4607 GI/2017
(4565)
jftLVªh la
-
Mh
-
,y
-
(,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la
-
3
2
]
ubZ fnYyh]
vxLr
6
—
vxLr
12
] 2017] 'kfuokj@
Jko.k
1
5
—
Jko.k
21
] 193
9
No. 32]
NEW DELHI, AUGUST 6— AUGUST 12, 2017, SATURDAY/ SRAVANA 15—SRAVANA 21, 1939
bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
Hkkx
II—
[k.M 3—
mi&[k.M
(ii
)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
dk£ed] yksd f
'kdk;r
rFkk
isa'ku ea=kky;
(dk£ed vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh]
31
tqykbZ
] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1803
-
—दण्ड प्रक्रियासंहिता, 1973(1974काअहिहियमसं. 2)कीिारा24कीउपिारा(8)द्वारा
प्रदत्तकहतियय काप्रयग करत ुए कद्र सरकार्री ाारतीरी .ीादामरी , डवगक टकग, मुम्ीई, मिाराष्टरक हवक ्ययाया य
(सरी ीरी आईक स)मदक्रदल् री हवक ्पुह स ापिा(क .अ.ब्यूरग)द्वारादायरआरसरी 12( स)0251 , सरी ीरी आई, ससरी -I, िई
क्रदल् री (करी िाीगराित्याक स) र अपरी 0संकगिि रउिस जुड अययमाम क अहायगजिक ह उिकीहियुहतियकी
हतह स तरी िव्षकीअवहिक ह अ वाकाउंस कगसौंप माम क हिपटाितकअ वाअ आद क तक, जगारी
पि िग, हवक ् गकअहायगजकक रूपमदहियुतियकरतरी िै।
[
iQk
-
la
-
22
5
@
03
@201
7
&,ohMh&
II]
,l
-
ih
-
vkj
-
f=kikBh
] voj lfpo
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.
foÙk
ea
=kky;
(jktLo foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr
] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1804
-—
dsUnz
ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;ekoyh] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4)
ds vuqlj.k esa]
jktLo foHkkx ds v/hu rhu dk;kZy;ksa uker% lrdZrk egkfuns
'
kky; (eq[;ky;)]
ds
aæh; mRikn
'
kqYd lhek
'
kqYd
cksMZ]
ubZ fnYyh_ ukWFkZ tksuy ;wfuV] lrdZrk egkfuns
'
kky;]
dsaæh; mRikn
'
kqYd lhek
'
kqYd
cksMZ] ubZ fnYyh vkSj y[kuÅ tksuy ;wfuV]
lrdZrk egkfuns
'
kky;]
dsaæh; mRikn
'
kqYd lhek
'
kqYd
cksMZ] y[kuÅ dks
buds
80 izfr'kr ls vf/d
vf/dkf
j;ksa@
deZpkfj;ksa
}kjk
¯gnh dk
dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj
ysus ij
vfèklwfpr djrh gS A
¹iQk
-
la
-
bZ&11017@1@@201
6
&,
-
Mh
-
(fgUnh&
4
)º
MkW
-
lrh
'
k pUæ
]
la;qDr
funs
'
kd
(
jktHkk"kk
)
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.)
(हवत्तरी य स वा ं हवाा )
िई क्रदल् री , 4अ त, 2017
का.आ.1805.—ाारतरी य घुउद्यग हवकासीैंकअहिहियम,1989(1989का39)की िारा 6कीउप-िारा(2)क सा
पठितिारा6कीउप-िारा(1)क खंड(क)द्वाराप्रदत्तकहतियय काप्रयग करत ुए ,क य्र री यसरकार, तद्द्वारा,्री मगिम्मदमुतफा,
आई स(यूपरी :199 ), संयुतियसहिव, हवत्तरी यस वा ंहवाा कगपदाारग्रिणकरि कीताररी खस तरी िव्षकीअवहिक ह अ वा
II
(ii)
4567
अ आद क तक, जगारी पि िग, ाारतरी य घुउद्यग हवकासीैंक(हसडीरी )क अध्यक्ष वंप्रींिहिद कक(सरी मडरी )क पदपर
हियुतियकरतरी िै।
[फा.सं. 17/4/2017-आई फ-II]
सौम्यहजतघग्, अवर सहिव
(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.
fons'k ea=kky;
(lh
-
ih
-
oh
-
izHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh]
25
tqyk
bZ
] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1806
-
—
jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e
] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds
[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A
,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds
iz/ku dksalykokl
]
lsaV ihVlZcxZ
esa Jh
euh
"
k dqekj
] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad
25
tqyk
bZ] 2017
ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lso
kvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A
¹la
-
Vh&4330@0
1@201
7
º
izdk'k pUn]
funs
'k
d
(dksalqyj)
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)]
र मंत्रा य
(र व ीगडष)
िई क्रदल् री , 6अप्रै , 2017
का.आ.1807.—र मंत्रा य(र व ीगडष),राजाा्ाहियम1976(संघक कासकीयप्रयगजि क ह प्रयग )क हियम15क
उपहियम(2) र (4) क अिुसरण मद मध्य र व क सग ापुर मंड क ातुर र व ट कि कायाष य, जिां 85 प्रहतकत स अहिक
अहिकाठरय 0कमषिाठरय ि हिंदरी काकायषसािक्ािप्रा्तकरह यािै,कग तद्द्वाराअहिसूहितकरतािै।
[सं.हिंदरी 20150रा.ाा.-1/12/2]
क . परी . सत्यािंदि,हिद कक(राजाा्ा)
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.)
िई क्रदल् री , 8जूि, 2017
का.आ.1808.—र मंत्रा य(र व ीगडष),राजाा्ाहियम1976(संघक कासकीयप्रयगजि क ह प्रयग )क हियम15क
उपहियम(2) र(4)क अिुसरणमदक्रदल् री ह तराइट्सह हमट डक हिररी क्षणकायाष य,उत्तररी क्ष त्र,क्रदल् री जिां85प्रहतकतस
अहिकअहिकाठरय 0कमषिाठरय ि हिंदरी काकायषसािक्ािप्रा्तकरह यािै,कग तद्द्वाराअहिसूहितकरतािै।
[सं.हिंदरी 20150रा.ाा.-1/12/2 ाा -I]
क . परी . सत्यािंदि,हिद कक(राजाा्ा)
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.)
िई क्रदल् री , 2अ त, 2017
का.आ.1809.—र मंत्रा य(र व ीगडष),राजाा्ाहियम1976(संघक कासकीयप्रयगजि क ह प्रयग )क हियम15क
उपहियम(2) र (4) क अिुसरण मद मंड र प्रींिक कायाष य0 रांिरी , दहक्षण पूवष र व , जिां 85 प्रहतकत स अहिक
अहिकाठरय 0कमषिाठरय ि हिंदरी काकायषसािक्ािप्रा्तकरह यािै,कग तद्द्वाराअहिसूहितकरतािै।
[सं.हिंदरी 20150रा.ाा.-1/12/2 ाा -II]
क . परी . सत्यािंदि,हिद कक (राजाा्ा)
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.)
fo|qr ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1810
-
&
dsanzh; ljdkj] jktHkk
"kk ¼la?k ds ’kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds
mi fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa fo|qr ea=ky; ds iz’kklfud fu;a=.kk/khu ,ltsoh,u fyfeVsM ds ,ltsoh,u FkeZy izk-
fyfeVsM] cDlj FkeZy ikoj izkstsDV] f}rh; ry] uonqxkZ dkWEiysDl] vEcsMdj pkSd] cDlj ¼fcgkj½&802103 rFkk nsolkjh
ty fo|qr ifj;kstuk] ,ltsoh,u fyfeVsM] Mkd?kj&Fkjkyh] ftyk&peksyh] mÙkjk[k.M] ftuds 80 izfr’kr deZpkjhoa`n us
fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
¹la
-
11017@10
@201
3&¯gnh
º
vatw HkYyk] la;qDr lfpo ¼iz’kk-½
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.)
प रगह यम रप्राकृहतक ैसमंत्रा य
िईक्रदल् री , 3अ त,2017
का.आ.1811.—क य्र री यसरकारकग गकहितमदयिआवश्यकप्रतरी तिगतािैक्रकपारादरी प(ओहडका) स िैदराीाद(त ं ािा)
तकप रगह यमउत्पाद क पठरवििक ह इंहडयिऑय कॉपोर किह हमट डक द्वारा"पारादरी प-िैदराीादपाइप ाइि"हीछाईजािरी
िाहि ;
रक य्र री यसरकारकगऐसरी पाइप ाइिहीछाि क प्रयगजिक ह यिआवश्यकप्रतरी तिगतािैक्रकऐसरी ाूहममदजगइसस
उपाीद्धअिुसूिरी मदवर्णषतिै रहजसमदउतियपाइप ाइिहीछा जाि काप्रताविै,उपयग क अहिकारकाअजषिक्रकयाजा ;
अत:अी, क य्र री यसरकार, प रगह यम रखहिजपाइप ाइयस(ाूहममदउपयग क अहिकारकाअजषि)अहिहियम,1962
(1962का50) कीिारा3कीउपिारा(1)द्वाराप्रदत्तकहतियय काप्रयग करत ुए , उसाूहममदउपयग क अहिकारकाअजषिकरि
क अपि आकयकीघग्णाकरतरी िै;
कगईव्यहतिय, जगउतियअिुसूिरी मदवर्णषताूहममदहितीद्धिै, उसताररी खस हजसकगइसअहिसूििास युतियाारतक राजपत्रकी
प्रहतयााँसािारणजिताकगउप ब्िकरादरी जातरी िै, इक्कीसक्रदिक ारी तराूहमक िरी ि पाइप ाइिहीछा जाि क ह उसमद
4570
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
उपयग क अहिकारक अजषिक सम्ीयिमद्री क्रदल् री पकुमारमिांहत, सक्षमप्राहिकाररी , इंहडयिऑय कॉपोर किह हमट ड, पारादरी प-
िैदराीादपाइप ाइिपठरयगजिा, तृतरी यत ,आ गकाारतरी टावर,किरी दि र,ाुवि श्वर-7 1557, ओहडकाकगह हखतरूपमद
आक्ष पा जसक ाI
िरहसंिपुर
2868
00
52
63
2869
00
55
68
2870
00
54
53
2870/4019
00
51
42
2823
00
50
70
2824
00
55
99
2822
00
50
97
2821
00
52
53
2820
00
51
95
2818
00
51
51
2819
00
52
13
2795
00
54
20
2792
00
50
16
2791
00
52
10
2783
00
52
27
2782
00
51
88
2949
00
50
20
2775
00
54
93
2962
00
50
92
2774
00
52
66
2773
00
53
47
2963
00
50
24
2964
00
52
36
अिुसूिरी
तिसरी -रणपुर
हज ा - िया ढ़
राज्य -ओहडका
ााँवकािाम
् ॉटिं.
क्ष त्रफ
ि क्टयर
यर
व षमरी टर
1
2
3
4
5
II
(ii)
4571
2970
00
51
90
2971
00
51
97
2972
00
51
87
2974
00
54
54
2975
00
50
15
2975/4164
00
51
12
2765
00
51
22
2764
00
51
21
2967/4043
00
51
56
2754
00
51
51
2754/4029
00
50
87
2753
00
52
48
2979
00
50
80
2751
00
57
87
3012
00
50
95
3013
00
51
27
3011
00
50
15
3014
00
52
44
3015
00
53
24
3033
00
51
70
3032
00
53
32
3039
00
50
63
3031
00
56
78
3030
00
50
15
4040
00
51
72
3040
00
51
76
3042
00
51
85
3042/4158
00
51
59
3046
00
53
44
3043
00
50
63
4572
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3045
00
50
87
3044
00
53
44
3065
00
52
80
3066
00
50
15
3070
00
51
58
3071
00
52
12
3074
00
52
22
3075
00
54
16
3076
00
50
41
3104
00
50
27
3103
00
54
57
3102
00
52
60
3170
00
51
45
3159
00
53
47
3169
00
51
30
3169/4154
00
50
88
3168
00
50
18
3160
00
55
24
3157
00
51
29
3156
00
52
52
3155
00
51
54
3154
00
50
37
3145
00
54
89
3144
00
51
52
3146
00
53
21
3133
00
50
15
3131
00
53
58
3127
00
53
94
2543
00
50
15
2544
00
56
26
II
(ii)
4573
2561
00
50
95
2558
00
56
11
2559
00
55
91
2557
00
52
76
2560
00
50
11
2556
00
50
22
2563
00
52
81
2564
00
52
53
2588
00
54
50
2566
00
50
51
2567
00
52
49
2568
00
53
96
2569
00
53
77
2570
00
52
54
2573
00
53
14
2574
00
51
59
2575
00
54
30
4014
00
50
79
2578
00
50
54
2330
00
50
78
2581
00
50
62
2331
00
50
55
2205
00
55
51
2211
00
50
36
2204
00
55
44
2178
00
53
27
2179
00
54
13
2180
00
50
84
2168
00
51
58
2167
00
52
45
4574
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2166
00
51
82
2157
00
50
15
2165
00
55
75
2171
00
50
68
2164
00
55
91
2163
00
50
13
2162
00
55
12
2172
00
50
69
2110
00
51
65
2110/4004
00
52
62
2111
00
52
55
2112
00
56
22
2113
00
50
15
2086
00
57
29
2087
00
50
16
2076
00
54
47
2075
00
57
26
2065
00
50
15
2064
00
56
15
1913
00
54
58
1914
00
50
24
1920
00
53
61
1921
00
53
31
1922
00
55
59
1923
00
55
24
1927
00
50
12
1924
00
52
54
1858
00
54
52
1925
00
50
37
1857
00
53
70
II
(ii)
4575
1856
00
57
55
1855
00
52
16
1838
00
50
60
1839
00
55
96
1840
00
56
92
1835
00
52
84
1841
00
50
24
1830
00
0
15
1829
00
54
21
1829/4256
00
54
21
1824
00
50
46
1828
00
53
25
1827
00
52
81
1826
00
50
63
1695
00
51
15
1696
00
54
75
1702
00
54
23
1701
00
50
15
1722
00
50
15
1723
00
51
51
1724
00
52
57
1725
00
52
51
1719
00
50
11
1718
00
51
17
1717
00
51
66
1716
00
53
48
1730
00
50
27
1731
00
50
15
1713
00
54
20
1733
00
54
52
4576
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1734
00
51
66
1735
00
53
56
50
00
55
28
46
00
51
67
43
00
50
65
47
00
51
58
48
00
54
68
40
00
57
66
41
00
50
15
39
00
53
05
32
00
50
44
33
00
53
13
35
00
51
71
36
00
51
98
करडापह
145
00
11
58
148
00
52
88
149
00
52
96
159
00
54
18
151
00
54
42
154
00
54
37
175
00
53
26
176
00
58
80
190
00
51
56
189
00
52
43
194
00
50
15
195
00
54
27
193
00
50
15
198
00
54
16
238
00
17
16
239
00
51
40
II
(ii)
4577
224
00
50
15
222
00
51
59
221
00
52
14
218
00
53
72
220
00
50
23
219
00
52
31
217
00
52
87
216
00
50
22
215
00
54
73
105
00
52
44
96
00
52
48
95
00
51
44
94
00
50
42
98/973
00
50
22
93
00
52
25
92
00
51
57
91
00
50
30
97
00
53
72
1
00
53
33
तार
1182
00
53
26
1165
00
52
26
1178
00
51
51
1177
00
57
10
1174
00
53
28
1173
00
53
47
1147
00
56
89
1144
00
58
56
1143
00
50
34
1116
00
59
80
4578
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1114
00
55
41
1120
00
59
67
1083
00
50
69
1082
00
52
95
1087
00
52
59
1077
00
56
77
1078
00
50
63
1076
00
51
82
1007
00
54
55
1009
00
55
86
1015/1208
00
57
19
1018
00
50
65
1017
00
55
81
1024
00
53
36
1029
00
51
27
1029/1239
00
50
94
1029/1243
00
52
11
1035
00
53
38
1039
00
54
53
1044
00
53
59
325
00
56
63
323
00
53
35
324
00
53
60
316
00
53
23
315
00
52
42
313
00
52
50
312
00
51
59
312/1254
00
51
14
306
00
55
74
310
00
50
15
II
(ii)
4579
307
00
50
37
279
00
52
99
277
00
52
66
276
00
51
45
270
00
51
46
265
00
52
95
266
00
50
15
255
00
51
68
255/1200
00
50
64
253
00
52
98
249
00
51
33
248
00
51
57
243
00
52
71
242
00
50
10
234
00
52
22
235
00
50
33
220
00
53
41
217
00
50
16
218
00
54
55
204
00
54
05
205
00
52
20
179
00
54
05
177
00
50
65
178
00
51
34
176
00
55
20
173
00
53
18
170
00
51
31
172
00
53
15
171
00
50
50
116
00
57
52
4580
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
117
00
50
18
118
00
55
57
110
00
53
90
119
00
55
89
108
00
51
59
109
00
55
54
99
00
52
64
100
00
52
27
70
00
52
42
ी रामपुर
937
00
50
16
937/1706
00
50
13
938
00
58
58
936
00
58
62
962
00
51
76
963
00
52
44
964
00
50
77
965
