00 24 1583 00 00 26 1120 00 08 16 1121 00 01 59 1136 00 04 22 1143 00 05 63 1144 00 16 60 1151 00 04 08 1154 00 05 91 1153 00 00 93 1155 00 05 22 1157 00 09 67 1156 00 00 30 1158 00 01 31 1160 00 01 90 1161 00 01 11 1162 00 00 89 1164 00 02 25 1178 00 12 53II (ii) 4689 1549 00 06 01
1550 00 08 09
1564 00 10 58
1565 00 07 48
1566 00 00 10
1574 00 00 10
1573 00 08 60
HASANPUR 30 00 00 10
233 00 00 10
234 00 00 76
235 00 02 10
243 00 00 10
245 00 19 31
246 00 00 63
419 00 01 97
420 00 01 68
421 00 11 09
MAKUNDPUR 12 00 07 03
11 00 08 13
9 00 00 10
10 00 03 96
16 00 02 51
17 00 00 56
27 00 06 77
4690 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
26 00 13 54
25 00 04 78
24 00 00 10
23 00 00 43
43 00 01 27
42 00 08 85
41 00 02 14
46 00 11 93
48 00 00 10
47 00 00 64
53 00 07 80
54 00 02 54
55 00 10 03
56 00 13 47
57 00 00 43
BAGESWARPUR 1651 00 00 97
1650 00 22 65
1652 00 00 10
1683 00 07 66
1683/1739 00 03 48
1682 00 00 10
1669 00 13 28
1681 00 02 41
1670 00 01 94
1673 00 13 21
II (ii)
4691
1678 00 00 83 914 00 00 77 873 00 00 86 766 00 12 01 765 00 11 02 769 00 10 09 805 00 00 10 806 00 01 11 807 00 12 88 802 00 01 62 801 00 08 48 800/1732 00 03 25 800 00 02 74 811 00 02 27 813 00 00 10 827 00 01 34 829 00 00 38 826 00 10 40 832 00 00 10 823 00 05 93 822 00 13 18 833 00 02 67 745 00 01 25 435 00 21 11 489 00 00 55 488 00 00 294692 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 485 00 11 57
483 00 00 22
484 00 16 68
494 00 08 25
480 00 11 38
479 00 00 35
461 00 00 10
477 00 02 45
451 00 00 10
462 00 02 85
465 00 11 95
464 00 04 75
463 00 00 85
BARUNDEI 286 00 07 90
285 00 00 75
280 00 00 97
279 00 01 44
220 00 07 37
219 00 02 01
218 00 01 41
217 00 02 91
225 00 00 10
217/369 00 02 91
170 00 01 27
171 00 06 77
II (ii)
4693
175 00 02 52
176 00 00 23
179 00 00 24
180 00 06 77
181 00 22 75
189 00 13 05
188 00 01 68
187 00 10 50
371 00 02 30
PANIDOL 1640 00 01 42
1640/2902 00 02 14
1647 00 05 76
1646 00 03 64
1645 00 09 71
1645/2874 00 08 11
1642/2850 00 01 56
1642 00 06 62
1642/2900 00 03 06
1644 00 15 82
1644/2918 00 06 06
1688 00 01 08
1721 00 06 20
1720 00 00 90
1719 00 05 48
1718 00 01 41
4694 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1701 00 03 97
1702 00 09 91 1703 00 00 79 1708 00 01 43 1705 00 14 59 1699 00 00 77 1694 00 13 88 1693 00 01 34 1691 00 08 13 1690 00 05 65 2575 00 00 30 2572 00 01 55 2559 00 03 86 2110 00 10 59 2558 00 04 85 2557 00 06 73 2551 00 03 44 2555 00 01 69 2556 00 08 31 2549 00 15 20 2120 00 01 08 2169 00 02 97 2169/2887 00 02 98 2183 00 01 58 2182 00 25 30 2185 00 08 80II (ii) 4695 2191 00 03 88
2196 00 17 61 2195 00 09 92 2194 00 02 32 2211 00 05 25 2212 00 00 30 2216 00 05 16 2215 00 01 83 2217 00 08 03 2220 00 05 87 2074 00 02 53 2073 00 00 27 2072 00 02 63 2034 00 21 38 1975 00 07 62 1977 00 00 69 1976 00 04 76 1978 00 16 40 1978/2881 00 03 30 1981 00 09 65
[F. No. R-25011/11/2017/48396-OR-I/13764]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1814.—के न्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप (ओड़िशा) से हैदराबाद (तेलंगाना) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा "पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन" बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और के न्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है ओर जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
4696 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]अत: अब, के न्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम,1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री दिल्लीप कु मार महांति, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, तृतीय तल, आलोक भारती टावर ,शहीद नगर ,भुवनेश्वर -751007, ओड़िशा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा I
अनुसूची
| तहसील-डेलांग | जिला - पुरी | राज्य –ओड़िशा | ||
| गाँव का नाम | प्लॉट नं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
दनापड़ा 41 00 11 70
40 00 19 16
31 00 00 71
32 00 00 59
17 00 00 10
16 00 08 62
15 00 00 98
12 00 01 37
4 00 06 59
सड़ांगोइ उत्तरबाड़ 1961 00 00 48
1960 00 04 36
1959 00 02 14
1958 00 10 24
1957 00 02 31
II (ii)
4697
1110 00 04 15
1105 00 07 70 1104 00 10 18 1116 00 00 81 1120 00 06 85 1119 00 00 97 1122 00 08 88 1124 00 03 67 1125 00 02 46 1126 00 04 32 1153 00 01 60 1152 00 09 07 1127 00 00 10 1128 00 00 69 1129 00 08 42 1130 00 06 35 1131 00 00 10 1132 00 17 18 1133/2054 00 06 79 1200 00 00 51 1201 00 03 26 1202 00 05 13 1203 00 07 39 1204 00 13 03 1205 00 01 76 1206 00 00 31 1207 00 00 14 1209 00 14 30 1212 00 00 694698 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1213 00 00 10 1214 00 11 65 1279 00 00 91 1280 00 02 73 249 00 01 39 184 00 16 25 185 00 02 19 194 00 01 42 195 00 10 58 193 00 00 25 212 00 02 38 198 00 11 05 203 00 07 86 202 00 01 39 208 00 00 58 61 00 04 00 93 00 11 09 92 00 02 05 91 00 01 09 90 00 04 39 87 00 00 10 88 00 10 62 89 00 00 10 98 00 00 12 99 00 04 93 94 00 00 48 86 00 01 56 101 00 04 18 100 00 05 43II (ii) 4699
102 00 00 44
103 00 06 54
109 00 01 40
104 00 08 38
105 00 00 27
43 00 00 90
41 00 01 24
42 00 05 37
सड़ांगोइ पश्चिमबाड़ 159 00 05 22
158 00 01 85
157 00 16 38
154 00 02 21
156 00 08 17
155 00 03 48
152 00 00 30
133 00 00 28
135 00 09 38
136 00 08 05
143 00 00 15
137 00 13 83
138 00 11 60
141 00 24 18
313 00 01 77
433 00 04 19
434 00 03 63
435/1589 00 04 46
4700 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
464 00 00 30
465 00 09 69
463 00 00 14
462 00 04 41
452 00 00 60
461 00 02 83
460 00 02 90
449 00 01 61
459 00 06 30
472 00 00 21
473 00 18 62
474 00 20 79
475 00 10 37
482 00 01 43
483 00 01 73
485 00 02 46
484 00 00 97
चाँइपुर 280 00 02 20
279 00 00 16
277 00 02 25
265 00 07 48
262 00 00 19
260 00 02 39
259 00 02 47
297 00 00 92
298 00 01 22
II (ii)
4701
164 00 04 44
165 00 03 00
167 00 00 83
163 00 05 53
173 00 00 37
194 00 03 44
191 00 04 08
192 00 04 78
193 00 04 70
190 00 05 27
गण्डपड़ा 940 00 13 69
941 00 01 86
941/1168 00 03 62
941/1169 00 02 59
363 00 29 22
362 00 09 94
356 00 07 49
355 00 02 02
354 00 01 18
342 00 00 95
341 00 00 76
340 00 00 84
379 00 00 94
175 00 03 58
176 00 14 19
179 00 07 52
178 00 12 12
180 00 00 67
4702 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
183 00 02 35259 00 01 23
251 00 00 15
252 00 02 35
250 00 11 20
249 00 00 96
197 00 00 10
248 00 10 02
184 00 00 10
247 00 00 27
197/1152 00 02 53
197/1153 00 00 53
231 00 09 21
199 00 00 21
200 00 05 09
201 00 00 20
223 00 09 83
222 00 04 96
221 00 02 83
219/1183 00 08 93
211 00 08 78
212 00 00 70
294 00 02 56
निपुर 00 01 33
748
755 00 00 10
751 00 09 25
750 00 00 86
II (ii)
4703
752 00 04 16
802 00 06 94
803 00 10 26
816 00 00 94
817 00 00 85
818 00 00 86
974 00 04 54
973 00 08 56
972 00 05 28
971 00 05 91
966 00 00 73
944 00 12 92
943 00 00 59
976 00 00 60
1043 00 09 79
1025 00 00 30
1024 00 33 92
981 00 10 70
980 00 10 07
983 00 00 17
984 00 00 52
985 00 00 11
गड़ मोटरी 229 00 00 91
4704 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
230 00 01 43
231 00 01 54
232 00 01 92
233 00 00 44
234 00 00 20
200/1693 00 00 56
200/1692 00 00 52
203 00 00 64
202 00 00 77
125 00 00 83
186 00 00 77
183 00 01 07
185 00 00 76
184 00 00 84
429 00 05 67
430 00 01 90
431 00 06 22
474 00 25 57
546 00 06 35
545 00 04 98
542 00 12 29
541 00 01 95
बसन्तपुर 831 00 02 41
830 00 00 27
829 00 33 17
776 00 00 10
775 00 18 53
771 00 00 10
II (ii)
4705
720 00 06 75
721 00 30 19
716 00 00 87
680 00 00 27
930 00 07 12
649 00 05 84
648 00 04 66
647 00 01 58
616 00 04 26
615 00 08 55
602 00 13 63
544 00 03 01
542 00 06 74
543 00 00 95
532 00 08 26
531 00 01 14
529 00 12 02
528 00 08 26
534 00 03 97
525 00 12 53
524 00 05 78
470 00 00 27
448 00 09 61
रेंगल 3541 00 00 10
3543 00 09 47
3577 00 03 06
3575 00 04 83
3544 00 00 84
4706 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3571 00 06 62 3571/5334 00 06 62 3570 00 01 36 3567 00 02 05 3566 00 02 21 3565 00 01 62 3564 00 00 32 3556 00 06 16 3557 00 02 26 3507 00 00 83 3506 00 01 44 3505 00 02 67 3504 00 01 30 3503 00 01 50 3332 00 00 45 3333 00 04 21 3334 00 00 53 3335 00 05 39 3336 00 02 01 3330 00 04 23 3329 00 05 33 3314 00 05 06 3315 00 02 33 3317 00 05 84 3318 00 06 56 3319 00 04 06 3320 00 04 68 3202 00 04 20 3203 00 01 29II (ii) 4707 3201 00 03 05
3098 00 02 52 3200 00 02 30 3169 00 07 40 3170 00 00 14 3168 00 04 41 3104 00 04 16 3105 00 05 44 3106 00 00 28 3107 00 05 92 3111 00 05 78 3119 00 00 39 3112 00 04 24 3083 00 02 26 3080 00 04 43 3079 00 04 87 3078 00 02 03 3076 00 01 58 2965 00 05 37 2954 00 01 03 2951 00 06 27 2950 00 05 70 2948 00 01 38 2949 00 06 23 2946 00 05 43 2470 00 03 37 2471 00 00 50 2469 00 10 37 2001 00 00 984708 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2016 00 00 73 2014 00 00 53 2002 00 01 40 2003 00 06 69 2010 00 07 08 2009 00 02 14 2011 00 01 77 2008 00 02 58 1974 00 00 65 1977 00 02 33 1978 00 00 54 1960 00 02 57 1961 00 00 55 1977/3766 00 02 75 1974/3765 00 04 57 1969/3757 00 00 10 1966 00 06 35 1969 00 00 10 1968 00 01 81 1965 00 01 00 1964 00 01 68 1963 00 03 09 1947 00 05 58 1948 00 00 88 1945 00 01 92 1945/3855 00 01 92 1944 00 02 86 1943 00 00 17II (ii) 4709
1942 00 03 43 2070 00 00 14 1938 00 03 45 2071 00 06 63 2243 00 02 86 2242 00 03 85 2241 00 00 15 2245 00 03 95 2246 00 02 84 2247 00 00 97 2248 00 00 33 2238/3712 00 00 31 2237/3711 00 02 36 2237 00 05 26 2236 00 04 90 2235 00 04 98 2137 00 00 10 2136 00 07 39 2133 00 02 46 2135 00 00 48 2135/4055 00 00 48 2133/4054 00 02 46 2111 00 05 19 2131 00 02 73 2112 00 07 01 2129 00 01 31 2128 00 02 26 2113 00 01 38 2127 00 06 264710 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2126 00 02 16
2125 00 03 18
2119 00 03 81
2124 00 03 17
2121 00 04 08
2122 00 00 77
2120 00 00 10
1976 00 00 10
सानबेगुनिआपड़ा 188 00 03 25
189 00 03 11
190 00 04 62
193 00 07 37
194 00 03 03
194/248 00 00 17
194/247 00 00 17
175 00 01 40
176 00 02 27
171 00 01 43
172 00 01 60
169 00 02 84
168 00 02 39
94 00 04 25
93 00 02 84
[फा.सं. आर-25011/11/2017/48396-ओआर-I/13764]
पवन कु मार , अवर सचिवII (ii) 4711
New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2017
S.O. 1814.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip (Odisha) to Hyderabad (Telangana), "Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline" should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Dillip Kumar Mohanty, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 3rd Floor, Alok Bharati Tower, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar- 751007, (Odisha).
| SCHEDULE | ||||
| Tehsil: DELANG | District - PURI | State: ODISHA | ||
| Name of Village | Plot No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. mtr | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
40 00 19 16
31 00 00 71
32 00 00 59
17 00 00 10
16 00 08 62
15 00 00 98
12 00 01 37
4 00 06 59
SARANGOI UTTARBAR 1961 00 00 48
1960 00 04 36
1959 00 02 14
4712 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1957 00 02 31
1982 00 03 32
1101 00 09 98 1110 00 04 15 1105 00 07 70 1104 00 10 18 1116 00 00 81 1120 00 06 85 1119 00 00 97 1122 00 08 88 1124 00 03 67 1125 00 02 46 1126 00 04 32 1153 00 01 60 1152 00 09 07 1127 00 00 10 1128 00 00 69 1129 00 08 42 1130 00 06 35 1131 00 00 10 1132 00 17 18 1133/2054 00 06 79 1200 00 00 51 1201 00 03 26 1202 00 05 13 1203 00 07 39 1204 00 13 03 1205 00 01 76II (ii) 4713 1207 00 00 14 1209 00 14 30
1212 00 00 69 1213 00 00 10 1214 00 11 65 1279 00 00 91 1280 00 02 73 249 00 01 39 184 00 16 25 185 00 02 19 194 00 01 42 195 00 10 58 193 00 00 25 212 00 02 38 198 00 11 05 203 00 07 86 202 00 01 39 208 00 00 58 61 00 04 00 93 00 11 09 92 00 02 05 91 00 01 09 90 00 04 39 87 00 00 10 88 00 10 62 89 00 00 10 98 00 00 124714 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 86 00 01 56 101 00 04 18
100 00 05 43
102 00 00 44
103 00 06 54
109 00 01 40
104 00 08 38
105 00 00 27
43 00 00 90
41 00 01 24
42 00 05 37
SADANGOI PASCHIMBAD 159 00 05 22
158 00 01 85
157 00 16 38
154 00 02 21
156 00 08 17
155 00 03 48
152 00 00 30
133 00 00 28
135 00 09 38
136 00 08 05
143 00 00 15
137 00 13 83
138 00 11 60
141 00 24 18
313 00 01 77
433 00 04 19
II (ii)
4715
435/1589 00 04 46
429 00 09 78
450 00 08 60
464 00 00 30
465 00 09 69
463 00 00 14
462 00 04 41
452 00 00 60
461 00 02 83
460 00 02 90
449 00 01 61
459 00 06 30
472 00 00 21
473 00 18 62
474 00 20 79
475 00 10 37
482 00 01 43
483 00 01 73
485 00 02 46
484 00 00 97
CHAINPUR 280 00 02 20
279 00 00 16
277 00 02 25
265 00 07 48
262 00 00 19
260 00 02 39
4716 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
298 00 01 22
299 00 00 92
164 00 04 44
165 00 03 00
167 00 00 83
163 00 05 53
173 00 00 37
194 00 03 44
191 00 04 08
192 00 04 78
193 00 04 70
190 00 05 27
GANDAPARA 940 00 13 69
941 00 01 86
1168 00 03 62
1169 00 02 59
363 00 29 22
362 00 09 94
356 00 07 49
355 00 02 02
354 00 01 18
342 00 00 95
341 00 00 76
340 00 00 84
379 00 00 94
175 00 03 58
176 00 14 19
II (ii)
4717
178 00 12 12
180 00 00 67
183 00 02 35
259 00 01 23
251 00 00 15
252 00 02 35
250 00 11 20
249 00 00 96
197 00 00 10
248 00 10 02
184 00 00 10
247 00 00 27
197/1152 00 02 53
197/1153 00 00 53
231 00 09 21
199 00 00 21
200 00 05 09
201 00 00 20
223 00 09 83
222 00 04 96
221 00 02 83
219/1183 00 08 93
211 00 08 78
212 00 00 70
294 00 02 56
NIPUR 00 01 33
748
4718 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
750 00 00 86
752 00 04 16
802 00 06 94
803 00 10 26
816 00 00 94
817 00 00 85
818 00 00 86
974 00 04 54
973 00 08 56
972 00 05 28
971 00 05 91
966 00 00 73
944 00 12 92
943 00 00 59
976 00 00 60
1043 00 09 79
1025 00 00 30
1024 00 33 92
981 00 10 70
980 00 10 07
983 00 00 17
984 00 00 52
985 00 00 11
GARAMOTARI 229 00 00 91
230 00 01 43
231 00 01 54
232 00 01 92
II (ii)
4719
234 00 00 20
200/1693 00 00 56
200/1692 00 00 52
203 00 00 64
202 00 00 77
125 00 00 83
186 00 00 77
183 00 01 07
185 00 00 76
184 00 00 84
429 00 05 67
430 00 01 90
431 00 06 22
474 00 25 57
546 00 06 35
545 00 04 98
544 00 01 06
542 00 12 29
541 00 01 95
BASANTPUR 831 00 02 41
830 00 00 27
829 00 33 17
776 00 00 10
775 00 18 53
771 00 00 10
720 00 06 75
721 00 30 19
4720 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
680 00 00 27
930 00 07 12
649 00 05 84
648 00 04 66
647 00 01 58
616 00 04 26
615 00 08 55
602 00 13 63
544 00 03 01
542 00 06 74
543 00 00 95
532 00 08 26
531 00 01 14
529 00 12 02
528 00 08 26
534 00 03 97
525 00 12 53
524 00 05 78
470 00 00 27
448 00 09 61
RENGAL 3541 00 00 10
3543 00 09 47
3577 00 03 06
3575 00 04 83
3544 00 00 84
3571 00 06 62
3571/5334 00 06 62
II (ii)
4721
3567 00 02 05
3566 00 02 21
3565 00 01 62 3564 00 00 32 3556 00 06 16 3557 00 02 26 3507 00 00 83 3506 00 01 44 3505 00 02 67 3504 00 01 30 3503 00 01 50 3332 00 00 45 3333 00 04 21 3334 00 00 53 3335 00 05 39 3336 00 02 01 3330 00 04 23 3329 00 05 33 3314 00 05 06 3315 00 02 33 3317 00 05 84 3318 00 06 56 3319 00 04 06 3320 00 04 68 3202 00 04 20 3203 00 01 29 3201 00 03 05 3098 00 02 524722 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3169 00 07 40 3170 00 00 14
3168 00 04 41 3104 00 04 16 3105 00 05 44 3106 00 00 28 3107 00 05 92 3111 00 05 78 3119 00 00 39 3112 00 04 24 3083 00 02 26 3080 00 04 43 3079 00 04 87 3078 00 02 03 3076 00 01 58 2965 00 05 37 2954 00 01 03 2951 00 06 27 2950 00 05 70 2948 00 01 38 2949 00 06 23 2946 00 05 43 2470 00 03 37 2471 00 00 50 2469 00 10 37 2001 00 00 98 2016 00 00 73 2014 00 00 53II (ii) 4723 2003 00 06 69 2010 00 07 08
2009 00 02 14 2011 00 01 77 2008 00 02 58 1974 00 00 65 1977 00 02 33 1978 00 00 54 1960 00 02 57 1961 00 00 55 1977/3766 00 02 75 1974/3765 000 04 57 1969/3757 00 00 10 1966 00 06 35 1969 00 00 10 1968 00 01 81 1965 00 01 00 1964 00 01 68 1963 00 03 09 1947 00 05 58 1948 00 00 88 1945 00 01 92 1945/3855 00 01 92 1944 00 02 86 1941 00 02 72 1942 00 03 43 2070 00 00 144724 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2243 00 02 86 2242 00 03 85
2241 00 00 15 2245 00 03 95 2246 00 02 84 2247 00 00 97 2248 00 00 33 2238/3712 00 00 31 2237/3711 00 02 36 2237 00 05 26 2236 00 04 90 2235 00 04 98 2137 00 00 10 2136 00 07 39 2133 00 02 46 2135 00 00 48 2135/4055 00 00 48 2133/4054 00 02 46 2111 00 05 19 2131 00 02 73 2112 00 07 01 2129 00 01 31 2128 00 02 26 2113 00 01 38 2127 00 06 26 2126 00 02 16 2125 00 03 18 2119 00 03 81II (ii) 4725 2121 00 04 08
2122 00 00 77
2120 00 00 10
1976 00 00 10
SANABEGUNIANPARA 188 00 03 25
189 00 03 11
190 00 04 62
193 00 07 37
194 00 03 03
194/248 00 00 17
194/247 00 00 17
175 00 01 40
176 00 02 27
171 00 01 43
172 00 01 60
169 00 02 84
168 00 02 39
94 00 04 25
93 00 02 84
[F. No. R-25011/11/2017/48396-OR-I/13764]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1815.—के न्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप (ओड़िशा) से हैदराबाद (तेलंगाना) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा "पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन" बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और के न्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि मे जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है ओर जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
4726 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]अत: अब, के न्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम,1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री दिल्लीप कु मार महांति, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, तृतीय तल, आलोक भारती टावर ,शहीद नगर ,भुवनेश्वर -751007, ओड़िशा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा I
| अनुसूची | ||||
| तहसील-बेगुनिआ | जिला-खोद्र्धा | राज्य-ओड़िशा | ||
| गाँव का नाम | प्लॉट नं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
हज 2844 00 09 14
2842 00 02 50
2852 00 07 83
2853 00 03 97
2854 00 01 27
2855 00 02 63
2856 00 04 17
2854/3639 00 00 10
2858 00 04 75
2860 00 02 82
2861 00 00 58
2862 00 04 58
2865 00 02 63
2866 00 02 84
II (ii)
4727
2871 00 02 04
2872 00 02 14 2877 00 03 37 2878 00 05 90 2879 00 00 72 2889 00 02 82 2890 00 00 22 2914 00 00 58 3262 00 03 20 3260/3551 00 05 53 3259 00 04 12 3257 00 07 59 3146 00 01 72 3145 00 03 28 3144 00 03 24 3142 00 02 96 3141 00 03 88 3140 00 03 42 3156 00 00 30 3139 00 03 13 3138 00 03 81 3137 00 00 50 3086 00 07 40 3085 00 05 37 3080 00 09 93 3079 00 03 034728 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3073 00 00 15
3068 00 02 58 3066 00 02 08 3061 00 03 43 3060 00 02 31 3054 00 02 55 3051 00 05 03 1267 00 01 26 1277 00 03 07 1278 00 08 80 1281 00 02 38 1254/3517 00 02 73 1252 00 02 54 1250 00 02 31 1222 00 03 78 1221 00 02 60 1201 00 02 74 1202 00 02 08 1198 00 00 48 1184 00 03 13 1176 00 01 66 1175 00 00 98 1172 00 03 11 1170/3670 00 00 42 1170/3669 00 02 51 1169 00 02 81II (ii) 4729 1160 00 00 10
1157 00 01 27 1161 00 03 95 1156 00 01 68 1155 00 00 62 1128 00 00 10 1154 00 01 22 1127 00 00 15 1110 00 00 20 1110/3485 00 00 23 1099/3484 00 01 62 1100 00 01 51 1109 00 00 59 1108 00 01 32 1101 00 00 23 1107 00 01 97 1104 00 00 10 1105 00 00 40 1106 00 01 56 1103 00 00 10 1061 00 04 70 1070 00 00 99 1068 00 09 73 1064 00 01 58 1067 00 09 88 1008 00 16 994730 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 815 00 08 24
816 00 09 91 822 00 01 47 823 00 08 57 802/3627 00 04 49 802/3628 00 04 05 801 00 03 41 787 00 00 73 798 00 02 78 797 00 02 71 790 00 07 77 789 00 02 59 788 00 01 95 719 00 06 78 706 00 04 75 703 00 02 60 702 00 02 64 701 00 03 47 695 00 00 10 698 00 00 19 696 00 02 58 689 00 03 45 690 00 03 29 673 00 00 10 674 00 01 92 679 00 02 22II (ii) 4731
682 00 00 73 683 00 01 78 684 00 01 97 666 00 03 67 668 00 00 17 667 00 04 16 667/3742 00 00 75 660 00 03 23 503 00 13 30 498 00 00 10 504 00 00 10 505 00 00 44 506 00 01 90 508 00 04 48 509 00 01 38 497 00 00 21 494 00 00 82 493 00 00 36 492 00 05 28 488 00 01 08 488/3759 00 01 08 485 00 01 03 482 00 00 52 483 00 03 31 484/3681 00 00 76 480 00 01 434732 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 478 00 01 45
477 00 05 56 462 00 00 49 463 00 00 64 464 00 00 35 466 00 00 39 467 00 01 76 469 00 01 67 468 00 05 02 411 00 05 25 410 00 01 81 409 00 00 31 398 00 03 13 408 00 00 10 399 00 01 95 407 00 00 37 406 00 00 62 405 00 00 63 404 00 01 04 403 00 01 08 402 00 00 71 401 00 01 97 400 00 05 40 129 00 07 63 128 00 03 52 125/3504 00 00 58II (ii) 4733 118 00 01 18
120 00 00 10 119 00 18 31 117 00 05 31 116 00 01 23 115 00 05 22 112 00 04 65 111 00 02 35 110 00 01 80 109 00 00 13 107 00 01 76 106 00 02 14 105 00 03 55 104 00 00 10 101 00 08 94 102 00 03 57 97 00 05 90 96 00 09 32 98 00 03 57 90 00 01 39 89 00 07 31 88 00 03 87 87 00 02 12 85 00 01 46 86 00 00 20 84 00 00 154734 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
बेलपड़ा 1272 00 01 05
1265 00 03 16
1269 00 00 37
1266 00 05 96
1261 00 09 97
1262 00 00 30
1263 00 01 57
1264 00 04 40
1251 00 00 10
1252 00 00 15
1240 00 01 67
1239 00 08 87
1231 00 04 45
1222 00 03 58
1223 00 01 15
1208 00 02 93
1209 00 04 06
1194 00 05 34
1164 00 06 89
1163 00 00 10
1160 00 03 39
1159 00 03 38
1157 00 03 30
1156 00 06 21
1155 00 03 09
1130 00 00 22
II (ii)
4735
1126 00 03 79
1120 00 05 34 1112 00 00 10 1111 00 03 11 1110 00 03 65 1109 00 04 54 1097 00 00 84 1099 00 03 60 1098/1301 00 03 00 1098/1300 00 02 99 1023 00 04 62 1022 00 05 82 1016 00 07 49 1017 00 03 01 1015 00 05 68 1010 00 07 40 1009 00 02 65 1007 00 03 05 1006 00 02 29 1003 00 03 21 1002 00 03 11 992 00 08 78 1024 00 01 06 1054 00 02 01 1052 00 03 83 1051 00 02 614736 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1043 00 00 96
1042 00 00 71
1040 00 02 04
1037 00 03 98
1036 00 04 39
1034 00 00 49
1034/1383 00 02 87
1033 00 00 46
1028 00 04 51
1027 00 00 10
761 00 00 59
760 00 05 43
759 00 08 00
757 00 02 90
755 00 01 21
754 00 01 61
750 00 00 37
एकडालिआ 932 00 00 60
931 00 03 76
930 00 01 51
929 00 09 09
917 00 08 55
916 00 00 23
915 00 03 93
914 00 00 38
918 00 00 12
II (ii)
4737
908 00 01 82
907 00 02 04 905 00 00 81 906 00 04 34 904 00 00 53 902 00 04 51 903 00 00 23 901 00 04 99 894 00 04 53 892 00 02 41 893 00 02 16 891 00 07 25 884 00 03 10 883 00 02 22 882 00 01 07 881 00 00 20 835 00 01 78 1035 00 03 63 1036 00 05 34 1038 00 01 86 1040 00 02 75 1039 00 00 61 1041 00 00 19 1042 00 00 10 826 00 05 00 827 00 05 334738 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 824 00 06 49
823 00 05 70 833 00 05 04 822 00 00 10 784 00 00 97 335 00 03 73 332 00 00 81 817 00 00 42 815 00 05 41 795 00 02 66 813 00 03 88 796 00 05 60 794 00 05 07 793 00 00 10 786 00 01 00 788 00 01 75 787 00 02 51 770 00 02 34 771 00 02 43 772 00 03 48 774 00 03 00 775 00 02 53 623 00 02 76 624 00 02 34 625 00 04 10 611 00 04 63II (ii) 4739 600 00 02 85
601 00 00 51
602 00 01 01
590 00 03 78
589 00 02 91
577 00 00 13
578 00 05 49
581 00 00 37
557 00 00 52
555 00 03 60
556 00 02 26
558 00 01 50
558/1475 00 01 13
558/1498 00 00 88
553 00 00 13
559 00 02 22
559/1473 00 00 62
547 00 01 36
560 00 04 78
486 00 07 77
498 00 04 90
505 00 04 24
507 00 04 86
चन्द्रशेखरपुर 872 00 04 42
876 00 02 99
875/1717 00 01 07
4740 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
878 00 01 93
880 00 03 79 879 00 00 33 863 00 04 49 862 00 05 16 861 00 03 01 858 00 02 75 857 00 00 50 887 00 03 55 813 00 01 22 897 00 00 91 892 00 04 00 909 00 04 77 911 00 05 42 913 00 03 32 921 00 00 72 932 00 07 03 931 00 02 90 933 00 00 82 930 00 08 08 929 00 02 82 954 00 04 71 953 00 00 87 989 00 00 13 955 00 04 47 988 00 02 82II (ii) 4741 982 00 03 43
986 00 00 12 983 00 03 46 984 00 04 33 1062 00 00 14 1061 00 03 68 1006 00 03 80 1060 00 03 34 1055 00 02 53 1056 00 05 52 1039 00 07 84 1040 00 03 95 1035 00 04 75 1074 00 00 62 1034 00 03 32 1033 00 00 56 1086 00 00 10 1087 00 03 03 414 00 02 10 408 00 03 76 407 00 00 10 409 00 00 39 410 00 02 24 406 00 01 00 194 00 07 88 195 00 00 334742 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 203 00 00 61
204 00 03 16 344 00 02 34 343 00 04 70 207 00 00 54 208 00 02 16 342 00 00 23 341 00 00 33 209 00 02 28 211 00 03 63 335 00 00 30 212 00 04 01 215/1704 00 03 24 334/1705 00 01 74 334 00 01 82 333 00 00 41 225 00 02 98 332 00 00 83 331 00 11 29 230 00 01 35 330 00 03 30 245 00 04 21 231 00 01 18 248 00 02 42 249 00 00 83 246 00 02 93II (ii) 4743 242 00 04 79
241 00 04 51
240 00 00 10
252 00 03 48
255 00 03 55
256 00 02 36
96 00 08 07
95 00 04 65
बोरिगुआँ 438 00 09 87
664 00 02 19
439 00 07 44
446 00 06 05
447/695 00 02 82
448/706 00 02 49
447 00 03 57
455 00 00 20
456 00 00 22
457 00 05 01
458 00 00 10
459/689 00 00 10
460 00 06 75
464 00 00 68
465 00 02 55
466 00 02 55
467 00 05 05
469 00 05 15
4744 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
491 00 02 84
494 00 00 65 495 00 02 62 500 00 03 21 499 00 03 27 502 00 00 65 501 00 07 09 504 00 06 37 532 00 04 71 534 00 05 19 535 00 00 10 195 00 01 11 557 00 02 13 558 00 00 65 194 00 02 74 193 00 04 09 564 00 02 53 145 00 06 53 146 00 00 35 144/707 00 02 89 144 00 04 08 127 00 05 43 131 00 00 89 128 00 01 84 129 00 03 80 130 00 00 40II (ii) 4745 117 00 00 48
खड़िपदर 574 00 00 10
563 00 06 42
562 00 20 84
565 00 00 48
564 00 00 43
566 00 00 10
552 00 00 33
554 00 02 32
556 00 03 58
561 00 01 90
557 00 03 22
558 00 00 10
559 00 02 26
560 00 03 80
498 00 03 04
497 00 03 44
496 00 00 84
495 00 01 78
494 00 02 73
493 00 04 57
406 00 00 32
492 00 05 23
439 00 07 96
438 00 01 92
437 00 00 35
4746 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
481 00 00 10
478 00 01 72 479 00 00 10 477 00 01 58 441 00 02 11 476 00 02 40 475 00 02 25 443 00 00 10 444 00 03 92 445 00 03 00 452 00 02 83 453 00 01 37 451 00 00 56 454 00 08 75 449 00 00 47 456 00 00 10 455 00 00 10
[फा.सं. आर-25011/17/2017-ओआ-I/48599/13715]
पवन कु मार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2017
S.O. 1815.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip (Odisha) to Hyderabad (Telangana), "Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline" should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Dillip Kumar Mohanty, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 3rd Floor, Alok Bharati Tower, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar- 751007, (Odisha).
II (ii) 4747| SCHEDULE | ||||
| Tehsil : BEGUNIA | District : KHORDHA | State : ODISHA | ||
| Name of the Village | Plot No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
HAJA 2844 00 09 14
2842 00 02 50
2852 00 07 83
2853 00 03 97
2854 00 01 27
2855 00 02 63
2856 00 04 17
2854/3639 00 00 10
2858 00 04 75
2860 00 02 82
2861 00 00 58
2862 00 04 58
2865 00 02 63
2866 00 02 84
2870 00 03 80
2871 00 02 04
2872 00 02 14
2877 00 03 37
2878 00 05 90
2879 00 00 72
2889 00 02 82
2890 00 00 22
2914 00 00 58
3262 00 03 20
3260/3551 00 05 53
3259 00 04 12
3257 00 07 59
3146 00 01 72
3145 00 03 28
4748 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3141 00 03 88
3140 00 03 42
3156 00 00 30 3139 00 03 13 3138 00 03 81 3137 00 00 50 3086 00 07 40 3085 00 05 37 3080 00 09 93 3079 00 03 03 3075 00 01 74 3074 00 01 90 3073 00 00 15 3068 00 02 58 3066 00 02 08 3061 00 03 43 3060 00 02 31 3054 00 02 55 3051 00 05 03 1267 00 01 26 1277 00 03 07 1278 00 08 80 1281 00 02 38 1254/3517 00 02 73 1252 00 02 54 1250 00 02 31 1222 00 03 78 1221 00 20 60 1201 00 02 74 1202 00 02 08 1198 00 00 48 1184 00 03 13 1176 00 01 66 1175 00 00 98II (ii) 4749 1170/3669 00 02 51 1169 00 02 81
1168 00 03 42 1163 00 02 50 1160 00 00 10 1157 00 01 27 1161 00 03 95 1156 00 01 68 1155 00 00 62 1128 00 00 10 1154 00 01 22 1127 00 00 15 1110 00 00 20 1110/3485 00 00 23 1099/3484 00 01 62 1100 00 01 51 1109 00 00 59 1108 00 01 32 1101 00 00 23 1107 00 01 97 1104 00 00 10 1105 00 00 54 1106 00 01 56 1103 00 00 10 1061 00 04 70 1070 00 00 99 1068 00 09 73 1064 00 01 58 1067 00 09 88 1008 00 16 99 967 00 06 10 968 00 05 79 815 00 08 24 816 00 09 914750 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 802/3627 00 04 49 802/3628 00 04 05
801 00 03 41 787 00 00 73 798 00 02 78 797 00 02 71 790 00 07 77 789 00 02 59 788 00 01 95 719 00 06 78 706 00 04 75 703 00 02 60 702 00 02 64 701 00 03 47 695 00 00 10 698 00 00 19 696 00 02 58 689 00 03 45 690 00 03 29 673 00 00 10 674 00 01 92 679 00 02 22 680 00 01 09 681 00 01 70 682 00 00 73 683 00 01 78 684 00 01 97 666 00 03 67 668 00 00 17 667 00 04 16 667/3742 00 00 75 660 00 03 23 503 00 13 30 498 00 00 10II (ii) 4751 506 00 01 90 508 00 04 48
509 00 01 38 497 00 00 21 494 00 00 82 493 00 00 36 492 00 05 28 488 00 01 08 488/3759 00 01 08 485 00 01 03 482 00 00 52 483 00 03 31 484/3681 00 00 76 480 00 01 43 479 00 00 80 476 00 01 39 478 00 01 45 477 00 05 56 462 00 00 49 463 00 00 64 464 00 00 35 466 00 00 39 467 00 01 76 469 00 01 67 468 00 05 02 411 00 05 25 410 00 01 81 409 00 00 31 398 00 03 13 408 00 00 10 399 00 01 95 407 00 00 37 406 00 00 62 405 00 00 634752 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 402 00 00 71 401 00 01 97
400 00 05 40 129 00 07 63 128 00 03 52 125/3504 00 00 58 125 00 00 64 220/3503 00 00 58 118 00 01 18 120 00 00 10 119 00 18 31 117 00 05 31 116 00 01 23 115 00 05 22 112 00 04 65 111 00 02 35 110 00 01 80 109 00 00 13 107 00 01 76 106 00 02 14 105 00 03 55 104 00 00 10 101 00 08 94 102 00 03 57 97 00 05 90 96 00 09 32 98 00 03 57 90 00 01 39 89 00 07 31 88 00 03 87 87 00 02 12 85 00 01 46 86 00 00 20 84 00 00 15II (ii) 4753
BELAPARA 1272 00 01 051265 00 03 16
1269 00 00 37 1266 00 05 96 1261 00 09 97 1262 00 00 30 1263 00 01 57 1264 00 04 40 1251 00 00 10 1252 00 00 15 1240 00 01 67 1239 00 08 87 1231 00 04 45 1222 00 03 58 1223 00 01 15 1208 00 02 93 1209 00 04 06 1194 00 05 34 1164 00 06 89 1163 00 00 10 1160 00 03 39 1159 00 03 38 1157 00 03 30 1156 00 06 21 1155 00 03 09 1130 00 00 22 1128 00 07 41 1127 00 01 18 1126 00 03 79 1120 00 05 34 1112 00 00 10 1111 00 03 11 1110 00 03 65 1109 00 04 544754 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1098/1301 00 03 00 1098/1300 00 02 99
1023 00 04 62 1022 00 05 82 1016 00 07 49 1017 00 03 01 1015 00 05 68 1010 00 07 40 1009 00 02 65 1007 00 03 05 1006 00 02 29 1003 00 03 21 1002 00 03 11 992 00 08 78 1024 00 01 06 1054 00 02 01 1052 00 03 83 1051 00 02 61 1050 00 01 15 1046 00 03 50 1043 00 00 96 1042 00 00 71 1040 00 02 04 1037 00 03 98 1036 00 04 39 1034 00 00 49 1034/1383 00 02 87 1033 00 00 46 1028 00 04 51 1027 00 00 10 761 00 00 59 760 00 05 43 759 00 08 00 757 00 02 90II (ii) 4755 750 00 00 37
EKADALIA 932 00 00 60
931 00 03 76
930 00 01 51
929 00 09 09
917 00 08 55
916 00 00 23
915 00 03 93
914 00 00 38
918 00 00 12
909 00 03 26
908 00 01 82
907 00 02 04
905 00 00 81
906 00 04 34
904 00 00 53
902 00 04 51
903 00 00 23
901 00 04 99
894 00 04 53
892 00 02 41
893 00 02 16
891 00 07 25
884 00 03 10
883 00 02 22
882 00 01 07
881 00 00 20
835 00 01 78
1035 00 03 63
1036 00 05 34
1038 00 01 86
1040 00 02 75
1039 00 00 61
4756 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
826 00 05 00
827 00 05 33
831 00 04 70 824 00 06 49 823 00 05 70 833 00 05 04 822 00 00 10 784 00 00 97 335 00 03 73 332 00 00 81 817 00 00 42 815 00 05 41 795 00 02 66 813 00 03 88 796 00 05 60 794 00 05 07 793 00 00 10 786 00 01 00 788 00 01 75 787 00 02 51 770 00 02 34 771 00 02 43 772 00 03 48 774 00 03 00 775 00 02 53 623 00 02 76 624 00 02 34 625 00 04 10 611 00 04 63 599 00 04 43 609 00 01 00 600 00 02 85 601 00 00 51 602 00 01 01II (ii) 4757 577 00 00 13 578 00 05 49
581 00 00 37
557 00 00 52
555 00 03 60
556 00 02 26
558 00 01 50
558/1475 00 01 13
558/1498 00 00 88
553 00 00 13
559 00 02 22
559/1473 00 00 62
547 00 01 36
560 00 04 78
486 00 07 77
498 00 04 90
505 00 04 24
507 00 04 86
CHANDRASEKHARPUR 872 00 04 42
876 00 02 99
875/1717 00 01 07
881 00 03 21
878 00 01 93
880 00 03 79
879 00 00 33
863 00 04 49
862 00 05 16
861 00 03 01
858 00 02 75
857 00 00 50
887 00 03 55
813 00 01 22
897 00 00 91
4758 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
911 00 05 42
913 00 03 32
921 00 00 72 932 00 07 03 931 00 02 90 933 00 00 82 930 00 08 08 929 00 02 82 954 00 04 71 953 00 00 87 989 00 00 13 955 00 04 47 988 00 02 82 981 00 02 13 987 00 01 36 982 00 03 43 986 00 00 12 983 00 03 46 984 00 04 33 1062 00 00 14 1061 00 03 68 1006 00 03 80 1060 00 03 34 1055 00 02 53 1056 00 05 52 1039 00 07 84 1040 00 03 95 1035 00 04 75 1074 00 00 62 1034 00 03 32 1033 00 00 56 1086 00 00 10 1087 00 03 03 414 00 02 10II (ii) 4759 409 00 00 39 410 00 02 24
406 00 01 00 194 00 07 88 195 00 00 33 200 00 04 70 201 00 04 00 203 00 00 61 204 00 03 16 344 00 02 34 343 00 04 70 207 00 00 54 208 00 02 16 342 00 00 23 341 00 00 33 209 00 02 28 211 00 03 63 335 00 00 30 212 00 04 01 215/1704 00 03 24 334/1705 00 01 74 334 00 01 82 333 00 00 41 225 00 02 98 332 00 00 83 331 00 11 29 230 00 01 35 330 00 03 30 245 00 04 21 231 00 01 18 248 00 02 42 249 00 00 83 246 00 02 93 247 00 01 334760 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 241 00 04 51 240 00 00 10
252 00 03 48
255 00 03 55
256 00 02 36
96 00 08 07
95 00 04 65
BORIGUAN 438 00 09 87
664 00 02 19
439 00 07 44
446 00 06 05
447/695 00 02 82
448/706 00 02 49
447 00 03 57
455 00 00 20
456 00 00 22
457 00 05 01
458 00 00 10
459/689 00 00 10
460 00 06 75
464 00 00 68
465 00 02 55
466 00 02 55
467 00 05 05
469 00 05 15
472 00 07 33
491 00 02 84
494 00 00 65
495 00 02 62
500 00 03 21
499 00 03 27
502 00 00 65
501 00 07 09
II (ii)
4761
534 00 05 19
535 00 00 10
195 00 01 11
557 00 02 13
558 00 00 65
194 00 02 74
193 00 04 09
564 00 02 53
145 00 06 53
146 00 00 35
144/707 00 02 89
144 00 04 08
127 00 05 43
131 00 00 89
128 00 01 84
129 00 03 80
130 00 00 40
115 00 07 22
116 00 07 24
117 00 00 48
KHADIPADAR 574 00 00 10
563 00 06 42
562 00 20 84
565 00 00 48
564 00 00 43
566 00 00 10
552 00 00 33
554 00 02 32
556 00 03 58
561 00 01 90
557 00 03 22
558 00 00 10
559 00 02 26
4762 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
497 00 03 44
496 00 00 84 495 00 01 78 494 00 02 73 493 00 04 57 406 00 00 32 492 00 05 23 439 00 07 96 438 00 01 92 437 00 00 35 440 00 04 52 481 00 00 10 478 00 01 72 479 00 00 10 477 00 01 58 441 00 02 11 476 00 02 40 475 00 02 25 443 00 00 10 444 00 03 92 445 00 03 00 452 00 02 83 453 00 01 37 451 00 00 56 454 00 08 75 449 00 00 47 456 00 00 10 455 00 00 10
[F. No. R-25011/17/2017-OR-I /48599 /13715]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
II (ii) 4763नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1816.—के न्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप (ओड़िशा) से हैदराबाद (तेलंगाना) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा "पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन" बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और के न्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अत: अब, के न्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम,1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री दिल्लीप कु मार महांति, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, तृतीय तल, आलोक भारती टावर ,शहीद नगर ,भुवनेश्वर -751007, ओड़िशा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा I
| अनुसूची | ||||
| तहसील- टांगि | जिला - खोद्र्धा | राज्य -ओड़िशा | ||
| गाँव का नाम | प्लॉट नं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
खजुरिआ 641 00 02 62
638 00 02 95
640 00 05 12
639 00 04 54
635/658 00 05 77
616 00 07 08
614/668 00 00 84
617/669 00 02 40
614 00 00 36
617 00 02 92
613 00 00 77
612 00 10 00
595 00 00 96
4764 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
594/708 00 02 23
585 00 06 19 588 00 00 44 587 00 06 90 586 00 00 73 290 00 02 46 290/796 00 00 15 288 00 01 63 288/771 00 00 96 289 00 00 30 581 00 01 21 568 00 01 13 293 00 01 03 292 00 01 13 291 00 01 21 297 00 01 53 298 00 07 64 298/769 00 02 66 307 00 02 81 306 00 05 70 300 00 00 25 301 00 06 48 305 00 00 67 308 00 06 31 309 00 03 40 509 00 13 98 508 00 15 68 505 00 00 51 504 00 04 36 503 00 02 96II (ii) 4765 321/653 00 07 06
322/654 00 02 94 140 00 07 14 141 00 01 46 141/712 00 01 46 141/722 00 00 72 119 00 06 52 141/647 00 01 42 118 00 00 73 118/822 00 01 19 120 00 02 74 117 00 16 52 110 00 02 47 106 00 02 49 108 00 00 10 107 00 03 64 109 00 00 33 96 00 00 78 92 00 01 84 92/823 00 04 73 90 00 10 34 86 00 01 50 84 00 00 10 85 00 01 29 83 00 00 30 76 00 15 14 77 00 03 08 20 00 00 42 40 00 08 85 39 00 05 354766 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 38 00 01 30
37 00 03 28
34 00 02 07
31 00 04 94
33 00 00 23
32 00 00 55
16 00 04 92
15 00 01 05
14 00 01 09
डमणभूइँ 821 00 00 10
820 00 03 17
822 00 04 15
823 00 02 20
825 00 00 54
826 00 03 20
828 00 10 72
829 00 07 04
830 00 00 44
832 00 03 58
846 00 03 05
845 00 06 28
850 00 01 85
851 00 03 81
852 00 18 88
854 00 01 01
853 00 04 45
869 00 14 43
868 00 03 22
957 00 07 85
II (ii)
4767
962 00 21 31
963 00 02 45 972 00 05 37 954 00 02 65 952 00 12 66 953 00 02 50 950 00 01 05 951 00 10 21 948 00 06 09 941 00 00 16 942 00 45 53 942/2189 00 01 03 942/2195 00 00 52 942/2194 00 00 52 942/2193 00 00 52 942/2196 00 00 52 1044 00 05 04 1043 00 08 67 1042 00 07 27 1041 00 11 97 1045 00 01 12 1090 00 22 13 1088 00 03 94 1089 00 01 03 1111 00 01 82 1113 00 02 76 1105 00 00 72 1516 00 08 51 1526 00 04 50 1525 00 02 404768 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1524 00 03 00
1524/2229 00 03 01 1523 00 04 07 1521 00 01 81 1522 00 00 26 1520 00 02 32 1697 00 00 50 1696 00 03 97 1704 00 02 43 1703 00 00 24 1705 00 00 12 1706 00 00 57 1925 00 06 15 1713 00 01 38 1924 00 04 53 1714 00 06 06 1923 00 00 12 1715 00 07 34 1716 00 00 10 1718 00 06 67 1717 00 00 23 1723 00 02 41 1719 00 00 18 1722 00 04 87 1721 00 07 39 1831 00 04 94 1830 00 07 53 1772 00 00 34 1835 00 00 10 1829 00 01 60II (ii) 4769 1821 00 03 52
1820 00 03 86
1837 00 03 93
1839 00 01 60
1838 00 07 66
1843 00 02 48
1857 00 03 91
1859 00 17 19
1856 00 03 08
अम्भाबिल 1060 00 00 86
1072/1834 00 03 93
1072 00 03 33
1070 00 01 28
1069 00 03 63
1073 00 03 43
1075 00 00 10
1068 00 12 98
1067 00 04 81
1078 00 09 64
1079 00 00 26
1084 00 01 13
1084/1830 00 05 47
1085/1827 00 09 54
1085 00 00 10
1086 00 00 10
1085/1826 00 06 99
1087 00 00 87
1118 00 04 36
1106 00 01 94
4770 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1107 00 03 05
1128 00 02 54 1127 00 00 82 1109 00 00 22 1831 00 02 22 1125 00 00 50 1133 00 07 45 1790 00 04 12 1138 00 17 41 1139 00 02 33 1139/1854 00 00 67 1139/1855 00 01 18 1140 00 04 77 1140/1948 00 04 78 1185 00 02 64 1185/1951 00 02 64 1183 00 04 23 1182 00 04 82 1179 00 01 27 1180 00 02 97 1178 00 09 11 1194 00 03 84 1193 00 01 05 1195 00 01 56 1196 00 01 26 1197 00 00 92 1198 00 07 62 1199 00 00 77 1200 00 01 32 1201 00 01 81II (ii) 4771 770 00 03 30
771 00 02 48 769 00 10 66 767 00 00 45 766 00 02 49 759 00 10 15 763 00 00 92 760 00 02 65 761 00 02 38 758 00 00 44 757 00 02 95 756 00 02 23 562 00 06 05 565 00 03 07 569 00 01 69 566 00 04 38 561 00 01 30 560 00 00 33 558 00 01 10 563 00 02 96 557 00 01 01 537 00 01 50 555 00 00 16 538 00 04 24 536 00 00 42 556 00 00 48 544 00 00 45 543 00 03 23 542 00 03 39 539 00 00 714772 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 540 00 00 10
138 00 01 25 428 00 01 30 427 00 01 16 425 00 01 01 423 00 01 16 422 00 01 22 424 00 02 14 421 00 00 27 419 00 09 59 418 00 00 92 417 00 00 53 430 00 00 10 416 00 06 16 414 00 08 32 413 00 08 93 410 00 02 32 411 00 01 33 412 00 02 09 343 00 02 87 342 00 03 73 341 00 00 32 1451 00 00 24 1499 00 00 41 337 00 01 43 336 00 02 06 335 00 00 10 334 00 02 50 1285 00 00 59 1288 00 02 59II (ii) 4773 1501 00 03 12
1502 00 03 27
1503 00 00 17
1504 00 01 24
1505 00 07 14
1525 00 04 73
1524 00 00 10
1526 00 01 66
1527 00 02 66
1539 00 03 88
1540 00 02 45
1543 00 02 40
1544 00 02 43
1545 00 02 21
1838 00 02 43
1546 00 02 18
1547 00 04 26
1550 00 01 59
1551 00 00 79
1781 00 02 49
1553 00 01 29
असुरढ़िप 341 00 01 14
276 00 00 15
277 00 00 60
278/399 00 06 88
280 00 04 20
281/388 00 03 43
281/396 00 00 94
282 00 02 70
4774 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
221 00 13 56
222 00 00 11 230/368 00 05 37 234 00 02 67 235 00 02 59 254 00 12 43 253 00 04 65 254/386 00 00 41 242 00 02 27 245 00 01 71 244 00 05 57 161 00 02 13 161/406 00 01 16 160 00 00 72 160/405 00 02 46 159 00 00 10 158 00 04 61 157 00 02 28 156 00 03 95 155 00 03 65 154 00 04 47 153 00 02 45 152 00 02 83 151 00 07 26 184 00 00 10 123 00 06 58 121 00 03 73 121/397 00 03 42 94 00 29 75 99 00 02 22II (ii) 4775 16 00 00 96
16/421 00 02 70
17 00 07 89
18 00 07 31
राउतरापुर 416 00 02 85
363 00 10 58
364 00 06 21
367 00 00 36
366 00 04 31
370 00 04 09
372 00 00 10
370/542 00 00 15
373 00 01 68
374 00 00 94
377 00 03 34
378 00 01 99
378/597 00 04 72
380 00 02 94
413 00 00 46
381 00 01 25
382 00 00 17
383 00 00 18
412 00 09 82
411 00 07 98
410 00 00 10
407 00 02 96
403 00 01 60
404 00 01 23
402 00 04 29
4776 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
390 00 00 56
389 00 04 40
391 00 00 62
392 00 02 92
311 00 01 66
310 00 01 58
308 00 02 64
394 00 04 11
छणगिरि 611 00 03 14
610 00 02 50
612 00 02 94
609 00 01 78
608 00 00 48
607 00 04 98
614 00 10 87
615 00 04 10
616 00 10 13
515 00 05 07
518 00 04 83
517 00 09 08
496 00 04 59
507 00 02 05
506 00 01 35
497 00 08 81
505 00 00 44
501 00 08 63
500 00 03 86
490 00 01 95
485 00 02 07
II (ii)
4777
488 00 05 63
487 00 08 93 486 00 01 05 473/760 00 01 58 468/734 00 00 10 468 00 05 58 469 00 00 48 466 00 23 13 455 00 12 33 456 00 00 37 452 00 05 35 451 00 03 49 450 00 08 85
[फा.सं. आर-25011/17/2017-ओआर-I/48599/13715]
पवन कु मार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2017
S.O. 1816.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip (Odisha) to Hyderabad (Telangana), "Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline" should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Dillip Kumar Mohanty, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 3rd Floor, Alok Bharati Tower, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar- 751007, (Odisha).
| SCHEDULE | ||||
| Tehsil : TANGI | District : KHORDHA | State : ODISHA | ||
| Name of the Village | Plot No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
KHAJURIA 641 00 02 62 4778 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 640 00 05 12
639 00 04 54 635/658 00 05 77 616 00 07 08 614/668 00 00 84 617/669 00 02 40 614 00 00 36 617 00 02 92 613 00 00 77 612 00 10 00 595 00 00 96 593 00 02 56 594 00 00 95 594/708 00 02 23 585 00 06 19 588 00 00 44 587 00 06 90 586 00 00 73 290 00 02 46 290/796 00 00 15 288 00 01 63 288/771 00 00 96 289 00 00 30 581 00 01 21 568 00 01 13 293 00 01 03 292 00 01 13 291 00 01 21 297 00 01 53 298 00 07 64II (ii) 4779 307 00 02 81
306 00 05 70 300 00 00 25 301 00 06 48 305 00 00 67 308 00 06 31 309 00 03 40 509 00 13 98 508 00 15 68 505 00 00 51 504 00 04 36 503 00 02 96 321 00 04 18 321/653 00 07 06 322/654 00 02 94 140 00 07 14 141 00 01 46 141/712 00 01 46 141/722 00 00 72 119 00 06 52 141/647 00 01 42 118 00 00 73 118/822 00 01 19 120 00 02 74 117 00 16 52 110 00 02 47 106 00 02 49 108 00 00 10 107 00 03 644780 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 92 00 01 84
92/823 00 04 73
90 00 10 34
86 00 01 50
84 00 00 10
85 00 01 29
83 00 00 30
76 00 15 14
77 00 03 08
20 00 00 42
40 00 08 85
39 00 05 35
36 00 04 65
38 00 01 30
37 00 03 28
34 00 02 07
31 00 04 94
33 00 00 23
32 00 00 55
16 00 04 92
15 00 01 05
14 00 01 09
DAMANBHUIN 821 00 00 10
820 00 03 17
822 00 04 15
823 00 02 20
825 00 00 54
826 00 03 20
828 00 10 72
II (ii)
4781
830 00 00 44
832 00 03 58 846 00 03 05 845 00 06 28 850 00 01 85 851 00 03 81 852 00 18 88 854 00 01 01 853 00 04 45 869 00 14 43 868 00 03 22 957 00 07 85 961 00 01 31 962 00 21 31 963 00 02 45 972 00 05 37 954 00 02 65 952 00 12 66 953 00 02 50 950 00 01 05 951 00 10 21 948 00 06 09 941 00 00 16 942 00 45 53 942/2189 00 01 03 942/2195 00 00 52 942/2194 00 00 52 942/2193 00 00 52 942/2196 00 00 524782 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1042 00 07 27
1041 00 11 97 1045 00 01 12 1090 00 22 13 1088 00 03 94 1089 00 01 03 1111 00 01 82 1113 00 02 76 1105 00 00 72 1516 00 08 51 1526 00 04 50 1525 00 02 40 1517 00 00 19 1524 00 03 00 1524/2229 00 03 01 1523 00 04 07 1521 00 01 81 1522 00 00 26 1520 00 02 32 1697 00 00 50 1696 00 03 97 1704 00 02 43 1703 00 00 24 1705 00 00 12 1706 00 00 57 1925 00 06 15 1713 00 01 38 1924 00 04 53 1714 00 06 06 1923 00 00 12II (ii) 4783 1716 00 00 10
1718 00 06 67
1717 00 00 23
1723 00 02 41
1719 00 00 18
1722 00 04 87
1721 00 07 39
1831 00 04 94
1830 00 07 53
1772 00 00 34
1835 00 00 10
1829 00 01 60
1836 00 00 75
1821 00 03 52
1820 00 03 86
1837 00 03 93
1839 00 01 60
1838 00 07 66
1843 00 02 48
1857 00 03 91
1859 00 17 19
1856 00 03 08
AMBHABIL 1060 00 00 86
1072/1834 00 03 93
1072 00 03 33
1070 00 01 28
1069 00 03 63
1073 00 03 43
4784 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1067 00 04 81
1078 00 09 64 1079 00 00 26 1084 00 01 13 1084/1830 00 05 47 1085/1827 00 09 54 1085 00 00 10 1086 00 00 10 1085/1826 00 06 99 1087 00 00 87 1118 00 04 36 1106 00 01 94 1833 00 04 08 1107 00 03 05 1128 00 02 54 1127 00 00 82 1109 00 00 22 1831 00 02 22 1125 00 00 50 1133 00 07 45 1790 00 04 12 1138 00 17 41 1139 00 02 33 1139/1854 00 00 67 1139/1855 00 01 18 1140 00 04 77 1140/1948 00 04 78 1185 00 02 64 1185/1951 00 02 64 1183 00 04 23II (ii) 4785 1179 00 01 27
1180 00 02 97 1178 00 09 11 1194 00 03 84 1193 00 01 05 1195 00 01 56 1196 00 01 26 1197 00 00 92 1198 00 07 62 1199 00 00 77 1200 00 01 32 1201 00 01 81 772 00 01 72 770 00 03 30 771 00 02 48 769 00 10 66 767 00 00 45 766 00 02 49 759 00 10 15 763 00 00 92 760 00 02 65 761 00 02 38 758 00 00 44 757 00 02 95 756 00 02 23 562 00 06 05 565 00 03 07 569 00 01 69 566 00 04 384786 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 558 00 01 10
563 00 02 96 557 00 01 01 537 00 01 50 555 00 00 16 538 00 04 24 536 00 00 42 556 00 00 48 544 00 00 45 543 00 03 23 542 00 03 39 539 00 00 71 541 00 05 21 540 00 00 10 138 00 01 25 428 00 01 30 427 00 01 16 425 00 01 01 423 00 01 16 422 00 01 22 424 00 02 14 421 00 00 27 419 00 09 59 418 00 00 92 417 00 00 53 430 00 00 10 416 00 06 16 414 00 08 32 413 00 08 93 410 00 02 32II (ii) 4787 412 00 02 09
343 00 02 87 342 00 03 73 341 00 00 32 1451 00 00 24 1499 00 00 41 337 00 01 43 336 00 02 06 335 00 00 10 334 00 02 50 1285 00 00 59 1288 00 02 59 1500 00 01 10 1501 00 03 12 1502 00 03 27 1503 00 00 17 1504 00 01 24 1505 00 07 14 1525 00 04 73 1524 00 00 10 1526 00 01 66 1527 00 02 66 1539 00 03 88 1540 00 02 45 1543 00 02 40 1544 00 02 43 1545 00 02 21 1838 00 02 43 1546 00 02 184788 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1551 00 00 79
1781 00 02 49
1553 00 01 29
ASURADHIPA 341 00 01 14
276 00 00 15
277 00 00 60
278/399 00 06 88
280 00 04 20
281/388 00 03 43
281/396 00 00 94
282 00 02 70
271 00 02 98
221 00 13 56
222 00 00 11
230/368 00 05 37
234 00 02 67
235 00 02 59
254 00 12 43
253 00 04 65
254/386 00 00 41
242 00 02 27
245 00 01 71
244 00 05 57
161 00 02 13
161/406 00 01 16
160 00 00 72
160/405 00 02 46
159 00 00 10
158 00 04 61
II (ii)
4789
156 00 03 95
155 00 03 65
154 00 04 47
153 00 02 45
152 00 02 83
151 00 07 26
184 00 00 10
123 00 06 58
121 00 03 73
121/397 00 03 42
94 00 29 75
99 00 02 22
19 00 02 75
16 00 00 96
16/421 00 02 70
17 00 07 89
18 00 07 31
ROUTARAPUR 416 00 02 85
363 00 10 58
364 00 06 21
367 00 00 36
366 00 04 31
370 00 04 09
372 00 00 10
370/542 00 00 15
373 00 01 68
374 00 00 94
377 00 03 34
4790 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
380 00 02 94
413 00 00 46
381 00 01 25
382 00 00 17
383 00 00 18
412 00 09 82
411 00 07 98
410 00 00 10
407 00 02 96
403 00 01 60
404 00 01 23
402 00 04 29
399 00 04 06
390 00 00 56
389 00 04 40
391 00 00 62
392 00 02 92
311 00 01 66
310 00 01 58
308 00 02 64
394 00 04 11
CHHANAGIRI 611 00 03 14
610 00 02 50
612 00 02 94
609 00 01 78
608 00 00 48
607 00 04 98
614 00 10 87
615 00 04 10
II (ii)
4791
515 00 05 07
518 00 04 83 517 00 09 08 496 00 04 59 507 00 02 05 506 00 01 35 497 00 08 81 505 00 00 44 501 00 08 63 500 00 03 86 490 00 01 95 485 00 02 07 489 00 03 27 488 00 05 63 487 00 08 93 486 00 01 05 473/760 00 01 58 468/734 00 00 10 468 00 05 58 469 00 00 48 466 00 23 13 455 00 12 33 456 00 00 37 452 00 05 35 451 00 03 49 450 00 08 85
[F. No. R-25011/17/2017-OR-I/48599/13715]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1817.— के न्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप (ओड़िशा) से हैदराबाद (तेलंगाना) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा "पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन" बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
4792 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]और के न्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है ओर जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अत: अब, के न्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम,1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री दिल्लीप कु मार महांति, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, तृतीय तल, आलोक भारती टावर ,शहीद नगर ,भुवनेश्वर -751007, ओड़िशा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा I
| अनुसूची | ||||
| तहसील- खोद्र्धा | जिला - खोद्र्धा | राज्य - ओड़िशा | ||
| गाँव का नाम | प्लॉट नं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
राएपुर 479 00 07 37
480 00 05 33
597 00 05 81
595 00 04 60
596 00 08 46
593 00 06 46
592 00 01 54
572 00 00 46
573 00 07 57
574 00 05 98
575 00 04 43
568 00 06 48
567 00 00 83
561 00 00 10
562 00 08 09
555 00 04 64
554 00 05 86
543 00 02 64
II (ii)
4793
548 00 02 80
549 00 01 67
525 00 07 08
521 00 11 76
520 00 04 44
बसन्त 647 00 07 65
648 00 06 50
635 00 04 17
650 00 00 10
632 00 00 81
651 00 02 88
631 00 03 55
608 00 03 74
609 00 04 99
610 00 02 84
605 00 03 73
614 00 03 65
523 00 07 91
520 00 03 76
519 00 03 82
461 00 06 33
462 00 02 74
518 00 13 94
517 00 01 42
515 00 03 49
514 00 04 27
512 00 08 37
551 00 00 10
508 00 02 31
555 00 01 56
507 00 00 21
556 00 07 39
502 00 05 19
501 00 04 23
500 00 02 15
4794 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
497 00 03 02
499 00 03 26
498 00 04 15
अण्डा 600 00 04 23
599 00 05 62
598 00 07 20
604 00 00 26
607 00 03 55
608 00 00 29
609 00 01 80
610 00 07 51
611 00 01 54
621 00 04 20
620 00 04 36
690 00 02 11
691 00 02 86
693 00 04 13
694 00 01 03
696 00 00 78
695 00 05 49
720 00 01 62
783 00 00 46
785 00 03 42
799 00 01 07
786 00 03 82
798 00 01 10
798/1108 00 00 32
799/1109 00 00 88
788 00 10 00
797 00 00 63
795 00 04 59
793 00 08 93
794 00 00 10
हरिपुर 933 00 07 93
II (ii)
4795
931 00 01 31
934/967 00 02 06
935 00 11 08
936 00 06 16
958 00 00 10
940 00 08 75
941 00 06 22
951 00 00 19
948 00 03 14
947 00 02 86
946 00 01 16
949 00 04 76
धउलिमुहँ 2039 00 07 00
2038 00 00 10
2040 00 14 86
2041 00 10 37
2048 00 09 30
2028 00 07 47
2050 00 12 83
2051 00 00 10
2024 00 13 76
2022 00 04 83
2025 00 00 97
2020 00 14 30
2019 00 01 41
गोपिनाथपुर 3 00 00 72
4 00 01 82
5 00 00 34
6 00 03 26
7 00 02 86
8 00 02 59
11 00 03 63
4796 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ब्रजमोहनपुर 103 00 14 50
95 00 12 85
82 00 01 47
81 00 01 32
118 00 06 52
119 00 06 28
129 00 00 94
128 00 04 13
130 00 04 14
131 00 07 24
135 00 05 94
69 00 02 49
136 00 00 31
68 00 15 55
170 00 00 28
172 00 01 82
173 00 07 41
67 00 00 93
174 00 01 74
203 00 02 03
175 00 00 92
176 00 04 34
177 00 04 80
178 00 00 10
200 00 02 69
193 00 00 84
199 00 05 82
194 00 02 07
198 00 08 34
196 00 05 62
269 00 00 10
नरसिंहप्रसाद 784 00 00 60
785 00 05 05
II (ii)
4797
985 00 06 69
984 00 07 21
951 00 08 91
952 00 00 55
955 00 04 03
954 00 03 43
953 00 03 02
978 00 05 14
977 00 01 90
993 00 03 04
994 00 03 51
976 00 07 35
रामचण्डि 584 00 04 26
582 00 02 59
583 00 09 73
606 00 00 30
607 00 07 29
608 00 02 82
609 00 04 76
637 00 03 80
636 00 04 66
635 00 00 90
632 00 00 78
634 00 02 14
633 00 09 47
659 00 10 64
674 00 04 76
675 00 06 30
669 00 00 10
696 00 11 68
710 00 00 10
698 00 00 94
707 00 02 90
705 00 00 694798 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 708 00 01 06
733 00 08 57
736 00 05 58
741 00 00 99
740 00 05 36
739 00 01 31
527 00 13 12
526 00 01 70
525 00 05 57
500 00 00 63
499 00 04 02
175 00 05 01
478 00 05 24
479 00 00 30
477 00 00 83
480 00 05 14
486 00 00 10
485 00 09 48
484 00 06 60
दुर्गाप्रसाद 842 00 01 78
843 00 05 70
841 00 03 28
844 00 00 10
845 00 01 42
835 00 06 51
834 00 04 84
846 00 02 04
846/1065 00 02 05
847 00 01 16
832 00 01 42
812 00 10 36
813 00 01 41
807 00 12 30
808 00 01 85
II (ii)
4799
804 00 04 56
789 00 06 94
803 00 00 10
790 00 03 25
791 00 04 04
792 00 04 44
727 00 00 28
730 00 06 14
731 00 00 10
728 00 00 10
729 00 00 74
713 00 04 29
714 00 00 10
712 00 02 10
710 00 02 78
709 00 05 88
706 00 00 64
698 00 01 50
699 00 00 76
705 00 02 28
704 00 03 44
702 00 00 10
703 00 03 33
692 00 06 68
690 00 00 22
693 00 05 99
जगन्नाथपुर 942 00 04 75
943 00 02 97
941 00 03 22
948 00 00 61
949 00 03 21
933 00 02 52
953 00 07 51
4800 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
956 00 09 69
957 00 04 45
958 00 04 96 960 00 01 50 961 00 08 34 1003 00 00 40 962 00 06 57 963 00 02 26 910 00 09 63 909 00 11 87 908 00 00 51 906 00 00 25 906/1138 00 00 10 907 00 03 65 900 00 04 11 899 00 01 23 898 00 05 06 892 00 02 49 885 00 05 22 884 00 03 18 886 00 13 67 877 00 01 13 872 00 03 51 871 00 02 89 873 00 00 10 861 00 07 40 862 00 00 35 860 00 06 81 859 00 03 47 446 00 02 59 447 00 02 73 450 00 00 95 451 00 05 74 466 00 01 26 463 00 09 20II (ii) 4801 464 00 02 95
461 00 03 25 460 00 08 01 459 00 00 10 477 00 02 43 478 00 03 19 822 00 01 39 483 00 04 53 484 00 01 05 482 00 00 10 485 00 09 54 818 00 00 36 486 00 01 25 493 00 05 56 492 00 01 11 491 00 01 56 496 00 01 73 497 00 01 94 498 00 37 12 812 00 00 10 508 00 01 37 509 00 01 74 510 00 07 50 511 00 00 88 512 00 02 90 513 00 06 16 517 00 00 85 518 00 05 79 541 00 05 21 540 00 07 15 799 00 00 10 523 00 00 10 539 00 00 54 537 00 00 10
545 00 00 124802 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 543 00 01 40
544 00 01 41
546 00 07 38
550 00 01 41
549 00 00 41
548 00 04 29
547 00 05 79
पाणिछत्र 676 00 00 10
677 00 03 35
678 00 04 38
696 00 08 60
695 00 01 84
694 00 06 42
691 00 06 63
717 00 05 31
716 00 00 30
718 00 05 04
721 00 03 57
722 00 01 81
720 00 02 99
763 00 05 02
764 00 00 10
764/1513 00 00 10
764/1517 00 00 10
764/1518 00 00 10
764/1519 00 00 23
762 00 02 23
767 00 02 40
761 00 01 38
801 00 04 93
802 00 07 17
803 00 04 41
804 00 04 56
808 00 01 00
II (ii)
4803
825 00 06 22
879 00 02 90
880 00 06 81
881 00 00 34
882 00 08 29
901 00 02 33
883 00 00 10
899 00 00 98
894 00 02 93
897 00 02 54
896 00 00 79
907 00 03 55
908 00 02 66
917 00 01 19
917/1487 00 02 48
920 00 00 43
919 00 02 04
918 00 00 26
932 00 03 42
933 00 00 45
950 00 00 10
950/1435 00 00 10
949 00 12 46
943 00 00 11
948 00 03 50
947 00 08 78
946 00 00 32
982 00 02 09
980 00 00 12
981 00 13 63
985 00 02 23
कँ पुर 1580 00 03 19
1581 00 01 10
1578 00 08 434804 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1583 00 01 35
1585 00 06 64
1577 00 08 05
1588 00 01 45
1589 00 06 76
1598 00 02 18
1594 00 02 74
1597 00 02 96
1596 00 04 13
1595 00 00 10
गोड़िपडा 571 00 10 16
570 00 04 09
573 00 06 86
568 00 04 11
576 00 03 52
577 00 01 58
578 00 02 42
579 00 00 17
566 00 11 05
565 00 01 87
580 00 03 52
581 00 01 48
484 00 02 80
483 00 00 20
478 00 00 85
476 00 03 30
475 00 04 07
474 00 02 75
473 00 03 69
472 00 01 79
464 00 13 11
465 00 00 43
463 00 07 17
448 00 00 49
II (ii)
4805
454 00 05 47452 00 01 42
414 00 07 14
415 00 14 44
408 00 12 88
397 00 08 34
379 00 07 94
386 00 08 79
387 00 13 99
362 00 04 93
361 00 12 91
364 00 00 57
मोटा 392 00 00 17
391 00 08 16
390 00 01 05
251 00 09 08
250 00 16 41
249 00 06 92
248 00 04 80
206 00 06 09
लहंगा 127 00 03 92
126 00 08 81
114 00 02 28
125 00 03 63
124 00 03 76
115 00 00 12
123 00 05 09
119 00 02 04
121 00 02 03
120 00 02 09
117 00 00 32
[फा.सं. आर-25011/17/2017-ओआर-I/48599/13715]
पवन कु मार, अवर सचिव4806 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2017
S.O. 1817.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip (Odisha) to Hyderabad (Telangana), "Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline" should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Dillip Kumar Mohanty, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 3rd Floor, Alok Bharati Tower, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar- 751007, (Odisha).