00
53
11
966
00
51
38
961
00
53
37
968
00
54
61
969
00
52
56
930/1640
00
50
20
930
00
54
44
1025
00
52
51
929
00
50
45
1026
00
54
64
1027
00
59
43
1030
00
51
98
1031
00
51
41
1029
00
55
15
II
(ii)
4581
1054
00
57
83
1053
00
50
85
1064
00
57
78
1065
00
12
43
1085
00
51
51
1086
00
53
77
1087
00
55
50
1091
00
51
47
1092
00
52
63
1095
00
52
66
1107
00
53
62
1108
00
56
84
1117
00
55
15
1118
00
51
31
1119
00
50
15
1120
00
55
48
1121
00
50
81
822
00
55
34
824
00
50
73
821
00
54
10
811
00
55
84
809
00
54
86
804/1647
00
52
66
802
00
52
67
759
00
55
52
754
00
55
21
753
00
50
14
753/1669
00
51
23
746
00
57
81
745
00
52
40
4582
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
738
00
54
13
737
00
51
23
730
00
51
38
730/1673
00
52
53
729
00
50
37
720
00
54
59
719
00
52
50
721
00
50
15
717
00
55
30
716
00
57
82
708
00
56
26
653
00
50
97
654
00
53
58
655
00
50
52
656
00
53
81
657
00
52
98
387
00
50
40
387/1676
00
50
32
386/1568
00
55
55
398
00
19
64
363
00
52
53
363/1731
00
52
19
364
00
50
28
365
00
51
52
366
00
53
59
367
00
50
42
367/1661
00
53
79
362
00
50
15
362/1666
00
50
11
208
00
51
43
II
(ii)
4583
199
00
59
31
200
00
54
31
197
00
50
15
201
00
55
23
190
00
11
97
189
00
50
42
191
00
51
61
1
00
57
98
66
00
51
14
32
00
57
73
60
00
50
51
60/1678
00
50
51
33
00
54
59
59
00
51
54
35
00
55
47
35/1719
00
51
12
35/1721
00
51
12
43
00
50
87
44
00
20
32
45
00
50
29
46
00
50
70
47
00
51
12
48
00
51
54
ीांकपुर
284
00
52
94
284/650
00
51
43
285
00
57
63
291
00
50
44
289
00
55
12
287
00
56
61
4584
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
277
00
55
21
276
00
55
62
268
00
51
75
275
00
50
90
269
00
57
66
270
00
59
43
255
00
51
36
254
00
52
54
253
00
55
40
252
00
50
59
251
00
54
17
250
00
50
87
249
00
51
16
श्यामघिपुर
637
00
57
32
668
00
6
92
667
00
51
35
660
00
55
56
665
00
57
17
664
00
51
81
649
00
50
7
495
00
56
28
496
00
53
63
497
00
52
26
494
00
50
42
490
00
14
58
478
00
52
62
479
00
50
32
467
00
12
66
466
00
52
57
464
00
57
33
II
(ii)
4585
465
00
53
72
ज न्ना पुर
541
00
51
96
541/731
00
50
77
541/732
00
55
74
541/744
00
50
32
541/751
00
50
32
541/797
00
50
45
543
00
51
17
540
00
56
28
539
00
52
95
535
00
50
94
531
00
50
28
531/750
00
50
23
531/769
00
50
15
532
00
55
59
513
00
53
51
512
00
53
53
512/730
00
52
46
509
00
53
14
508
00
56
55
496
00
54
45
494
00
55
37
485
00
53
54
485/763
00
51
18
481
00
52
77
481/771
00
51
66
479
00
50
10
480
00
52
58
480/777
00
52
81
4586
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
453
00
54
43
450
00
54
63
435
00
56
86
427
00
54
79
427/725
00
51
48
427/746
00
50
13
424
00
55
16
416
00
55
45
409
00
54
90
410
00
51
66
395
00
52
87
391
00
53
44
393
00
51
52
392
00
52
29
390
00
51
67
376
00
53
46
375
00
50
17
370
00
50
48
371
00
53
63
362
00
53
52
361
00
50
15
361/765
00
50
15
359
00
56
89
350
00
50
75
349
00
51
57
348
00
53
55
345
00
55
52
342
00
55
26
342/719
00
50
29
343
00
51
71
II
(ii)
4587
86
00
59
67
87
00
54
48
87/724
00
51
13
87/727
00
51
86
87/741
00
51
72
87/742
00
52
81
87/743
00
51
13
87/783
00
50
71
89
00
54
48
71
00
50
10
70
00
54
93
91
00
50
91
68/705
00
50
10
69
00
50
96
64
00
51
85
64/711
00
51
56
64/712
00
52
12
64/713
00
52
12
64/740
00
50
15
51/680
00
50
19
52
00
54
60
51
00
53
15
53
00
50
20
54
00
54
54
56
00
55
71
45
00
56
16
साि ड
519
00
53
54
527
00
54
15
526
00
51
13
4588
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
528
00
53
57
525
00
52
92
513
00
50
21
524
00
55
95
523
00
54
24
515
00
57
56
516
00
59
14
484
00
59
66
486
00
51
25
487/1708
00
53
13
488
00
52
54
489
00
51
52
494
00
55
55
493
00
51
13
426
00
53
99
428
00
58
78
415
00
57
12
409
00
50
86
410
00
58
86
399
00
54
59
360
00
51
88
जदुपुर
317
00
51
58
293
00
50
87
292
00
53
39
291
00
52
31
290
00
53
19
289
00
51
69
274
00
56
92
288
00
50
10
II
(ii)
4589
275
00
53
87
267
00
51
77
265
00
55
79
266
00
50
10
264
00
52
74
256
00
57
21
58
00
53
28
57
00
13
51
60
00
56
42
40
00
59
54
37
00
51
84
34
00
52
75
33
00
50
18
32/335
00
50
34
35
00
11
93
26
00
54
43
27
00
52
52
25
00
52
23
27/334
00
50
10
13
00
54
97
ािि र
384
00
59
55
385
00
51
53
386
00
52
39
386/566
00
52
39
375
00
53
98
374
00
51
37
374/571
00
50
53
373
00
58
51
372
00
50
31
4590
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
391
00
50
10
366
00
10
56
365
00
53
39
362/551
00
50
10
362
00
50
15
363
00
50
61
364
00
54
64
399
00
54
94
399/582
00
53
26
316
00
50
10
317
00
58
12
318
00
50
71
335
00
51
79
334
00
54
79
320
00
55
64
320/539
00
50
60
311
00
50
10
310
00
54
15
310/545
00
53
13
1
00
54
55
हपम्प
1552
00
51
92
1213
00
52
98
1212
00
50
71
1212/1751
00
50
71
1210
00
54
55
1208
00
50
46
1208/1755
00
50
46
1208/1754
00
50
98
1208/1758
00
50
98
II
(ii)
4591
1220
00
54
31
1207
00
11
34
1204
00
54
29
1205
00
52
16
1202
00
50
92
1203
00
52
76
1196
00
55
27
1170
00
50
21
1195
00
55
24
1189
00
56
99
1188
00
50
10
1190
00
50
49
1187
00
54
47
105
00
57
24
103
00
50
76
104
00
57
46
कंक्रकया
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
2534
00
09
46
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
83
2350
00
17
12
II
(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
96
1834
00
03
12
4594
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
61
970
00
01
29
II
(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
60
808
00
01
75
4596
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
कग पां री
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
ीाउाँक ड
1961
00
14
54
1962
00
02
07
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
36
1743
00
00
68
4598
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
99
295
00
00
09
II
(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
30
738
00
00
98
4600
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
काक मा
747
00
51
95
747/1029
00
55
85
747/1325
00
51
35
747/1347
00
54
50
763
00
50
78
747/1030
00
50
85
764
00
57
84
II
(ii)
4601
766/1061
00
53
31
766/1060
00
54
75
768
00
11
64
769
00
05
11
739
00
52
50
739/1448
00
50
85
738
00
55
46
738/1449
00
51
14
734
00
50
81
734/1020
00
53
56
734/1021
00
51
25
733
00
53
58
735
00
50
65
725
00
55
57
732
00
10
29
726
00
52
79
726/1287
00
59
78
726/1323
00
51
14
584
00
51
59
583
00
50
96
582
00
50
77
809
00
56
51
810
00
58
23
811
00
50
60
808
00
52
78
814
00
58
50
813
00
50
10
817
00
55
15
819
00
51
55
818
00
56
67
4602
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
832
00
16
16
833
00
50
85
838
00
51
81
826
00
50
43
506
00
14
23
510
00
52
61
504
00
55
45
516
00
56
29
516/1435
00
52
53
516/1025
00
50
53
517
00
57
39
517/1414
00
52
20
517/1586
00
51
67
522
00
58
37
491
00
51
39
471
00
14
76
470
00
52
41
469
00
51
20
473/1193
00
50
53
473
00
51
54
473/1194
00
52
66
473/1195
00
54
96
473/1064
00
52
29
473/1207
00
51
54
473/1208
00
50
58
474
00
55
12
473/1209
00
52
53
474/996
00
52
57
251/1246
00
50
10
251/1247
00
50
19
II
(ii)
4603
252/1249
00
55
10
252/1248
00
51
95
252
00
50
80
252/1250
00
53
20
252/1251
00
51
43
247
00
50
54
271
00
15
18
272
00
52
28
270
00
52
72
278
00
50
76
279
00
53
22
280
00
50
10
282
00
53
16
284
00
57
93
228
00
53
40
228/1368
00
51
70
285
00
50
53
182/1116
00
12
78
182/1117
00
51
42
182
00
53
27
182/1115
00
54
50
184
00
12
58
186
00
59
80
187
00
54
56
188
00
54
52
173
00
18
11
189
00
50
59
189/1107
00
11
65
189/1106
00
57
95
173/1105
00
10
70
4604
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
173/1104
00
52
67
173/1103
00
56
79
173/1102
00
50
10
168
00
23
80
173/1099
00
51
86
173/1098
00
57
81
173/1097
00
11
31
171/1096
00
57
64
171/1095
00
57
51
160
00
50
10
157
00
54
11
139
00
54
57
139/1401
00
50
76
139/1402
00
50
53
140
00
58
56
141
00
54
56
137/1121
00
11
79
136
00
11
15
136/1581
00
52
99
136/1582
00
52
50
993
00
51
64
मिषकगट
28/450
00
50
37
28/483
00
51
51
28/536
00
50
80
28
00
52
30
26
00
54
68
25
00
55
31
24
00
54
65
II
(ii)
4605
गहपिा पुर
323
00
53
45
323/378
00
50
84
281/343
00
52
94
281
00
55
31
281/341
00
53
33
282
00
53
73
322
00
55
35
321
00
50
21
321/390
00
51
16
283/375
00
50
10
315
00
50
10
316
00
55
90
314
00
56
61
298
00
53
60
300
00
56
80
302
00
54
80
303
00
54
53
306
00
53
51
305
00
56
85
304
00
50
10
251
00
52
94
250
00
53
26
250/414
00
51
30
250/358
00
56
87
234
00
50
94
237
00
50
91
236
00
54
43
235
00
56
81
223
00
11
20
222
00
59
22
4606
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
219
00
11
31
218
00
54
12
218/419
00
54
12
194/356
00
53
92
194/357
00
57
23
194
00
50
19
193
00
51
60
192
00
11
68
191
00
58
50
190
00
56
10
188/348
00
52
16
188
00
58
34
186
00
55
23
187
00
17
78
खहतआ
3887
00
53
76
3889
00
54
37
3881
00
54
78
3874
00
53
92
3874/4663
00
53
92
3876
00
51
55
3875
00
54
63
3873
00
50
37
3872
00
50
28
3870
00
10
23
3871
00
54
18
3869
00
18
44
3627
00
56
41
3629
00
54
59
3630
00
55
63
II
(ii)
4607
3631
00
55
39
3715
00
55
83
3716
00
50
30
3709
00
51
56
3707
00
54
34
3708
00
50
40
3704
00
50
31
3705
00
54
29
3703
00
50
53
3697
00
52
47
3698
00
55
65
3696
00
50
98
3696/5870
00
50
48
3695
00
59
69
3745
00
50
10
3745/4607
00
50
10
3747
00
57
66
3749
00
54
79
3750
00
53
91
3535
00
51
12
2542
00
51
19
3534
00
51
10
3479
00
50
56
3478
00
52
54
3477
00
58
70
3425
00
50
13
3426
00
51
72
3476
00
51
59
3475
00
50
99
3430
00
55
60
4608
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3463
00
50
11
3462
00
51
73
3431
00
51
14
3461
00
54
30
3460
00
55
11
3454
00
55
32
3457
00
50
29
3456
00
51
53
3455
00
51
50
3443
00
55
53
3442
00
50
10
3442/4344
00
51
84
3054
00
58
23
3055
00
51
16
3053
00
50
35
3056
00
58
54
2961
00
50
92
2960
00
55
82
2959
00
50
49
2956
00
53
48
2958
00
53
36
2929
00
55
30
2928
00
52
79
2930
00
52
38
2927
00
52
41
2926
00
56
80
2921
00
11
76
2842
00
51
58
2843
00
59
59
2846
00
50
10
II
(ii)
4609
2845/4191
00
50
55
2845
00
50
13
2803
00
51
41
2802
00
50
44
2804
00
52
56
2801
00
50
10
2805
00
51
40
2811
00
50
64
2800
00
50
10
2806
00
51
25
2807
00
51
05
2808
00
51
29
2809
00
51
16
2811/4070
00
50
29
2810
00
50
10
2739
00
53
49
2737
00
50
76
2740
00
54
13
2736
00
50
31
2735
00
53
47
2684
00
51
76
2685
00
53
94
2733
00
50
25
2686
00
54
81
2683
00
51
21
2687
00
59
84
1612
00
56
88
1597
00
54
74
1611
00
50
20
1613
00
52
40
4610
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1610
00
50
10
1609
00
51
05
1614
00
54
50
1615
00
50
52
1605
00
50
12
1604
00
50
10
1616
00
51
11
1603
00
51
27
1618
00
53
00
1602
00
51
28
1619
00
11
07
1498
00
05
36
1619/4144
00
51
61
1621/4136
00
50
30
1620
00
54
67
1471
00
50
17
1477
00
50
85
1476
00
10
67
1484
00
50
42
1486
00
50
66
1437
00
56
46
1436
00
50
24
1435
00
54
01
1435/4287
00
54
47
1434
00
51
35
1412
00
53
85
1411
00
50
10
1413
00
53
28
1414/4133
00
51
24
1415
00
50
36
II
(ii)
4611
1414
00
53
98
1397
00
52
62
1398
00
50
44
1388
00
55
07
1387
00
51
24
1386
00
50
87
1385
00
51
30
1379
00
51
86
1380
00
54
27
1376
00
50
74
1381
00
52
32
1382
00
50
41
1648
00
50
92
1649
00
50
91
1650
00
51
11
1688
00
51
46
1706
00
59
18
1689
00
51
41
1690
00
53
70
1690/4420
00
50
90
1690/4595
00
51
63
1690/5900
00
51
63
1702
00
55
58
1702/4596
00
51
82
1701
00
50
85
1703
00
58
19
1774
00
51
87
1766
00
58
62
1765
00
50
12
1768
00
59
30
4612
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1764
00
57
85
टिकापह
35
00
53
22
39
00
53
82
36
00
51
60
38
00
50
10
37/576
00
54
96
40
00
51
57
40/617
00
50
35
40/629
00
50
29
40/631
00
51
34
42
00
58
93
42/416
00
51
59
42/604
00
51
89
42/628
00
51
72
42/630
00
51
03
48
00
55
04
47
00
55
50
43
00
50
93
45
00
10
08
44
00
50
62
56
00
21
12
117
00
52
24
140
00
54
46
160
00
53
48
159
00
51
75
161
00
51
95