| SCHEDULE | ||||
| Tehsil : KHORDHA | District : KHORDHA | State : ODISHA | ||
| Name of the Village | Plot No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
RAIPUR 479 00 07 37
480 00 05 33
597 00 05 81
595 00 04 60
596 00 08 46
593 00 06 46
592 00 01 54
572 00 00 46
573 00 07 57
574 00 05 98
575 00 04 43
568 00 06 48
567 00 00 83
561 00 00 10
562 00 08 09
II (ii)
4807
554 00 05 86
543 00 02 64
544 00 03 16
547 00 06 56
548 00 02 80
549 00 01 67
525 00 07 08
521 00 11 76
520 00 04 44
BASANTA 647 00 07 65
648 00 06 50
635 00 04 17
650 00 00 10
632 00 00 81
651 00 02 88
631 00 03 55
608 00 03 74
609 00 04 99
610 00 02 84
605 00 03 73
614 00 03 65
523 00 07 91
520 00 03 76
519 00 03 82
461 00 06 33
462 00 02 74
518 00 13 94
517 00 01 42
515 00 03 49
4808 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
512 00 08 37
551 00 00 10
508 00 02 31
555 00 01 56
507 00 00 21
556 00 07 39
502 00 05 19
501 00 04 23
500 00 02 15
497 00 03 02
499 00 03 26
498 00 04 15
ANDA 600 00 04 23
599 00 05 62
598 00 07 20
604 00 00 26
607 00 03 55
608 00 00 29
609 00 01 80
610 00 07 51
611 00 01 54
621 00 04 20
620 00 04 36
690 00 02 11
691 00 02 86
693 00 04 13
694 00 01 03
696 00 00 78
695 00 05 49
II (ii)
4809
783 00 00 46785 00 03 42
799 00 01 07
786 00 03 82
798 00 01 10
798/1108 00 00 32
799/1109 00 00 88
788 00 10 00
797 00 00 63
795 00 04 59
793 00 08 93
794 00 00 10
HARIPUR 933 00 07 93
931 00 01 31
934/967 00 02 06
935 00 11 08
936 00 06 16
958 00 00 10
940 00 08 75
941 00 06 22
951 00 00 19
948 00 03 14
947 00 02 86
946 00 01 16
949 00 04 76
DHAULIMUHNA 2039 00 07 00
2038 00 00 10
2040 00 14 86
4810 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2048 00 09 30
2028 00 07 47
2050 00 12 83
2051 00 00 10
2024 00 13 76
2022 00 04 83
2025 00 00 97
2020 00 14 30
2019 00 01 41
GOPINATHPUR 3 00 00 72
4 00 01 82
5 00 00 34
6 00 03 26
7 00 02 86
8 00 02 59
11 00 03 63
10 00 02 06
13 00 02 50
BRAJMOHANPUR 103 00 14 50
95 00 12 85
82 00 01 47
81 00 01 32
118 00 06 52
119 00 06 28
129 00 00 94
128 00 04 13
130 00 04 14
131 00 07 24
II (ii)
4811
69 00 02 49
136 00 00 31
68 00 15 55
170 00 00 28
172 00 01 82
173 00 07 41
67 00 00 93
174 00 01 74
203 00 02 03
175 00 00 92
176 00 04 34
177 00 04 80
178 00 00 10
200 00 02 69
193 00 00 84
199 00 05 82
194 00 02 07
198 00 08 34
196 00 05 62
269 00 00 10
NARASINHAPRASAD 784 00 00 60
785 00 05 05
950 00 03 46
985 00 06 69
984 00 07 21
951 00 08 91
952 00 00 55
955 00 04 03
954 00 03 43
4812 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
978 00 05 14
977 00 01 90
993 00 03 04
994 00 03 51
976 00 07 35
RAMACHANDI 584 00 04 26
582 00 02 59
583 00 09 73
606 00 00 30
607 00 07 29
608 00 02 82
609 00 04 76
637 00 03 80
636 00 04 66
635 00 00 90
632 00 00 78
634 00 02 14
633 00 09 47
659 00 10 64
674 00 04 76
675 00 06 30
669 00 00 10
696 00 11 68
710 00 00 10
698 00 00 94
707 00 02 90
706 00 00 63
705 00 00 69
708 00 01 06
II (ii)
4813
736 00 05 58
741 00 00 99
740 00 05 36
739 00 01 31
527 00 13 12
526 00 01 70
525 00 05 57
500 00 00 63
499 00 04 02
175 00 05 01
478 00 05 24
479 00 00 30
477 00 00 83
480 00 05 14
486 00 00 10
485 00 09 48
484 00 06 60
DURGAPRASAD 842 00 01 78
843 00 05 70
841 00 03 28
844 00 00 10
845 00 01 42
835 00 06 51
834 00 04 84
846 00 02 04
846/1065 00 02 05
847 00 01 16
832 00 01 42
812 00 10 36
4814 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
807 00 12 30
808 00 01 85
805 00 00 36
804 00 04 56
789 00 06 94
803 00 00 10
790 00 03 25
791 00 04 04
792 00 04 44
727 00 00 28
730 00 06 14
731 00 00 10
728 00 00 10
729 00 00 74
713 00 04 29
714 00 00 10
712 00 02 10
710 00 02 78
709 00 05 88
706 00 00 64
698 00 01 50
699 00 00 76
705 00 02 28
704 00 03 44
702 00 00 10
703 00 03 33
692 00 06 68
690 00 00 22
693 00 05 99
JAGANNATHPUR 942 00 04 75
II (ii)
4815
943 00 02 97
941 00 03 22
948 00 00 61 949 00 03 21 933 00 02 52 953 00 07 51 954 00 00 47 955 00 04 60 956 00 09 69 957 00 04 45 958 00 04 96 960 00 01 50 961 00 08 34 1003 00 00 40 962 00 06 57 963 00 02 26 910 00 09 63 909 00 11 87 908 00 00 51 906 00 00 25 906/1138 00 00 10 907 00 03 65 900 00 04 11 899 00 01 23 898 00 05 06 892 00 02 49 885 00 05 22 884 00 03 18 886 00 13 67 877 00 01 134816 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 871 00 02 89 873 00 00 10
861 00 07 40 862 00 00 35 860 00 06 81 859 00 03 47 446 00 02 59 447 00 02 73 450 00 00 95 451 00 05 74 466 00 01 26 463 00 09 20 462 00 00 64 464 00 02 95 461 00 03 25 460 00 08 01 459 00 00 10 477 00 02 43 478 00 03 19 822 00 01 39 483 00 04 53 484 00 01 05 482 00 00 10 485 00 09 54 818 00 00 36 486 00 01 25 493 00 05 56 492 00 01 11 491 00 01 56 496 00 01 73II (ii) 4817 498 00 37 12 812 00 00 10
508 00 01 37
509 00 01 74
510 00 07 50
511 00 00 88
512 00 02 90
513 00 06 16
517 00 00 85
518 00 05 79
541 00 05 21
540 00 07 15
799 00 00 10
523 00 00 10
539 00 00 54
537 00 00 10
542 00 07 43
545 00 00 12
543 00 01 40
544 00 01 41
546 00 07 38
550 00 01 41
549 00 00 41
548 00 04 29
547 00 05 79
PANICHHATRA 676 00 00 10
677 00 03 35
678 00 04 38
696 00 08 60
4818 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
694 00 06 42
691 00 06 63
717 00 05 31 716 00 00 30 718 00 05 04 721 00 03 57 722 00 01 81 720 00 02 99 763 00 05 02 764 00 00 10 764/1513 00 00 10 764/1517 00 00 10 764/1518 00 00 10 764/1519 00 00 23 762 00 02 23 767 00 02 40 761 00 01 38 801 00 04 93 802 00 07 17 803 00 04 41 804 00 04 56 808 00 01 00 824 00 06 55 825 00 06 22 879 00 02 90 880 00 06 81 881 00 00 34 882 00 08 29 901 00 02 33 883 00 00 10II (ii) 4819 894 00 02 93 897 00 02 54
896 00 00 79
907 00 03 55
908 00 02 66
917 00 01 19
917/1487 00 02 48
920 00 00 43
919 00 02 04
918 00 00 26
932 00 03 42
933 00 00 45
950 00 00 10
950/1435 00 00 10
949 00 12 46
943 00 00 11
948 00 03 50
947 00 08 78
946 00 00 32
982 00 02 09
980 00 00 12
981 00 13 63
985 00 02 23
KANPUR 1580 00 03 19
1581 00 01 10
1579 00 04 76
1578 00 08 43
1583 00 01 35
1585 00 06 64
4820 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1588 00 01 45
1589 00 06 76
1598 00 02 18
1594 00 02 74
1597 00 02 96
1596 00 04 13
1595 00 00 10
GODIPADA 571 00 10 16
570 00 04 09
573 00 06 86
568 00 04 11
576 00 03 52
577 00 01 58
578 00 02 42
579 00 00 17
566 00 11 05
565 00 01 87
580 00 03 52
581 00 01 48
484 00 02 80
483 00 00 20
478 00 00 85
476 00 03 30
475 00 04 07
474 00 02 75
473 00 03 69
472 00 01 79
464 00 13 11
465 00 00 43
II (ii)
4821
448 00 00 49449 00 15 36
454 00 05 47
452 00 01 42
414 00 07 14
415 00 14 44
408 00 12 88
397 00 08 34
379 00 07 94
386 00 08 79
387 00 13 99
362 00 04 93
361 00 12 91
364 00 00 57
MOTA 392 00 00 17
391 00 08 16
390 00 01 05
251 00 09 08
250 00 16 41
249 00 06 92
248 00 04 80
206 00 06 09
LAHANGA 127 00 03 92
126 00 08 81
114 00 02 28
125 00 03 63
124 00 03 76
115 00 00 12
4822 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
119 00 02 04
121 00 02 03
120 00 02 09 117 00 00 32
[F. No. R-25011/17/2017-OR-I/48599/13715]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1818.— के न्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप (ओड़िशा) से हैदराबाद (तेलंगाना) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा "पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन" बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और के न्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि मे जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है ओर जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अत: अब, के न्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम,1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री दिल्लीप कु मार महांति, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, तृतीय तल, आलोक भारती टावर , शहीद नगर , भुवनेश्वर -751007, ओड़िशा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा I
| अनुसूची | ||||
| तहसील-जटणी | जिला - खोद्र्धा | राज्य -ओड़िशा | ||
| गाँव का नाम | प्लॉट नं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
सेउलखाल 131 00 02 68
130 00 04 20
123 00 02 39
124 00 02 53
128 00 00 63
127 00 00 36
125 00 02 21
II (ii)
4823
65 00 00 65
64 00 02 46
63 00 04 54
67 00 00 10
62 00 06 51
61 00 03 84
59 00 04 41
60 00 00 42
24 00 00 47
58 00 00 71
27 00 03 44
26 00 00 12
28 00 03 56
29 00 05 45
51 00 02 32
50 00 00 10
30 00 00 95
48 00 04 10
47 00 03 40
46 00 01 18
42 00 00 14
43 00 03 01
44 00 01 82
38 00 02 78
37 00 04 23
36 00 00 81
आम्बअटा 352 00 07 77
353 00 08 70
356 00 00 54
356/521 00 00 10
357 00 04 20
351 00 00 11
362 00 05 85
363 00 05 31
364/484 00 02 97
364 00 02 52
333 00 01 24
332 00 04 05
330 00 02 86
330/503 00 02 84
4824 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
329 00 04 25 328 00 05 16 248/483 00 05 59 251 00 04 75 251/523 00 01 33 243 00 02 12 252 00 02 73 253 00 00 20 262 00 01 91 262/556 00 01 15 261 00 01 72 254 00 01 80 255 00 01 07 256 00 02 03 257 00 02 57 258 00 07 90 259 00 00 88 259/1617 00 00 10 259/529 00 00 22 259/570 00 00 70 259/571 00 00 71 259/593 00 00 22 212 00 02 09 214 00 01 72 214/576 00 00 11 213 00 06 47 191 00 00 82 192 00 00 10 194 00 04 14 194/545 00 02 08 194/598 00 00 43 172 00 07 38 175 00 03 47 175/496 00 00 70 175/549 00 00 10 175/561 00 00 10 162 00 00 94 161 00 02 48 161/546 00 02 25 157 00 01 19 157/520 00 00 56II (ii) 4825
157/553 00 00 12
158 00 00 14
159 00 07 57
159/548 00 00 64
159/554 00 00 81
153 00 00 65
132 00 05 09
136 00 00 18
135 00 00 46
134 00 00 53
133 00 01 13
125 00 03 09
126 00 03 16
11 00 05 39
118 00 01 31
12 00 02 36
117 00 05 62
116 00 00 91
112 00 00 21
111 00 00 10
110 00 04 56
110/557 00 01 07
110/558 00 01 07
110/559 00 01 07
110/560 00 01 07
109 00 06 64
17 00 03 05
17/524 00 00 47
17/565 00 00 66
31 00 02 90
20 00 13 53
21 00 00 50
पाण्डिआबील 190 00 01 26
191 00 03 84
192 00 00 67
195 00 01 92
193 00 03 92
194 00 02 26
251 00 00 214826 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
252 00 04 42 246 00 07 32 245 00 09 91 242 00 06 28 241 00 00 48 237 00 02 96 299 00 01 15 300 00 03 23 1453 00 00 59 236 00 03 41 301 00 00 59 235 00 02 74 302 00 01 09 347 00 05 51 346 00 05 63 347/1395 00 00 12 345 00 03 66 343 00 00 12 344 00 03 56 342 00 03 49 341 00 19 34 340 00 02 24 348 00 02 17 368 00 00 10 369 00 01 66 371 00 00 10 372 00 04 52 374 00 04 35 373 00 00 78 378 00 02 84 390 00 00 57 389 00 02 79 391 00 02 69 388 00 06 07 387 00 01 04 394 00 00 10 426 00 02 22 427 00 01 62 443 00 22 74 442 00 02 54 453 00 11 26II (ii) 4827
452 00 02 62
451 00 01 96
441 00 01 50
440 00 06 36
493 00 00 81
492 00 03 85
454 00 02 54
477 00 01 09
478 00 04 11
475 00 02 67
479 00 02 38
474 00 00 27
483 00 03 47
484 00 05 29
485 00 03 56
540 00 01 56
512 00 00 75
515 00 02 92
514 00 01 44
516 00 04 79
524 00 01 74
523 00 00 11
525 00 02 24
522 00 03 20
521 00 04 87
520 00 01 08
518 00 00 20
519 00 05 27
641 00 01 23
642 00 04 41
त्रीमल 1433 00 06 05
1438 00 05 97
1437 00 00 10
1441 00 03 69
1414/2845 00 03 54
1442 00 06 87
1459 00 03 23
1460 00 00 44
1263 00 05 14
4828 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1266 00 02 03 1258 00 06 29 1267 00 02 70 1268 00 02 99 1270 00 03 71 1289 00 03 20 1286 00 01 61 1287 00 03 26 1288 00 05 10 1208 00 05 10 1209 00 02 42 1204 00 00 28 1204/2918 00 00 23 1210 00 05 28 1203 00 03 51 1202 00 01 84 1201 00 03 12 1200 00 00 35 1199 00 12 28 1182 00 12 76 1177 00 01 65 1183 00 00 10 1181 00 01 73 1179 00 03 53 1178 00 01 66 1718 00 03 78 1719 00 04 96 1696 00 00 14 1723 00 04 66 1724 00 04 83 1725 00 20 81 1699 00 00 10 1698 00 01 12 1695 00 01 86 1694 00 21 54 1677 00 00 22 1692 00 08 64 1691 00 17 32 1687 00 00 40 1686 00 06 91 1685 00 03 96II (ii) 4829
1924 00 01 86
2020 00 07 67
1930 00 01 43
2007 00 03 81
2008 00 15 40
2010 00 06 21
2011 00 07 14
2005 00 02 02
2012 00 00 12
बिजीपुर 412 00 04 16
411 00 00 20
413 00 09 75
417 00 06 20
414 00 01 45
415 00 06 30
425 00 01 63
434 00 00 59
432 00 11 45
433 00 04 53
431 00 01 57
450 00 09 13
451 00 00 18
455 00 05 54
454 00 00 33
456 00 02 90
457 00 19 96
453 00 00 96
[फा.सं. आर-25011/17/2017-ओआर-I/48599/13715]
पवन कु मार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2017
S.O. 1818.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip (Odisha) to Hyderabad (Telangana), "Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline" should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
4830 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Dillip Kumar Mohanty, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 3rd Floor, Alok Bharati Tower, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar- 751007, (Odisha).
| SCHEDULE | ||||
| Tehsil : JATANI | District : KHORDHA | State : ODISHA | ||
| Name of the Village | Plot No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
SEULAKHAL 131 00 02 68
130 00 04 20
123 00 02 39
124 00 02 53
128 00 00 63
127 00 00 36
125 00 02 21
126 00 02 89
65 00 00 65
64 00 02 46
63 00 04 54
67 00 00 10
62 00 06 51
61 00 03 84
59 00 04 41
60 00 00 42
24 00 00 47
58 00 00 71
27 00 03 44
26 00 00 12
28 00 03 56
29 00 05 45
51 00 02 32
50 00 00 10
30 00 00 95
48 00 04 10
47 00 03 40
46 00 01 18
42 00 00 14
43 00 03 01
44 00 01 82
II (ii)
4831
36 00 00 81
AMBAATA 352 00 07 77
353 00 08 70
356 00 00 54
356/521 00 00 10
357 00 04 20
351 00 00 11
362 00 05 85
363 00 05 31
364/484 00 02 97
364 00 02 52
333 00 01 24
332 00 04 05
330 00 02 86
330/503 00 02 84
329 00 04 25
328 00 05 16
248/483 00 05 59
251 00 04 75
251/523 00 01 33
243 00 02 12
252 00 02 73
253 00 00 20
262 00 01 91
262/556 00 01 15
261 00 01 72
254 00 01 80
255 00 01 07
256 00 02 03
257 00 02 57
258 00 07 90
259 00 00 88
259/1617 00 00 10
259/529 00 00 22
259/570 00 00 70
259/571 00 00 71
259/593 00 00 22
212 00 02 09
214 00 01 72
4832 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
191 00 00 82192 00 00 10
194 00 04 14 194/545 00 02 08 194/598 00 00 43 172 00 07 38 175 00 03 47 175/496 00 00 70 175/549 00 00 10 175/561 00 00 10 162 00 00 94 161 00 02 48 161/546 00 02 25 157 00 01 19 157/520 00 00 56 157/553 00 00 12 158 00 00 14 159 00 07 57 159/548 00 00 64 159/554 00 00 81 153 00 00 65 132 00 05 09 136 00 00 18 135 00 00 46 134 00 00 53 133 00 01 13 125 00 03 09 126 00 03 16 11 00 05 39 118 00 01 31 12 00 02 36 117 00 05 62 116 00 00 91 112 00 00 21 111 00 00 10 110 00 04 56 110/557 00 01 07 110/558 00 01 07 110/559 00 01 07 110/560 00 01 07II (ii) 4833
17/524 00 00 47
17/565 00 00 66
31 00 02 90
20 00 13 53
21 00 00 50
PANDIABIL 190 00 01 26
191 00 03 84
192 00 00 67
195 00 01 92
193 00 03 92
194 00 02 26
253 00 03 36
251 00 00 21
252 00 04 42
246 00 07 32
245 00 09 91
242 00 06 28
241 00 00 48
237 00 02 96
299 00 01 15
300 00 03 23
1453 00 00 59
236 00 03 41
301 00 00 59
235 00 02 74
302 00 01 09
347 00 05 51
346 00 05 63
347/1395 00 00 12
345 00 03 66
343 00 00 12
344 00 03 56
342 00 03 49
341 00 19 34
340 00 02 24
348 00 02 17
368 00 00 10
369 00 01 66
4834 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
374 00 04 35
373 00 00 78 378 00 02 84 390 00 00 57 389 00 02 79 391 00 02 69 388 00 06 07 387 00 01 04 394 00 00 10 426 00 02 22 427 00 01 62 443 00 22 74 442 00 02 54 453 00 11 26 452 00 02 62 451 00 01 96 441 00 01 50 440 00 06 36 493 00 00 81 492 00 03 85 454 00 02 54 477 00 01 09 478 00 04 11 475 00 02 67 479 00 02 38 474 00 00 27 483 00 03 47 484 00 05 29 485 00 03 56 540 00 01 56 512 00 00 75 515 00 02 92 514 00 01 44 516 00 04 79 524 00 01 74 523 00 00 11 525 00 02 24 522 00 03 20 521 00 04 87 520 00 01 08II (ii) 4835 641 00 01 23 642 00 04 41
TRIMAL 1433 00 06 05
1438 00 05 97
1437 00 00 10
1441 00 03 69
1414/2845 00 03 54
1442 00 06 87
1459 00 03 23
1460 00 00 44
1263 00 05 14
1264 00 05 25
1266 00 02 03
1258 00 06 29
1267 00 02 70
1268 00 02 99
1270 00 03 71
1289 00 03 20
1286 00 01 61
1287 00 03 26
1288 00 05 10
1208 00 05 10
1209 00 02 42
1204 00 00 28
1204/2918 00 00 23
1210 00 05 28
1203 00 03 51
1202 00 01 84
1201 00 03 12
1200 00 00 35
1199 00 12 28
1182 00 12 76
1177 00 01 65
1183 00 00 10
1181 00 01 73
1179 00 03 53
1178 00 01 66
1718 00 03 78
1719 00 04 96
4836 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1724 00 04 83
1725 00 20 81
1699 00 00 10
1698 00 01 12
1695 00 01 86
1694 00 21 54
1677 00 00 22
1692 00 08 64
1691 00 17 32
1687 00 00 40
1686 00 06 91
1685 00 03 96
1924 00 01 86
2020 00 07 67
1930 00 01 43
2007 00 03 81
2008 00 15 40
2010 00 06 21
2011 00 07 14
2005 00 02 02
2012 00 00 12
BIJIPUR 412 00 04 16
411 00 00 20
413 00 09 75
417 00 06 20
414 00 01 45
415 00 06 30
425 00 01 63
434 00 00 59
432 00 11 45
433 00 04 53
431 00 01 57
450 00 09 13
451 00 00 18
455 00 05 54
454 00 00 33
456 00 02 90
457 00 19 96
453 00 00 96
[F. No. R-25011/17/2017-OR-I/48599/13715]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
II (ii) 4837नई दिल्ली, 10 अगस्त, 2017
केन्द्रीय सरकार को जहां यह प्रतीत होता है कि, इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभाव्यता है;
और रेखांक संख्या एसईसीएल/जेओएच/विन्ध्या-।।।/एल एण्ड आर/सीबीए4(1)/17/515, तारीख 28 जून, 2017 जिसमें उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि क्षेत्र के ब्यौरे अन्तर्विष्ट है, का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर, जिला उमरिया (मध्य प्रदेष) के कार्यालय में या मुख्य महाप्रबंधक (खोज प्रभाग), सेंट्रल माइन प्लानिंग एण्ड डिजाइन इन्स्टीच्यूट लिमिटेड, गोंडवाना पैलेस, रांची-834031, झारखंड के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1, काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता - 700001 के कार्यालय में या साऊथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड (राजस्व अनुभाग), सीपत रोड, बिलासपुर-495006 (छत्त्तीसगढ़) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है;
अतः, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (जिसे इसमें इसके पष्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 4 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त षक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, पूर्वोक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आषय की सूचना देती है;
उपरोक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति, इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाषन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन की अवधि के भीतर भारसाधक अधिकारी या विभागाध्यक्ष (राजस्व), साऊथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, सीपत रोड, बिलासपुर-495006 (छत्तीसगढ़) से-
(i) संपूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग या ऐसी भूमि में या उसके ऊपर किसी अधिकार के अर्जन पर आक्षेप कर सकेगा; या
(ii) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 4 की उप-धारा (3) के अधीन की गई किसी कार्रवाई से हुई या होने वाली संभावित
किसी क्षति के लिये अधिनियम की धारा 6 के अधीन प्रतिकर का दावा कर सकेगा; या
(iii) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन पूर्वेक्षण अनुज्ञप्तियों के प्रभावहीन होने के संबंध में या उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप-धारा (4) के अधीन खनन पट्टे प्रभावहीन होने पर प्रतिकर का दावा कर सकेगा और उसे उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप-धारा (1) के खंड (i) से खंड (iv) में विनिर्दिष्ट मदों की बाबत उपगत व्यय को उपदर्षित करने के लिये पूर्वोक्त भूमि से संबंधित सभी मानचित्रों, चार्टों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को परिदत्त कर सकेगा।
विन्ध्या डिपलरिंग ब्लॉक-III, जोहिला क्षेत्र,
जिला-उमरिया (मध्य प्रदेष)
(एसईसीएल/जेओएच/विन्ध्या-।।।/एल एण्ड आर/सीबीए4(1)/17/515, तारीख 28 जून, 2017)
| क्रम सं. | ग ्राम का नाम | जनरल संख्या | पटवारी हल्का नम्बर | तहसील | जिला | क्षेत्र हेक्टर में | टिप्पणी |
| 1. | डगडौआ | 290 | 15 | नौरोजाबाद | उमरिया | 22.533 | भाग |
| 2. | महुरा | 577 | 14 | नौरोजाबाद | उमरिया | 15.796 | भाग |
| कुल : 38.329 हेक्टर (लगभग) या 94.71 एकड़ (लगभग) |
I क-ख रेखा बिन्दु 'क' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम डगडौआ के मध्य भाग से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु 'ख' पर मिलती है।
ख-ग रेखा बिन्दु 'ख' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम डगडौआ के मध्य भाग से दक्षिण को गुजरती हुई बिन्दु 'ग' पर मिलती है।
ग-घ रेखा बिन्दु 'ग' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम डगडौआ के मध्य भाग से पूर्व को होती हुई बिन्दु 'घ' पर मिलती है।
4838 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]घ-ङ-क रेखा बिन्दु 'घ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम डगडौआ के मध्य भाग से दक्षिण और पष्चिम को, बिन्दु 'ङ' से होती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु 'क' पर मिलती है।
II च-छ रेखा बिन्दु 'च' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम महुरा के मध्य भाग से पूर्व को होती हुई बिन्दु 'छ' पर मिलती है।
छ-ज रेखा बिन्दु 'छ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम महुरा के मध्य भाग से दक्षिण को होती हुई बिन्दु 'ज' पर मिलती है।
ज-झ-च रेखा बिन्दु 'ज' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम महुरा के मध्य भाग से पष्चिम और उत्तर को, बिन्दु 'झ' से होती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु 'च' पर मिलती है।
III
ट-ठ रेखा बिन्दु 'ट' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम महुरा के मध्य भाग से दक्षिण को होती हुई बिन्दु 'ठ' पर मिलती है।
ठ-ड रेखा बिन्दु 'ठ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम महुरा के मध्य भाग से पष्चिम को होती हुई बिन्दु 'ड' पर मिलती है।
ड-ढ-ट रेखा बिन्दु 'ड' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम महुरा के मध्य भाग से उत्तर और पूर्व को, बिन्दु 'ढ' से होती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु 'ट' पर मिलती है।
IV त-थ रेखा बिन्दु 'त' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम महुरा के मध्य भाग से पष्चिम को होती हुई बिन्दु 'थ' पर मिलती है।
थ-द रेखा बिन्दु 'थ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम महुरा के मध्य भाग से उत्तर को होती हुई बिन्दु 'द' पर मिलती है।
द-ध-त रेखा बिन्दु 'द' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम महुरा के मध्य भाग से पूर्व को, बिन्दु 'ध' से होती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु 'त' पर मिलती है।
[फा. सं. 43015/33/2017-एलए एण्ड आईआर]
आर. एस. सरोज, अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 10th August, 2017
S.O. 1819.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
And whereas, the plan bearing number SECL/JOH/VINDHYA-III/L&R/CBA4(1)/17/ 515, dated the 28th June, 2017 containing details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Collector, District Umaria (Madhya Pradesh) or at the office of the Chief General Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited, Gondwana Palace, Ranchi-834031, Jharkhand or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 or at the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur - 495006 (Chhattisgarh);
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from the land described in the said Schedule;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may-
(i) object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over such land; or
(ii) claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any action taken under sub section (3) of section 4 of the said Act; or
(iii) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act, in respect of prospecting license ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to have effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the said land to show the expenditure incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act,II (ii) 4839 to the Officer-In-Charge or Head of the Department (Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification.
SCHEDULE
Vindhya Depillaring Block-III, Johilla Area,
District-Umaria, Madhya Pradesh
(Plan bearing number SECL/ JOH/VINDHYA-III/L&R/CBA 4(1)/17/ 515, dated the 28th June, 2017)
| Sl. No. | Name of village | General number | Patwari halka number | Tahsil | District | Area in hectares | Remarks |
| 1. | Dagdaua | 290 | 15 | Nowrozabad | Umaria | 22.533 | Part |
| 2. | Mahura | 577 | 14 | Nowrozabad | Umaria | 15.796 | Part |
| Total: 38.329 hectares (approximately) or 94.71 acres (approximately) |
Boundary description:
Block-I :
A-B Line starts from point 'A' and passes through middle part of village Dagdaua and meets at point 'B'.
B-C Line starts from point 'B' and passes towards south through middle part of village Dagdaua and meets at point 'C'.
C-D Line starts from point 'C' and passes towards east through middle part of village Dagdaua and meets at point 'D'.
D-E-A Line starts from point 'D' and passes towards south and west through middle part of village Dagdaua, point 'E' and meets at starting point 'A'.
Block-II :
K-L Line starts from point 'K' and passes towards east through middle part of village Mahura and meets at point 'L'.
L-M Line starts from point 'L' and passes towards south through middle part of village Mahura and meets at point 'M'.
M-N-K Line starts from point 'M' and passes towards west and north through middle part of village Mahura, point 'N' and meets at starting point 'K'.
Block- III :
P-Q Line starts from point 'P' and passes towards south through eastern part of village Mahura and meets at point 'Q'.
Q-R Line starts from point 'Q' and passes towards west through southern part of village Mahura and meets at point 'R'.
R-S-P Line starts from point 'R' and passes towards north and east through southern part of village Mahura, point 'S' and meets at starting point 'P'.
Block- IV:
U-V Line starts from point 'U' and passes towards west through western part of village Mahura and meets at point 'V'.
V-W Line starts from point 'V' and passes towards north through western part of village Mahura and meets at point 'W'.
W-X-U Line starts from point 'W' and passes towards east through southern part of village Mahura, point 'X' and meets at starting point 'U'.
[F. No. 43015/33/2017-LA & IR]
R. S. SAROJ, Under Secy.
4840 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]—
II MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 27th July, 2017
S.O. 1820.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Case No. 288/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, District Patiala and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 26.07.2017.
[No. L-40011/47/2013-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 288/2013
Registered on 18.09.2013
Sh. Kiranjit singh C/o Sh. Dharam Pal Angrish, President, Punjab Trade Union Federation, 139-A Model Town, Samrala Road, Khana-141401
…Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Distt. Patiala
…Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman : Sh. Dharam Pal Angrish AR of workman For the Management : Sh. G.C. Babbar, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on : 7.4.2017
Vide Order No.L-40011/47/2013-IR(DU), dated 04.09.2013/06.09.2013 the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
"Whether the action of management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Patiala in terminating the services of Sh. Kiranjit singh s/o Sh. Jagar singh w.e.f. 16.10.2012 who was engaged by General Manager, BSNL, Patiala through contractor M/s Ramesh Kumar Mittal is just, valid and legal? To what relief the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?"
Notice was given to the workman as well as to the management who appeared through his representative who did not file any statement of claim.
II (ii) 4841Today the case was fixed for evidence of the workman but his representative made statement withdrawing the reference with a further prayer that it be dismissed.
In view of the statement of the representative of the workman the reference is dismissed as withdrawn holding that the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman are not illegal and invalid and the reference is answered accordingly.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer —
II New Delhi, the 27th July, 2017
S.O. 1821.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Case No. 14/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the M/s. Sentry Security Solutions, Golf Extension, Gurgaon, Harayana and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 26.07.2017.
[No. L-40012/06/2016-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. 14/2016
Registered on 18.05.2016
Sh. Surinder Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Lal, Tarsem Nagar, Baba Balak Nath, Mandir Ke Picche Wali Gali No.2, House No.41, Mill Gate, Hissar-125001 …Applicant
Versus
M/s. Sentry Security Solutions, Office No.4, Vatika City, Golf Extension, Sec-49, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122001
…Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman - Ex parte For the Management - Ex parte
AWARD
Passed on : 22.06.2017
Vide Order No.L-40012/06/2016-IR(DU), dated 11.04.2016, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
"Whether the action of the management of Sentry Security Solutions in terminating the services of the workman Sh. Surinder Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Lal w.e.f. 01.08.2015 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"4842 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] On receipt of the reference, notice was given to the workman as well as to the management.
Thus, workman and management were proceeded against ex parte.
Since the workman is proceeded ex parte, statement of claim was not filed by him.
In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the action of the respondent-management in terminating the services of the workman are illegal and unjustified, and being so the reference is answered accordingly against the workman.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer —
II New Delhi, the 27th July, 2017
S.O. 1822.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Case No. 46/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Main Office, Hissar and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 26.07.2017.
[No. L-40012/48/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 46/2014
Registered on 01.01.2015
Sh. Sandeep Kumar, S/o Sh. Rajender Prasad, R/o Vill-Ladwa, Hissar-125001
…Petitioner Versus
The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Red Square Market Railway road, Main Office, Hissar-125001
…Respondent APPEARANCES :
For the workman : Sh. Jang Bahadur AR of workman For the Management : Sh. D.R. Sharma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on : 08.06.2017
Vide Order No.L-40012/48/2014-IR(DU), dated 18.11.2014 the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
II (ii) 4843"Whether the action of management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Hissar in terminating the services of Shri Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Rajender Prasad w.e.f 10.11.2013 is valid, just and legal? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?"
Notice was given to the workman as well as to the management who appeared through their authorised representatives.
The workman did not file statement of claim. Rather his authorised representative made statement on 10.01.2017 to withdraw the present reference.
In view of his statement the reference is dismissed as withdrawn, holding that the action of the management in terminating the services of Sh. Sandeep Kumar is valid and legal and the reference is answered accordingly.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer —
II New Delhi, the 27th July, 2017
S.O. 1823.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Case No. 40/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Main Office, Hissar and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 26.07.2017.
[No. L-40012/41/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 40/2014
Registered on 01.01.2015
Sh. Sarwan Kumar, S/o Sh. Mool Chand, R/o Vill-Kaimari, Hissar-125001 …Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Red Square Market Railway Road, Main Office, Hissar-125001
…Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman : Sh. Jang Bahadur AR of workman
For the Management : Sh. D.R. Sharma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on : 08.06.2017
Vide Order No.L-40012/41/2014-IR(DU), dated 18.11.2014 the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
4844 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]"Whether the action of management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Hissar in terminating the services of Shri Sarwan Kumar s/o Shri Mool Chand w.e.f 10.11.2013 is valid, just and legal? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?"
Notice was given to the workman as well as to the management who appeared through their authorised representatives.
The workman did not file statement of claim. Rather his authorised representative made statement on 10.01.2017 to withdraw the present reference.
In view of his statement the reference is dismissed as withdrawn holding that the action of the management in terminating the services of Sh. Sarwan Kumar is valid and legal and the reference is answered accordingly.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer —
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2017
S.O. 1824.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 56/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21.07.2017.
[No. L-42012/01/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 13th July, 2017
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 56/2017
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Institute of Technology and their workman)
BETWEEN :
Smt. M. Muniyammal : 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
: 2nd Party/Respondent
The Director Indian Institute of Technology Chennai-600036
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s. S. Krishnasamy, Advocate For the 2nd Party/Respondent : NoneII (ii) 4845
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-42012/01/2017-IR(DU) dated 06.06.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
"Whether the demand of Smt. Muniyammal in seeking reinstatement with backwages with IIT (Madras),
Chennai is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID No. 56/2017 and issued notices to both sides. On receipt of notice the petitioner has appeared through the counsel and the Respondent in person.
3. The counsel for the petitioner has filed memo stating that the petitioner has already filed ID 28 of 2017 under Section-2A of the ID Act claiming reinstatement and regularization and the same is pending before this Court and she is not interested in proceeding with this reference.
On the basis of the memo filed on behalf of the petitioner the ID is closed.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 13th July, 2017)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : None For the 2nd Party/Management : None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Nil —
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2017
S.O. 1825.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 57/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21.07.2017.
[No. L-42012/02/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director4846 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 13th July, 2017
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 57/2017
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Institute of Technology and their workman)
BETWEEN :
Sri C. Chander
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
: 2nd Party/Respondent
The Director Indian Institute of Technology Chennai-600036
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s. S. Krishnasamy, Advocate For the 2nd Party/Respondent : None
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-42012/02/2017-IR (DU) dated 02.06.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
"Whether the demand of Sri C. Chander, in seeking reinstatement with backwages with IIT (Madras),
Chennai is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID No. 57/2017 and issued notices to both sides. On receipt of notice the petitioner has appeared through the counsel and the Respondent in person.
3. The counsel for the petitioner has filed memo stating that the petitioner has already filed ID 24 of 2017 under Section-2A of the ID Act claiming reinstatement and regularization and the same is pending before this Court and she is not interested in proceeding with this reference.
On the basis of the memo filed on behalf of the petitioner the ID is closed.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 13th July, 2017)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : None
For the 2nd Party/Management : None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex.No. Date Description
NilII (ii) 4847 —
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2017
S.O. 1826.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 58/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21.07.2017.
[No. L-42012/03/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 13th July, 2017
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 58/2017
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Institute of Technology and their workman)
BETWEEN :
Sri P. Charles
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
: 2nd Party/Respondent
The Director Indian Institute of Technology Chennai-600036
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s. S. Krishnasamy, Advocate For the 2nd Party/Respondent : None
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-42012/03/2017-IR (DU) dated 02.06.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
"Whether the demand of Sri P. Charles, in seeking reinstatement with backwages with IIT (Madras), Chennai
is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID No. 58/2017 and issued notices to both sides. On receipt of notice the petitioner has appeared through the counsel and the Respondent in person.
4848 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]3. The counsel for the petitioner has filed memo stating that the petitioner has already filed ID 30 of 2017 under Section-2A of the ID Act claiming reinstatement and regularization and the same is pending before this Court and she is not interested in proceeding with this reference.
On the basis of the memo filed on behalf of the petitioner the ID is closed.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 13th July, 2017)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : None For the 2nd Party/Management : None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Nil —
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2017
S.O. 1827.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 59/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21.07.2017.
[No. L-42012/05/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 13th July, 2017
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 59/2017
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Institute of Technology and their workman)II (ii) 4849
BETWEEN :
Smt. R. Pappathi : 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Director : 2nd Party/Respondent Indian Institute of Technology Chennai-600036
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s. S. Krishnasamy, Advocate For the 2nd Party/Respondent : None
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-42012/05/2017-IR (DU) dated 02.06.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
"Whether the demand of Smt. R. Pappathi, in seeking reinstatement with backwages with IIT (Madras),
Chennai is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID No. 59/2017 and issued notices to both sides. On receipt of notice the petitioner has appeared through the counsel and the Respondent in person.
3. The counsel for the petitioner has filed memo stating that the petitioner has already filed ID 27 of 2017 under Section-2A of the ID Act claiming reinstatement and regularization and the same is pending before this Court and she is not interested in proceeding with this reference.
On the basis of the memo filed on behalf of the petitioner the ID is closed.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 13th July, 2017)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : None For the 2nd Party/Management : None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Nil —
4850 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]New Delhi, the 31st July, 2017
S.O. 1828.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 60/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21.07.2017.
[No. L-42012/06/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 13th July, 2017
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 60/2017
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Institute of Technology and their workman)
BETWEEN :
Smt. R. Rani
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
: 2nd Party/Respondent
The Director Indian Institute of Technology Chennai-600036
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s. S. Krishnasamy, Advocate For the 2nd Party/Respondent : None
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-42012/06/2017-IR (DU) dated 02.06.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
"Whether the demand of Smt. R. Rani, in seeking reinstatement with backwages with IIT (Madras), Chennai
is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID No. 60/2017 and issued notices to both sides. On receipt of notice the petitioner has appeared through the counsel and the Respondent in person.
3. The counsel for the petitioner has filed memo stating that the petitioner has already filed ID 26 of 2017 under Section-2A of the ID Act claiming reinstatement and regularization and the same is pending before this Court and she is not interested in proceeding with this reference.
On the basis of the memo filed on behalf of the petitioner the ID is closed.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 13th July, 2017)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding OfficerII (ii) 4851
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : None For the 2nd Party/Management : None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Nil —
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2017
S.O. 1829.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 61/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21.07.2017.
[No. L-42012/07/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 13th July, 2017
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 61/2017
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Institute of Technology and their workman)
BETWEEN :
Sri M. Ponnusamy : 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
: 2nd Party/Respondent
The Director Indian Institute of Technology Chennai-600036
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s. S. Krishnasamy, Advocate For the 2nd Party/Respondent : None4852 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-42012/07/2017-IR (DU) dated 02.06.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
"Whether the demand of Sri M. Ponnusamy, in seeking reinstatement with backwages with IIT (Madras),
Chennai is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID No. 61/2017 and issued notices to both sides. On receipt of notice the petitioner has appeared through the counsel and the Respondent in person.
3. The counsel for the petitioner has filed memo stating that the petitioner has already filed ID 31 of 2017 under Section-2A of the ID Act claiming reinstatement and regularization and the same is pending before this Court and she is not interested in proceeding with this reference.
On the basis of the memo filed on behalf of the petitioner the ID is closed.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 13th July, 2017)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : None For the 2nd Party/Management : None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Nil —
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2017
S.O. 1830.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 62/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21.07.2017.
[No. L-42012/08/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. DirectorII (ii) 4853
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 13th July, 2017
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 62/2017
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Institute of Technology and their workman)
BETWEEN :
Smt. D. Padmavathi : 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
: 2nd Party/Respondent
The Director Indian Institute of Technology Chennai-600036
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s. S. Krishnasamy, Advocate For the 2nd Party/Respondent : None
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-42012/08/2017-IR (DU) dated 06.06.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
"Whether the demand of Smt. D. Padmavathi, in seeking reinstatement with backwages with IIT (Madras),
Chennai is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID No. 62/2017 and issued notices to both sides. On receipt of notice the petitioner has appeared through the counsel and the Respondent in person.
3. The counsel for the petitioner has filed memo stating that the petitioner has already filed ID 32 of 2017 under Section-2A of the ID Act claiming reinstatement and regularization and the same is pending before this Court and she is not interested in proceeding with this reference.
On the basis of the memo filed on behalf of the petitioner the ID is closed.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 13th July, 2017)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : None For the 2nd Party/Management : None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Nil4854 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] —
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2017
S.O. 1831.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 63/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21.07.2017.
[No. L-42012/09/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 13th July, 2017
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 63/2017
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Institute of Technology and their workman)
BETWEEN :
Smt. C. Kolangi : 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
: 2nd Party/Respondent
The Director Indian Institute of Technology Chennai-600036
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s. S. Krishnasamy, Advocate For the 2nd Party/Respondent : None
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-42012/09/2017-IR (DU) dated 06.06.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
"Whether the demand of Smt. C. Kolangi, in seeking reinstatement with backwages with IIT (Madras),
Chennai is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID No. 63/2017 and issued notices to both sides. On receipt of notice the petitioner has appeared through the counsel and the Respondent in person.
II (ii) 48553. The counsel for the petitioner has filed memo stating that the petitioner has already filed ID 25 of 2017 under Section-2A of the ID Act claiming reinstatement and regularization and the same is pending before this Court and she is not interested in proceeding with this reference.
On the basis of the memo filed on behalf of the petitioner the ID is closed.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 13th July, 2017)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : None For the 2nd Party/Management : None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Nil —
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2017
S.O. 1832.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 64/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21.07.2017.
[No. L-42012/10/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Thursday, the 13th July, 2017
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 64/2017
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Institute of Technology and their workman)4856 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BETWEEN :
Sri E. Suresh
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
: 2nd Party/Respondent
The Director Indian Institute of Technology Chennai-600036
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s. S. Krishnasamy, Advocate For the 2nd Party/Respondent : None
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-42012/10/2017-IR (DU) dated 06.06.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
"Whether the demand of Sri E. Suresh, in seeking reinstatement with backwages with IIT (Madras), Chennai
is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID No. 64/2017 and issued notices to both sides. On receipt of notice the petitioner has appeared through the counsel and the Respondent in person.
3. The counsel for the petitioner has filed memo stating that the petitioner has already filed ID 29 of 2017 under Section-2A of the ID Act claiming reinstatement and regularization and the same is pending before this Court and she is not interested in proceeding with this reference.
On the basis of the memo filed on behalf of the petitioner the ID is closed.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 13th July, 2017)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : None For the 2nd Party/Management : None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Nil —
II (ii) 4857New Delhi, the 31st July, 2017
S.O. 1833.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 11/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief General Manager, Eastern Telephone Circle, BSNL, Hazratganj, Lucknow & Others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05.05.2017.
[No. L-40012/170/2004-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 11/2005
Ref. No. L-40012/170/2004-IR(DU) dated 08.04.2005
BETWEEN :
Sri Dharmender Kumar S/o Sri Rajendra Prasad C/o Dhruv Narayan, Barral No.16, Gomati Bandh, Hanuman Setu Lucknow-1
AND
1. The Chief General Manager
Eastern Telephone Circle, BSNL, Hazratganj, Lucknow
2. The General Manager, Telecom Deptt.
O/O General Manager Gandhi Bhawan Lucknow-226001
AWARD
1. By order No. L-40012/170/2004-IR(DU) dated 08.04.2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Sri Dharmender Kumar S/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, Lucknow and the Chief General Manager/General Manager, BSNL, Lucknow for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF GENERAL MANAGER
TASKFORICE/BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, UP(EAST) CIRCLE TELECOM, BSNL, TELEPHONE
EXCHANGE GOMTINAGAR, LUCKNOW IN NOT REGULARISING THE SERVICES OF SRI
DHARMENDRA KUMAR S/O SRI RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTVA, CASUAL LABOUR
DESPITE HAVING WORKED FROM 1.3.98 TO 31.3.2001 I.E. MORE THAN 240 DAYS AND
TERMINATING HIM IS JUST AND LEGAL? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS
ENTITLED TO?"
3. As per claim statement A1-3 the workman has stated in brief that he was appointed as Despatcher on 1.3.98 under the subordination of opposite party and has worked on the said post continuously till 31.3.2001 and he had worked for more than 240 days in each calander year. The workman has further asserted that his services were terminated by an oral order on 31.3.2001, he went to the office on the next day to perform his duties but he was not allowed to work there, thereafter he has requested to his superior authorities to permit him to perform official duties but they did not heed to his request.
4. The workman has asserted that he has been paid on the basis of daily wages and more over while terminating his services he was paid for 21 days the sum of Rs.2646/ @ 126/ per day, earlier his employer was designated as General Manager, Task Force, UP (East Circle) Telecom Department, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow which was later designated as4858 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] General Manager (Business Development) UP East Circle, Gomti Nagar but this change did not effect his duties and had he been regularized, he would have continued working under the subordination of General Manager (Business Dev._ UP East Circle) Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. Five day week has been reported in the opposite parties office. It has been alleged that no prior notice for his dismissal/retrenchment was given, neither salary in lieu of notice was paid nor any retrenchment compensation was paid. Moreover no reason was assigned for his dismissal. The workman has submitted that he had moved application for his reinstatement and regularization etc. before CAT, Lucknow through O.A. No. 305/01 which was later on withdrawan so as to move before competent authority. Thereafter he approached the ALC ( C ), Lucknow under section 2A of the I.D. Act. but the matter could not be resolved, thereafter it was referred to this Tribunal. The workman has elaborated his day to day working performed by him in his employment such as making entry in the dispatch register, and other collateral duties. The opposite party has submitted a chart pertaining to his employment before the CAT, Lucknow which has revealed that since March 1998 to Nov.1998 he had worked for 150 days. Further movement register, incoming and out coming file register other documents pertaining to his duties have also been mentioned in the claim statement. The workman has further referred certain document which were dealt by him during his employment in the period w.e.f. Oct.1999 to Nov.2000, Dec.1998 to April 1999, May 2002 to August 2000 etc.,. Several other documents pertaining to the year 1999, 2000, 2001 have also been referred by the workman. When the workman came to know that his name was not entered in the A.C.G. Receipt Book. he submitted an objection to it but he was informed that he has been regularly paid for the work done by him, therefore he should not worry.
5. The workman has further alleged that certain entries were forged in official documents and payment was made in the name of some other persons. The workman has asserted that if relevant documents such as dispatch register and other registers are summoned from the office of the opposite party, his version would get corroborated.
6. The workman has alleged that Chief General Manager's letter dated 19.7.99, and 16.3.2000 etc. have not been complied with, otherwise he should have been provided "Temporary Status" but he was unduly deprived of his regularization and subsequent service benefits. The workman has alleged that his total employment-days have exceeded more than 240 days even then directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court have not been complied with, Section 25F of the I.D. Act is attracted in this case and unfair labour practice was adopted by the opposite party. He has further alleged that 86 other casual laborers were granted temporary status but this benefit was not given to the petitioner workman. With the aforesaid pleadings the workman has requested for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits and grant of temporary status etc.
7. The management filed Written Statement M-12 dated 19.9.2005, wherein allegation leveled by the workman have been denied. The opposite party has submitted that in case of exigencies the petitioner might have been employed as casual labour for short duration only. No appointment letter was ever issued by the competent authority and the documents referred in para 10 of the claim statement have also been rebutted. Several alleged orders relate to very old period and it is very difficult task to search the concerned original papers. Opposite party has further asserted that the workman was made payment for the work done by him and his signature were obtained on the relevant documents, and "Receipt Stamp" was also affixed for that purpose. It has been emphasized in the written statement that the petitioner was not qualified for grant of temporary status. The aforesaid pleadings the management has requested to dismiss the claim statement.
8. Several documents have been filed by the management as per list M-13/4.
9. While denying the facts mentioned in the written statement, the workman has filed rejoinder W-22, reiterating the pleas taken in the claim statement. The workman has moved an application W-23 seeking direction from the Court for summoning the documents from management's office as mentioned therein. The opposite party has moved an affidavit M-28 along with certain certified photo copies.
10. The workman has filed his affidavit W-44 as evidence. He was thoroughly cross-examined on behalf of the management.
11. The management has filed an affidavit M-50 of Accounts Officer Sri Sabu Ram Prajapati, he was thoroughly cross examined on behalf of the workman.
12. Arguments of both the parties have been heard at length and the record has been scanned.
13. Learned AR of the workman has relied on the following prouncement;
2005(104) FLR, M.Kasturi V/s Sr. Dy. Director General, BSNL, Page 462 Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh
High Court.
14. Heard learned authorized representative of the workman at length and perused the record available on file.
II (ii) 485915. The learned authorized representative of the workman submits that the petitioner had been engaged by the opposite party management w.e.f. 01.03.98 on the post of dispatcher and worked as such till 31.03.2001, continuously, when his services had been terminated orally without assigning any reason or any notice pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment compensation; whereby the action of the management was in utter violation of the provisions contained in Section 25 F of the I. D. Act, 1947. It had also been asserted by the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year and was paid Rs. 2646/- for 21 days' working @ Rs. 126/- per day at the time of his alleged date of termination. The workman also contended that in compliance of CGM, UP (East), Telecom Circle, Lucknow's letter dated 19.07.1999, the opposite party was required to forward names of all the casual workers, working with them, but the opposite party failed to forward the name of the workman who was working since 01.03.1998, which resulted into non-grant of temporary status to the workman; and the same amounts to unfair labour practice.
16. In rebuttal the opposite party did not turn up to argue its case before this Tribunal in spite of ample opportunities has been extended to it. From perusal of the order sheet, it reveals that the opportunity of the management to get its witness cross-examined had been closed vide order dated 09.08.2011; but the same had been recalled vide order dated 01.05.2012. Thereafter, the case kept lingering at one pretext or other for non-appearance of management witness for cross-examination before this Tribunal, which led to another order dated 17.12.2012; whereby the opportunity of the management to get its witness cross-examined was closed by my learned predecessor, and 04.02.2013 was fixed for argument, in the presence of authorized representative of the opposite party.
The authorized representative of the management did not turn up on 04.02.2013; nor moved any application to recall the order dated 17.12.2012 nor moved any application seeking adjournment on 04.02.2013. Thereafter, the authorized representative of the management did not put up his appearance on dozens of dates fixed in the case; however, suddenly he made his appearance on 09.10.2015. The authorized representative of the management again showed his reluctance towards proceedings and remained absent on various dates and finally, the case was heard, in the absence of A/R of the management on and was reserved for award.
17. I have scanned entire evidence available in the file, documentary as well as oral, in light of the rival pleadings of the case.
18. At the very outset of the case, it is noteworthy to mention here that the contents of the written statement dated 19.09.2005, paper No. A-12/1 to A-12/6, filed by the opposite party, under signatures of the Divisional Engineer (AHQ), is neither verified by the Divisional Engineer (AHQ) nor the same is being supported with an affidavit; whereby making it legally not tenable and cannot be read as pleading in rebuttal to the statement of claim of the workman. Further, the management filed M-50, affidavit of Sri Saabu Ram Prajapati, Accounts Officer, in support of its pleadings; but failed to produce him for cross-examination by the workman, hence the same cannot be read in support of the so called pleading of the management. Accordingly, the case stands without any pleading on behalf of the management in rebuttal to the pleadings/statement of claim by the workman. Resultantly, the pleadings of the workman are unrebutted in the present case. Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad in Gyanendra Pal Singh & others Vs. Cane Commissioner & others 2009 (123) FLR 201 has observed as under:
"6. Since no counter affidavit has been filed till date, the ground taken in the writ petition are taken to be
correct in view of the decisions rendered in Choksi Tube Company Limited v. Union of India, Naseem Bano
v. State of U.P. and others."
In the instant case the workman has filed affidavit in support of his claim and had duly been cross-examined by the authorized representative of the opposite party. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs.. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava & others (2006) 3 SCC 276 has held that "the statement of the witness, having not been controverted would be deemed to be admitted."
19. Accordingly, in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, there is no ground to disbelieve the pleading made by the workman in his statement of claim. The workman has come up with a case that he had been engaged by the opposite party management w.e.f. 01.03.98 as casual labour on the post of dispatcher and worked as such till 31.03.2001, continuously; and his services had been terminated orally without assigning any reason or any notice or any notice pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment compensation, in violation of the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
It is also the case of the workman that since he had completed 240 days in each calendar year and was in employment of the opposite party when a scheme for grant of temporary status was introduced in the opposite party management, therefore he is also entitled for grant of temporary status. In this regard he has placed reliance over M. Kasturi Vs.. Senior Deputy Director General, BSNL, N. Delhi & others 2005 (104) FLR 462 wherein it has been observed that as per clauses 4 and 5 of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regulation) Scheme,4860 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1989, in respect of casual labourers of Department of Telecom, grant of regular status in Class-IV/temporary status, had to be conferred on casual labourers who were in employment as on the date of the commencement of the 1989 Scheme and who had completed 240 days of work by the relevant date as required by the Scheme, which was last extended vide order dated 14.08.1998, providing for temporary status to casual labourers working as on 01.08.1998. In the instant case, the workman has come with a specific case that he had been engaged since 01.03.998 and had been paid for 21 days in each month; hence total working preceding the cut of date of the Scheme i.e. 01.08.1998 comes to 105 days only.
20. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. Vs.. Mahendra Pal Singh & another 2012 (2) ALJ 325 while scrutinizing the validity of the award of the Labour Court found that the findings of the Labour Court were not perverse; wherein the Labour Court drawn out a finding that the workman had continuously worked for more than 240 days in calendar months prior to termination of his services; and the termination of services was without any notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation; and accordingly, Hon'ble High Court held that the relief of reinstatement with 60% of back wages, awarded by the Labour Court was justified. Hon'ble High Court in para 47-50 of its judgment, has referred decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishan Singh Vs.. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak (Hayana) (2010) 3 SCC 637: (AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 787 as under:
"47. ........….. the appellant worked as a daily wager under the respondent from 1.6.1988. His services were terminated in December, 1993. He served a notice of demand dated 3012.1997 on the respondent contended that his services were terminated orally without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that he may be reinstated in service with full back wages from the date of illegal termination and he may be regularized according o the Government policy. The respondent did not respond to the demand made by the appellant and by and order dated 23.7.1999, the State Government referred the dispute under Section 10 of the Act to the Labour Court. Thereupon the Labour Court passed the award dated 18.7.2006 holding that the appellant had admittedly completed 267 days from 1.6.1988 to 30th April, 1989 and his services were terminated without any notice or notice pay and without payment of retrenchment compensation and the termination was, therefore, in violation of Section 25-F of the Act and the appellant was entitled to be reinstated in his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 30.12.1997.
48. The respondent challenged the award of the Labour Court before the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana, in writ petition and by order dated 9.12.2008, High Court allowed the said writ petition and set
aside the award dated 18.7.2006 of the Labour Court and directed the respondent instead to pay
compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant. Aggrieved by order dated 9.12.2008 of the High Court, the
appellant filed appeal before the Apex Court. By placing reliance upon earlier decision rendered by the
Apex Court in the case of Harjinder Singh (supra),l allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order
dated 9.12.2008 passed by the High Court and directed that the appellant will be reinstated as a daily wager
with 50% back wages forthwith.
49. While dealing with the question of discretionary powers of the Labour Court, in para 17 of the
decision, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"17. Wide discretion is, therefore, vested in the Labour Court while adjudicating an industrial
dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman and if the Labour Court has exercised its
jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case to direct reinstatement of a workman with 50%
back wages taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, the High
Court in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere
with the same, except on well settled principles laid down by this Court for a writ of certiorari against
an order passed by a court or a tribunal."
50. In the said case while drawing distinction between the cases of this nature and State of Karnataka Vs..
Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 : (AIR 2006 SC 1806 SC 1806) in para 22 of the said decision Hon'ble Apex Court
held as under:
22. The decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) cited by the counsel for the
respondent relates to regularization in public employment and has no relevance to an award for
reinstatement of a discharged workman passed by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act
without any direction for regularization of his services."
Moreover, Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhuvanesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. 2014(142) FLR 20; wherein it awarded reinstatement with full back wages to the appellant while dealing with the case of allegedII (ii) 4861 contravention of Section 6-N of the U.P. I.D. Act which is in similar to Section 25 F of the I.D. Act has observed as under:
"28. Section 6-N of the U.P. I.D. Act which is in pari materia to s. 25 of the I.D. Act reads thus:
"6-N. Condition precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry
who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched
by that employer until, -
(a) ………………
(b) ……………..
(c) ………………
Evidently, the above said mandatory procedure has not been followed in the present case. Further, it
has been held by this Court in the case of Anoop Sharma Vs.. Executive Engineer, Public Health
Division No. 1, Panipat, as under:
13…………no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer can be retrenched by that employer until the conditions enumerated in |Clauses (a) and (b) of the section 25-F of the Act are satisfied. In terms of Clause (a), the employer is required to give to the workman one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay him wages in lieu of the notice. Clause b) casts a duty upon the employer to pay the workman at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months. This Court has repeatedly held that section 25-F(a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee nullity……………………….. This Court has used different expressions for describing the consequences of terminating a workman's service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometimes as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of section 25-F(a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer as nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated."
Therefore, in the light of the law provided in the I.D. Act and its State counterpart through the U.P.I.D. Act
and also on the basis of the legal principle laid down by this Court, we hold that the termination of services
of the appellant was illegal and void ab initio.
29. Therefore, in the Labour Court was correct on factual evidence on record and legal principles
laid down by this Court in catena of cases in holding that the appellant is entitled to reinstatement with
all consequential benefits."
21. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, law cited and discussions made hereinabove, I am of considered opinion that the workman's services had been terminated by the opposite party management, in violation of the provisions contained in the Section 25 F of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947; without any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment compensation; however the workman did not prove completion of 240 days' working on the cutoff date of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regulation) Scheme, 1989 i.e. 01.08.1998 to make him eligible for grant of temporary status. Accordingly I come to the conclusion that the workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity in service along with 60% of back wages within ten weeks of publication of the award, failing which; the back wages shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum.
22. The reference is answered accordingly.
LUCKNOW 26th April, 2017
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer4862 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] —
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2017
S.O. 1834.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 117/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, Telecom Deptt. through Sub-Divisional Engineer (Legal) BSNL, Lucknow and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30.06.2017.
[No. L-40011/15/2011-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 117/2011
Ref. No. L-40011/15/2011-IR(DU) dated 20.09.2011
BETWEEN :
Sri Parvej Alam, Divisonal Org Secretary Uttar Railway Karmchari Union,283/63 Kha Garhi Kanaora (Premvati Nagar) PO:Manak Nagar Lucknow (U.P.)226001
AND
1. The General Manager, Telecom Deptt.
Through Sub-Divisional Engr.(Legal) BSNL O/o General Manager, Telecom, Gandhi Bhawan Lucknow-226001
AWARD
1 By order No. L-40011/15/2011 IR(DU) dated 29.09.2011 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Sri Parvej Alam, Divisional Org. Secretary, Uttar Railway Karmchari Union, Lucknow and the General Manager,Telecom Deptt. through Sub-Divisional Engineer(Legal), Lucknow for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"WHETHER THE DEMAND OF NORTHERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES UNION FROM THE
MANAGEMENT OF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BSNL, LUCKNOW FOR
REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES OF SRI VISHRAM S/O SRI DINANATH FROM THE YEARS
1992-93, IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED?" WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?"
3. As per the claim statement W3, the petitioner has stated in brief that the workman Sri Vishram was appointed on the post of gardner in January 1991 under the subordination of opposite party management, and is still working there but his services were unauthorisedly terminated in January 1992, being aggrieved he moved Hon'ble CGIT, Kanpur in I.D. 90/1996 and Award dated 27.7.2015 was adjudicated in his favour. The management filed writ petition before Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow against the said award but the Writ petition no.2420(MS)/2006 movedII (ii) 4863 by the opposite party which was dismissed on 15.5.2006, thereafter in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Court he was reinstated by the management vide letter dated 8.5.2007.
4. The workman has submitted that although he has been working for more than 240 days yet his services were not regularized since Jan.1992 which is violative of I.D. Act., it is clear cut unfair labour practice. The petitioner has stressed that he has been working since Jan.1991, even then several other junior employees to him have been regularized in the year 1992-93 , and petitioner's legal rights have been infringed. With the aforesaid pleadings, request has been made for petitioner's regularisation since the year 1992 with all consequential benefits and to give him due seniority as well.
5. As per list W-4 several documents have been filed.
6. The management in its written statement M-7 has admitted the order dated 2.12.1997 passed by CGIT, Kanpur and has submitted that the employee has been reinstated vide letter dated 16.6.2000 as casual labour, on the same status at which he was prior to his removal. The opposite party has asserted that the matter of petitioner for regularization has been sent to the BSNL, Head Office, New Delhi through letter dated 23.6.2003 other letters dated 16.6.2000, 13.2.2003 and 2.11.2006 have also been referred in the written statement.
7. The opposite party has emphasized that the petitioner had received an amount of Rs.133527/- on 18.12.2006 and sum of Rs.208508/- as arrears against the back wages w.e.f. 11.1.1992 to 26.6.2006, and in furtherance of this development petitioner's prior applications have been closed on 18.5.2007 and 8.8.2007 respectively. The employee was required to submit his affidavit that during the period of his retrenchment, he was not employed elsewhere but he failed to give such an affidavit, therefore proceedings were closed by the RLC ( C ) Lucknow. The management has requested to dismiss the claim statement with heavy cost. Several documents have been annexed with written statement.
8. With strong denial of the contrary facts mentioned in the written statement, rejoinder W-8 has been filed by the petitioner, reiterating the facts mentioned in the claim statement. Certain documents have again filed by the workman as per list W-9.
9. The petitioner has filed his affidavit W-10 in evidence, he has been thoroughly cross examined on behalf of the management. The opposite party has filed affidavit of Sri Dhanpat Lal, SDE(HRD) as M-19. He has been cross examined on behalf of the workman.
9A. Arguments of both the parties have been heard at length and record has been scanned thoroughly.
10. It is an admitted fact to both the parties that the workman Sri Vishram is an employee under the subordination of the opposite party, and Hon'ble CGIT, Kanpur has adjudicated the Award dated 2.12.1997. It may be quite pertinent to mention here that the order passed by Hon'ble High Court in this regard has not been mentioned by the opposite party, neither its copy has been filed, despite the fact that Writ Petition 2420(MS)/2006 allegedly filed by the management before Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow has been mentioned in the claim statement and photo copy of the order dated 15.5.2006 has also been annexed by the workman.
11. Learned AR for the management has submitted that the locus standi of the alleged Northern Railway Employees Union is invalid and therefore doubtful. Further it has been emphasized by the management that in compliance of the directions given by CGIT, Kanpur the employee has been reinstated and his dues and arrears have been paid to him, matter for his regularization has been recommended to the Head Office but the petitioner workman has unnecessarily entered into further litigation.
12. The management has filed photo copy of letter dated 13.2.2003 regarding regularization of "left out casual labourers." Another letter dated 8.5.2007 regarding reinstatement alongwith back wages and consequential benefits has also been filed by the opposite party. Further an important document is paper no. W-9/14, which is letter No.269-94/98- STN-II/Pers IV (Vol.III)/UP(E) dated 10.10.2003 addressed to CGM, BSNL,Lucknow sent by the BSNL, Corporate Office, New Delhi. This letter has no where been denied by the management. Even during arguments learned AR for the opposite party did not express any doubt over the authenticity and veracity of the letter dated 10.10.2003. Following abstract of the aforesaid letter dated 10.10.2003 is quite crucial:
"This office has further scrutinized the detailed information sent by your office for the remaining cases
and further 17 (Seventeen) TSMs/CLs (Sr.No.6,7,11,12,118 and 127 to 138) have been found to be
eligible for regularization at this stage. 3 cases ( Sl.No.50,66 and 122) are under consideration being
CGA appointment. For the remaining 26 cases some additional information is required for processing
the cases further.
4864 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]2. Accordingly, approval of the Competent Authority is hereby conveyed for following:-
(i) (GM,U.P (East) Telecom Circle is further authorized to create upto 17 (Seventeen) numbers of post
of RM to regularize the eligible TSMs/CLs. If required after adjusting all the vacant post of RM in the
Circle. The circle's ceiling limit will stand enhanced to this extent. These regularized employees will be
BSNL, employees.
(ii) CGM is also authorized to grant age relaxation as required in individual cases for the purpose of
regularization as per rules."
13. The name of the petitioner has been mentioned at Serial Number 7 of Proforma-I.
14. Learned AR for the workman has relied upon the following prouncements:
1. 2005(104) FLR, J.H.Jadhav Vs. M/s Forbes Cokaka page no.1005.,Hon'ble Supreme Court
2. 1965 (11) FLR, 53, Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. 1970 (20) FLR, 157 Hon'ble Supreme Court.
15. Learned AR for the management submits that the above Rulings do not apply to the present dispute.
16. Learned AR for the management has referred the following citations:
1. Civil Apeal No.1861-2063/2001 etc. State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others judgment dated
10.4.2006, Hon'ble Supreme Court.
17. Learned AR for the workman asserts that the above citation has propounded an important principle but that does not apply to the matter in issue.
18. After having heard the intellect arguments of both the learned ARs and perusal of the record in the light of the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is inferred that the letters dated 13.2.2003 and 10.10.2003, which have no where been denied by the management, can not be ignored. Despite the recommendations made by the office of CGM, BSNL, Lucknow on 13.2.2003, the inaction or slackness of the subordinate officers although letter dated 10.10.2003 has been issued by BSNL, Corporate Office, New Delhi to CGM, BSNL, Lucknow can not be appreciated. It reflects sheer slackness and negligence of the concerned officers that no proper decision has apparently been taken during the last more than 13 years. The matter has been adjudicated in favour of the workman by CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur and thereafter the writ petition filed by the management has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow. The orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble CGIT-cum-Labour Court have not been followed by the management in true spirit. The advice/direction given by the BSNL, Corporate Office, New Delhi has also not been adhered to, by subordinate office.
19. Hence it is inferred that the demand regarding regularization of services of Sri Vishram from the relevant date is quite legal and justified. The management is directed to regularize the petitioner workman from due date with all consequential benefits, taking into account his seniority as well, within 10 weeks from the date of notification of the award, failing which the management shall pay interest @ 6% per annum to the workman.
20. Award as above.
LUCKNOW 13.06.2017
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer —
II (ii) 4865New Delhi, the 31st July, 2017
S.O. 1835.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 23/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, East Lucknow, The Principal General Manager, Lucknow and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30.06.2017.
[No. L-40012/72/2003-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 23/2004
Ref. No. L-40012/72/2003-IR(DU) dated 20.01.2004
BETWEEN :
Sri Jagroop Yadav S/o Sri Ram Manohar Yadav 278, Chowdhary Ka Purva, Mauja Jamin Husenabad PO Subheha (Hedergarh) Barabanki (U.P.)
AND
1. The Chief General Manager,
Telecommunication, East, Lucknow The Principal General Manager Pee Kay Bhawan Lucknow-22600
AWARD
1. By order No. L-40012/72/2003-IR(DU) dated 20.01.2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the Sri Jagroop Yadav S/o Sri Ram Manohar Yadav, Barabanki and the Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, East, Lucknow, The Principal General Manager, Pee Kay Bhawan, Lucknow for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"WHETHER ACTION OF MANAGEMENT OF CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL, LUCKNOW
IN VERBALLY TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF SRI JAGRUP YADAV S/O SRI RAM
MANOHAR YADAV, CASUAL WORKMAN W.E.F. 14.07.2000 IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF
NOT TO WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED?"
3. As per the claim statement W-3 the petitioner has stated in brief that he has been working as casual labour under the subordination of opposite party office, SDE(Phones) Gomti Nagar, Lucknow since 09.05.1995 to 13.07.2000 with sincerity and honesty and in every calendar year he had worked for more than 240 days, his carrier has been blotless and no charge sheet was ever given to him. The petitioner has stated that before termination of his services he was being paid Rs.2500/- per month, certificate dated 06.06.1996 signed by Sri G.N. Pandey, JTO was given to him mentioning therein that he had been working as casual labour for the last one year and his responsibility honesty and diligent worker.
4. The workman has referred another certificate dated 31.12.1996 given by SDO (Phones) regarding work done by him since 9.5.1995 to Dec.1996. Further details for the other duration have also given in the sub paras of para 7 of the claim statement. Payment received by the workman mentioned in sub paras of para 8. The petitioner has asserted that identity card was also issued to him and he was required to perform the duty of office peon. As per direction of his superior authorities. Vide memo dated 10.2.2000 and 21.3.2000 issued by Chief General Manager, Phones, East circle Lucknow, 74 and 86 labours were provided temporary status w.e.f. 12.2.1999. Several other instances have also been given by petitioner in para 11,12 etc. of the claim statement.
5. The workman has stressed that more than 61 labours junior to him were employed in establishment at the time of termination of his services. Representation was given by the workman but it was not dul6y considered he filed O.A.
4866 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]414/2000 before CAT, Lucknow order dated 23.11.2001 was passed by the CAT, Lucknow but no relief was given to the workman on the alleged false ground that the workman has not worked in any financial year for 240 days. Before termination of service no prior notice was given, retrenchment compensation salary in lieu of notice was also not paid and he has employed since 5.9.2000. Violation of Section 25 F,G, of the I.D. Act. have been alleged by the petitioner. With the aforesaid pleadings the workman has prayed for reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits as well as grant of temporary status w.e.f. 10.2.2000.
6. The workman has filed several documents as per list C-5.
7. The management with strong denial of the allegations made in the claim statement has filed written statement M-12. The management has submitted that as jkper the directions of the CAT, Lucknow representation given by the workman was disposed of in accordance with Rules. The opposite party has asserted that the workman has never completed 240 days in any financial year from 1995 to 1996, 2000-2001. Contempt filed by the workman was dismissed by the CAT vide order dated 4.11.2002.
8. It has been admitted by the opposite party that the workman has engaged as casual labour only for 12 days in June 1997 and theeafter 31 days in Oct.1997 his engagement was 12 days as such he was never completed 240 days in any financial year. Therefore question of grant of temporary status and his regularization has never arisen upto Oct. 1997, the workman has worked for 31 days only. The opposite party has alleged that the petitioner has fabricated and manipulated some documents for his own illwill and those documents can not be relied upon which are incorrect. After approaching the CAT the petitioner should not have moved this Tribunal, order passed by the CAT no relief further b e granted to the workman. The petition of the workman has been claimed highly time barred. The opposite party has requested to dismiss the claim statement with heavy cost. Copy of order passed by CAT alongwith other documents have been annexed by the opposite party with written statement.
9. With strong denial of the contrary facts given in the written statement, rejoinder W-13 has been filed by the workman, reiterating the pleas taken in the claim statement.
10. The workman has filed certain documents as per list C-21. Further affidavit A-23 alongwith annexure has also been filed by the workman.
11. The petitioner examined himself in evidence. He was thoroughly cross examined on behalf of the management.
12. The opposite party has filed affidavit A-43 of Sri K.D. Tripathi, Sr.SDE and another affidavit M-45 of Sri G.N. Pandey, SDE. Both the witness have been cross examined on behalf of the workman.
13. Hand writing expert report W-65 has been filed by the workman. Affidavit W-69 was filed by the Hand Writing Expert and he has been cross examined on behalf of the management.
14. Arguments of learned ARs of both the parties have been heard at length. Record has been scanned thoroughly.
15. Learned AR for the workman has submitted that the petitioner workman has been working as casual labour/peon since 9.5.95 to 13.7.2000, with sincerity deligant and honesty, even then services were orally terminated without assigning any reason. So called details of duty chart and experience certificate have also been emphasized by the workman. Learned AR for the opposite party while strongly refuting the pleas taken by the workman, asserts that the petitioner has never completed 240 working days in any financial year, there was no question of grant him temporary status or regularization of service.
16. In O.A. 414/2000, Jagroop Yadav and others Vs. Union of India and others Hon'ble CAT, Lucknow has observed in its order dated 23.11.2001, that detailed representation alongwith all the documents in support of their name, shall be filed by the applicant before the management within one month and the management shall after verifying and correctness and genuineness of the documents passed appropriate orders on the said representation within six months. Copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble CAT, Lucknow has been annexed by the management with affidavit M-12/9, as M-12/10. Further letter dated 20.9.2002 addressed to the petitioner, has been filed as M-12/13 where in following material has been mentioned;
"It has been found that the certificates and ACG-17, enclosed with your representation in support of
your claim, are not authentic. The concerned officers have denied issuance of such certificates. As per
office records regarding actual working days you have not completed 240 days in any financial year i.e.
1995-96 to 2000-2001.
17. The workman in his cross examination (A-37), has admitted that the contempt petition filed by him(regarding order of Hon'ble CAT) has been dismissed. So called certificates issued by BSNL authorities have been referred by him, but on page 7 he has admitted that on the referred voucher etc. the paying officer and the disbursing officer have no signed neither counter signed. On page 9 he has admitted that neither any appointment letter was issued nor any dismissal letter was given to him.
II (ii) 486718. The management has filed affidavits of Sri K.D. Tripathi. Sr.SDE and Sri G.N. Pandey, SDE, both the witnesses have been cross examined. Sri K.D.Tripathi in his cross examination has specifically asserted that the petitioner was not engaged in the period from 9.5.95 to 12.7.2000 neither any salary was paid. On the alleged document A1/22 and 22/3 to 23/10, signatures have been denied and further explained that the witness does not know who had signed on those documents. Similarly signature on documents C-5/8, C-5/16 to 5/77 have been denied by the witness.
19. Other witness Sri G.N. Pandey has also asserted in his cross examination that the petitioner has never worked under his subordination, moreover signature on document A1/22, 22/2 to 22/10 and C-5/6 to C-5/75 have been denied. The witness has replied in his cross examination that he does not know who has signed on these documents.
20. Under such circumstances the authenticity of the documents relied upon by the petitioner is doubtful. Moreover so called Identity card A1/22 (2 I. Cards) in originals have been filed by the workman) do not bear any official embalm of the BSNL department or Govt. of India, or any other authentic seal. Only seal having designation of JTO and SDE have been affixed on the so called identity card. Normally Central Government office and Central Government Company do not issue such type of identity card. This fact carries much weight in the light of the evidence adduced by the management before this Court, only duty chart and certificates regarding working days have been clearly denies.
21. Only evidence regarding so called signatures is Hand Writing Expert Report W065 filed by the petitioner before this Tribunal. Hand Writing Expert Sri Satish Dayal has thoroughly cross examined on behalf of the management. It may be quite pertinent to mention here that the above Expert is not a Govt. Expert, neither he has worked in any Govt. Labs. Whether his experience as Hand Writing Expert has aver been recognized by Central Government or State Govt., has also not been duly informed to this Tribunal/Court. It is settled law that the Hand Writing Expert Report in the absence of any cogent evidence does not have binding. The fact of varacity in the alleged signatures, has been thoroughly confronted by Learned AR of the management in the cross examination, Therefore, only on the basis of Hand Writing Expert Report the version taken by the workman, can not be blindly believed.
22. The fact whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days in the preceeding one year, from the relevant date, has to be determined on the basis of cogent reliable evidence. This material fact can not be ignored under such circumstances. Principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases is quite material but it is not legally or factually possible to give any benefit to the workman, in the alleged evidence adduced by both the Tribunal;
1. (2002), 3 SCC, R.F.O. Vs.. S.T. Hadimani Page 25.
2. (2005), 8 SCC, Surendra Nagar District Panchyat Vs.. Jetha Bhai Pitambarbhai Page 450.
3. (2006) 1, SCC, R.M.Yellati Vs. Executive Engineer, Page 106.
4. (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Board, page 545.
23. After having heard the intellect arguments of both the parties at length and perusal of the record in the light of the pronouncements laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is inferred that the question of oral termination of service of the petitioner w.e.f. 14.7.2000 can not be adjudicated in favour of the petitioner. There was no illegality or irregularity in the alleged order if any passed by the management. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
24. Award as above.
LUCKNOW 14.06.2017
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer —
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2017
S.O. 1836.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 65/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-4868 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Balaji Securities Services, Aliganj, Lucknow & Others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 08.06.2017.
[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 65/2012
BETWEEN :
Sri Ram Gopal Yadav S/o Sri Ram Naresh Yadav Through Sri Om Narain Sahu, F-3351, Rajajipuram, Lucknow
AND
1. The Balaji Securities Services, Section C-4 C Aliganj, Lucknow,
2. Reliance Infocom Ltd.
2nd Floor Magnum Plaza Eldeco Green, Gomti Nagar Lucknow
AWARD
1. The workman has filed present petition under section 2A of the I.D. Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), as Ram Gopal Yadav S/o Sri Ram Naresh Sahu F-3351, Rajajipuram, Lucknow and the Balaji Securities Ltd., C-4, Aliganj, Lucknow/Reliance Infocom Ltd. 2nd Floor Magnum Plaza, Eldeco Green, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow for adjudication.
2. As per the claim statement W-1, the workman has stated in brief that opposite party no.1 Balaji Securities Services has employed him to work under the management and subordination of opposite party no.2 since 29.03.2004, and he has worked continuously without any break although the employer did not issue any appointment letter. The petitioner has claimed that his work and conduct has always been satisfactory and there was no complaint in this regard, moreover he has worked for more than 240 days in each year but unfortunately during duty hours and on account of performance of his sincere duty his eye sight was adversely affected, he became blind and disabled consequently. The employer did not pay any compensation to him and orally retrenched him to not perform his duty w.e.f. 21.07.2015.
3. The workman has asserted that he has worked for more than 240 days in each and every year, Provident Fund was also deducted from his salary regularly even then no prior notice before termination of his services was given neither any pay in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him. The management has adopted unfair labour practice and petitioner's rights have been infringed illegally. Government's notification dated 04.11.2004 has been referred by the petitioner and violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act., has been alleged in the claim statement, Provident Fund deduction was duly deposited by opposite party no.2 i.e. Reliance Infocom Ltd. in the relevant code, yet the petitioner was not treated its employee. Conduct of the management has been improper and illegal. With the aforesaid pleadings the petitioner has prayed to declare the service termination order as improper and illegal, further request has been made for his reinstatement with all the salary benefits etc., taking into account his continuity of service. Photo copy of the contract appointment, Ration Card, Aadhar Card etc., has been enclosed with the claim statement.
4. The opposite party no.2 has filed written statement M-7 dated 28.12.2012 wherein it has been specifically pleaded that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the applicant and opposite party no.2, the petition is barred by limitation as prescribed by Section 2A(3) of the I.D. Act., the said accident has been denied in the written statement and the management has submitted that question of any compensation does not arise. The management of opposite party no.2 has requested to dismiss the claim statement filed by the workman.
5. With strong denial of the contrary facts given in the written statement the workman has filed rejoinder W-8.
II (ii) 48696. Notices through registered post were sent to opposite party no.1, Balaji Securities Services but none appeared on it behalf before the Court, neither any written statement nor reply was submitted by opposite party no.1.
7. The workman has filed photo copies of leave application forms dated 19.12.2004, 22.12.2004 and E.P.F. details etc., as per list W-9.
8. The management has filed photo copies of the purchase orders dated 02.04.2004 and 23.04.2005 along with application M-10 dated 05.08.2013. The management of opposite party no.2 has submitted in M-10:
"That the opposite party no.2 is filing herewith the copies of two purchase orders dated 02.04.2004 and
23.04.2005 in terms of which the opposite party No.1 had made the services of the applicant available to
the opposite party no.2. The said may kindly be taken on record as documents filed on behalf of the
opposite party no.2."
10. During the proceedings of the case workman has filed application W-11 alongwith certain annexures, and further letters W-18, W-20 etc., have been submitted.
11. The workman Sri Ram Gopal Yadav has filed his affidavit W-14. He was thoroughly cross examined on behalf of opposite party no.2.
12. The opposite party no.2 filed affidavit of Sri Dineshwar Pratap Singh M-17. Its Hindi translated version M-27 was also filed duly verified by learned AR of opposite party no.2. Later on another affidavit W-22 was filed by the petitioner, whereby the facts mentioned on behalf of opposite party no.2 in its affidavit have been controverted by the workman.
13. None appeared in the court on behalf of the workman to cross examine the management witness Sri Dineshwar Pratap Singh. However the Court in order to safe guard the interest of the said blind petitioner questions were put before the management witness. The witness was duly cross examined by the Court.
14. Arguments advanced by the petitioner himself and learned AR for opposite party no.2 have been heard at length. Record has been perused thoroughly.
15. The workman has argued that the management of Reliance Infocom availed his services through the opposite party No. 1, which is said to be contractor for supplying the man power to the opposite party No. 2; but the opposite party No. 2 could not produce the 'principal employer' registration certificate and registration certificate of M/s Balaji Securities Services which goes to show that the pleading of the management that the workmen were supplied by the agency under a contract is nothing but to escape from their liabilities.
16. The management of opposite party No. 2 has denied employer and employee relationship between itself and the workman altogether; and has submitted that the service of the workman had been availed through opposite party No. 1 and payment was also made accordingly through opposite party No. 1.
17. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the workman and OP No. 2, and perused respective pleading of parties and supportive evidence.
18. The workman has come up with the case that his services have been availed by the opposite party No. 2 through opposite party No. 1 and in the absence of any principal employer' registration certificate in respect of opposite party No. 1 and registration certificate of M/s Balaji Securities Services and any contract for supply of labourers between OP No. 1 and OP No. 2, it goes to show that the workman had been a worker of principal employer i.e. OP No. 2.
19. The OP No. 1 did not turn up to file any reply, which led to ex-parte against them whereas the OP No. 2 has evasively denied the contentions of workman and has submitted that there does not exist any employer-employee relationship between the OP No. 2 and the workman. However, the authorized representative of the OP No. 2 has moved an application M-10 to file the documents on behalf of OP NO. 2 which reads as under:
"That the opp party no 2 is filing herewith the copies of two purchase order dated 02.04.2004 and 23.04.05
in terms of which the opp party no. 1 had made the services of the applicant available to the opp party no 2.
The said may kindly be taken on record as documents filed on behalf of the opp party no 2."
The OP No. 2 along with above referred purchase orders has filed 'Terms and Conditions' regarding providing man power and to ensure various statutory provisions; but failed to provide the same in its respect i.e. a valid registration certificate as 'principal employer' and a genuine 'contract, carrying terms and conditions'. The details of terms and conditions filed through M-10 cannot be said to be a genuine contract in the eye of law as not sworn before a Notary. Hence, it cannot be said that there was any genuine contract labor system prevailing with the management of the OP No. 2 and OP No. 1. Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Suresh & others 1999 LLJ 1087 has observed as under:
4870 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]"When these contract workers carry out the work of the principal employer which is of a perennial nature
and if provisions of Section 10 get attracted and such contract labor system in the establishment gets
abolished on fulfillment of the conditions requisite for that purpose, it is obvious that the intermediary
contractor vanishes and along with him vanishes the term 'principal employer'. Unless there is a
contractor agent there is no principal. Once the contractor intermediary goes the term 'principal' also goes
with it. Then remains out of this tripartite contractual scenario only two parties – the beneficiaries of the
abolition of the erstwhile contract labour system i.e. the workmen on the one hand and the employer on the
other who is no longer their principal employer but necessarily becomes a direct employer for these
erstwhile contract labourers."
Hon'ble Apex Court further observed as under:
"19. It has to be kept in view that this is not a case in which it is found that there was any genuine contract labor system prevailing with the Board. If it was a genuine contract labor system, then obviously, it had to be abolished as per Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act after following the procedure laid down therein. However on the facts of the present case, it was found by the Labour Court and as confirmed by the High Court that the so called contractor Kashmir Singh was a mere name lender and had procured labor for the Board from the open market. He was almost a broker or an agent of the Board for that purpose. The Labour Court also noted that the Management witness Shri A.K. Chaudhary also could not tell whether Shri Kashmir Singh was a licensed contractor or not. The workmen had made a statement that Shri Kashmir Singh was not a licensed contractor. Under these circumstances, it has to be held that factually there was no genuine contract system prevailing at the relevant time wherein the Board could have acted as only the principal employer and Kashmir Singh as a licensed contractor employing labour on his own account. It is also pertinent to note that nothing was brought on record to indicate that even the Board at the relevant time, was registered as principal employer under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. Once the Board was not a principal employer and the so called contractor Kashmir Singh was not a licensed contractor under the Act, inevitable conclusion that had to be reached was to the effect that the so called contract system was a mere camouflage, smoke and screen and disguised in almost a transparent veil which could easily be pierced and the real, contractual relationship between the Board, on the one hand, and the employees on the other, could be clearly visualized."
20. In the instant case, the management of the OP No. 2 has tried to plead and lead evidence to the effect that there was a contract between the management of the OP No. 2 and OP No. 1 to provide man power; and in order to substantiate this pleading it has filed photocopy of so called terms and condition. Apart from photocopy of so called contract/terms and conditions the OP No. 2 could not show any documentary evidence regarding issuance of tender notice, bid from the contracts etc.
21. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and law cited hereinabove, I am of considered opinion that the so called contract/term and conditions are not genuine or mere a camouflage, smoke and a screen and disguised, just to deprive the workman of his legitimate rights.
22. It is established that the workman was engaged by the contractor to carry out the work of perennial in nature; therefore the contract labour system got abolished. Further neither the OP No. 2 was registered as principal employer nor did the contract have license, making the so called contract between the OP No. 2 and the so called contractor mere camouflage. Thus, the direct relationship of employer and employee gets established between the management of OP No. 2 and the workmen. Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Suresh & others 1999 LLJ 1087 has relied upon the observation made by it in its decision in Air India Statutory Corporation etc. Vs. United Labour Union & others etc. 1997-I-LLJ-1113 SC as under:
"In this behalf, it is necessary to recapitulate that on abolition of the contract labor system, by necessary
implication, the principal employer is under statutory obligation to absorb the contract labour. The linkage
between the contractor and the employee stood snapped and direct relationship stood restored between
principal employer and the contract labour as its employees. Considered from this perspective, all workmen
in the respective services working on contract labour are required to be absorbed in the establishment of the
appellant."
Also, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CWP No. 1981 of 1997 decided on 29.09.2000, 2001 (1) SCT 1943 has held
that 'in case the contractor has not taken a license as required under Section 12 of the Act, then the contract labour
shall be treated as direct employees of the Principal employer.'
Thus, from the law pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it comes out that the principal employer is under statutory obligation to absorb/regularize the contract labour as the linkage between the so called contractor and the employees stood snapped and direct relationship stood restored between principal employer and the contract labour labour, in the present industrial dispute.
II (ii) 487123. But as observed above, on the abolition of contract labour system, there existed relationship of employer and employee between the management of the Reliance Infocom and the contract labour, it can be well concluded that the workman under dispute was engaged in perennial nature of work and he has worked for more than 240 days in preceding year from the date of his alleged termination. Also, it could be well inferred that the services of the workman have been terminated without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or giving any notice or notice pay or any retrenchment compensation etc.
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. Vs.. Mahendra Pal Singh & another 2012 (2) ALJ 325 while scrutinizing the validity of the award of the Labour Court found that the findings of the Labour Court were not perverse; wherein the Labour Court drawn out a finding that the workman had continuously worked for more than 240 days in twelve calendar months prior to termination of his services; and the termination of services was without any notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation; and accordingly, Hon'ble High Court held that the relief of reinstatement with 60% of back wages, awarded by the Labour Court was justified. Hon'ble High Court in para 47-49 of its judgment, has referred decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishan Singh Vs.. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak (Haryana) (2010) 3 SCC 637: (AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 787 as under:
"47. ........….. the appellant worked as a daily wager under the respondent from 1.6.1988. His services were terminated in December, 1993. He served a notice of demand dated 3012.1997 on the respondent contended that his services were terminated orally without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that he may be reinstated in service with full back wages from the date of illegal termination and he may be regularized according to the Government policy. The respondent did not respond to the demand made by the appellant and by and order dated 23.7.1999, the State Government referred the dispute under Section 10 of the Act to the Labour Court. Thereupon the Labour Court passed the award dated 18.7.2006 holding that the appellant had admittedly completed 267 days from 1.6.1988 to 30th April, 1989 and his services were terminated without any notice or notice pay and without payment of retrenchment compensation and the termination was, therefore, in violation of Section 25-F of the Act and the appellant was entitled to be reinstated in his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 30.12.1997.
48. The respondent challenged the award of the Labour Court before eh High Court of Punjab and
Haryana, in writ petition and by order dated 9.12.2008, High Court allowed the said writ petition and set
aside the award dated 18.7.2006 of the Labour Court and directed the respondent instead to pay
compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant. Aggrieved by order dated 9.12.2008 of the High Court, the
appellant filed appeal before the Apex Court. By placing reliance upon earlier decision rendered by the
Apex Court in the case of Harjinder Singh (supra), allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order
dated 9.12.2008 passed by the High Court and directed that the appellant will be reinstated as a daily wager
with 50% back wages forthwith.
49. While dealing with the question of discretionary powers of the Labour Court, in para 17 of the
decision, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"17. Wide discretion is, therefore, vested in the Labour Court while adjudicating an industrial
dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman and if the Labour Court has exercised its
jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case to direct reinstatement of a workman with
50% back wages taking into consideration the pleadings f the parties and the evidence on record, the
High Court in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India will not
interfere with the same, except on well settled principles laid down by this Court for a writ of
certiorari against an order passed by a court or a tribunal."
24. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, discussions made hereinabove and law cited hereinabove, it is established that the workman under dispute, who was employee of the principal employer i.e. Reliance Infocom, was engaged by Reliance Infocom through an illegal contract system which is not genuine and mere a camouflage; and all the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of his termination; and his services have illegally been termination on 31.07.2005 on completion of the so called 'illegal contract' by the management of the Reliance Infocom without following the mandatory provisions of the Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the workman Shri Ram Gopal Yadav is entitled for reinstatement with continuity in service along with 60% of back wages
25. But in the instant case, the workman, Ram Gopal has lost his eye sight during period of engagement and his services could no longer be availed for security purposes; hence he could not be reinstated into the services of OP No. 2. In Haryana Roadways Vs.. Rudhan Singh (2005) 5 SCC 591; 2005 SCC (L&S) 716 Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the question regarding award of back wages has observed:
4872 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]"There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the
termination of service was in violation of section 25 F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded
………………………………….. However, where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very
small, the award of back wages for the complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the
award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. Another important
factor, which required to be taken into consideration, is the nature of employment. A regular service of
permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be
for 240 days in a calander year."
26. In Deepak Ganpat Tari Vs.. N.E. Theater Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (119) FLR 877 Hon'ble Bombay High Court relying on the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in A P V K Brahmandandam 2008 (117) FLR 1086 (SC) Telephone DM Vs.. Keshab Deb 2008 (118) FLR 376 (SC) JDA Vs.. Ram Sahai 2006 .(111) FLR 1178 (SC), while awarding compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the concerned workman considering his daily wages as Rs. 45/- in view of the fact that the workman had put in about 3 years of service, has observed as under:
"It is apparent that termination of services of a daily wager does not amount to retrenchment and for
violation of section 25 F in such circumstances, the employee cannot be given benefit of reinstatement with
continuity and back wages. Hon'ble Apex Court has hold that in such circumstance employee is entitled to
benefit of compensation only."
27. Having regards to these facts that the workman has worked after engagement through an agency at the time of his alleged termination @ monthly rates Rs. 2850/- and keeping in view the entire facts of the case and the law, the interest of justice would be subserved, if, management is directed to pay lump sum amount of compensation only.
29. Accordingly, the management is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the workman as compensation for termination of their services in violation of section 25 F of the I.D. Act. The said amount shall be paid to the workman within ten weeks of publication of the award, failing which; the same shall carry interest @ 6% per annum.
30. The reference is answered accordingly.
LUCKNOW 24th May, 2017
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer —
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2017
S.O. 1837.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 5/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, JIPMER, Puducherry and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26.07.2017.
[No. L-42011/151/2013-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 19th July, 2017
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
II (ii) 4873Industrial Dispute No. 5/2014
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of JIPMER, Puducherry and their workman)
BETWEEN :
: 1st Party/Petitioner Union
The President JIPMER Hospital Employees Union Room No. 314, 3rd Floor, Administrative Block Puducherry-605006
AND
: 2nd Party/Respondent
The Director JIPMER Puducherry-605006
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union : M/s. Sai, Bharath & Ilan, Advocates For the 2nd Party/Respondent : M/s. Sri M.T. Arunan, Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-42011/151/2013-IR (DU) dated 03.01.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
"Whether the demand of the workmen (As per Annexure-A) seeking regularization in the post they are
engaged continuously by the Management of JIPMER, Puducherry is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 5/2014 and issued notice to both sides. On receipt of notice both sides have entered appearance and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.
2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner is a Trade Union functioning in the Respondent Organization. Majority of the employees of the Respondent are members of the Petitioner Union. The Respondent is a Body Corporate under the JIPMER Act and runs a Multi-Specialty Hospital. In the Hospital there are several tasks such as cleaning, assisting the patients, maintenance of gates, entry in the records and a variety of several other functions. In the late eighties the Respondent intending to indulge in cheap labour stopped regular recruitment to several posts for carrying out the above jobs and started resorting to engage persons on daily basis. It deliberately omitted to maintain a centralized list of daily rated labourers and permitted each Department to engage persons with a direction not to engage a person for more than 15 days in one Department. After 15 days the same set of workers would be engaged by another Department. At times the Departments even gave fictitious names to same set of people for another 15 days. The attempt was to make out that the employment was seasonal. By resorting to such acts the Respondent has given a go-by to all the Labour Laws. The earliest of the members of the petitioner were engaged in the year 1987. Majority of them were engaged during 1991- 2001 and a few of them were engaged during 2005-2006. More than 500 persons were engaged in this manner. The list of these persons is annexure to the Industrial Dispute. None of the workmen are given any designation. They are called by the name Coolies. They were kept as daily rated workers even though they were working for long number of years. They were not given any weekly holidays but were paid only for the days they worked. They were not subscribed to Provident Fund even though it is mandatory under the law. They were not covered by the ESI Act nor given the facility for treatment in the Respondent hospital. They are not eligible for any leave including Medical or Maternity Leave. They are not given any compensation for accidents occurring during work. They were directed to wear uniforms but were not paid Uniform Allowance. The Petitioner Union has taken up the case of these workmen and demanded that they be regularized and all the mandatory legal benefits be extended to them. An Award may be passed directing the Respondent to designate the concerned workmen as Multi-Tasking Staff and regularize them in the said posts with backwages and all attendant benefits.
3. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:
The Respondent was a Subordinate Office of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare upto July 2008. In view of the recommendations of the committee to the department the Respondent could fill up only 1/3 of the vacancies4874 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] falling in the direct recruitment quota. By this process the Respondent could not fill up the vacancies falling under Group "D" cadre particularly the post of Sweepers engaged in cleaning and maintenance and other activities. So the Heads of the Departments started to engage daily rated labours for undertaking seasonal and intermittent cleaning work. Selection of these daily rated labourers was not through Employment Exchange. The Government had not sanctioned any post for the work of House-Keeping, Security, etc. Subsequent to the implementation of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission employees in Government Service are to be engaged only in activities requiring a certain level of skill. Those employees who were in erstwhile Group "D" cadre have been brought into Group "C" level. The Government has ordered that no further recruitment shall be made to Group "D" cadre after 01.01.2006. All Group D employees such as Safaiwala, Security Guards, Helpers, etc. in the Respondent establishment were brought to Group "C" cadre. They were assigned various semi-skilled jobs by giving appropriate training. As no hands were available to do the jobs of Group "D" cadre the Respondents started outsourcing these services. When new facilities were added to the establishment it had to engage more daily rated labourers as a stop-gap arrangement till outsourcing arrangement is finalized. Once tenders are awarded for outsourcing the work the daily rated labourers also could be engaged by the Contractor if they are willing for the same. When conciliation proceedings was started the petitioner was represented by its President. In the subsequent conciliation proceedings the President of an unrecognized association had represented the workmen. At present the daily rated labourers are being represented by an unrecognized association. The Industrial Dispute raised by the Union is against the Bye-Laws of the Union. It is not stipulated in the byelaws that the daily rated labourers can be members of the Union. The petitioner union has no locus-standi to raise the dispute for a group of persons who are members. The allegation that even from the late eighties the Respondent had started to indulge in cheap labour and did not want to give regular scale of pay and other benefits and started resorting to engage persons on daily basis is not correct. It was as a policy decision of the Government of India, as a stop-gap arrangement, daily rated labourers were engaged by the Heads of the Departments. These labourers are engaged for a period of 15 days. They are engaged for seasonal and semi-skilled works. It is incorrect to state that labourers were engaged on fictitious names. The period of 15 days was resorted to prevent any kind of misuse of the system and as a matter of policy only. It is incorrect to state that the Respondent has started to engage daily rated labourers in 1987 itself and that majority of them were engaged during the period from 1999-2011. The allegation of the Petitioner that the workmen are not given proper designation and that they are not given benefits of the different industrial laws are not correct. They are paid wages as per the Minimum Wages Act. The daily rated workmen cannot be given any designation as there are no sanctioned posts. The concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief.
4. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 to WW3 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W146 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M39.
5. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the demand of the petitioner in seeking regularization of the workmen concerned in the dispute in the service of the Respondent is justified?
(ii) What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?
The Points
6. The Respondent is an institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research. It is running a Multi-Specialty Hospital also. The Petitioner Union has raised the dispute on behalf of the workmen engaged in the establishment under the name and style daily rated labourers (DRL) or Coolies. In fact, in most of the documents pertaining to the Respondent the workmen are referred to as Coolies. It is the case of the petitioner that the Respondent has started to engage workmen on daily rated basis even in the eighties. According to the petitioner most of the workmen concerned in the dispute were first engaged by the Respondent during the period from 1999-2001. A few of them were engaged during 2005-2006 also. The schedule of reference contains a list of the workmen on whose behalf the dispute is raised. It is stated by the petitioner that these workmen are engaged by the Respondent with the nomenclature of Coolies in different areas such as cleaning, working in the Canteen, for the Research Institute and also for the hospital. The Respondent takes care to see that the workmen are given work only for 15 days a month in a particular department. For the next 15 days they will be shifted to another department. It is stated that in this manner the Respondent has been successfully avoiding grant of any benefits due to the workmen under the various Labour Law Legislations. It is alleged that they are retained as daily rated workers even though they have been working for a long number of years. They are not given weekly holidays, they are not subscribed to the Provident Fund, they are not covered under the ESI Act, they are not given any leave, nor given any compensation on accidents. It is stated that they are not even given any wage slips. The petitioner has raised the dispute when the Management was in the process of recruiting persons from the open market and had issued advertisement calling for applications for this purpose. It is claimed by the petitioner that the concerned workmen should be designated as Multi-Tasking Staff and should be regularized in the service of the Respondent with all the benefits.
II (ii) 48757. In the Counter Statement filed it is not disputed by the Respondent that it had been engaging daily rated labourers for different purposes. According to the Respondent this was done only as a stop-gap arrangement. It is stated that the Government had issued a ban on recruitment in the posts of sanitary Workers and such other posts and all the existing workers in such posts have been promoted as Multi-Tasking Staff giving them necessary training. This has resulted in the establishment being without any hands to do the cleaning, security and such other works. The engagement of workers on daily rated basis is said to have been in this background. According to the Respondent it has started outsourcing the work that is now done by the daily rated labourers and had given instructions that all those labourers should register with the outsourcing agency so that they can continue in the work. The concerned workmen were not working continuously but only for 15 days in a week, it is stated. It is also stated that no posts are available in the establishment and for this reason also the workmen are not entitled for regularization as claimed by them.
8. There is evidence given by WW1, the President of the Petitioner Union and WW2 and WW3, two of the daily rated labourers. WW1 has filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the case in the Claim Statement. He has stated that the Petitioner is a Union that was registered in the year 1998 and from 1998 onwards it has been espousing the cause of temporary workers also.
9. WW2 has stated that he had started to work for the Respondent establishment in the year 1986. He was initially engaged in one of the hostels of the Respondent and was doing the work of cleaning utensils, assisting in cooking, etc. In 2004 the hostel mess was outsourced and then he was transferred to the Canteen of the Dietetics Department. He was preparing food and distributing them to the patients in the wards. Even now he continues to work in the Department. According to him, he is now getting Rs. 448/- per day as wages. He has stated that regular cooks who are working in the same kitchen are getting salary in the scale of Rs. 5200-20200. He has further stated that he has been working for the past 30 years continuously and his work is perennial in nature. There is also the evidence of WW3 who has stated that he had started to work for the Respondent from the year 2000. He was recruited through the Sanitary Department for cleaning and sanitation work. However, he being a Graduate he was asked to maintain the counter, get the patient's details, open the file for the patients, make appropriate entries in the ledger, etc. He was carrying patient's records to the Doctors. He was also filing various consultation records, prescriptions, discharge summaries, lab reports, etc. In 2005 he was transferred to the Medical Records Department and had worked there till 2010. Then he was transferred to the Department of Medical Services where he had to attend to the patients, operate the stretchers, shift the patients, etc. He is also getting Rs. 448/- per day. The evidence given by WWs 2 and 3 regarding the nature of work done by them is not challenged by the Respondent in the cross-examination. Even the case of these witnesses that they have been working for a long time is not much disputed.
10. There is of course the evidence given by MW1, the Administrative Officer of the Respondent. He has stated under what circumstances daily rated labourers started to be engaged by the establishment. According to him, Group D employees who were doing the work of Safaiwala, Security Guards, Helpers, etc. were brought to Group C cadre and were assigned other jobs. There was ban in recruitment to the post in Group D cadre also. In the meanwhile, the establishment had developed to further heights, adding to it a Cancer Centre, Trauma Care Centre, Super-Specialist Block, Nursing College, Academic Centre, Women and Child Hospital, etc. Since there was ban on recruitment in Group D cadre they had to resort to engagement of daily rated labourers as a stop-gap arrangement till outsourcing tender is finalized. Thus it could be seen from the evidence given by MW1 itself that the Respondent was almost wholly resorting to daily rated labourers for works coming under Group D cadre. The only case is that this was done as a stop-gap arrangement until arrangement for outsourcing is done.
11. The documents produced by the petitioner would reveal that the Respondent still continues the practice of engaging workers on daily rated basis and that the workmen have been continuing as daily rated labourers for a very long time. Most of the documents produced by the petitioner were obtained from the Respondent itself under the Right to Information Act. Ext. W10 to Ext.W80 are all information obtained in this manner. As seen from these documents various departments have furnished information regarding engagement of workers done by them. There are 35 departments in the Respondent establishment. Engagement of workers is done at the discretion of Head of each Department. In Ext.W10-answer given from the Office of the Nursing Superintendent it is seen stated that the number of Coolies who have been working for a long time are more and to give opportunity to all of them they are divided into two so that they will be given chance every alternate month. However, as could be seen from the Counter Statement as well as the evidence of MW1 duration of 15 days is fixed so that they work only for a minimum number of days so that they would not be able to claim any benefit for their work. Ext.W10 itself (Page-84 onwards) gives an account of the number of workers engaged in each department and the maximum number of days to be engaged. As could be seen from this there is scope for engaging workers on all working days and not for some specified days only. Ext.W81 is an Office Order of 2014 approving engagement of Coolies. It could be seen that in almost all the departments persons are being engaged on daily wages. Ext.W82 shows the duties allotted to these persons. They are engaged in the OP of the Medicine Department and Special Clinic for registration, for arranging and filing inpatient records, in the laboratory,4876 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] for filing of records, as assistant to census, in the enquiry section, in EMS Department in shifts, in the discharge section for issuing token, at the telephone board, etc. Ext.W83 is the Register of the daily rated workmen maintained in EMS Department. This is certified by the concerned Medical Officer. This is of the period starting from 2000. Details of the period upto 2011 are available in this. This gives the details such as the name of the workman, number of days worked, amount paid, date of payment, etc. Ext.W84 is the copy of such register maintained at the Medical Records Department for the period from the year 2000-2009. Ext.W88 to Ext.W92, Ext.W94, Ext.W98 and Ext.W99 are also information furnished by the Respondent under the Right to Information Act. Ext.W89 is information furnished in 2009. It says that there are almost 400 workers working on daily wages. Ext.W90 gives the details of the workers who had worked in August 2009. Ext.W92 gives the details of the nature of work that is done by the daily rated workers. It could be seen from this that they are engaged in all the departments and they are employed for doing any kind of work which does not require much skill. The nature of work varies depending upon the nature of the department. In the MRI Department it is attending of enquiries related to investigation, guiding the patient and helping the technician, receiving MRI requisition, issuing the report to the patient, etc. They are engaged in the X-Ray Section in shifts, for the first shift, second shift and night shift. Here they are attending enquiries related to investigations, receiving X-Ray requisition, cleaning the machines, shifting patients to the CT table and back, etc. In the house-keeping section they are engaged in cleaning the floor, tables, instruments, laboratory glass wares and accessories, they are also collecting indents from several sections including linens, laundry. They are also doing transport of blood samples, cleaning the animal cage, etc. In the department of Cardio-Thoracic and Vascular Surgery they are taking blood sample for investigation, taking patients' for referral to other department, bringing X-Ray cassettes from Radiology, preparing the roller pads, assisting nurses, washing and drying the ventilator circuits, measuring and emptying the filled urine bags, providing bed pan to the patients, cleaning the sputum cups, emptying and cleaning the filled-up suction jars, etc. In the Departmental Canteen they do grinding, help in cooking, cut vegetables, issue tokens, shift food items and grocery items from Canteen to the other blocks, etc. In the Department of Cardiology they are shifting patients, bringing and taking materials etc, In the remarks columns it is stated that all the workers are trained in the work related to Cardiology and Coronary Care Unit also. In the Central Workshop they are engaged in the Electrical Section, Painting Section, Carpentry Section, Sheet Metal Section, etc. In fact it could be seen from the information submitted by the Respondent itself that daily rated labourers are engaged for every work other than the work of a Medical Practitioner, qualified nurse and such other qualified persons required in a hospital.
12. It is the case of the petitioner that the concerned workmen were not given even the benefits due to daily workers. It could be seen that even Provident Fund Scheme was not applicable to them denying them the benefit. Ext.W86 is the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner directing the Respondent to pay the outstanding dues towards the Provident Fund. It was only after this order the Respondent started contributing towards Provident Fund for the daily rated workers. There is the evidence given by WW2 and WW3 that they are not given weekly leave with wages, nor given any holidays. They are not entitled to any leave including maternity leave. One of the workmen had approached the High Court and had obtained direction to provide the benefit of Maternity Leave. The workmen are directed to wear uniform. By a communication, the colour of the uniform is prescribed. However, it is to be done at the cost of the workman itself. The Respondent did not find it necessary even to provide uniforms though they insisted on uniforms.
13. Ext.W105 to Ext.W109 are the orders sanctioning budget for engagement of daily rated labourers. These are of the years 2004 and 2005. The Respondent was resorting to engagement of daily rated labourers during all this time in large scale. One of the sanction order states that engagement of a person should not be for more than 10 days continuously though engagement is required for entire 31 days of the month. Ext.W116 contains experience certificates issued to different workman. This shows that workers were being engaged even from 1986. Ext.W114 and Ext.W115 are payment vouchers of 2008 showing engagement during this period. Ext.W142 and Ext.W143, communications from the different departments also are there showing engagement of workers on daily rated basis for every kind of work that would be available in a hospital and a medical college. Ext.W125 contains details of workers alongwith annexure regarding the nature of work done by them. This shows that they have been working as Nursing Orderly, Stretcher Bearer, Safaiwala, etc. At the bottom of the details there is a certificate by the Chief Medical Officer to the effect that the engagement was only for work which is casual, seasonal or intermittent in nature for which regular post cannot be created. It cannot be conceived how the work of Nursing Orderly, Stretcher Bearer and Safaiwala in a hospital becomes seasonal. No expert evidence or opinion is required to assume that these are works which are required to be done permanently and not seasonal in nature. No doubt, the attempt of the establishment in giving such description regarding nature of work was only to defeat the attempt of the workmen to get regularized in the establishment and get the benefits due to them.
14. The counsel for the Respondent has argued based on Uma Devi's case that there are no sanctioned posts in the establishment to take in the temporary workers by way of regularization and so there is no question of allowing their claim for regularization also. In answer to this contention the counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision ofII (ii) 4877 the Apex Court in DURGAPUR CASUAL WORKERS UNION AND OTHERS VS.. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in 2014 SCC (ONLINE) SC 986 and also UMARALA GRAM PANCHAYAT VS.. THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES UNION AND OTHERS reported in 2015 SCC (ONLINE) SC 476. In Durgapur Casual Workers case the Apex Court has referred to Maharashtra State Road Transport case (2009 8 SCC 556) where it was held that Uma Devi's case does not denude the industrial and labour courts of their statutory power under Section-30 read with Section-32 of MRTU and PULP ACT to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer. It has also quoted the observation that the power of the Labour Court is of wide amplitude and comprehensive within its fold to give direction to the employer to accord permanency to the employees affected by unfair labour practice. The Apex Court has observed that the Industrial Disputes Act is for settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes and prohibits unfair labour practice on the part of the employer in engaging employees as casual or temporary employees for a long period without giving them the status and privileges of permanent employees. It was a case where the Food Corporation had been running Rice Mill for several years through successive contractors but through the same workmen. The direction given by the Industrial Court to regularize the workmen were upheld by the Apex Court. In the Umarala Gram Panchayat case the Panchayat had engaged workmen as Safai Kamdars and they have been working for a period ranging between 18 and 5 years. However, they were considered as daily workers only. It was held that the services of the concerned workmen are permanent in nature since they have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year from the date of their initial appointment. The Apex Court directed the Gram Panchayat to treat the concerned workmen as permanent employees after 5 years of their initial appointment as daily workmen. So the Respondent cannot take shelter under the contention that in the absence of sanctioned post the workmen are not entitled to regularization.
15. So far as some of the workmen are concerned they might have worked only for 15 days a month. Some of them have been put in one department for 15 days and in some other department for another 15 days. Even if they had worked only for 15 days a month this was only because of the deliberate act on the part of the Respondent to deny work to them for half of the month so as to make them incompetent to claim permanency. The workmen have been working for the Respondent for years and years without any benefits. Certainly, the Respondent was acting in violation of Item- 10 of Schedule-V of the Industrial Disputes Act, treating the workers as Coolies or Daily Rated Labourers and making them continue as such for years with the object of depriving them of their status and privileges of permanent workmen. Those workmen who had been working continuously are entitled to be regularized in the service of the Respondent.
16. It is the case of the petitioner in the Claim Statement that the concerned workers should be designated as Multi- Tasking Staff and regularized in the said post. However, the counsel has admitted during trial that the workmen will not be entitled to be regularized as MTS who comes under Group "C". It is pointed that earlier staffs were appointed in Group "D" post, but these were abolished and all those staff who were working in Group "D" were adjusted in Group "C" by promoting them. It is after this the Respondent has resorted to engagement of workmen on daily rated basis. There would be no difficulty for the Respondent in regularizing the workmen as Helpers or in other posts coming under Group "D".
17. The Respondent has raised a contention that the Petitioner Union has no locus-standi to raise the dispute on behalf of the workmen. It is not disputed by the Respondent that the petitioner is a registered trade union. The objection of the Respondent seems to be on the basis that subsequently there was a rift in the Union. However, this is not the reason to non-suit the petitioner and deny benefits to the workmen who have put faith on the Union and had asked the Union to raise dispute on their behalf.
18. The petitioner has submitted a list of workmen showing the year of their engagement and other details. Those workmen who have completed 5 years of service as on the date on which the dispute was raised shall be treated as workmen who have been working for a long time as casual workmen and are entitled to be regularized.
In view of the above discussion an Award is passed as below:
The Respondent is directed to regularize all the concerned workmen who have completed 5 years of service as on 05.03.2012 on which date the dispute was raised, in Group "D" post. They will be entitled to regular pay- scale and all other benefits due to permanent workmen, from this date. Arrears of pay due on account of such regularization shall be paid within two months of publication of the Award. In default the amount will carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of the Award.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 19th July, 2017)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer4878 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : WW1, Sri R. Arochiam Kalaimathi
WW2, Sri S. Kumaravel
WW3, Sri M. Oudayan
For the 2nd Party/Management : MW1, Sri Hawa Singh
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Ext.W1 - List of disengaged employees complied by the Petitioner union showing their S.No.
in the original list of employees and other particulars, including the department of
work, period of work from 2008, date of disengagement
Ext.W2 - List of additional employees who are not provided in the original list
Ext.W3 - Communication of the Respondent management dated 25.06.2014 to the Regional
Labour Commissioner
Ext.W4 - Notification of the Respondent Management dated 20.12.2013 inviting applications
for the post of Multi-Tasking Staff
Ext.W5 - Communication of the Respondent Management to the Assistant Labour
Commissioner dated 20.08.2014
Ext.W6 - Service Certificate issued by the Respondent Management to one of the workmen
dated 27.08.2012
Ext.W7 - Certificate issued to one of the workmen dated 01.06.2005
Ext.W8 - Duplicate copy of the coolie vouchers issued to a few of workmen for the month of
June 2012
Ext.W9 - Communication of the Regional Labour Commissioner, Chennai dated 13.08.2014
enclosing the order passed under Minimum Wages Act
Ext.W10 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 12.03.2013 Ext.W11 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act 12.03.2013 Ext.W12 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 23.06.2014 Ext.W13 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 25.06.2014 Ext.W14 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 03.07.2014 Ext.W15 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 29.05.2014 Ext.W16 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 08.07.2014 Ext.W17 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 28.06.2014 Ext.W18 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 29.05.2014 Ext.W19 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 24.06.2014 Ext.W20 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 02.07.2014 Ext.W21 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 08.09.2013 Ext.W22 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 04.09.2013 Ext.W23 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 22.05.2014 Ext.W24 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 26.05.2014 Ext.W25 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 21.05.2014 Ext.W26 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 09.06.2014 Ext.W27 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 26.05.2014II (ii) 4879
Ext.W28 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 04.06.2014 Ext.W29 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 24.05.2014 Ext.W30 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 31.05.2014 Ext.W31 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 27.05.2014 Ext.W32 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 24.05.2014 Ext.W33 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 02.06.2014 Ext.W34 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 02.06.2014 Ext.W35 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 04.06.2014 Ext.W36 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 30.05.2014 Ext.W37 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act 26.05.2014 Ext.W38 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 22.05.2014 Ext.W39 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 28.05.2014 Ext.W40 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 22.05.2014 Ext.W41 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 27.05.2014 Ext.W42 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 06.06.2014 Ext.W43 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 23.05.2014 Ext.W44 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 27.05.2014 Ext.W45 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 30.05.2014 Ext.W46 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 29.05.2014 Ext.W47 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 31.05.2014 Ext.W48 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 23.05.2014 Ext.W49 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 21.05.2014 Ext.W50 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 27.05.2014 Ext.W51 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 23.05.2014 Ext.W52 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 09.06.2014 Ext.W53 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 27.05.2014 Ext.W54 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 04.06.2014 Ext.W55 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 05.06.2014 Ext.W56 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 23.05.2014 Ext.W57 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 05.06.2014 Ext.W58 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 23.05.2014 Ext.W59 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 27.05.2014 Ext.W60 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 30.05.2014 Ext.W61 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 04.06.2014 Ext.W62 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 23.05.2014 Ext.W63 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 06.06.2014 Ext.W64 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 12.08.2014 Ext.W65 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 28.05.2014 Ext.W66 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 03.06.2014 Ext.W67 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 06.06.20144880 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W68 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 09.06.2014
Ext.W69 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 28.05.2014
Ext.W70 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 27.05.2014
Ext.W71 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 26.05.2014
Ext.W72 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 09.06.2014
Ext.W73 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 22.05.2014
Ext.W74 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 29.05.2014
Ext.W75 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 04.06.2014
Ext.W76 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 27.05.2014
Ext.W77 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 30.05.2014
Ext.W78 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 21.10.2013
Ext.W79 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 29.10.2013
Ext.W80 - Information furnished under Right to Information Act on 08.10.2013
Ext.W81 - Order passed by the Respondent Management sanctioning funds under various
departments dated 02.04.2014
Ext.W82 - Order of the Respondent Management dated 21.12.2012
Ext.W83 - Copy of the Coolie Register maintained at the EMS Department from 2000 to 2011
Ext.W84 - Copy of the Coolie Register maintained at the Medical Records Department from
2000 to 2009
Ext.W85 - List of workmen for whom relief is prayed in the Industrial Dispute
Ext.W86 11.06.2013 Order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II alongwith list
particulars of engagement of coolies
Ext.W87 28.08.2012 Circular issued by the Respondent Management requesting The Departmental
Heads to enroll the coolies under the Contractor
Ext.W88 13.02.2010 Information furnished by the Respondent Management under the Right to
Information Act
Ext.W89 15.07.2009 Information furnished by the Respondent Management under the Right to
Information Act
Ext.W90 24.02.2010 Information furnished by the Respondent Management under the Right to
Information Act as to the list of Coolies working in each department
Ext.W91 25.06.2012 Information furnished by the Respondent Management under the right to
Information Act as to the number of Coolies working in each department
Ext.W92 17.11.2012 Information furnished by the Respondent Management under the Right to
Information Act regarding the nature of works done by the Coolies in the various
departments
Ext.W93 31.08.2012 Circular issued by the Respondent Management
Ext.W94 31.01.2013 Information furnished by the Respondent Management under the Right to
Information Act as to the particulars of Coolies working in various departments
after the cleaning work was outsourced to Contractor
Ext.W95 04.09.2012 Order sanctioning additional coolies to various departments
Ext.W96 08.09.2012 Order sanctioning additional coolies to various departments
Ext.W97 04.10.2012 Order sanctioning additional coolies to various Departments
Ext.W98 04.03.2013 Information furnished under the Right to Information Act regarding the names of
coolies and the number of days they were working from February, 2011 to March,
2012
II (ii)
4881
Ext.W99 24.08.2013 Information furnished under the Right to Information Act regarding the names of
the Coolies and the number of days they were working from April, 2012 to March,
2013
Ext.W100 30.01.2013 Order of the Respondent Management revising the wages of the coolies
Ext.W101 05.02.2013 Order of the Respondent Management regarding revision of wages of the Coolies
with annexure
Ext.W102 18.03.2013 Information furnished under the Right to Information Act regarding the list of
Coolies and the voucher for making their payments
Ext.W103 27.08.2003 Order of sanction of budget for engagement of Coolies in the emergency medical
service department
Ext.W104 17.08.2003 Communication furnishing the details of Coolies engagement in the emergency
medical service department
Ext.W105 28.08.2004 Order of sanction of budget for engagement of Coolies in the emergency medical
service department
Ext.W106 06.07.2004 Order of sanction of budget for engagement of Coolies in the emergency medical
service department
Ext.W107 03.08.2004 Communication furnishing the details of Coolies engaged in the emergency medical
service department
Ext.W108 07.06.2005 Order of sanction of budget for engagement of Coolies in the emergency medical
service department
Ext.W109 30.04.2005 Order of sanction of budget for engagement of Coolies in the emergency medical
service department
Ext.W110 06.05.2005 Communication furnishing the details of Coolies engagement in the emergency
medical service department
Ext.W111 31.12.2007 Approval granted for engagement of Coolies in EMS Department
Ext.W112 05.02.2008 Approval for engagement of Coolies in EMS Department
Ext.W113 January 2008 Details of Coolies in EMS Department and the vouchers
Ext.W114 February 2008 Copies of Vouchers of payment in EMS Department
Ext.W115 August 2008 Copies of Vouchers of payment in EMS Department
Ext.W116 1987-2007 Experience certificates issued to workmen by various departments at various
occasions
Ext.W117 March 2012 Attendance Register in respect of Central Library
Ext.W118 2006-2008 Shift Duty Allotment Register of EMS Department
Ext.W119 16.07.2008 Order prescribing uniform to the Coolies
Ext.W120 26.09.2013 Communication demanding flag day subscription from the Coolies
Ext.W121 July 2008 – Particulars of Coolies working in Cardiology Deparment
Dec 2011
Ext.W122 -
Identity Card issued to the daily rated labour
Ext.W123 22.08.2007 Service Certificate issued to one of the daily rated labour Ext.W124 26.12.2007 Service Certificate issued to one of the daily rated labour Ext.W125 19.04.2008 Details of Coolies alongwith Certificate that the engagement was seasonal Ext.W126 15.07.2009 Information furnished under the RTI Act regarding the particulars of Coolies Ext.W127 24.02.2010 List of daily rated labourers furnished under the RTI Act. Ext.W128 21.12.2010 Administration Approval granted for engagement of daily rated labourers4882 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W129 01.08.2011 Communication containing particulars of trainee staffs
Ext.W130 07.08.2011 Copy of Coolie Voucher
Ext.W131 20.08.2011 Administrative approval for engaging daily rated labourers
Ext.W132 August 2011 Copy of Attendance Register
Ext.W133 08.01.2011 Communication contacting the list of trainees
Ext.W134 04.01.2012 Representation of petitioners
Ext.W135 05.03.2012 Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner
Ext.W136 30.03.2012 Order of the Provident Fund authorities
Ext.W137 30.03.2012 Order of the Provident Fund authorities
Ext.W138 14.07.2012 Circular issued by the Deputy Director (Admn.), JIPMER, Puducherry-6
Ext.W139 25.07.2012 Communication of the ESI authorities
Ext.W140 02.08.2012 Communication of MRD Department detailing the nature of work
Ext.W141 02.08.2012 Communication of Department of Transfusion Medicine detailing the nature of
work
Ext.W142 03.08.2012 Communication of Department of Radiotherapy detailing the nature of work
Ext.W143 03.08.2012 Communication of Department of Emergency medical detailing the nature of work
Ext.W144 07.08.2012 Circular of the Deputy Director (Admn.) constituting committee of assessment
Ext.W145 23.08.2012 Conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Puducherry
Ext.W146 01.04.2016 List of workmen published by Respondent Management linked with AADHAR
On the Management's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Ext.M1 25.05.2017 Letter of Authorization Ext.M2 26.11.2013 ALC (Central) Failure Report Ext.M3 07.01.2014 Vacate Stay Order of Hon'ble High Court, Chennai in WP No. 21975/2013 Ext.M4 14.10.2013 JHEU Letter Ext.M5 - Constitution, Bye-Laws, Member list of JHEU Ext.M6 22.03.2012 JIPMER Memorandum recognizing JHEU with conditions Ext.M7 - Proceedings of Conciliation Officer i.e. ALC (Central), Puducherry Ext.M8 - Replies filed in WP No. 5929/2012 & WP no. 21975/20132 Ext.M9 14.08.2013 EPF Tribunal, New Delhi Order Ext.M10 - Reply filed in OA No. 310/000149/2014 filed before Hon'ble Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chennai
Ext.M11 31.01.2014 Orders of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in OA No.
1660/2013
Ext.M12 - Model Recruitment Rules for the post of MTS for Group "C" in GP 1800
Ext.M13 - Copy of the WP filed in WP No. 5929/2012 by Paneerselvam, Executive, Presiding
of JIPMER Hosp. Empl.Union before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras
Ext.M14 - Copy of the Order passed in WP No. 5929/2012 by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras
dated 21.03.2017
Ext.M15 - Copy of the Writ Petition filed in WP No. 21975/2013 filed by Paneerselvam,
Executive President of JIPMER Hospital Employees Union before the Hon'ble
High Court, Madras
Ext.M16 - Copy of the Order passed in WP No. 21975/2013 by the Hon'ble High Court,
Madras dated 21.03.2017
II (ii)
4883
Ext.M17 - Copy of the Writ Petition filed in WP No. 17466/2013 and WP 17467/2013 filed by Paneerselvam, Executive President of JIPMER Hospital Employees Union before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras
Ext.M18 - Copy of the Common Counter Affidavit filed in WP No. 17466/2013 & WP 17467/2013 filed before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras by JIPMER
Ext.M19 - Copy of the Order passed in WP No. 17466/2013 by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras dated 21.03.2017
Ext.M20 - Copy of the Order passed in WP No. 17467/2013 by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras dated 21.03.2017
Ext.M21 - Copy of Writ Petition filed in WP No. 30026/2014 filed by Paneerselvam, Executive President of JIPMER Hospital Employees Union before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras
Ext.M22 - Copy of the Counter Affidavit filed in WP No. 30026/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras by JIPMER
Ext.M23 - Copy of the Order passed in WP No. 30026/2014 by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras dated 21.03.2017
Ext.M24 - Copy of the Original Petition filed in OA 137/2014 by Kannan & 18 Other before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras
Ext.M25 - Copy of the reply filed by JIPMER in OA No. 137/2014 before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras by V. Kannan & 19 Others
Ext.M26 - Copy of the Original Petition filed in OA 149/2014 by K. Vinayagam & 2 Others before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras
Ext.M27 - Copy of the reply filed in OA 149/2014 filed before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras by K. Vinayagam & 2 Others
Ext.M28 - Copy of the Writ Petition filed in WP No. 12038/2015 before the Hon'ble High
Court, Madras by JIPMER
Ext.M29 - Copy of the Counter Affidavit filed in WP No. 12038/2015 before the Hon'ble High
Court, Madras by K. Srikanth, present General Secretary of JIPMER Hospital
Employees Union
Ext.M30 - Copy of the Counter Affidavit filed in WP No. 12038/2015 before the Hon'ble High
Court, Madras by Paneerselvam, President of JIPMER Hospital Employees Union
Ext.M31 - Copy of the Interim Orders passed in WP No. 12038/2015 by the Hon'ble High
Court, Madras on 28.04.2015, 10.08.2015 and 05.11.2015
Ext.M32 - Copy of the Order passed in WP No. 12038/2015 by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras dated 21.03.2017
Ext.M33 - Copy of the CCS (RSA) Rules 1993
Ext.M34 - Copy of the Office Memorandum dated 30.04.2015 issued by JIPMER stating the approval of the New Office bearers and recognizing the JIPMER Hospital Employees Union
Ext.M35 - Copy of the letter dated 21.08.2016 given by the General Secretary of the present recognized JIPMER Hospital Employees Union to the Director, JIPMER to take action against Paneerselvam
Ext.M36 - Copy of the letter dated 23.09.2016 given by the present recognized JIPMER Hospital Employees Union to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court, Madras
Ext.M37 - Copy of the letter dated 14.01.2016 to the President of JIPMER by Paneerselvam, President of a newly formed Union under the name "JIPMER National Importance Hospital Union" seeking recognition of the said Union4884 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Ext.M38 - Copy of the letter 02.07.2016 to the Director, JIPMER by Paneerselvam, President and General Secretary intimating one day hunger fast on 11.07.2017 under the banner of "JIPMER National Importance Hospital Union"
Ext.M39 - Copy of the Order passed in OA 404/2014 by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras dated 09.12.2014.
—
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2017
S.O. 1838.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 47/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, National Instructional Media Institute, Directorate General of Employment and Training, Chennai and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10.07.2017.
[No. L-42012/118/2016-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Friday, the 23rd June, 2017
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 47/2017
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of National Instructional Media Institute and their workman)
BETWEEN :
Smt. S. Abithakujambal : 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
: 2nd Party/Respondent
The Director National Instructional Media Institute Directorate General of Employment & Training Post Box No. 3142, CIT Campus, Guindy Industrial Estate Chennai-600032
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : In Person For the 2nd Party/Respondent : -
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, vide its Order No. L-42012/118/2016-IR (DU) dated 09.05.2017. referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
II (ii) 4885The schedule mentioned in that order is :
"Whether the termination of Smt. Abithakujambal by the Management of National Instructional Media
Institute, Government of India, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Guindy is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?
2. ID 46/2016 filed directly by the petitioner regarding the same subject matter is pending before this Tribunal. The petitioner does not want to proceed with this ID in view of this. She has made endorsement to the effect that she is not pressing this ID
Accordingly the ID is closed.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd June, 2017)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : None For the 2nd Party/Management : None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Nil
On the Management's side
Ex.No. Date Description
Nil —
I New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2017
S.O. 1839.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 8/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Vice President, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 26.07.2017.
[No. L-42011/149/2011-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 8/2012
Shri Ramdas Yadav, authorized representative, Delhi State General Mazdoor Union (Regd.), House No. F-235, Vijay Vihar, Phase I, Delhi-110 085
…Workman4886 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
The Vice President, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi
…Management
AWARD
A reference was received from Ministry of Labour under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act), by this Tribunal, vide letter No.L-42011/149/2011- IR(DU) dated 03.01.2012, for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
'Whether the action of the management of Delhi Development Authority(DDA) in not paying the OT wages claim of Rs.114950.00 for the period from 06.01.1983 to 17.06.1990 for 12 hours per day instead of 8 hours per day to Shri Raghunath Pandey S/o Shri Inder Pandey is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present reference are that Shri Raghunath Pandey (in short the claimant) has been working as security guard since July 1980 with Delhi Development Authority( in short the management) and was appointed vide letter Annexure 1 by Director (Horticulture), Delhi Development Authority, Rohini Office Complex, Delhi. Claimant had to work for 8 hours per day but the management used to take work from the claimant for 12 hours since March 1981 to December 1992. However, the claimant was being paid wages only for 8 hours instead of 12 hours. Thus, he was not being paid overtime for four hours by the management. Letter was also sent regarding payment of overtime wages by DDA Employees Welfare Council to the management on 09.07.1991.
3. It is the case of the claimant that he came to know in December 2006 that one of his co-workers Shri Lakhan Singh, who was also appointed by the management and had rendered service with the management at several places was also working for 12 hours, was paid overtime wages by the management as per award dated 17.03.2004 passed by Shri D.K. Malhotra, Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.4, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in L.C.A. No.196/1003 (Annexure 3). Thereafter, the claimant contacted other co-workers also and served demand notice /letter to the management in December 2005 stating that the management owed him an amount of Rs.1,76,066.00 overtime wages for which the claimant has rendered from the month of March 1981 to December 1992. Attendance of the claimant was also marked in the attendance register during his duty hours inside Godown. Demand notice was served upon the management for adjudication of the dispute through DDA Employees Welfare Council on 09.07.1991 and office order dated 10.05.1995 was also issued by the management but no overtime wages was given to the claimant even thereafter. Calculation of dues for overtime by the claimant is fully detailed in Annexure 4. Without considering the case of the claimant, the court in rejected the LCA application No.15/2006 vide order dated 23.04.2008.
4. Claim was contested by the management who filed written statement thereto, taking various preliminary objections, inter alia of resjudicata, maintainability, delay & laches etc. It was specifically averred that the rules prescribed for overtime is fully detailed in Rule 5 of Work Charge Manual-3 of CPWD manual. Claimant was never engaged for performing overtime work in the manner alleged by him.
5. On merits, management has denied the factum of engagement of the claimant with effect from July 1980 as Security Guard. In fact, the claimant was engaged on muster roll as Mali Chowkidar and his work primarily was to take care of the park. Salary was paid for the work charge post as per CPWD Manual. It is also denied that the claimant has worked for more than 8 hours with the management or performed any kind of overtime duty. There was no office order regarding performing of over time due and needful is detailed, as mentioned above, in the work charge manual of CPWD. There is prescribed format under Rule 5 for the same which is to be followed by the management. Since the claimant did not perform any overtime duty, as such, the question of payment of overtime allowance does not arise.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor vide order dated 12.07.2012 framed the following issues:
(i) Whether an individual dispute has been referred by the appropriate Government for want of espousal of the representative union in the establishment of the management?
(ii) Whether the dispute is stale since it is raised after unexplained delay of 20 years?
(ii) As in terms of reference
7. Various preliminary objections raised by the management was answered in order dated 02.08.2012 when the case was listed for evidence of the claimant.
8. Claimant, in support of his case, examined himself as WW1 and his affidavit is Ex.WW1/A. He has also relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/11. There after case was listed for remaining evidence of the claimant. However, despite various opportunities no other witness of the claimant was produced, hence evidence of the claimantII (ii) 4887 was closed on 11.03.2015. In order to rebut the case of the claimant , management examined Shri T.P. Singh, Deputy Director as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. He also tendered order dated 18.06.1990 as Ex.MW1/1.