158
00
50
10
157
00
54
06
156
00
54
2
II
(ii)
4613
155
00
50
45
154
00
53
64
171
00
50
17
172
00
56
67
152
00
50
97
173
00
50
21
151
00
52
11
179
00
50
31
150
00
51
61
149
00
54
15
180
00
55
57
188
00
53
75
186
00
50
45
187
00
10
38
198
00
59
08
193
00
50
98
197/584
00
53
56
196
00
58
18
282
00
50
10
283/553
00
53
85
283
00
52
78
288
00
50
86
291
00
51
17
292
00
51
31
296
00
52
81
297
00
52
40
298
00
52
68
299
00
52
34
300
00
52
33
301
00
51
71
4614
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
गहडमडा
1274
00
55
90
1273
00
51
04
1272
00
50
40
1271
00
57
10
1270
00
57
31
1269
00
54
10
1282
00
55
27
1285
00
22
38
1285/2000
00
59
77
1292
00
55
70
1293
00
53
82
1294
00
50
68
1295
00
58
06
1297/1942
00
50
88
1297/1943
00
52
88
1297
00
55
32
1298
00
52
49
1760
00
54
98
1300
00
51
55
1754
00
10
54
1755
00
50
10
1753
00
53
09
1752
00
54
50
1751
00
54
89
1742
00
51
53
1620
00
52
75
1619
00
51
58
1618
00
51
12
1614/1963
00
52
10
1616
00
52
08
II
(ii)
4615
1615
00
53
19
1614
00
54
98
1610
00
53
46
1611
00
54
35
1606
00
52
09
1604
00
53
38
1605
00
51
57
1602
00
52
37
1594
00
58
01
1593
00
50
10
1592
00
53
66
1589
00
50
10
1590
00
52
62
1569
00
16
78
1575
00
05
30
1574
00
51
59
1572
00
51
35
1571
00
53
38
1570
00
58
94
1579
00
50
10
1550
00
51
95
1551
00
56
74
1554
00
53
66
1553
00
51
59
1555
00
54
21
1541
00
50
17
1540
00
51
29
1539
00
52
71
1538
00
51
83
1537
00
52
88
4616
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1512
00
51
79
1513
00
14
95
1514
00
56
05
1463/1902
00
53
01
1467
00
51
75
1494
00
56
08
1493
00
56
29
1492
00
54
96
1488
00
54
07
1487
00
51
17
1473
00
50
76
1477
00
11
80
माह साहि
1178
00
52
25
1168
00
50
77
1167
00
51
15
1166
00
50
64
1141
00
50
40
1141/1562
00
53
60
1143
00
51
09
1144
00
56
23
1145
00
53
85
1150
00
50
10
1153
00
50
10
1152
00
51
49
1151
00
52
26
1119
00
51
36
1119/1564
00
51
59
1118
00
52
32
1118/1654
00
50
66
II
(ii)
4617
1117
00
50
97
1085
00
50
10
1116
00
51
21
1114
00
51
81
1115
00
50
85
1113
00
54
02
1088
00
54
02
1089
00
53
74
1092
00
50
29
1091
00
50
88
1090
00
50
88
680
00
50
18
698
00
51
29
682
00
56
47
683
00
56
47
685
00
58
32
692
00
50
10
686
00
50
10
687
00
11
77
688
00
51
20
471
00
52
10
468
00
51
84
467
00
50
93
469
00
53
60
470
00
51
16
258
00
52
84
257
00
50
29
259/1552
00
50
29
259
00
14
45
143
00
50
25
4618
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
143/1610
00
50
16
142
00
52
93
144
00
52
66
140
00
50
61
145
00
53
04
152
00
50
10
146
00
53
60
129
00
50
73
128
00
51
82
130
00
51
00
131
00
50
21
127
00
54
71
126
00
54
03
100
00
53
56
99
00
53
03
73
00
54
95
73/1545
00
57
62
74
00
55
70
72
00
50
25
71
00
52
81
64
00
52
76
65
00
53
56
66
00
57
18
67
00
53
09
रंकद उह
266
00
50
94
266/1979
00
50
99
267
00
58
03
268
00
53
51
168
00
50
17
II
(ii)
4619
167
00
52
68
166
00
52
29
170
00
50
10
164
00
52
67
165
00
51
76
161
00
51
67
162
00
53
56
160
00
57
02
160/1980
00
51
24
160/2066
00
56
40
157/1760
00
50
19
156
00
53
16
156/1970
00
53
15
157
00
50
85
138
00
50
84
136
00
50
82
135
00
50
37
134
00
53
02
139
00
54
60
133
00
55
86
140
00
50
25
128
00
52
58
129
00
51
03
130
00
51
59
106
00
50
93
107
00
51
63
103
00
51
04
108
00
52
02
102
00
51
73
101
00
52
40
4620
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
94
00
50
71
100
00
52
37
95/1856
00
50
65
96
00
54
70
95
00
50
58
85
00
54
63
83
00
53
22
57
00
50
10
57/1846
00
53
11
58
00
52
21
59
00
53
31
61
00
53
39
60
00
50
10
62
00
50
10
63
00
51
81
64
00
52
62
16
00
50
79
65
00
52
89
66
00
52
94
15
00
50
55
ीादाुइाँ
1198/1361
00
51
20
1198/1411
00
51
56
1198/1412
00
10
06
1198
00
20
74
1200
00
53
05
1199
00
50
15
1165
00
51
57
1165/1365
00
50
24
1154
00
50
17
II
(ii)
4621
1155
00
52
05
1156
00
50
95
1153
00
50
43
1157
00
53
30
1158
00
53
05
1159
00
52
65
1118
00
54
09
1106
00
53
83
1115
00
50
10
376
00
11
60
1111
00
55
75
380
00
52
34
381
00
52
21
379
00
52
06
378
00
51
18
382
00
53
64
383
00
50
10
325
00
50
96
326
00
52
26
327
00
51
22
328
00
51
96
323
00
51
20
324
00
52
56
404
00
56
44
403
00
50
47
406
00
51
37
407
00
54
58
408
00
51
09
410
00
50
59
409
00
51
19
4622
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
412
00
50
43
411
00
50
91
415
00
53
26
427
00
50
21
430
00
51
38
429
00
52
85
426
00
50
10
428
00
58
58
438
00
52
29
584
00
50
16
444
00
51
97
583
00
59
88
580
00
59
98
567
00
50
10
564
00
50
93
563
00
56
43
560
00
50
80
561
00
52
43
562
00
50
36
193
00
52
96
559
00
51
62
558
00
50
51
682
00
51
34
683
00
55
58
684
00
51
79
685
00
52
28
688
00
50
10
687
00
52
44
687/1414
00
51
22
689
00
50
69
II
(ii)
4623
690
00
52
53
691
00
52
63
695
00
50
10
918
00
51
23
763
00
52
54
762
00
54
92
759
00
51
46
760
00
57
16
715
00
51
80
757
00
51
07
719
00
56
46
756
00
50
10
723
00
53
99
722
00
50
51
724
00
59
78
725
00
50
64
727
00
58
46
727/1380
00
50
52
728
00
57
94
737
00
55
24
731
00
50
31
732
00
51
21
734
00
53
51
735
00
50
90
829
00
51
57
[फा.सं.आर-25011/25/2017-ओआर-I/13717]
पविकुमार, अवरसहिव
4624
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
2962
00
00
92
2774
00
02
66
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
58
3071
00
02
12
4626
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
04
2573
00
03
14
2574
00
01
59
II
(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
09
1923
00
05
24
4628
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
28
46
00
01
67
43
00
00
65
II
(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
94
00
00
42
4630
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
323
00
03
35
324
00
03
60
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
18
118
00
05
07
4632
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
1095
00
02
66
1107
00
03
62
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
55
398
00
19
64
4634
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
289
00
05
12
287
00
06
61
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
541/797
00
00
45
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
46
375
00
00
17
370
00
00
48
II
(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
16
4638
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SANAGARH
519
00
03
04
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
256
00
07
21
58
00
03
28
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
320/539
00
00
60
4640
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
311
00
00
10
310
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
2572
00
00
06
2563
00
04
72
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
07
2367
00
01
92
4642
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
20
953
00
09
67
954
00
03
58
II
(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
80
816
00
00
82
4644
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
815
00
00
26
818
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
1974
00
02
72
1989/2257
00
02
43
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
66
445
00
04
43
4646
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
14
641
00
00
17
640
00
07
27
II
(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
766/1060
00
04
75
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
53
517
00
07
39
517/1414
00
02
20
II
(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
27
182/1115
00
04
00
4650
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
45
II
(ii)
4651
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
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
50
190
00
06
10
4652
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
188/348
00
02
16
188
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
3750
00
03
91
3535
00
01
12
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
58
2843
00
09
09
4654
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
11
1603
00
01
27
1618
00
03
00
II
(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
18
1689
00
01
41
4656
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
161
00
01
95
158
00
00
10
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
1269
00
04
10
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
78
1575
00
00
30
1574
00
01
59
II
(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
1152
00
01
49
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
66
140
00
00
61
145
00
03
04
II
(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
157
00
00
85
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
55
BADBHUIN
1198/1361
00
01
20
1198/1411
00
01
56
1198/1412
00
10
06
II
(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
91
415
00
03
26
4664
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
46
756
00
00
10
723
00
03
99
II
(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.
िईक्रदल् री , 3अ त,2017
का.आ.1812.—क य्र री यसरकारकग गकहितमदयिआवश्यकप्रतरी तिगतािैक्रकपारादरी प(ओहडका)स िैदराीाद(त ं ािा)
तकप रगह यमउत्पाद क पठरवििक ह इंहडयिऑय कॉपोर किह हमट डक द्वारा"पारादरी प-िैदराीादपाइप ाइि"हीछाईजािरी
िाहि ;
रक य्र री यसरकारकगऐसरी पाइप ाइिहीछाि क प्रयगजिक ह यिआवश्यकप्रतरी तिगतािैक्रकऐसरी ाूहमम जगइसस
उपाीद्धअिुसूिरी मदवर्णषतिैओरहजसमदउतियपाइप ाइिहीछाऐजाि काप्रताविै,उपयग क अहिकारकाअजषिक्रकयाजा ;
अत:अी, क य्र री यसरकार, प रगह यम रखहिजपाइप ाइयस(ाूहममदउपयग क अहिकारकाअजषि)अहिहियम,1962
(1962का50) कीिारा3कीउपिारा(1)द्वाराप्रदत्तकहतियय काप्रयग करत ुए , उसाूहममदउपयग क अहिकारकाअजषिकरि
क अपि आकयकीघग्णाकरतरी िै;
कगईव्यहतिय, जगउतियअिुसूिरी मदवर्णषताूहममदहितीद्धिै, उसताररी खस हजसकगइसअहिसूििास युतियाारतक राजपत्र
कीप्रहतयााँसािारणजिताकगउप ब्िकरादरी जातरी िै, इक्कीसक्रदिक ारी तराूहमक िरी ि पाइप ाइिहीछा जाि क ह उसमद
उपयग क अहिकारक अजषिक सम्ीयिमद्री क्रदल् री पकुमारमिांहत, सक्षमप्राहिकाररी , इंहडयिऑय कॉपोर किह हमट ड, पारादरी प-
िैदराीादपाइप ाइिपठरयगजिा, तृतरी यत ,आ गकाारतरी टावर,किरी दि र,ाुवि श्वर-7 1557, ओहडकाकगह हखतरूपमद
आक्ष पा जसक ाI
अाँ ाजगहड
1134
00
07
`03
1140
00
00
29
अिुसूिरी
तिसरी -कणास
हज ा-पुररी
राज्य-ओहडका
ााँवकािाम
् ॉटिं.
क्ष त्रफ
ि क्टयर
यर
व षमरी टर
1
2
3
4
5
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
49
1273
00
02
40
II
(ii)
4667
1262
00
05
58
1246
00
12
51
1249
00
05
84
1247
00
02
16
1248
55
55
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]
पविकुमार, अवरसहिव
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
1136
00
09
46
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
40
1262
00
05
58
II
(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.
िईक्रदल् री , 3अ त,2017
का.आ.1813.—क य्र री यसरकारकग गकहितमदयिआवश्यकप्रतरी तिगतािैक्रकपारादरी प(ओहडका)स िैदराीाद(त ं ािा)
तकप रगह यमउत्पाद क पठरवििक ह इंहडयिऑय कॉपोर किह हमट डक द्वारा"पारादरी प-िैदराीादपाइप ाइि"हीछाईजािरी
िाहि ;
रक य्र री यसरकारकगऐसरी पाइप ाइिहीछाि क प्रयगजिक ह यिआवश्यकप्रतरी तिगतािैक्रकऐसरी ाूहमम जगइसस
उपाीद्धअिुसूिरी मदवर्णषतिैओरहजसमदउतियपाइप ाइिहीछाऐजाि काप्रताविै,उपयग क अहिकारकाअजषिक्रकयाजा ;
अत:अी, क य्र री यसरकार, प रगह यम रखहिजपाइप ाइयस(ाूहममदउपयग क अहिकारकाअजषि)अहिहियम,1962
(1962का50) कीिारा3कीउपिारा(1)द्वाराप्रदत्तकहतियय काप्रयग करत ुए , उसाूहममदउपयग क अहिकारकाअजषिकरि क
अपि आकयकीघग्णाकरतरी िै;
कगईव्यहतिय, जगउतियअिुसूिरी मदवर्णषताूहममदहितीद्धिै, उसताररी खस हजसकगइसअहिसूििास युतियाारतक राजपत्र
कीप्रहतयााँसािारणजिताकगउप ब्िकरादरी जातरी िै, इक्कीसक्रदिक ारी तराूहमक िरी ि पाइप ाइिहीछा जाि क ह उसमद
उपयग क अहिकारक अजषिक सम्ीयिमद्री क्रदल् री पकुमारमिांहत, सक्षमप्राहिकाररी , इंहडयिऑय कॉपोर किह हमट ड, पारादरी प-
िैदराीादपाइप ाइिपठरयगजिा, तृतरी यत ,आ गकाारतरी टावर,किरी दि र,ाुवि श्वर-7 1557, ओहडकाकगह हखतरूपमद
आक्ष पा जसक ाI
हसउ ा
366
00
07
66
390
00
04
18
अिुसूिरी
तिसरी -हपहपह
हज ा - पुररी
राज्य -ओहडका
ााँवकािाम
् ॉटिं.