9. It is pertinent to note here that when the case was at the stage of evidence of the management, claimant on most of the hearings was not present. Even Shri T.P Singh, witness of the management was not cross examined as none was present on behalf of the claimant on 16.02.2017. Even on the previous four dates of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the claimants, which clearly shows that the claimant was no more interested in the matter.
10. I have heard Shri Deepak Kumar Dhingra, A/R for the management.
Findings on Issue No.(i)
11. There is no precise definition of the term espousal under the Act. However, from the various authorities rendered by the court, it is clear that espousal means that the industrial dispute is adopted by the union as its own dispute and considerable number of workmen have given support to the case of an individual claimant. It has been held in the Workers Union Vs.. 7th Industrial Tribunal Calcutta (1994 FLR 701) that once a dispute is referred to a Tribunal by the appropriate Government, presumption would arise that such a dispute is properly espoused through the union. Since the management has not led any specific evidence regarding non-espousal of the present by the union of the claimant and matter has now been referred for adjudication under Section 10 of the Act, as such presumption arises in favour of the claimant.
Findings on Issue No.(ii)
12. It was urged on behalf of the management that reference was made by the Central government is quite late and the claimant has not approached the union at the earliest. This claimant is guilty of delay and laches in approaching the government as well as this court so late. To my mind, there is no merit in the contention of the management and legitimate claims of the parties cannot be defeated purely on legal or trivial grounds by the management by resorting to doctrine of delay and laches. It has been held in the case of Raghubir Singh Vs. General Manager, Haryana roadways (AIR 2014 SC weekly 5515) that reference can be made by the appropriate Government at any time and provisions of Limitation Act do not apply to proceedings under the ID Act. Normally reference made under Section 10 of the Act cannot be rejected by the Tribunal on account of delay and laches and the same view has been taken in Mange lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh ( 2016 Lab.IC 380).
13. Yet, again in the case of Sapan Kumar Pandit Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (AIR 2001 SC 2562). Question of limitation or delay and laches was considered. It was a case where Government referred a dispute to the Labour court for adjudication after 17 years from the date of termination of the workman. Management filed writ petition in the High Court seeking quashing of proceedings pending before the Labour Court. High Court quashed the reference made by the Government on the grounds of inordinate delay. However, when matter reached the Hon'ble apex Court, it was found that delay was on account of justified reasons and judgement of the High Court was set aside. There are observations that when a dispute has been referred by way of reference under Section 10 of the Act for adjudication, plea of the management regarding delay and laches, limitation etc. normally is to be rejected. Further, court held that if an industrial dispute is in existence from the date of reference, in that eventuality, power to make reference would always be there despite plea of delay and laches. In the wake of the legal position discussed above, plea of delay and laches raised by the management is without merit and the same is rejected. Issue is, therefore decided in favour of the claimant and against the management.
14. Now, the crucial question before this Tribunal is as to whether the claimant is entitled for payment of overtime wages of Rs.114950.00 for the period 06.01.1983 to 17.06.1990. It is also not out of place to mention here that services of the claimant was transferred to MCD on 18.06.1990. Thereafter, claimant approached Delhi Development Authority Employees Welfare Council for payment of overtime wages. Shri Raghunath Pandey, while appearing as WW1, admitted in his cross examination that on 18.06.1990, his services were transferred from Delhi Development Authority to MCD. He has further made a vital admission that his personal file as well as service book etc were also sent to MCD on transfer of his services. He also admitted that no written order was issued to him by any officer commanding him to perform overtime work during the period in respect of which he has filed the present claim. Though he further stated that he was marking his attendance in the attendance register regarding overtime work yet there is no record filed by the claimant to prove the same. It is also revealed from the record that an application was filed by the claimant for production of record pertaining to his overtime wages and the same was rejected by my learned predecessor vide order dated 14.11.2013.
15. Admittedly, in the case on hand, as per the case of the claimant, his services were transferred to MCD from Delhi Development Authority on 18.06.1990 and his service record as well as personal file etc., as per his own admission while appearing as WW1, was also transferred to MCD. In that eventuality, proper course for the claimant was to file application against MCD for production of his service record, attendance register, including the register for overtime wages etc, but the claimant has chosen not to follow the required path so as to prove his case against the4888 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] management. During the course of arguments, factum of engagement of the claimant by DDA was not categorically disputed even by the management and thrust of the submission raised on behalf of the management was to the effect that now there is no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management of DDA as services of the claimant stood transferred in 1990 to MCD, which fact has duly been admitted by the claimant in his evidence. Claimant has not impleaded MCD as a party, who was having the attendance as well as other service record of the claimant. Letter/notice Ex.WW1/3 shows that DDA Employees Welfare Council took up the matter of the claimant on 09.07.1991 and submitted the same to the management of DDA whereas his service stood transferred to MCD with effect from 18.06.1990.
16. Claimant has also filed copy of order in LCA No.196/1993 Ex.WW1/8 which was filed by one Shri Lakhan Singh against the management of DDA. A careful perusal of the said letter would show that the claimant Shri Lakhan Singh had also claimed overtime wages which was not paid by the management of DDA. Claim of the workman Shri Lakhan Singh was allowed to the extent of Rs.1,66,206.00 for the period 16.11.1992 to 31.01.1993. However, it is clear that in the said case, claimant has filed all the necessary documents in support of his claim so as to discharge the onus of proving that he has really worked during the said period whereas in the case on hand claimant has not filed any service record or overtime record/attendance record showing that he has really worked overtime during the period for which overtime was being claimed by the claimant.
17. There is another order in LCA No.11/2006 titled 'Raghunath Pandey Vs. DDA' filed by the claimant, which was decided on 23.04.2008, which the claimant had earlier filed. Critical perusal of the above order would show that the claimant had filed application under Section 33 C(2) of the Act against the management of DDA claimant an amount of Rs.1,14,950.00 as dues amount towards overtime wages from 06.01.1983 to 17.06.1990. In the present case also by way of reference, in fact claimant has claimed overtime wages for the same period. The learned Industrial Adjudicator in para 12 of the award Ex.WW1/12 has clearly held that there is nothing on record to show that the claimant was entitled to seek overtime allowances. He has simply placed copy of office order dated 10.05.1995 of Delhi Development Authority which shows that overtime allowance will be paid to the staff who is required to perform duties for more than 8 hours after obtaining prior approval for performance of extra duty from the competent authority. Learned Industrial Adjudicator further observed that this order is of May 1995 whereas the workman has claimed overtime for the period prior to that. This clearly shows that the claimant herein earlier also by way of LCA tried to get payment for overtime work, which was declined by the Labour Court vide order dated 23.04.2008. Thus, the decision rendered by the learned Judge on merits, though it may not constitute resjudicata in the strict sense as the same is in a proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Act which is merely in nature of execution proceedings. However, there is adjudication of controversy on merit and order passed by the learned Industrial Adjudicator shows that he has duly considered contentions of both the parties on merits and thereafter passed order Ex.WW1/12. Law is fairly settled that if an order regarding rights of the parties has been made by a competent court in a previous case between the same parties, the same cannot altogether be ignored in subsequent proceedings by the court while deciding same or similar controversy. Even if the order of the Labour Court Ex.WW1/12 is eschewed from consideration, then also case of the claimant cannot legally stand scrutiny of law inasmuch as the claimant has not adduced any cogent or reliable evidence so as to show that he has performed overtime work for the period 06.01.1983 to 17.06.1990. Moreover, from 1983 till 1990 he was in the employment of DDA and thereafter, he ceased to be an employee of DDA as his services stood transferred to MCD. To my mind, MCD was a necessary party for effective adjudication of the controversy and it was necessary for the claimant to have filed relevant record pertaining to attendance as well as overtime work done for the period for which the claimant has claimed overtime wages. Having failed to do so, it is held that claimant has miserably failed to prove that he is entitled for any overtime wages.
18. As a sequel to my discussions herein above, it is held that the action of the management of Delhi Development Authority(DDA) in not paying overtime wages claim of Rs.1,14,950.00 for the period from 06.01.1983 to 17.06.1990 for 12 hours per day instead of 8 hours per day to Raghunath Pandey S/o Shri Inder Pandey is legal and justified. It is further held that the claimant is not entitled to any relief. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : July 12, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer —
II (ii) 4889I New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2017
S.O. 1840.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 9/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Vice President, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 26.07.2017.
[No. L-42011/152/2011-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 9/2012
Shri Ramdas Yadav, authorized representative, Delhi State General Mazdoor Union (Regd.), House No. F-235, Vijay Vihar, Phase I, Delhi-110 085
…Workman
Versus
The Vice President, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi
…Management
AWARD
A reference was received from Ministry of Labour under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act), by this Tribunal, vide letter No.L-42011/152/2011- IR(DU) dated 02.01.2012, for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
'Whether the action of the management of Delhi Development Authority(DDA) in not paying the OT wages claim of Rs.176066.00 for the period from 06.03.1981 to 31.12.1992 for 12 hours per day instead of 8 hours per day to Shri Brahm Prakash S/o Shri Chunni Lal is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present reference are that Shri Brahm Prakash (in short the claimant) has been working as security guard since 06.03.1981 with Delhi Development Authority( in short the management) and was appointed vide letter Annexure 1 by Director (Horticulture), Delhi Development Authority, Rohini Office Complex, Delhi. Claimant had to work for 8 hours per day but the management used to take work from the claimant for 12 hours since March 1981 to December 1992. However, the claimant was being paid wages only for 8 hours instead of 12 hours. Thus, he was not being paid overtime for four hours by the management. Letter was also sent regarding payment of overtime wages by DDA Employees Welfare Council to the management on 09.07.1991.
3. It is the case of the claimant that he came to know in December 2006 that one of his co-workers Shri Lakhan Singh, who was also appointed by the management and had rendered service with the management at several places was also working for 12 hours, was paid overtime wages by the management as per award dated 17.03.2004 passed by Shri D.K. Malhotra, Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.4, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in L.C.A. No.196/1003 (Annexure 3). Thereafter, the claimant contacted other co-workers also and served demand notice /letter to the management in December 2005 stating that the management owed him an amount of Rs.1,76,066.00 overtime wages for which the claimant has rendered from the month of March 1981 to December 1992. Attendance of the claimant was also marked in the attendance register during his duty hours inside Godown. Demand notice was served upon the management for adjudication of the dispute through DDA Employees Welfare Council on 09.07.1991 and office order dated 10.05.1995 was also issued by the management but no overtime wages was given to the claimant even thereafter.
4890 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Calculation of dues for overtime by the claimant is fully detailed in Annexure 4. Without considering the case of the claimant, the court in rejected the LCA application No.15/2006 vide order dated 23.04.2008.
4. Claim was contested by the management who filed amended written statement thereto, taking various preliminary objections, inter alia of resjudicata, maintainability, delay & laches etc. It was specifically averred that the rules prescribed for overtime is fully detailed in Rule 5 of Work Charge Manual-3 of CPWD manual. Claimant was never engaged for performing overtime work in the manner alleged by him.
5. On merits, management has denied the factum of engagement of the claimant with effect from 06.03.1981 as Security Guard. In fact, the claimant was engaged on muster roll as Mali Chowkidar and his work primarily was to take care of the park. Salary was paid for the work charge post as per CPWD Manual. It is also denied that the claimant has worked for more than 8 hours with the management or performed any kind of overtime duty. There was no office order regarding performing of over time due and needful is detailed, as mentioned above, in the work charge manual of CPWD. There is prescribed format under Rule 5 for the same which is to be followed by the management. Since the claimant did not perform any overtime duty, as such, the question of payment of overtime allowance does not arise.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor vide order dated 12.07.2012 framed the following issues:
(i) Whether an individual dispute has been referred by the appropriate Government for want of espousal of the representative union in the establishment of the management?
(ii) As in terms of reference
7. Claimant, never entered the witness to testify facts. Hence, he was proceeded ex-parte on 11.03.2015. Management examined Shri T.P. Singh, Deputy Director as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. He also tendered order dated 18.06.1990 as Ex.MW1/1.
8. It is pertinent to note here that when the case was at the stage of evidence of the management, claimant on most of the hearings was not present. Even Shri T.P Singh, witness of the management was not cross-examined as none was present on behalf of the claimant on 16.02.2017. Even on the previous four dates of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the claimants, which clearly shows that the claimant was no more interested in the matter.
9. I have heard Shri Deepak Kumar Dhingra, A/R for the management.
Findings on Issue No.1
10. There is no precise definition of the term espousal under the Act. However, from the various authorities rendered by the court, it is clear that espousal means that the industrial dispute is adopted by the union as its own dispute and considerable number of workmen have given support to the case of an individual claimant. It has been held in the Workers Union Vs. 7th Industrial Tribunal Calcutta (1994 FLR 701) that once a dispute is referred to a Tribunal by the appropriate Government, presumption would arise that such a dispute is properly espoused through the union. Since the management has not led any specific evidence regarding non-espousal of the present by the union of the claimant and matter has now been referred for adjudication under Section 10 of the Act, as such presumption arises in favour of the claimant.
Findings on Issue No.2
10. Now, the residual question before this Tribunal is as to whether the claimant is entitled for payment of overtime wages of Rs.1,76,066.00 for the period 06.03.1981 to 31.12.1992. Since the claimant has never entered the witness box to testify facts despite grant of several opportunities, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant is no more interested in progress of the case on merits. Hence, this Tribunal is left with no other option but to pass a 'No Claim/Dispute Award'. However, it is made clear that there is no adjudication of the case on merits, as such, claimant is still at liberty to agitate his cause in accordance with law An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : July 13, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer —
II (ii) 4891I New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2017
S.O. 1841.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 11/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Vice-President, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 26.07.2017.
[No. L-42011/150/2011-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 11/2012
Shri Ramdas Yadav, authorized representative, Delhi State General Mazdoor Union (Regd.), House No. F-235, Vijay Vihar, Phase I, Delhi-110 085
…Workman
Versus
The Vice President, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi
…Management
AWARD
A reference was received from Ministry of Labour under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act), by this Tribunal, vide letter No.L-42011/150/2011- IR(DU) dated 02.01.2012, for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
'Whether the action of the management of Delhi Development Authority(DDA) in not paying the OT wages claim of Rs.125750.00 for the period from 18.02.1982 to 31.12.1990 for 12 hours per day instead of 8 hours per day to Shri Parveen Kumar S/o Shri Vedanand is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?'
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present reference are that Shri Parveen Kumar (in short the claimant) has been working as security guard since 1982 with Delhi Development Authority( in short the management) and was appointed vide letter Annexure 1 by Director (Horticulture), Delhi Development Authority, Rohini Office Complex, Delhi. Claimant had to work for 8 hours per day but the management used to take work from the claimant for 12 hours since 06.01.1983 to 17.06.1990. However, the claimant was being paid wages only for 8 hours instead of 12 hours. Thus, he was not being paid overtime for four hours by the management. Letter was also sent regarding payment of overtime wages by DDA Employees Welfare Council to the management on 09.07.1991.
3. It is the case of the claimant that he came to know in December 2006 that one of his co-workers Shri Lakhan Singh, who was also appointed by the management and had rendered service with the management at several places was also working for 12 hours, was paid overtime wages by the management as per award dated 17.03.2004 passed by Shri D.K. Malhotra, Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.4, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in L.C.A. No.196/1003 (Annexure 3). Thereafter, the claimant contacted other co-workers also and served demand notice /letter to the management in December 2006 stating that the management owed him an amount of Rs.1,14,950.00 overtime wages for which the claimant has rendered from the month of March 1981 to December 1992. Attendance of the claimant was also marked in the attendance register during his duty hours inside Godown. Demand notice was served upon the management for adjudication of the dispute through DDA Employees Welfare Council on 09.07.1991 and office order dated 10.05.1995 was also issued by the management but no overtime wages was given to the claimant even thereafter.
4892 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Calculation of dues for overtime by the claimant is fully detailed in Annexure 4. Without considering the case of the claimant, the court in rejected the LCA application No. 20/2006 vide order dated 19.03.2008.
4. Claim was contested by the management who filed written statement thereto, taking various preliminary objections, inter alia of resjudicata, maintainability, delay & laches etc. It was specifically averred that the rules prescribed for overtime is fully detailed in Rule 5 of Work Charge Manual-3 of CPWD manual. Claimant was never engaged for performing overtime work in the manner alleged by him. There exists no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management as the claimant is now working with Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) since 1990. Service record of the claimant was also handed over to MCD.
5. On merits, management has denied the factum of engagement of the claimant with effect from 06.03.1981 as Security Guard. In fact, the claimant was engaged on muster roll as Mali Chowkidar and his work primarily was to take care of the park. Salary was paid for the work charge post as per CPWD Manual. It is also denied that the claimant has worked for more than 8 hours with the management or performed any kind of overtime duty. There was no office order regarding performing of over time due and needful is detailed, as mentioned above, in the work charge manual of CPWD. There is prescribed format under Rule 5 for the same which is to be followed by the management. Since the claimant did not perform any overtime duty, as such, the question of payment of overtime allowance does not arise.
6. It is revealed from record that no specific issue was framed by my learned predecessor and various preliminary objections raised by the management was answered in order dated 01.05.2012 when the case was listed for evidence of the claimant.
7. Claimant, in support of his case, examined himself as WW1 and his affidavit is Ex.WW1/A. He has also relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/13. There after case was listed for remaining evidence of the claimant. However, despite various opportunities no other witness of the claimant was produced, hence evidence of the claimant was closed on 11.03.2015. In order to rebut the case of the claimant , management examined Shri T.P. Singh, Deputy Director as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. He also tendered order dated 18.06.1990 as Ex.MW1/1.
8. Now, the crucial question before this Tribunal is as to whether the claimant is entitled for payment of overtime wages of Rs.125750.00 for the period 18.02.1982 to 31.12.1990. It is also not out of place to mention here that services of the claimant was transferred to MCD on 18.06.1990. Thereafter, claimant approached Delhi Development Authority Employees Welfare Council for payment of overtime wages. Shri Parveen Kumar, while appearing as WW1, admitted in his cross-examination that on 18.06.1990, his services were transferred from Delhi Development Authority to MCD. He has further made a vital admission that his personal file as well as service book etc were also sent to MCD on transfer of his services. He also admitted that no written order was issued to him by any officer commanding him to perform overtime work during the period in respect of which he has filed the present claim. Though he further stated that he was marking his attendance in the attendance register regarding overtime work yet there is no record filed by the claimant to prove the same. It is also revealed from the record that an application was filed by the claimant for production of record pertaining to his overtime wages and the same was rejected by my learned predecessor vide order dated 14.11.2013.
9. Admittedly, in the case on hand, as per the case of the claimant, his services were transferred to MCD from Delhi Development Authority on 18.06.1990 and his service record as well as personal file etc., as per his own admission while appearing as WW1, was also transferred to MCD. In that eventuality, proper course for the claimant was to file application against MCD for production of his service record, attendance register, including the register for overtime wages etc, but the claimant has chosen not to follow the required path so as to prove his case against the management. During the course of arguments, factum of engagement of the claimant by DDA was not categorically disputed even by the management and thrust of the submission raised on behalf of the management was to the effect that now there is no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management of DDA as services of the claimant stood transferred in 1990 to MCD, which fact has duly been admitted by the claimant in his evidence. Claimant has not impleaded MCD as a party, who was having the attendance as well as other service record of the claimant. Letter/notice Ex.WW1/2 shows that DDA Employees Welfare Council took up the matter of the claimant on 09.07.1991 and submitted the same to the management of DDA whereas his service stood transferred to MCD with effect from 18.06.1990.
10. Claimant has also filed copy of order in LCA No.196/1993 Ex.WW1/6 which was filed by one Shri Lakhan Singh against the management of DDA. A careful perusal of the said letter would show that the claimant Shri Lakhan Singh had also claimed overtime wages which was not paid by the management of DDA. Claim of the workman Shri Lakhan Singh was allowed to the extent of Rs.1,66,206.00 for the period 16.11.1992 to 31.01.1993. However, it is clear that in the said case, claimant has filed all the necessary documents in support of his claim so as to discharge the onus of proving that he has really worked during the said period whereas in the case on hand claimant has not filed anyII (ii) 4893 service record or overtime record/attendance record showing that he has really worked overtime during the period for which overtime was being claimed by the claimant.
11. There is another order in LCA No.20/2006 titled 'Parveen Kumar Vs. DDA' filed by the claimant, which was decided on 23.04.2008, which the claimant had earlier filed. Critical perusal of the above order would show that the claimant had filed application under Section 33 C(2) of the Act against the management of DDA claimant an amount of Rs.1,25,750.00 as dues amount towards overtime wages from 1982 to 1990. In the present case also by way of reference, in fact claimant has claimed overtime wages for the same period. The learned Industrial Adjudicator in para 12 of the award Ex.WW1/13 has clearly held that there is nothing on record to show that the claimant was entitled to seek overtime allowances. He has simply placed copy of office order dated 10.05.1995 of Delhi Development Authority which shows that overtime allowance will be paid to the staff who is required to perform duties for more than 8 hours after obtaining prior approval for performance of extra duty from the competent authority. Learned Industrial Adjudicator further observed that this order is of May 1995 whereas the workman has claimed overtime for the period prior to that. This clearly shows that the claimant herein earlier also by way of LCA tried to get payment for overtime work, which was declined by the Labour Court vide order dated 23.04.2008. Thus, the decision rendered by the learned Judge on merits, though it may not constitute resjudicata in the strict sense as the same is in a proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Act which is merely in nature of execution proceedings. However, there is adjudication of controversy on merit and order passed by the learned Industrial Adjudicator shows that he has duly considered contentions of both the parties on merits and thereafter passed order Ex.WW1/13. Law is fairly settled that if an order regarding rights of the parties has been made by a competent court in a previous case between the same parties, the same cannot altogether be ignored in subsequent proceedings by the court while deciding same or similar controversy. Even if the order of the Labour Court Ex.WW1/13 is eschewed from consideration, then also case of the claimant cannot legally stand scrutiny of law inasmuch as the claimant has not adduced any cogent or reliable evidence so as to show that he has performed overtime work for the period 1982 to 1990. Moreover, from 1983 till 1990 he was in the employment of DDA and thereafter, he ceased to be an employee of DDA as his services stood transferred to MCD. To my mind, MCD was a necessary party for effective adjudication of the controversy and it was necessary for the claimant to have filed relevant record pertaining to attendance as well as overtime work done for the period for which the claimant has claimed overtime wages. Having failed to do so, it is held that claimant has miserably failed to prove that he is entitled for any overtime wages.
12. As a sequel to my discussions herein above, it is held that the action of the management of Delhi Development Authority(DDA) in not paying overtime wages claim of Rs.1,25,750.00 for the period from 19.02.1982 to 31.12.1990 for 12 hours per day instead of 8 hours per day to Shri Parveen Kumar S/o Shri Vedanand is legal and justified. It is further held that the claimant is not entitled to any relief. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : July 13, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer —
I New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2017
S.O. 1842.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 13/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Vice-President, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 26.07.2017.
[No. L-42011/147/2011-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director4894 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 13/2012
Shri Ramdas Yadav, authorized representative, Delhi State General Mazdoor Union (Regd.), House No. F-235, Vijay Vihar, Phase I, Delhi-110 085
…Workman
Versus
The Vice President, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi
…Management
AWARD
A reference was received from Ministry of Labour under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act), by this Tribunal, vide letter No.L-42011/147/2011- IR(DU) dated 02.01.2012, for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
'Whether the action of the management of Delhi Development Authority(DDA) in not paying the OT wages claim of Rs.89150.00 for the period from 01.03.1985 to 31.12.1990 for 12 hours per day instead of 8 hours per day to Shri Vishamber Dayal S/o late Shri Om Prakash Sharma is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present reference are that Shri Vishamber Dayal (in short the claimant) has been working as security guard since 03.01.1985 with Delhi Development Authority( in short the management) and was appointed vide letter Annexure A by Director (Horticulture), Delhi Development Authority, Rohini Office Complex, Delhi. Claimant had to work for 8 hours per day but the management used to take work from the claimant for 12 hours since 06.01.1983 to 17.06.1990. However, the claimant was being paid wages only for 8 hours instead of 12 hours. Thus, he was not being paid overtime for four hours by the management. Letter was also sent regarding payment of overtime wages by DDA Employees Welfare Council to the management on 09.07.1991.
3. It is the case of the claimant that he came to know in December 2006 that one of his co-workers Shri Lakhan Singh, who was also appointed by the management and had rendered service with the management at several places was also working for 12 hours, was paid overtime wages by the management as per award dated 17.03.2004 passed by Shri D.K. Malhotra, Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.4, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in L.C.A. No.196/1003 (Annexure 3). Thereafter, the claimant contacted other co-workers also and served demand notice /letter to the management in December 2006 stating that the management owed him an amount of Rs.1,14,950.00 overtime wages for which the claimant has rendered from the month of March 1981 to December 1992. Attendance of the claimant was also marked in the attendance register during his duty hours inside Godown. Demand notice was served upon the management for adjudication of the dispute through DDA Employees Welfare Council on 09.07.1991 and office order dated 10.05.1995 was also issued by the management but no overtime wages was given to the claimant even thereafter. Calculation of dues for overtime by the claimant is fully detailed in Annexure 4. Without considering the case of the claimant, the court in rejected the LCA application No.12/2006 vide order dated 23.04.2008.
4. Claim was contested by the management who filed written statement thereto, taking various preliminary objections, inter alia of resjudicata, maintainability, delay & laches etc. It was specifically averred that the rules prescribed for overtime is fully detailed in Rule 5 of Work Charge Manual-3 of CPWD manual. Claimant was never engaged for performing overtime work in the manner alleged by him. There exists no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management as the claimant is now working with Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) since 1990. Service record of the claimant was also handed over to MCD.
5. On merits, management has denied the factum of engagement of the claimant with effect from 06.03.1981 as Security Guard. In fact, the claimant was engaged on muster roll as Mali Chowkidar and his work primarily was to take care of the park. Salary was paid for the work charge post as per CPWD Manual. It is also denied that the claimant has worked for more than 8 hours with the management or performed any kind of overtime duty. There was no office order regarding performing of over time due and needful is detailed, as mentioned above, in the work charge manual of CPWD. There is prescribed format under Rule 5 for the same which is to be followed by the management. Since the claimant did not perform any overtime duty, as such, the question of payment of overtime allowance does not arise.
II (ii) 48956. It is revealed from record that no specific issue was framed by my learned predecessor and various preliminary objections raised by the management was answered in order dated 01.05.2012 when the case was listed for evidence of the claimant.
7. Claimant, in support of his case, examined himself as WW1 and his affidavit is Ex.WW1/A. He has also relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/11. There after case was listed for remaining evidence of the claimant. However, despite various opportunities no other witness of the claimant was produced, hence evidence of the claimant was closed on 11.03.2015. In order to rebut the case of the claimant , management examined Shri T.P. Singh, Deputy Director as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. He also tendered order dated 18.06.1990 as Ex.MW1/1..
8. It is pertinent to note here that when the case was at the stage of evidence of the management, claimant on most of the hearings was not present. Even Shri T.P Singh, witness of the management was not cross examined as none was present on behalf of the claimant on 16.02.2017. Even on the previous four dates of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the claimants, which clearly shows that the claimant was no more interested in the matter.
9. I have heard Shri Deepak Kumar Dhingra, A/R for the management.
10. Now, the crucial question before this Tribunal is as to whether the claimant is entitled for payment of overtime wages of Rs.89,150.00 for the period 01.03.1985 to 31.12.1990. It is also not out of place to mention here that services of the claimant was transferred to MCD in June 1990. Thereafter, claimant approached Delhi Development Authority Employees Welfare Council for payment of overtime wages. Shri Vishamber Dayal, while appearing as WW1, admitted in his cross examination that on 18.06.1990, his services were transferred from Delhi Development Authority to MCD. He has further made a vital admission that his personal file as well as service book etc were also sent to MCD on transfer of his services. He also admitted that no written order was issued to him by any officer commanding him to perform overtime work during the period in respect of which he has filed the present claim. Though he further stated that he was marking his attendance in the attendance register regarding overtime work yet there is no record filed by the claimant to prove the same. It is also revealed from the record that an application was filed by the claimant for production of record pertaining to his overtime wages and the same was rejected by my learned predecessor vide order dated 14.11.2013.
11. Admittedly, in the case on hand, as per the case of the claimant, his services were transferred to MCD from Delhi Development Authority on 18.06.1990 and his service record as well as personal file etc., as per his own admission while appearing as WW1, was also transferred to MCD. In that eventuality, proper course for the claimant was to file application against MCD for production of his service record, attendance register, including the register for overtime wages etc, but the claimant has chosen not to follow the required path so as to prove his case against the management. The claimant has also tendered in evidence memorandum Ex.WW1/1 which shows that the claimant was offered temporary post of W/C Chowkidar in Delhi Development Authority in the pay scale of Rs.196-3-220. Post was purely temporary in nature and the appointment was valid until further orders. During the course of arguments, factum of engagement of the claimant by DDA was not categorically disputed even by the management and thrust of the submission raised on behalf of the management was to the effect that now there is no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management of DDA as services of the claimant stood transferred in 1990 to MCD, which fact has duly been admitted by the claimant in his evidence. Claimant has not impleaded MCD as a party, who was having the attendance as well as other service record of the claimant. Letter/notice Ex.WW1/3 shows that DDA Employees Welfare Council took up the matter of the claimant on 09.07.1991 and submitted the same to the management of DDA whereas his service stood transferred to MCD with effect from 18.06.1990.
12. Claimant has also filed copy of order in LCA No.196/1993 Ex.WW1/6 which was filed by one Shri Lakhan Singh against the management of DDA. A careful perusal of the said letter would show that the claimant Shri Lakhan Singh had also claimed overtime wages which was not paid by the management of DDA. Claim of the workman Shri Lakhan Singh was allowed to the extent of Rs.1,66,206.00 for the period 16.11.1992 to 31.01.1993. However, it is clear that in the said case, claimant has filed all the necessary documents in support of his claim so as to discharge the onus of proving that he has really worked during the said period whereas in the case on hand claimant has not filed any service record or overtime record/attendance record showing that he has really worked overtime during the period for which overtime was being claimed by the claimant.
13. There is another order in LCA No.18/2006 titled 'Bishambar Dayal Vs.. Delhi Development Authority' filed by the claimant, which was decided on 23.04.2008, which the claimant had earlier filed. Critical perusal of the above order would show that the claimant had filed application under Section 33 C(2) of the Act against the management of DDA claimant an amount of Rs.89,150.00 as dues amount towards overtime wages from 01.03.1985 to 31.12.1990. In the present case also by way of reference, in fact claimant has claimed overtime wages for the same period. The learned Industrial Adjudicator in para 12 of the award Ex.WW1/11 has clearly held that there is nothing on record to show that the claimant was entitled to seek overtime allowances. He has simply placed copy of office order dated 10.05.1995 of Delhi Development Authority which shows that overtime allowance will be paid to the staff who is required to perform4896 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] duties for more than 8 hours after obtaining prior approval for performance of extra duty from the competent authority. Learned Industrial Adjudicator further observed that this order is of May 1995 whereas the workman has claimed overtime for the period prior to that. This clearly shows that the claimant herein earlier also by way of LCA tried to get payment for overtime work, which was declined by the Labour Court vide order dated 23.04.2008. Thus, the decision rendered by the learned Judge on merits, though it may not constitute resjudicata in the strict sense as the same is in a proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Act which is merely in nature of execution proceedings. However, there is adjudication of controversy on merit and order passed by the learned Industrial Adjudicator shows that he has duly considered contentions of both the parties on merits and thereafter passed order Ex.WW1/11. Law is fairly settled that if an order regarding rights of the parties has been made by a competent court in a previous case between the same parties, the same cannot altogether be ignored in subsequent proceedings by the court while deciding same or similar controversy. Even if the order of the Labour Court Ex.WW1/11 is eschewed from consideration, then also case of the claimant cannot legally stand scrutiny of law inasmuch as the claimant has not adduced any cogent or reliable evidence so as to show that he has performed overtime work for the period 01.03.1985 to 31.12.1990. Moreover, from 1983 till 1990 he was in the employment of DDA and thereafter, he ceased to be an employee of DDA as his services stood transferred to MCD. To my mind, MCD was a necessary party for effective adjudication of the controversy and it was necessary for the claimant to have filed relevant record pertaining to attendance as well as overtime work done for the period for which the claimant has claimed overtime wages. Having failed to do so, it is held that claimant has miserably failed to prove that he is entitled for any overtime wages.
14. As a sequel to my discussions herein above, it is held that the action of the management of Delhi Development Authority(DDA) in not paying overtime wages claim of Rs.89,150.00 for the period from 01.03.1985 to 31.12.1990 for 12 hours per day instead of 8 hours per day to Shri Vishamber Dayal S/o late Shri Om Prakash Sharma is legal and justified. It is further held that the claimant is not entitled to any relief. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : July 13, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer —
I New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2017
S.O. 1843.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 16/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Vice President, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 26.07.2017.
[No. L-42011/144/2011-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 16/2012
Shri Ramdas Yadav, authorized representative, Delhi State General Mazdoor Union (Regd.), House No. F-235, Vijay Vihar, Phase I, Delhi-110 085
…WorkmanII (ii) 4897
Versus
The Vice President, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi
…Management
AWARD
A reference was received from Ministry of Labour under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act), by this Tribunal, vide letter No.L-42011/144/2011- IR(DU) dated 02.01.2012, for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
'Whether the action of the management of Delhi Development Authority(DDA) in not paying the OT wages claim of Rs.166612.00 for the period from 06.03.1984 to 21.05.1993 for 12 hours per day instead of 8 hours per day to Shri Ranbir Singh S/o Shri Bani Singh is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?'
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present reference are that Shri Ranbir Singh (in short the claimant) has been working as security guard since 06.03.1984 with Delhi Development Authority( in short the management) and was appointed vide letter Annexure 1 by Director (Horticulture), Delhi Development Authority, Rohini Office Complex, Delhi. Claimant had to work for 8 hours per day but the management used to take work from the claimant for 12 hours since March 1981 to December 1992. However, the claimant was being paid wages only for 8 hours instead of 12 hours. Thus, he was not being paid overtime for four hours by the management. Letter was also sent regarding payment of overtime wages by DDA Employees Welfare Council to the management on 09.07.1991.
3. It is the case of the claimant that he came to know in December 2006 that one of his co-workers Shri Lakhan Singh, who was also appointed by the management and had rendered service with the management at several places was also working for 12 hours, was paid overtime wages by the management as per award dated 17.03.2004 passed by Shri D.K. Malhotra, Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.4, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in L.C.A. No.196/1003 (Annexure 3). Thereafter, the claimant contacted other co-workers also and served demand notice /letter to the management in December 2005 stating that the management owed him an amount of Rs.1,76,066.00 overtime wages for which the claimant has rendered from the month of March 1981 to December 1992. Attendance of the claimant was also marked in the attendance register during his duty hours inside Godown. Demand notice was served upon the management for adjudication of the dispute through DDA Employees Welfare Council on 09.07.1991 and office order dated 10.05.1995 was also issued by the management but no overtime wages was given to the claimant even thereafter. Calculation of dues for overtime by the claimant is fully detailed in Annexure 4. Without considering the case of the claimant, the court in rejected the LCA application No.15/2006 vide order dated 23.04.2008.
4. Claim was contested by the management who filed amended written statement thereto, taking various preliminary objections, inter alia of resjudicata, maintainability, delay & laches etc. It was specifically averred that the rules prescribed for overtime is fully detailed in Rule 5 of Work Charge Manual-3 of CPWD manual. Claimant was never engaged for performing overtime work in the manner alleged by him.
5. On merits, management has denied the factum of engagement of the claimant with effect from 06.03.1981 as Security Guard. In fact, the claimant was engaged on muster roll as Mali Chowkidar and his work primarily was to take care of the park. Salary was paid for the work charge post as per CPWD Manual. It is also denied that the claimant has worked for more than 8 hours with the management or performed any kind of overtime duty. There was no office order regarding performing of over time due and needful is detailed, as mentioned above, in the work charge manual of CPWD. There is prescribed format under Rule 5 for the same which is to be followed by the management. Since the claimant did not perform any overtime duty, as such, the question of payment of overtime allowance does not arise.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor vide order dated 12.07.2012 framed the following issues:
(i) Whether an individual dispute has been referred by the appropriate Government for want of espousal of the representative union in the establishment of the management?
(ii) As in terms of reference
7. Claimant, never entered the witness to testify facts. Hence, he was proceeded ex-parte on 11.03.2015. Management examined Shri T.P. Singh, Deputy Director as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. He also tendered order dated 18.06.1990 as Ex.MW1/1.
8. It is pertinent to note here that when the case was at the stage of evidence of the management, claimant on most of the hearings was not present. Even Shri T.P Singh, witness of the management was not cross examined as none was4898 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] present on behalf of the claimant on 16.02.2017. Even on the previous four dates of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the claimants, which clearly shows that the claimant was no more interested in the matter.
9. I have heard Shri Deepak Kumar Dhingra, A/R for the management.
Findings on Issue No.1
10. There is no precise definition of the term espousal under the Act. However, from the various authorities rendered by the court, it is clear that espousal means that the industrial dispute is adopted by the union as its own dispute and considerable number of workmen have given support to the case of an individual claimant. It has been held in the Workers Union Vs.. 7th Industrial Tribunal Calcutta (1994 FLR 701) that once a dispute is referred to a Tribunal by the appropriate Government, presumption would arise that such a dispute is properly espoused through the union. Since the management has not led any specific evidence regarding non-espousal of the present by the union of the claimant and matter has now been referred for adjudication under Section 10 of the Act, as such presumption arises in favour of the claimant.
Findings on Issue No.2
10. Now, the only question before this Tribunal is as to whether the claimant is entitled for payment of overtime wages of Rs.166612.00 for the period 06.03.1984 to 21.05.1993. Since the claimant has never entered the witness box to testify facts despite grant of several opportunities, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant is no more interested in progress of the case on merits. Hence, this Tribunal is left with no other option but to pass a 'No Claim/Dispute Award'. However, it is made clear that there is no adjudication of the case on merits, as such, claimant is still at liberty to agitate his cause in accordance with law An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : July 13, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer —
I New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2017
S.O. 1844.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 17/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Vice President, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 26.07.2017.
[No. L-42011/148/2011-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 17/2012
Shri Ramdas Yadav, authorized representative, Delhi State General Mazdoor Union (Regd.), House No. F-235, Vijay Vihar, Phase I, Delhi-110 085
…Workman
Versus
II (ii) 4899The Vice President, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi
…Management
AWARD
A reference was received from Ministry of Labour under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act), by this Tribunal, vide letter No.L-42011/148/2011- IR(DU) dated 02.01.2012, for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
'Whether the action of the management of Delhi Development Authority(DDA) in not paying the OT wages claim of Rs.114950.00 for the period from 06.01.1993 to 17.06.1990 for 12 hours per day instead of 8 hours per day to Shri Satish Kumar, S/o Shri Dharm Singh is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?'
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present reference are that Shri Satish Kumar (in short the claimant) has been working as security guard since 06.01.1983 with Delhi Development Authority( in short the management) and was appointed vide letter Annexure A by Director (Horticulture), Delhi Development Authority, Rohini Office Complex, Delhi. Claimant had to work for 8 hours per day but the management used to take work from the claimant for 12 hours since 06.01.1983 to 17.06.1990. However, the claimant was being paid wages only for 8 hours instead of 12 hours. Thus, he was not being paid overtime for four hours by the management. Letter was also sent regarding payment of overtime wages by DDA Employees Welfare Council to the management on 09.07.1991.
3. It is the case of the claimant that he came to know in December 2006 that one of his co-workers Shri Lakhan Singh, who was also appointed by the management and had rendered service with the management at several places was also working for 12 hours, was paid overtime wages by the management as per award dated 17.03.2004 passed by Shri D.K. Malhotra, Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.4, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in L.C.A. No.196/1003 (Annexure 3). Thereafter, the claimant contacted other co-workers also and served demand notice /letter to the management in December 2006 stating that the management owed him an amount of Rs.1,14,950.00 overtime wages for which the claimant has rendered from the month of March 1981 to December 1992. Attendance of the claimant was also marked in the attendance register during his duty hours inside Godown. Demand notice was served upon the management for adjudication of the dispute through DDA Employees Welfare Council on 09.07.1991 and office order dated 10.05.1995 was also issued by the management but no overtime wages was given to the claimant even thereafter. Calculation of dues for overtime by the claimant is fully detailed in Annexure 4. Without considering the case of the claimant, the court in rejected the LCA application No.12/2006 vide order dated 23.04.2008.
4. Claim was contested by the management who filed written statement thereto, taking various preliminary objections, inter alia of resjudicata, maintainability, delay & laches etc. It was specifically averred that the rules prescribed for overtime is fully detailed in Rule 5 of Work Charge Manual-3 of CPWD manual. Claimant was never engaged for performing overtime work in the manner alleged by him. There exists no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management as the claimant is now working with Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) since 1990. Service record of the claimant was also handed over to MCD.
5. On merits, management has denied the factum of engagement of the claimant with effect from 06.03.1981 as Security Guard. In fact, the claimant was engaged on muster roll as Mali Chowkidar and his work primarily was to take care of the park. Salary was paid for the work charge post as per CPWD Manual. It is also denied that the claimant has worked for more than 8 hours with the management or performed any kind of overtime duty. There was no office order regarding performing of over time due and needful is detailed, as mentioned above, in the work charge manual of CPWD. There is prescribed format under Rule 5 for the same which is to be followed by the management. Since the claimant did not perform any overtime duty, as such, the question of payment of overtime allowance does not arise.
6. It is revealed from record that no specific issue was framed by my learned predecessor and various preliminary objections raised by the management was answered in order dated 01.05.2012 when the case was listed for evidence of the claimant.
7. Claimant, in support of his case, examined himself as WW1 and his affidavit is Ex.WW1/A. He has also relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/13. In order to rebut the case of the claimant , management examined Shri T.P. Singh, Deputy Director as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. He also tendered order dated 18.06.1990 as Ex.MW1/1.
8. It is pertinent to note here that when the case was at the stage of evidence of the management, claimant on most of the hearings was not present. Even Shri T.P Singh, witness of the management was not cross examined as none was present on behalf of the claimant on 16.02.2017. Even on the previous four dates of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the claimants, which clearly shows that the claimant was no more interested in the matter.
4900 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]9. I have heard Shri Deepak Kumar Dhingra, A/R for the management.
10. Now, the crucial question before this Tribunal is as to whether the claimant is entitled for payment of overtime wages of Rs.1,14,950.00 for the period 06.01.1993 (it should have been 06.01.1983) to 17.06.1990. It is also not out of place to mention here that services of the claimant was transferred to MCD on June 1990. Thereafter, claimant approached Delhi Development Authority Employees Welfare Council for payment of overtime wages. Shri Satish Kumar, while appearing as WW1, admitted in his cross examination that on 18.06.1990, his services were transferred from Delhi Development Authority to MCD. He has further made a vital admission that his personal file as well as service book etc were also sent to MCD on transfer of his services. He also admitted that no written order was issued to him by any officer commanding him to perform overtime work during the period in respect of which he has filed the present claim. Though he further stated that he was marking his attendance in the attendance register regarding overtime work yet there is no record filed by the claimant to prove the same. It is also revealed from the record that an application was filed by the claimant for production of record pertaining to his overtime wages and the same was rejected by my learned predecessor vide order dated 14.11.2013.
11. Admittedly, in the case on hand, as per the case of the claimant, his services were transferred to MCD from Delhi Development Authority on 18.06.1990 and his service record as well as personal file etc., as per his own admission while appearing as WW1, was also transferred to MCD. In that eventuality, proper course for the claimant was to file application against MCD for production of his service record, attendance register, including the register for overtime wages etc, but the claimant has chosen not to follow the required path so as to prove his case against the management. The claimant has also tendered in evidence memorandum Ex.WW1/1 which shows that the claimant was offered temporary post of W/C Chowkidar in Delhi Development Authority in the pay scale of Rs.196-3-220. Post was purely temporary in nature and the appointment was valid until further orders. During the course of arguments, factum of engagement of the claimant by DDA was not categorically disputed even by the management and thrust of the submission raised on behalf of the management was to the effect that now there is no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management of DDA as services of the claimant stood transferred in 1990 to MCD, which fact has duly been admitted by the claimant in his evidence. Claimant has not impleaded MCD as a party, who was having the attendance as well as other service record of the claimant. Letter/notice Ex.WW1/2 shows that DDA Employees Welfare Council took up the matter of the claimant on 09.07.1991 and submitted the same to the management of DDA whereas his service stood transferred to MCD with effect from 18.06.1990.
12. Claimant has also filed copy of order in LCA No.196/1993 Ex.WW1/6 which was filed by one Shri Lakhan Singh against the management of DDA. A careful perusal of the said letter would show that the claimant Shri Lakhan Singh had also claimed overtime wages which was not paid by the management of DDA. Claim of the workman Shri Lakhan Singh was allowed to the extent of Rs.1,66,206.00 for the period 16.11.1992 to 31.01.1993. However, it is clear that in the said case, claimant has filed all the necessary documents in support of his claim so as to discharge the onus of proving that he has really worked during the said period whereas in the case on hand claimant has not filed any service record or overtime record/attendance record showing that he has really worked overtime during the period for which overtime was being claimed by the claimant.
13. There is another order in LCA No.12/2006 titled 'Satish Kumar Vs.. Delhi Development Authority' filed by the claimant, which was decided on 23.04.2008, which the claimant had earlied filed. Critical perusal of the above order would show that the claimant had filed application under Section 33 C(2) of the Act against the management of DDA claimant an amount of Rs.1,14,950.00 as dues amount towards overtime wages from 06.01.1983 to 17.06.1990. In the present case also by way of reference, in fact claimant has claimed overtime wages for the same period. The learned Industrial Adjudicator in para 12 of the award Ex.WW1/13 has clearly held that there is nothing on record to show that the claimant was entitled to seek overtime allowances. He has simply placed copy of office order dated 10.05.1995 of Delhi Development Authority which shows that overtime allowance will be paid to the staff who is required to perform duties for more than 8 hours after obtaining prior approval for performance of extra duty from the competent authority. Learned Industrial Adjudicator further observed that this order is of May 1995 whereas the workman has claimed overtime for the period prior to that. This clearly shows that the claimant herein earlier also by way of LCA tried to get payment for overtime work, which was declined by the Labour Court vide order dated 23.04.2008. Thus, the decision rendered by the learned Judge on merits, though it may not constitute resjudicata in the strict sense as the same is in a proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Act which is merely in nature of execution proceedings. However, there is adjudication of controversy on merit and order passed by the learned Industrial Adjudicator shows that he has duly considered contentions of both the parties on merits and thereafter passed order Ex.WW1/13. Law is fairly settled that if an order regarding rights of the parties has been made by a competent court in a previous case between the same parties, the same cannot altogether be ignored in subsequent proceedings by the court while deciding same or similar controversy. Even if the order of the Labour Court Ex.WW1/13 is eschewed from consideration, then also case of the claimant cannot legally stand scrutiny of law inasmuch as the claimant has not adduced any cogent or reliable evidence so as to show that he has performed overtime work for the period 06.01.1983 to 17.06.1990. Moreover, from 1983 till 1990 he was in the employment of DDA and thereafter, he ceased to be an employee of DDA as his services stoodII (ii) 4901 transferred to MCD. To my mind, MCD was a necessary party for effective adjudication of the controversy and it was necessary for the claimant to have filed relevant record pertaining to attendance as well as overtime work done for the period for which the claimant has claimed overtime wages. Having failed to do so, it is held that claimant has miserably failed to prove that he is entitled for any overtime wages.
14. As a sequel to my discussions herein above, it is held that the action of the management of Delhi Development Authority(DDA) in not paying overtime wages claim of Rs.1,14,950.00 for the period from 06.01.1993 (in fact it should have been 06.01.1983) to 17.06.1990 for 12 hours per day instead of 8 hours per day to Shri Satish Kumar S/o late Shri Dharam Singh is legal and justified. It is further held that the claimant is not entitled to any relief. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : July 13, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer —
I New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2017
S.O. 1845.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 33/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Executive Engineer (C) , CPWD, Ghaziabad Central Electrical Division, Hindon Airfield, Uttar Pradesh and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 26.07.2017.
[No. L-42011/125/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 33/2015
Shri Brij Kishore Sharma, Motor Lorry Driver, C/o All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.), House No. 4823, Gali No.13, Balbir Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032
…Workman
Versus
The Executive Engineer (E), CPWD, Ghaziabad Central Electrical Division, Hindon Airfield, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 004
…Management
AWARD
A reference was received from Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide Letter No.L-42011/125/2014- IR(DU) dated 13.01.2015 under clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
'Whether the workman is entitled for grant of promotion with effect from 11.05.2005 when he passed the trade test and considering the genuity of Iris driving licence? And if so what benefit he is entitled to?'4902 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. It is clear from the statement of claim that Shri Brij Kishore Sharma (in short the claimant) was appointed as khalasi on 23.01.1995 with Central Public Works Department (in short the management ). At the time of joining, the claimant was holding a valid driving licence issued by appropriate authority under Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Claimant had also passed departmental trade test for the post of Motor Lorry Driver (M.L.D.) on 11.05.2005 as is clear from Annexure II. There were 3 vacant posts of MLD available with the management in the year 2006-06, as is clear from record and Superintending Engineer(Electrical) had written letter dated 24.07.2006 to the Deputy Director (Admn.) for revival of 3 vacant post of MLD as is evident from Annexure IV.
3. It is the case of the claimant that DPC Committee constituted for the promotion of claimant had rejected his case on the ground that the claimant is not eligible for promotion to the post of MLD as per provisions of CPWD Manual Volume III. The claimant made a representation to the Department for promoting him as MLD as he was eligible for the same and it was stated by the Superintending Engineer that driving licence of the claimant is not correct, hence he could not be promoted, as is evidence from Annexure VII. Thereafter, claimant lodged a written complaint to the Transport Officer, Ghaziabad requesting him to clarify regarding the licence held by him. Transport Authority returned the letter to the claimant after making endorsement on the original that licence issued to the claimant is a correct and valid licence, as is evidence from Annexure VIII. The DPC Committee constituted for the purpose on 30.08.2007 again rejected the case of the claimant stating that the claimant is not eligible for promotion to the post of ML Das per provisions of CPWD Manual Volume III and copy of letter dated 14.09.2007 is Annexure IX. Again, the claimant made a representation on 22.09.2007, which is self-explanatory and claimant has clearly stated that he is holding valid documents which makes him eligible for the promotion to the post of MLD. It is also alleged by the claimant that the management had granted 1st ACP benefits to the claimant on completion of 12 years of service from 21.01.2007 in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590, which is the pay scale of MLD on the basis of trade test passed by the claimant on 11.05.2005 and copy of the order dated 16.10.2007 is annexure XIII. The management had again informed the claimant vide letter dated 18.12.2007 that his case has been rejected the case of the claimant on the plea that he is not eligible for promotion to the post of MLD as per provisions of CPWD Manual Volume III. Again a representation was made by the claimant on 26.11.2007 wherein request was made to the management to reconsider the case of the claimant for promotion to the post of MLD as is clear from letter dated 26.11.2007. Management on 17.04.2008 promoted the claimant to the post of MLD on the basis of trade test passed by him on 11.05.2005 and the licence he was holding in the year 2005. Even on that date, licence was the same and claimant should have been promoted to the post of MLD at that time. Claimant again made a representation vide letter dated 17.05.2008 for promoting him to the post of MLD from the previous date as mentioned above. However, the same was rejected by the management with the remarks that he cannot be promoted from the date of passing trade test and his promotion date shall remain 17.04.2008. The claimant made representations on 28.06.2008 and 01.01.2009 as is clear from Annexure 18. The claimant made further representation vide letter dated 15.11.2011 requesting the management for shifting his date of promotion to 11.05.2005 instead of 17.04.2008 but of no use. Hence, the present reference.
4. Claim was contested by the management and it is pertinent to note that no para has been specifically denied by the management and against each and every para, it is mentioned 'No comments, being matter of record. Anything contrary is denied'. In para 14, it is alleged that grant of ACP does not confer any right upon the claimant to get promotion from the date of passing of trade test on the respective date as the claimant was given ACP as per rules and claimant was promoted to the post on the recommendations of DPC on 24.03.2008 and hence there is no question of promotion prior to issuance of promotion order with effect from 17.04.2008. In this regard, reference has been made to judgement dated 12.02.2007 in Civil Appeal No.689/2007) arising out of SLP(C) No.2410 of 2007 in the matter of UOI Vs.. SL Goel & others, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"the DPC enjoys full discretion to devise its method and procedure for objective assessment of suitability and merit of the candidate being considered by it. Hence, the interference by High Court is not called for."
5. Further in para 19 it is alleged that it is not mandatory to grant promotion from the date of passing trade test unless post is vacant and applicant fulfills all norms of promotion as per Recruitment Rules given therein in CPWD Manual III. Further it is clearly mentioned on letter No.10(2)/ODEC/1651-H dated 16.05.2005 vide which result of trade test was declared that after passing the trade test, the workmen confer no right to get promotion. They shall be promoted on their turn.
6. Rejoinder was filed by the claimant to the reply filed by the management reiterating the stand taken in their statement of claim and denied the material averments contained in the written statement.
7. It is pertinent to note here that this Tribunal, vide order dated 02.11.2015, observed that there is no need to frame any specific issue in the light of the stand taken by the management and only the reference made by the appropriate Government requires adjudication by this Tribunal.
8. Both parties were granted opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the stand taken by them in their respective pleadings and the claimant in support of his case examined himself as WW1 and tendered his affidavitII (ii) 4903 Ex.WW1/A. He also tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/22. Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined Shri A.K. Nagpal, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. Alongwith this affidavit, he also tendered document Ex.MW1/1.
9. I have heard Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, A/R for the claimant and Shri Sandeep Tyagi, A/R for the management.
10. The only moot question which requires determination in the present case is whether the claimant is entitled for grant of promotion to the post of MLD with effect from 11.05.2005 when he passed the Trade Test. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the material facts which have emerged from the pleadings as well as evidence on record.
11. It is clear from pleadings as well as evidence on record that the claimant joined the management as khalasi on 23.01.1995. This fact has not been disputed by the learned A/R for the management during the course of arguments and even the stand of the management before Regional Labour Commissioner was also the same to the effect that the claimant herein was not holding licence for heavy transport vehicle in the year 2005, as such, the claim of the claimant was rightly rejected by the DOPC. Licence of the claimant is Ex.WW1/1 which clearly shows that initially licence was valid only for motor cycle and LMV only. WW1/2 is copy of letter issued by the Government of India which shows that the claimant has appeared in the trade test held on 11.05.2005 for the post of MLD in 75% quota. In this letter date of appointment of the claimant is shown as 23.01.1995 and in the result column, there is mention of the word 'passed'. There is a letter Ex.WW1/3 which shows the vacancy position as well as post held by the workmen under the management. There is another letter Ex.WW1/4 which shows that the department has also written letter for filling up the vacant post of MLD which are lying vacant for more than a year. Request has been made in the matter for revival of the said posts. Letter Ex.WW1/5 is crucial letter which shows that the DPC has found the claimant herein to be unfit for the post of KLD as per CPWD Manual Volume III. Letter Ex.WW1/6 is in fact addressed by the claimant to the Executive Engineer wherein representation has been made regarding outcome of the result of DPC wherein the case of the claimant was rejected. Letter Ex.WW1/7 again mentions that the claimant has not been found fit by the DPC for the post of MLD as his licence is for HMV has not been found to be valid.
12. During the course of arguments on behalf of the management it was strongly urged that licence of the claimant herein was not valid for HMV, as such in theyear 2005 he could not have been promoted to the post of MLD. To my mind there is no merit in this contention inasmuch as the claimant has also approached the transport authority regarding verification of his licence. Transport Authority vide letter Ex.WW1/8 on the application written by the claimant herein has made endorsement dated 24.09.2007, which clearly shows that on verification, licence of the claimant herein was initially issued by the transport authority for motorcycle and LMV and on 08.11.2002 endorsement was made for HMV on the said licence. Thus, as per this report, claimant was duly qualified to drive heavy motor vehicle.
13. Claimant has also received letter Ex.WW1/9 from the management wherein again mention has been made that as per CPWD Manual Volume III claimant has not been found eligible for promotion to the post of MLD. There is another letter Ex.WW1/10 written by the claimant to the management which again highlights the fact that the claimant has passed intermediate examination also and he was holding a valid driving licence. Claimant has annexed copy of the same with the application. However, management has taken the same stand that he was not found eligible by DPC for promotion to the post of MLD and this fact is amply clear from the correspondence between the claimant and the management vide letters Ex.WW1/12 to Ex.WW1/18. However, it was also not disputed from either side vide office order Ex.WW1/13, ACP was granted to the claimant by the management in the pay scale of Rs.3050-755-3950-80- 4590. Stand of the management from the written statement as well as documents filed by the management is only that the claimant was not eligible as per CPWD Manual Volume III. It was also urged that not only the licence but there are other conditions which are required to be fulfilled for being promoted to the post of MLD, ie.. he must have the requisite ability to read and write etc. To my mind, there is no merit in the contention of the management as it is evidence from the voluminous evidence produced by the claimant that his case was simply rejected on the sole ground that he was not holding valid licence for HMV. It is apparent from Ex.WW1/8 has clarified that from 08.11.2002 claimant was holding valid licence for driving HMV. It is not out of place to mention here that the DPC has nowhere stated in any of its letters that the claimant herein was not possessing other requisite qualification except for the fact that he was not holding a valid licence for driving HMV. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the management to say that the claimant was not possessing other qualification for promotion to the post of MLD as per CPWD Manual Volume III. There is no other qualification prescribed for being promoted to the post of MLD and the qualification contained in Volume III Annexure A clearly shows that the candidate must have ability to read and write. He must possess driving licence for HMV and driving and overhauling and repairs experience for a period of atleast 5 years of which atleast 3 years should be of heavy motor vehicle.
14. As discussed above, it is not the case of the management that the claimant was not having experience of 5 years/3 years in heavy motor vehicle, as such, the case of the claimant could not be considered. The only reason given in the various letters mentioned above by the management is that he was not having valid driving licence for driving heavy motor vehicle, which fact is proved otherwise from letter Ex.WW1/8.
4904 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]15. Admittedly, the post of MLD was lying vacant even in the year 2005 when the claimant herein has passed the necessary trade test for the purpose of promotion to MLD. I have carefully gone through the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs.. Majri Jungamayyer & others (1977) AISLJ SC 90 (Page 10) relied by the management and the same is of very little help so far as the case of the claimant is concerned. It is clear from the ratio of the above judgement that no employer has any right to have vacancy in the higher post filled as soon as vacancy exists and Government can keep the post unfilled as long as it chooses. However, in the present case Government has not taken policy decision that the particular post would be left vacant. Rather, claim of the claimant has been rejected for promotion to the post of MLD on the same ground time and again, i.e. that his licence was not valid for HMV, which fact has been proved otherwise. Moreover, the authority who can say anything regarding validity of the licence of the claimant, for that matter any licence issued under the Motor Vehicle Act, is the licencing authority of that region who has issued the licence and the management is not the final authority to say anything regarding validity or non-validity of such a licence. Admittedly, the claimant has passed trade test as per letter dated 16.08.2005 Ex.WW1/2 and there is no evidence on record to show that there was any other candidate senior to the claimant herein who were entitled for promotion instead of the claimant. Letter Ex.WW1/6 shows that the department has given promotion to the claimant as MLD on 17.04.2008 whereas the claimant was eligible and post was vacant even in the year 2005 when he qualified the trade test vide Ex.WW1/2.
16. Net result of the above discussion is that the rejection of the claim of the claimant by the management for grant of promotion with effect from 11.05.2005 on the ground that he was not holding valid driving licence is, hereby rejected.
17. As a sequel to my above discussion, it is held that the claimant is entitled to the promotion of MLD with effect from 11.05.2005. As a necessary corollary, it is held that he is also entitled for difference in the salary from 11.05.2005. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : July 17, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer —
I New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2017
S.O. 1846.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 235/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Shahdara, New Delhi and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 26.07.2017.
[No. L-42011/137/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 235/2015
Shri Sukhdev S/o late Shri Net Ram, represented by MCD General Mazdoor Union, Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10, Jam Nagar House, Shah Jehan Road, New Delhi
…WorkmanII (ii) 4905
Versus
The Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Udyog Sadan, Plot No.419, Patparganj Industrial Area, Shahdara, New Delhi-110 092
…Management
AWARD
Reference under Section 10 sub section (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) was received from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide it orders No.L-42011/137/2015-IR(DU) dated 02.11.2015 for adjudication of an industrial dispute with the following terms:
'Whether the action of the management of East Delhi Municipal Corporation, in not promoting Shri Sukh Dev S/o late Shri Net Ram as Chaudhary in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 revised from time to time with effect from 15.04.2002 is fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?'
2. Both the parties were put to notice and the workman Shri Sukh Dev filed his statement of claim, wherein it is alleged that he has been allotted work of Chaudhary with effect from 15.04.2002 by the competent officers of Horticulture Department and ws posted under Shahdara South Zone. However, he has been denied pay scale of Chaudhary, revised from time to time. The workman has got payment of salary in the lower pay scale of mali, i.e. Rs.2550-3200 instead of Rs.950-1350-4590 revised from time to time and has been denied the scale of Chaudhary, effect from 15.04.2002. Action of the management is alleged to be illegal & unjustified and amounts to unfair labour practice.
3. It is also averred in para 8 of the statement of claim that Hon'ble High Court, Delhi, in the matter of Jai Chand Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (CW 6514/2001) has disapproved the non-payment of wages for those malis who are working on the post of Chaudhary vide its judgement dated 02.05.2003. After the above judgement of the Hon'ble Court, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Horticulture Department) has also issued order No.ADC(Hor.)/AO(Hort)/DA- VII/05/457 dated 04.03.2005 (Annexure B). There is also reference to the judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs.. Sultan Singh wherein also plea of the MCD regarding non-payment of wages of Chaudhary to malis who are doing working of Chaudhary, was turned down by the Hon'ble High Court in judgement dated 27.07.2011.
4. It is also averred that similar situated workmen who were performing duty of Chaudhary were granted pay scale of Chaudhary from the date when they were asked to perform duty on the higher post and management has challenged the order dated 27.07.2011 of the Labour Court in the matter of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by Special Leave to Appeal No.S 20069/2011 and the plea by MCD has been dismissed by both, before the High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Workman, herein, is also similarly situated and doing work of Chaudhary and as such, entitled to same benefits. Finally, it is prayed that an award may be passed in his favour.
5. Management has demurred claim of the workman by taking preliminary objections, inter alia, present dispute not being an industrial dispute as there is no espousal & no demand notice has been served upon the management, claim being misconceived, claim being stale etc. In para 5 of the preliminary objection, it is admitted that the workman herein was engaged on the post of mali on muster roll basis and was later on regularized on the same post of mali. There is prescribed procedure for promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary and there must be sanctioned/vacant post of Garden Chaudhary to which the workman can lay claim when he has passed trade test conducted by the department. Claimant has not passed the said trade test nor is he performing duties of Garden Chaudhary. The claimant has is simply 10th pass and agriculture is not one of his subjects. It is further alleged that the workman herein is not entitled for any relief on account of delay and laches and reliance is also put on judgements of the Apex Court in the case of 'Nedungadi Bank Limited Vs.. K.P. Madhavankutty & ors' (2002 (2) SC 4) and State Co-op Land Development Bank Vs.. Neelam (2005) 5 SC 91). Management, on merits, have denied material averments. It is also denied that the workman herein was performing duties of Chaudhary with effect from 01.03.1989. Accordingly, it is prayed that claim of the workman herein is liable to be dismissed, being devoid of merits.
6. Against this factual background, based on pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal vide order dated 03.08.2016 framed the following issues:
(i) Whether reference is not maintainable, in view of the various preliminary objections?
(ii) As in terms of reference4906 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Findings on Issue No.(i)
7. Admittedly, in the present case, reference has been made under Section 10 sub Section (2A) of the Act for adjudication. It is now well settled position in law that when a reference has been made for adjudication to the Tribunal or Labour Court, as the case may be, it is paramount duty of the court to decide the same on merits, irrespective of the pleas taken by the management. The dispute in the case in hand cannot be said to be stale for the simple reason that there is no previous adjudication of the matter between the parties from a competent court nor that there is inordinate delay in approaching this Tribunal by the workman.
8. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raghubir Singh Vs.. General Manager (2014) Lab.I.C. 4266 = (2014) 10 SCC 301 that a reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal can be made by the appropriate Government at any time and provisions of Limitation Act does not apply. There are clear observations in the above judgement that industrial dispute is to be decided by the Tribunal or Labour Court on merits, irrespective of the pleadings on limits. Therefore, ratio of law in the case of 'Nedungadi Bank Limited Vs.. K.P. Madhavankutty & ors' (supra) and State Co-op Land Development Bank Vs.. Neelam (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand as there is no inordinate delay nor workman is guilty of delay and laches in approaching the court.
9. It is clear from the preliminary objections taken in the written statement by the management that the management has raised objection that no demand notice has been served upon the management nor the MCD General Mazdoor Union has any locus standi to raise the present dispute as the union is not a recognized union of the management. To my mind, there is no requirement of law that a dispute can be raised only by a recognized union. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs.. Kripa Shankar Jaiswal (AIR 1961 (2) SC Report 1) wherein also objection was taken on behalf of the management that the union was not a registered under the Trade Union Act on the date of the settlement and said plea was rejected by observing as under:
'Held, that for a dispute to constitute an industrial dispute it is not a requisite condition that it should be sponsored by a recognized union or that all the workmen of an industrial establishment should be parties to it. A settlement arrived at in course of conciliation proceedings falls within Section 18(3)(a) and (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such binds all the workmen though an unregistered union or only some of workmen may have raised the dispute. The absence of notice under Section 11(2) by the Conciliation Officer does not affect the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer and its only purpose is to apprise the establishment that the person who is coming is the conciliation officer and not a stranger. Any contravention of Section 12(6) in not submitting the report within 14 days may be a breach of duty on the part of the conciliation officer ; it does not affect the legality of the proceedings which terminated as provided in Section 20(2) of the Act.
10. Equally merit-less is the plea taken by the management that the present dispute is not sponsored or espoused by substantial number of workmen. It is fairly settled position in law that even non-espousal of a case by the union would not deprive the workman of the relief to which the workman is otherwise entitled under the law. Such view appears to have been taken in the case of Nazrul Hassan Siddiqui Vs.. Presiding Officer, Industrial cum Labour Court Bombay (1997) Lab.I.C. 1807. In the above cited case also contention was raised by the management that the dispute dies not fall within the definition of 'industrial dispute' and the same has not been referred or supported by substantial section of workmen. High Court rejected the plea of the management by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (AIR 1960 SC 777), which it was observed as under:
'We have already noticed that an industrial dispute can be raised by a group of workmen or by a union even though neither of them represent the majority of the workmen concerned; in other words, the majority rule on which the appellant's construction of Section 19(6) is based is inapplicable in the matter of the reference under Section 10 of the Act. Even a minority group of workmen can make a demand and thereby raise an industrial dispute which in a proper case would be referred or adjudication under Section 20.'
11. In view of the ratio of the judgement discussed above, it is clear that espousal of a dispute by the union is not sine qua non for adjudication of such dispute in terms of Section 10 of the Act. Consequently, this issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
Findings on Issue No.(ii)
12. Now, the main issue which requires determination in the case in hand is whether the workman herein is entitled for grant of pay scale of 3050-4590 as revised from time to time alongwith consequential benefits. It is clear from pleadings of the parties that initially the workman herein was appointed as mali on daily wage basis and later on he was regularized on the same post of mali in the pay scale of Rs.750-940(pre-revised) alongwith usual allowances. This fact has been admitted even by the management in para 5 of the preliminary objections.
II (ii) 490713. There is also ample evidence on record that the workman herein was performing duty as officiating Chaudhary. It is clear from perusal of office order dated 07.07.2004 Ex.WW1/1 (colly) that that name of the claimant finds mention in the list where copy of the office is endorsed to all the Chaudharies. Office order dated 21.05.2009, 27.06.2005, endorsed to all Chaudharys also bears the name of the claimant herein. Corrigendum dated 22.07.2010 Ex.WW1/1(colly) issued by the management regarding allocation of duties to employees bears the name of the claimant at Page No.3 in the third shift and his designation is mentioned as officiating Chaudhary. Claimant, in order to prove his case, has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, wherein material averments contained in statement of claim has been reiterated. It is specifically alleged in the affidavit that he was doing work of acting Chaudhary with effect from 15.04.2002. There are also averments in his affidavit that one Shri Jai Chand has also been granted pay scale of Chaudhary by the management of MCD and Sultan Singh and others Vs. MCD, who were doing work of acting Chaudhary , vide judgement of the Hon'ble High Court, i.e. in the case of MCD Vs.. Sultan Singh & others and necessary orders for implementation of the said judgement were issued by MCD.
14. There is no merit in the stand taken by the management in its reply, that the workman here is not entitled for promotion to the post of Chaudhary inasmuch as he has not appeared in the trade test conducted by the department. To my mind, this plea is devoid of any merit inasmuch as similarly situated other workers who were performing duties of Chaudhary, i.e. acting Chaudhary have been granted pay scale of Garden Chaudhary after judgement dated 27.07.2011 rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of MCD Vs.. Sultan Singh as well as MCD Vs.. Mahipal(WP 5550 of 2010). Operating portion of the judgement in Sultan Singh (supra) of the Hon'ble Division Bench is as under:
"28. Considering the entire facts and circumstances it is apparent that the claim of the respondents have always been that they should be paid the difference in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden Chaudhary as they were made to work on the post of Garden Chaudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied that they worked as Garden Chaudharies, then took the plea that the Assistant Director (Horticulture) was not competent to ask the respondents to work as Garden Chaudharies and that the respondents cannot be appointed to the post of Garden Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment rules. There is no doubt that respondents are not claiming appointment to the post of Garden Chaudharies on account of having worked on ad-hoc basis on the post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that some of them not having the requisite qualifications are entitled for relaxation.
29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out any such grounds which will impel this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to set aside the orders of the Tribunal dated 29th January, 2010 and 7th October, 2010 as no illegality or un- sustainability or perversity in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out.
30. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost."
15. It is further clear that SLP was also filed by MCD before the Hon'ble Apex Court by special leave application No. S20069/2011 MCD Vs.. Sultan Singh and others which was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.04.2012. It is further clear that the Hon'ble High Court in Sultan Singh case strongly deprecated the stand taken by the management that the workmen were not possessing requisite qualification or have not qualified the test etc. It was clarified that since the workmen were discharging duties to the post of Garden Chaudhary, as such, workmen were entitled for the salary of Garden Chaudhary and competent authority need not look into anything else except the fact that the workman had worked as Garden Chaudhary. Therefore, stand taken by the management that the workman herein could not qualify the test conducted by the department is without any merit and has no relevance so far as question of grant of salary against the post of Garden Chaudhary is concerned.
16. It is not out of place to mention here that even if the claimant herein was not a party in Sultan Singh case referred above, judgement of the Hon'ble High Court is binding on the management and management is required to implement the same in letter and spirit and the same is judgement in rem, and all similarly situated workmen are required to be accorded the benefit of the said judgement of the Hon'ble High Court, which have become final. There is no question of even plea of delay and laches when management had not led any evidence to prove the same. The Hon'ble High Court has decided an abstract proposition of law, i.e. a mali who is performing duty as officiating/acting Chaudhary is entitled to the salary/wages of Chaudhary. Law is fairly settled that if a person is working on a higher post, on adhoc or temporary basis, even such workman is entitled to salary/wages of higher post, unless rules or regulations specifically provides otherwise. I find support to this view from Secretary Vs.. Lieutenant Governor Port Blair (1998 Lab.I.C. 598), yet in another case, Hon'ble Apex Court while considering that question of grant of benefits to similarly situated employees who were not party to the writ petition or lis in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 observed as under:
"The moot question which requires determination is as to whether in the given case, approach of the Tribunal and the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of earlier judgment of the Tribunal, which had attained4908 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] finality as it was affirmed till the Supreme Court. The legal principles that can be culled from the judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:
(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
(2) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
(3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularization and the like [see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra)]. On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."
17. In view of the discussions made herein above, it is held that the workman herein, Shri Sukh Dev is entitled to the pay scale of Garden Chaudhary with effect from 15.04.2002 and as a corollary, management is liable pay the difference of wages of mali vis-a-vis Garden Chaudhary from the date when the workman herein was performing duties and functions of Garden Chaudhary till the date of his retirement on 31.07.2014. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : July 19, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer —
II New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2017
S.O. 1847.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 17/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. II, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Commissioner, Mumicipal Corporation of Delhi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 10.07.2017.
[No. L-42011/42/2012-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. DirectorII (ii) 4909
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO-II, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032.
ID. No. 17/2013
Sh. Ashok Kumakr Tiwari, Delhi Municipal Workers Union, 4/7, Asaf Ali Road 1st Floor, New Delhi-110002.
Versus
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide Letter No.L-42011/42/2012(IR(DU)) dated 25.02.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-
"Whether the action of MCD in not regularization service of workman Sh. Chand Ram , Muster Roll Beldar w.e.f 1.04.2004 is fair and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled for?
On 5.4.2013 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was register as I.D No. 17/2013 and claimant was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which was required to be accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
On 29.04.2013 workman filed claim statement before this Tribunal. Where-in he prayed as follows:-
"It is most respectfully prayed that management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi may please be directed to regularize the services of workman Sh. Chand Ram S/o Sh. Surajmal with effect from 1.4.2004 and to pay arrears with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice."
After service of notice management filed written statement on 13.09.2013. Where-in management prayed as follows:-
"It is respectfully prayed that the claim of the workman may kindly be dismissed being false, frivolous, vexatious, misconceived and being devoid of any merit.
Against written statement workman filed rejoinder. Wherein he re-affirmed the contents of claim statement.
On 9.4.2015 following issues were framed:-
1. Whether action of MCD in not regularizing service of workman Sh. Chand Ram, Muster Roll Beldar w.e.f 01.04.2004 is fair and justified? If so its effect?
2. If workman is not entitled for regularization since 1.04.2004 then for what relief he is entitled to and from which date?
And 29.05.2015 was fixed for workman evidence. On 29.5.2015 workman filed his affidavit in his evidence.
Copy of which supplied to Ld. A/R for the management .
Fixed 20.07.2015 WW1 tendered his affidavit and 14.09.2015 was fixed for cross-examination of WW1.
Cross-examination of WW1 could be concluded on 21.03.2016. Then workman closed his remaining evidence and 2.5.2016 was fixed for management evidence.
But management filed affidavit of MW on 29.7.2016. Copy of which supplied to workman.
Fixed 22.8.2016 for tendering of affidavit and cross-examination of MW.
On 24.10.2016 MW1 tendered his affidavit. He was partly cross-examined. His further cross-examination is deferred to 12.01.2017.
He was further cross-examined on 12.1.2017 and his remaining cross-examination of MW1 deferred to 27.3.2017.
On 27.3.2017 MW1 was further cross-examined and his further cross-examination is deferred to 28.3.2017.
On 28.03.2017 MW1 was further cross-examined and his cross-examination was concluded.
4910 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]On 1.05.2017 was fixed for argument. Parties may file written arguments also.
On 1.5.2017 workman filed written arguments. Copy of which supplied to management.
Fixed 8.5.2017 for reply by management to written arguments of workman.
On 8.5.2017 management filed written arguments copy of which supplied to workman. Who was permitted to file reply on 15.5.2017 .
On 15.5.2017 workman filed reply. Copy of which supplied to Ld.A/R for the management .
Then Award was reserved with liberty to Ld. A/R for the management to file reply if any.
No reply by management filed.
In the light of contentions and counter contentions I perused the pleadings and evidence of parties on record including written arguments of parties.
Which makes it crystal clear that in connection with the facts mentioned in paragraph 1 of written submissions dated 8.5.2017 of management it is submitted that while dealing with Issue No.1 in the written arguments which were filed by workman in the court on 1.5.2015, various oral and documentary evidences produced in the case & Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were dealt with and it was established as under:-
(a) That action of MCD in not regularizing the workman Chand Ram Musterr Roll Beldar w.e.f. 1.4.2004 is neither fair nor justified.
(b) And that workman is entitled for reinstatement w.e.f. 15.10.1997 his date of termination on the basis of decision of High Court of Delhi and on the basis of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Director General, I.C.M.R. Vs Dr. D.K. Jain and Another as reported in [2007] 3 S.C.R. and that he is entitled for regularization as Beldar with effect from 1.4.2004 on the basis of Circular dated 2.2.05 of MCD Ex.WW1/2 (which has been admitted as genuine by MW1 in his cross examination).
This is proved from the following:-
(i) That for compliance with decision of High Court dated 17.9.2009 (certified copy Ex.WW1/1 page 11), workman was entitled for reinstatement & not for re-engagement as done by management.
Dictionary meaning of reinstatement is that workman should have been re-established in his former position i.e. workman should have been reinstated w.e.f. date of illegal termination in year 1997. From certified copy of award of Presiding Officer Labour Court (in brief POLC) Ex.WW1/10 page 3, it is proved that date of illegal termination of workman as per admission of management was 15.10.1997.
Management has not reinstated the workman as per direction of Delhi High Court w.e.f. his date of termination but has re-engaged the workman as fresh Beldar w.e.f. 7.5.2010 (as is evident from admission of MW1 in paragraph 6 of Ex.MW1/A & Office Order of MCD Ex.WW1/5). This conduct on part of management is not good.
(ii) That for compliance with Circular of MCD Ex.WW1/2, workman is entitled for regularization w.e.f. 1.4.2004 (as mentioned in reference U/s 10 of ID Act). Circular of MCD Ex.WW1/2 has been admitted as genuine by MW1 in his cross examination dated 28.3.2017.
2. That regarding contents of paragraph 2 of written submissions dated 8.5.2017 of management, it is submitted that workman is not only entitled for regularization w.e.f. 1.4.2004 on the basis of Decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi & Circular dated 2.2.05 of MCD Ex.WW1/2 (admitted as genuine by MW1 in his cross examination) but also on the basis of the following law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
(i) As per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Director General, I.C.M.R. Vs Dr. D.K. Jain and Another as reported in [2007] 3 S.C.R. on pages 893 & 894 (Photo copy of citation was filed in court on 1.5.2017), whereby direction to grant reinstatement amounts to continuity of service.
(ii) As per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs Rajesh Kumar Gond as reported in (2014) SCC on page 588 & as shown in the highlighted portion (Photo copy of citation has been filed in court on 15.5.2017), wherebywhen no material placed before Tribunal about functional distinction between posts (here in this case distinction between functions of Muster roll Beldars & regularized Beldar) order of Tribunal granting parity in pay on the basis of Equal Pay for Equal Work cannot be faulted.
(iii) As per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs The employees of M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and Others as reported in (1979) 2 SCC on page 85 (copy of citation filed in court on 1.5.2017) when employer has taken away illegally the right to work ofII (ii) 4911 the workman contrary to the relevant law such as by illegal /invalid termination as in this case, The relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted.
3. (i) Management has misrepresented facts in paragraph 3 of written submissions dated 8.5.2017 of management that that present dispute is not an Industrial Dispute because as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihar State Road Transport Corpn Vs. State of Bihar and others as reported in highlighted paragraph (E) on page 1218, when cause of employee is taken over and espoused by Union before conciliation officer, the dispute is an industrial dispute referable under section 10 (1) by State Government and reference is competent. Photo copy of this citation has been filed in court on 15.5.2017.
(ii) Demand notices have been served upon the management and have been duly proved in the court vide Ex.WW1/8, Ex.WW1/9, Ex.WW1/12 & Ex.WW1/3, Ex.WW1/4 & Ex.WW1/A.
(iii) Management has misrepresented in this paragraph that reference has been made mechanically without due application of mind for which it has no locus standi because as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihar State Road Transport Corpn Vs. State of Bihar and others as reported in highlighted paragraph (E) on page 1218, when cause of employee is taken over and espoused by Union before conciliation officer, the dispute is an industrial dispute referable under section 10 (1) by State Government and reference is competent.
(iv) Management has misrepresented in this paragraph that Delhi Municipal Worker's Union has no locus standi to raise the present dispute because as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihar State Road Transport Corpn Vs. State of Bihar and others as reported in highlighted paragraph (E) on page 1218, when cause of employee is taken over and espoused by Union before conciliation officer, the dispute is an industrial dispute referable under section 10 (1) by State Government and reference is competent.
(v) Facts of the case MCD Vs Gauri Shankar & Ors as referred by management & as reported in 1999 V AD (Delhi) on page 905 are quite different from the facts of present case and as such decision of this case is not applicable to the case of workman under consideration.
In the cited case Regularization of services of Respondent No.1 w.e.f. 1.4.89 was pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal but respondent workman was claiming regularization w.e.f. 25.10.83 i.e. from the date of his initial joiningand the Industrial Tribunal was also holding that workman was entitled to be regularized w.e.f. 25.10.83. But in the case under trial, workman is not claiming regularization from the date of his initial joining with management.
(vi) That study of contents of citation State of Karnataka & Ors Vs Uma Devi as reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 reveal that provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts provided therein were not at all under consideration in Umadevi case. The issue pertaining to unfair labour practice was neither the subject matter for decision nor was it decided in Umadevi case.
Industrial Disputes Act is made for settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes as mentioned therein. It prohibits unfair labour practice on the part of employer in engaging employees as casual or temporary employees for a long period without giving them the status and privileges of permanent employees as is evident from the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. These facts are also proved from highlighted portions of paragraphs 17 and 18 on page 329 of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajaypal Singh Vs Haryana Warehousing Corporation as reported in (2015) 6 SCC 329.
In view of above mentioned facts, it is proved that Law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka & Ors Vs Uma Devi as reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 is not applicable to the case of workman under trial.
(vii) Facts of the case Uma Rani Vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others as reported in (2004) 7 SCC in highlighted paragraph A on page 112 & highlighted paragraph B on page 113 are quite different from the facts of present case under trial and as such decision of this case is not applicable to the case of workman under consideration.
In the cited case appointments were made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act and statutory rules framed there under and State could not could issue order of regularization under Ss 170 & 182 of T.N. Cooperative Societies Act 1983 or under T.N. Industrial Establishments Act 1981.
4912 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]T.N. Cooperative Societies Act 1983 did not empower Govt. to issue order directing regularization of services of employees of cooperative societies who had been appointed in flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules.
But facts of the case under trial are quite different. Here workman is seeking reinstatement and regularization w.e.f. 1.4.2004 on basis of decision of High Court of Delhi Ex.WW1/1 and on the basis of order of MCD Ex.WW1/2.
4. That in connection with the facts mentioned in paragraph 4 of written submissions dated 8.5.2017 of management it is submitted that workman has also claimed regularization in paragraph 5 of Replication to the amended written statement stating that muster roll employees who joined MCD in August 1996 after date of engagement of workman have been regularized but the workman has not been regularized. Workman has also mentioned the law laid down by Supreme Court in M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs The employees of M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and Others as reported in (1979) 2 SCC on page 85 on the basis of which he was seeking regularization.
5. That contents of paragraph 5 of submissions dated 8.5.2017 of management need no reply as these pertain to issues framed by Hon'ble Court.
6. That in connection with the facts mentioned in paragraph 6 of written submissions dated 8.5.2017 of management it is clarified that workman has filed in the court certified copies of following documents perusal of Hon'ble Court:-
(i) Certified copy of Decision of High Court dated 17.9.2009 as Ex.WW1/1 (11 pages).
(ii) Certified copy of award dated 8.4.2004 passed by Presiding Officer Labour Court as Ex.WW1/10 (3 pages).
(iii) Certified copy of Order dated 17.9.2009 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as Ex.WW1/11 (2 pages).
7. That contents of paragraph 7 of submissions dated 8.5.2017 of management reveal that management had filed writ petition in High Court in year 2016 but the same has been suppressed from the Hon'ble Court for more than five months & has been revealed only at the stage of final arguments on 8.5.2017 so as to delay the process of justice intentionally & malafidely.Management is knowing well that regularization of workman has already been delayed due to fault of management from 1.4.2004 to 15.5.2017 that is for a period of about eleven years.
8. That contents of paragraph 8 of submissions dated 8.5.2017 of management need no reply in view of written arguments dated 1.5.2017 of workman & in view of written submissions dated 15.5.2017 of the workman which has also been filed in the court.
9. (a) That in connection with the facts mentioned in paragraph 9 of written submissions dated 8.5.2017 of management that claimant has never worked with management even for a single day for the period from 16.10.1997 to 6.5.2010 and as such claimant cannot be equated with those employees who had worked regularly on muster roll daily wage basis with the management. For this act the workman is not at fault. It is only the management who is at fault in this respect. This is proved from the following evidences:-
(i) As per paragraph 10 of Certified Copy of Award of Labour Court dated 8.4.2004 Ex.WW1/10 Page 3 as reproduced below:-
"10 ISSUE NO.2
The management had taken the defence that the workman was engaged for a specific period and purely as daily wager on muster roll from 15.8.1996 and he was disengaged on 15.10.97 after the specific period was over. To substantiate this no evidence has been led by the management. This conduct does not hold good. Admittedly, the workman worked for a period of more than 240 days in a last 12 months and so his removal from service without complying with the provisions contained under Section 25 F of I.D. Act is illegal and unjustified. The order of retrenchment is bad as no notice has been issued to the workman nor any retrenchment compensation has been paid."
(ii) As per paragraph 11 of Certified Copy of Award of Labour Court dated 8.4.2004 Ex.WW1/10 Page 3 as reproduced below:-
"11. In view of my above discussion, I hold that the services of the workman have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management. ……....…………………"
(iii) As per last 7 lines of Certified copy of Decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 17.9.2009 Ex.WW1/1 Page 11:-
"……………..It is clearly seen from the record that the proceedings were delayed only on account of the management. Themanagement, in spite of giving several opportunities, has not led any evidence in the matter. InII (ii) 4913 these circumstances, the refusal to grant reinstatement was not proper. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award of the labour Court is modified to the extent that the appellant will be entitled to reinstatement in service with 50 % back wages."
(iv) That as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Director General, I.C.M.R. Vs Dr. D.K. Jain and Another as reported in [2007] 3 S.C.R. in highlighted portions marked 'H' on page 893 & marked 'A' on page 894, the direction to grant reinstatement amounts to continuity of service.
This citation was filed in the court on 1.5.2017.
(v) As per admission of MW1 in last four lines of paragraph number 4 on page 3 of Ex.MW1/A:-
"………………….It is a fact that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has not given any benefit of continuity of service or seniority to the claimant."
The facts mentioned in paragraphs 9(a)(i) to 9(a)(v) above prove that delay in regularization of workman for a period of 11 years is due to fault of management & this delay is not due to fault of workman.
(b) That relevant to the remaining facts mentioned in paragraph 9 of written submissions dated 8.5.2017 of management that claimant will be considered for regularization only when other employees engaged on muster roll basis w.e.f. 7.5.2010 are considered for regularization (& that Claimant has not cross examined MW1 on these facts), the relevant evidences are as under:-
(i) That as per cross examination dated 24.10.2010 of MW1:-
Question: Are the duties and functions of Muster Roll Beldars and regularized Beldars identical.
Ans : The duties of Muster Roll & regular Beldars are no where specified. This is the organisation of 24x7 working & the Beldars /staff engaged had to work according to the work requirement by the mgmt.
(ii) As per cross examination dated 12.1.2017 of MW1:-
"It is correct regular Beldars are getting more salary and allowances than daily wage Muster Roll Beldars."
(iii) Reply to suggestion as given by MW1 on page 2 of cross examination dated 28.3.2017:-
"It is incorrect to suggest that on the Principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' the workman is entitled for regularization w.e.f. 1.4.2004."
(iv) That as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs Rajesh Kumar Gond as reported in (2014) 13 SCC on page 588, When two posts in question cannot be equated but when no material was placed before Tribunal about functional distinction, order of Tribunal granting parity in pay on the principle of Equal pay for equal work cannot be faulted. Photo copy of this citation has been filed in court on 15.5.2017.
(v) That other facts relevant to this have also been dealt with & argued in Issue no.2 of written arguments filed by workman in the court on 1.5.2017.
The facts mentioned in paragraphs 9(b)(i) to 9(b)(v) above and the laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs Rajesh Kumar Gond as reported in (2014) 13 SCC on page 588 also prove that workman is also entitled for regularization w.e.f. 7.5.2010 (his date of re-engagement) on the Principle of 'Equal pay for Equal work'.
10. That contents of paragraph 10 of submissions dated 8.5.2017 of management need no reply in view of submissions made in preceding paragraphs 1 to 9 above of written submissions (dated 15.5.2010) of the workman & written arguments dated 1.5.2017 of the workman.
11. That study of contents of citation Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors Vs Uma Devi as reported in III (2006)SLT 539 reveal that provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts provided therein were not at all under consideration in this case. The issue pertaining to unfair labour practice was neither the subject matter for decision nor was it decided in this case. Photo copy of citation has been filed in court on 15.5.2017.
Industrial Disputes Act is made for settlement of industrial disputes and for other purposes as mentioned therein. It prohibits unfair labour practice on the part of employer in engaging employees as casual or temporary employees for a long period without giving them the status and privileges of permanent employees as is evident from the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. These facts are also proved from highlighted portions of paragraph 18 on4914 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] page 329 of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajaypal Singh Vs Haryana Warehousing Corporation as reported in (2015) 6 SCC 329.
In view of the above mentioned facts, it is proved that Law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors Vs Uma Devi as reported in III (2006)SLT 539 is not applicable to the case of workman under trial.
12. That the facts of the case MCD Vs Presiding Officer, IT– II & Ors as reported in 2000 II AD (Delhi) 442 which have been highlighted on page 443 are different from the facts of case under trial and as such decision of this case is not applicable to the case of workman under trial. Photo copy of citation has been filed in court on 15.5.2017.
In cited case award of Industrial Tribunal was not sustained because it was held in the award that daily wage/ casual/ muster roll mates working in MCD are entitled to pay /allowances in regular pay scale from the date of their respective initial appointment as has been enjoyed by regularly recruited mates.
But in case under trial, workman is not asking for his regularization w.e.f. 15.8.1996 his date of his initial appointment. But in this case workman is asking for his regularization w.e.f. 1.4.2004 on the basis of order of Double Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Ex.WW1/1 (page 11) and on the basis of circular of MCD Ex.WW1/2 which has been admitted as genuine by MW1 in his cross examination dated 28.3.2017.
Contents of paragraph 12 of written submission show that management has misrepresented true facts of the case & suppressed the essential facts of case which were in favour of workman.
13. That the facts of the case State of Haryana Vs Jasmer Singh & Ors AIR 1997 SC 1788 as mentioned in highlighted portion on page 1788 are different from the facts of case under trial and as such decision of this case is not applicable to the case of workman under trial. Photo copy of citation has been filed in court on 15.5.2017.
In the cited case duties and functions of regular employees were different from the duties and functions of daily wagers as is evident from the highlighted portion of citation on page 1788.
But in the case under trial duties, functions and working hours of regularized Beldar and muster roll Beldars have been admitted as identical by MW1 in his cross examination dated 24.10.2010.
14. That Authorized Representative (in brief AR) of management has falsely and malafidely stated in paragraph 14 of written submissions that judgments cited by AR of claimant are not applicable because he has not mentioned any fact, circumstance and reason due to which citations of AR of workman are neither applicable nor reliable.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 1
In this back ground Issue No. 1 is liable to be decided against management and in favour of workman due to want of required and reliable and credible evidence of management and adequate, reliable and credible evidence of workman Sh. Chand Ram. Which is accordingly decided.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 2
Issue no. 2 is relating to relief of workman.
As issue No. 1 has already been decided against management of M.C.D and in favour of workman sh. Chand Ram , Mustrol Beldar w.e.f. 1.04.2004 conduct of management of M.C.D was not found fair and justified. While disposing of issue no. 1 by me.
Hence workman Sh. Chand Ram, Mustrol Beldar is entitled for regularization of his service since 1.04.2004.
In these background reference is also liable to be decided in favour of workman and against management of M.C.D.
Which is accordingly decided and claim statement is allowed.
Award is accordingly passed.
Dated:-14.06.2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer —
II (ii) 4915I New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2017
S.O. 1848.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 30/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, Deputy Director (Horticulture), Horticulture Division, MSO Building, New Delhi and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 26.07.2017.
[No. L-42011/115/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 30/2015
Smt. Vimla Devi and Ms.Savitri Devi, C/o CPWD General Mazdoor Union(REgd.), Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10, Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110 011
…Workman
Versus
The Director Deputy Director (Horticulture), Horticulture Division, M-314, PWD (GOD), 13th Floor, MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhi-110 002
…Management
AWARD
Pursuant to receipt of reference from Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide letter No. L-42011/ 115/2014-IR(DU) dated 05.01.2015 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act), this Tribunal is required to adjudicate an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
'Whether Smt. Vimla W/o Late Shri Vijay Singh and Smt. Savitri Devi W/o Bimlesh Kumar entitled for regularization of Mali with effect from 11.04.1989 and 04.10.1990 respectively alongwith all consequential and cascading benefits? If so, necessary and speaking directions may please be given.'
2. It is clear from the statement of claim that Smt. Vimla Devi and Ms.Savitri Devi, claimants herein were employed on compassionate grounds on muster roll with effect from 11.04.1989 and 04.10.1990 respectively. Both the claimants have been performing their duties continuously after their appointment on compassionate grounds on 11.04.1989 and 04.10.1990 respectively under Deputy Director (Horticulture), M-314, Lok Nirman Vibhag. The Deputy Director (H) has also recommended the case of both the above claimants for regularization to the concerned officers. It is the case of the claimant that the management is adopting unfair labour practice so that service of the claimant is not regularized as mali by the management. Action of the management attracts provisions under Equal Remuneration Act and also amounts to unfair labour practice under the Act. Claimants have been performing their duties for the last more than 14 years. As per the policy of the management, both the claimants have been getting minimum of pay scale plus all allowances except regularization of their services, hence they did not get any promotion or any other consequential benefits. Management is, in fact, compelling the claimants to accept regularization of their services as beldar, which is an unskilled job, whereas claimants are performing duties of semi skilled workmen as mali and are getting their wages equal to their counterparts in regular category.
3. Claim is contested by the management who have filed reply thereto and have taken preliminary objections, inter alia of maintainability and there being no relationship of employer-employee between the management and the4916 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] claimants. On merits, it is admitted that the claimants Ms.Vimla Devi and Ms.Savitri Devi were appointed on the post of mali on muster roll basis on compassionate grounds against the vacant post caused by the death of their respective husbands after approval of Director General (Works) letter dated 11.04.1989 and 04.10.1990. Subsequently, temporary status was given to both the claimants with effect from 01.09.1993 as per rules of the Department. Management had directed the SE(E) Co-ordination to take necessary steps for regularization of services of the claimants. SEE/EEs of the management circulated letter No.554 dated 16.03.2011 requesting them to send list of such workers who are entitled for regularization and are duly entitled for regularization and are duly qualified in terms of statutory rules and have worked for 10 years or more as on 11.12.2006. In the same list, names of Ms.Vimla Devi and Ms.Savitri Devi were also sent to the Section Officer of the management vide letter dated 15.04.2011 for their regularization. Thereafter, the claimants approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) on 21.10.2013 requesting the management to regularize their services. Management was also called for discussion and conciliation took place on 21.04.2014. It is also alleged that Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 vide letter dated 21.01.2015 directed the Deputy Director(H) to appear before this Tribunal and answer all the material questions pertaining to regularization of services of both the claimants. However, both the claimants refused to give no objection certificate for regularization to the post of beldar. Request was also sent to the Director Horticulture vide letter No.505 dated 23.02.2015. However, Director (Horticulture) vide letter No.432 dated 30.03.2015 stated that presently mali Grade III post are more than the sanctioned strength, as such, it is not possible to regularize both the temporary status mali to the post of mali. Both the claimants are not entitled to be regularized to the post of mali from 11.04.1989 and 04.10.1990 respectively.
4. Against this factual background, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 21.01.2016, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether claim filed by the workman is not legally maintainable in view of the preliminary objections?
(ii) As in terms of reference
5. Smt. Savitri Devi and Ms. Vimla Devi, the claimants, examined themselves as WW1 and WW2 and their affidavits are Ex.WW1/A and Ex.WW2/A respectively. Ms. Savitri Devi relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 & Ex.WW1/2 and Ms.Vimla Devi relied on documents Ex.WW2/1 & Ex.WW2/2. Management, in order to rebut the case of the claimant, examined Shri Dharamveer Singh, Assistant Director (H) as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A and he also relied on documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/8.
6. I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri Ashish Mishra, A/R for the management.
Issue No.1
7. Though the management has taken preliminary objection that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the claimants, however, learned A/R for the management in all fairness admitted that both the claimants were in the employment of the management, which fact even otherwise stands duly proved from para 1 of the reply of the management wherein management has clearly admitted that the claimants Ms.Vimla Devi and Ms.Savitri Devi were appointed on the post of mali on muster roll on compassionate grounds against the vacancies caused due to the death of their respective husbands. In such circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the management to say that the management is not having any relationship of employer and employee with the above claimants. Record of the case further shows that the matter was taken up by the claimants through their union before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Regional Labour Commissioner had informed the management vide letter dated 18.11.2013 for discussion about regularization of the claimants herein. However, matter could not be settled, hence resulted in failure. Failure of conciliation report is Annexure I. Both these documents have not been exhibited but it can be taken into consideration for limited purpose so as to prove that matter was raised through the union by the claimants. There was also espousal of the case prior to this and the certificate is dated 01.09.2013. In view of the above discussion, preliminary objection raised by the management regarding maintainability of the claim is totally baseless, as such Issue No.(i) is decided in favour of the claimant and against the management.
Issue No.2
8. Now, the vital question which requires determination is whether the claimants, Ms.Vimla Devi and Ms.Savitri Devi are entitled for regularization to the post of mali with effect from 11.04.1989 and 04.10.1990 respectively alongwith all consequential benefits attached to the said post. No order to prove their case against the management, both the claimants Ms.Vimla Devi and Ms.Savitri Devi have tendered their affidavits which are Ex.WW1/A and Ex.WW2/A respectively and the averments contained therein are almost on similar lines as the stand taken in their claim statement. Both these claimants have been subjected to cross examination but there is hardly anything in their cross-examination to support the stand of the management. Management has examined Shri Dharamveer Singh, Assistant Director (H) as MW1 and his affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. He has admitted in para 3 of this affidavit that the claimants were appointed with effect from 11.04.1989 and 04.10.1990 respectively on muster roll to the post of mali and subsequently were granted temporary status on 01.09.1993 as per rules of the Department. He has further stated inII (ii) 4917 para 4 of his affidavit that Director General (Works) directed SE(E) Co-ordination to take necessary steps for regularization of the HR/MR workers in their respective categories with effect from 11.12.2006 on as is where is basis. The Deputy Director submitted list of such workers for regularization containing the names of both the claimants herein for regularization to the post of mali to the Section Officer Ex.-X, CPWD vide letter dated 15.04.2011 Ex.MW1/4. It is clear from perusal of letter Ex.MW1/4 that the names of both the claimants were recommended for regularization by the Department. There is also mention of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 10.04.2006 in letter dated 11.03.2011 of the case of State of Karnataka Vs.. Uma Devi wherein there is mention of proposal for regularization as one time measure. This letter further shows that it was finally decided to regularize services of the workers in their respective categories with effect from 11.12.2006 who were irregularly appointed. The only condition in the above matter was that persons who have worked for more than 10 years or more as on 11.12.2006 are entitled for regularization. Claimants herein also completed more than 10 years as on 11.12.2006. Shri Dharamveer Singh as admitted in his cross examination that both the claimants herein have been granted temporary status of mali. However, there is no mention of the fact that since there was no vacant post of mali, as such, the claimants could not regularized as mali and were offered post of beldar. In this regard, Ex.MW1/W1 is the order issued by the management. It is further admitted that the management has participated in the conciliation proceedings. There is no merit in the contention of the management that there is no vacant post of mali upon which the claimants herein can be regularized. It is not out of place to mention here that both the claimants were appointed on compassionate grounds against the regular posts which had fallen vacant consequent to the death of their husbands. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the management that no regular post was available. Moreover, in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, more than 1302 posts of malis were created and the claimants herein could have been adjusted on any of the above said posts as they were otherwise fulfilling the requisite conditions for being regularized on the post of mali.
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh Vs. Engineer In Chief (ATR 1986 SC 76) considered the question of equal pay for equal work and almost under similar circumstances, plea was raised on behalf of the management that workers were daily wagers and they were not entitled for equal pay like their regular counterparts. This plea did not find favour with the Hon'ble Apex Court was turned down and it was held that daily rated workers are not entitled for same salary and allowances which were being paid to regular and permanent employees with effect from the date when they were employed. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that Central Government like all organs of the State is committed to the Directive Principles of State Policy and Article 39 which details principles of equal pay for equal work .
10. In view of the discussion made herein above as well as evidence on record, I am of the view that the claimants herein are entitled for regularization to the post of mali with effect from 11.04.1989 and 04.10.1990 respectively alongwith all consequential benefits and cascading benefits which are being accorded to the other regular workers. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let it be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : July 17, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer —
New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2017
S.O. 1849.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2007, 30/2007, 101/2007, 38/2007) of the Central Government4918 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 31.07.2017.
[No. L-29012/23/2006-IR (M),
No. L-29012/32/2006-IR (M),
No. L-29012/27/2007-IR (M),
No. L-29012/42/2006-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 21st JULY 2017
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
COMMON AWARD
(i) C. R. No. 22/2007
I Party
II Party
The Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Limited,
Sh. Giddegowda, S/o Giddegowda, Somanahalli, M. Shivara Post, No. 39, M. G. Road, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Bangalore- 560001 Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/23/2006-IR(M) dated 23.02.2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the services/
premature superannuating of the services of Sh. Giddegowda w.e.f. 09.09.1998? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled to?"
(ii) C. R. No. 30/2007
I Party
II Party
The Managing Director,
Sh. K.N. Honnegowda, S/o Late Sh. Nanje Gowda, MML Worker, Mysore Minerals Limited, K. Byrapura Village, Kembal Post, No. 39, M. G. Road, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Bangalore- 560001 Hassan District-573111
Since, I party Workman K.N. Honnegowda, Expired represented by his L.R's:
1. Sh. K.H. Venkatesh, S/o Late Sh. K.N. Honnegowda,
2. Smt. K.H. Vanajakshi, D/o Late Sh. K.N. Honnegowda,
3. Smt. K.H. Nanjamma, D/o Late Sh. K.N. Honnegowda,
4. Smt. Padma, W/o Late Sh. K.H. Nanjeshi Gowda,
5. Sh. K.H. Shivashankar, S/o Late Sh. K.N. Honnegowda,
All residing at K. Byrapura Village, Kembal Post, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No. L-29012/32/2006-IR(M) dated 01.03.2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
II (ii) 4919SCHEDULE
"Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the
services/premature superannuating of the services of Sh. K.N. Honnegowda w.e.f. 29.04.1998? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
(iii) C. R. No. 101/2007
I Party
II Party
The Managing Director,
Smt. B. Kempamma, W/o Late Halige Gowda, Mysore Minerals Limited, Beechakondanahalli, Olagerahhalli Post, No. 39, M. G. Road, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Bangalore- 560001 Hassan District.
Since, I party Workman B. Kempamma, Expired represented by her L.R's:
1. Sh. Manje Gowda, S/o Late Sh. Halige Gowda,
2. Smt. Jayamma, D/o Late Sh. Halige Gowda,
3. Smt. Sannamma, D/o Late Sh. Halige Gowda,
4. Smt. Manji, D/o Late Sh. Halige Gowda,
Sl. No.1 residing at Beechagondanahalli Village, Volagerehalli Post, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District.
Sl. No.2 residing at Thimlapura Village, Volagerehalli Post, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District.
Sl. No.3 residing at Kembalu Village and Post, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District.
Sl. No.4 residing at Karehalli Village and Post, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No. L- 29012/27/2007-IR(M) dated 21.08.2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the
services/premature superannuating of the services of Smt. B. Kempamma w.e.f. 04.02.1998? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled to?"
(iv) C. R. No. 38/2007
I Party
II Party
The Managing Director,
No. 39, M. G. Road,
Sh. Thopegowda, S/o Late Sh. Shivananjegowda, Mysore Minerals Limited, K Byrapura Village & Post, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Bangalore- 560001 Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/42/2006-IR(M) dated 06.03.2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the
services/premature superannuating of the services of Sh. Thopegowda w.e.f. 28.06.1998? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled to?"
4920 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Appearance :
I party : M/s. K.T. Govinde Gowda &
Sh. C.G. Dileep Gowda, Advocates
II party : M/s. L. Venkatarama Reddy, Advocate
1. Brief details mentioned in the claim statement by I Party are as follows:-
(i) In CR No. 22/2007, the I Party submits that on 12.08.1982, he has joined the service of the II Party management at its Mining Unit viz., Byrapura Chromite Mines, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, as a Mining worker. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished his date of birth as 12.08.1952. Further, the II Party, terminated the service of I Party w.e.f 09.09.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the Central Government have referred the Reference in CR No. 22/2007.
(ii) In CR No. 30/2007, brief details mentioned in the Claim Statement filed by LRs are as follows:-
a) Sh. K.H. Venkatesh,
S/o Late Sh. K.N. Honnegowda, Aged about 50 years
b) Smt. K.H. Vanajakshi,
D/o. Late Sh. K.N. Honnegowda, Aged about 48 years
c) Smt. K.H. Nanjamma,
D/o Late Sh. K.N. Honnegowda, Aged about 46 years
d) Smt. Padma,
W/o Late Sh. K.H. Nanjeshi Gowda, Aged about 40 years
e) Sh. K.H. Shivashankar,
S/o Late Sh. K.N. Honnegowda, Aged about 40 years
are the Legal Representatives of the deceased workman, Sh. K.N. Honnegowda. The I Party submits that the II Party has illegally terminated the services of the workman K.N. Honnegowda, (since deceased) w.e.f. 29.04.1998, and the workman has faced unemployment, financial hardship, mental agony, which caused his death on 15.08.2016. Hence, the I Party Sh. K.N. Honnegowda. raised the dispute before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner [C], Hubli claiming back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of K.N. Honnegowda's illegal termination w.e.f. 29.04.1998. The copy Death Certificate of Sh. K.N. Honnegowda and Family tree are submitted as Annexures 'A' & 'B'. The I Party submits that on 07.03.1977, K.N. Honnegowda has joined the service of the II Party management at its Mining Unit viz., Byrapura Chromite Mines, and later on, transferred to Kodli Manganese Mines, AliyalaTaluk, Karawar District, as a Mining worker. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished his age as 30 years i.e., his date of birth being 01.12.1947. Further, the II Party, Kodli Manganese Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do his work w.e.f 29.04.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the Central Government have referred the Reference in CR No. 30/2007.
(iii) In CR No. 101/2007, brief details mentioned in the Claim Statement filed by LRs of deceased workman B. Kempamma, are as follows:-
a) Sh. Manje Gowda,
S/o Late Smt. B. Kempamma, Aged about 43 years
b) Smt. Jayamma,
D/o. Late Smt. B. Kempamma, Aged about 45 years
c) Smt. Sannamma,
D/o Late Smt. B. Kempamma, Aged about 41 yearsII (ii) 4921 d) Smt. Manji,
D/o Late Smt. B. Kempamma, Aged about 39 years
are the Legal Representatives of the deceased workman, Smt. B. Kempamma. The I Party submits that the II Party has illegally terminated the services of the workman Smt. B. Kempamma, (since deceased) w.e.f. 04.02.1998, and the workman has faced unemployment, financial hardship, mental agony, which caused her death on 26.09.2006. Hence, the I Party being Son of Late. Smt. B. Kempamma raised the dispute before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner [C], Hubli claiming back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of her illegal termination w.e.f. 04.02.1998 to till reaching the age of superannuation. The copy Death Certificate of Smt. B. Kempamma and Family tree are also submitted. The I Party submits that on 02.11.1980, Smt. B. Kempamma has joined the service of the II Party management at its Mining Unit viz., Byrapura Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, as a Mining Worker under token No. 252. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished her age as 31 years. Further, the II Party, Byrapura Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do her work w.e.f 04.02.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the Central Government have referred the Reference in CR No. 101/2007.
(iv) In CR No. 38/2007, the I Party submits that on 11.05.1982, he has joined the service of the II Party management at its Mining Unit viz., Byrapura Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, as a Mining Worker under token No. 72. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished his age as 29 years i.e., his date of birth being 11.05.1953. Further, the II Party, Byrapura Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do his work w.e.f 28.06.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the Central Government have referred the Reference in CR No. 38/2007.
2. Brief Common details mentioned on behalf of I Party are as follows:-
The date of birth of the I Party, in fact, has been entered in all the statutory records like EPF, B-register and Service records, etc. The I Party is entitled to continue in the service with the II Party up to the reaching of the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years in the II Party Organization. The II Party by way of an eye wash conducted the so called illegal Medical Examination for the purpose of removing the I Party from the service before reaching the age of superannuation. Further, the II Party has terminated the I Party on the plea that the I Party has reached the superannuation age of 58 years as per the so called illegal Medical Examination. After illegal termination, the I Party has faced unemployment problem and financial hardship, not only by I Party but also the family members of I Party. The entire family has depended only upon the earnings of the I Party in the II Party Organization. The II Party/Management similarly, has, prematurely, retired the co-workers of the I Party on the ground of Medical unfitness and also as per the age certificate, issued by the Medical Officer. The said some of the co-workers have challenged their pre-matured retirement and the age certification, before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, viz.,
(i) Writ Petition No. 5615/2001 between Smt. K.Dundamma Vs. MML, and the same Management of II Party challenged the same in Writ Appeal No. 3460/2001 C/W W.No. 3459/2001. The said Appeal has been rejected on 12.06.2002 confirming the single Judge order dated 29.03.2001. In view of the said decision the Management, reinstated the above mentioned pre-matured retired employee with payment of back wages, and with continuity of service thereon.
(ii) Writ Petition No. 26101/2001, C/W W.P. Nos. 23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001 filed by Sri V.C. Range Gowda and 8 others Vs. MML, and the same have been allowed on 01.06.2006.
On account of the illegal payment and other lapses, in the Management of II Party, it has to face administrative problems. The II Party adopted its own tactics, ways and means for terminating the Mining Workers in short cut methods and also, in an illegal and irregular manner by adopting anti-labour and un-fair labour practice and victimized the I Party and other co-workers by removing them enmasse by resorting to the so-called Medical Examination during the year 1998 in illegal and irregular manner, without disclosing the true fact, to the I Party and also without notifying the so-called Medical Examination, i.e., not by a Doctor of a Rank of Assistant Civil Surgeon as defined in Rule 29-C of the Mines Rules 1995. Hence, the so-called Medical Examination conducted by the II Party is illegal and irregular, and the same is not having any legal sanctity and not sustainable in law as it is violative of Rule 29-C. The I Party has repeatedly requested the officials of the II Party to provide the work to I Party till reaching the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years. But all the efforts made by I Party to persuade the II Party to take the I Party, on duty, proved in vain because of hostile and vindictive attitude on the part of the II Party. The II Party has no right to refuse the employment to the I Party or to remove the I Party name from the muster rolls in unilateral manner, without following the due process of Law. The II Party used the above illegal, imaginary, hypothetical and unscientific Medical report as its tool for unilaterally deciding the age of I Party and other workers. The II Party unilaterally refused employment to the I Party before the age of superannuation even though the I Party is hale and healthy and entitled to work up to the reaching of the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years. The II Party has not followed the Mandatory provision of Section4922 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 25 F, G, H & N of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Rules 78 and 79 thereon, and the action of the Management is, therefore, void-ab-initio as laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case Sundaramani Vs. State Bank of India, Santhosh Gupta Vs. State Bank of Patiala, Rober D'Souza Vs. Southern Railway, K.S.R.T.C. Bangalore Vs. Boraiaha and others and also the same is violative of the Provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The II Party has un-necessarily created hardship to the I Party by not providing employment. The II Party Management is not justified in retrenching the services of the I Party in the summary manner without following the principals of Natural justice and fair play. Further, apart from the violation of various provisions of the I.D. Act as stated above, the II Party violated its own Certified Standing Orders. The II Party acted contrary to its own Certified Standing Orders/Service Rules for effecting the prematured, superannuation by way of illegal termination. The I Party submits that, the II Party failed to issue 3 months prior notice or tendered payment of 3 months salary to the I Party before termination of service of the I Party under Rule 24. The I Party belongs to socially and economically weaker section and also, the I Party is the Rural based worker and used to work in Mines, which is in a remote place of the village and the I Party is also an illiterate worker belonging to Economically weaker section & not a matching party to fight against the II Party for the injustice done by the II Party. The I Party is facing financial hardship and mental agony due to stoppage of his/her monthly earnings in the II Party organization and also, due to illegal termination. Also, the I Party is not able to maintain himself and the family with day to day, food and basic needs. The I Party has faced the financial hardship to reach the Labour Department like Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli from I Party's place, for raising the dispute and also, to set right the I Party's grievances. The Officials of the II Party/Management have taken undue advantage of I Party's poverty, illiteracy, economic weakness and social weakness. Ultimately with great hardship, mental agony and with the help of well wishers, the I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli. The I Party is entitled for back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits from the date of refusal of employment. The II Party has violated the Provisions of I.D. Act as well as its own Certified Standing Orders/Service Rules as stated above. Under the I.D. Act there is no limitation prescribed for raising the dispute and the Article 137 of Schedule to the limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings under I.D. Act. This point is repeatedly decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Courts of various states namely,
(i). LLJ-II-2001-pg788-792 [SC], Sapan kumar Pandit Vs.
U.P. State Electricity Board and others.
(ii) LLJ-I-1999-pg 1260-1265 [SC], Ajaib Singh Vs.
Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-processing Service Society.
(iii) LLJ-II-1999-pg-482-483[SC], Mahavir Singh Vs.
U.P. State Electricity Board and others.
(iv) LLJ-I-2003-pg 412-414 [MP], Ramadhar Tiwari Vs.
Union of India and others.
(v) LLJ-I-1994-pg 468-471 [All], U.P. State Spinning Mills Co. Vs.
State of U.P & Others
(vi) LLJ-II-2003-pg 1143-1145[Ori], Management of Aska Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa
(vii) LLJ-I-2002-pg-204-206 [Mad], E.E. Construction Division 2, Mannarpuram, Trichy and Another Vs. M. Gajapathy and Another
(viii) LLJ-I-2002-pg-1079-1081[Del], Mangal Singh Vs.
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.1, Delhi and Another
(ix) LLJ-I-2002-pg-1129-1132[Bom], Haribhau S/o. Gaman Waghchaure Vs.
State of Maharastra and Another.
Therefore, the I Party prays this Court to pass an award by holding that the action of the II Party Management is not justified in terminating the services of I Party, namely, prematured superannuation of the services of the I Party and also to direct the II Party to reinstate the I Party, with continuity of service, with payment of Full back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of termination till providing employment/reaching the age of superannuation as per the date of birth details registered in the Statutory records like B-register and EPF records and Service records maintained by the II Party and EPF Authorities and to pay the interest at the rate of 18% from the said due date and also up to the date of payment and further award of cost of the present proceedings, in the interest of justice and also, equity.
3. Brief Common submissions made on behalf of II Party in the counter statement are as follows:-
The II Party states that, the dispute raised by the I Party is time barred and belated, and filed after the lapse of time. Further, the I Party has waited for the result in the case filed by the co-workers, who approached Hon'ble HighII (ii) 4923 Court of Karnataka. The success of co-worker of I Party in W.P. No. 5615/2001 and 26101/2001 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka inspired the I Party to file this dispute after the lapse of time. Hence, the conduct of the I Party does not deserve any relief at the hands of this Tribunal. Further, the II Party states that, the dispute raised by the I Party is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, since the claim made by the I Party is stale and time barred. The II Party has conducted the Medical Examination and the said expert team have examined the I Party and found that, the I Party is not capable to work in a mine, in view of the fact that, the I Party has already reached the age of more than 58 years as on the date of Medical Examination. Further, as per the decision of Management, I Party has been terminated and also given opportunity to prefer an appeal before Appellate Medical Board within 30 days, if the I Party is aggrieved by the said Medical Report. The I Party, who has amicably received the terminal benefits from the II Party, has no right to raise present dispute, after the lapse of time, at the instigation, for the wrongful gain. It is relevant to submit that, the dispute referred by Government of India is itself not maintainable in law. Hence, there is no Industrial Dispute existed or is apprehended. The Medical Examination has been conducted in Scientific Manner on thorough investigation. The I Party is not entitled for any benefits as per law. The I Party is happily working elsewhere since from the date of termination. Further, the statement of the I Party that, the II Party officials failed to consider the reasonable request of the I Party is totally incorrect and false. In fact, the I Party is employed elsewhere and earning salary. The I Party has filed this dispute only for wrongful gain, at the instigation of well-wishers, as admitted by the I Party in the claim statement. The II Party has not acted illegally or arbitrarily. Therefore, the II Party prays to dismiss the dispute filed by the I Party with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. Already this Court has passed common award dated 27.08.2014. Thereafter, in Writ Petition the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, has passed the following Order:-
"The matter is remanded to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum- Labour Court for fresh adjudication of the dispute. The Tribunal shall decide the dispute after giving notice to all the parties and pass an award in accordance with law. All the contentions of both the parties are left open." Further, notices have been sent for both sides and additional evidence recorded and arguments heard and after the careful perusal and appreciation of material records in the proper perspective the present Common Award is passed.
5. The crucial points/issues that arise for consideration in the present matter are as follows:-
(i) Whether the present claim has to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches as submitted by the II Party?
(ii) Whether the I Party has to prefer an appeal as against the medical certificate issued by the medical officer as submitted by the II Party in the counter statement?
(iii) Whether after the receipt of the terminal benefits, the I Party cannot raise any dispute in the present case?
(iv) Whether the I Party is entitled to get the relief as claimed in the claim statement, after the careful appreciation of the evidences adduced and documents produced by both the parties, in proper perspective?
6. Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 1:-
The I Party has clearly stated in the claim statement itself, and also in the deposition that, I Party belongs to socially and economically weaker section, and the I Party is the rural based worker, and used to work in mines which is in a remote place of a village and I Party is also an illiterate worker, belonging to economically weaker section, and not a fit person, to fight against the II Party and the I Party has repeatedly requested the officials of II Party mines for permitting the I Party to work and also, due to I Party's acute poverty, I Party has faced huge financial hardship to reach the Labour Department like Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli from I Party's place, for raising the dispute and also, to set right I Party's grievances and in such circumstances, only the delay has happened for raising the dispute and the delay caused is not intentional and deliberate one, but only due to the above mentioned various reasons. The II Party has not specifically denied the above mentioned statements made by the I Party in the claim statement. Further, the I Party has also stated that, the officials of the II Party/Management have taken undue advantage of I Party's poverty, illiteracy, economic and social weakness by way of refusing employment, and after knowing fully, that the I Party is most incapable in approaching the Labour Authority for redressal of the I Party's grievances. The said details is also not specifically disputed by the II Party. Further, I Party has clearly stated in the claim statement that ultimately with great hardship, mental agony and with the help of well wishers, the I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the present central reference has been made to this Court by the Government of India, as per the above mentioned details. The said submissions made on behalf of I Party are also not specifically disputed on behalf of the II Party. On the other hand, the Assistant Manager of II Party, namely MW-1, has categorically admitted in his evidence that, I Party is an illiterate person. Further, the I Party has filed copies of Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001 dated 29.03.2001, W.A. No. 3460/01 c/w W.A. No. 3459/01 dated 12.06.2002 and W.P. No. 26101/01 c/w W.P. Nos. 23798/01, 23797/01 & 23794/01 dated 01.06.2006, as exhibits marked herein below and also MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that the4924 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] success of the said co-workers in the said Writ Petition and Writ Appeal has inspired the I Party to file the present reference. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is seen that, the I Party is justified in claiming the legal and statutory rights and benefits, due to the unlawful and illegal ways and means followed by the II Party to terminate the service of I Party, without following the principles of natural justice.
7. Further, the I Party has pointed out, in the claim statement, itself that, there is no limitation prescribed for raising the dispute and Article 137 Schedule of the Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable to the present case. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, dated 03.12.2010, Mr. Hon'ble Justice. P. Sathasivam and Mr. Hon'ble Justice B.S. Chauhan, in Civil Appeal No. 10231/2010, between Kuldeep Singh Vs. G.M, Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and Another, it is clearly held as follows:- "The Labour Court dismissed the claim of the appellant on ground of delay (of five and half years) in raising the dispute. The High Court confirmed the Labour Court's award. Hence this present appeal. The impugned award was set aside with costs of Rs. 50,000 to be paid by respondent- management to appellant." The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, there is no time limit prescribed for reference under section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In the present case also on a careful perusal of above said peculiar facts and vital circumstances and also due to the fact that, the I Party is facing poverty, illiteracy, economic and social weakness and also in the light of the above mentioned various citations, mentioned in the claim statement, it is seen that, the II Party is not justified in raising the objection to the effect that present reference is not maintainable due to the delay and latches. The I Party in the claim statement as well as in the evidence has pointed out that, the I Party is an illiterate and the I Party has repeatedly requested the II Party officials to provide employment in the II Party Organisation. Further, the MW-1, namely the Assistant Manager of the II Party has also admitted that I Party is an illiterate person and it is true to suggest that in the mines there is no shelter from sun and rain and it is true to suggest that there is no health unit and it is true to suggest that, the working conditions as per the mining act have not been provided at the mines. In such circumstances, it is crystal clear that, II Party has not provided the basic and statutory and also necessary facilities for the proper working conditions and also, for the welfare of the I Party workers.
8. Further, Industrial Dispute Act is a social legislation brought into existence after various Industrial Revolutions, stage by stage and the said act has been enacted to provide minimum and basic facilities for workman and protect his/her employment. Further, II Party cannot take the super technical submission of delay and latches as a protective shield to cover up their lapses and violation of laws. Further, it is the well settled law that, I Party can initiate proceedings for the alleged illegal termination of services of workman en-mass by the II Party. Further, for the effective implementation of the Labour enactment and protecting the interest of workman only the Government have created a Labour Department. Further, it is very pertinent to point out that, the present reference is made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour with the above mentioned schedule. Hence, this Court is bound to pass appropriate award in accordance with law based upon the facts and circumstances of the present matter. The II Party/Management cannot take super technical and hyper technical measures, so as to avoid payment of the legitimate amounts, payable to the I Party/Workman. Further, it is clearly held in the judgment reported in 1995-II-LLJ 835, between H.S. Vasantsenaiah Vs. The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C & Anothers, as follows:- "Delay in approaching the Labour Court- No ground to deny back wages and other consequential benefits."
9. Further, it is held in the judgment reported in 1999-LLJ-II-pg 482-483 [SC], between Mahavir Singh Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and others, as follows:- "Delay in raising dispute – Labour Court finding termination of workman's service illegal-reference could not be rejected." Also in the judgment reported in 2003-LLJ-I-pg 412-414 [MP], between Ramadhar Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others, it is clearly held as follows:- "No limitation laid down for raising dispute under statute - dispute raised after about 5 years - not one which could be refused on ground of delay." Again, in the judgment reported in 1994-LLJ-I-pg 468-471 [All], between U.P. State Spinning Mills Co. Vs. State of U.P and others, it is specifically held as follows:- "Lapse of 11 years between raising a dispute and making reference does not lose the character of industrial dispute." Further, in the judgment reported in 2002-LLJ-I-pg 1079- 1081 [Del], between Mangal Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.1, Delhi and another, it is clearly held as follows:- "Relief under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 not to be denied to workman merely on ground of delay." Also, in the judgment reported in 2002-LLJ-I-pg 1129-1132 [Bom], between Haribhau S/o. Gaman Waghchaure Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, it is clearly held as follows:- "Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947- If plea of delay be raised, employer to show real prejudice caused by delay and not rely on it as mere hypothetical defense." In the present case also, considering the above mentioned socio-economic conditions, poverty and illiteracy, of the I Party, it is found that, the appropriate relief, in accordance with law has to be granted to the workman and the same cannot be denied, as per the mere hypothetical defence taken by the II Party regarding the delay and in fact, the II Party has not established the real prejudice caused by the said delay.
10. Further, in the judgment in the case of Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P., (1979) 2 SCC 88, by V. Kishna Iyer. J, it is pointed out as follows:- "Industrial Jurisprudence does not brook nice nuances and torturesome technicalities to stand in the way of just solutions reached in a rough and ready manner. Grim and grimy life-situations have no time for the finer manners of elegant jurisprudence." Thus, the process of industrial adjudication is an onerousII (ii) 4925 task being guided by the constitutional mandates and aiming at settlement of the industrial dispute on a fair and just basis, tested on the touchstone of social and economic justice. When an industrial dispute is raised, it is a commotion to be pacified by dispensing justice. In such adjudication, not just the right to equality and other Constitutional guarantees, but the aims and ideals of the Constitution enter into the consideration. It is the duty of the Courts to apply directive principles in interpreting the Constitution and the laws. Also, it is reported in Lloyds Bank Ltd Vs.. Bundy, (1974) 3 All ER 757 that Lord Denning first clearly enunciated his theory of "inequality of bargaining power". He began his discussion on this part of the case by stating (at page 763): "There are cases in our books in which the courts will set aside a contract, or a transfer of property, when the parties have not met on equal terms, when the one is so strong in bargaining power and the other so weak that, as a matter of common fairness, it is not right that the strong should be allowed to push the weak to the wall." In the present case also, it is seen that, the II Party has clearly admitted in the counter statement that, the success of the co-workers of I Party in W.P. No. 5615/2001 dated 29.03.2001, W.A. No. 3460/01 c/w W.A. No. 3459/01 dated 12.06.2002 and W.P. No. 26101/01 c/w W.P. Nos. 23798/01, 23797/01 & 23794/01 dated 01.06.2006, has inspired the I Party to file the present reference and in fact, the I Party has specifically pointed out in the claim statement and evidence that, the I Party is an illiterate person and the I Party is facing poverty, economic and social weakness and the I Party has repeatedly requested the II Party officials to provide employment to the I Party and Assistant Manager of II Party MW-1 has also admitted in his evidence that, I Party is an illiterate person and also the II Party has not established the real prejudice caused to the II Party, by the said delay.
11. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in W.P. No. 9974/2006 (L-TER) dated 07.01.2015, (Before Mr. Hon'ble Chief Justice D.H. Waghela and Mr. Hon'ble Justice Budihal. R. B), in the case of The Management of National Aerospace Laboratories Vs. Engineering & General Workers Union and the Managing Directors, it is particularly held as follows:- "The jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal, therefore, is expansive and creative and not restricted to only enforcing or interpreting the contract of service or the extant legal provisions and it is not-fettered by the limitations of contracts and can even involve extension of existing agreement of the making of a new one, or in general, creation of new obligations or modification of old ones." In the present case also, for the above mentioned facts and circumstances it is found that, I Party is entitled to get appropriate relief, in accordance with law, and the II Party is not justified in raising the objection on the ground of delay and latches, as per the said jurisdiction of the present Court. Thus, the point is answered in favour of the I Party.
12. Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 2:-
The MW-1 the Assistant Manger of II Party, who has given evidence on behalf of II Party has admitted that, it is true to suggest that, there is no health unit and the working conditions as per the mining act have not been provided at the Mines. The said admission is also clinchingly established the various above mentioned allegation made as against the II Party. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true to suggest that, as per the provisions of the mining act there should be a qualified doctor to attend the I Party workers at the mining site. If it is so, then there is no need for the II Party to get the doctor from Hatti Gold Mines and to subject the I Party to medical examination. On that ground only, I Party has clearly stated in the claim statement that, as per the illegal medical certificate, the social and economic weaker section person of the I Party has been refused to continue the work by the II Party.
13. Further, MW-1 namely, the Assistant Manager of II Party/Management has admitted that the II Party company has suffered loss of 21 crores due to mis-management and it is also true to suggest that, due to the said mis- management, the financial crisis has occurred and it is true to suggest, having suffered the said loss the management thought of reducing the number of workers and it is true to suggest that, the Management ordered for medical examination of all the mining workers. For the said reasons only, I Party has categorically stated in the claim statement that, II Party has suffered huge loss due to mis-management and in the way of reducing the number of workers they have conducted illegal medical examination and terminated several workers including I Party. Further, MW-1 admitted that, to examine the workers doctors, have come from Hatti Gold Mines Ltd. However, he has admitted, that he does not know the names and qualifications of those doctors.
14. Further, in the counter statement the II Party has stated that, the I Party has been given opportunity to prefer an appeal before Appellate Medical Board within 30 days, if the I Party is aggrieved by the Medical Report. However, the MW-1 has categorically admitted that, it is true to suggest that, they have not produced the Medical certificate issued by the Doctor who has examined the I Party health condition and it is also true to suggest that, the Medical From 'O' is in English language. At the same time, the MW-1 has admitted that, I Party workers are illiterate workers. Hence, it is found that the said medical certificate has not been issued in the language known to the workers/I Party and also not understood by the I Party and in fact, the said medical certificate is also not submitted to this Court by the II Party. In such circumstances, it is too much on the part of II Party to content that I Party has got the appeal remedy as per the medical certificate and the workers have not availed the appeal remedy and hence they cannot file the present case before this Court. Further, MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that, the Doctors have not conducted the medical4926 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] examination in his presence and he does not know in what respect the I Party has been found unfit to continue in service and he has to verify in the office whether copy of notice issued to I Party after medical examination or acknowledgement regarding service of notice on the I Party is available or not. So, the MW-1 has not produced the relevant records to establish that, after medical examination, proper record has been issued to I Party to appeal before 30 days. On the other hand, MW-1 has categorically admitted that, II Party has not produced the Medical certificate issued by the Doctor who has examined the I Party. Above all, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true to suggest that, I Party has not been issued with charge sheet and no enquiry has been conducted before the termination of his service. The said categorical admission of MW-1 shows that, II Party has not terminated the I Party as per the principles of natural justice.
15. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true to suggest that as per the clause 18 and 24 any termination has to be followed by enquiry along with 3 months notice pay. However, MW-1has admitted that, I Party has not been issued with charge sheet and also, enquiry has been conducted. Hence, it is crystal clear that, II Party has not terminated the I Party in accordance with law. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, termination order has not been attached with copy of Medical Certificate pertaining to I Party. Furthermore, MW-1 has admitted that, he does not know in what respect the Medical Officer opined that, the I Party is being medically unfit. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true that, II Party has not taken any permission from Labour Ministry or Labour Secretary under the provisions of I.D. Act for terminating services of several employees on the basis of medical grounds. Further, MW-1 has specifically admitted in his evidence that, it is true to suggest that I Party is the illiterate person and it is true to suggest that company has not furnished to the I Party the Kannada Version/translation of Medical Certificate which is in English and the company has enhanced the age of employees to 60 years w.e.f 17.07.2008. In the light of the above mentioned facts and circumstances it is found that, the II Party is not justified in submitting that, the I Party has to prefer only the appeal as against the medical certificate issued by the medical officer. Thus, the point/issue is answered as against the II Party.
16. Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 3:- The I Party has stated in the claim statement that, he is entitled to work till attending the age of superannuation and the I Party's actual date of birth is registered in EPF, B-register and Service records, etc and suddenly, the II Party has refused to provide employment to the I Party, as per the so-called illegal medical examination and the co-workers have challenged there pre-matured retirements and age certification before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, viz.,
(i) Writ Petition No. 5615/2001 between Smt. K.Dundamma Vs. MML, and the same Management of II Party challenged the same in Writ Appeal No. 3460/2001 C/W W.No. 3459/2001. The said Appeal has been rejected on 12.06.2002 confirming the single Judge order dated 29.03.2001. In view of the said decision the Management reinstated the above mentioned pre-matured retired employee with payment of back wages, with continuity of service thereon.
(ii) Writ Petition No. 26101/2001,C/W W.P. Nos. 23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001 filed by Sri V.C. Range Gowda and 8 others Vs. MML, and the same has been allowed on 01.06.2006. The MW-1, the Assistant Manger of II Party has also admitted the said details, in his evidence. Further, the I Party has specifically pointed out that, on account of administrative problems faced by the II Party, the II Party adopted its own tactics, ways and means for terminating the Mining Workers in short cut methods and also, in an illegal and irregular manner by adopting anti-labour and un-fair labour practice and victimized the I Party and other co-workers by removing them enmasse by resorting to so-called Medical Examination during the year 1998 in illegal and irregular manner, without disclosing the true fact, to the I Party and also without notifying the so-called Medical Report i.e., not by a Doctor of a Rank of Assistant Civil Surgeon as defined in Rule 29-C of the Mines Rules 1995 and hence, the so-called Medical Examination conducted by the II Party is illegal and irregular, and the same is not having any legal sanctity and not sustainable in law as it is violative of Rule 29-C. The MW-1, Assistant Manger of II Party has candidly admitted in his evidence that, due to mis-management, the II Party has suffered administrative problems, and hence, the II Party has decided to terminate the services of the I Party workers.
17. Further, it is specifically pointed out by the I Party that, II Party has no right to refuse the employment to the I Party without following the due process of Law and the II Party used the illegal, imaginary, hypothetical and unscientific Medical report as its tool for unilaterally deciding the age of I Party and other workers even though the correct age is mentioned in the EPF, B-register and Service records, and I Party is hale and healthy and entitled to work up to the age of superannuation. In the evidence also, I Party has stated the said details mentioned in the claim statement. Further, in the cross examination, I Party has clearly pointed out that, it is not true to suggest that, as per the request made by the union the II Party subjected the I Party to medical check up and found the I Party unfit to continue in service. In the additional evidence also, the I Party has pointed out that, it is not true to suggest that as on termination, all amounts due to I Party have been received and the I Party has filed the present case, without anyII (ii) 4927 justification. Further, the II Party has also not produced any relevant records, to establish that, the II Party has paid all the amounts due to I Party as on the date of termination. Further, it is observed in the judgment reported in 1984-I-LLJ 388(SC) as follows:- "Acceptance of retirement benefits – Acceptance of retirement benefits by the workmen concerned – Whether precluded from raising Industrial Disputes Challenging Orders of retirement. On the materials placed by the management, held, neither a case of acquiescence nor a case of waiver on the part of workmen was made out – Held, the workmen were entitled to wages for the period between the dates of retirement and the dates of their reaching the age of 58 years." Also, in the judgment reported in 1997-II-LLJ 228(SC) it is held as follows:- "There is no statutory estoppels in favour of the Officer." Further, it is the settled law that, there is no estoppel as against the statutory rights/benefits, which the I Party/workman is entitled to get under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the II Party has also not established that, the action has been taken by the II Party as against the I Party, as per the principles of natural justice and also, as per the procedure and practice to be followed in accordance with law. In the light of the above mentioned reasons, facts and circumstances it is found that, the II Party is not justified in submitting that, after the receipt of the terminal benefits the I Party cannot raise any dispute in the present case and thus, the point/issue is answered as against the II Party.
18. Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 4:-
The I Party has categorically stated that, due to mis-management the II Party has suffered a loss and hence, the II Party has found its own tactics, ways and means for terminating the mines workers in short cut methods and also in an illegal and irregular manner by adopting anti-labour and un-fair labour practice and victimized the I Party and other co-workers by removing them enmasse by resorting to so-called Medical Examination during the year 1998 in illegal and irregular manner. Further, MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that the II Party has entrusted the work to private party in spite of availability of technical persons and machinery in the year 1995-1996 and hence, the II Party company has suffered a loss of about Rs. 21 crores and it is also true to suggest that, due to said mis-management the financial crisis occurred and also it is true to suggest that, having suffered the said loss the management thought of reducing the number of workers. Hence, it is clear that, the MW-1 of II Party has also admitted the said submissions made by the I Party in the claim statement. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, he cannot right now give the date, month and year of notice served to I Party and it is true to suggest that, I Party has not been issued with charged sheet and no enquiry has been conducted before the termination of the I Party. Further, MW-1, admitted that, it is true to suggest that as per the clause 18 and 24 any termination has to be followed by enquiry along with 3 months notice pay. However, MW-1 has clearly admitted that 3 months notice pay has not been paid to the I Party by the II Party.
19. Further, MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that, it is true to suggest that, there is Statutory Report, B Register and Provident Fund Register. Further, I Party has categorically stated that, the date of birth has been entered in the Statutory Report, B Register and Provident Fund Register and the II Party without any valid reasons pre-maturely terminated the service of the I Party. Further, the date of birth of I Party mentioned in the claim statement is the same as mentioned the employees register, which is marked as Ex M-1, except in the case of CR No. 101/2007. In the case of CR No. 101/2007, as per the Ex M-1, the date of birth of workman is 01.07.1948. Also, the Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years to the workers of II Party, is applicable only to persons who are in employment as on 17.07.2008 only. Further, MW-1 has clearly admitted that, it is true to suggest that, as per Clause 18.3 of CDPR rules, the changes in the date of birth, as entered in the company record, can only effected on a judgment of a competent Court and except on a judgment of a Court, the date of birth once recorded, will not be changed at the request of the Officer/Employee under any circumstances. For that reason only, I Party has clearly stated that, the II Party has terminated the service of I Party pre-maturedly without any valid reasons. Further, the act of the II Party, certainly, is not proper and legal and as much as, no valid reasons have been furnished by the II Party for not producing the medical certificate issued to the I Party by the II Party and no valid reason has been furnished by the II Party as to what prevented the II Party in not following the principles of natural justice and also for not producing the material records, though they are very important records, to prove the aforesaid details mentioned in the counter statement filed on behalf of II Party. Further, on the careful perusal of material records mentioned in the Exhibits list, it is seen that, II Party has refused to provide work to the I Party without following the due process of law. Further, it is found that, there is discrimination and also violation of fundamental right caused to the I Party and it is not proper and also, not legal to give forceful retirement to I Party, by the II Party, without following the due process of law.
20. Further, it is seen that, the II Party has not terminated the service of the I Party as per the Principles of Preponderance of Probability. Further, no injustice can be caused by the II Party to the I Party and I Party cannot be victimized due to the actions of the II Party without any valid reasons. Further, it is relevant to mention that, the I Party/workman has been punished by II Party without adopting the procedure known under law. Further, the underlying aim and object of adjudication of an Industrial Dispute is, in effect, dispensation of social and economic justice and translating fundamental rights as well as directive principles into some tangible relief. The ultimate object is to see that industrial disputes are settled by industrial adjudication on principles of fair play and justice. Further, the awarding of reinstatement does not amount to automatic conferment of back wages as held in 2009 (4) LLJ 667 (SC)4928 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Malla C.N. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & others. Further, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of APSRTC Vs. B.S. David Pal, reported in 2006 (2) SCC 282, that the entitlement of back wages is not automatic on reinstatement. Awarding of back wages, depend upon other factors and circumstances. The I Party has pointed out in the claim statement that the I Party has been thrown out of employment and is facing hardship. In the affidavit also, the I Party has stated that with no financial income the I Party is facing great hardship. However, the claim of the workman that, the I Party is entitled for the full back wages, cannot be considered, having regard to fact that the I Party has not performed any work for II Party from 1998 to the date of superannuation, for the several years, and also, in order to balance the interest of both the parties, by adopting the balancing test or balancing process in the proper manner, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the facts and situation of the present case, 50% back wages and other consequential benefits only can be granted to the I Party. In the claim statement, the I Party has claimed interest, however the I Party has not enlightened the fact that the I Party is entitled to get interest also as prayed for in the claim statement by adducing relevant evidence and appropriate records. Hence, it is found that, the I Party is not entitled to get interest amount for the above mentioned factual reasons and also legal grounds.