क्ष त्रफ
ि क्टयर
यर
व षमरी टर
1
2
3
4
5
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
77
II
(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
गीिषिपुर
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
गीिषिपुरसु तािि र
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
ओरकग
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
मकरीा
123
00
01
12
71
00
04
00
70
00
04
05
73
00
17
07
84
00
00
10
116
00
07
30
85
00
00
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
उजाहणपडा
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
ाारतरी पुर
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
10
4676
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1574
00
00
10
1573
00
08
60
िसिपुर
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
मकुयदपुर
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
42
00
08
85
41
00
02
14
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
ीा श्वरपुर
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
85
II
(ii)
4679
465
00
11
95
464
00
04
75
463
00
00
85
ीरुण्ड इ
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
पाहणदग
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
55
2559
00
03
86
II
(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
63
2034
00
21
38
4682
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]
पविकुमार, अवरसहिव
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
364/2976
00
00
61
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
77
231
00
01
05
229
00
03
12
4684
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
419
00
15
93
429
00
11
25
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
439
00
05
60
410
00
01
19
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
73
00
17
07
84
00
00
10
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
1094
00
07
02
1095
00
26
11
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
53
1179
00
09
65
1548
00
12
41
II
(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
19
00
00
73
28
00
01
61
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
1675
00
00
10
1674
00
00
45
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
29
487
00
07
95
437
00
00
10
4692
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
173
00
08
48
174
00
02
47
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
1717
00
05
40
1713
00
10
93
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
80
2190
00
11
91
2189
00
00
86
II
(ii)
4695
[F. No. R-25011/11/2017/48396-OR-I/13764]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
िईक्रदल् री , 3अ त,2017
का.आ.1814.—क य्र री यसरकारकग गकहितमदयिआवश्यकप्रतरी तिगतािैक्रकपारादरी प(ओहडका)स िैदराीाद(त ं ािा)
तकप रगह यमउत्पाद क पठरवििक ह इंहडयिऑय कॉपोर किह हमट डक द्वारा "पारादरी प-िैदराीादपाइप ाइि"हीछाई
जािरी िाहि ;
रक य्र री यसरकारकगऐसरी पाइप ाइिहीछाि क प्रयगजिक ह यिआवश्यकप्रतरी तिगतािैक्रकऐसरी ाूहममदजगइसस
उपाीद्धअिुसूिरी मदवर्णषतिैओरहजसमदउतियपाइप ाइिहीछाऐजाि काप्रताविै,उपयग क अहिकारकाअजषिक्रकयाजा ;
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
4696
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अत:अी, क य्र री यसरकार, प रगह यम रखहिजपाइप ाइयस(ाूहममदउपयग क अहिकारकाअजषि)अहिहियम,1962
(1962 का50) कीिारा3कीउपिारा(1)द्वाराप्रदत्तकहतियय काप्रयग करत ुए , उसाूहममदउपयग क अहिकारकाअजषिकरि
क अपि आकयकीघग्णाकरतरी िै;
कगईव्यहतिय, जगउतियअिुसूिरी मदवर्णषताूहममदहितीद्धिै, उसताररी खस हजसकगइसअहिसूििास युतियाारतक राजपत्र
कीप्रहतयााँसािारणजिताकगउप ब्िकरादरी जातरी िै, इक्कीसक्रदिक ारी तराूहमक िरी ि पाइप ाइिहीछा जाि क ह उसमद
उपयग क अहिकारक अजषिक सम्ीयिमद्री क्रदल् री पकुमारमिांहत, सक्षमप्राहिकाररी , इंहडयिऑय कॉपोर किह हमट ड, पारादरी प-
िैदराीादपाइप ाइिपठरयगजिा, तृतरी यत ,आ गकाारतरी टावर,किरी दि र,ाुवि श्वर-7 1557, ओहडकाकगह हखतरूपमद
आक्ष पा जसक ाI
अिुसूिरी
तिसरी -ड ां
हज ा-पुररी
राज्य–ओहडका
ााँवकािाम
् ॉटिं.
क्ष त्रफ
ि क्टयर
यर
व षमरी टर
1
2
3
4
5
दिापडा
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
सडां गइउत्तरीाड
1961
00
55
48
1960
00
54
36
1959
00
52
14
1958
00
10
24
1957
00
52
31
1982
00
53
32
1101
00
59
98
II
(ii)
4697
1110
00
54
15
1105
00
57
70
1104
00
10
18
1116
00
50
81
1120
00
56
85
1119
00
50
97
1122
00
58
88
1124
00
53
67
1125
00
52
46
1126
00
54
32
1153
00
51
60
1152
00
59
57
1127
00
50
10
1128
00
50
69
1129
00
58
42
1130
00
56
35
1131
00
50
10
1132
00
17
18
1133/2054
00
56
79
1200
00
50
51
1201
00
53
26
1202
00
55
13
1203
00
57
39
1204
00
13
53
1205
00
51
76
1206
00
50
31
1207
00
50
14
1209
00
14
30
1212
00
50
69
4698
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1213
00
50
10
1214
00
11
65
1279
00
50
91
1280
00
52
73
249
00
51
39
184
00
16
25
185
00
52
19
194
00
51
42
195
00
10
58
193
00
50
25
212
00
52
38
198
00
11
55
203
00
57
86
202
00
51
39
208
00
50
58
61
00
54
50
93
00
11
59
92
00
52
55
91
00
51
59
90
00
54
39
87
00
50
10
88
00
10
62
89
00
50
10
98
00
50
12
99
00
54
93
94
00
50
48
86
00
51
56
101
00
54
18
100
00
55
43
II
(ii)
4699
102
00
50
44
103
00
56
54
109
00
51
40
104
00
58
38
105
00
50
27
43
00
50
90
41
00
51
24
42
00
55
37
सडां गइपहिमीाड
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
429
00
09
78
450
00
08
60
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
िााँइपुर
285
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
299
00
00
92
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
ण्डपडा
940
00
13
69
941
00
51
86
941/1168
00
53
62
941/1169
00
52
59
363
00
29
22
362
00
59
94
356
00
57
49
355
00
52
52
354
00
51
18
342
00
50
95
341
00
50
76
340
00
50
84
379
00
50
94
175
00
53
58
176
00
14
19
179
00
57
52
178
00
12
12
180
00
50
67
4702
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
183
00
52
35
259
00
51
23
251
00
50
15
252
00
52
35
250
00
11
20
249
00
50
96
197
00
50
10
248
00
10
52
184
00
50
10
247
00
50
27
197/1152
00
52
53
197/1153
00
50
53
231
00
59
21
199
00
50
21
200
00
55
59
201
00
50
20
223
00
59
83
222
00
54
96
221
00
52
83
219/1183
00
58
93
211
00
58
78
212
00
50
70
294
00
52
56
हिपुर
748
00
01
33
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
डमगटररी
229
00
00
91
4704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
230
00
51
43
231
00
51
54
232
00
51
92
233
00
50
44
234
00
50
20
200/1693
00
50
56
200/1692
00
50
52
203
00
50
64
202
00
50
77
125
00
50
83
186
00
50
77
183
00
51
07
185
00
50
76
184
00
50
84
429
00
55
67
430
00
51
90
431
00
56
22
474
00
25
57
546
00
56
35
545
00
54
98
542
00
12
29
541
00
51
95
ीसयतपुर
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
रद
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
29
II
(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
98
4708
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
17
1941
00
02
72
II
(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
26
4710
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
[फा.सं.आर-25011/11/2017/48396-ओआर-I/13764]
पविकुमार , अवरसहिव
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
सािी ुहिआपडा
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
II
(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
DANAPARA
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
SARANGOI UTTARBAR
1961
00
00
48
1960
00
04
36
1959
00
02
14
1958
00
10
24
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
76
1206
00
00
31
II
(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
12
99
00
04
93
94
00
00
48
4714
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
434
00
03
63
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
259
00
02
47
297
00
00
92
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
179
00
07
52
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
748
00
01
33
755
00
00
10
751
00
09
25
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
233
00
00
44
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
716
00
00
87
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
3570
00
01
36
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
3330
00
00
02
04
01
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
52
3200
00
02
30
4722
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
53
2002
00
01
40
II
(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
14
1938
00
03
45
2071
00
06
63
4724
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
81
2124
00
03
17
II
(ii)
4725
[F. No. R-25011/11/2017/48396-OR-I/13764]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस् त, 2017
का.आ. 1815.—केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िै दक पारािीप )ओहिशा) से िैिराबाि )तेलंगाना)
तक पेट्रोहलयम उत्पािों के पररविन के हलए इंहियन ऑयल कॉपोरेशन हलहमटेि के द्वारा "पारािीप-िैिराबाि पाइपलाइन" हबछाई
जानी चाहिए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन हबछाने के प्रयोजन के हलए यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िै दक ऐसी भूहम मे जो इससे
उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित िै ओर हजसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन हबछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव िै, उपयोग के अहिकार का अजिन दकया जाए;
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
4726
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अत: अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोहलयम और खहनज पाइपलाइन्द्स )भूहम में उपयोग के अहिकार का अजिन) अहिहनयम,1962
(1962 का 50) की िारा 3 की उपिारा )1) द्वारा प्रित्त शहक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूहम में उपयोग के अहिकार का अजिन करने
के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती िै;
कोई व्यहक्त, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूहम में हितबद्ध िै, उस तारीख से हजसको इस अहिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र
की प्रहतयााँ सािारण जनता को उपलब्ि करा िी जाती िै, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूहम के नीचे पाइपलाइन हबछाए जाने के हलए उसमें
उपयोग के अहिकार के अजिन के सम्बन्द्ि में श्री दिल्लीप कुमार मिांहत, सक्षम प्राहिकारी, इंहियन ऑयल कॉपोरेशन हलहमटेि, पारािीप-
िैिराबाि पाइपलाइन पररयोजना, तृतीय तल, आलोक भारती टावर ,शिीि नगर ,भुवनेश् वर -751007, ओहिशा को हलहखत रूप में
आक्षेप भेज सकेगा I
अनुसूची
तिसील-बेगुहनआ
हजला-खोद्धाि
राज्य-ओहिशा
गााँव का नाम
प्लॉट नं.
क्षेत्रफल
िेक्टयर
एयर
वगि मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
िज
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
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
03
3075
00
01
74
3074
00
01
90
4728
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
81
1168
00
03
42
1163
00
02
50
II
(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
99
967
00
06
10
968
00
05
79
4730
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
22
680
00
01
09
681
00
01
70
II
(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
43
479
00
00
80
476
00
01
39
4732
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
58
125
00
00
64
220/3503
00
00
58
II
(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
15
81
00
08
07
4734
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
बेलपिा
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
1128
00
07
41
1127
00
01
18
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
61
1050
00
01
15
1046
00
03
50
4736
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
एकिाहलआ
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
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
33
831
00
04
70
4738
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
63
599
00
04
43
609
00
01
00
II
(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
881
00
03
21
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
82
981
00
02
13
987
00
01
36
II
(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
33
200
00
04
70
201
00
04
00
4742
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
93
247
00
01
33
250
00
00
86
II
(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
बोररगुआाँ
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
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
40
115
00
07
22
116
00
07
24
II
(ii)
4745
117
00
00
48
खहिपिर
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
440
00
04
52
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 कुमार, अवर सहचव
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
3144
00
03
24
3142
00
02
96
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
98
1172
00
03
11
1170/3670
00
00
42
II
(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
91
822
00
01
47
823
00
08
57
4750
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
10
504
00
00
10
505
00
00
44
II
(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
63
404
00
01
04
403
00
01
08
4752
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
15
81
00
08
07
II
(ii)
4753
BELAPARA
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
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
54
1097
00
00
84
1099
00
03
60
4754
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
90
755
00
01
21
754
00
01
61
II
(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
1041
00
00
19
1042
00
00
10
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
01
590
00
03
78
589
00
02
91
II
(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
892
00
04
00
909
00
04
77
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
10
408
00
03
76
407
00
00
10
II
(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
33
250
00
00
86
242
00
04
79
4760
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
504
00
06
37
532
00
04
71
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
560
00
03
80
498
00
03
04
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)
4763
नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस् त, 2017
का.आ. 1816.—केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िै दक पारािीप )ओहिशा) से िैिराबाि )तेलंगाना)
तक पेट्रोहलयम उत्पािों के पररविन के हलए इंहियन ऑयल कॉपोरेशन हलहमटेि के द्वारा "पारािीप-िैिराबाि पाइपलाइन" हबछाई
जानी चाहिए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन हबछाने के प्रयोजन के हलए यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िै दक ऐसी भूहम में जो इससे
उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित िै और हजसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन हबछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव िै, उपयोग के अहिकार का अजिन दकया जाए;
अत: अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोहलयम और खहनज पाइपलाइन्द्स )भूहम में उपयोग के अहिकार का अजिन) अहिहनयम,1962
(1962 का 50) की िारा 3 की उपिारा )1) द्वारा प्रित्त शहक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूहम में उपयोग के अहिकार का अजिन करने
के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती िै;
कोई व्यहक्त, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूहम में हितबद्ध िै, उस तारीख से हजसको इस अहिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र
की प्रहतयााँ सािारण जनता को उपलब्ि करा िी जाती िै, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूहम के नीचे पाइपलाइन हबछाए जाने के हलए उसमें
उपयोग के अहिकार के अजिन के सम्बन्द्ि में श्री दिल्लीप कुमार मिांहत, सक्षम प्राहिकारी, इंहियन ऑयल कॉपोरेशन हलहमटेि, पारािीप-
िैिराबाि पाइपलाइन पररयोजना, तृतीय तल, आलोक भारती टावर ,शिीि नगर ,भुवनेश् वर -751007, ओहिशा को हलहखत रूप में
आक्षेप भेज सकेगा I
खजुररआ
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
593
00
02
56
594
00
00
95
अनुसूची
तिसील- टांहग
हजला - खोद्धाि
राज्य -ओहिशा
गााँव का नाम
प्लॉट नं.