21. Further, in the judgment reported in 2010-I-LLJ-861(SC), in C.A. No. 2874/2009, dated 28.04.2009, (Before Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu), in the case of Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra, it is held as follows:- "Back Wages – Entitlement for full back wages – Depends upon facts and circumstances of each case – Employee reinstated in service – Question of termination or reinstatement not in dispute – Employee only entitled to 50% back wages." Also, in the judgment reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 240, in C.A. No. 5425/2008, dated 02.09.2008, (Before Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Mr. Justice Aftab Alam), in the case of M.P. Electricity Board & Ors Vs. Maiku Prasad, it is held as follows:- "Industrial Dispute Act (14/1947), Sch. 2, Item 6 – Back wages – Curtailment – Respondents' service terminated for unauthorised absence – Termination set aside by Labour Court – Direction for reinstatement and payment of full back wages passed – Considering long period between termination and reinstatement for which respondent has not worked – Back wages reduced to 50%." Further, in the judgment reported in 2010-I-LLJ-861(SC), in C.A. No. 2874/2009, dated 28.04.2009, (Before Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu), in the case of Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra, it is held as follows:- "Back Wages – Not to be granted mechanically, upon termination of service being held illegal- Service of workman terminated in 1987 – Labour Court gave its award in 2002 holding termination illegal – In circumstances of case, 50% back wages held proper and payment thereof accordingly directed." In the present case also, it is found that, the I Party is entitled to get 50% of the amount, out of the total amount of the monetary benefits with continuity of service, and other consequential benefits that I Party would have received in the absence of the impugned punishment of refusal to provide employment, by the II Party.
22. Further, in the judgment reported in 2009-I-LLJ 1 [SC], between Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC Ltd., and another Vs. The M. Raviselvam, it is held as follows:- "Back wages-payment of back wages questioned- On reinstatement, full back wages is not to be paid automatically. It depends upon facts of each case. In the present case order for payment of back wages modified to the extent of 50% to be paid by the Management." And in the judgment reported in 1999-LLJ-I-pg 1260-1265 [SC], between Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-Cum- Processing Service Society, it is clearly held as follows:- "Delay in seeking relief by workman against Termination of Service-Article 137 of Schedule to Limitation Act not applicable to proceedings under I.D. Act – Workman entitled to 60% of back wages." Further, in the judgment reported in 1990 [61] FLR 768, between Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others, it is held as follows:- "A confirmed and permanent employee-Terminated without one month's notice or pay in lieu of and without holding enquiry and affording any opportunity-Termination was illegal-Principles of natural justice violated." In the present case also, the II Party has terminated the I Party without following the Principles of natural justice and without holding enquiry and also without offering opportunity to the I Party to put forth his/her defence. Further, in the judgment reported in 2010-I-LLJ 682 [Bom], between Santhosh Kumar, S/o Babulal Gupta Vs. Sub-Area Manager, Western Coal Fields Ltd., Maharastra and another, it is held as follows:- "Dismissal of workman from service – no enquiry held – termination order not served on workman – punishment held disproportionate – deprivation of 50% back wages with warning issued to workman held would be proper." Further, the II Party has stated in the counter statement that, the I Party, on medical examination, has found to be unfit to work. However, in the same counter statement II Party has stated that, I Party is happily working elsewhere since the date of termination and the I Party is working elsewhere also earning salary. In such circumstances, it is seen that, the submissions made by the II Party in the counter statement are self contradictory. On that ground also II Party is not justified in terminating the services of I Party without following the principles of natural justice, fairness and reasonableness. Further, on the totality of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, and also, after taking into consideration the evidences and exhibits mentioned herein below, in the proper perspective, the following award is passed, in the best interest of justice, equity and fair play.
II (ii) 4929(i) In C R No. 22/2007 Sh. Giddegowda Vs. MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/Sh. Giddegowda with effect from 09.09.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount, out of the total amount of back wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I Party from the date of termination, namely, 09.09.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 12.08.2010 to which the I Party would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party. In computing such benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party attains the age of retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances.
(ii) In C R No. 30/2007 K.N. Honnegowda Vs. MML
AWARD
The II Party is not justified in terminating the service of the Sh. K.N. Honnegowda – workman,(since deceased) w.e.f 29.04.1998 and II Party is directed to pay 50% of the amount, out of the total amount of back wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I Party/Workman to the LRs of the deceased workman, namely, the above mentioned LR's by paying 1/5th share each, from the said amounts payable to deceased workman from 29.04.1998 to 01.12.2005, and the award is passed accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances.
(iii) In C R No. 101/2007 Smt. B. Kempamma Vs. MML
AWARD
The II Party is not justified in terminating the service of the Smt. B. Kempamma – workman,(since deceased) w.e.f 04.02.1998 and II Party is directed to pay 50% of the amount, out of the total amount of back wages and other consequential monetary benefits, salary and allowances, and all benefits due and payable to the I Party/Workman, to the LRs of the deceased workman, namely, the above mentioned LR's by paying 1/4th share each, from the said amounts payable to deceased workman from 04.02.1998 to 01.07.2006, and the award is passed accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances.
(iv) In C R No. 38/2007 Sh. Thopegowda Vs. MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/ Sh. Thopegowda with effect from 28.06.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount, out of the total amount of back wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I Party from the date of termination, namely, 28.06.1998 till the I Party attains the age of superannuation i.e, 11.05.2011 to which the I Party would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party. In computing such benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party attains the age of superannuation and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 21st July, 2017)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
(i) In C R No. 22/2007 Sh. Giddegowda Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1 Smt. Giddegowda, I Party/ workman and also additional evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
| M W 1 | Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management |
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
| Exhibits | Date | Description of Document |
| Ex W-1 | - | Membership Application Form issued by II Party |
| Ex W-2 | 29.03.2001 | Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001 |
| Ex W-3 | 12.06.2002 | Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w 3459/2001 |
| Ex W-4 | 01.06.2006 | Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w 23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001 |
| Ex W-5 | 22.08.2008 | Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years |
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
| Exhibits | Date | Description of Document |
| Ex M-1 | - | Register of Employees |
(ii) In C R No. 30/2007 K.N. Honnegowda Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
| WW 1 | Sh. K.N. Honnegowda, I Party/workman |
| WW 2 | Sh. K.H. Venkatesh, S/o Late Nanjeshi Gowda |
| WW 3 | Smt. Padma, W/o Expired son of Workman |
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
| MW 1 | Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management |
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
| Exhibits | Date | Description of Document |
| Ex W-1 | 29.04.1998 | Termination Order issued by II Party |
| Ex W-2 | 29.03.2001 | Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001 |
| Ex W-3 | 12.06.2002 | Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w 3459/2001 |
| Ex W-4 | 01.06.2006 | Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w 23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001 |
| Ex W-5 | 22.08.2008 | Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years |
| Ex W-6 | 18.04.2017 | Genealogical tree. |
| Ex W-7 | 15.08.2016 | Death Certificate of workman |
| Ex W-8 | 06.08.2016 | Death Certificate of wife of workman |
| Ex W-9 | 17.08.2015 | Death Certificate of son of workman |
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
| Exhibits | Date | Description of Document |
| Ex M-1 | - | Register of Employees |
| Ex M-2 | - | Employees Service Record |
(iii) In C R No. 101/2007 Smt. B. Kempamma Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1 Sh. Manje Gowda, S/o Late Smt. B Kempamma and also additional evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1 Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager ,II Party/ Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
| Exhibits | Date | Description of Document |
| Ex W-1 | 29.03.2001 | Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001 |
| Ex W-2 | 12.06.2002 | Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w 3459/2001 |
| Ex W-3 | 01.06.2006 | Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w, 23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001 |
| Ex W-4 | 22.08.2008 | Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years |
| Ex W-5 | 26.09.2006 | Death Certificate of workman |
| Ex W-6 | Genealogical tree. |
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
| Exhibits | Date | Description of Document |
| Ex M-1 | - | Register of Employees |
(iv) In C R No. 38/2007 Sh. Thopegowda Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
| WW 1 | Sh. K N Nanjunde Gowda, I Party/ workman and also additional evidence |
| MW 1 | Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager ,II Party/ Management |
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
| Exhibits | Date | Description of Document |
| Ex W-1 | - | Membership Application Form issued by II Party |
| Ex W-2 | 29.03.2001 | Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001 |
| Ex W-3 | 12.06.2002 | Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w 3459/2001 |
| Ex W-4 | 01.06.2006 | Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w 23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001 |
| Ex W-5 | 22.08.2008 | Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years |
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
| Exhibits | Date | Description of Document |
| Ex M-1 | - | Register of Employees |
—
New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2017
S.O. 1850.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26.07.2017.
[No. L-29011/14/2014-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/74/14
The President, Bhartiya Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), Bacheli Branch, PO Bacheli, Distt. Dantewada Chhattisgarh
…Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager, NMDC Ltd., BIOM, Bacheli Complex, PO Bacheli, Distt. Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 23rd day of June, 2017
1. As per letter dated 6-6-14 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-29011/14/2014- IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Bacheli Complex, Distt. Dantewada(CG) in deducting one day wages plus other allowances of workers not taken to the duty spot by the management is justified or not? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party not appeared despite repeated notices. As such proceeded exparte on 5-12-2016.
3. 2nd party management filed exparte Written Statement. Case of 2nd party is that Ist party had issued notice for direct action dated 22-11-2012. After receiving said notice, management informed Labour Authorities, Direct Administration to maintain the law and order situation. Similar request was made to Supt. Of Police, Dantewada, SDM, Dantewada, SDOP Town Inspector of police station, Bacheli, Senior Commandant CISF for maintaining the law and other situation. Unions SKMS, MMWU & BMWU representatives and management held meeting on 19-11-12 with police and other authorities. It was agreed that members of the Union will not stop willing employees from work in the shifts. They would not create hurdle in the working. Meeting was attended by management representative D.V.RajuII (ii) 4933 AGM, Shri Rajesh Singh Sr.Manager. District Authorities had deployed sufficient police personnel. Transport facility was arranged by management for attending duty by the employees. That members of BKMS Union had mingled with other employees not availing transport facilities by the management. Members of the claimant Union did not report for duty on 22-11-2012. They were treated absent from duty. It is alleged that they were directly involved in strike and because of illegal strike, corporation suffered loss of Rs.7.89 crores. Wages of employees absent from work were deducted. Union raised present dispute. It is reiterated that employees members of the Union not availed transport facility. He did not report on duty. Their attendance cannot be allowed. Union has not filed statement of claim in the matter.
4. Management filed affidavit of witness Sailendra Soni supporting whole contentions in Written Statement filed by management.
5. Ist party ot participate in reference proceeding. Therefore considering unchallenged evidence of management's witness, action of management deducting one day wages is legal.
6. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Bacheli Complex, Distt. Dantewada(CG) in deducting one day wages plus other allowances of workers is legal.
(2) Workmen are not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer —
New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2017
S.O. 1851.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Manganese Ores (India) Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26.07.2017.
[No. L-27011/1/2006-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/13/2006
Secretary, Rashtriya Manganese Mazdoor Sangh Bansi Villa Compound, Katol Road, Nagpur
….Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager(P), MOIL, 3 Mount Extension, PO Box No.34, Nagpur
…Management4934 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed on this 23rd day of June 2017
1. As per letter dated 24-4-2006 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- 27011/1/2006-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Manganese Ores(I)Ltd in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service is justified? If not, to what relief Shri Parvez Khan is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim. Case of workman is that he was appointed as trainee Car and Lorry Driver by management for period of one year vide order dated 6-10-2011. His appointment was on condition if his work was found satisfactory, he would be appointed regularly. After his work was found satisfactory vide order dated 21-2-02, he was regularized on post of Driver in pay scale 3900-5150. That accident occurred due to negligent driving of the worker. He was suspended on 22-11-02. Chargesheet was issued to workman on 4-12-03. Because of negligent driving, dumper No.6 fell and got damaged. Workman submitted reply to chargesheet on 9-12-03 explaining the circumstances claiming that he was not negligent in performing his duties. The accident occurred due to mechanical fault. His explanation was not accepted. Shri Sengupta was appointed as Enquiry Officer, G.V.Vagnu Sr.Dy General Manager as Presenting Officer. Statement of 4 witnesses of management were recorded. Statement of 2 witnesses in defence were recorded. Workman reiterates that he was not given proper opportunity by Enquiry Officer. Principles of natural justice were not followed. Enquiry Officer submitted report holding him guilty of all charges. After issuing notice, punishment of dismissal was imposed against him. Workman reiterates that enquiry was not conducted following principles of natural justice. Procedure adopted by Enquiry Officer was illegal. Evidence of management's witnesses was not properly considered. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.
3. 2nd party management filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. It was reiterated that workman not filed statement of claim. Workman has filed statement of claim afterwards.; that management had received complaint against workman. Chargesheet was issued to workman on 4-12-03 about negligent driving of dumper No.6 causing damage. Enquiry was conducted on various dates following proper procedure. It is denied that enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Enquiry Officer submitted findings that charges alleged against workman are proved. Dumper fell down 20-25 meters due to negligent driving. Dumper suffered damage. Considering the proved charges, punishment of dismissal imposed on workman is legal.
4. As per order dated 1-3-17, enquiry conducted against workman is found proper and legal.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
| (i) Whether the charges alleged against workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry proceedings? | Partially proved |
| (ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is proper and legal? | In Negative |
| (iii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" | As per final order |
REASONS
6. The term of reference pertains to legality of punishment of dismissal imposed against workman. Enquiry is found legal. Charges alleged against workman required to be decided from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Exhibit M-9 report to police given by Incharge Manager shows that workman was driving dumper No.6 which fell down 20-25 ,meters down. After getting information about the accident, he had visited the place of incident, he accompanied by Anand Sethi operator. They had found the dumper lying 20-25 meters down. Exhibit M-1 is chargesheet issued to workman M-2 is reply given to the chargesheet by workman denying the charges. Explanation given by workman was that the accellator had stuck. In Enquiry Proceeding, witness Anil Gaikwad has stated that workman was driving dumper No.6 whole day on 13-11-2003. They completed 12 capes in the day. No complaint was received against the workman. Thereafter while dumper was taken for other trip, while taking dumper reverse as there was sand, there was raising of dumper. Workman jump from top of dumber. He suffered some injuries. Dumper suffered damage of Rs.17,57,998. During enquiry, workman was requesting insurance papers and documents about inspection of the vehicle, the same were not supplied. Those documents are not produced in the Enquiry proceedings. Statement ofII (ii) 4935 witness V.P.Chouhan is on the pint that on 13-11-03, night 10pm, he received message from Anil Gailwad about accident of dumper. When they visited site, the dumper was found in turtled position, its half body was lying upper. The dumber had suffered damage. Similar is the evidence of other witness. Workman Parvez Khan had explained that while taking dumper reverse, the engine was raised and he lost control of the dumper. Same is the evidence of management's witness Ramdas that workman suffered injury to his hands. At the time of incident, workman had jumped from top of the dumper. It is certainly that because of it workman did not suffered serious injuries. Management's witness No.4 Manoj Sarif Khan have similar evidence. In his cross-examination, management's witness Sharif Khan said he was working as Driver since past 12 years. While turning the vehicle some times the gear is stucked. Workman cannot be held totally negligent while driving vehicle. The incident occurred due to stucking of gear appears probable. Evidence of witnesses shows while driving dumper No.6 at the relevant time, there was barrier of sand of about 2 feet height. As height of the barrier was not adequately high, the dumper had fallen in the deep. Evidence shows while taking reverse back, engine had raised and gone beyond control. Workman not taken safety measure and to that extent, charge of negligence is established against workman. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 as partly proved.
7. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 negligence of workman while driving dumper No.6 is partly established. Workman jumped from top of dumper to save his life. Punishment of dismissal imposed against workman appears harsh and disproportionate. Considering the negligence on part of workman, he had not taken safety measures, punishment of dismissal imposed against workman requires to be modified.
8. Shri A.K. Shashi counsel for management relies on ratio held in case between-
Jaswant Singh versus Pepsu Roadways Transport Corp reported in 1984-SC-355. In above cited case, the driver of a passenger bus driving under intoxicating liquor while on duty endangering the safety of passengers.
The facts of present case are not comparable. Therefore ratio in above cited case cannot be applied to case at hand.
In case between Nand Kishore versus State of Bihar reported in AIR-1978-SC-1277. Their Lordship dealing with disciplinary proceeding held that domestic Tribunal must base its conclusion on some evidence and not mere suspicious.
In case between Ramakant Mishra versus State of UP reported in 1982-LAB.I.C.1790. their Lordship dealing with Section 11-A of ID Act held that Supreme Court can examine correctness of exercise. Dismissal of employee for use of indiscreet language disclosing threatening posture was upheld by their Lordship.
The facts of present case are not comparable. Workman was operating dumber for whole day making 12 trips. In night around 9.30 pm when trip of dumber was taken, the dumper No.6 fell down when engine was raised. Considering workman cannot be held fully responsible for accident, punishment of dismissal deserves to be modified withholding 3 increments with cumulative effect. Awarding backwages would not be appropriate as it may be a premium to prove misconduct of negligence. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2
9. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of Manganese Ores (I) Ltd. in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on workman Parvez Khan is proper and legal.
(2) Punishment of dismissal of workman is modified to withholding of 3 increments with cumulative effect.
(3) 2nd party is directed to reinstate workman without backwages.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer —
4936 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2017
S.O. 1852.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28.07.2017.
[No. L-29012/48/2002-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/18 of 2003
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/s. SESA GOA LIMITED
The Chairman & Managing Director M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd. Sesa Ghor, 20, EDC Complex Patto, Panaji, Goa 403 001
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
Shri Premanand Shiva Ghaddi Ghadiwada, Virdi P.O. Sanquelim Goa.
APPEARANCES :
FOR THE EMPLOYERS : Mr. P.J. Kamat, Advocate FOR THE UNION : Mr. Suhas Naik, Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 5th May, 2017
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-29012/48/2002-IR (M), dated 08.04.2003 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd., Goa in discharging Shri Premanad Shiva
Ghadi, Heavy "AAA" Driver from the services w.e.f. 18.04.2002 is legal & justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled for ?"
2. After receipt of the Reference, notices were issued to both the parties. Second party Workman filed his Statement of Claim vide Ex-7. First party resisted the Statement of claim of Workman by filing their Written Statement (Ex-10). My Ld. Predecessor framed issues at Ex-26. By Part-I Award dated 08.05.2006 my Ld. Predecessor held that the enquiry conducted by first party management was not proper and findings of Inquiry Officer perverse. Both parties lead their evidence. Thereafter matter was fixed for filing written arguments by both parties.
3. Meanwhile both parties i.e. First party management and Second party workman filed joint application praying to dispose of the Reference as per consent terms (Ex-84). As both parties have settled the matter amicably, the reference deserves to be disposed of. In the circumstances, I pass the following order:
ORDER
In view of the consent terms (Ex-84), Reference is disposed of.
Date: 05.05.2017
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer/JudgeII (ii) 4937
MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT UNDER SECTION 2 (P) READ WITH SECTION 18 (1) OF THE
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT 1947 BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. SESA GOA LTD. NOW
KNOWN AS VEDANTA LIMITED AND THEIR WORKMAN SHRI EKNATH M. GAONKAR
NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO THE SETTLEMENT
Representing:
Management Workman
M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd.
1. S. Venkataraman Shri Premanand Ghadi
Head HR
2. Mr. P.J. Kamat Mr. Suhas Naik
Adv for Company Adv for Workman
Short recital of the case.
A reference in respect of termination of services of Mr. Premanand Ghadi is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court at Mumbai under Reference No.CGIT-2/18 of 2003. During the pendency of the Reference, the workman has attained his retirement age in the year 2010 and approached the management to explore the possibility of the settlement of the dispute on monetary terms. After protracted discussion on the issues, the parties have arrived at the settlement on the following terms.
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
1. It is agreed between the parties that since the workman Mr. Premanand Ghadi has attained the age of retirement in the year 2010 the workman does not press for reinstatement in service and that the dispute of the workman is finally settled on monetary terms.
2. It is agreed between the parties that the workman Mr. Premanand Ghadi shall be paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000 (Five Lakhs only) being full and final settlement of all his claim arising out of his employment with Party-I and in full and final settlement of his dispute which includes salary, gratuity, bonus up to date balance leave salary, ex-gratia etc.
3. It is agreed and declared that the amount payable by the company to the workman in the manner herein above provided for is in full & final settlement and satisfaction of all the claims for compensation for loss of office or otherwise whatsoever.
4. It is agreed between the parties that this settlement shall be filed in reference No.CGIT-2/18 of 2003 praying for Consent Award in terms of this settlement.
5. It is agreed between the parties that the payment shall be made to the workman on the date of signing of the settlement on making an Award by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai in Reference no.CGIT-2/18 of 2003.
SIGNATORIES TO THE SETTLEMENT
Representing Employer
Representing Employees
Sd/- (S. Venkataraman) Head HR
Sd/- (Premanand Ghadi) Workman
Sd/- (P.J. Kamat) Advocate
Sd/- (Suhaas Naik) Advocate
WITNESSES
Sd/- (Francisco Fernandes)
Sd/- (Errica Chandy)
Date: 07.03.20174938 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] —
New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2017
S.O. 1853.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28.07.2017.
[No. L-17012/29/2015-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/57 of 2015
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
The Chief Manager Class III & IV Cell New India Assurance Company Ltd. New India Assurance Building 87, M.G. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
Shri M. Karthikeyan Plot No.62-D, 1st floor Nagappa Nagar Chrompet Chennai 600 044.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER : No appearance. FOR THE UNION : No appearance.
Mumbai, dated the 20th June, 2017.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-17012/29/2015-IR (M), dated 06.11.2015 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Regd. & Head Office
Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri M. Karthikeyan, Assistant vide order dated 01.10.2007 the date
from which the workman was placed under suspension is just and legal? If not what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to ?"
II (ii) 49392. After receipt of the Reference, notices were served on both the parties. Matter was adjourned on several occasions for filing Statement of Claim by second party/ Workman. Second party/Workman neither appeared before this Tribunal nor filed Statement of claim. Without Statement of claim, the Reference cannot be decided on merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. Hence, I pass the following order:
ORDER
Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
Date: 20.06.2017
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer —
New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2017
S.O. 1854.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/1995) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kota (Rajasthan) now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Associated Cement Company Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26.07.2017.
[No. L-29012/7/1995-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
अनुबंध
न्यायाधीश, औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण (केन्द्रीय) कोटा, (राज.)
पीठासीन अधिकारी- श्री केशव कौशिक, आर.एच.जे.एस.
निर्देश प्रकरण क्रमांक : औ. न्या. (केन्द्रीय)-14/1995
दिनांक स्थापित : 19/6/1995
प्रसंग ः भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली के आदेश क्रं. एल-29012/7/95-आईआर (विविध) दि. 9/6/1995 निर्देश/विवाद अन्तर्गत धारा 10(1)(घ) एवं उपधारा 2(क) औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम,1947
मध्य
हजारी लाल पुत्र नेनगलाल द्वारा संयुक्त महामंत्री, हिन्द मजदूर सभा, बंगाली कोलोनी, छावनी, कोटा
--प्रार्थी श्रमिक एवं
मैसर्स एसोसियेटेड सीमेन्ट कंपनी लिमिटेड, लाखेरी सीमेन्ट वक्र्स, लाखेरी
--अप्रार्थी नियोजक उपस्थित
प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से प्रतिनिधि ः कोई उपस्थित नहींं।
अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से प्रतिनिधि ः श्री कमलेश कुमार एवं श्री अनुराग अग्रवाल
अधिनिर्णय दिनांक : 1/6/2017
4940 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]ःःअधिनिर्णयःः
भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली के प्रासांगिक आदेश दिनांक 9/6/1995 के जरिये निम्न निर्देश विवाद, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (जिसे तदुपरान्त ''अधिनियम'' से सम्बोधित किया जावेगा) की धारा 10(1)घ) एवं उपधारा 2(क)केे अन्तर्गत इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ सम्प्रेशित किया गया हैः-
''क्या प्रबन्धन एसोसियेटेड सीमेन्ट कम्पनी लि., लाखेरी सीमेन्ट वक्र्स, लाखेरी द्वारा उनके कर्मकार श्री हजारीलाल पुत्र नेनगलाल, मशीन अटेण्डेन्ट की सेवाएं दिनांक 8/4/94 से पृथक करने की कार्यवाही उचित एवं न्यायसंगत है? यदि नहींं तो संबंधित कर्मकार किस अनुतोष का अधिकारी है?''
2. निर्देश/विवाद, न्यायाधिकरण में प्राप्त होने पर पंजीबद्ध उपरान्त पक्षकारों को सूचना/नोटिस जारी कर विधिवत अवगत करवाया गया।
3. प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट न्यायाधिकरण के समक्ष प्रस्तुत कर संक्षिप्तः यह व्यक्त किया गया है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक को अप्रार्थी संस्थान ऐसोसियेटेड सीमेन्ट कंपनी लि. लाखेरी सीमेन्ट वक्र्स जिला बूॅदी के प्रबन्धकवर्ग ने पत्र दि.3/3/1987 के द्वारा दि. 9/3/1987 से सेवा में नियोजित किया था तथा उसे पेकिंग प्लान्ट में दि.9/9/1987 को मजदूर के पद पर स्थायी कर दिया गया, तत्पश्चात पत्र दि.19/4/1990 के द्वारा ई-ग्रेड से डी-ग्रेड में मशीनरी अटेण्डेन्ट के पद पर पदोन्नत कर दिया गया वह यह पदोन्नति 1/1/1990 से मानी गयी। प्रार्थी के वर्ष 1991 में सीमेन्ट कर्मचारी यूनियन(एचएमएस) का सदस्य बन जाने से प्रबन्धकवर्ग ने नाराज होकर प्रार्थी श्रमिक को पत्रांक 3638 दि.16/6/1992, पत्र दि.16/10/1992, पत्रांक 8048 दि.13/10/92, पत्रांक 8322 दि. 20/10/1992 व पत्रांक 8590 दिनांक 27/10/92 के द्वारा झूॅठे आरोप-पत्र दिये। तत्पश्चात पत्रांक 8684 दि.29/10/1992 व उसके बाद पत्रांक 13152 दि.15/2/1993 देकर दि.31/10/92 को एच.के.शर्मा मैनेजर माईनिंग पर मारपीट का झूॅठा आरोप लगाया व आरोपों बाबत जॉच अधिकारी नियुक्त किया गया, किन्तु जॉच अधिकारी ने प्रार्थी को बचाव का कोई अवसर प्रदान नहींं करते हुए व जॉच में न्याय के नैसर्गिक सिद्धांतों की अवहेलना करते हुए अप्रार्थी का पक्ष लेकर जॉच सम्पन्न की। तत्पश्चात अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी को दोषी मानते हुए पत्रांक 175 दि.8/4/1994 के द्वारा सेवा से पृथक किये जाने का दण्ड दुर्भावनावश बदले की भावना से प्रेरित होकर दिया जो उचित नहींं है। अन्त में पिछले सम्पूर्ण वेतन, लाभों सहित सेवामें बहाल किये जाने का अनुतोष प्रदान किये जाने की प्रार्थना की गयी है।
4. अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से उक्त क्लेम का जवाब प्रस्तुत करते हुए प्रतिवाद स्वरूप यह कथन किया गया है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक आदतन अपनी ड्यूटी के प्रति लापरवाह, अनुपस्थित रहने, अपने उच्चाधिकारियों के साथ अक्सर झगड़ा व अभद्र व्यवहार करने का आदी रहा है जिस सम्बन्ध में उसे समय-समय पर आरोपित कर जॉच में बचाव का अवसर प्रदान करते हुए जॉच सम्पन्न की गयी है तथा जॉच में आरोप सिद्ध पाये जाने पर जो सेवामुक्ति का दण्ड दिया गया है वो पूर्णतया उचित है। अन्त में प्रार्थी श्रमिक का क्लेम निराधार तथ्यों का होने से सव्यय निरस्त किये जाने की प्रार्थना की गयी है।
5. आदेशिका दिनांक 21/2/2014 के अनुसार विस्तृत आदेश देते हुए यह प्रकरण दिनांक 11/8/2014 से लेकर आज तक ''घरेलु जॉच की उचितता व ऋजुता के बिन्दु'' की बहस हेतु नियत होता रहा है, किन्तु मामले में प्रार्थी पक्ष की ओर से दिनांक 8/6/2015 से लेकर निरन्तर आज तक लगभग दो वर्ष के लम्बे अन्तराल में किसी भी तारीख पेशी पर ना तो स्वयं प्रार्थी श्रमिक न्यायाधिकरण के समक्ष उपस्थित हुआ है एवं ना ही उसकी ओर से कोई अधिकृत प्रतिनिधि उपस्थित हुए हैं जिससे ऐसा प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक अथवा उसके प्रतिनिधि को मामले में कोई रूचि नहींं रही है। यहॉ यह उल्लेखित किया जाना भी समीचीन होगा कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक से सम्बन्धित निर्देश/रेफ्रेन्स, राजस्थान सरकार, श्रम विभाग से इस न्यायाधिकरण में दिनांक 19/6/1995 को अधिनिर्णयार्थ प्राप्त होने उपरान्त अब तक लगभग 22 वर्ष की दीर्घकालीन अवधि तक विभिन्न न्यायिक प्रक्रियाओं से गुजर चुका है, अतः ऐसे में अब न्यायाधिकरण अनिश्चितकाल तक इसी प्रयोजनार्थ मामले को और लम्बित रखने का कोई औचित्य नहींं समझता है और न्यायाधिकरण के समक्ष अब प्रार्थी पक्ष की उक्त प्रयोजनार्थ बहस के अधिकार को बन्द करने के अलावा कोई विकल्प शेष नहींं रहने से उसके उक्त प्रयोजनार्थ बहस के अधिकार को बन्द करता है।
6. माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय एवं माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा समय-समय पर यह दिशानिर्देश प्रदान किये जाते रहे हैं कि 10 वर्ष से अधिक लम्बे प्रकरणों का निस्तारण त्वरित गति से किये जाने के प्रयास किये जाने चाहिएं। अतः उक्त तथ्यों व परिस्थितियों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए अप्रार्थी पक्ष के उपस्थित प्रतिनिधिगण को सुना गया, पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया। अप्रार्थी पक्ष की ओर से प्रार्थी श्रमिक के विरूद्ध की गयी घरेलु जॉच से सम्बन्धित समस्त प्रलेख प्रस्तुत किये गये हैं जिनके अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक के विरूद्ध अधिरोपित आरोपों की बाबत की गयी घरेलु जॉच पूर्णरूपेण प्रार्थी को अपना बचाव पक्ष प्रस्तुत करते हुए न्याय के नैसर्गिक सिद्धांतों की पालना करते हुए ही सम्पन्न की गयी है तथा घरेलु जॉच को ऋजु एवं उचित माना जाता है।
7. अब जहॉ तक प्रार्थी श्रमिक को अधिरोपित आरोपों की बाबत अप्रार्थी नियोजक कंपनी द्वारा जो सेवा से पृथक का दण्ड दिया गया है, उसके सम्बन्ध में अभिलेख पर उपलब्ध सम्पूर्ण अभिलेख व जॉच पत्रावली के अवलोकनोपरान्त यही प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी के गम्भीर दुराचरण में लिप्त रहने के आधार पर ही प्रार्थी श्रमिक को सेवा पृथक का दण्ड दिये जाने का निर्णय लिया गया है जो इस न्यायाधिकरण की राय में किसी भी रूप में अत्यधिक नहींं कहा जा सकता तथा वह दण्ड उचित एवं न्यायसंगत ही पाया जाता है। अतः यह न्यायाधिकरण प्रार्थी श्रमिक को अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा आदेश/पत्र क्रमांक 175 दिनांक 8/4/1994 के द्वारा सेवा से पृथक किये जाने का दण्ड दिया जाना उचित एवं न्यायसंगत पाता है एवं सम्प्रेषित निर्देश/विवाद भी इसी अनुरूप उत्तरित होने योग्य है।
II (ii) 4941परिणामस्वरूप भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली द्वारा प्रासांगिक आदेश दिनांक 9/6/1995 के जरिये सम्प्रेषित निर्देश/रेफ्रेन्स विवाद को इसी अनुरूप उत्तरित किया जाता है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक हजारीलाल को अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा आदेश/पत्र क्रमांक 175 दिनांक 8/4/1994 के द्वारा सेवा से पृथक किये जाने दण्ड दिया जाना उचित एवं न्यायसंगत है, फलतः प्रार्थी श्रमिक किसी प्रकार का कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहींं है।
केशव कौशिक, न्यायाधीश —
I New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2017
S.O. 1855.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 89/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 25.05.2017.
[No. L-40012/53/2007-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 89/2011
Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Prem Singh R/o Village Mampur, Post: Lamhua (Budhapur) Sultanpur
…Workman
Versus
The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. S-19, Telephone Exchange, NOIDA (Uttar Pradesh)
…Management
AWARD
In the present case, matter was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court No.II, New Delhi vide letter No.L-40012/53/2007-IR(DU) dated 27.11.2007 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
'Whether the action of the management of the General Manager(Telecom) BSNL, NOIDA in terminating the services of their workman Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh with effect from 11.04.1995 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?'
2. Both parties were put to notice and the claimant, Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, filed statement of claim, wherein it is averred that he was employed as casual labour by the management after completion of formalities, as casual labour on 12.04.1994. Claimant has been working to the entire satisfaction of the management and was having an unblemished record of service to his credit. Claimant has completed 240 days as casual labour from 12.04.1994 to 10.04.1995 and was pursuing his case for temporary status and regularization of service in accordance with relevant rules and instructions. Claimant has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination as is clear from4942 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the chart given in para 2 of the statement of claim. Management has taken work from the claimant even on holidays and Sundays. This fact can be ascertained from the attendance register kept by the management.
3. It is the case of the claimant that he was discharged from service on 11.04.1995 without any rhyme or reason and without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Thereafter, the claimant submitted a demand letter upon the management when his verbal demand was not accepted on 08.02.1997 and prayed for reinstatement in service as well as other benefits, but of no use. The claimant was entitled to get temporary status and regularization in service as per rules. Even persons junior to the claimant have been given benefit of regularization but the claimant was deprived of the same and in his place, one Shri Pradeep Kumar was engaged as casual labour in the month of April 2002. Attendance of the claimant was being regularly recorded in the register meant for the same. Even termination of service of the claimant is totally illegal and unjustified and he has made a prayer for reinstatement in service with continuity of service and full back wages.
4. Management has demurred the claim of the claimant herein wherein certain preliminary objections have been taken. Reference is also made to OA No.2016 of 1995 before Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein almost similar averments were made and Hon'ble Principal Bench of CAT dismissed his application as not being maintainable. He again filed an OA No.2715 of 1997 before CAT representing that he has worked with the management from 12.04.1994 to 31.12.1994 and thereafter from 03.03.1995 to 10.04.1995 and completed 240 days. It was also claimed that he submitted a representation dated 08.02.1997 before Sub Divisional Officer, Phone II, RLU Exchange, Sector 39, NOIDA. Hon'ble Principal Bench of CAT, New Delhi on 15.09.1998 disposed his application in view of assurance from the management that his representation would be considered on merits and result thereof would be communicated to the claimant within a period of three months. In compliance to the orders of the Hon'ble CAT, letter dated 17.11.1998 was sent to the claimant at the address given in the order by registered post for submitted detailed particulars regarding his working period mentioned in his representation dated 08.02.1997; however, the same was received back undelivered with some illegible remarks of the post man.
5. Again the claimant filed an OA bearing No.1710 of 2002 before CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi representing the above. Hon'ble Principal Bench, CAT vide order dated 12.07.2002 disposed of his application with direction to consider the case for re-engagement in accordance with rules and instructions on the subject within three months.
6. On merits, management denied most of the averments contained in the statement of claim. It is denied that the claimant was employed by the management in the service of erstwhile DOT/DTS, now converted to BSNL, which came into existence on 01.10.2000. Claimant has not worked for 240 days in a calendar year. In fact, no industrial dispute ever existed between the parties as the management never terminated services of the claimant. In the remaining paras, management has denied the averments contained in the statement of defence and prayed for dismissal of the claim.
7. It is just clarified that no issues were specifically framed by my learned predecessor from the pleadings of the parties and this Tribunal is required to answer the reference made by the appropriate Government.
8. Vide order No.Z-22019/6/2007-IR (C II) dated 30.03.2010, the case was transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication.
9. Claimant, in order to prove his case against the management, examined himself as WW1 and tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1/A alongwith documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/3. Management has not examined any witness in support of the stand taken in their pleadings. Moreover, management was proceeded ex-parte by this Tribunal vide order dated 21.07.2016 as none had appeared on behalf of the management. Claimant has also filed written submissions in support of his case.
10. It is clear from the pleadings on record that initially the claimant filed OA No.2016 of 1995 before the Principal Bench of Hon'ble CAT against the management and the same was decided vide order dated 20.08.1996. It was held that since alternative remedy is open to the claimant, as such, petition filed before Hon'ble CAT was held to be premature and not maintainable. Accordingly, application before Hon'ble CAT was dismissed. There is also another copy of order dated 15.09.1998 of Hon'ble CAT on record and it is clear from this order that the claimant has approached the Hon'ble CAT with similar averments as made in the present case that he has completed 240 days before his termination. Claimant has further prayed that he was entitled for temporary status in December 1994 and has made representation to the management in this regard. Hon'ble CAT has given directions to the management to consider the case of the claimant within a period of three months.
11. It is further clear from affidavit of Shri Sukhvir Singh, Assistant General Manager, thougha not exhibited, as he has not entered into the witness box, that pursuant to the second order passed by Hon'ble CAT, claimant was given work from 03.03.1995 to 08.04.1995. He has further stated that in compliance of the order of CAT, letter was sent to the claimant on 17.11.1998 at his address by registered post for deciding his case on merits. However, the said letterII (ii) 4943 was received back undelivered. There were certain illegible comments of the postal department on the envelope. Hence, it was not possible to decide the representation on merits. It was thereafter that the claimant had filed OA 1710 of 2002 before Principal Bench of Hon'ble CAT, wherein directions was given to management to consider the case of the claimant for re-engagement in accordance with rules and instructions within three months. Attested copy of the order dated 12.07.2000 is also held on record (MW-7). It is further clear that Hon'ble Principal Bench of CAT on 25.10.2002 allowed four weeks time to decide the representation of the claimant. Thereafter, the claimant has made a representation on 12.11.2002 alongwith photocopy of duty chart. However, documents filed by the claimant could not be verified by the management with those available on record in the office. The claimant could not furnish any positive proof of his having worked for 240 days. Thereafter, claimant had filed OA No.1074 of 2003 again before the Principal Bench of Hon'ble CAT and it was dismissed by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 1st May 2003 (MW- 11). Finally, the claimant filed a civil writ petition No.6180 of 2003 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was also dismissed by observing that the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before he appropriate forum. It was thereafter, that the present reference was made by the appropriate Government.
12. It is clear from the matrix of the case that time and again the claimant has been approaching Hon'ble CAT for redresssal of his grievance and it has throughaout been his stand that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar prior to his termination. Claimant has also alleged that he has rather worked for 302 days after his engagement in April 1994, details of which are as under:
| Month | No. of Days |
| April 1994 | 19 |
| May 1994 | 31 |
| June 1994 | 30 |
| July 1994 | 31 |
| August 1994 | 31 |
| September 1994 | 30 |
| October 1994 | 31 |
| November 1994 | 30 |
| December 1994 | 30 |
| January 1995 | 00 |
| February 1995 | 00 |
| March 1995 | 29 |
| April 1995 | 10 |
| TOTAL | 302 |
13. There is also mention that his last drawn wages was Rs.55.00 per day. Claimant has also filed the scheme relating to casual labour, dealing with grant of temporary status to them. There is hardly any dispute regarding the said scheme. Stand of the management is also clear that on the basis of directions given by Hon'ble CAT, he was offered employment. Now, the only question which arises for determination is whether provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are applicable and service of the claimant has been terminated in violation of provisions of the Act. Learned A/R for the claimant has highly relied on HD Singh Vs. Reserve Banki of India (1985) 2 All India Services Law Journal 457 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court also under similar circumstances observed that striking of the name of the workman from the rolls of bank would amount to termination and such a dispute is securely covered by provisions of Section 2A of the Act. It also amounts to termination being in violation of mandatory provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Act. Law is fairly settled that in case a workman has completed 240 days prior to his termination, then management is required to serve one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. In the case on hand, as is clear from the evidence on record, management has not served any kind of notice upon the claimant before his termination. Claimant has given details of his attendance after his engagement, in the statement of claim as well as written arguments. In such a situation, it was incumbent upon the management to have entered into the witness box and adduced sufficient evidence so as to rebut the claim of the claimant regarding his having worked for 240 days in a calendar year. No doubt in Batala Co-4944 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] operative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Sowaran Singh (2005) 8 SCC Hon'ble Apex Court has held that initial onus to prove that the workman has worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination is always upon the workman who is required to lead sufficient evidence to prove the same. However, in the case of Director, Fisheries Terminal Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajbhai Chavda, AIR 2010 SCC 1236), wherein Batala Co-operative Sugar mills case (supra) was also discussed. Learned A/R for the claimant also relied upon the case in AIIMS Vs. Uddal [2014 (142) DRJ 569] and Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Milan (Manu/DE/399/2015), once the claimant has adduced evidence that he has worked for 240 days, the onus shifts upon the management to prove that the claimant has not completed 240 days in any calendar year. In the instant case since management was proceeded ex-parte and has not placed on record any document regarding the number of days worked by the claimant. In such a situation, this Tribunal is bound to draw adverse inference against the management. Management, in its reply, has admitted that the details of working days submitted by the claimant do not tally with official record of the management. But what is the official record has not been shown or filed by the management so as to prove that 240 days of work was not completed before his so-called termination.
14. In view of the evidence adduced by the claimant, it is held that the claimant was in the employment of the management and has worked for 240 days in a calendar year. Since in the present case, there is no compliance of provisions of section 25-F of the Act by the management, which requires the management to serve one months' notice before ordering his termination or one month's pay in lieu thereof. As such, action of the management is held to be illegal and not justified under the law.
15. Now the residual question is as to what relief the workman is entitled to. Affidavit of the claimant clearly speaks of the fact that the claimant is unemployed from the date of his termination and his termination has been held to be illegal and not justified, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the claimant is entitled to regularization with full back wages. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : May 19, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer —
New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2017
S.O. 1856.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26.07.2017.
[No. L-30011/45/2011-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM
Present : Shri Mrinmoy Kumar Bhattacharjee, M.A., LL.B.
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.
Ref. Case No.12 of 2012.
II (ii) 4945In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-
The Managing Director, M/s Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., Guwahati & The General Manager, N.R.L., Numaligarh, Golaghat
…O.P/Management
-Vrs-
Workmen represented by the General Secretary, Petroleum Refiners Union, Numaligarh Refinery, Golaghat
…Claimant/workmen
APPEARANCES :
For the Workmen : Mr. N. Sarma, General Secretary,
Petroleum Refinery Union, Numaligarh.
For the Management : Mr. K.Sharma, Manager, HR,
Ms. M. Kar, AM (L), NRL.
Date of Award : 19.07.2017
AWARD
1. This Industrial Dispute between management of NRL, Assam and the workmen represented by Petroleum Refiners Union, NRL arose out of the following three claims of the Union.
Firstly, that the Special Allowance paid to certain category of the workmen were not taken into account for calculating the Over Time Allowance of such employee; Secondly, the management arbitrarily stopped paying Protective Clothing Allowance (Uniform Allowance) to the workmen from the year 2007 onwards; and thirdly, according to the Union the workmen are entitled to Special Computer Allowance (ERP Allowance) as being paid to the workmen of nearby Refineries. Since the aforesaid disputes, raised by Petroleum Refiners Union, Numaligarh, could not be settled througha conciliation, the matter was informed to the appropriate Government and such Government referred the matter to this Tribunal with the following reference.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Petroleum Refiners Union Numaligarh, Numaligarh, Golaghat for
Spl. Allowance while calculating Over Time, payment of ERP Allowance (Spl. Computer Allowance) and
Uniform Allowance ( for the year 2007-08, 2008-09), is legal and justified? What relief the workmen are
entitled to?"
2. On receipt of notice, the Union as well as the management appeared and submitted their respective written statements. Supplementary written statements were also submitted by the parties.
3. The Union stated that the management's decision to omit Special Allowance for the purpose of computing Over Time wages for a particular category of employee was arbitrary and illegal. It was also mentioned that the settlement between the recognized Union and the management dated 11.10.2010 does not stipulate that Special Allowance would not be considered for computing the Over Time wages. It was further mentioned that the aforesaid act of the management is in contravention of the relevant provision of the Factories Act, 1948.
4. In respect of ERP Allowance (Special Computer Allowance) it is claimed that such allowance is being paid to the workmen of the nearby Refineries situated in Assam. According to the Union it is an established principle that while fixing the wages of workmen in a particular establishment, the prevailing wages paid to the workmen in similar industries of the Region are followed. But the management has not done that in spite of repeated reminders and demands of the Union.
5. It is further stated that earlier the workmen employed in NRL were paid Uniform Allowance (Protective Clothing Allowance) and the quantum of such Allowance was enhanced in the year 2006. But the management stopped to pay the aforesaid Allowance to the workmen on the ground that with the introduction of the New Pension Scheme of the workmen the enhanced amount of Protective Allowance was diverted to the Pension Fund. The Union reiterated that such decision of the management was arbitrary.
6. The Union repeatedly raised the aforesaid three demands along with other demands for settlement but the management did not pay any heed and ultimately the Union was compelled to approach the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) vide letter dated 28.10.2010 with a request to intervene and sort out the issues. At the request of the Union, a conciliation proceeding was initiated and discussion between the present Union and the management took place on 13.1.2011, 16.02.2011, 23.02.2011, 18.03.2011 and 20.05.2011. The last conciliation meeting took place4946 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] on 07.07.2011 in which the management did not agree to sit with the Union on the ground that the Union is not a recognized Union and the management had already arrived at a settlement after settling the issues and all other issues with the recognized Union which is a majority union. After the failure of the conciliation, a failure report was sent to the appropriate Government and the appropriate Government referred the same before this Tribunal for adjudication with the terms of reference indicated above.
7. The management also submitted their written statement and raised the issue of maintainability of the order of reference primarily on the ground that all the three issues raised by the Union were settled by the conciliatory settlement dated 11.10.2010 which is still in force and was binding till 31.12.2016. It was stated by the management that while the conciliatory settlement was still in force, no dispute on the terms of the said reference can be referred by the Government at the instance of the minority and unrecognized Union. It was also stated that the workmen who are members of the unrecognized Union have already accepted the benefits of the Tripartite Settlement dated 11.10.2010 and as such they are estopped from raising any dispute on the terms of the settlement dated 11.10.2010. It was also stated by the management that after 19 rounds of negotiation a comprehensive settlement was arrived at between the management and their workmen represented by the recognized Union on 11.10.2010 througha conciliation in presence of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and the aforesaid settlement was a full and final settlement between the management and the workmen represented by the recognized Union and the said settlement would remain effective till 31.12.2016. It was also stated that since the settlement was a conciliatory settlement the same is binding on all existing workmen as well as future workmen as per provision of Industrial Dispute Act.
8. The management further elaborated that as per the said conciliatory settlement dated 11.10.2010 it was agreed in clause 10.00 that Special Allowance will be applicable only for those workmen who work 48 hours in a six working day week and as per Clause 22.0 of the settlement it was agreed between the parties that House Rent Allowance will not form part of Over Time formula with effect from 26.11.2008 and Over Time formula shall be notified separately by an Administrative order. Pursuant to the aforesaid Clauses of the Settlement, the management vide an Administrative Circular dated 06.01.2011 notified the formula for Over Time computation and it was made clear that House Rent Allowance and Special Allowance will not form part of computation of Over Time wages with effect from 26.11.2008. The management also mentioned in their statement that ERP Allowance was not a part of the wage revision settlement dated 11.10.2010 and such allowance was never paid to the workmen in NRL. In this context it was also mentioned that the management started the operation of the factory with inbuilt infrastructure for computerized environment and its recruitment had also been done accordingly and therefore ERP allowance is not included in the set of allowances available to the workmen.
9. Coming to the dispute of payment of Uniform Allowance the management stated that in line with other Oil Companies, NRL had started the Contributory Pension Scheme througha Trust for the benefit of it's employees w.e.f 01.01.2004 covering the employees as on 01.01.2004. According to the Scheme the employees are to contribute a portion from their salary and the management also would add to the aforesaid fund and some fund would be added to the pension fund from the amount which will be realized on surrender of some of the Allowances by the workmen. It was stated that accordingly the Uniform Allowance which was due to the workmen was diverted to the Pension fund of the workmen. It was also mentioned that to make the corpus of the Pension fund a substantial one, the Uniform Allowance was enhanced and the amount due thereof was contributed to the Pension Fund. It was also stated that the reason for frequent increase of Uniform Allowance by the Company was to provide sufficient funds in the accounts of the individual members so as to provide financial securities to its employees in their post retirement life. But since a good number of employees did not join the Pension Scheme, to avoid discrimination between the members and the non-members of the Pension Fund, NRL released Uniform Allowance at par to both members and non-members of the Fund. The Uniform Allowance of the members are deposited in LIC to their new Pension Account and the Uniform Allowance of the non-members were released to their bank accounts througha salary. It was also mentioned that as per memorandum of settlement dated 11.10.2010 additional contribution from the Company in the Pension Scheme in terms of Protective Clothing Allowance would be discontinued and allowance against actual Protective Clothing will be finalized after introduction of New Pension Scheme. It was also mentioned that as Protective Clothing are supplied by the Company, there was no question of payment of separate Protective Clothing allowance to the employees.
10. After submission of the Written Statement by the management the Union submitted another rejoinder and stated that the settlement about which the management was referring to in its written statement was, in fact, not a settlement arrived at during the course of conciliation and no conciliation Officer was appointed during the formulation of the aforesaid agreement and as such, within the meaning of Industrial Dispute Act this settlement cannot be called a real settlement and can remain binding only to the parties of the agreement and since the present Union and its members were not party to the agreement, it would not be binding on them. It was specifically mentioned that the Union demanded incorporation of Special Allowance in computation of overtime wages for those workmen who work six days in a week and such demand was not in respect of those workmen who work 5 days in a week. It was also mentioned that the free supply of boiler suit cannot be a ground for discontinuation of Protective Clothing Allowances.
II (ii) 494711. After the submission of the rejoinder by the Union the management submitted an additional written statement wherein it was stated that as per the guideline formulated by the Government for the Central Public Sector Undertakings the wage revision and service conditions are always to be settled with the majority Union and it was an admitted fact that the Union with which the management came to an agreement/settlement was the majority Union. It was also stated that the settlement dated 11.10.2010, which the Union is not ready to accept as a conciliatory Settlement, was arrived at direct intervention and active participation and concurrence of the Conciliation Officer and as such the same is binding on all the employees of the Refinery.
12. The workmen side as well as the management side examined three witnesses each who were duly cross- examined by the respective rival parties.
13. I have also heard argument from both the sides. No lawyer was engaged in this case and the parties themselves argued their respective cases.
14. The dispute which was referred to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government was in respect of calculation of Overtime wages, payment of ERP Allowance and Uniform Allowance.
15. Three witnesses examined on behalf of the workmen side were members of the Petroleum Refiners Union, NRL and it is worth mentioning that none of the office bearers namely President or General Secretary of the Petroleum Refiners Union, NRL gave evidence in this case.
16. W.W.1 in his examination-in-chief, along with other facts, stated that the ERP Allowance (Computer Allowance) has never been paid to the workmen in NRL thougha the workmen of the similar Industry situated in the neighborhood have been getting such allowance. Exhibit-A(2) and A(3) are the copies of documents which were exhibited by the witness to show that Oil Refineries situated in Guwahati and Bongaigaon pay ERP Allowance to their workmen. He also stated that in the advertisement for recruitment of workmen it was mentioned that the allowance etc. of the employees will be in line with the allowance paid to the workmen of the similar industry in this region. During cross-examination the witness admitted that the President and Secretary of the Union namely Petroleum Refiners Union, NRL which raised the dispute, did not depose in this case. He also admitted that no document has been submitted to show that during negotiation of the wages, the ERP allowance was part of the discussion. He also admitted that the Union of which he is a member, which is admittedly a minority union in the industry, did not attend the proceeding of the settlement and the workers in that proceeding were represented by the majority Union. The conciliatory settlement dated 11.10.2010 was exhibited as Exhibit-4. He also admitted that the majority Union was silent in respect of the demand for ERP allowance. During cross-examination he also admitted that the demand for ERP allowance raised by his Union was solely based on the fact that the employees of the Refineries situated in the North Eastern Region are getting the said allowance.
17. W.W.2, Sri Gautam Das a member of the Petroleum Refiners Union, NRL stated about the non inclusion of Special Allowance in calculating the Overtime wage of the workmen. He also stated that the management unilaterally and arbitrarily removed the component of Special Allowance in calculation of over-time wages. He also mentioned that in the memorandum of Settlement there is no mention about removal of Special Allowance from the calculation of overtime wages and the management issued Notification regarding the same in the month of January, 2011. He further stated that because of the removal of the Special Allowance component from the overtime wage, the employees having six working days in a week incurred substantial monetary loss. During cross-examination he admitted that the Union which was a signatory in the Memorandum of Settlement is the majority Union in the Industry and the management discuss the Policy matter as well as the other matters with the majority Union. During cross-examination he also admitted that in Clause-22 of the Memorandum of Settlement (Exhibit-4) there is no mention of Special Allowance and instead it is mentioned that the Overtime formula shall be notified by an Administrative order. He also admitted that Exhibit-6 was the administrative order notifying the Overtime formula and it was not within his knowledge whether the management and the Union discussed the matter before issuance of the Administrative Order in regard to overtime formula (Exhibit-6). He also added that in the advertisement for recruitment of employees it was mentioned by the management that pay scale, perks and benefits etc. would be similar to that of workmen engaged in similar Industries within the Region but there is no mention of the word "same". He also admitted that both Gauhati Refinery and Bongaigaon Refinery are under IOCL and NRL is a Miniratna Company and Bharat Petroleum is holding the majority share of NRL. To a question asked by the management during cross-examination, he stated that he was not admitting the signature of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dibrugarh because official seal was not put there but at the same time the witness did not dispute the Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.10.2010 (Exhibit-4). He also stated that the claim raised in their claim statement in regard to inclusion of Special Allowance component in calculation of overtime is only for those employees who are working 6 days in a week.
18. W.W.3 Sri Monoj Kumar Dutta, a member of the Petroleum Refiners' Union, NRL stated that management stopped paying Protective Clothing Allowance to the workmen from the financial year 2008-09 without any reason. He however stated in his examination-in-chief that a clause was included in the MOS (Exhibit-4) which stated that " With4948 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] introduction of new pension scheme, additional contribution from the company in the pension scheme in terms of Protective Clothing Allowance would be discontinued, hence allowance against actual protective clothing will be finalized after introduction of new DC Pension Scheme". He further stated that the new DC Pension Scheme has been introduced and the annual account statements of the individual beneficiary employees have been issued to them. He also stated that in this regard an e-mail was sent to all NRL employees by the then DGM (Finance) on 9.2.2012 which read as under:- "Contribution to the New Pension Scheme has started and arrear contribution w.e.f. 01.01.2007 has been paid. Monthly contribution to the Fund has also started" . He further stated that the aforesaid e- mail specifically show that the New Pension Scheme had been introduced and as per Clause 13.10 of the MOS (Exhibit-4) it was the duty of the management to finalize the amount pertaining to actual Protective Clothing Allowance thereafter. But the management did not do so. During cross-examination, W.W No.3 stated that President and Secretary of their Union namely Petroleum Refiners' Union of Numaligar Refinery Ltd. are Mr. Sanjib Choudhury and Mr. Debraj Talukdar respectively. He also admitted that in para 13.10 of Exhibit-4 it has been specifically mentioned that with the introduction of New Pension Scheme additional contribution from the Company in the Pension Scheme in terms of Protective Clothing Allowance would be discontinued and actual Protective Clothing Allowance will be finalized after introduction of New Pension Scheme. He however denied the suggestion of the management that since the management supply the personal protective clothing/equipments, the employees are not entitled to get any allowance in this respect.
19. Management witness No.1 Mr. Kajal Saikia, Chief Manager (Employee Relation), NRL since 1996 deposed that Pay and Allowance of the workmen category of employees are finalized througha settlement and the last settlement was signed with the majority Union on 11.10.2010 (Exhibit-4). He also stated that the settlement became operational with effect from 01.01.2007. He further stated that the process of settlement started on the basis of charter of demand submitted by the majority Union on 02.06.2007 vide Exhibit-A. He further stated that althougha the general validity period of such settlement is 10 years, in case of Exhibit-4 the validity period was conditional, that is, subject to revision of the Pay of the Officers of the NRL or 31.12.2016 whichever is earlier. He also stated that the aforesaid settlement Exhibit-4 was signed by the representatives of the management and the majority Union in presence of the Conciliation Officer named S.C.Saikia, Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dibrugarh and he himself was one of the signatories of the Settlement. He exhibited his signature and the signature of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dibrugarh on Ext 4.
20. He further stated that Protective Clothing Allowance which was earlier paid to all the employees and the Officers of the NRL was discontinued on introduction of new Defined Contributory Pension Scheme and the Company decided to transfer the protective clothing/uniform allowance to the Pension subscription after enhancing the same. During cross-examination the witness stated that workmen working 6 days in a week are entitled to overtime wages and NRL is paying overtime wages as per Provision of the Factories Act. He exhibited a salary slip of one workman Sri Debraj Talukdar as Exhibit-21 and stated that in this salary slip there is mention of overtime including basic, D.A. etc. He also denied that in the aforesaid salary slip (Exhibit-21) for the month of April, 2006, Basic + D.A + Special Allowance was considered as component for computing Overtime Allowance. He admitted that earlier Special allowance was taken into account in calculating the over time wage but later the Special Allowance was dropped in calculating the overtime. It appears from his cross-examination that the stand of the management was that Special Allowance cannot be considered as a part of "ordinary rate of wages" as because this allowance is not paid universally, necessarily and ordinarily to all the workmen of the company but is paid to those workmen who work 6 days in a week as an incentive.
21. Management witness No.2, Manager HR in NRL, deposed that the system of computerization has been introduced in NRL since its inception and ERP allowance has never been paid to the workmen in NRL. Management witness No.3 who is a Manager, IR/PR, NRL since the year 2000, stated that he is familiar with the process and advertisement of recruitment to the post of workmen in NRL since 1997/98 as he himself was a job seeker. He further stated that in the said advertisement there was mention about parks, pay-scales and other benefits of the employees being similar to the Industries in the region but similar does not mean, according to him, same. He also stated that existing pay-scales etc. in all the Refineries are also not the same. He further stated that on 11.10.2010 a Memorandum of Settlement was signed between the management and the recognized Union where in Clause 13.10 it was mentioned that with introduction of New Pension Scheme, matters relating to allowance against the actual Protective Clothing will be decided.
22. I have heard argument from both the sides. Neither party engaged any lawyer and argument was advanced by the parties themselves.
23. Let me now, in brief, summarize the argument made by the parties in this case. Workmen side precisely raised all the three issues which formed part of the reference in this matter. It is submitted that the employees who work for 48 hours in a week i.e. 6 days in a week get a Special Allowance of 10% of their Basic and all along this Special Allowance has been taken in to account for the purpose of calculating the overtime of those employees. However, afterII (ii) 4949 the "so called" Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.10.2010 this Allowance was dropped in calculation of overtime for those employees arbitrarily and in violation of the provision of section 59(2) of the Factories Act, 1948.
24. Coming to the point Protective Clothing Allowance it was stated that the management arbitrarily stopped cash payment of Protective Clothing Allowance and in Clause 13.10 of the MOS (Ext-4) it was illegally mentioned that with the introduction of New Pension Scheme, additional contribution from the Company for the Pension Scheme in terms of Protective Clothing Allowance would be discontinued and Allowance against actual Protective Clothing will be finalized after introduction of New Pension Scheme. It was also stated that in the year 2012 the New Pension Scheme was fully introduced but the management had not yet released any actual Protective Clothing Allowance.
25. In regard to ERP Allowance (Special Computer Allowance) the argument of the workmen was that such Allowance is paid to the employees in similar Industries in the Region and as per the advertisement made by the management of the NRL, the pay and other benefits would be similar to what is paid to the workmen in the similar Industry in the Region. On the aforesaid ground the workman also demanded ERP Allowance.
26. The workmen side also argued that the MOS ( Exhibit-4) was purely a Bipartite Settlement between the management and the majority Union and this cannot be called a conciliatory Settlement. It is further argued that as the said Settlement was not a conciliatory Settlement the same cannot be made binding on the workmen/ employees of the Industry.
27. Management side, on the other hand, refuted the aforesaid claim of the workmen. Their main contention was that the Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.10.2010 (Exhibit-4) was a conciliatory Settlement in as much as the entire discussion was held in presence and active participation of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dibrugarh. There were several rounds of discussion and ultimately, to the satisfaction of all concerned, the MOS was signed and as such, all the workmen in the Industry are supposed to abide by the agreement. In respect of calculation of Special Allowance for the purpose of computing overtime it was stated that new overtime formula was notified througha an Administrative order as per the terms and conditions of Clause-22 of the MOS. It was also stated that as per the new Overtime formula the Special Allowance was not taken in to account. Since the Notification regarding Overtime formula was issued by the management as per the Settlement i.e. MOS, no workmen can make any demand for taking into account the Special Allowance for the purpose of calculation of the overtime.
28. In regard to the Protective Clothing Allowance (Uniform Allowance) it was stated that the aforesaid allowance was first discontinued with the incorporation of Defined Contributory Pension Scheme. It was also submitted that the money which was earlier paid as the allowance was diverted to the New defined contributory pension scheme. It was also stated that since all the Protective Clothing were supplied by the management there was no question of paying any Protective Clothing Allowance. It was however an admitted fact that in the MOS (Exhibit-4) it was mentioned in Clause-13.10 that with the introduction of New Pension Scheme additional contribution from the Company in the Pension Scheme in terms of Protective Clothing Allowance can be discontinued and allowance against actual Protective Clothing will be finalized after introduction of New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme. It is however, admitted that the Allowance against actual Protective Clothing is yet to be finalized by the management after discussion with the workmen Union.
29. In regard to ERP Allowance (Computer Allowance) management argued that such allowance has never been paid to the employees of the NRL primarily because NRL is fully computerized unit right from inception. The management side argued that the management never advertised that they would give "same" allowance to their workmen as is given in similar industry in the region. The word "similar" and "same" are two different words and hence, the claim of the workmen in regard to the aforesaid point needs to be rejected. In the concluding part of the argument it is stated that since the MOS (Exhibit-4) was a conciliatory Settlement, all the workmen /employees in the Industry irrespective of membership to one Union or other, are bound by the Settlement and no new demand can be raised by any workman.
30. Let me now consider the evidence with reference to the submissions made by the parties. An important question is whether the MOS (Exhibit-4), which is an admitted piece of document, is a conciliatory Settlement or not. During the evidence, the management witnesses stated that the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dibrugarh was all along present during several rounds of discussion which ultimately culminated into a settlement. It was also shown that the aforesaid officer also put his signature on the MOS (Ext-4). The workmen side argued that in absence of the office seal of the officer under his signature, the signature looses validity. On perusal of the evidence on record as well as MOS (Exhibit-4) it appears to me that thougha the agreement was between the management and the majority Union, the discussions were held in presence and active participation of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dibrugarh and as a mark of his presence and participation in the process of discussion he has put his signature thereon. Mere fact that his office seal was not put beneath his signature cannot make his signature invalid. There is also nothing on record to show that the discussions were held in absence of the ALC and that he was not present during the signing of the Agreement. On the contrary, his presence all througha was sufficiently proved by his signature on the Agreement vide Exhibit-4(2).
4950 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]The simple fact that Office seal was not put cannot, in any case, make his signature meaningless. It is therefore, held that the Agreement i.e. MOS (Exhibit-4) was a Conciliatory Settlement and as such, it is binding upon all the employees of the concerned Industry i.e. NRL irrespective of the fact whether certain Union was signatory to the agreement or not. Apparently, in view of the above, the MOS (Ext-4) is equally binding upon all the workmen of the NRL.
31. However, if it is found that any part or clause or decision of the conciliatory agreement/ settlement is contrary to relevant provisions of any law enacted by legislature, such clause or decision can never be held to be justified on the sole strength that the settlement was conciliatory. Section 59(1) of the Factories Act, 1948 has provided that an employee working for more than 48 hours in a week will get, in respect of overtime work, wages at the rate of twice his "ordinary rate of wages". In Section 59 (2) of the Factories Act, 1948 the following has been provided:- "For the purpose of sub-section (1), "ordinary rate of wages" means the basic wages plus such allowances, including the cash equivalent of the advantage accruing througha the concessional sale to workers of foodgrains and other articles, as the worker is for the time being entitled to, but does not include a bonus and wages for overtime work."
32. The aforesaid provision is crystal clear that all the pay and allowances paid to the employees, except the bonus and overtime allowance, shall form part of "ordinary rate of wages" for the purpose of calculation of overtime. Any agreement or any order contrary to the above cannot be made binding upon the workmen. It is therefore, held that the "Special allowance" which is paid to a certain category of workmen in NRL shall be taken into account in calculating their overtime wages.
33. The question of protective clothing allowance has been dealt with in the MOS (Ext-4) and the decision therein shall be binding upon all the workmen of the organization in as much as the MOS is a conciliatory settlement. As per Clause 13.10 of the MOS (Exhibit-4), with the introduction of new Pension Scheme, additional contribution from the Company in the Pension Scheme in terms of Protective Clothing Allowance should be discontinued but the allowance against the actual protective clothing will be finalized after introduction of the New Pension Scheme. It was, therefore, settled that after introduction of the new contributory pension scheme allowance against actual protective clothing will be finalized. But, it appeared that thougha the new pension scheme was introduced, no decision was arrived at regarding allowance against actual protective clothing after discussion with the representatives of the workmen. It is, therefore, directed that the management of the NRL shall within six months from the date of the receipt of this "award", finalize the allowance against actual protective clothing. This shall be done in view of the decision arrived in clause 13.10 of the MOS (Ext-4).
34. Coming to the point of ERP allowance (computer allowance), the only argument of the Union was that in the advertisement for recruitment, the NRL mentioned that the pay, allowances and perks would be similar to what was prevalent in the similar industry in the region. It is an admitted fact that the advertisement was in that line and that other oil refineries pay computer allowance to their employees. Argument of the NRL was that the computer allowance has never been paid to their employees because from the inception itself there was almost total computerization in the organization. It was also argued that the terms "same" and "similar" are not identical. On consideration of the above it appeared to me that the advertisement was in the nature of a guideline and all allowances of two different organizations may not be same. The pay, allowances and perks of the workmen of the aforementioned organizations are not expected to be same and that is why there are different settlements between different organizations and their respective workmen. It is, therefore, held that the demand for ERP allowance is not justified since it did not form part of the MOS.
35. In view of the above discussion, the reference stands answered as mentioned hereunder. In regard to payment of overtime, the management shall take into account the special allowance (which is paid to a certain category of employee), along with pay and other allowances excluding house rent allowances and bonus and overtime wage, for the purpose of calculation of overtime to such employees who are paid special allowance. In regard to protective clothing allowance, the management shall within six months from the date of the receipt of this "award" finalize the allowance against actual protective clothing. In regard to ERP allowance (computer allowance) the stand of the Union did not appear to be justified. The reference is answered accordingly.
Send the "award" to the Ministry as per procedure.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 19th day of July, 2017 at Guwahati.
MRINMOY KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE, Presiding Officer —
II (ii) 4951New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2017
S.O. 1857.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Dey's Engineering and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03.08.2017.
[No. L-30011/2/2016-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No.62/2015
Registered on 25.02.2016
The President, Jai Sharam Shakti Refinery Thekedar Workers Union, 136/4, Bishan Sawaroop Colony, Near Labour Office, Panipat, Haryana
…Applicant
Versus
1. M/s Dey's Engineering, House No.292, Virat Nagar,
Panipat, Haryana-132103 …Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman - Ex parte For the Management - Sh. Rakesh Kumar (Accountant)
AWARD
Passed on : 22.06.2017
Vide Order No.L-30011/2/2016-IR(M), dated 15.02.2016/17.02.2016, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
"Whether the action of the management of Dey's Engineering, Panipat in termination the services of the workmen Sh. Surrender s/o Balbir Singh, w.e.f. 26.01.2015 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"
On receipt of the reference, notice was given to the workman who did not appear and was proceeded ex parte.
Since the workman was proceeded against ex parte, statement of claim has not come on the file.
In the absence of statement of claim or any evidence thereon, it cannot be said that the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 26.01.2015 are illegal and unjustified and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the reference is answered accordingly.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer4952 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] —
New Delhi, the 3rd August, 2017
S.O. 1858.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ajmer now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Udaipur Mineral Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03.08.2017.