क्षेत्रफल
िेक्टेयर
एयर
वगि मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
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
96
321
00
04
18
II
(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
35
36
00
04
65
4766
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
िमणभूइाँ
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
961
00
01
31
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
40
1517
00
00
19
4768
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
60
1836
00
00
75
II
(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
अम्भाहबल
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
1833
00
04
08
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
81
772
00
01
72
II
(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
71
541
00
05
21
4772
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
59
1500
00
01
10
II
(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
असुरद़िप
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
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
22
19
00
02
75
II
(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
399
00
04
06
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
छणहगरर
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
489
00
03
27
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 कुमार, अवर सहचव
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
638
00
02
95
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
64
298/769
00
02
66
II
(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
64
109
00
00
33
96
00
00
78
4780
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
829
00
07
04
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
52
1044
00
05
04
1043
00
08
67
4782
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
12
1715
00
07
34
II
(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
1075
00
00
10
1068
00
12
98
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
23
1182
00
04
82
II
(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
38
561
00
01
30
560
00
00
33
4786
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
32
411
00
01
33
II
(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
18
1547
00
04
26
1550
00
01
59
4788
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
157
00
02
28
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
378
00
01
99
378/597
00
04
72
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
616
00
10
13
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 अगस् त, 2017
का.आ. 1817.— केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िै दक पारािीप )ओहिशा) से िैिराबाि
)तेलंगाना) तक पेट्रोहलयम उत्पािों के पररविन के हलए इंहियन ऑयल कॉपोरेशन हलहमटेि के द्वारा "पारािीप-िैिराबाि पाइपलाइन"
हबछाई जानी चाहिए;
4792
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन हबछाने के प्रयोजन के हलए यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िै दक ऐसी भूहम में जो इससे
उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित िै ओर हजसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन हबछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव िै, उपयोग के अहिकार का अजिन दकया जाए;
अत: अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोहलयम और खहनज पाइपलाइन्द्स )भूहम में उपयोग के अहिकार का अजिन) अहिहनयम,1962
(1962 का 50) की िारा 3 की उपिारा )1) द्वारा प्रित्त शहक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूहम में उपयोग के अहिकार का अजिन करने
के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती िै;
कोई व्यहक्त, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूहम में हितबद्ध िै, उस तारीख से हजसको इस अहिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र
की प्रहतयााँ सािारण जनता को उपलब्ि करा िी जाती िै, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूहम के नीचे पाइपलाइन हबछाए जाने के हलए उसमें
उपयोग के अहिकार के अजिन के सम्बन्द्ि में श्री दिल्लीप कुमार मिांहत, सक्षम प्राहिकारी, इंहियन ऑयल कॉपोरेशन हलहमटेि, पारािीप-
िैिराबाि पाइपलाइन पररयोजना, तृतीय तल, आलोक भारती टावर ,शिीि नगर ,भुवनेश् वर -751007, ओहिशा को हलहखत रूप में
आक्षेप भेज सकेगा I
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
544
00
03
16
547
00
06
56
अनुसूची
तिसील- खोद्धाि
हजला - खोद्धाि
राज्य - ओहिशा
गााँव का नाम
प्लॉट नं.
क्षेत्रफल
िेक्टयर
एयर
वगि मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
II
(ii)
4793
548
00
02
80
549
00
01
67
525
00
07
08
521
00
11
76
520
00
04
44
बसन्द्त
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
अण्िा
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
िररपुर
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
िउहलमुिाँ
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
गोहपनाथपुर
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
4796
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ब्रजमोिनपुर
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
नरससंिप्रसाि
784
00
00
60
785
00
05
05
950
00
03
46
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
रामचहण्ि
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
4798
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
िुगािप्रसाि
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
805
00
00
36
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
954
00
00
47
955
00
04
60
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
20
462
00
00
64
II
(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
542
00
07
43
545
00
00
12
4802
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
पाहणछत्र
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
824
00
06
55
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
काँपुर
1580
00
03
19
1581
00
01
10
1579
00
04
76
1578
00
08
43
4804
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
गोहिपिा
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
449
00
15
36
II
(ii)
4805
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
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
लिंगा
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 कुमार, अवर सहचव
4806
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
555
00
04
64
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
514
00
04
27
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
720
00
01
62
II
(ii)
4809
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
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
2041
00
10
37
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
135
00
05
94
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
953
00
03
02
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
733
00
08
57
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
813
00
01
41
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
13
872
00
03
51
4816
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
73
497
00
01
94
II
(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
695
00
01
84
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
10
899
00
00
98
II
(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
1577
00
08
05
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
463
00
07
17
II
(ii)
4821
448
00
00
49
449
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
123
00
05
09
4822
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
[F. No. R-25011/17/2017-OR-I/48599/13715]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 3 अगस् त, 2017
का.आ. 1818.— केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िै दक पारािीप )ओहिशा) से िैिराबाि
)तेलंगाना) तक पेट्रोहलयम उत्पािों के पररविन के हलए इंहियन ऑयल कॉपोरेशन हलहमटेि के द्वारा "पारािीप-िैिराबाि पाइपलाइन"
हबछाई जानी चाहिए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन हबछाने के प्रयोजन के हलए यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िै दक ऐसी भूहम मे जो इससे
उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित िै ओर हजसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन हबछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव िै, उपयोग के अहिकार का अजिन दकया जाए;
अत: अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोहलयम और खहनज पाइपलाइन्द्स )भूहम में उपयोग के अहिकार का अजिन) अहिहनयम,1962
(1962 का 50) की िारा 3 की उपिारा )1) द्वारा प्रित्त शहक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूहम में उपयोग के अहिकार का अजिन करने
के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती िै;
कोई व्यहक्त, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूहम में हितबद्ध िै, उस तारीख से हजसको इस अहिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र
की प्रहतयााँ सािारण जनता को उपलब्ि करा िी जाती िै, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूहम के नीचे पाइपलाइन हबछाए जाने के हलए उसमें
उपयोग के अहिकार के अजिन के सम्बन्द्ि में श्री दिल्लीप कुमार मिांहत, सक्षम प्राहिकारी, इंहियन ऑयल कॉपोरेशन हलहमटेि, पारािीप-
िैिराबाि पाइपलाइन पररयोजना, तृतीय तल, आलोक भारती टावर , शिीि नगर , भुवनेश् वर -751007, ओहिशा को हलहखत रूप में
आक्षेप भेज सकेगा I
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
126
00
02
89
119
00
02
04
121
00
02
03
120
00
02
09
117
00
00
32
अनुसूची
तिसील-जटणी
हजला - खोद्धाि
राज्य -ओहिशा
गााँव का नाम
प्लॉट नं.
क्षेत्रफल
िेक्टयर
एयर
वगि मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
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
56
II
(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
पाहण्िआबील
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
4826
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
26
II
(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
1264
00
05
25
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
96
II
(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
हबजीपुर
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 कुमार, अवर सहचव
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
38
00
02
78
37
00
04
23
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
214/576
00
00
11
213
00
06
47
4832
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
07
109
00
06
64
17
00
03
05
II
(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
371
00
00
10
372
00
04
52
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
08
518
00
00
20
519
00
05
27
II
(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
1696
00
00
14
1723
00
04
66
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)
4837
dks;yk ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vxLr] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1819
-
&
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks tgka ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd] blls mikc) vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr ifj{ks= dh
Hkwfe esa dks;yk vfHkizkIr fd, tkus dh laHkkO;rk gS;
vkSj js[kkad la[;k ,lbZLkh,y@tsvks,p@foU/;k&AAA@,y ,.M vkj@lhch,4¼1½@17@515] rkjh[k 28 twu] 2017
ftlesa mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe {ks= ds C;kSjs vUrfoZ"V gS] dk fujh{k.k dysDVj] ftyk mefj;k ¼e/; izns’k½ ds dk;kZy;
esa ;k eq[; egkizca/kd ¼[kkst izHkkx½] lsaVªy ekbu Iykfuax ,.M fMtkbu bULVhP;wV fyfeVsM] xksaMokuk iSysl] jkaph&834031]
>kj[kaM ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkÅl LVªhV] dksydkrk & 700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkÅFk
bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼jktLo vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006 ¼NÙrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk
gS;
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa
blds i’pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr ’kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] iwoksZDr
vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk’k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS;
mijksDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) dksbZ O;fDr] bl vf/klwpuk ds jkti= esa izdk’ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs
fnu dh vof/k ds Hkhrj Hkkjlk/kd vf/kdkjh ;k foHkkxk/;{k ¼jktLo½] lkÅFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM]
fcykliqj&495006 ¼NRrhlx<+½ ls&
¼i½
laiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k mlds Åij fdlh vf/kdkj ds vtZu ij vk{ksi dj
ldsxk( ;k
¼ii½
mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu dh xbZ fdlh dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ ;k gksus okyh laHkkfor
fdlh {kfr ds fy;s vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 ds v/khu izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk( ;k
¼iii½
mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds izHkkoghu gksus ds laca/k esa ;k
mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ ds v/khu [kuu iV~Vs izHkkoghu gksus ij izfrdj dk nkok dj
ldsxk vkSj mls mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼i½ ls [kaM ¼iv½ esa fofufnZ"V enksa dh
Ckkcr mixr O;; dks minf’kZr djus ds fy;s iwoksZDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr lHkh ekufp=ksa] pkVksZa vkSj vU;
nLrkostksa dks ifjnRr dj ldsxkA
vuqlwph
foU/;k fMiyfjax CykWd&III, tksfgyk {ks=]
ftyk&mefj;k ¼e/; izns’k½
(,lbZLkh,y@tsvks,p@foU/;k&AAA@,y ,.M vkj@lhch,4¼1½@17@515] rkjh[k 28 twu] 2017)
Øe
la-
xzke dk
uke
tujy
la[;k
iVokjh
gYdk uEcj
rglhy
ftyk
{ks= gsDVj
esa
fVIi.kh
1-
MxMkSvk
290
15
ukSjkstkckn
mefj;k
22.533
Hkkx
2-
egqjk
577
14
ukSjkstkckn
mefj;k
15.796
Hkkx
dqy % 38-329 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 94-71 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
lhek o.kZu%
Cykd&
I
%
d&[k
js[kk fcUnq *d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke MxMkSvk ds e/; Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *[k* ij feyrh
gSA
[k&x
js[kk fcUnq *[k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke MxMkSvk ds e/; Hkkx ls nf{k.k dks xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *x*
ij feyrh gSA
x&?k
js[kk fcUnq *x* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke MxMkSvk ds e/; Hkkx ls iwoZ dks gksrh gqbZ fcUnq *?k* ij
feyrh gSA
4838
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
?k&³&d
js[kk fcUnq *?k* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke MxMkSvk ds e/; Hkkx ls nf{k.k vkSj if’pe dks] fcUnq *³*
ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq *d* ij feyrh gSA
Cykd&
II
%
p&N
js[kk fcUnq *p* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke egqjk ds e/; Hkkx ls iwoZ dks gksrh gqbZ fcUnq *N* ij
feyrh gSA
N&t
js[kk fcUnq *N* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke egqjk ds e/; Hkkx ls nf{k.k dks gksrh gqbZ fcUnq *t* ij
feyrh gSA
t&>&p
js[kk fcUnq *t* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke egqjk ds e/; Hkkx ls if’pe vkSj mRrj dks] fcUnq *>* ls
gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq *p* ij feyrh gSA
Cykd&
III
%
V&B
js[kk fcUnq *V* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke egqjk ds e/; Hkkx ls nf{k.k dks gksrh gqbZ fcUnq *B* ij
feyrh gSA
B&M
js[kk fcUnq *B* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke egqjk ds e/; Hkkx ls if’pe dks gksrh gqbZ fcUnq *M* ij
feyrh gSA
M&<&V
js[kk fcUnq *M* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke egqjk ds e/; Hkkx ls mRrj vkSj iwoZ dks] fcUnq *<* ls gksrh
gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq *V* ij feyrh gSA
Cykd&
IV
%
r&Fk
js[kk fcUnq *r* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke egqjk ds e/; Hkkx ls if’pe dks gksrh gqbZ fcUnq *Fk* ij
feyrh gSA
Fk&n
js[kk fcUnq *Fk* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke egqjk ds e/; Hkkx ls mRrj dks gksrh gqbZ fcUnq *n* ij
feyrh gSA
n&/k&r
js[kk fcUnq *n* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke egqjk ds e/; Hkkx ls iwoZ dks] fcUnq */k* ls gksrh gqbZ
vkjafHkd fcUnq *r* ij feyrh gSA
[Qk- la- 43015@33@2017&,y, ,.M vkbZvkj]
vkj- ,l- ljkst] voj lfpo
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)]
Je
,oa
jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1820
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
egkizca/d] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfe
Vs
M] ftyk ifV;kyk
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la
-
II
] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (
dsl la
-
288
@201
3
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
0011
@
47
@201
3
&vkbZvk
j (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks
'kh
] mi funs
'kd
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)
4841
Today 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
ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1821
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 d
k 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ lsaVjh
flD;ksfjVh lkWY;w'kal] xksYiQ ,Dl
Vs
a
'k
u] xqM+xkao] gfj;k.kk
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj v
kS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la
-
II
] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (dsl la
-
14
@201
6
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4001
2
@
06
@201
6
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1822
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfe
Vs
M
]
eq[; dk;kZy;] fglkj
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la
-
II
] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (dsl la
-
46
@201
4
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] t
ks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4001
2
@4
8
@201
4
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
ubZ fnYyh] 27 tqykbZ] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1823
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfe
Vs
M] eq[; dk;kZy;] fglkj ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj m
uds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la
-
II
] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (dsl la
-
4
0
@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&40012@4
1
@2014&vkbZvkj
(Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
ubZ fnYyh]
31
tqykbZ] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1824
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
funs
'k
d]
jk
"
Vªh; funsZ
'k
kRed ehfM;k laLFkku] jkstxkj vkSj izf
'k
{k.k funs
'k
ky;] psUubZ
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa d
sUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
psUubZ
ds iapkV
(
lanHkZ la[;k
56
@201
7
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2
1
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
2
012@
01
@201
7
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
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
II
(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
ubZ fnYyh]
31
tqykbZ] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1825
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
funs
'k
d]
jk
"
Vªh; funsZ
'k
kRed ehfM;k laLFkku] jkstx
kj vkSj izf
'k
{k.k funs
'k
ky;] psUubZ
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
psUubZ
ds iapkV
(
lanHkZ la[;k
5
7
@201
7
) dks çdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2
1
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
2
012@
0
2
@201
7
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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. Director
4846
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
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-42012/02/2017-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
Nil
II
(ii)
4847
ubZ fnYyh]
31
tqykbZ
] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1826
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
funs
'k
d]
jk
"
Vªh; funsZ
'k
kRed ehfM;k laLFkku] jkstxkj vkSj izf
'k
{k.k funs
'k
ky;] psUubZ
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj
muds de
Zdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
psUubZ
ds iapkV
(
lanHkZ la[;k
5
8
@201
7
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2
1
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
2
012@
0
3
@201
7
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
j
ktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
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-42012/03/2017-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
ubZ fnYyh]
31
tqykbZ] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1827
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; l
jdkj
funs
'k
d]
jk
"
Vªh; funsZ
'k
kRed ehfM;k laLFkku] jkstxkj vkSj izf
'k
{k.k funs
'k
ky;] psUubZ
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;
ky;]
psUubZ
ds iapkV
(
lanHkZ la[;k
5
9
@201
7
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2
1
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
2
012@
0
5
@201
7
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
ubZ fnYyh]
31
tqykbZ] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1828
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
funs
'k
d]
jk
"
Vªh; funsZ
'k
kRed ehfM;k laLFkku] jkstxkj vkSj izf
'k
{k.k funs
'k
ky;]
psUubZ
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
psUubZ
ds iapkV
(
lanHkZ la[;k
60
@201
7
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 2
1
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
2
012@
0
6
@201
7
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
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-42012/06/2017-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 Officer
II
(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
ubZ fnYyh]
31
tqykbZ] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1829
-
—
vkS|ksfxd
fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
funs
'k
d]
jk
"
Vªh; funsZ
'k
kRed ehfM;k laLFkku] jkstxkj vkSj izf
'k
{k.k funs
'k
ky;] psUubZ
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu
£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
psUubZ
ds iapkV
(
lanHkZ la[;k
61
@201
7
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2
1
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
2
012@
0
7
@201
7
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
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
4852
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
ubZ fnYyh]
31
tqykbZ] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1830
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
funs
'k
d]
jk
"
Vªh; funsZ
'k
kRed ehfM;k laLFkku] jkstxkj vkSj izf
'k
{k.k funs
'k
ky;] psUubZ
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
psUubZ
ds iapkV
(
lanHk
Z la[;k
62
@201
7
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2
1
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
2
012@
0
8
@201
7
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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. Director
II
(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
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-42012/08/2017-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
Nil
4854
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh]
31
tqykbZ] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1831
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
funs
'k
d]
jk
"
Vªh; funsZ
'k
kRed ehfM;k laLFkku] jkstxkj vkSj izf
'k
{k.k funs
'k
ky;] psUubZ
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkr
a=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
psUubZ
ds iapkV
(
lanHkZ la[;k
63
@201
7
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2
1
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
2
012@
0
9
@201
7
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
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-42012/09/2017-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)
4855
3.
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
ubZ fnYyh]
31
tqykbZ] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1832
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk
14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
funs
'k
d]
jk
"
Vªh; funsZ
'k
kRed ehfM;k laLFkku] jkstxkj vkSj izf
'k
{k.k funs
'k
ky;] psUubZ
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsU
nzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
psUubZ
ds iapkV
(
lanHkZ la[;k
64
@201
7
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2
1
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
2
012@
10
@201
7
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
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-42012/10/2017-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
ubZ fnYyh]
31
tqykbZ] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1833
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
eq[;
egkizca/d] iwohZ
Vs
yhiQksu l£dy] ch,l,u,y] gtjr
xat] y[kuÅ o vU;
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
y[kuÅ
ds
iapkV (
lanHkZ la[;k
11
@20
05
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh
; ljdkj dks
05
-
0
5
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
0
012@
1
7
0
@20
04
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
II
(ii)
4857
New 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 as
4858
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)
4859
15.
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 alleged
II
(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 Officer
4862
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1834
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj egkizca/d]
nwj
lapkj foHkkx] mi&foHkkxh; vfHk;ark (dkuwuh)
ch,l,u,y] y[kuÅ
ds ekè;e ls
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;
k;ky;]
y[kuÅ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 11
7
@20
11
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 0
3
-
0
7
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4001
1
@1
5
@20
11
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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 moved
II
(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
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1835
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14
) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
eq[;
egkizca/d] nwjlapkj]
iwoZ]
y[kuÅ
] iz/kukpk;Z egkizca/d]
y[kuÅ
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd v
fèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k
23
@20
04
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
30
-
0
6
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4001
2
@
72
@20
03
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
II
(ii)
4865
New 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)
4867
18.
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
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1836
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vu
qlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ckykth
flD;ksfjVht l£olst] vyhxat
] y[kuÅ
o vU;
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k
65
@20
12
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
08
-
06
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
2025
@
03
@20
17
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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)
4869
6.
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)
4871
23.
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
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1837
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd]
tsih,ebZvkj] ikafMpsjh
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 5@201
4
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2
6
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4201
1
@
151
@201
3
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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)
4873
Industrial 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 :
The President
:
1st Party/Petitioner Union
JIPMER Hospital Employees Union
Room No. 314, 3rd Floor, Administrative Block
Puducherry-605006
AND
The Director
:
2nd Party/Respondent
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 vacancies
4874
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)
4875
7.
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 of
II
(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 Officer
4878
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 26.05.2014
II
(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 06.06.2014
4880
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 labourers
4882
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 Union
4884
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.
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1838
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd]
jk"Vªh; funsZ'kkRed ehfM;k laLFkku] jkstxkj vkSj izf'k{k.k funs'kky;] psUubZ ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa
aaaaa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.
k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k
47
@2017) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
10
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&42012@
118
@201
6
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
The Director
:
2nd Party/Respondent
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)
4885
The 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
ubZ fnYyh] 2
vxLr
] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1839
-
—
vkS|ks
fxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
mikè;{k]
fnYyh fodkl izkf/dj.k] fodkl lnu] ubZ fnYyh
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUn
zh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la
-
I
]
fnYyh
ds iapkV (
lanHkZ
la
-
8
@201
2
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
2011
@
149
@201
1
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
…Workman
4886
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 claimant
II
(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 the
4888
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
ubZ fnYyh] 2
vxLr
] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1840
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
mikè;{k]
fnYyh fodkl izkf/dj.k] fodkl lnu] ubZ fnYyh
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp]
II
(ii)
4889
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la
-
I
]
fnYyh
ds iapkV (
lanHkZ
la
-
9
@201
2
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
2011
@
1
52
@201
1
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsU
æ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
ubZ fnYyh] 2
vxLr
] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1841
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; l
jdkj
mikè;{k]
fnYyh fodkl izkf/dj.k] fodkl lnu] ubZ fnYyh
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
II
(ii)
4891
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la
-
I
]
fnYyh
ds iapkV (
lanHkZ
la
-
11
@201
2
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
2011
@
1
50
@201
1
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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 any
II
(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
ubZ fnYyh] 2
vxLr
] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1842
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu
;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
mikè;{k]
fnYyh fodkl izkf/dj.k] fodkl lnu] ubZ fnYyh
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|k
sfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la
-
I
]
fnYyh
ds iapkV (
lanHkZ
la
-
13
@201
2
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
2011
@
14
7
@201
1
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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. Director
4894
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)
4895
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.WW1/11. 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 perform
4896
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
ubZ fnYyh] 2
vxLr
] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1843
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
mikè;{k]
fnYyh
fodkl izkf/dj.k] fodkl lnu] ubZ fnYyh
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la
-
I
]
fnYyh
ds iapkV (
lanHkZ
la
-
16
@201
2
) dks çd
kf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
2011
@
14
4
@201
1
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
…Workman
II
(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 was
4898
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
ubZ fnY
yh] 2
vxLr
] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1844
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
mikè;{k]
fnYyh fodkl izkf/dj.k] fodkl lnu] ubZ fnYyh
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la
-
I
]
fnYyh
ds iapkV (
lanHkZ
la
-
17
@201
2
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
2011
@
148
@201
1
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi fu
ns'kd
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)
4899
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-42011/148/2011-
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 stood
II
(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
ubZ fnYyh] 2
vxLr
] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1845
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
dk;Zdkjh
vfHk;ark (bZ)] lhihMCY;wMh] xkft;kckn dsaæh; fo|qr foHkkx] ¯gMu ,;jiQhYM] mÙkj izns
'k
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds
lac¼
fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;
k;ky; la
-
I
]
fnYyh
ds iapkV (
lanHkZ
la
-
33
@201
5
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹l
a
-
,y&4
2011
@
125
@201
4
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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 affidavit
II
(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
ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1846
-
—
vk
S|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vk;qDr] iwoZ
fnYyh uxj fuxe]
'k
kgnjk] ubZ fnYyh
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnz
h; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la
-
I
] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la
-
235
@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&42011@1
37
@201
5
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
…Workman
II
(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 reference
4906
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)
4907
13.
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 attained
4908
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
ubZ fnYyh] 2
vxLr
] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1847
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vk;qDr]
fnYyh uxj fuxe] pkanuh pkSd]
fnYyh
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds de
Zdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la
-
II
]
fnYyh
ds iapkV (
lanHkZ
la
-
17
@201
3
) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
10
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
2011
@
42
@201
2
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w
)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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. Director
II
(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 of
II
(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. In
II
(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 on
4914
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
ubZ fnYyh] 2
vxLr
] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1848
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
funs
'k
d] mi
funs'kd
(c
kxokuh)] ckxokuh foHkkx] ,e,lvks fc¯YMx] ubZ fnYyh
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds
II
(ii)
4915
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la
-
I
]
fnYyh
ds iapkV
(
lanHkZ
la
-
30
@201
5
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
2011
@
115
@201
4
&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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 the
4916
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 in
II
(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
ubZ fnYyh]
2 vxLr
] 201
7
dk
-
vk
-
1849
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk
17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
eSlwj
feujYl fyfe
Vs
M
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] csaxywj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22@2007] 30@2
007] 101@2007] 38@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&29012@23@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la
-
,y&29012@32@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la
-
,y&29012@27@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la
-
,y&29012@42@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts
'
k dqekj] voj
lfpo
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 Government
4918
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
Sh. Giddegowda,
The Managing Director,
S/o Giddegowda,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
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
Sh. K.N. Honnegowda,
The Managing Director,
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)
4919
SCHEDULE
“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
Smt. B. Kempamma,
The Managing Director,
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
Sh. Thopegowda,
The Managing Director,
S/o Late Sh. Shivananjegowda,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
K Byrapura Village & Post,
No. 39, M. G. Road,
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 years
II
(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 Section
4922
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 High
II
(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 the
4924
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 onerous
II
(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 medical
4926
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 any
II
(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:
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management
WW 1
Smt. Giddegowda, I Party/ workman and also additional evidence
4930
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
II
(ii)
4931
(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
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
-
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
4932
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh]
2 vxLr
] 201
7
dk
-
vk
-
1850
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
us
'k
uy feujy
MsoyiesaV dkiksZjs
'k
u
fyfe
Vs
M
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vk
S|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
tcyiqj
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
74
@20
14
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
26
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&2901
1
@
14
@20
14
&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts
'
k dqekj] voj lfpo
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.Raju
II
(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
ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1851
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
eSaxuht v;Ld (bf.M;k)
fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca
èk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
13
@20
06
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 26
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&2
7
011@1@20
06
&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
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
…Management
4934
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 of
II
(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
ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1852
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
lslk
xksok
fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa
Je U;k;ky;
&2
]
eqEcbZ
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1
8
@20
0
3
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
2
8
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&2
9012
@
48
@200
2
&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
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/Judge
II
(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/-
Sd/-
(S. Venkataraman)
(Premanand Ghadi)
Head HR
Workman
Sd/-
Sd/-
(P.J. Kamat)
(Suhaas Naik)
Advocate
Advocate
WITNESSES
Sd/- (Francisco Fernandes)
Sd/- (Errica Chandy)
Date: 07.03.2017
4938
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxL
r] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1853
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
nh U;w
bf.M;k ,
'
;ksjsal daiuh
fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsU
nzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
57
@20
15
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 28
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&
17
012@
29
@20
15
&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
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)
4939
2.
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
ubZ fnYyh] 2 v
xLr] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1854
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
,lksfl;sVsM lhesUV
daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh
; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
dksVk (jktLFkku)
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
14
@
199
5) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2
6
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&
29
012@
7
@
199
5&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
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.
vuqca/k
U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk] ¼jkt-½
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& Jh ds'ko dkSf'kd] vkj-,p-ts-,l-
funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad % vkS- U;k- ¼dsUnzh;½&14@1995
fnukad LFkkfir % 19@6@1995
izlax % Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k dza- ,y&29012@7@95&vkbZvkj ¼fofo/k½ fn- 9@6@1995
funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947
e/;
gtkjh yky iq= usuxyky }kjk la;qDr egkea=h]
fgUn etnwj lHkk] caxkyh dksyksuh] Nkouh] dksVk
&&izkFkhZ Jfed
,oa
eSllZ ,lksfl;sVsM lhesUV daiuh fyfeVsM]
yk[ksjh lhesUV oDlZ] yk[ksjh
&&vizkFkhZ fu;kstd
mifLFkr
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k
%
dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k %
Jh deys'k dqekj ,oa Jh vuqjkx vxzoky
vf/kfu.kZ; fnukad % 1@6@2017
4940
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
%%vf/kfu.kZ;%%
Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 9@6@1995 ds tfj;s fuEu funsZ'k fookn] vkS|ksfxd
fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼ftls rnqijkUr **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ds vUrxZr bl
U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ lEizsf”kr fd;k x;k gS%&
^^D;k izcU/ku ,lksfl;sVsM lhesUV dEiuh fy-] yk[ksjh lhesUV oDlZ] yk[ksjh }kjk muds deZdkj Jh gtkjhyky iq= usuxyky]
e'khu vVs.MsUV dh lsok,a fnukad 8@4@94 ls i`Fkd djus dh dk;Zokgh mfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gS\ ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr deZdkj fdl
vuqrks"k dk vf/kdkjh gS\^^
2-
funsZ'k@fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa izkIr gksus ij iathc) mijkUr i{kdkjksa dks lwpuk@uksfVl tkjh dj fof/kor voxr djok;k
x;kA
3-
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls Dyse LVsVesUV U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj laf{kIr% ;g O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks
vizkFkhZ laLFkku ,slksfl;sVsM lhesUV daiuh fy- yk[ksjh lhesUV oDlZ ftyk cwWnh ds izcU/kdoxZ us i= fn-3@3@1987 ds }kjk fn-
9@3@1987 ls lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;k Fkk rFkk mls isfdax IykUV esa fn-9@9@1987 dks etnwj ds in ij LFkk;h dj fn;k x;k]
rRi'pkr i= fn-19@4@1990 ds }kjk bZ&xzsM ls Mh&xzsM esa e'khujh vVs.MsUV ds in ij inksUur dj fn;k x;k og ;g inksUufr
1@1@1990 ls ekuh x;hA izkFkhZ ds o"kZ 1991 esa lhesUV deZpkjh ;wfu;u¼,p,e,l½ dk lnL; cu tkus ls izcU/kdoxZ us ukjkt
gksdj izkFkhZ Jfed dks i=kad 3638 fn-16@6@1992] i= fn-16@10@1992] i=kad 8048 fn-13@10@92] i=kad 8322 fn-
20@10@1992 o i=kad 8590 fnukad 27@10@92 ds }kjk >wWBs vkjksi&i= fn;sA rRi'pkr i=kad 8684 fn-29@10@1992 o mlds
ckn i=kad 13152 fn-15@2@1993 nsdj fn-31@10@92 dks ,p-ds-'kekZ eSustj ekbZfuax ij ekjihV dk >wWBk vkjksi yxk;k o vkjksiksa
ckcr tkWp vf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k x;k] fdUrq tkWp vf/kdkjh us izkFkhZ dks cpko dk dksbZ volj iznku ugha djrs gq, o tkWp esa U;k;
ds uSlfxZd fl)karksa dh vogsyuk djrs gq, vizkFkhZ dk i{k ysdj tkWp lEiUu dhA rRi'pkr vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ dks nks"kh ekurs gq,
i=kad 175 fn-8@4@1994 ds }kjk lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus dk n.M nqHkkZouko'k cnys dh Hkkouk ls izsfjr gksdj fn;k tks mfpr
ugha gSA vUr esa fiNys lEiw.kZ osru] ykHkksa lfgr lsokesa cgky fd;s tkus dk vuqrks"k iznku fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gSA
4-
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls mDr Dyse dk tokc izLrqr djrs gq, izfrokn Lo:i ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed
vknru viuh M~;wVh ds izfr ykijokg] vuqifLFkr jgus] vius mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds lkFk vDlj >xM+k o vHknz O;ogkj djus dk vknh
jgk gS ftl lEcU/k esa mls le;≤ ij vkjksfir dj tkWp esa cpko dk volj iznku djrs gq, tkWp lEiUu dh x;h gS rFkk tkWp
esa vkjksi fl) ik;s tkus ij tks lsokeqfDr dk n.M fn;k x;k gS oks iw.kZr;k mfpr gSA vUr esa izkFkhZ Jfed dk Dyse fujk/kkj rF;ksa
dk gksus ls lO;; fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gSA
5-
vknsf'kdk fnukad 21@2@2014 ds vuqlkj foLr`r vkns'k nsrs gq, ;g izdj.k fnukad 11@8@2014 ls ysdj vkt rd ^^?kjsyq
tkWp dh mfprrk o _tqrk ds fcUnq^^ dh cgl gsrq fu;r gksrk jgk gS] fdUrq ekeys esa izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls fnukad 8@6@2015 ls
ysdj fujUrj vkt rd yxHkx nks o"kZ ds yEcs vUrjky esa fdlh Hkh rkjh[k is'kh ij uk rks Lo;a izkFkhZ Jfed U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k
mifLFkr gqvk gS ,oa uk gh mldh vksj ls dksbZ vf/kd`r izfrfuf/k mifLFkr gq, gSa ftlls ,slk izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed vFkok
mlds izfrfuf/k dks ekeys esa dksbZ :fp ugha jgh gSA ;gkW ;g mYysf[kr fd;k tkuk Hkh lehphu gksxk fd izkFkhZ Jfed ls lEcfU/kr
funsZ'k@jsQzsUl] jktLFkku ljdkj] Je foHkkx ls bl U;k;kf/kdj.k esa fnukad 19@6@1995 dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ izkIr gksus mijkUr vc rd
yxHkx 22 o"kZ dh nh?kZdkyhu vof/k rd fofHkUu U;kf;d izfdz;kvksa ls xqtj pqdk gS] vr% ,sls esa vc U;k;kf/kdj.k vfuf'prdky rd
blh iz;kstukFkZ ekeys dks vkSj yfEcr j[kus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha le>rk gS vkSj U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k vc izkFkhZ i{k dh mDr
iz;kstukFkZ cgl ds vf/kdkj dks cUn djus ds vykok dksbZ fodYi 'ks"k ugha jgus ls mlds mDr iz;kstukFkZ cgl ds vf/kdkj dks cUn
djrk gSA
6-
ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ,oa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk le;≤ ij ;g fn'kkfunsZ'k iznku fd;s tkrs jgs gSa
fd 10 o"kZ ls vf/kd yEcs izdj.kksa dk fuLrkj.k Rofjr xfr ls fd;s tkus ds iz;kl fd;s tkus pkfg,aA vr% mDr rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa
dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vizkFkhZ i{k ds mifLFkr izfrfuf/kx.k dks lquk x;k] i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls
izkFkhZ Jfed ds fo:) dh x;h ?kjsyq tkWp ls lEcfU/kr leLr izys[k izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa ftuds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V izdV gksrk gS
fd izkFkhZ Jfed ds fo:) vf/kjksfir vkjksiksa dh ckcr dh x;h ?kjsyq tkWp iw.kZ:is.k izkFkhZ dks viuk cpko i{k izLrqr djrs gq, U;k;
ds uSlfxZd fl)karksa dh ikyuk djrs gq, gh lEiUu dh x;h gS rFkk ?kjsyq tkWp dks _tq ,oa mfpr ekuk tkrk gSA
7-
vc tgkW rd izkFkhZ Jfed dks vf/kjksfir vkjksiksa dh ckcr vizkFkhZ fu;kstd daiuh }kjk tks lsok ls i`Fkd dk n.M fn;k
x;k gS] mlds lEcU/k esa vfHkys[k ij miyC/k lEiw.kZ vfHkys[k o tkWp i=koyh ds voyksduksijkUr ;gh izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ ds
xEHkhj nqjkpj.k esa fyIr jgus ds vk/kkj ij gh izkFkhZ Jfed dks lsok i`Fkd dk n.M fn;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS tks bl
U;k;kf/kdj.k dh jk; esa fdlh Hkh :i esa vR;f/kd ugha dgk tk ldrk rFkk og n.M mfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gh ik;k tkrk gSA vr%
;g U;k;kf/kdj.k izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk vkns'k@i= dzekad 175 fnukad 8@4@1994 ds }kjk lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus
dk n.M fn;k tkuk mfpr ,oa U;k;laxr ikrk gS ,oa lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@fookn Hkh blh vuq:i mRrfjr gksus ;ksX; gSA
II
(ii)
4941
ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 9@6@1995 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr
funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed gtkjhyky dks vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk vkns'k@i= dzekad
175 fnukad 8@4@1994 ds }kjk lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus n.M fn;k tkuk mfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gS] Qyr% izkFkhZ Jfed fdlh izdkj
dk dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
ds'ko dkSf'kd] U;k;k/kh'k
ubZ fnYyh]
3
vxLr
] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1855
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
egkizca/d]
Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] uks,Mk] mÙkj izns
'k
,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj mu
ds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la
-
I
]
fnYyh
ds iapkV (
lanHkZ
la
-
8
9
@201
1
) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2
5
-
0
5
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&4
0012
@
53
@20
07
&vkbZvkj (
Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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 from
4942
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 letter
II
(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
ubZ fnYyh]
3
vxLr] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1856
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
uqekyhx<+ fjiQkbujh
fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] v
uqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
xqokgkVh
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
12
@201
2
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 26
-
07
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&
30
011@
45
@201
1
&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj
lfpo
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)
4945
In 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 place
4946
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)
4947
11.