[No. L-29011/48/2012-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
अनुबंध
श्रम न्यायालय एवं औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, अजमेर
पीठासीन अधिकारी-श्री एस.एन.टेलर, आर.एच.जे.एस.
प्रकरण संख्या- सीआईटीआर 02/13
(सीआईएस नं. सीआईटीआर 07/2014)
रेफरेंस संख्या एल-29011/48/2012-आई आर (एम) दिनांक 24.2.13
महामंत्री भीलवाडा खनिज धातु मजदूर संघ कार्यालय 11/97 भोपाल गंज भीलवाडा राज.
--प्रार्थी बनाम
महाप्रबंधक उदयपुर मिनरल डवलपमेंट सिंडीकेट प्रा0 लिमिटेड रेल्वे फाटक के सामने, चित्तौड रोड, भीलवाडा
--अप्रार्थी उपस्थिति
प्रार्थी की ओर से ः श्री राजेश खन्ना, अधिवक्ता ।
अप्रार्थी की ओर से ः श्री एम सी जैन, अधिवक्ता ।
अवार्ड
दिनांक 21.6.2017
1. श्रम विभाग, केंद्र सरकार की ओर से अपर सचिव की अधिसूचना एल.-29011/48/2012-आई आर(एम) दिनांक 24.2.13 द्वारा इस औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ निम्न विवाद निर्देशित किया गया हैः- 2. ''क्या प्रबंधन उदयपुर मिनरल सिंडीकेट प्राईवेट लिमिटेड भीलवाडा के द्वारा खनिज धातु मजदूर संघ की मांग सं.1,2,3,15,16 को नहीं मानना न्यायोचित तथा न्यायसंगत है? यदि नहींं तो यूनियन/कर्मकार किस अनुतोष के अधिकारी है ?''
3. उभयपक्षों की ओर से स्वीकृत तौर पर मांग पत्र प्रदर्श डब.10 अनुसार उक्त रेफरेंस में वर्णित उक्त मांग सं. 1,2,3,15 व 16 निम्न प्रकार से हैः-
1. प्रबधकों द्वारा सावल ऑपरेटरों को समान कार्य का समान वेतन नहीं दिया जा रहा है जैसे गोपाल गुर्जर को अपने 4500 वाला वेतन दिया जबकि पूर्व हैल्पर के रूप में 750 की ग्रेड में था । अतः उसे 7500/-रू.प्रतिमाह मिलने चाहिये ।
II (ii) 49532. जो श्रमिक सैमी स्किल्ड में कार्य कर रहे है उनको स्किल्ड का वेतन मान दिया जावे व वर्तमान में स्किल्ड में जो कार्य कर रहे है उन्हें ग्रेड में लिया जावे ।
3. प्रबंधकों द्वारा दि.2.6.10 को जो वेतनमान बनाये गये उसमें आप द्वारा वेतनमान को समक्ष पदों का विवरण नहीं दिया गया इससे यह स्पष्ट नहीं होता है कि कौनसा वेतनमान किसी पद के लिये लागू माना जावेगा । जिससे श्रमिक में दिशा भ्रम की स्थिति पैदा हो गयी । कृपया वेतनमान के समक्ष पदों का नाम भी लिखें ।
15. घेवरिया माइंस पर कार्यरत सात व्यक्ति (प्रवीण शर्मा, रामकुंवार गुर्जर खाना गुर्जर घनश्याम पालीवाल माधू जाट नटवर सुवालका, प्यारा गुर्जर) जो पांच-छः वर्षो से कार्यालय माइंस पर काम कर रहे है उनको स्किल्ड का वेतन मान दिया जावे तथा पी एफ काटकर फिर यू एम डी एस में स्थाई किया जावे ।
16. घेवरिया माइंस पर सात श्रमिक जो एच एम ऑपरेटर का कार्य पिछले पांच वर्षो से कर रहे है उन्हें अन्य ऑपरेटर के बराबर वेतनमान दिया जावे ।
4. तलब किये जाने पर प्रार्थी पक्ष द्वारा प्रस्तुत स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम में अभिवचन किये गये है कि प्रार्थी यूनियन एक मान्यता प्राप्त रजिस्टर्ड यूनियन है भारतीय मजदूर संघ से संबंधित यूनियन है जिसका मूल उद्देश्य यूनियन के सदस्यो/श्रमिकों को राहत दिलवाना उनकी मांगे पूरी करवाना व उनके अहित ना हो उसको बचाना है । प्रार्थी यूनियन के कुशल, उर्द्धकुशल व अकुशल श्रमिक सदस्य है जो करीब 240-250 के लगभग है जो अप्रार्थी नियोक्ता के चैनपुरा व घेवरिया व अन्य माइंस व फैक्ट्र्ी में भिन्न भिन्न पदों पर कार्यरत है । दि.2.6.10 को अप्रार्थी ने खान मजदूर कांग्रेस यूनियन भीलवाडा फर्जी यूनियन से जो दि.2.6.10 को समझौता प्रपत्र तैयार किया वह गलत व गैर कानूनी है । प्रार्थी यूनियन अप्रार्थी नियोक्ता से अपने श्रमिकों कर्मचारियों की वेतन विसंगतियों, श्रमिकों व कर्मचारियों के साथ हो रहे कुठाराघात के संबंध में अप्रार्थी से कई बार मौखिक रूप से शिकायत की जिस पर अप्रार्थी ने कोई ध्यान नहीं दिया । दि.28.7.11 को प्रार्थी ने केंद्रीय उप श्रम आयुक्त एवं समझौता अधिकारी, अजमेर का अपना सोलह सूत्रीय मांग पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जिसमें मांग सं.1,2,3,15,16 को अप्रार्थी द्वारा नहीं माना गया वार्ता करवायी जो वाता दि.21.6.12 को असफल हुई । प्रथम मांग का अप्रार्थी नियोक्ता ने कोई जवाब नहीं दिया । तथाकथित फर्जी यूनियन द्वारा दि.2.6.10 को जो समझौता अप्रार्थी द्वारा तैयार हुआ उसमें प्रथम ग्रेड 4500-140-55-150-6500-160-7500 तय हुई । जब अप्रार्थी द्वारा यह पूर्व में ही तय किया जा चुका था कि 4500/-रूपये वाले वेतन की ग्रेड 7500/-रूपये होगी तो फिर अप्रार्थी द्वारा उसको क्यों नहीं अमल में लाया गया और जो सावल ऑपरेटर है उनको क्यों नहीं दिया जा रहा है उसका काई कारण अप्रार्थी द्वारा ना तो बताया ना ही दिया गया । अप्रार्थी द्वारा श्रमिकों के साथ उनके वेतनों में विसंगति उत्पन्न की जा रही है । अप्रार्थी द्वारा स्टाफ कर्मचारियों को जो वीडीए दिया जा रहा है उसमें किसी को कम व किसी को अधिक दिया जा रहा है । वही कर्मचारियों में भेदभाव रखा जा रहा है । स्टाफ वालों को वीडीए लेबर की तर्ज पर दिया जा रहा है जबकि वेतन मंथली है । वीडीए के सबंध में पूर्व में सन् 1995,1993,1990 आदि वर्षो में अप्रार्थी द्वारा पूर्व में श्रमिकों व स्टाफ कर्मचारियों को दिये जाने वाले वी डी ए का फार्मूलो बनाया गया परंतु अप्रार्थी नियोक्ता द्वारा उक्त फार्मूले का प्रयोग नहीें करके अपनी मनमर्जी से व अपनी हठधर्मिता से वीडीए का भुगतान किया जाता है जो गलत है । मांग सं.2 का भी कोई संतोषजनक जवाब नहीें दिया गया । शर्त सं.3 के संबंध में भी अप्रार्थी द्वारा कोई जवाब नहीें दिया गया । प्रार्थी यूनियन के जो श्रमिक है व भिन्न पदों पर कार्यरत है उसमें उनके आगे पदों के अभाव में यह तय नहीें किया जा सकता कि किस श्रमिक को कौनसे पद की कौनसी ग्रेड के अनुसार वेतनमान दिया जायेगा जबकि समझौता अधिकारी के सामने जो वार्ता हुई उसमें यूनियन की ओर से दि.21.6.12 को प्रस्तावित सूचियां पदों व वेतनमान सहित पेश की गयी जिसको अप्रार्थी द्वारा नहीं माना । जिन श्रमिकों ने बिना किसी कारण 180, 240 दिन लगातार अपनी सेवायें पूरी कर ली है वह स्थायी होने के हकदार है तौ फिर अप्रार्थी द्वारा उन्हें स्थायी क्यों नहीं किया जा रहा है और स्किल्ड का वेतनमान क्यों नहीें दिया जा रहा है जबकि श्रमिक जब स्किल्ड का कार्य कर रहा है तो नैसर्गिक न्याय के सिद्धांतों के अनुसार स्किल्ड श्रमिक का ही वेतनमान मिलना चाहिए । आज तक कैलाश श्रमिक को समान वेतनमान नहीं देकर प्रार्थी के साथ व श्रमिकों के साथ बिना अधिकार कुठाराघात किया जा रहा है । अंत में प्रार्थना की है कि मांग सं.1,2,3,15,16 को पूरा करवाया जावे और श्रमिकों को पिछला एरियर व अठारह प्रतिशत ब्याज सहित दिलवाया जावे जिन श्रमिकों का वेतनमान बढना है उनका बढा हुआ वेतनमान समझौता दिनांक से मय एरियर व ब्याज सहित दिलवाया जावे । अन्य अनुतोष मुकदमे का खर्चा भी दिलवाया जावे ।
5. अप्रार्थी द्वारा जवाब प्रस्तुत किया जाकर प्रार्थी के स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम को मदवार अस्वीकार करते हुए अभिवचन किये है कि भारतीय खान मजदूर संघ ख खान मजदूर कांग्रेस के अधिकतम श्रमिक उक्त दोनों यूनियनों के सदस्य है । प्रार्थी यूनियन मान्यता प्राप्त नहीं है। अप्रार्थी कंपनी ने प्रार्थी यूनियन को मान्यता नहीं दे रखी है । प्रार्थी यूनियन बहुत अल्प सदस्यता वाली यूनियन है जिसमें दोहरी सदस्यता वाले सदस्य प्रार्थी यूनियन के सदस्य है यानि की प्रार्थी यूनियन की सदस्यता के अलावा अन्य यूनियन के सदस्य भी है । अल्प सदस्यता वाली यूनियन होने से प्रार्थी यूनियन का कोई अस्तित्व नहीं है तथा यूनियन सामूहिक प्रकृति की मांग नहीं उठा सकता है । उपरोक्त वर्णित दोनों यूनियन4954 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] से समय समय पर द्विपक्षीय व त्रिपक्षीय समझौते होते रहते है जिनके द्वारा सामूहिक मांगों का निस्तारण किया जाता है । यूनियन ने अपनी मांगों से संबंध में कोई भी पत्र प्रबंधकों को नहीं दिया है उन्होनें सीधे ही अपना क्लेम समझौता अधिकारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत किया है जो नियमानुसार गलत एवं विधि विरूद्ध है। यूनियन ने न तो अपने सदस्यों की सूची प्रस्तुत की है और ना ही केस का हेतुक प्रस्तुत किया है जिससे यह साबित हो सके कि श्रमिकों ने अपनी मांगे उठाने के लिये यूनियन को अधिकृत किया हो उक्त क्लेम पेश करने से पूर्व न तो यूनियन ने अपने सदस्यों की जनरल बॉडी मीटिंग ही बुलायी है ना ही वहां पर इस तरह का कोई प्रस्ताव व उस पर कार्यवाही का विचार किया गया है । मौजूदा रेफरेंस एब इनिशिओ इनवैलिड है व बैड इन लॉ है । प्रार्थी यूनियन का महामंत्री रामलाल लोदा ने बहुमत वाली यूनियन भारतीय खान मजदूर संघ के साथ हुए समझौते पर हस्ताक्षर किये है । समझौता खान मजदूर कांगे्रेस इंटक बहुमत वाली यूनियन से किया गया था जिस पर अधिकांश श्रमिकों के हस्ताक्षर है तथा उक्त समझौते को श्रम विभाग में भी पंजीकृत करवाया गया था उक्त समझौते द्वारा लागू परिलाभ समस्त श्रमिकागण द्वारा सहर्ष प्राप्त किये गये थे एवं किसी भी श्रमिक द्वारा कोई भी विरोध एवं एतराज नहीं किया गया था उक्त परिलाभ प्राप्त करने के पश्चात् यह लिखना कि उक्त समझौता गलत एवं फर्जी है मात्र यह इंगित करता है कि प्रार्थी यूनियन अपने निहित स्वार्थों की पूर्ति हेतु उक्त कार्यवाही कर रही है जबकि यह समझौता पूरी तरह से मान्य होकर लागू किया गया था रामलाल लोदा जो प्रार्थी यूनियन के महामंत्री है ने उक्त समझौते पर हस्ताक्षर किये है इस कारण इस समझौते से प्रार्थी यूनियन बाध्य है तथा समझौते को किसी तरह की चुनौती देने या इंकार करने समझौते को फर्जी कहने का अधिकार यूनियन को नहीं है । सभी श्रमिकों ने राजीखुशी उक्त समझौते एवं उससे उत्पन्न समस्त परिणामों को बिना एतराज स्वीकार किया था उसके परिलाभ रामलाल लोदा महामंत्री प्रार्थी यूनियन ने भी प्राप्त किये है । मांग सं.1,2,3,15 व 16 की मांगे रेफरेंस लायक नहीं थी । दि.2.8.10 को समझौता खान मजदूर कांग्रेस के साथ हुआ इस समझौते पर रामलाल लोदा महामंत्री प्रार्थी यूनियन के भी हस्ताक्षर है । समझौता दि.8.5.10 का जो भारतीय खान मजदूर संघ के साथ हुआ है तथा समझौता दि.7.3.13 का खान मजदूर कांग्रेस के साथ समझौता अधिकारी एवं सहायक श्रम आयुक्त केंद्रीय अजमेर की मौजूदगी में हुआ है तथा समझौता दि.31.7.13 का भारतीय खान मजदूर संघ के साथ हुआ है । उक्त समझौतों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए अब कोई विवाद शेष नहीं रहा है । बहुमत वाली यूनियन खान मजदूर कांग्रेस एवं भारतीय खान मजदूर संघ के साथ दि.31.7.13 को समझौतो संपन्न हुआ है जिमसें उक्त वर्णित मांगों का पूर्णतः निरस्तारण किया जा चुका है । अतः इस प्रकार की कोई मांग वर्तमान में शेष नहीें है । अप्रार्थी संस्थान द्वारा श्रमिकों को केंद्रीय सरकार द्वारा घोषित श्रेणी अकुशल, अर्द्धकुशल एवं कुशल श्रेणी में रखा जाता है व उनकी श्रेणी के अनुसार ही पदनाम दिये जाते है और समय समय पर यूनियनों के साथ समझौते के अनुसार पदोन्नति दी जाती है । जिसमें उनका कार्य एवं पद कुछ भी हो पदोन्नत कर दिया जाता है । कुशल श्रेणी के श्रमिकों को कुछ वर्षो पश्चात् यूनियन के समझौते के द्वारा ग्रेड का लाभ दिया जाता है जो समझौते द्वारा हीे बनायी गयी है । अतः यहां पद एवं उसके वेतनमान का कोई प्रश्न ही नहीं उठता है । क्योंकि समझौता दि.2.6.10 के द्वारा यह निर्णीत किया गया था कि ग्रेड वाले कर्मचारियों को सभी को कुशल श्रेणी का वेतन दिया जावेगा चाहे उनका पदनाम व श्रेणी कुछ भी हो इसमें अकुशल श्रेणी में आने वाले चौकीदार भी कुशल श्रेणी का वेतनमान प्राप्त कर रहे है । ऐसी स्थिति में ग्रेड में पदनाम दिया जाना संभव नहीं है । सामूहिक प्रकृति की मांग जिस पर बहुमत वाली यूनियन से समझौता हो गया है । मांग क्षेत्राधिकार से आगे बढकर उठायी गयी है जबकि श्रम विभाग ने मात्र सात श्रमिकों के संबंध में ही रेफरेंस किया है जो उनके मांग पत्र के पैरा सं.15 से संबंधित है । उक्त सातों श्रमिकों में छः श्रमिकों को यू एम डी एस में स्थाई कर दिया गया था व नियमानुसार उनका पी एफ भी काटा जा रहा है सातवां श्रमिक माधो जाट कंपनी में कार्यरत नहीं है वह ठेकेदार के यहां पर कार्यरत है उसको ठेकेदार द्वारा नियमानुसार लाभ व परिलाभ दिये जा रहे है । प्रवीण शर्मा कार्यालय सहायक पद पर कार्यरत है व उसको कुशल श्रेणी का वेतनमान दे रहे है, रामकुमार गुर्जर हैल्पर को उसके पद के अनुसार अकुशल श्रेणी का वेतनमान दे रहे है, काना गुर्जर वाटरमैन को पद के अनुरूप वेतनमान दिया जा रहा है । घनश्याम पालीवाल ब्लास्टर पद पर स्थायी रूप से कार्यरत था जो कि स्वेच्छा से नौकरी छोड गया । नटवर सुवालका हैल्पर को उसके पद के अनुसार वेतनमान दे रहे है, प्यारा गुर्जर श्रमिक को अकुशल श्रेणी का वेतन दिया जा रहा था जो हत्या के केस में आरोपी होने से पिछले काफी समय से लगातार अनुपस्थित चल रहा है । मांग पत्र में उसका क्रमांक 14 है जबकि रेफरेंस मांग पत्र की मांग सं.1,2,3,15,16 को ही निर्णय हेतु रेफर किया गया है वह विचारणीय नहीं है । पैरा सं.13 के अंर्तगत वर्णित कथन श्रम मंत्रालय द्वारा निर्णयन हेतु रेफर नहीं किये गये अतः विचारणीय नहीं है । अंत में निवेदन किया है कि प्रार्थी यूनियन मांग सं.1,2,3,15,16 को खारिज करते हुए प्रार्थी यूनियन का क्लेम मय हर्जे-खर्चे खारिज किया जाकर नो डिस्प्यूट अवार्ड पारित किया जावे ।
6. प्रार्थी यूनियन ने उक्त जवाब स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम का जवाब उल जवाब प्रस्तुत कर उसमें अप्रार्थी की आपत्तियों को मदवार अस्वीकार करते हुए अभिवचन किये है कि दि.9.7.10 को श्रम विभाग के अतिरिक्त श्रम आयुक्त मुख्यालय जयपुर ने एक आदेश जारी कर भारतीय खान मजदूर संघ का पंजीयन निरस्त कर दिया और उस यूनियन का अस्तित्व ही श्रम विभाग द्वारा समाप्त कर दिया है तो फिर भारतीय खान मजदूर संघ बहुमत वाली यूनियन होने का प्रश्न ही उत्पन्न होता है और जब श्रम विभाग ने भारतीय खान मजदूर संघ की मान्यता ही वर्ष 2010 में रद्द कर दी तो फिर प्रार्थी यूनियन की कोई अस्तित्व ही नहीं रहता है । जहां तक खान मजदूर कांग्रेस का प्रश्न है उससे कही ज्यादा सदस्य प्रार्थी यूनियन के है और प्रार्थी यूनियन ने वर्तमान में अप्रार्थी संस्थान में अपना अस्तित्व बनाये रखा हैII (ii) 4955 और प्रार्थी यूनियन ने ही अप्रार्थी संस्थान में कार्यरत श्रमिकों एवं कर्मचारियेां की मांग उठायी है । यदि अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने अन्य किसी यूनियन से काई समझौता दबाव बनाकर या धमकियां देकर कर लिया है तो वह समझौता माने जाने योग्य नहीें है । प्रार्थी यूनियन द्वारा अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने कई बार मौखिक रूप से व कई बार लिखित रूप से मांगों के समर्थन में बातचीेत की गयी वार्ता की गयी जब अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने प्रार्थी यूनियन की मांगों को नहीं माना तब प्रार्थी यूनियन ने समझौता अधिकारी के समक्ष अपनी प्रार्थना पेश किया । प्रार्थी यूनियन ने अपने क्लेम के साथ चैनपुरा माइंस घेवरिया माइंस में कार्यरत प्रार्थी यूनियन के सदस्यों की लिस्ट पेश की है और उनके द्वारा ही मांगों के समर्थन में प्रार्थी यूनियन को बताया उसके पश्चात् ही प्रार्थी यूनियन ने वही मद्दा उठाया । अप्रार्थी संस्थान अपने इस प्रकरण में अपने आपको बचाने हेतु एक तथाकथित झूठा समझौता निरस्त यूनियन के साथ किया है जो किसी भी रूप से स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है । अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने अपने पूरे जवाब क्लेम में कहीं भी मांग सं.1,2,3,15,16 के बारे में कोई कथन नहीं किये जो मांगे सही और सत्य है । यदि मांग सं.1,2,3,15,16 गलत व बेबुनियाद होती तो अप्रार्थी संस्थान अपने जवाब में उसका खंडन अवश्य करते परंतु अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने अपने पूरे जवाब में केवल यूनियन का ही मुद्दा उठाया है जो केंद्रीय सरकार की अधिसूचना के विपरीत है और जब अधिसूचना के विपरीत जवाब पेश किया है तो वह जवाब कानूनन विधि विरूद्ध है और माने जाने व स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है । अंत में प्रार्थना की है कि प्रार्थी यूनियन का क्लेम स्वीकार किया जावे ।
7. प्रार्थी यूनियन ने अपनी मौखिक साक्ष्य में ए डब. 1 रामलाल लोदा, ए डब.2 माधू जाट, ए डब.3 गोपाल गुर्जर, ए डब.4 कैलाशचंद्र, ए डब.5 भैरू कलाल, ए डब.6 रणजीतसिंह को परीक्षित करवाया है। दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श डब. 1 रेफरेंस, प्रदर्श डब.2 असफल वार्ता प्रतिवेदन, प्रदर्श डब.3 प्रार्थना पत्र अप्रार्थी समक्ष समझौता अधिकारी, प्रदर्श डब.4 प्रार्थना पत्र प्रार्थी समक्ष समझौता अधिकारी, प्रदर्श डब.5 व डब.8 जवाब अप्रार्थी समझौता अधिकारी, प्रदर्श डब.6, डब.7 व डब.9 नोटिस समझौता अधिकारी, प्रदर्श डब.10 मांग पत्र, प्रदर्श डब.11 आदेश दि.9.7.10 बाबत् पंजीयन रद्दीकरण, प्रदर्श डब.12 संलग्नक भारतीय खान मजदूर संघ सहित, प्रदर्श डब.13 स्पष्टीकरण सूचना बाबत् मांग पत्र, प्रदर्श डब.14 सूची कर्मकारगण मांग पत्र से संबंधित, प्रदर्श डब.15 समझौता पत्र दि.2.6.2010, प्रदर्श डब.16 इकरारनामा फोटो प्रतियो में प्रस्तुत कर प्रदर्शित करवाये हैं । जबकि अप्रार्थी ने अपनी मौखिक साक्ष्य में डी डब.1 अमित कुलश्रेष्ठ, असिस्टेंट मैनेजर एच आर अप्रार्थी संस्थान को परीक्षित करवाया गया है तथा दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श एम-1 समझौता पत्र दि.28.6.12 त्रिपक्षीय, प्रदर्श एम-2 आकस्मिक श्रमिकों की सूची, प्रदर्श एम-3 समझौता दि.12.4.12 त्रिपक्षीय बाबत् श्रमिक प्यारेलाल, प्रदर्श एम-4 समझौता पत्र दि.8.5.10, प्रदर्श एम-5 समझौता पत्र दि.7.3.13 त्रिपक्षीय, प्रदर्श एम-6 समझौता पत्र दि.31.7.13, प्रदर्श एम-7 समझौता पत्र दि.2.6.10 (प्रदर्श डब.15), प्रदर्श एम-8 वार्ता प्रतिवेदन दि.30.7.13, प्रदर्श एम-9 रसीद श्रमिक घनश्याम पालीवाल, प्रदर्श एम710 रिलिविंग लैटर घनश्याम पालीवाल, प्रदर्श एम-11 त्यागपत्र घनश्याम पालीवाल, प्रदर्श एम-12 ऑफर लैटर घनश्याम पालाीवाल प्रदर्श एम-13 रजिस्ट्र्ेशन प्रमाण पत्र खान मजदूर कांग्रेस फोटो प्रतियों में पेश कर प्रदर्शित करवाये गये है।
8. बहस अंतिम सुनी गयी । विद्वान अधिवक्ता प्रार्थी के स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम के तथ्यों के दोहराव के साथ तर्क रहे है कि पत्रावली पर प्रार्थी यूनियन के सदस्यों की सूची है । स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम पेश करते समय प्रार्थी यूनियन में 240 से 250 लगभग श्रमिक सदस्य थे अब चार सौ करीब सदस्य है । प्रार्थी यूनियन के सदस्य इससे कम हो, इस संबंध में अप्रार्थी पक्ष की माने जाने योग्य साक्ष्य नहीें है । प्रार्थी यूनियन रजिस्टर्ड एवं भारतीय मजदूर संघ से संबंधित है जो कि मशहूर यूनियन है तथा श्रमिकों कल्याण की मांगे रखने के लिए विधि अनुसार अधिकार रखती है । प्रार्थी यूनियन पर अल्पमत की यूनियन होने का व अप्रार्थी से मान्यता प्राप्त नहीं होने का अप्रार्थी पक्ष द्वारा लगाया गया आक्षेप मिथ्या व निराधार हे जिसके समर्थन में अप्रार्थी की कोई साक्ष्य नहीें है बल्कि प्रार्थी यूनियन से अप्रार्थी द्वारा समझौता किये जाने की साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर है । जिस यूनियन का समझौता अप्रार्थी द्वारा बताया जाकर के उसे बहुमत की यूनियन बताया गया है उसका तो रजिस्ट्रेशन ही रद्द हो गया जिसकी प्रति प्रदर्श डब.11 व डब.12 पत्रावली पर है । उक्त यूनियन को समझौते का अधिकार नहीं था । समझौता प्रदर्श डब.15 एवं अन्य प्रस्तुत समझौते प्रार्थी पर बाध्यकारी नहीं है । अप्रार्थी पक्ष द्वारा अत्यंत वेतन विसंगतियां कर दी गयी है वरिष्ठों को कनिष्ठों से कम वेतन दिया जा रहा है व वेतनमान के साथ पदों को दर्शित नहीं किया गया है । स्किल्ड श्रमिकों को ग्रेड में नहीं लिया गया है जिसकी बार-बार मांग उठायी जाती रही है । प्रार्थी ने मौखिक तौर पर यह कई बार मांग उठायी । इन समस्त तथ्यों की पत्रावली पर प्रार्थी की ओर से साक्ष्य है तथा अप्रार्थी साक्षी द्वारा भी इससे स्पष्ट तौर पर नकारा नहीं गया है । प्रार्थी की मांगे नाजायज व अवैध हो, ऐसा कुछ भी अप्रार्थी की ओर से नहीं रखा गया है । अप्रार्थी पक्ष तो केवल प्रार्थी यूनियन के स्वरूप पर मिथ्या आरोप लगाता रहा है जो स्वीकार योग्य नहीं है । अप्रार्थी पक्ष द्वारा प्रार्थी यूनियन की मांग सं.2 स्वीकार कर ली गयी है । अतएव उसे प्रार्थी यूनियन प्रेस नहीं करती है । शेष मांगे वर्णित रेफरेंस प्रार्थी की जायज एवं वैधानिक है जिसे वस्तुतः अप्रार्थी द्वारा माना नहीं गया है। रेफरेंस विधि अनुसार है । समझौता अधिकारी के समक्ष भी समझौता वार्ता निष्फल रही है । प्रार्थी यूनियन व अप्रार्थी के मध्य रेफरेंस में संदर्भित मांग सं.1,3,15,16 के संबंध में विवाद वर्तमान है । यद्यपि अप्रार्थी कीे ओर से उक्त मांगे भी मान लिया जाना अपनी साक्ष्य में दर्ज करवाया गया है किंतु यह मांगे अप्रार्थी द्वारा तो न स्वीकार की गयी है न लागू की गयी है । अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत न्यायिक दृष्टांत हस्तगत प्रकरण पर चस्पा नहीं होते है । अंत में उनके द्वारा प्रार्थी की मांगे स्वीकार योग्य बताते हुए उन्हें4956 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] अप्रार्थी द्वारा नहीं माने जाना न्यायोचित व न्यायसंगत नहीं होना बताते हुए तदनुसार प्रार्थी का स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम स्वीकार करते हुए चाहा गया अनुतोष प्रदान करने की व उक्त निर्देश का उत्तर प्रार्थी के पक्ष में दिये जाने की प्रार्थना की गयी है ।
9. उक्त तर्कों का खंडन करते हुए विद्वान अधिवक्ता अप्रार्थी द्वारा अप्रार्थी के जवाब स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम के तथ्यों को दोहराया गया है तथा तर्क दिये गये है कि प्रार्थी यूनियन के बहुमत होने की साक्ष्य नहीं होने व अप्रार्थी से मान्यता प्राप्त नहीं होने के आधार पर प्रार्थी यूनियन को निर्देश में वर्णित मांगे उठाने का अधिकार नहीं है । प्रार्थी यूनियन से अप्रार्थी का कौनसा समझौता हुआ प्रार्थी की ओर से तर्कों में नहीें बताया गया है । रेफरेंस में वर्णित मांगों का मांग पत्र अप्रार्थी का कभी नहीं दिया गया इसकी साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर है । बिना मांग पत्र दिये तथा बिना मांग पत्र पर असहमत हुए हस्तगत विवाद औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 अनुसार औद्योगिक विवाद में नहीं आता है । वस्तुतः कोई औद्योगिक विवाद अस्तित्व में नहीं है कुछ व्यक्तियों द्वारा प्रार्थी यूनियन के माध्यम से अप्रार्थी को परेशान किये जाने के लिए झूठी व गलत कार्यवाही की गयी है । जबकि प्रार्थी यूनियन के साक्षी ही उनकी सभी मांगे पूरी हो जाना अपनी जिरह की साक्ष्य में मानते है तो फिर उक्त मांगों का नहीं माना जाना अभिनिर्धारित नहीें किया जा सकता । समझौता प्रदर्श डब.15 पर प्रार्थी यूनियन के रामलाल लोधा के हस्ताक्षर है जो सभी कर्मकारों पर बाध्यकारी है उक्त व अन्य समझाते को प्रार्थी यूनियन को फर्जी बताने का अधिकार नहीं है । मांगे समझौता अधिकारी के समक्ष रखने से पहले प्रार्थी यूनियन द्वारा जनरल बॉडी की कोई मीटिंग की गयी हो इसकी भी कोई साक्ष्य नहीं है । समझौता प्रदर्श एम-1,एम-3 व एम-5 ट्रि्पार्टटाईट समझौते है । जिन पर सहायक श्रम आयुक्त अजमेर के हस्ताक्षर है जो वैधानिक प्रभाव रखते है । समझौता प्रदर्श डब.15 (एम-7) रजिस्टर्ड भी हुआ है । जिसके पंजीयन को प्रार्थी की ओर से नकारा नहीं गया है । प्रार्थी यूनियन द्वारा रखी गयी मांगे अनावश्यक है तथा मांग सं.3 की पालना असंभव है क्योंकि अप्रार्थी द्वारा समझौते के अनुसार ग्रेड प्रणाली लागू की हुई है जिसमें अकुशल श्रमिक को भी योग्य होने पर ग्रेड दी जातीे है व दी गयी है। मांग सं.15 के श्रमिक घनश्याम पालीवाल ने त्यागपत्र दे दिया व प्यारा गुर्जर कार्य पर नहीं आ रहा है एवं माधो जाट ठेकेदार का श्रमिक है। इसकी पर्याप्त साक्ष्य स्वयं प्रार्थी साक्षियों की जिरह में है । ऐसे में उनके बारे में मांगे किया जाना अनावश्यक है । समस्त परिस्थितियों में प्रार्थी यूनियन का क्लेम खारिज किये जाने योग्य है । अंत में उनके द्वारा प्रार्थी यूनियन का क्लेम खारिज किये जाते हुए उक्त निर्देशित विवाद का उत्तर अप्रार्थी के पक्ष में दिये जाने की प्रार्थना की गयी है । उनके द्वारा अपने तर्कों के समर्थन में निम्नलिखित न्यायिक दृष्टांत पेश किये गये है :-
1. ए आई आर (39) 1952 पटना 210 मेंबर्स ऑफ दा सासामूसा वर्कर्स यूनियन बनाम स्टेट ऑफ बिहार व अन्य,
2. 2001 (3) ए आई एस एल आर 171 धर्मवीर बनाम स्टेट ऑफ एन सी टी ऑफ देहली व अन्य,
3. ए आई आर 1975 सुप्रीम कोर्ट 171 दी जाग्रखान कॉलिरीज प्रा0लि0 बनाम जी सी अग्रवाल पी ओ सेंट्र्ल गवर्नमेंट इंडस्ट्रि्यल ट्रि्ब्यूनल-कम- लेबर कोर्ट, जबलपुर व अन्य,
4. आई एल आर 2005 कर्नाटक 4163 दी प्रसीडेंट लेबर बनाम दी मैनेजमेंट ऑफ हिंदुस्तान 6.7.2005
10. उभयपक्षकारान् की ओर से दिये गये तर्कों के मद्दे नजर तथा अप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत न्यायिक दृष्टांतों के अभिमतों के दृष्टिगत संबंधित विधि को विचार में लेते हुए पत्रावली का भली-भांति परिशीलन किया गया ।
11. जहां तक प्रार्थी यूनियन के अल्पमत या बहुमत में होने का प्रश्न है, प्रार्थी यूनियन द्वारा अपने स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम में उक्त यूनियन में करीबन 240-250 सदस्य बताये गये है । ए डब.1 रामलाल लोधा सहित प्रार्थी साक्षियों द्वारा अपनी मुख्य परीक्षा में भी ऐसी ही साक्ष्य दी गयी है । जिरह की साक्ष्य में ए डब.1 रामलाल लोधा द्वारा यूनियन के चार सौ सदस्य बताये गये है । पत्रावली पर प्रार्थी की ओर से अपने सदस्यों की सूचियां भी पेश की गयी है यद्यपि उन्हें प्रदर्शित नहीं करवाया गया है । उक्त सदस्यों की सूचियाें में से प्रथम में नब्बे, द्वितीय में तियालीस, तृतीय में सित्यासी सदस्य दर्शित है । जो क्रमशः 2011 से 2013 एवं जनवरी 2012 एवं 2013 की है । अप्रार्थी की ओर से आये साक्षी डी डब.1 अमित कुलश्रेष्ठ द्वारा यद्यपि प्रार्थी यूनियन को अल्प मत वाली यूनियन होने की साक्ष्य दी गयी है किंतु यूनियन में कुल कितने सदस्य है वह अपनी साक्ष्य में नहीं बताता है । अप्रार्थी संस्थान में कुल कितने श्रमिक कार्य करते है ऐसा भी इस साक्षी की ओर से स्पष्ट नहीेंे किया गया है । अन्य यूनियन भारतीय खान मजदूर संघ एवं खान मजदूर कांग्रेस जिसे वह अपनी मुख्य परीक्षा में बहुमत वाली यूनियन बताता है में भी कुल कितने सदस्य है वह अपनी जिरह की साक्ष्य में स्पष्ट नहीं कर पाया है । साक्ष्य की उक्त परिस्थिति में यह नहीं माना जा सकता है कि प्रार्थी यूनियन अल्पमत वाली यूनियन हो । जहां तक प्रार्थी यूनियन के सदस्यों की दोहरी सदस्यता का प्रश्न है, इस संबंध में प्रार्थी साक्षी ए डब.2 माधू जाट, ए डब.3 गोपाल गुर्जर, ए डब.4 कैलाशचंद्र, ए डब.5 भैरू कलाल, ए डब.6 रणजीत सिंह ने अपनी अपनी जिरह की साक्ष्य में यह माना है कि वे पहले भारतीय मजदूर संघ यूनियन के सदस्य थे जिसका रजिस्ट्र्ेशन खारिज हो गया बाद में वे प्रार्थी यूनियन के सदस्य बन गये । पत्रावली पर भारतीय खान मजदूर संघ के पंजीयन रद्दीकरण का आदेश दि.9.7.10 प्रदर्श डब.11 मय संलग्नक प्रदर्श डब.12 के उपलब्ध है जिससे यह प्रकटII (ii) 4957 होता है कि भारतीय खान मजदूर संघ का पंजीयन उक्त दि.9.7.10 के आदेश द्वारा रद्द कर दिया गया । इस संबंध में अप्रार्थी पक्ष की ओर से कोई विरोधाभासी साक्ष्य भी नहीं है ऐसे में यह तथ्य सिद्ध होता है कि भारतीय खान मजदूर संघ का पंजीयन आदेश दि.9.7.10 प्रदर्श डब.11 से रद्द कर दिया गया इससे पूर्व उक्त प्रार्थी साक्षी इस भारतीय खान मजदूर संघ के सदस्य थे तथा बाद में वे प्रार्थी यूनियन के सदस्य बन गये । एक यूनियन का पंजीयन रद्द हो जाने पर दूसरे यूनियन की सदस्यता को ग्रहण करना दोहरी सदस्यता का मामला नहीं माना जा सकता है । प्रार्थी यूनियन द्वारा स्वयं को रजिस्टर्ड एवं भारतीय मजदूर संघ से संबंधित यूनियन होना अपने स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम में बताया गया है । जिस संबंध में अपने जवाब में अप्रार्थी कीे ओर से स्पष्ट इंकारी नहीं रही है तथा प्रार्थी यूनियन का अप्रार्थी की मान्यता प्राप्त नहीं होने का ही उज्र लिया गया है । पत्रावली पर प्रार्थी यूनियन की ओर से प्रदर्श डब.16 इकरारनामा दि.25.5.13 प्रार्थी यूनियन की ओर से प्रस्तुत किया गया है जो इकरारनामा अप्रार्थी पक्ष के सहायक महाप्रबंधक, प्रबंधक, कार्मिक कार्यकारी व प्रार्थी यूनियन एवं उसके ए डब.1 साक्षी रामलाल लोधा, महामंत्री व ए डब.5 भैरूकलाल एवं रामलाल कोषाध्यक्ष के मध्य होना प्रकट होता है जो निलंबित यूनियन प्रतिनिधि रामलाल लोधा, भैरूलाल व रामलाल जाट के खान क्षेत्र में प्रवेश नहीं करने व गेट पर हस्ताक्षर करने के संबंध में है इस इकरारनामे पर अप्रार्थी की ओर से सभी प्रार्थी साक्षियों से कोई जिरह नहीं की गयी है जिस कारण उक्त इकरारनामा अनक्रॉस्ड एवं अनकंट्र्ोर्वटेड प्रकट होता है जिससे इसे नहींं माने जाने का कोई कारण नहीें है जिसके मद्दे नजर अप्रार्थी की ओर से दिया गया यह तर्क माने जाने योग्य नहीं है कि प्रार्थी यूनियन को अपने आचरण से अप्रार्थी पक्ष द्वारा मान्यता नहीं दी गयी है । उक्त इकरानामा करके अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थी यूनियन को एक तरह से मान्यता ही दे दी गयी है । अप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत न्यायिक दृष्टांत आई एल आर 2005 कर्नाटक 4163 दी प्रसीडेंट लेबर बनाम दी मैनेजमेंट ऑफ हिंदुस्तान में माननीय कर्नाटक उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा किसी संस्थान में कई श्रमिक यूनियन होने पर मान्यता प्राप्त यूनियन को बढावा दिये जाने का तथा ऐसी ही यूनियन के कर्मकारों की बारगेनिंग एजेंट होने का अभिमत दिया गया है जो प्रथम तो साक्ष्य के उक्त विवेचन के मद्दे नजर एवं द्वितीय उक्त न्यायिक दृष्टांत के मामले में याची यूनियन को औद्योगिक विवाद उठाने की सक्षमता के प्रश्न को भी निर्देशित किया गया था जो प्रश्न हस्तगत प्रकरण में निर्देशित नहीं किया गया। अतएव उक्त न्यायिक दृष्टांत अप्रार्थी पक्ष की कोई मदद नहीं करता है एवं यह नहीं माना जा सकता है कि प्रार्थी यूनियन को उक्त मांगे रखने व विवाद उठाने का अधिकार नहीं हो ।
12. जहां तक प्रार्थी यूनियन द्वारा उक्त मांगों के मांग पत्र को पूर्व में अप्रार्थी पक्ष को नहीं दिये जाने एवं मांगों को अप्रार्थी पक्ष को ज्ञापित किये या नहीं किये जाने का प्रश्न है, प्रार्थी यूनियन द्वारा अपने स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम में उक्त मांगों को मौखिक रूप से अप्रार्थी के समक्ष रखने का तथ्य दर्ज करवाया गया है तथा सभी प्रार्थी साक्षियों द्वारा ऐसी ही साक्ष्य अपनी अपनी मुख्य परीक्षा में दी गयी है किंतु उक्त संबंध में अप्रार्थी कीे ओर से सभी प्रार्थी साक्षियों से कोई विशेष जिरह नहीं की गयी है । अप्रार्थी साक्षी डी डब.1 अमित कुलश्रेष्ठ द्वारा अपनी मुख्य परीक्षा की साक्ष्य में प्रार्थी द्वारा उन्हें सोलह सूत्रीय मांग पत्र नहीं देना दर्ज करवाते हुए जिरह में यह मांग पत्र समझौता अधिकारी के समक्ष ही उनकी जानकारी में आना दर्ज करवाया गया है इस पर प्रार्थी की ओर से और कोई जिरह नहीें है ऐसे में विद्वान अधिवक्ता अप्रार्थी के यह तर्क तो माने जाने योग्य है कि उक्त सोलह सूत्रीय मांगों का लिखित ज्ञापन समझौता अधिकारी के समक्ष शिकायत किये जाने से पूर्व तो प्रार्थी यूनियन द्वारा अप्रार्थी को लिखित तौर पर नहीं दिया गया किंतु प्रार्थी साक्षियों की उक्त विवेचित साक्ष्य के मद्दे नजर इस तथ्य से इंकारी नहीं की जा सकती है कि उक्त मांगों का ज्ञान अप्रार्थी पक्ष को नहीं था एवं अप्रार्थी पक्ष उक्त मांगों से समझौता अधिकारी की कार्यवाही से पूर्व अनभिज्ञ था एवं पूर्व में मौखिक रूप से अप्रार्थी के समक्ष उक्त मांगे नहीं रखी गयी। वैसे भी उक्त निर्देश्ेिात मांगों के अलावा शेष मांगों का मान लिये जाने का तथ्य प्रार्थी यूनियन की ओर से रखा गया है जिसका अप्रार्थी की ओर से कोई खंडन नहीें है जो भी अप्रार्थी के विरूद्ध इस प्रकार जाता है कि प्रार्थी संस्थान को प्रार्थी यूनियन की उक्त मांगों की जानकारी समझौता अधिकारी की कार्यवाही से पूर्व थी । अप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत न्यायिक दृष्टांत ए आई आर (39) 1952 पटना 210 मेंबर्स ऑफ दा सासामूसा वर्कर्स यूनियन बनाम स्टेट ऑफ बिहार व अन्य में माननीय पटना उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा प्रबंधन को मांगों का लिखित ज्ञापन नहीं दिये जाने व उस पर विचार का समुचित समय नहीं दिये जाने अथवा प्रबंधन को अन्यथा भी मागों की जानकारी नहीं होने पर निर्देशित विवाद को औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 2 (के)े अनुसार औद्योगिक विवाद नहीं होना अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है । उक्त न्यायिक दृष्टांत के उक्त अभिमत के परिप्रेक्ष्य में हस्तगत प्रकरण पर विचार करने पर चूंकि अप्रार्थी पक्ष को समझौता अधिकारी की कार्यवाही से पूर्व प्रार्थी यूनियन की मांगों की जानकारी उक्त विवेचन के अनुसार थी । अतएव उक्त न्यायिक दृष्टांत अप्रार्थी पक्ष की कोई विशेष मदद नहीं करता है । अप्रार्थी पक्ष की ओर से प्रस्तुत न्यायिक दृष्टांत 2001 (3) ए आई एस एल आर 171 धर्मवीर बनाम स्टेट ऑफ एन सी टी ऑफ देहली व अन्य सेवामुक्ति के विवाद से संबंधित मामले का है जिसमें कर्मकार की सेवामुक्ति के बाद कई वर्षों तक उसकी ओर से कार्यवाही नहीं किये जाने पर औद्योगिक विवाद का अस्तित्व में नहीं होना माननीय दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है जो तथ्य हस्तगत प्रकरण के नहीं है अतएव उक्त न्यायिक दृष्टांत भी अप्रार्थी की कोई विशेष मदद नहीं करता है । अप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रार्थी यूनियन द्वारा मांगों के संबंध में कोई पूर्व में बैठक कर उस पर विचार कर सकल्प पारित नहीं किये जाने का आधार भी लिया गया है और ऐसी कोई साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर प्रार्थी की ओर से नहीं है किंतु इस कारण मात्र से यह नहीं माना जा सकता है कि प्रार्थी यूनियन के सदस्य प्रार्थी यूनियन द्वारा की गयी कार्यवाही से सहमत नहीें हो, यदि कोई सदस्या या बहुमत4958 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] प्रार्थी यूनियन के विरोध में होता तो यह स्थिति अप्रार्थी न्यायालय के समक्ष ला सकता था जो अप्रार्थी लेकर के नहीं आया है ऐसे में भी उक्त तर्कों के आधार पर अप्रार्थी पक्ष को कोई फायदा नहीं दिया जा सकता है ।
13. अप्रार्थी संस्थान की ओर से पत्रावली पर कुल छः समझौता पत्र समायानुक्रम में प्रदर्श एम-4 दि.8.5.10 प्रदर्श एम-7 दि.2.6.10, प्रदर्श एम-3 दि.12.4.12, प्रदर्श एम-1 दि.28.6.12, प्रदर्श एम-5 दि.7.3.13 व प्रदर्श एम-6 दि.31.7.13 प्रस्तुत किये गये है । प्रदर्श एम-7 समझौता पत्र दि.2.6.10 को स्वयं प्रार्थी द्वारा भी प्रदर्श डब.15 के रूप में प्रस्तुत किया गया है । समझौता पत्र प्रदर्श एम-4 दि.8.5.10 व प्रदर्श एम-7 दि.2.6.10 को छोड़कर शेष समस्त समझौता पत्र भारतीय खान मजदूर संघ के पंजीयन रद्दीकरण के आदेश दि.9.7.10 प्रदर्श डब.11 के बाद के समझौता पत्र है तथा समझौता पत्र प्रदर्श एम-3 दि..12.4.12 प्रदर्श एम-1 दि.28.6.12 व प्रदर्श एम-5 दि.7.3.13 त्रिपक्षीय है जिन पर अमरीश शर्मा समझौता अधिकारी के भी हस्ताक्षर है । जिनके मद्दे नजर यह माने जाने योग्य है कि उक्त समझौता उक्त समझौता अधिकारी द्वारा समझौता वार्ता के दौरान करवाये गये है । प्रदर्श एम-1,3 व 5 तीनों समझौते खान मजदूर कांग्रेस की ओर से है । शेष समझौते उक्त समझौता उक्त समझौता अधिकारी द्वारा कराये गये है प्रतीत नहीं होते है । अप्रार्थी कीे ओर से प्रस्तुत न्यायिक दृष्टांत ए आई आर 1975 सुप्रीम कोर्ट 171 दी जाग्रखान कॉलिरीज प्रा0लि0 बनाम जी सी अग्रवाल पी ओ सेंट्र्ल गवर्नमेंट इंडस्ट्रि्यल ट्रि्ब्यूनल-कम- लेबर कोर्ट, जबलपुर व अन्य में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा समझौता कार्यवाही के दौरान हुए समझौते संस्थान के समस्त कर्मचारों एवं प्रबंधन पर लागू होना एवं अन्य समझौता पक्षकारों पर लागू होने का अभिमत दिया गया है । उक्त न्यायिक दृष्टांत के उक्त अभिमत के मद्दे नजर समझौता पत्र प्रदर्श एम-1,3,5 का प्रबंधन एवं समस्त कर्मचारियों पर लागू होना तथा शेष समझौतों का उसके पक्षकारों पर लागू होना माने जाने योग्य है । यद्यपि प्रार्थी यूनियन की ओर से भारतीय खान मजदूर संघ के र्द्दीकरण के आदेश दि.9.7.10 प्रदर्श डब.11 के पश्चात् के समझौते उक्त यूनियन के पंजीयन के अभाव में एवं दबाव में फर्जी यूनियन द्वारा फर्जी तरीके से किये जाने के आरोप अपने अभिवचनों व साक्ष्य में व तर्कों में लगाये गये है किंतु ऐसे किसी दबाव व धोखे एवं फर्जकारी की कोई साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर स्पष्ट तौर पर नहीें है तथा पंजीयन रद्दीकरण हो जाने मात्र के आधार पर उक्त समझौतों को नहीें माना जाय ऐसी कोई विधि भी प्रार्थी की ओर से हमारे समक्ष उद्धरित नहीं की गयी है ऐसे में उक्त आधारों पर उक्त समझौते को नहीं माना जावे यह तर्क विद्वान अधिवक्ता प्रार्थी का माने जाने योग्य नहीं है । समझौता पत्र प्रदर्श एम-7 (प्रदर्श डब.15) के संबंध में विद्वान अधिवक्ता अप्रार्थी के यह तर्क माने जाने योग्य है कि उक्त प्रदर्श एम-7 समझौता पत्र दि.2.6.10 पर ए डब.1 रामलाल लोधा महामंत्री प्रार्थी यूनियन एवं प्रार्थी साक्षी ए डब.5 भैरू कलाल के हस्ताक्षर है । जिस कारण प्रार्थी यूनियन उक्त समझौते से परोक्ष तौर पर विबंधित है ।
14. प्रार्थी कीे ओर से बहस के दौरान मांग पत्र प्रदर्श डब.10 की मांग सं.2 का पूरा हो जाना अभिव्यक्त किया गया है जिसका किसी प्रकार से खंडन अप्रार्थी कीे ओर से नहीं किया गया है । उक्त मांग पूरा हो जाने पर प्रार्थी की ओर से उक्त मांग प्रेस नहीं की गयी है । अतएव इस पर विचार की आवश्यकता नहीं रह जाती ।
15. सभी प्रार्थी साक्षियों द्वारा अपनी मुख्य परीक्षा की साक्ष्य में उक्त निर्देशित मांगों का पूरा नहीं होना दर्ज करवाया गया है । अंत में जिरह की साक्ष्य में ए डब.2 लगायत ए डब.6 प्रार्थी साक्षियों द्वारा इस तथ्य को सही बताया गया है कि हमारे सभी मांगे पूरी हो चुकी है और हमारी बकाया मांगे नहीें है जिसको आधार बनाते हुए विद्वान अधिवक्ता अप्रार्थी के तर्क रहे है कि जब प्रार्थी की सभी मागे पूरी हो जाना उक्त सभी प्रार्थी साक्षी मानते है तो फिर अब उक्त संबंध में और कोई विवाद शेष नहीं रहता है तथा उक्त मांगों की पूर्ति नहीं हो जाना अभिनिर्धारित नहीें किया जा सकता है । किंतु हमारे विनम्र मत में उक्त सुझाव उक्त प्रार्थी साक्षी ए डब.2 लगायत ए डब.6 को अप्रार्थी कीे ओर से प्रदर्श डब.15 समझौता होने बाबत् साक्ष्य के तुरंत बाद में दिया गया है जिस कारण यह सुझाव प्रदर्श डब.15 समझौता से ही संबंधित माना जा सकता है न कि निर्देशित मांगों के संबंध में और फिर सभी प्रार्थी साक्षीयों द्वारा इससे पूर्व उक्त निर्देशित मांगों की पूर्ति नहीं होने के बारे में स्पष्ट साक्ष्य दी गयी है जिसकी उपेक्षा नहीं की जा सकतीे है अतएव उक्त तर्कों के आधार पर अप्रार्थी पक्ष को उक्त निर्देशित मांगों की पूर्ति हो जाना मानते हुए केाई फायदा नहीं दिया जा सकता है तथा यह नहीं माना जा सकता है कि पक्षकारों में अब कोई विवाद शेष नहीं रहा है ।
16. उभयपक्षकारान् की मध्य जो साक्ष्य आयी है उससे यह प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी संस्थान में अकुशल, अर्द्धकुशल व कुशल कर्मकारों की श्रेणियां भी बनायी गयी है एवं ग्रेड सिस्टम भी बनाकर वेतनमान दिया जा रहा है क्योंकि सभी प्रार्थी साक्षियों ने अप्रार्थी की ओर से जिरह में उनको दिये गये सुझाव में यह माना है कि कर्मचारी जैसा काम कर रहे है उसके अनुसार उसे वैसा वेतन मिल रहा है अर्थात् स्किल्ड को स्किल्ड का व सेमीस्किल्ड को सेमी स्किल्ड का । अप्रार्थी साक्षी डी डब.1 अमित कुलश्रेष्ठ द्वारा अपनी मुख्य परीक्षा में श्रमिकों चाहे किसी भी श्रेणी के हो उन्हें ग्रेड में पदोन्नति दिये जाने एवं कुछ वर्षों पश्चात् ग्रेड का लाभ दिये जाने के तथ्य दर्ज करवाये गये है । इससे यही तात्पर्य निकलता है कि अकुशल, अर्द्धकुशल व कुशल श्रेणियों के कर्मकारों के रखे जाने के साथ-साथ कुशल कर्मकारो को कुछ वर्षों पश्चात् ग्रेड दिया जाता है । कुछ वर्ष कितने है यह उक्त साक्षी की साक्ष्य से स्पष्ट नहीं है । समझौता प्रदर्श एम-1 आकस्मिक कर्मकारों के ंसंबंध में है तथा समझौता प्रदर्श एम-3 श्रमिक प्यारेलाल के संबंध है जो हस्तगत प्रकरण से कोई विशेष संबंध नहीं रखते है । समझौता पत्र प्रदर्श एम-4 जो कि भारतीय खान मजदूर संघ एवं कुछII (ii) 4959 कर्मकारों एवं अप्रार्थी संस्थान के मध्य दि.8.5.2010 को निष्पादित हुआ है के मद नं.3 में ग्रेड वाले कर्मचारियों को स्किल्ड के वर्तमान न्यूनतम वेतन से कम वेतन नहीं दिया जाना एवं केंद्र सरकार द्वारा समय-समय पर स्किल्ड श्रेणी के महंगाई भत्ते को दिया जाना तय पाया गया है । पूर्व में किये गये विवेचनानुसार उक्त समझौता अप्रार्थी प्रबंधन सहित उक्त समझौते के पक्षकारों पर बाध्यकारी है क्योंकि यह समझौता वार्ता के दौरान का समझौता नहीें है । प्रदर्श एम-7 (प्रदर्श डब.15) समझौता पत्र दि.2.6.10 जो कि उक्त विवेचनानुसार प्रार्थी यूनियन एवं अप्रार्थी संस्थान दोनों पर बाध्यकारी है के भी मद नं.4 में उक्त विवेचित समझौता पत्र प्रदर्श एम-4 की ही उक्त विवेचित शर्त वर्णित है तथा साथ में मद नं.6 में यह भी वर्णित है कि श्रमिक पक्ष इस समझौते के बाद केंद्र सरकार द्वारा घोषित स्किल्ड सेमी स्किल्ड, अनस्किल्ड की श्रेणी को कर्मचारियों के लिए भविष्य में लागू करने की कोई मांग नहीं उठायेगा तथा मद सं.10 में यह भी वर्णित है कि घेवरिया माइंस पर मैकेनिकल विभाग में कार्यरत स्किल्ड कर्मचारियों को ग्रेड में लेने के संबंध में दो माह बाद चर्चा कर ली जावेगी जिससे यह प्रकट होता है कि उक्त समझौते के माध्यम से श्रेणी खत्म करते हुए स्किल्ड श्रेणी के कर्मचारियों को ग्रेड में लेने की चर्चा करना तय पाया गया किंतु पूर्व में विवेचित अनुसार उक्त श्रेणियां अकुलशल, अर्द्धकुशल व कुशल श्रमिक की अप्रार्थी संस्थान में अब भी विद्यमान है । प्रदर्श एम-5 समझौता पत्र दि. 7.3.13 त्रिपक्षीय जो समझौता अधिकारी के समक्ष हुआ है जिससे अप्रार्थी प्रबंधन व प्रार्थी यूनियन के सदस्यों सहित समस्त कर्मकार उक्त विवेचनानुसार पाबंद है के मद सं.5 की शर्त सं.5 में यह वर्णित है कि प्रबंधन जो कर्मचारी कंसोलिडेटेड वेतन कीे बजाए ग्रेड पद्धति में वेतन पाना चाहता है द्वारा उन्हें दि.31.3.13 तक आवेदन दिये जावेंगे तथा मद सं.7 अनुसार ग्रेड भी निर्धारित की गयी है । प्रदर्श एम-6 समझौता पत्र दि.31.7.13 के मद सं.1 के श्रमिकों की समान कार्य के लिये समान वेतन एवं वेतन विसंगतियों को दूर करने की मांग के सर्वप्रथम कार्य के अनुसार पद निर्धारित करने के उपरांत तदनुसार ग्रेड में पद निर्धारित किया जाना एवं मद नं.7 में अप्रैल 2007 अथवा पांच वर्ष से जो श्रमिक स्थाई कर्मचारी रहते हुए अर्द्धकुशल या कुशल श्रेणी का वेतन प्राप्त कर रहे थे/है को अर्द्धकुशल से कुशल एवं कुशल से ग्रेड की श्रेणी दि. 1.7.13 से दिये जाने पर सहमति प्रबंधन द्वारा दी गयी है जिस समझौते से अप्रार्थी उक्त विवेचनानुसार पाबंद है ।
17. उक्त समझौतो के दृष्टिगत प्रार्थी यूनियन की मांगों पर विचार करने पर मांग सं.1 जो कि श्रमिक गोपाल कर्मचारी सहित सावल ऑपरेटर को समान कार्य के लिए समान वेतन दिये जाने व पूर्व के वेतन से कम वेतन नहीं दिये जाने से संबंधित है जायज एवं वैधानिक ठहराये जाने योग्य है क्योंकि समान कार्य के लिए समान वेतन पाना भारतीय संविधान के अनुच्छेद 14 में अंतर्निहित समता के अधिकार के अनुसार श्रमिकों का मूल अधिकार है तथा समान कार्य हेतु समान वेतन दिये जाने व पूर्व वेतन से कम ग्रेड नहीं दिये जाने के संबंध में उक्त प्रकार समझौते भी है । मांग सं.3 में प्रार्थी यूनियन द्वारा वेतनमान के समक्ष पद अंकित किये जाने की मांग की गयी है । प्रार्थी यूनियन की ओर से तर्क रहा है कि इस कारण से भ्रम पैदा होता है जो वास्तविक प्रकट होता है । अप्रार्थी की ओर से उक्त मांग पर कार्यवाही असंभव होना बताया गया है जो माने जाने योग्य नहीें है क्योंकि उक्त विवेचनानुसार प्रदर्श एम-6 समझौता पत्र में स्वयं अप्रार्थी द्वारा उसके मद नं.1 में समान कार्य के लिए समान वेतन एवं वेतन विसंगतियों को दूर करने की मांग को विचार में लेकर कार्य अनुसार पद एवं ग्रेड में पद निर्धारित किया जाना तय पाया गया है । जिस समझौते से अप्रार्थी प्रबंधन बाध्य है । यदि प्रार्थी की ओर से दिये गये तर्कानुसार ग्रेड के समक्ष पद अंकित नहीें किये जाने के कारण भ्रम एवं वेतन विसंगतियां नहीें होतीे तथा अप्रार्थी की ओर से दिये गये तर्कानुसार यह असंभव होता तो अप्रार्थी प्रबंधन उक्त शर्त को उक्त समझौते में नहीें तय पाता । ऐसी परिस्थिति में प्रार्थी यूनियन की मांग सं.3 भी जायज एवं वैधानिक माने जाने योग्य है। जहां तक मांग सं.15 का प्रश्न है यह प्रार्थी साक्षियों का स्वीकृत तथ्य है कि घनश्याम पालीवाल त्यागपत्र दे चुका है तथा प्यारा गुर्जर किसी फौजदारी केस में निरूद्ध होने के कारण कार्य नहीं कर रहा है तथा माधू जाट ठेकेदार का श्रमिक है । शेष श्रमिक प्रवीण शर्मा, रामकुमार गुर्जर, काना गुर्जर, नटवर सुवालका जो कि माइंस पर काम कर रहे है को स्किल्ड मान कर स्थाई किये जाने की मांग भी प्रार्थी यूनियन की जायज एवं वैधनिक प्रतीत होतीे है क्योंकि इस मांग के विरूद्ध अप्रार्थी की ओर से कोई ऐसे तथ्य नहीं रखे गये है जिनके कारण उक्त मांग को अवैधानिक व नाजायज माना जा सके । मांग सं.16 जिसमें कि घोवरिया माइंस में एच. एम. ऑपरेटर का कार्य करने वाले सभी श्रमिकों को समान वेतन दिये जाने की मांग रखी गयी है भी उक्त समान कार्य के लिए समान वेतन के सिद्धांत तहत वैधानिक एवं उक्त समझौतों के अनुरूप है । वैसे भी अप्रार्थी साक्षी डी डब.1 अमित कुलश्रेष्ठ द्वारा अपनी मुख्य परीक्षा की साक्ष्य के शपथ पत्र के मद सं.13 में उक्त पांचों मांगों को मानना दर्ज करवाया गया है जिससे यही तात्पर्य निकलता है कि उक्त मांगे माने जाने योग्य है तथा जिसको मानने में प्रबंधन को केाई एतराज नहीं रहा है ।
18. फलस्वरूप प्रार्थी का स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम उक्तानुसार स्वीकार किये जाते हुए उक्त विवाद का उत्तर उक्तानुसार ही दिया जाना न्यायसंगत है।
आदेश
19. अतः एतद्द्वारा प्रार्थी का स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम उपरोक्तानुसार स्वीकार किया जाकर उक्त निर्देशित विवाद का उत्तर इस प्रकार से दिया जाता है कि प्रबंधन उदयपुर मिनरल सिंडीकेट प्राईवेट लिमिटेड भीलवाडा के द्वारा खनिज4960 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] धातु मजदूर संघ की मांग सं. 1, 3, 15, 16 को नहीं मानना उपरोक्तानुसार न्यायोचित तथा न्यायसंगत नहीं है तथा मांग सं.2 के पूरी हो जाने के कारण प्रार्थी यूनियन द्वारा उसे प्रेस नहीं किया गया है । फलस्वरूप अप्रार्थी संस्थान से उसके मौजूदा कर्मकार उक्त मांग पत्र की मांग सं. 1, 3, 15 व 16 लागू करवा उनके अनुसार परिणामिक परिलाभ प्राप्ति के अधिकारी है ।
एस. एन. टेलर, न्यायाधीश —
[
II ] New Delhi, the 8th August, 2017
S.O. 1859.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam, Cochin as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.08.2017.
[No. L-12012/50/2010-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri.K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer
(Thursday the 15th day of June, 2017/25th Jyaistha, 1939)
ID 28/2010
Workman : Shri Manoj V,
S/o.Shri Velayudhan, Mattukkad House, Copalmannam PO, Palghat – 678702.
By M/s. H. B. Shenoy Associates
Management : The Deputy General Manager,
Union Bank of India, Nodal Regional Office, Ernakulam
By Adv. Shri. K. S. Ajayagosh
This case coming up for final hearing on 17.05.2017 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 15.06.2017 passed the following:
AWARD
This is a reference under sub-section (1)(d) and (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947).
2. The dispute referred for adjudication before this Tribunal is:
"Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India in not considering the candidature of
Shri Manoj for regular appointment and the subsequent action in terminating him from its services
without adhering to the provisions of the ID Act is fair and justifiable? What relief the workman is
entitled to?"
II (ii) 49613. After receipt of the reference Order No.L-12012/50/2010-IR(B-II) dated 07.10.2010, issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, summons was issued to the parties to appear, submit pleadings and produce documents to substantiate their respective contentions. On receipt of the summons, the parties entered appearance througha counsel and submitted their pleadings.
4. The contentions in the claim statement filed by the workman in brief are as follows:
The workman – Shri. Manoj. V was employed as part-time sweeper at the Coyalmannam branch of the management bank ever since August, 1997. The workman was employed continuously and without any break in service from August, 1997. He was required to discharge the duties of regular and permanent peon and that of the part- time sweeper. At times he had discharged the duties of regular and permanent clerk. He was engaged against the regular and permanent vacancy of part-time sweeper. The management had not extended any privileges or benefits of a permanent part-time sweeper to the workman nor did they pay any benefits to the workman for his employment as a peon and a clerk. The management has allowed only the benefits and privileges much below the salary of a permanent part-time sweeper. They have not paid any remuneration to the workman for the services rendered by him as peon and as a clerk, stating that his services are not regularized. The management has not initiated any action to regularize the workman in service even after repeated requests made by him and the union.
5. The Manager of the Coyalmannam branch of the management bank orally terminated the services of the workman on 27.11.2005. The termination of his services by the management amounts to retrenchment. The management has not issued any notice or pay in lieu of notice preceding the retrenchment of the workman from service. The action of the management is illegal, unjust and unsustainable in law. It is clear violation of Paragraphs 522, 523 and 524 of the Sastry Award governing the workman and the management. Apart from this the persons employed much later to that of the workman are retained by the management in their service. The said action of the management is clear violation of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Paragraph 507 of the Sastry Award. Immediately after retrenching the workman, the management has appointed fresh hands in the place where the workman was employed. The said action by the management is clear violation of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Clause 20.12 of the First Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 and Paragraph 493 of the Sastry Award.
6. Despite the fact that the workman was engaged by the management against the permanent vacancy, all along, they were treating him as a temporary workman so as to deprive him of the status and privileges of a permanent workman. The management was in the habit of appointing temporary workman against regular and permanent vacancies so as to deprive the requests of those who are employed under them. The action of the management is clear violation of the statutory provisions and the terms and conditions in the Bipartite Settlement. It amounts to 'unfair labour practice' and it is prohibited under Section 25T of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it is violative of Clauses 20.7 and 20.8 of the First Bipartite Settlement and under Paragraphs 495 and 522 of the Sastry Award.
7. In fact the workman is not a temporary or casual workman. He is entitled to be regularized in service with effect from August, 1997. The action of the management in not regularizing the workman is clear violation of the statutory rules, regulations and various Clauses in the Bipartite Settlement and Paragraphs in the Sastry Award. The management has no right to terminate or discontinue the services of the workman at their whims and fancy. The continuance of the workman as "temporary or casual" by the management amounts to 'unfair labour practice' within the meaning of Section 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. So also it is clear violation of the instructions as per the Approach Papers issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. Ever since the date of denial of employment by the management, the workman is unemployed and he is not having any source of income to meet his livelihood.
8. Therefore the workman has requested to pass an award:
(a) declaring that the action of the management of the Union Bank of India, in not considering the candidature of the workman Shri. Manoj for regular appointment and the subsequent action in terminating his services without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as unjust and unfair and
(b) to declare that the workman Shri. Manoj is entitled to be reinstated in the services of the management – Union Bank of India as a permanent part time sweeper in their services with effect from August, 1997 and to pay full back wages; continuity of services and all other attendant benefits and to regularize him in their service and such other relief as this Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. The contentions in the written statement filed by the management in brief are as follows:-
The management has denied all the averments in the claim statement except those that are specifically admitted. There is non-application of mind in framing the terms of reference and hence this reference is bad in law and not4962 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] maintainable. Shri. Manoj was never engaged by the management bank for doing any regular work. He was not a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. The management is a nationalized bank and a Government of India undertaking. It has to follow the policy and procedure for recruitment as also the directions issued by the Government of India from time to time for recruitment. The bank is bound to notify the vacancies as per the provisions of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 for obtaining a list of sponsored candidates. Thereafter the bank has to follow the recruitment procedure, abide by the reservation norms and all other requirements as per the procedure.
10. Shri. V. Manoj is not a 'workman' as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and there is no 'industrial dispute' to be adjudicated as per this reference. The management has called upon the workman to prove all the averments in the claim statement. The contention of the workman that ever since August, 1997, he was employed continuously without any break in service and he was required to discharge the duties of a regular and permanent part- time sweeper and that of a regular and permanent peon and at times he was discharging the duties of a permanent clerk, is absolutely false and incorrect. He was never employed against any regular or permanent or sanctioned post. He is not entitled to get the service benefits of a regular staff. There was no appointment or termination of his service. So also there was no retrenchment of his service. He is not entitled to get any notice or pay in lieu of notice or compensation as envisaged under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There was no violation of any of the provision in Paragraphs 493, 495, 507, 522, 523 and 524 of the Sastry Award or Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. So also there is no violation of any of the Clauses in the First Bipartite Settlement. There was no unfair labour practice by the management.
11. The contention of the workman that he is entitled to protection as per the Clauses in the First Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 and also as per the Approach Paper and instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, is absolutely false. The contention of the workman that he had more than eight years of continuous service in the management bank is also false.
12. Shri. V. Manoj was never appointed/recruited by the management bank througha a regular recruitment process in a sanctioned post by an authority competent to make such an appointment. Further in the beginning of August, 1997 he was only a school going student. His parents were running a tea shop by the side of the Coyalmannam branch of the bank. They used to supply tea and meals to the bank employees and as a result he used to visit the branch.