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 “ With
4948
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, after
II
(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
ubZ fnYyh]
3
vxLr] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1857
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
Ms
bathfu;¯jx
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] v
uqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
II
(ii)
4951
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;
&2
]
paMhx<+
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
6
2
@201
5
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
03
-
0
8
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&
30
011@
2
@201
6
&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj
lfpo
New 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 Officer
4952
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh]
3
vxLr] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1858
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ
mn;iqj
feujy ¯lMhdsV izk
-
fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksaaaaaa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
vtesj
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
02
@201
3
) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks
03
-
0
8
-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la
-
,y&
29
011@
4
8
@201
2
&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
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.
vuqca/k
Je U;k;ky; ,oa vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] vtesj
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh&Jh ,l-,u-Vsyj] vkj-,p-ts-,l-
izdj.k la[;k& lhvkbZVhvkj 02@13
¼lhvkbZ,l ua- lhvkbZVhvkj 07@2014½
jsQjsal la[;k ,y&29011@48@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½ fnukad 24-2-13
egkea=h HkhyokMk [kfut /kkrq etnwj la?k dk;kZy;
11@97 Hkksiky xat HkhyokMk jkt-
&&izkFkhZ
cuke
egkizca/kd mn;iqj feujy MoyiesaV flaMhdsV izk0 fyfeVsM
jsYos QkVd ds lkeus] fpRrkSM jksM] HkhyokMk
&&vizkFkhZ
mifLFkfr
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls
% Jh jkts'k [kUuk] vf/koDrk A
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls
% Jh ,e lh tSu] vf/koDrk A
vokMZ
fnukad 21-6-2017
1-
Je foHkkx] dsanz ljdkj dh vksj ls vij lfpo dh vf/klwpuk ,y-&29011@48@2012&vkbZ vkj¼,e½
fnukad 24-2-13 }kjk bl vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ fuEu fookn funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gS%&
2-
^^D;k izca/ku mn;iqj feujy flaMhdsV izkbZosV fyfeVsM HkhyokMk ds }kjk [kfut /kkrq etnwj la?k dh ekax
la-1]2]3]15]16 dks ugha ekuuk U;k;ksfpr rFkk U;k;laxr gS\ ;fn ugha rks ;wfu;u@deZdkj fdl vuqrks"k ds
vf/kdkjh gS \^^
3-
mHk;i{kksa dh vksj ls Lohd`r rkSj ij ekax i= izn'kZ Mc-10 vuqlkj mDr jsQjsal esa of.kZr mDr ekax la-
1]2]3]15 o 16 fuEu izdkj ls gS%&
1-
izc/kdksa }kjk lkoy vkWijsVjksa dks leku dk;Z dk leku osru ugha fn;k tk jgk gS tSls xksiky xqtZj
dks vius 4500 okyk osru fn;k tcfd iwoZ gSYij ds :i esa 750 dh xzsM esa Fkk A vr% mls
7500@&:-izfrekg feyus pkfg;s A
II
(ii)
4953
2-
tks Jfed lSeh fLdYM esa dk;Z dj jgs gS mudks fLdYM dk osru eku fn;k tkos o orZeku esa
fLdYM esa tks dk;Z dj jgs gS mUgsa xzsM esa fy;k tkos A
3-
izca/kdksa }kjk fn-2-6-10 dks tks osrueku cuk;s x;s mlesa vki }kjk osrueku dks le{k inksa dk
fooj.k ugha fn;k x;k blls ;g Li"V ugha gksrk gS fd dkSulk osrueku fdlh in ds fy;s ykxw
ekuk tkosxk A ftlls Jfed esa fn'kk Hkze dh fLFkfr iSnk gks x;h A d`i;k osrueku ds le{k inksa
dk uke Hkh fy[ksa A
15-
?ksofj;k ekbal ij dk;Zjr lkr O;fDr ¼izoh.k 'kekZ] jkedqaokj xqtZj [kkuk xqtZj ?ku';ke ikyhoky
ek/kw tkV uVoj lqokydk] I;kjk xqtZj½ tks ikap&N% o"kksZ ls dk;kZy; ekbal ij dke dj jgs gS
mudks fLdYM dk osru eku fn;k tkos rFkk ih ,Q dkVdj fQj ;w ,e Mh ,l esa LFkkbZ fd;k tkos A
16- ?ksofj;k ekbal ij lkr Jfed tks ,p ,e vkWijsVj dk dk;Z fiNys ikap o"kksZ ls dj jgs gS mUgsa vU;
vkWijsVj ds cjkcj osrueku fn;k tkos A
4-
ryc fd;s tkus ij izkFkhZ i{k }kjk izLrqr LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa vfHkopu fd;s x;s gS fd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ,d
ekU;rk izkIr jftLVMZ ;wfu;u gS Hkkjrh; etnwj la?k ls lacaf/kr ;wfu;u gS ftldk ewy mn~ns'; ;wfu;u ds
lnL;ks@Jfedksa dks jkgr fnyokuk mudh ekaxs iwjh djokuk o muds vfgr uk gks mldks cpkuk gS A izkFkhZ
;wfu;u ds dq'ky] m)Zdq'ky o vdq'ky Jfed lnL; gS tks djhc 240&250 ds yxHkx gS tks vizkFkhZ fu;ksDrk ds
pSuiqjk o ?ksofj;k o vU; ekbal o QSDVz~h esa fHkUu fHkUu inksa ij dk;Zjr gS A fn-2-6-10 dks vizkFkhZ us [kku etnwj
dkaxzsl ;wfu;u HkhyokMk QthZ ;wfu;u ls tks fn-2-6-10 dks le>kSrk izi= rS;kj fd;k og xyr o xSj dkuwuh gS A
izkFkhZ ;wfu;u vizkFkhZ fu;ksDrk ls vius Jfedksa deZpkfj;ksa dh osru folaxfr;ksa] Jfedksa o deZpkfj;ksa ds lkFk gks
jgs dqBkjk?kkr ds laca/k esa vizkFkhZ ls dbZ ckj ekSf[kd :i ls f'kdk;r dh ftl ij vizkFkhZ us dksbZ /;ku ugha fn;k
A fn-28-7-11 dks izkFkhZ us dsanzh; mi Je vk;qDr ,oa le>kSrk vf/kdkjh] vtesj dk viuk lksyg lw=h; ekax i=
izLrqr fd;k ftlesa ekax la-1]2]3]15]16 dks vizkFkhZ }kjk ugha ekuk x;k okrkZ djok;h tks okrk fn-21-6-12 dks
vlQy gqbZ A izFke ekax dk vizkFkhZ fu;ksDrk us dksbZ tokc ugha fn;k A rFkkdfFkr QthZ ;wfu;u }kjk fn-2-6-10
dks tks le>kSrk vizkFkhZ }kjk rS;kj gqvk mlesa izFke xzsM 4500&140&55&150&6500&160&7500 r; gqbZ A tc
vizkFkhZ }kjk ;g iwoZ esa gh r; fd;k tk pqdk Fkk fd 4500@&:i;s okys osru dh xzsM 7500@&:i;s gksxh rks
fQj vizkFkhZ }kjk mldks D;ksa ugha vey esa yk;k x;k vkSj tks lkoy vkWijsVj gS mudks D;ksa ugha fn;k tk jgk gS
mldk dkbZ dkj.k vizkFkhZ }kjk uk rks crk;k uk gh fn;k x;k A vizkFkhZ }kjk Jfedksa ds lkFk muds osruksa esa
folaxfr mRiUu dh tk jgh gS A vizkFkhZ }kjk LVkQ deZpkfj;ksa dks tks ohMh, fn;k tk jgk gS mlesa fdlh dks de
o fdlh dks vf/kd fn;k tk jgk gS A ogh deZpkfj;ksa esa HksnHkko j[kk tk jgk gS A LVkQ okyksa dks ohMh, yscj dh
rtZ ij fn;k tk jgk gS tcfd osru eaFkyh gS A ohMh, ds lca/k esa iwoZ esa lu~ 1995]1993]1990 vkfn o"kksZ esa
vizkFkhZ }kjk iwoZ esa Jfedksa o LVkQ deZpkfj;ksa dks fn;s tkus okys oh Mh , dk QkewZyks cuk;k x;k ijarq vizkFkhZ
fu;ksDrk }kjk mDr QkewZys dk iz;ksx ughas djds viuh euethZ ls o viuh gB/kfeZrk ls ohMh, dk Hkqxrku fd;k
tkrk gS tks xyr gS A ekax la-2 dk Hkh dksbZ larks"ktud tokc ughas fn;k x;k A 'krZ la-3 ds laca/k esa Hkh vizkFkhZ
}kjk dksbZ tokc ughas fn;k x;k A izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds tks Jfed gS o fHkUu inksa ij dk;Zjr gS mlesa muds vkxs inksa
ds vHkko esa ;g r; ughas fd;k tk ldrk fd fdl Jfed dks dkSuls in dh dkSulh xzsM ds vuqlkj osrueku
fn;k tk;sxk tcfd le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds lkeus tks okrkZ gqbZ mlesa ;wfu;u dh vksj ls fn-21-6-12 dks izLrkfor
lwfp;ka inksa o osrueku lfgr is'k dh x;h ftldks vizkFkhZ }kjk ugha ekuk A ftu Jfedksa us fcuk fdlh dkj.k
180] 240 fnu yxkrkj viuh lsok;sa iwjh dj yh gS og LFkk;h gksus ds gdnkj gS rkS fQj vizkFkhZ }kjk mUgsa LFkk;h
D;ksa ugha fd;k tk jgk gS vkSj fLdYM dk osrueku D;ksa ughas fn;k tk jgk gS tcfd Jfed tc fLdYM dk dk;Z
dj jgk gS rks uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa ds vuqlkj fLdYM Jfed dk gh osrueku feyuk pkfg, A vkt rd
dSyk'k Jfed dks leku osrueku ugha nsdj izkFkhZ ds lkFk o Jfedksa ds lkFk fcuk vf/kdkj dqBkjk?kkr fd;k tk
jgk gS A var esa izkFkZuk dh gS fd ekax la-1]2]3]15]16 dks iwjk djok;k tkos vkSj Jfedksa dks fiNyk ,fj;j o
vBkjg izfr'kr C;kt lfgr fnyok;k tkos ftu Jfedksa dk osrueku c<uk gS mudk c<k gqvk osrueku le>kSrk
fnukad ls e; ,fj;j o C;kt lfgr fnyok;k tkos A vU; vuqrks"k eqdnes dk [kpkZ Hkh fnyok;k tkos A
5-
vizkFkhZ }kjk tokc izLrqr fd;k tkdj izkFkhZ ds LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse dks enokj vLohdkj djrs gq, vfHkopu
fd;s gS fd Hkkjrh; [kku etnwj la?k [k [kku etnwj dkaxzsl ds vf/kdre Jfed mDr nksuksa ;wfu;uksa ds lnL;
gS A izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ekU;rk izkIr ugha gSA vizkFkhZ daiuh us izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dks ekU;rk ugha ns j[kh gS A izkFkhZ ;wfu;u
cgqr vYi lnL;rk okyh ;wfu;u gS ftlesa nksgjh lnL;rk okys lnL; izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds lnL; gS ;kfu dh izkFkhZ
;wfu;u dh lnL;rk ds vykok vU; ;wfu;u ds lnL; Hkh gS A vYi lnL;rk okyh ;wfu;u gksus ls izkFkhZ ;wfu;u
dk dksbZ vfLrRo ugha gS rFkk ;wfu;u lkewfgd izd`fr dh ekax ugha mBk ldrk gS A mijksDr of.kZr nksuksa ;wfu;u
4954
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ls le; le; ij f}i{kh; o f=i{kh; le>kSrs gksrs jgrs gS ftuds }kjk lkewfgd ekaxksa dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tkrk
gS A ;wfu;u us viuh ekaxksa ls laca/k esa dksbZ Hkh i= izca/kdksa dks ugha fn;k gS mUgksusa lh/ks gh viuk Dyse le>kSrk
vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr fd;k gS tks fu;ekuqlkj xyr ,oa fof/k fo:) gSA ;wfu;u us u rks vius lnL;ksa dh
lwph izLrqr dh gS vkSj uk gh dsl dk gsrqd izLrqr fd;k gS ftlls ;g lkfcr gks lds fd Jfedksa us viuh ekaxs
mBkus ds fy;s ;wfu;u dks vf/kd`r fd;k gks mDr Dyse is'k djus ls iwoZ u rks ;wfu;u us vius lnL;ksa dh tujy
ckWMh ehfVax gh cqyk;h gS uk gh ogka ij bl rjg dk dksbZ izLrko o ml ij dk;Zokgh dk fopkj fd;k x;k gS A
ekStwnk jsQjsal ,c bfuf'kvks buoSfyM gS o cSM bu ykW gS A izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dk egkea=h jkeyky yksnk us cgqer