13. He was never engaged to do any regular work in the bank. The contention that he was engaged as temporary workman against the permanent vacancy in order to deprive his status and privileges, is absolutely false. In the absence of the regular part-time employee/sweeper, the then Manager used to engage Shri. V. Manoj for doing the miscellaneous work as and when exigencies warranted.
14. The contention of the workman that the management committed unfair labour practice in order to deprive his legitimate right, is absolutely false. The contention of the workman that the management violated Clause 20.12 of the First Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966, is false and incorrect. The terms and conditions in the Settlement mentioned above are not applicable to the workman involved in this case.
15. The procedure for recruitment in a Government undertaking like the management bank is in accordance with the recruitment procedure. There was no retrenchment or a denial of employment to the workman as contended by him. The law on this aspect is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in the Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi and Others. The contention of the workman that he is unemployed and without any income is absolutely false. He is now gainfully employed. The management has requested to uphold their contentions and reject the claim of the workman.
16. After filing written statement by the management the workman filed replication reiterating the contentions in the claim statement. He has requested to uphold his contentions and pass an award in accordance with his claim.
17. After affording sufficient opportunity to both the parties to take steps and for production of documents, the matter was posted for evidence. The workman tendered evidence as WW1. On behalf of the management MW1 was examined. No documents were marked on either side. Heard both sides.
18. The points arising for consideration are:
"(i) Whether the workman Shri. V. Manoj was employed/ engaged as a part-time sweeper in the
services of the management bank at their Coyalmannam branch? If so, is he entitled to continue as
a regular and permanent part-time sweeper in the management bank?
(ii) Whether the workman Shri. V. Manoj was continuously employed/engaged as a part-time sweeper
from August, 1997 in the Coyalmannam branch of the management bank? If so, is he entitled to
get permanency in service in the management bank?
II (ii) 4963(iii) Whether the workman is entitled to get regular appointment as part-time sweeper in the
management bank?"
19. Point Nos.(i) to (iii) : The workman involved in this reference Shri. V. Manoj has stated that ever since August, 1997 he was employed as a part-time sweeper in the services of the management bank at their Coyalmannam branch. He would further state that ever since August, 1997 he was discharging the duties as a regular and permanent part-time sweeper and also the duties of a permanent peon and at times he used to do the duties of a permanent clerk. He has stated that even thougha he was discharging the duties as aforesaid, the management failed to pay suitable remuneration for the work done by him as a peon and as a clerk. The workman has stated that while he was employed as aforesaid, on 27.11.2005, the Manager of the Coyalmannam branch of the management bank orally terminated his services and directed him not to enter inside the branch. It is stated that the termination of his service by the management amounts to retrenchment. He has stated that the management has not followed the rules and procedure before retrenching him from service. According to the workman the action of the management amounts to violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
20. The workman has stated that the management has violated the stipulations in Paragraphs 493, 495, 507, 522 and 523 of the Sastry Award. It is stated that their action is clear violation of Clauses 20.07 and 20.8 of the First Bipartite Settlement. The workman has stated that the action of the management amounts to unfair labour practice. The workman has stated that he was employed against a regular and permanent vacancy. He has stated that he was continuously and without any interruption employed as such right from August, 1997 and hence he will come under the purview of permanent workman specified in the All India Awards and Bipartite Settlements prevalent in the banking industry. According to him he cannot be treated as a "temporary or casual" for the reason that he was employed continuously against the permanent vacancy of a part-time sweeper. Therefore the workman has requested to declare that the action of the management of the Union Bank of India in not considering his candidature for regular appointment and the subsequent action of terminating his services without following the procedure and provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as unfair; unjust and further to declare that he is entitled to be reinstated in the services of the Union Bank of India as a permanent part-time sweeper in the regular services and to pay all other attendant benefits as a permanent part-time sweeper with effect from August, 1997 and to grant such other relief incidental thereto.
21. The management has disputed the claim of the workman. They have stated that Shri. V. Manoj was never appointed by the management bank nor engaged by the bank for doing any regular work. He is not a "workman" as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The management is a nationalized bank and a Government of India undertaking. It has to follow the policy and procedure for recruitment as also the directions issued by the Government of India from time to time for recruitment. The management is bound to notify the vacancies in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, for the purpose of obtaining a list of candidates sponsored. Thereafter the bank has to follow the procedure for recruitment, abide by the reservation norms and all the procedures in accordance with the notification and guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time in this behalf.
22. The management has called upon the workman to prove all the averments in the claim statement. The contention of the workman that ever since August, 1997, he was employed continuously and without any break in the services of the bank and he was required to discharge the duties as a regular and permanent part-time sweeper and also the duties of a permanent peon and at times he was discharging the duties of a permanent clerk etc., are denied by the management. They have stated that he was never employed/ engaged against any regular/permanent or sanctioned post. The contention that the management has violated the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the stipulations in the Sastry Award and various Clauses in the First Bipartite Settlement, is denied by the management bank. The contention of the workman that ever since August, 1997 he was employed in the bank, is denied by them. It is stated that in the beginning of August, 1997 the workman was only a school boy. It is stated that his parents were running a petty tea shop near the Coyalmannam branch of the management bank. He used to supply tea and meals to the bank officials, for which he used to visit the branch. In the absence of the regular part-time sweeper, the then bank Manager used to engage Shri. V. Manoj for doing the cleaning work of the branch. Occasionally he was doing the work of loading and unloading of material shifted in and out of the branch. For doing such miscellaneous work the branch Managers used to pay amount to Shri. V. Manoj. It was not on the basis of any regular and permanent engagement to any sanctioned post or claiming permanency in employment. His services were utilized as and when exigencies warranted. The management has called upon the workman to prove his appointment as a permanent part-time sweeper against any sanctioned post.
23. While examined as WW1, the workman has stated that from the year 1994, his father was running a petty tea shop near the management bank. During that time he used to assist his father for supplying tea and snacks to the bank staff. He has further stated that from August, 1997 to November, 2005 he was employed as a part-time sweeper in the Union Bank of India. He would further state that the then Manager Shri. M. K. Sahadevan appointed him in the bank.
4964 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]He has stated that there is no document evidencing his appointment as part-time sweeper in the management bank. The workman has stated that as and when the regular employee was on leave he was engaged on casual or temporary basis by the management. He has admitted that the Manager of the Union Bank of India has no authority to appoint part-time sweeper in the bank.
24. While examined as MW1, the clerk who was working in the bank at the relevant time has stated that the parents of the workman were running a petty tea shop near the side of the Coyalmannam branch of the management bank. They used to supply tea and meals to the bank staff. She would further state that in the absence of regular sweeper, the then Manager used to engage the workman for doing the cleaning work of the branch, for which amount was paid to him. MW1 has stated that in fact the workman was assisting his father in their tea shop.
25. In the decision reported in the Regional Manager, State Bank of India Vs. Mahatma Mishra in Civil Appeal No.4636 of 2006, Judgment dated 01.11.2006, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that "If appointment is made without following the Rules, the same being a nullity the question of confirmation of an employee upon the expiry of the purported period of probation would not arise". In view of the dictum laid down in the decision above and also in view of the decision reported in The Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, 2006 (4) SSC Page 1; the workman involved in this reference has no legal right to claim permanency in service under the management bank.
26. Even thougha the workman has stated that he was employed continuously and permanently as a part-time sweeper right from August, 1997 in the management bank, there is no evidence to substantiate the same. The management has totally denied the claim of the workman as an employee under them. They have called upon the workman to prove all the averments in the claim statement. On an evaluation of the evidence tendered by WW1 on the one hand and MW1 on the other it is clear that the workman was not engaged against any regular or permanent vacancy in the management bank. In such circumstance the workman is not entitled to get the relief as requested by him. Therefore the points for consideration are answered against the workman.
27. In the result an award is passed holding that the workman is not entitled to any relief as per this reference.
The Award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.
Pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 15th day of June, 2017.
SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the workman
WW1 13.05.2016 Shri. Manoj. V.
Witness for the management
MW1 14.02.2017 Smt. Saira Bhanu. A.
Exhibit for the workman NIL
Exhibit for the management NIL
—
[
II ] New Delhi, the 8th August, 2017
S.O. 1860.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 134/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.08.2017.
[No. L-12011/70/2007-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk OfficerII (ii) 4965
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 12TH JUNE 2017
PRESENT : SHRI V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
C. R. NO. 134/2007
I Party
II Party
The Assistant General Manager, Syndicate Bank,
Sh. S.D Thammaiah, S/o Sannadurgappa, Milagatta II Cross, Bovi Colony, Head Office, Durgammanakeri, Manipal - 576104 Shimoga – 577201
(Represented by M/s Ramesh
Represented by : General Secretary, Mr. Rama Rao, Upadhyaya, Advocate) Dharwad District Bank Employees Association No.9, Corporation Bld, Broadway, Hubli – 580020
AWARD
1. The Central Government vide Order No.L-12011/70/2007-IR(B-II) dated 18.09.2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the order of compulsory retirement from service imposed on Shri. S.D. Thammaiah by the
management of Syndicate Bank is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. Brief details mentioned in the claim statement are as follows:-
i) The I Party states that, on 11.04.1986, I Party joined the service of the II Party Management at its Shikaripura Branch and has served with the bank sincerely, honestly, deligently and continuously. Employee No. of I Party is 463645 and he has lastly worked in Tumari, Dist. Shimoga. The I Party has availed housing loan from Shikaripura Branch of II Party for construction of his house in 1998/1999. Due to family problems and financial problem and also, for the construction of the house, the wife of I Party has availed loan from Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, Shimoga and the same has been known to the branch manager Mr. N.R. Govinda, under whom the I Party has served. For the availing of loan of I Party's wife, from Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, the I Party has taken the Xerox Copies of the house property deeds and the I Party has submitted the Xerox Copies to Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, telling them that, he has availed the loan on his property from the II Party Bank and he has signed as a guarantor for the loan of his wife at Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha. In the said background, the I Party has been issued with charge sheet No. CGS (W) 25/ZOU/RC/2003 dated 24.07.2003 alleging against him that, he has obtained loan from Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, by giving them certified copy of the title deeds of his property and registered equitable mortgage at Sub-Registrar Office, Shikaripur, without taking any prior permission from the II Party/Bank. It is alleged that, the I Party has filed affidavit by stating that, no other charge is created on his property and also, the I Party has availed additional loan of Rs. 80,000/- from II Party and rented the house for Rs. 2,000/-, without giving any information to the bank, and also suppressed his liability with Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, and tarnished the image of the bank by not repaying the loan to Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha.
ii) Further, enquiry has been ordered on the charges and the enquiry has been held. The bank concluded the said enquiry on the sole evidence of the Investigation Officer, who took the questions and answers dictated by him to the I Party under coercion (DQ21-MEX-14 in the enquiry). Further, the I Party has offered to sell the property to clear the II Party Bank loan. The enquiry proceedings show that, the enquiry is conducted on the Xerox Copies of several documents, without the production of any originals. The I Party has been victimised by collusion of the branch manager Sri Govinda with Shiva Sahakari Bank manager to punish the I Party. The Loan Documents of Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha are produced in the enquiry. Further, the purpose of taking affidavit is to cover up the non production of EC by manager and to put the blame on the I Party and to victimize the I Party. Further, the I Party4966 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] submitted in the written arguments to the Enquiry Officer, that, the loan in Shiva Sahakari Bank is obtained by the wife of the I Party and the I Party has been taken as the guarantor, and there is no independent evidence other than investigating officer against the I Party. The Enquiry Officer in other place has stated that, the EC cannot be obtained. Hence, the report of Enquiry Officer is not based on records and is perverse on many counts.
iii) Further, the I Party has closed the loan with II Party/Bank. But, the punishment has been converted into Compulsory Retirement of services by the Appellate Authority througha his order dated 03.03.2005. Further, the I Party submits that, the issue of charge sheet, proceedings of enquiry, imposing punishment of CRS based on the charge sheet, are all based on wrong footings, biased, not in accordance with the principles on natural justice, excessive, and hence, illegal. The I Party has informed the customer about his difficulty and the customer has agreed to lend to the I Party and told the I Party to put Rs. 10,000/- in his withdrawal slip and the same has been filled by the I Party in the presence of the customer. Hence, the cashier has paid Rs. 10,000/- cash to Basavanagouda, before passing of the withdrawal slips. The I Party went down from the branch and Basavanagouda gave the I Party Rs. 5,000/- as hand loan. The I Party repaid the amount to the customer after, about a month. However, based on the said details, the II Party bank has suspended the I Party on 25.02.2004, and also, issued a charge sheet No. CGS (W) 3/ZOU/IRC/2003 dated 15.03.2004, stating that, the I Party has filled the withdrawal slip for Rs. 10,000/- thougha the customer requested to fill it for Rs. 5,000/- only, and collected the amount from the cashier, handed over to the customer and detained Rs. 5,000/- with him, stealthily.
iv) Further, the I Party has obtained signature of the customer in the letter dated 15.10.2003 for withdrawing the complaint against him. MEX-11,12,13 show that, manager asked the head office to transfer the I Party as punishment. A letter is also taken as per MEX-9 on 13.01.2004 from MW-1. MEX-12, does not show that I Party has told the customer of his trouble, and also there is no proof of shouting at the customers. Further, I Party states that, the Enquiry Officer's report is not based on facts, but biased. The I Party has submitted several memorandums to the II Party/Bank, which have been duly recommended by the branch manager of Shikaripur and Tumari branches on 10.08.2005, 17.04.2006, 28.07.2006 and 30.08.2006, which show that, request made by the I Party are genuine and I Party is not a culprit. As the II Party has been adamant in extending justice to the I Party, the conciliation meeting has also ended in failure. Therefore, the I Party prays to pass an Award by declaring the Compulsory Retirement of Services of the I Party w.e.f 03.03.2005 as excessive, illegal, null and void.
3. Brief details mentioned in the counter statement are as follows:-
i) The II Party states that, the II Party has issued 2 charge sheets to the I Party for certain gross misconduct and as the charges proved in the enquiry are serious/grave, he has been awarded the punishment of "Compulsory Retirement". The I Party has been issued with charge sheet dated 24.07.2003 for the reasons that he has availed Housing Loans from the Bank, being a borrower/employee, and handed over original title deeds of the property to the Bank and the said property has been taken as security under the Unregistered Equitable Mortgage with the declaration that he will not sell/alienate the property to others without prior permission of the Bank. Further, the I Party has availed a loan of Rs. 1,00,000 from Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, Shikaripura along with his wife by suppressing the fact of his handing over the original title deeds to II Party/Syndicate Bank. Based on the information/declaration given by him to the said bank that the original title deeds are lost, they have created the Registered Equitable Mortgage at the Sub-Registrar's office to secure their dues based on the certified Xerox copy of the title deeds furnished by I Party, thougha the said property has been already taken as security and mortgaged under the Unregistered Equitable Mortgage to Syndicate Bank in respect of his Housing Loans. Further, the loan has been sanctioned to him on 04.01.2001 at Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, Shikaripura, and he has declared in his affidavit dated 30.12.2002 that he has not voluntarily created any charge over the said property in favour of any individual or institution as a security for any loan by way of Equitable Mortgage by depositing his title deeds or registered mortgage or by any other means and thereby deliberately suppressed the information of his availing loan at Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, Shikaripura and also submitted the false affidavit.
ii) Further, it has been decided to get the matter departmentally enquired and Enquiry Officer has been appointed vide letter dated 08.09.2003 to conduct enquiry and to submit the report/finding. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his findings dated 09.08.2004 wherein he has come to the conclusion that the I Party has committed the misconduct, based upon the oral and documentary evidences adduced in the enquiry. Further, considering the gravity and seriousness of the charge proved against the I Party, the Disciplinary Authority proposed the punishment of "Dismissal" and gave him a personal hearing on 22.11.2004. Having regard to the seriousness and gravity of the charge proved in the enquiry,II (ii) 4967 Disciplinary Authority awarded the punishment of "Dismissal from the services of the Bank" vide proceedings dated 09.12.2004 to I Party and subsequently the I Party preferred an appeal against the said orders and the Appellate Authority vide proceedings dated 26.02.2005 modified the punishment to "Compulsory Retirement".
iii) Further, the I Party has also been issued with another charge sheet dated 15.03.2004 for the reason that on 20.08.2003 at the request of Sri M. Basavanagouda, customer of Shikaripura Branch, the I Party has written the amount as Rs. 10,000/- on the withdrawal slip as against the customer's request for Rs. 5,000/- and before that, obtained customer's signature on blank withdrawal slip, thereafter filled the same for Rs. 10,000/- and also, obtained token, and received cash of Rs. 10,000/- from the cashier (on customer's behalf) but handed over only Rs. 5,000/- to the customer which he wanted to withdraw on that day and kept the balance amount of Rs. 5,000/- with him, stealthily. The customer lodged the complaint dated 17.09.2003 to the Bank. The customer informed the Vigilance Officer about his earlier complaint and the subsequent withdrawal of the complaint which has been done at the behest of I Party and he reiterated that he wanted to withdraw Rs. 5,000/- only on that day and the I Party took his signature on the blank withdrawal slip, filled the same for Rs. 10,000/- collected the cash from the cashier and gave him Rs. 5,000/-. The customer subsequently informed that the I Party has paid the amount of Rs. 5,000/- to him. Further, the I Party attended the enquiry along with his Defence Representative, Sri. M. Ananthakrishna, Secretary of the Union. During the enquiry, the management has examined 3 witnesses including the said customer, Sri M. Basavanagouda and relied upon 20 documents to sustain the charges levelled against the I Party.
iv) The Enquiry Officer has examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the enquiry, then, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion vide his findings dated 28.08.2004 that the charges levelled against the I Party are proved in the enquiry. Considering the gravity and seriousness of the charges proved in the enquiry, punishment of "Dismissal" has been proposed and he has been given a personal hearing on 22.11.2004 regarding the proposed punishment. The Appellate Authority vide proceedings dated 26.02.2005 modified the punishment to "Compulsory Retirement". As the charges proved against him are grave and serious, the Bank cannot keep him in its employment and the punishment awarded is proportionate to the charges proved against him. Further, by handing over certified Xerox copy of title deed to Shiva Sahakari Bank and declaring that the original title deed has been lost, he gave the false declaration to them, thougha he has already handed over original title deed to Syndicate Bank as a security in respect of Housing Loans availed by him. Appellate Authority's order shows that the Bank has lost its confidence on the I Party. Further, excellence is not achieved except with a deep sense of commitment to work and discipline. Loyalty to work and discipline among the employees of the II Party are two important factors for the existence of the II Party/Bank. The II Party has imposed proper punishment for the concerned workman/I Party for the grave misconduct committed by him.
4. The crucial point that arises for consideration in the present matter is:-
"Whether the order of compulsory retirement from service with retirement benefits, imposed on Shri. S.D. Thammaiah/workman by the management of Syndicate Bank is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?"
5. Analysis, Discussion Findings with regard to the above mentioned point:-
The I Party has filed affidavit dated 17.09.2014 solemnly affirmed before the notary public. In that, the workman has categorically admitted that he has availed Hosing Loan from the II Party for the construction of his house in the year 1998/99 against the security of depositing the title deeds of his property and also signed in all loan papers, including the papers, for creating mortgage/lien on his property. Further, I Party himself admitted in the said affidavit that his wife availed loan from Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, Shimoga, and for the said loan he has given the Xerox copies of title deed to Shiva Sahakari Bank and he has signed as the guarantor for the loan of his wife at Shiva Sahakari Bank. Hence, as a guarantor the workman is also liable to pay amount due to the Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha. Further, I Party has admitted that his wife got the loan based upon the Xerox copy of title deeds submitted to Shiva Sahakari Bank and also, on his guarantee. Furthermore, the I Party has not established that the said loan details are known to the Branch Manager Mr. N.R. Govinda under whom he has worked. Further, I Party has stated in the affidavit that he has given the Xerox copy of title deed to Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, after informing them that he has availed loan for his property from the Syndicate Bank. However, as per Ex W-7, document submitted for obtaining loan from Shiva Sahakari Bank for the said property dated 12.12.2000, the I Party has stated that there is no mortgage on the said landed property of I Party. However on 17.08.1998 itself, the II Party/Syndicate Bank has sanctioned loan of Rs. 2 lakhs as housing loan for I Party for construction of house in the landed property in the name of I Party. On that ground it is seen that I Party has suppressed the material facts that he has already availed housing loan from the II4968 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Party at the time of applying for loan from Shiva Sahakari Bank througha his wife and also I Party has also given the guarantee on the same property for Rs. 1 lakhs taken as a loan from Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, on 12.12.2000. Again at the time of availing additional loan of Rs. 80,000/- on 20.08.2001 the I Party has filed an affidavit dated 30.12.2002 signed before the notary public and marked as Ex MEX-10. In the said affidavit also the I Party has stated that he has not voluntarily created any charge of said property in favour of any individual or institution as a security for any loan by way of Equitable Mortgage by depositing his title deeds or registered mortgage or any other means. Hence, it is clear that, the I Party has deliberately suppressed the material information of the availing loan at Shiva Sahakari Bank, Shikaripura by giving security of the said property, and also, submitted, the said false affidavit to the II Party.
6. Further, it is seen that the I Party as a guarantor has mortgaged the same property to avail the loan along with his wife for Rs. 1 lakhs on 12.12.2000 with the Shiva Sahakari Bank. In the above mentioned circumstances, also it is seen that the I Party has committed the misconduct of suppressing the material facts at the time of availing loan with Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, and also at the time of filing the above said affidavit dated 30.12.2002. Further, as per Ex W-6 loan repayment certificate, the Shiva Sahakari Bank, Manager has certified that the wife of I Party has repaid the loan taken on 04.01.2001 with interest on 01.09.2004 and in fact, the I Party has given the guarantee and mortgage of his property for the said loan amount. On that basis also it is seen that, the I Party has suppressed the material facts of obtaining loan earlier with II Party/Bank. Further, a statement made by the I Party to the effect that I Party has been victimized by collusion of Branch Manager Mr. N.R. Govind with Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, to punish the I Party. However, the said statement has not been established by I Party in an acceptable manner. Further, I Party has admitted that, he has not stated before the Disciplinary Authority regarding his grievance. Further, I Party has categorically admitted that there is no personal enemity between him and the Enquiry Officer. Further, it is seen that based upon the material facts and records, the Enquiry Officer has held that the charge made against the I Party regarding the suppression of material facts at the time of applying for loan from Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, and also, giving guarantee and mortgage of the same property, have been proved. Further, it is seen that the I Party has created the 2 charges on the same property, that too, at the time of working as a II Party/Bank employee, and hence, it is a clear case of misconduct. Further, it is clearly established by the II Party that the I Party has acted by hiding the real facts of mortgaging the Original title deeds with the II Party and the I Party, having stood as a guarantor for the loan obtained by his wife from the Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, cannot escape his liability, by putting the blame on his wife.
7. Further, it is admitted by the I Party that he has verified the copies with the Original and also, satisfied about their genuiness and the same is recorded in the enquiry proceedings dated 10.06.2004 and the I Party has also signed in the said proceedings. Further, the I Party has not disputed the fact that he approached the other bank namely Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, by producing the copies of original documents, mortgaged with the II Party/Bank to avail the loan. Further, the guarantor or borrower do not constitute separate entity, and both are jointly and severally liable. Further, I Party, who has served as an employee of the II Party/Bank, is well versed with the details and in order to escape from the said misconduct, he is making untenable submissions. Further, the action of I Party, in supplying the copies of the documents to Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha., after already depositing the original documents in the custody of II Party, will clearly establish the misconduct, and the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority are also just and proper.
8. Further, regarding the another Charge, in the affidavit the I Party has admitted that on 20.08.2003 Basavanagouda a villager and customer of the bank came to the Branch and requested the I Party to give him a withdrawal slip and the said customer informed the I Party that he requires Rs. 5,000/- and I Party requested the customer to give Rs. 5,000/- as the hand loan and the customer agreed to lend the said money to I Party and directed the I Party to withdraw the money and thereafter, the I Party has written Rs. 10,000/- in the withdrawal slip in the presence of the customer. Thereafter, the I Party went to the cashier and also represented that the customer requires the cash urgently and also the cheque is under process of passing and requested the cashier to pay the amount against the withdrawal slip and the cashier paid Rs. 10,000/- to Basavanagouda before passing of the withdrawal slip and Basavanagouda gave the I Party Rs. 5,000/- as the hand loan. In such circumstance only, the II Party has rightly pointed out that I Party has not been entrusted with the duties of filling up the withdrawal slip for the customers and only after the customer gave complaint to the bank about the balance appearing in his Pass Book, the I Party has made the repayment of Rs. 5,000/- to the customer. Further, it has been rightly pointed out by the II Party that, if the said customer is closely known to I Party, then, there is no need for the customer to give the complaint against the I Party.
9. Further, as an afterthoughat and also in order to save the interest of I Party, on 22.04.2004, the I Party obtained the letter from Basavanagouda to the effect that he gave loan to I Party on 20.07.2003 of an amount Rs. 5,000/- and he returned it on 15.10.2003 and he has written something wrong, earlier, due to illiteracy. Certainly, this sort of explanation made on behalf of the I Party cannot be accepted because the illiterate customer, would not write something wrong about the misconduct committed by the I Party. Further, on 20.11.2003 itself, the Branch ManagerII (ii) 4969 has written to the Regional Manager by complaining that I Party used to borrow money from the depositors of II Party/Bank and he never repays and already, he has given direction, not to borrow money from the customers, and hence, requested to shift the I Party to any other branch, at the earliest. Again on 09.12.2003, the Branch Manager once again stated that, two complaints have been received from the customers against the I Party and I Party used to borrow money from customers, and hence, requested to shift the I Party to any other branch at the earliest. Further, after initiation of the action against the I Party by II Party, the I Party has obtained the signature of the customer to withdraw his complaint dated 17.09.2003 by another letter dated 15.10.2003. Further, the act of receiving money from the customers of the II Party/Bank and terming it as the hand loan, when customer gives a complaint, clearly establishes the I Party has acted against the interest of the II Party/Bank. Further, on perusal of the Enquiry Officer's report and the materials on record, it is found that Enquiry Officer has considered the evidences of witnesses and documents filed on behalf of II Party namely, Ex M-1 to Ex M-20 and also the defence witness and also documents of defence side, namely, 1to 8 and analysed the details by taking into consideration, the charge, about evidence on record, cross- examination of the witnesses, analysis of evidence and also framed the issues and independently and individually considered the issues and ultimately, came to the conclusion that gross misconduct of "Doing act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank" levelled against the I Party has been proved/established, after thoroughaly examining the materials on records in the detailed report consisting of 28 pages. The II Party has also clearly admitted that there is no personal enemity between I Party and Enquiry Officer. Further, I Party is only making bald statement of perversity of the finding and bias, which cannot be accepted.
10. Further, it is seen that on the careful analysis of documents along with the statements of witnesses the charges are proved against the I Party as per the principles of preponderance of probability. Hence, the conclusion of Enquiry Officer in holding the I Party guilt of charge is just and proper. Further, there is no perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Further, the materials available on records have established that I Party has committed the misconduct as per the principles of preponderance of probability. Further, it is seen that I Party has been imposed with proper punishment, for the misconduct committed by him and the punishment of Compulsory Retirement from Bank with immediate effect with superannuation benefit has been imposed as per the law and also without the disqualification for future employment. Further, it is seen that punishment imposed on I Party, is proportionate to the gravity of misconduct committed by him. Further, it is seen that Enquiry Officer's proceedings are justified on the materials available on record. Further, in the citation reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2311 of Allahabad in Civil Appeal No. 10773/1996, dated 07.04.1998, (Before Mrs. Justice Sujata V. Manohar, Mr. Justice Kurdukar and Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa), in the case of Union Bank of India Vs Vishwa Mohan, it is held as follows:- "It needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer. If this is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired." Further, The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1720/2002, dated 27.09.2004, (Before Mr. Justice N. Santhosh Hegde and Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha), in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs A.T. Mane, it is held as follows:- "It is also held that in such cases there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial fora and thereby interfere with the quantum of punishment." In the present case also, it is seen that proportionate punishment of Compulsory Retirement with retirement benefit has been imposed by the II Party in accordance with law.
11. Further, in judgment reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 835/1975, dated 10.10.1975, (Before Mr. Justice A. Alagiriswami, Mr. Justice P.K. Goswami and Mr. Justice N.L. Untwalia), in the case of M/s Bharat Iron Works, Vs Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and others, it is held as follows:- "Ordinarily a person is victimised, if he is made a victim or a scape-goat and is subjected to persecution, prosecution or punishment for no real fault or guilt of his own, in the manner, as it were, of a sacrificial victim. Victimisation is a serious charge by an employee against an employer, and, therefore, it must be properly and adequately pleaded giving all particulars upon which the charge is based to enable the employer to fully meet them. The onus of establishing a plea of victimisation will be upon the person pleading it. Mere allegations, vague suggestions and insinuations are not enougha." Also in the judgment reported in AIR 1968-S C-266-Central Bank of India Vs Karunamoy Banarjee, it is held as follows:- "When once workman himself admitted the guilt, there will be nothing more for management to enquire – No violation of rules of natural justice – order of labour court is erroneous and appeal allowed." In the present case also, based upon the material records, the Regional Manager has passed the order for dismissal from service by order dated 09.12.2004. However, the Appellate Authority has modified the punishment from dismissal to "Compulsory Retirement" with retirement benefits and also without the disqualification for future employment.
12. Further, it is seen that, the order of Compulsory Retirement with pension and other benefits has been passed by following the due process of law by the II Party. It is evident that the I Party has been Compulsory Retired by the order of the Appellate Authority which has been passed, pursuant to the above mentioned proven acts of misconduct. Further, it is totally incorrect to state that the Enquiry Officer has not considered the issues raised by the I Party. It is seen that the enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the Appellate Authority after examining all relevant aspects of the enquiry and representation from the I Party and also,4970 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] after the due application of mind, has modified the punishment, from dismissal to the Compulsory Retirement with pension and other benefits for I Party. It is relevant to point out that the Compulsory Retirement order with pension and other benefits has been passed strictly in accordance with the process of law. The Disciplinary Authority has passed the said order after considering the Enquiry Report of Enquiry Officer who in his report held that, the I Party is guilty of the charges levelled against him. However, taking into consideration all the relevant facts/records, including the reply of I Party by the order, the Appellate Authority while concurring with the findings of Disciplinary Authority, has modified the punishment as Compulsory Retirement, in the appeal dated 01.01.2005 filed by I Party.
13. Further, the above mentioned practice adopted by the I Party, goes to the root of the case of misconduct committed by the I Party and the said practice is very unhealthy for the interest of the Nationalised Bank like II Party. In the present case, there are no sufficient materials to interfere with the punishment imposed by the II Party and no ground made out to invoke the provision of the Sec 11(A) of the Industrial Dispute Act. For the above mentioned reasons, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the said misconducts committed by the I Party are proved as per the principles of preponderance of probability and the findings of the Enquiry Officer is fair and proper and there is no perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, in conclusion, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion, the allegation made as against the I Party, by the II Party are proved, on the basis of material records and also, as per the principles of preponderance of probability. Further, on the perusal of material records, this Tribunal finds that, there are no extenuating circumstance to take any lenient view for the said misconduct proved against the I Party and also the charges are very serious and deserves no consideration and leniency, at all. If the said misconducts are not taken into consideration for imposing the above mentioned punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits, it would be a serious concern for the interest of Nationalised Bank like II Party. Hence, after considering the material on records and facts and circumstances of the present case, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that, I Party is not a fit person to be retained in the service of II Party and hence the above mentioned, punishment is rightly imposed by Appellate Authority of the II and the said order is justified, and thus, the point is answered, in favour of II Party herein. Hence, the following award is passed:-
AWARD
The II Party/Management is justified in ordering Compulsory Retirement from service with superannuation benefits of I party/Shri. S.D. Thammaiah, as the misconduct proved against the I Party are very serious and deserves no consideration and leniency, at all and the said punishment is rightly imposed by Appellate Authority of the II Party and the said order is legal and also, justified. Thus, the award is passed, in favour of II Party herein.
Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 12th June, 2017)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
| WW 1 | Sh. S.D. Thammaiah, I Party/workman (V) |
—
[
II ] New Delhi, the 8th August, 2017
S.O. 1861.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.08.2017.
[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk OfficerII (ii) 4971
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer
Dated : the 22nd day of June, 2017
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 57/2009
Between :
Sri S. Pedda Reddy, S/o S. Raghavendra Rao, R/o 201, Narayana Residency, Madhura Nagar, Thirupathi – 517510
…Petitioner
AND
1. The Chairman & Managing Director,
Canara Bank, Personal Wing, Head Office, 112, J.C. Road, Bangalore – 560 002.
2. The Deputy General Manager,
Canara Bank Opp. Old MLA Quarters, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad – 500 029.
3. The Manager, Canara Bank, H, Kaiarawadi Branch, Thirupathi, Chittoor District …Respondents
Appearances :
For the Petitioner : M/s. G. Vidya Sagar, K. Udaya Sri & P. Sudheer Rao, Advocates For the Respondent : Sri V. Krishnudu, Advocate
AWARD
This is a petition filed by the petitioner directly invoking Sec.2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 who has been an employee of the Canara Bank seeking for declaring the action on the part of respondents in imposing major punishment of dismissing the Petitioner from service vide proceedings dated 13.1.1996 as illegal and arbitrary consequently, directing the respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service, with full back wages and all other attendant benefits.
2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner joined the service of the respondent as Clerk Cum Cashier on 24.5.1980 at Parvathipuram Branch Vijayanagaram and worked in various branches of the said bank. Subsequently he was transferred to Divisional Office, Kurnool in the month of August, 1983. There he worked in various branches of the Respondents' bank and discharging duties to the satisfaction of his superiors. While he was working as a clerk at H. Khairawadi branch the respondents' bank issued proceedings dated 18.3.1994 as per Regulation 12(i) of chapter XI of the Canara Bank Service Code suspending the Petitioner from service alleging that he committed misconduct. The allegations made against him in the said order are false and incorrect. The Petitioner has not committed any misconduct. Thereafter the respondent bank issued charge sheet dated 4.5.1994 alleging that Petitioner misappropriated funds of the said bank during the period from 1992 to 1994 on different dates. The said allegations are false and incorrect. On receiving the said charge sheet the Petitioner submitted detailed explanation, on 5.5.1994 denying the truth of the allegations levelled against him. Again the respondent bank issued another charge sheet dated 4.8.1994 extracting the same set of charges as mentioned in charge sheet dated 4.5.1994 on receiving the same the Petitioner submitted detailed explanation denying the charges. The alleged irregularities were broughat to the notice of the Petitioner 1½ years later and the said fact has also been mentioned in the said explanation. The Petitioner was under suspension for more than 20 months. He was not even paid subsistence allowance thougha the respondent bank is liable to pay the same and inspite of4972 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] repeated representations on the part of the Petitioner it was not given to him. The said action of the Respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. The Petitioner was under the impression that after receiving his explanation the Respondents would drop the charges, but he came to know that an enquiry was ordered to be conducted to the alleged charges. During the enquiry 6 witnesses of staff cadre and 26 bank customers were examined as Management witnesses and more than 250 documents were marked, but those documents were not furnished to the Petitioner at the time of marking in the enquiry. The enquiry officer has submitted his ex-parte enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Petitioner requested the enquiry officer to furnish the said documents. Inspite of it those were not supplied to him. Conducting such ex-parte enquiry is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is liable to be vitiated. Those incidents took place while the Petitioner was working in the branch where the Branch Manager and concerned officers also verified the instruments and endorsed, that the instruments were valid and correct. The Petitioner was thus proceeded with further transactions. Without considering the facts and circumstances of his case the enquiry officer submitted his report stating that the charges were held to be proved against the Petitioner thougha there was no evidence before the enquiry officer to show that the Petitioner committed irregularities as alleged by the respondent bank, hence, the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse, biased and are liable to be vitiated. The Petitioner was not given any opportunity to offer the comments on the enquiry report. He was not issued any show cause notice regarding the proposal of punishment to be imposed. Straight away the respondent bank issued dismissal order dated 13.1.1996 dismissing the Petitioner from service. Hence, the action on the part of the said bank is illegal arbitrary and unjust. No valid reasons are assigned in the dismissal order. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Disciplinary Authority dated 13.1.1996 the Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent bank explaining the facts and circumstances and requesting for reconsidering his case. But the Appellate Authority rejected the claim of the Petitioner without assigning any reason vide proceedings dated 10.3.2007. The said order is also illegal, arbitrary and unjust. Criminal cases were booked against the Petitioner vide C.C. No.51 of 1998, 52 of 1998 and 53 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class of Pattikonda. After full fledged trial, the Petitioner who faced charges under Sec. 409, 420 and 477 – A of IPC in the said cases has been found not guilty of his offences and he was acquitted by the court in C.C.51/98 and 52/98. Thereafter the Petitioner made a representation to the respondent bank on 12.6.2006 enclosing copy of the judgement dated 20.2.2006. But the respondent has not taken any steps in this regard. The dismissal of the Petitioner from service is the punishment which is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. It is a major penalty. The past service of the Petitioner was not taken into consideration. The present case squarely falls under the case of Jagadamba Prasad Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others. 2000(7) SCC page 90 and Andhra Bank vs. W.T. Seshachalam 2004(2) SCC 287. the Petitioner was unable to secure alternate employment subsequent to his dismissal from service by the respondent. Consequently he is facing severe financial problems his entire family is depending upon him. With the above averments the Petitioner submitted to direct the Respondent management to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, full back wages and all other attendant benefits, under the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
3. 2nd respondent alone filed counter in this case with the averments in brief as follows:
The Respondent No.2 in his counter while denying the facts averred in the claim petition, has specifically challenged the maintainability of the case, stating that the case Is not maintainable. This petition is filed with false concocted, baseless and untenable allegations basing on false fabricated and forged documents to harass the respondents and to have wrongful gain. The relief soughat for is belated and hopelessly time barred. The enquiry was conducted in the year 1994 and the impugned order was passed in the year 1996. Admittedly, several notices were issued to the Petitioner at the time of conducting domestic enquiry in respect of the charges leveled against him. After the enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer, the findings of the enquiry were forwarded to the Petitioner for making his submissions, but he has not made any submissions. Pursuance to the enquiry report the Disciplinary Authority of the bank has proposed for dismissal of the Petitioner in view of the gravity of the misconduct of the Petitioner and a personal hearing was given to the Petitioner on the proposed punishment on 18.12.1995. The Petitioner personally appeared before the Disciplinary Authority and pleaded for lesser punishment, and signed in the proceedings on that day. Subsequently, the impugned order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority and it was sent to the Petitioner to his last known addresses. The Petitioner challenged the same by preferring an appeal and the Appellate Authority confirmed the dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Petitioner failed to challenge the said order for 14 years and after waiting for a such long period he preferred this dispute now, by fabricating certain documents and without explaining the abnormal delay. Such a petition can not be entertained. The dispute raised by the Petitioner is not within the purview of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner was terminated for loss of confidence as he broughat disrepute to the bank by diverting the amounts deposited by the customers for his personal use. There is no unfair labour practice on the part of the bank. By following the principles of natural justice and after giving ample opportunity to the Petitioner and conducting domestic enquiry considering the gravity of the charges and evidence on record and also after hearing the Petitioner regarding the punishment the dismissal order was passed. There is neither illegality nor irregularity in passing the said order. The Petitioner while working at H. Khairawadi branch of the respondent bank from 7.4.1988 as a clerk, he failed to account for the amounts received by him from the customers of the branch for credit of their accounts. But the Petitioner issued counter foils and made entries of suchII (ii) 4973 amounts in the pass books of the customers. By adopting the said modus operandi he misappropriated huge amounts during the period from 1992 to 1994. On complaints from the customers, the bank got investigated the matter througha its officials and came to know that the Petitioner has misappropriated the amounts of the customers/bank. The Petitioner addressed a letter dated 17.6.1993 to the then Branch Manager of the bank confessing various incidents of fraud and irregularities committed by him. The bank issued charge sheet dated 4.5.1994 to the Petitioner. But he failed to give any reply. Then, an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry and a Presenting Officer was also appointed to present the case of the Management. Inspite of service of notice issued by the enquiry officer the Petitioner failed to attend the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, the enquiry was conducted ex-parte. After following the procedure required to be followed under law. On completion of enquiry the Presenting Officer forwarded the written brief to the last available address of the Petitioner. It was returned with a remark that no such house number. During enquiry apart from the officials of the bank, who investigated into the matter several customers were also examined. They all deposed that they remitted the amount along with the pay in slips for crediting in their SB Accounts. The Petitioner issued counter foils having received the said cash affixing cash received seal of the branch and also made necessary entries in the pass books of the customers. However, the amounts remitted by the customers were not credited in to the books of the bank. The enquiry officer has given several opportunities to the Petitioner, but he remained absent, during the enquiry. The Petitioner requested for adjournment of the enquiry on several occasions but he never attended the enquiry. During the personal hearing on 18.1.95 the Petitioner never raised any objection regarding the enquiry. Apart from the charge sheet dated 4.5.94, three more charge sheets were also issued against him, out of them two were dated 4.8.94 and other is dated 16.8.94. These charge sheets are pertaining to manipulation, fabrication and destruction of books of records, ledger sheets etc., to cover up his fraudulent actions and misappropriation of amounts on the part of the Petitioner. But since, the punishment of dismissal was imposed in respect of charge sheet dated 4.5.94 under the provisions contained in service code the bank has not proceeded further in respect of the other three charge sheets and those were kept in abeyance by reserving a right to proceed further at a later stage if needed. Due to the misdeeds of the Petitioner and fraud committed by him to the accounts of the customers, the bank sustained huge financial loss. The contention of the Petitioner that he was not paid subsistence allowance during his suspension period is not correct. The eligible subsistence allowance was credited to his SB account maintained by the branch. Having requested for adjournments, the Petitioner intentionally and deliberately failed to attend the enquiry and 15 years after the proceedings, he is claiming that ex-parte enquiry proceeding were conducted. He deliberately chosen not to attend the enquiry despite of receiving notice and having knowledge about the enquiry. He can not question the validity of the enquiry. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice on the part of the respondents. After rejection of the appeal, the Petitioner never made the representations. The criminal cases were ended in acquittal by the court by giving benefit of doubt to the accused mainly on the ground that the fraud and misappropriation came to light, and the matter was investigated by the bank in the year 1996 but there is 3 years delay in lodging the complaint is not explained and further the complainant did not come to the witness box and did not give his evidence. The acquittal of the Petitioner is not a clean acquittal. Because benefit of doubt is given in criminal case, the termination proceedings will not be effected. Criminal case got nothing to do with the departmental enquiry proceedings. The contention of the Petitioner that the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges is incorrect. Due to the acts of the Petitioner the Respondent bank suffered substantially. The respondent bank has to protect the interests of his customers and also has to preserve their confidence in the bank. The proven fraudulent actions on the part of the Petitioner have harmed the reputation of the bank substantially. There is no cause of action in favour of the Petitioner to file the above case before this Tribunal. With these averments the Respondent No.2 submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief from this court as against the Respondents and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. The domestic enquiry conducted in this is held as legal and valid vide order dated 8.8.2013.
5. Both the parties have advanced arguments in support of their claim.
6. The points arise for consideration are:
I. Whether the action of the management of Canarara Bank in dismissing the Petitioner Sri S. Pedda Reddy from service is legal and justified?
II. If not, to what relief he is entitled for ?
7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner joined the service of the respondent as a Clerk Cum Cashier on 24.5.1980 at Parvathipuram Branch Vijayanagaram. Subsequently he was transferred to Divisional Office, Kurnool in the month of August, 1983. There he worked in various branches of the Respondent bank and discharging duties to the satisfaction of his superiors. While discharging duties as a clerk at H. Khairawadi branch the respondent bank issued with proceedings dated 18.3.1994 as per Regulation 12(i) of chapter XI of the Canara Bank Service Code suspending the Petitioner from service on the allegation that he has committed misconduct.
4974 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]He contended that the allegations made against the Petitioner are false. Thereafter the respondent bank issued charge sheet dated 4.5.1994 alleging that the Petitioner misappropriated funds of the said bank during the period from 1992 to 1994 on different dates. The charges made against the Petitioner are false and incorrect. The Petitioner submitted detailed explanation, on 5.5.1994 denying the charges levelled against him. Again the respondent bank issued another charge sheet dated 4.8.1994 extracting the same set of charges as mentioned in charge sheet dated 4.5.1994. The Petitioner also submitted explanation to the said charge sheet denying the charges. It is also submitted that the Respondent has issued proceedings suspending the Petitioner from service on 4.5.1994. The Petitioner was under suspension for more than 20 months. The Respondent bank has to pay subsistence allowance to the delinquent employee during the suspension period but the Respondent bank has not paid any suspension allowance during the period of more than 20 months. The Petitioner made several representations to the Respondent bank from time to time with regard to payment of subsistence allowance but the Respondent bank did not take any step for payment of subsistence allowance. The Petitioner was expecting that charges will be dropped basing on his explanation. But the Respondent bank conducted an enquiry into the alleged charges. During the enquiry the Respondent management examined witnesses like, MW1 to MW6 of staff cadre and 26 bank customers were also examined as Management witnesses and more than 250 documents were marked, but those documents were not furnished to the Petitioner at the time of marking in the enquiry. The enquiry officer has submitted his ex-parte enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Petitioner requested the enquiry officer to furnish the documents which were marked during the course of enquiry. But the Enquiry Officer did not listen to him. The Learned Counsel also submitted that the alleged incident took place while the Petitioner was working in the branch where the Branch Manager and concerned officers also verified the instruments and endorsed that the instruments were valid and correct. The Petitioner was thus proceeded with further transactions. Without considering the facts and circumstances of his case the enquiry officer submitted his report stating that the charges were held to be proved against the Petitioner. The findings of the enquiry officer are perverse, biased and are liable to be set aside. Without giving any opportunity of being heard, basing on the ex-parte enquiry report the Respondent straight away issued dismissal order to the Petitioner vide order dated 13.1.1996. The Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chairman and Managing Director. But the appeal was dismissed. It is further submitted that the order of the Appellate Authority is also illegal, arbitrary and unjust. The Respondent bank initiated criminal proceedings against the Petitioner vide C.C. No.51 of 1998, 52 of 1998 and 53 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class of Pattikonda, and charges under Sec. 409, 420 and 477 – A of IPC were framed against the Petitioner but, in the trial the Petitioner was acquitted from the charges. After acquittal from the criminal cases, the Petitioner made a representation to the Respondents enclosing the copy of the judgement to reinstate him into service, but the respondents did not take any action. The Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority failed to see that the punishment of dismissal from service is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of charges and also failed to consider the statement of the Petitioner and taken disciplinary action by way of imposing major penalty of dismissal from service over the Petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority failed to consider the past service of the Petitioner. The present case squarely falls under the case of Jagadamba Prasad Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others and 2000(7) SCC page 90 and Andhra Bank vs. W.T. Seshachalam 2004(2) SCC 287 wherein the apex Court held that the provision also applicable where suspension ordered during pendency of regular departmental proceedings and in the meantime prosecution launched after investigation by an outside agency, but ultimately the employee acquitted of the criminal charges by Court and departmental proceedings continued for year. The Petitioner was unable to secure alternate employment subsequent to his dismissal from service by the respondent. Both the cases are squarely applicable to the case of the Petitioner. After dismissal of the service the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide financial assistance to his family members. The Punishment imposed on the Petitioner is grave in nature. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner be reinstated into service.
8. On the other hand the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf the Respondent contended that while the Petitioner was working at H. Khairawadi branch as a clerk, he failed to account for the amount received by him from the customers of the bank for credit of their accounts. The Petitioner issued counter foils and made entries for such amounts in the pass books of the customers. By adopting to the above modus operandi, huge amounts of the customers have been misappropriated by the Petitioner during the period from 1992-1994. On the complaint of several customers the bank got investigated into the matter througha its officers and found that the Petitioner has misappropriated funds of many of the customers/bank. The Petitioner had addressed a letter dated 17.6.1993 to the then Branch manager of the bank confessing various frauds and irregularities committed by him in the bank. After coming to know about the fraud and misappropriation committed by the Petitioner the bank issued charge sheet to the Petitioner dated 4.5.1994. On receipt of the charge sheet the Petitioner failed so submit his reply to the charge sheet. Subsequently one enquiry was conducted, and the Petitioner failed to attend the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry ex-parte. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the findings of the Enquiry Officer and upon personal hearing of the Petitioner passed the order of dismissal. The Petitioner attended the personal hearing and requested to reduce the proposed punishment. The Petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority, but the appeal was dismissed. Three criminal cases were ended in acquittal by the court by giving benefit of doubt to theII (ii) 4975 accused mainly on the ground that the fraud and misappropriation came to light and the matter was investigated by the bank in the year 1996 but there is 3 years delay in lodging the complaint and it is not explained, and further the complainant did not come to the witness box and did not give his evidence. In any case the criminal case has got nothing to do with departmental enquiry proceedings. The contention of the Petitioner that the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the gravity of charges is incorrect. Due to the acts of the Petitioner the Respondent bank suffered substantially. The respondent bank has to protect the interests of his customers and also has to preserve their confidence in the bank. The proven fraudulent actions on the part of the Petitioner have harmed the reputation of the bank substantially. The bank has suffered financial loss of Rs.2,37,370/- due to the fraudulent actions of the Petitioner. from the records and investigation reports, it is clear that the Petitioner failed to account for the amounts tendered by the account holders/borrowers. Further more in order to conceal his fraudulent acts, the Petitioner destroyed or manipulated the records and also made fictitious entries. In 14 crop loan accounts, loan documents were missing from the branch and subsequently investigating officers were able to retrieve the loan documents/papers in respect of 12 accounts from the residence of the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner prepared fresh ledger sheets by removing the original ledger sheets in 17 crop loan accounts. The above acts clearly confirm the malafide intention of the Petitioner and he played fraud on the customers as well as on the bank. The Disciplinary Authority has rightly passed the order. The bank has paid subsistence allowance to the Petitioner as per rules. the Petitioner has not raised any objection regarding payment of subsistence allowance at any point of time either at the time of enquiry or at the time of personal hearing, or at the time of orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority or at the time of appeal before the Appellate Authority. No principles of natural justice have been violated. The present Petitioner had involved in misappropriation of public funds and he should not be allowed to continue as a service holder in the bank.
9. Point No.I : On consideration of the rival contentions of both the sides it is seen that the Department has conducted the domestic enquiry and it was found legal and valid by the order of this court dated 8.8.2013, giving liberty to the Petitioner to summon any of the witnesses who were examined during the domestic enquiry for cross examination. This Tribunal had also directed the Petitioner to place his own evidence before the court and had also given more than one month time to take steps in this regard. But the Petitioner failed to avail the opportunity and remained silent which indicates that the Petitioner has nothing to say on the domestic enquiry held by the Department. It had already been held that the domestic enquiry has been conducted by the Department following the procedure of Law and following the principles of natural justice and the principles of natural justice has not been violated during the course of the domestic enquiry. The Petitioner has attended personal hearing before the Disciplinary Authority at the time of passing of the punishment order. But as the allegation against the Petitioner was so grave no lenient punishment was given to the Petitioner. There is allegation of fraud, misappropriation of public funds and misconduct. The allegation of the Petitioner is that as he has been acquitted in the criminal cases U/s. 409, 420 and 477-A of IPC, he may be reinstated into service. Admittedly, the Police has investigated into the matter and submitted charge sheet against the Petitioner under Sec.409, 420 and 477-A of IPC but during the course of trial as the prosecution failed to establish the charges the court passed an acquittal order giving benefit of doubt. As there was some technical latches on the part of the prosecution , the criminal cases were ended in acquittal. It does not mean that due to the acquittal in the criminal proceeding the Petitioner will be discharged from the departmental charges made in the departmental proceedings. The Petitioner has been found guilty and the enquiry conducted by the Department is found legal and valid. The Petitioner has been involved on the allegation of fraud and misappropriation of public funds. If in any of the employees of the public institution will be involved in the misappropriation of accounts and fraud, the public would loose their faith from that public institution like bank, and people will loose their trust from the public institution. The Petitioner has relied on two judgements of the apex Court in the case of Jagadamba Prasad Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others and 2000(7) SCC page 90 and Andhra Bank vs. W.T. Seshachalam 2004(2) SCC 287, wherein the facts of both the cases are not similar to the facts of the present case. In both the cases no subsistence allowance had been given to the Petitioner during the course of the departmental enquiry for which the delinquent employee was unable to attend the enquiry. But in the instant case, the Petitioner had been given subsistence allowance as admissible. Further, more, no where the Petitioner has averred that due to non-payment of subsistence allowance he was unable to participate in the enquiry. He has never made any representation to the Respondents Bank at any point of time about payment of subsistence allowance prior to filing of the present case. Since the Petitioner has been involved in misappropriation of public money and committed fraud on the customers of the bank as well as the bank itself, the Department has rightly passed the punishment of dismissal order and no question of lenient view is required to be taken and the action taken by the management of Canara Bank in dismissing the Petitioner Sri S. Pedda Reddy from service is legal and justified.
Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.
10. Point No.II: In view of the findings given in Point No.I, the Petitioner is not entitled to get any relief .
Thus, Point No.II is answered accordingly.
4976 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Result:
In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the management of Canara Bank in dismissing the Petitioner Sri S. Pedda Reddy, Clerk from service vide proceedings dated 13.1.1996 is legal and justified. The petition is dismissed without costs.
Award is passed accordingly.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 22nd June, 2017.
MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL —
[
II ] New Delhi, the 8th August, 2017
S.O. 1862.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 496/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Corporation Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.08.2017.
[No. L-12012/25/2002-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 18th April, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 496/2004
The Assistant General Manager, Corporation Bank, Zonal Office, 2nd Floor, Nr. Navrangpura P.O., P.B. No. 4106, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380009
…First Party V/sII (ii) 4977 Shri Yogeshkumar J. Shah, B/404, Suryoday Tower, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380061
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri K.V. Gadhia & Shri M.K. Patel For the Second Party : Shri A.N. Patel
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/25/2002-IR(B- II) dated 18.06.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of Deputy General Manager, Corporation Bank, Ahmedabad in ordering dismissal from service to Shri Yogeshkumar J. Shah, Special Assistant w.e.f. 08.06.2001 is legal, proportionate to the fault and justified? If not, then to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?"
1. The reference dates back to 18.06.2002. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 3 on 26.04.2004 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 9 on 21.09.2005 along with the documents vide list Ex. 11 including domestic inquiry report. Since then the second party has not been leading evidence. On 22.12.2015, the second party was given last opportunity to lead evidence on 28.04.2016, the second party did not lead evidence on 28.04.2016 and was given further 4 opportunities on 06.09.2016, 21.12.2016, 15.02.2017 and today on 18.04.2017 but today itself, the second party is absent and failed to lead evidence on all the earlier dates and today. Thus, in the said circumstances, the tribunal has no option but to close the evidence of the second party and to dispose of the reference for want of evidence of the second party.
2. Thus in the light of aforesaid circumstances and in the absence of the evidence of the second party, the reference is disposed of with the observation as under: "the action of Deputy General Manager, Corporation Bank, Ahmedabad in ordering dismissal from service to Shri Yogeshkumar J. Shah, Special Assistant w.e.f. 08.06.2001 is legal, proportionate to the fault and justified."
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer —
[
II ] New Delhi, the 8th August, 2017
S.O. 1863.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 130/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.08.2017.
[No. L-12012/151/2005-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 24th April, 20174978 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reference: (CGITA) No. 130/2006
The General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Mandvi Branch, Baroda (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
Shri H.J. Vanker, 111, Shantikunj, Society, Vedtal Road, Bakrol Tehsil, Anand (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party :
For the Second Party :
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 12012/151/2005-IR(B-II) dated 24.05.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda by terminating the services of the Shri H.J. Vanker is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and to what extent?"
1. The reference dates back to 24.05.2006. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 7 on 16.10.2008 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 9 on 30.01.2009. Since then the second party has been absent and has also not preferred to lead evidence. The tribunal issued fresh notice Ex. 11 to both the parties to appear on 15.03.2011. The second party advocate appeared and informed vide letter Ex. 12 dated 02.01.2017 that he is not able to trace the second party workman. Thus, it appears that the workman is not willing to prosecute the case.
2. Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman with the observation as under: "the action of the management of Bank of Baroda by terminating the services of the Shri H.J. Vanker is legal and justified."
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer —
[
II ] New Delhi, the 8th August, 2017
S.O. 1864.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.08.2017.
[No. L-12012/18/2005-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk OfficerII (ii) 4979
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 25th April, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 51/2005
The Deputy General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Nepture Towers, Opp. Nehru Bridge, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380009
…First Party
V/s
Shri Jayesh Kumar N. Dave, 16, Akanksha Flats Near Jivraj Bridge, Satellite Road, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380015
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri P.S. Chari For the Second Party : Shri V.H. Dixit
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 12012/18/2005-IR(B-II) dated 26.05.2005 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of the Syndicate Bank, Ahmedabad in awarding punishment of compulsory retirement to Shri Jayesh Kumar N. Dave, Clerk is legal, fair and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
1. The reference dates back to 26.05.2005. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 05.12.2005 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 13 on 26.06.2007. The second party workman submitted his affidavit/examination in chief Ex. 15 on 21.08.2007 but he did not responded for cross-examination since then. On 21.12.2015, the first party counsel informed the tribunal that the workman has expired a year back, therefore, the case was listed for 28.05.2016, 06.09.2016, 20.12.2016 and 21.02.2017 to move applications for substitution of legal heirs of the workman by the advocate of the second party but the advocate of the second party has also been absent since then. Thus it appears that the legal heirs and his advocate are not willing to prosecute the case.
2. Therefore, the reference is disposed of as abate.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer —
[
II ]4980 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 8th August, 2017
S.O. 1865.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 950/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.08.2017.
[No. L-12012/165/1993-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 26th April, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 950/2004
The BranchManager, Syndicate Bank, Kalva Chowk, M.G. Road, Junagadh (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
Shri Mulchand Kewalram Karia, C/o H.I. Manavati Hitan, Fatiya, Nagkheda, Junagadh (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri P.S. Chari
For the Second Party :
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/165/93- IR(B-II) dated 24.11.1993 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the claim of Shri Mulchand Kewalram Karia that he was a workman of Syndicate Bank is justified? If so, whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in terminating the services of Shri M.K. Karia, Pegmy agent with effect from 07.12.1990 is justified? What relief, if any, is Shri Karia entitled to?"
1. The reference dates back to 24.11.1993.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 07.10.1996 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 8 on 02.12.1997.
2. Later on creation of Central Government Industrial Tribunal, this tribunal issued notice Ex. 13 to both the parties on 21.03.2011 to appear on 19.04.2011. In response to the notice, Shri P.S. Chari advocate for the first party submitted his vakalatpatra Ex. 14 but none responded for the second party since then. Thus it appears that despite service of fresh notice, the second party is not willing to prosecute the case. Therefore, this tribunal has no option but to dispose of the reference as in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.
3. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of second party with the observation as under: "the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in terminating the services of Shri M.K. Karia, Pegmy agent with effect from 07.12.1990 is justified."
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding OfficerII (ii) 4981 —
[
II ] New Delhi, the 8th August, 2017
S.O. 1866.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 595/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.08.2017.
[No. L-12012/208/1994-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 26th April, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 595/2004
1. The Branch Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Morbi, Rajkot (Gujarat)
2. The Regional Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Neptune Tower, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
Shri Pruthviraj Kitangarbhai Chavda, Rajput Sheri, Morbi, Rajkot (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri P.S. Chari
For the Second Party :
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/208/ 94-IR(B-II) dated 29.12.1994 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank, Ahmedabad in dismissing the services of Shri P.K. Chavda, Pigmy Agent w.e.f. 16.10.1991 is justified? If not, what relief is the said workman entitled to?"
1. The reference dates back to 29.12.1994. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 on 11.02.1995 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 4 on 13.11.1996. To this written statement, the second party submitted the rejoinder Ex. 6 on 10.09.1997 along with number of documents in the Industrial Tribunal Rajkot.
4982 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]2. Later on creation of Central Government Industrial Tribunal, this tribunal issued notice Ex. 19 to both the parties on 04.03.2011 to appear on 21.04.2011. In response to the notice, Shri P.S. Chari advocate for the first party submitted his vakalatpatra Ex. 20 but none responded for the second party since then. Thus it appears that despite service of fresh notice, the second party is not willing to prosecute the case. Therefore, this tribunal has no option but to dispose of the reference as in non-prosecution of the case by the second party.
3. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of second party with the observation as under: "the action of the management of Syndicate Bank, Ahmedabad in dismissing the services of Shri P.K. Chavda, Pigmy Agent w.e.f. 16.10.1991 is justified."
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer —
[
II ] New Delhi, the 8th August, 2017
S.O. 1867.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.08.2017.
[No. L-12011/124/2005-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 18th April, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 06/2006
The Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Pension Department, NCL Building, 5th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary, Central Bank Employees Association, 8, Madhuvan Society, Timalyawad, Nanpura, Surat (Gujarat) – 395001
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri P.S. Chari
For the Second Party :
II (ii) 4983AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/124/2005- IR(B-II) dated 05.01.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Pension Department, Mumbai in not giving pension to Mr. Y.B. Jadav, Ex-armed Guard, who voluntarily retired from service as per Bank's scheme w.e.f. 31.03.2001 is legal, proper and just? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"
3. The reference dates back to 05.01.2006. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 3 on 21.11.2006 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 11 on 19.03.2009. Since then the second party has not been responding despite submitting his affidavit Ex. 6 on 29.06.2007 for cross-examination. Thus, it appears that the second party has not been willing to prosecute the case.
4. Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation as under: "the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Pension Department, Mumbai in not giving pension to Mr. Y.B. Jadav, Ex-armed Guard, who voluntarily retired from service as per Bank's scheme w.e.f. 31.03.2001 is legal, proper and just."
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer —
[
II ] New Delhi, the 8th August, 2017
S.O. 1868.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.08.2017.
[No. L-12012/40/2008-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 24th April, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 20/2008
1. The Assistant General Manager,
Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, BOB Building, 2nd Floor, M.G. Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) - 370240
2. The Branch Manager,
Bank of Baroda, Diwanpar Wankar, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 370420
…First Party4984 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
V/s
Shri Jafarsha Hussainsha, Kumbhar Para, Street No. 5, PO Wankaner, Rajkot (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri V.K. Mashar For the Second Party : Shri P.K.
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/40/ 2008-IR(B-II) dated 18.08.2008/24.06.2010 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Rajkot in not providing employment to Shri Jafarsha Hussainsha, Ex-peon after the date of termination (01.08.2007) is legal and justified? What relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"
1. The reference dates back to 18.08.2008/24.06.2010. The second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 9 on 07.10.2010 along with the documents vide list Ex. 10. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 13 on 07.03.2012. The second party workman submitted a re-joinder affidavit to the written statement Ex. 15 on 20.11.2013 along with number of documents.
2. The first party also submitted the number of documents vide list Ex. 16 on 06.01.2017 but the second party workman has not been appearing since 24.03.2015. Thus, it appears that the workman is not willing to prosecute the case.
3. Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman with the observation as under: "the action of the Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Rajkot in not providing employment to Shri Jafarsha Hussainsha, Ex-peon after the date of termination (01.08.2007) is legal and justified."
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer —
[
II ] New Delhi, the 8th August, 2017
S.O. 1869.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.08.2017.
[No. L-12012/25/2005-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 27th April, 2017II (ii) 4985
Reference: (CGITA) No. 64/2005
The Chief Manager (CS), Bank of India, Ahmedabad Zone, BOI Building, Bhadra, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Party V/s
The General Secretary, Bank of India Staff Union, Ahmedabad & Gujarat Branches, Bhadra, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 389001
…Second Party For the First Party : Shri D.C. Gandhi Associates
For the Second Party :
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/25/ 2005-IR(B-II) dated 05.07.2005 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Ahmedabad to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement from service on Shri K.S. Maheria, Ex.-Agricultural Assistant is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and to what extent?"
1. The reference dates back to 05.07.2005. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on 13.06.2005 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 6 on 11.02.2007. Since then the second party has failed to lead evidence despite giving dozens of opportunities. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.
2. Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation as under : "the action of the management of Bank of India, Ahmedabad to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement from service on Shri K.S. Maheria, Ex.-Agricultural Assistant is legal and justified."
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 8 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1870.—के न्द्रीय सरकार, कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा 91-क के साथ पठित धारा 88 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्द्वारा हिंदुस्तान कीटनाशकों लिमिटेड, रासायनि (महाराष्ट्र), भटिंडा (पंजाब) यूनिट्स के कारखानों/स्थापनाओं के नियमित कर्मचारियों को इस अधिनियम के प्रवर्तन से छू ट प्रदान करती है। यह छू ट, अधिसूचना जारी होने की तारीख से एक वर्ष की अवधि के लिए लागू रहेगी ।
2. उक्त छू ट निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन है; अर्थात्:-
(1) पूर्वोक्त स्थापना जिसमें कर्मचारी नियोजित हैं, एक रजिस्टर रखेगी, जिसमें छू ट प्राप्त कर्मचारियों के नाम और पदनाम दिखाये जायेंगे;
(2) इस छू ट के होते हुए भी, कर्मचारी उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन ऐसी प्रसुविधाएं प्राप्त करते रहेंगे जिनको पाने के लिए वे इस अधिसूचना द्वारा दी गई छू ट के प्रवृत्त होने की तारीख से पूर्व संदत्त अंशदानों के आधार पर हकदार हो जाते हैं;
(3) छू ट प्राप्त अवधि के लिए, यदि कोई अभिदाय पहले ही किए जा चुके हों, तो वे वापस नहीं किए जाएंगे;
(4) उक्त कारखाने/स्थापना का नियोजक उस अवधि की बाबत जिसके दौरान उस कारखाने/स्थापना पर उक्त अधिनियम (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अवधि कहा गया है) प्रवतर्मान था ऐसी विवरणियां, ऐसे प्रारूप में और ऐसी विशिष्टियों सहित देगा जो कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा (साधारण) विनियम, 1950 के अधीन उसे उक्त अवधि की बाबत देनी अपेक्षित होती थीं;
4986 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)](5) निगम द्वारा उक्त कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम की धारा 45 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन नियुक्त किया गया कोई निरीक्षक या निगम का इस निमित्त प्राधिकृ त कोई अन्य पदधारी;
(i) धारा 44 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन, उक्त अवधि की बाबत दी गई किसी विवरण की विशिष्टयों को सत्यापित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ; अथवा
(ii) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा (साधारण) विनियम, 1950 द्वारा यथाअपेक्षित रजिस्टर और अभिलेख उक्त अवधि के लिए रखे गये थे या नहीं; या
(iii) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी, नियोजक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायदों को, जिसके फलस्वरूप इस अधिसूचना के अधीन छू ट दी जा रही है, नकद में और वस्तु रूप में पाने का हकदार बना हुआ है या नहीं; या
(iv) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि उस अवधि के दौरान, जब उक्त कारखाने के संबंध में अधिनियम के उपबंध प्रवृत्त थे, ऐसे किन्हीं उपबंधों का अनुपालन किया गया था या नहीं, निम्नलिखित कार्य करने के लिए सशक्त होगा:-
(क) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक से अपेक्षा करना कि वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे जिसे उपरोक्त निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी आवश्यक समझता है ; अथवा
(ख) ऐसे प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक के अधिभोगाधीन, किसी कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में किसी भी उचित समय पर प्रवेश करना और उसके प्रभारी से यह अपेक्षा करना कि वह व्यक्तियों के नियोजन और मजदूरी के संदाय से संबंधित ऐसे लेखा, बहियां और अन्य दस्तावेज, ऐसे निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करें और उनकी परीक्षा करने दें या ऐसी जानकारी दें जिसे वे आवश्यक समझते हैं; या
(ग) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक की, उसके अभिकर्ता या सेवक की, या ऐसे किसी व्यक्ति को, जो ऐसे कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में पाया जाए, यह विश्वास करने का युक्तियुक्त कारण है कि वह कर्मचारी है, परीक्षा करना; या
(घ) ऐसे कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में रखे गए किसी रजिस्टर, लेखा, बही या अन्य दस्तावेज की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना;
(ङ) यथानिर्धारित अन्य शक्तियों का प्रयोग करना ।
(6) विनिवेश/निगमीकरण के मामले में, प्रदत्त छू ट स्वत: रद्द हो जाएगी और तब नए प्रतिष्ठान को छू ट हेतु समुचित सरकार की अनुमति लेनी होगी।
[सं. एस-38014/12/2013-एस.एस.-I]
अजय मलिक, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 8th August, 2017
S.O. 1870.—In exercise of the power conferred by Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/establishments of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., Rasayani (Maharashtra) and Bhatinda (Punjab) units from the operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective for a period of one year from the date of issue of notification.
2. The above exemption is subject to the following conditions namely:-
(1) The aforesaid establishments wherein the employees are employed shall maintain a register showing the name and designations of the exempted employees';
(2) Not withstanding this exemption, the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they might have become entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from which exemption granted by this notification operates;
II (ii) 4987(3) The contributions for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;
(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period under the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;
(5) Any Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose of :-
(i) Verifying the particulars contained in any returned submitted under sub-section (1) of section 44 for the said period; or
(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or
(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this notification; or
(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory to be empowered to:
(a) require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may consider necessary for the purpose of this Act; or
(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to examine accounts, books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary; or
(c) examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person found in such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom the said inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an employee ; or
(d) make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises,
(e) exercise such other powers as may be prescribed.
(6) In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled and then the new entity will have to approach the appropriate Government for exemption.
[No. S-38014/12/2013-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.