okyh ;wfu;u Hkkjrh; [kku etnwj la?k ds lkFk gq, le>kSrs ij gLrk{kj fd;s gS A le>kSrk [kku etnwj dkaxszsl
baVd cgqer okyh ;wfu;u ls fd;k x;k Fkk ftl ij vf/kdka'k Jfedksa ds gLrk{kj gS rFkk mDr le>kSrs dks Je
foHkkx esa Hkh iathd`r djok;k x;k Fkk mDr le>kSrs }kjk ykxw ifjykHk leLr Jfedkx.k }kjk lg"kZ izkIr fd;s
x;s Fks ,oa fdlh Hkh Jfed }kjk dksbZ Hkh fojks/k ,oa ,rjkt ugha fd;k x;k Fkk mDr ifjykHk izkIr djus ds i'pkr~
;g fy[kuk fd mDr le>kSrk xyr ,oa QthZ gS ek= ;g bafxr djrk gS fd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u vius fufgr LokFkksaZ dh
iwfrZ gsrq mDr dk;Zokgh dj jgh gS tcfd ;g le>kSrk iwjh rjg ls ekU; gksdj ykxw fd;k x;k Fkk jkeyky yksnk
tks izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds egkea=h gS us mDr le>kSrs ij gLrk{kj fd;s gS bl dkj.k bl le>kSrs ls izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ck/;
gS rFkk le>kSrs dks fdlh rjg dh pqukSrh nsus ;k badkj djus le>kSrs dks QthZ dgus dk vf/kdkj ;wfu;u dks
ugha gS A lHkh Jfedksa us jkth[kq'kh mDr le>kSrs ,oa mlls mRiUu leLr ifj.kkeksa dks fcuk ,rjkt Lohdkj fd;k
Fkk mlds ifjykHk jkeyky yksnk egkea=h izkFkhZ ;wfu;u us Hkh izkIr fd;s gS A ekax la-1]2]3]15 o 16 dh ekaxs
jsQjsal yk;d ugha Fkh A fn-2-8-10 dks le>kSrk [kku etnwj dkaxzsl ds lkFk gqvk bl le>kSrs ij jkeyky yksnk
egkea=h izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds Hkh gLrk{kj gS A le>kSrk fn-8-5-10 dk tks Hkkjrh; [kku etnwj la?k ds lkFk gqvk gS
rFkk le>kSRkk fn-7-3-13 dk [kku etnwj dkaxzsl ds lkFk le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ,oa lgk;d Je vk;qDr dsanzh; vtesj
dh ekStwnxh esa gqvk gS rFkk le>kSrk fn-31-7-13 dk Hkkjrh; [kku etnwj la?k ds lkFk gqvk gS A mDr le>kSrksa dks
n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vc dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha jgk gS A cgqer okyh ;wfu;u [kku etnwj dkaxzsl ,oa Hkkjrh; [kku
etnwj la?k ds lkFk fn-31-7-13 dks le>kSrks laiUu gqvk gS ftelsa mDr of.kZr ekaxksa dk iw.kZr% fujLrkj.k fd;k tk
pqdk gS A vr% bl izdkj dh dksbZ ekax orZeku esa 'ks"k ughas gS A vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk Jfedksa dks dsanzh; ljdkj
}kjk ?kksf"kr Js.kh vdq'ky] v)Zdq'ky ,oa dq'ky Js.kh esa j[kk tkrk gS o mudh Js.kh ds vuqlkj gh inuke fn;s
tkrs gS vkSj le; le; ij ;wfu;uksa ds lkFk le>kSrs ds vuqlkj inksUufr nh tkrh gS A ftlesa mudk dk;Z ,oa
in dqN Hkh gks inksUur dj fn;k tkrk gS A dq'ky Js.kh ds Jfedksa dks dqN o"kksZ i'pkr~ ;wfu;u ds le>kSrs ds
}kjk xzsM dk ykHk fn;k tkrk gS tks le>kSrs }kjk ghs cuk;h x;h gS A vr% ;gka in ,oa mlds osrueku dk dksbZ
iz'u gh ugha mBrk gS A D;ksafd le>kSrk fn-2-6-10 ds }kjk ;g fu.khZr fd;k x;k Fkk fd xzsM okys deZpkfj;ksa dks
lHkh dks dq'ky Js.kh dk osru fn;k tkosxk pkgs mudk inuke o Js.kh dqN Hkh gks blesa vdq'ky Js.kh esa vkus
okys pkSdhnkj Hkh dq'ky Js.kh dk osrueku izkIr dj jgs gS A ,slh fLFkfr esa xzsM esa inuke fn;k tkuk laHko ugha
gS A lkewfgd izd`fr dh ekax ftl ij cgqer okyh ;wfu;u ls le>kSrk gks x;k gS A ekax {ks=kf/kdkj ls vkxs
c<dj mBk;h x;h gS tcfd Je foHkkx us ek= lkr Jfedksa ds laca/k esa gh jsQjsal fd;k gS tks muds ekax i= ds
iSjk la-15 ls lacaf/kr gS A mDr lkrksa Jfedksa esa N% Jfedksa dks ;w ,e Mh ,l esa LFkkbZ dj fn;k x;k Fkk o
fu;ekuqlkj mudk ih ,Q Hkh dkVk tk jgk gS lkroka Jfed ek/kks tkV daiuh esa dk;Zjr ugha gS og Bsdsnkj ds
;gka ij dk;Zjr gS mldks Bsdsnkj }kjk fu;ekuqlkj ykHk o ifjykHk fn;s tk jgs gS A izoh.k 'kekZ dk;kZy;
lgk;d in ij dk;Zjr gS o mldks dq'ky Js.kh dk osrueku ns jgs gS] jkedqekj xqtZj gSYij dks mlds in ds
vuqlkj vdq'ky Js.kh dk osrueku ns jgs gS] dkuk xqtZj okVjeSu dks in ds vuq:i osrueku fn;k tk jgk gS A
?ku';ke ikyhoky CykLVj in ij LFkk;h :i ls dk;Zjr Fkk tks fd LosPNk ls ukSdjh NksM x;k A uVoj lqokydk
gSYij dks mlds in ds vuqlkj osrueku ns jgs gS] I;kjk xqtZj Jfed dks vdq'ky Js.kh dk osru fn;k tk jgk Fkk
tks gR;k ds dsl esa vkjksih gksus ls fiNys dkQh le; ls yxkrkj vuqifLFkr py jgk gS A ekax i= esa mldk
dzekad 14 gS tcfd jsQjsal ekax i= dh ekax la-1]2]3]15]16 dks gh fu.kZ; gsrq jsQj fd;k x;k gS og fopkj.kh;
ugha gS A iSjk la-13 ds varZxr of.kZr dFku Je ea=ky; }kjk fu.kZ;u gsrq jsQj ugha fd;s x;s vr% fopkj.kh;
ugha gS A var esa fuosnu fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ekax la-1]2]3]15]16 dks [kkfjt djrs gq, izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dk Dyse
e; gtsZ&[kpsZ [kkfjt fd;k tkdj uks fMLI;wV vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkos A
6-
izkFkhZ ;wfu;u us mDr tokc LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse dk tokc my tokc izLrqr dj mlesa vizkFkhZ dh vkifRr;ksa
dks enokj vLohdkj djrs gq, vfHkopu fd;s gS fd fn-9-7-10 dks Je foHkkx ds vfrfjDr Je vk;qDr eq[;ky;
t;iqj us ,d vkns'k tkjh dj Hkkjrh; [kku etnwj la?k dk iath;u fujLr dj fn;k vkSj ml ;wfu;u dk
vfLrRo gh Je foHkkx }kjk lekIr dj fn;k gS rks fQj Hkkjrh; [kku etnwj la?k cgqer okyh ;wfu;u gksus dk
iz'u gh mRiUu gksrk gS vkSj tc Je foHkkx us Hkkjrh; [kku etnwj la?k dh ekU;rk gh o"kZ 2010 esa jn~n dj nh
rks fQj izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh dksbZ vfLrRo gh ugha jgrk gS A tgka rd [kku etnwj dkaxzsl dk iz'u gS mlls dgh
T;knk lnL; izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds gS vkSj izkFkhZ ;wfu;u us orZeku esa vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa viuk vfLrRo cuk;s j[kk gS
II
(ii)
4955
vkSj izkFkhZ ;wfu;u us gh vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa dk;Zjr Jfedksa ,oa deZpkfj;ska dh ekax mBk;h gS A ;fn vizkFkhZ laLFkku
us vU; fdlh ;wfu;u ls dkbZ le>kSrk ncko cukdj ;k /kefd;ka nsdj dj fy;k gS rks og le>kSrk ekus tkus
;ksX; ughas gS A izkFkhZ ;wfu;u }kjk vizkFkhZ laLFkku us dbZ ckj ekSf[kd :i ls o dbZ ckj fyf[kr :i ls ekaxksa ds
leFkZu esa ckrphsr dh x;h okrkZ dh x;h tc vizkFkhZ laLFkku us izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh ekaxksa dks ugha ekuk rc izkFkhZ
;wfu;u us le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k viuh izkFkZuk is'k fd;k A izkFkhZ ;wfu;u us vius Dyse ds lkFk pSuiqjk
ekbal ?ksofj;k ekbal esa dk;Zjr izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds lnL;ksa dh fyLV is'k dh gS vkSj muds }kjk gh ekaxksa ds leFkZu
esa izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dks crk;k mlds i'pkr~ gh izkFkhZ ;wfu;u us ogh en~nk mBk;k A vizkFkhZ laLFkku vius bl izdj.k
esa vius vkidks cpkus gsrq ,d rFkkdfFkr >wBk le>kSrk fujLr ;wfu;u ds lkFk fd;k gS tks fdlh Hkh :i ls
Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gS A vizkFkhZ laLFkku us vius iwjs tokc Dyse esa dgha Hkh ekax la-1]2]3]15]16 ds ckjs esa
dksbZ dFku ugha fd;s tks ekaxs lgh vkSj lR; gS A ;fn ekax la-1]2]3]15]16 xyr o cscqfu;kn gksrh rks vizkFkhZ
laLFkku vius tokc esa mldk [kaMu vo'; djrs ijarq vizkFkhZ laLFkku us vius iwjs tokc esa dsoy ;wfu;u dk gh
eqn~nk mBk;k gS tks dsanzh; ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk ds foijhr gS vkSj tc vf/klwpuk ds foijhr tokc is'k fd;k gS
rks og tokc dkuwuu fof/k fo:) gS vkSj ekus tkus o Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gS A var esa izkFkZuk dh gS fd
izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dk Dyse Lohdkj fd;k tkos A
7-
izkFkhZ ;wfu;u us viuh ekSf[kd lk{; esa , Mc- 1 jkeyky yksnk] , Mc-2 ek/kw tkV] , Mc-3 xksiky xqtZj]
, Mc-4 dSyk'kpanz] , Mc-5 HkS: dyky] , Mc-6 j.kthrflag dks ijhf{kr djok;k gSA nLrkosth lk{; esa izn'kZ
Mc- 1 jsQjsal] izn'kZ Mc-2 vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu] izn'kZ Mc-3 izkFkZuk i= vizkFkhZ le{k le>kSrk vf/kdkjh] izn'kZ
Mc-4 izkFkZuk i= izkFkhZ le{k le>kSrk vf/kdkjh] izn'kZ Mc-5 o Mc-8 tokc vizkFkhZ le>kSrk vf/kdkjh] izn'kZ Mc-6]
Mc-7 o Mc-9 uksfVl le>kSrk vf/kdkjh] izn'kZ Mc-10 ekax i=] izn'kZ Mc-11 vkns'k fn-9-7-10 ckcr~ iath;u
jn~nhdj.k] izn'kZ Mc-12 layXud Hkkjrh; [kku etnwj la?k lfgr] izn'kZ Mc-13 Li"Vhdj.k lwpuk ckcr~ ekax i=]
izn'kZ Mc-14 lwph deZdkjx.k ekax i= ls lacaf/kr] izn'kZ Mc-15 le>kSrk i= fn-2-6-2010] izn'kZ Mc-16 bdjkjukek
QksVks izfr;ks esa izLrqr dj iznf'kZr djok;s gSa A tcfd vizkFkhZ us viuh ekSf[kd lk{; esa Mh Mc-1 vfer dqyJs"B]
vflLVsaV eSustj ,p vkj vizkFkhZ laLFkku dks ijhf{kr djok;k x;k gS RkFkk nLrkosth lk{; esa izn'kZ ,e&1
le>kSrk i= fn-28-6-12 f=i{kh;] izn'kZ ,e&2 vkdfLed Jfedksa dh lwph] izn'kZ ,e&3 le>kSrk fn-12-4-12
f=i{kh; ckcr~ Jfed I;kjsyky] izn'kZ ,e&4 le>kSrk i= fn-8-5-10] izn'kZ ,e&5 le>kSrk i= fn-7-3-13 f=i{kh;]
izn'kZ ,e&6 le>kSrk i= fn-31-7-13] izn'kZ ,e&7 le>kSrk i= fn-2-6-10 ¼izn'kZ Mc-15½] izn'kZ ,e&8 okrkZ
izfrosnu fn-30-7-13] izn'kZ ,e&9 jlhn Jfed ?ku';ke ikyhoky] izn'kZ ,e710 fjfyfoax ySVj ?ku';ke ikyhoky]
izn'kZ ,e&11 R;kxi= ?ku';ke ikyhoky] izn'kZ ,e&12 vkWQj ySVj ?ku';ke ikykhoky izn'kZ ,e&13 jftLVz~s'ku
izek.k i= [kku etnwj dkaxzsl QksVks izfr;ksa esa is'k dj iznf'kZr djok;s x;s gSA
8-
cgl vafre lquh x;h A fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ ds LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse ds rF;ksa ds nksgjko ds lkFk rdZ jgs
gS fd i=koyh ij izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds lnL;ksa dh lwph gS A LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse is'k djrs le; izkFkhZ ;wfu;u esa 240
ls 250 yxHkx Jfed lnL; Fks vc pkj lkS djhc lnL; gS A izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds lnL; blls de gks] bl laca/k
esa vizkFkhZ i{k dh ekus tkus ;ksX; lk{; ughas gS A izkFkhZ ;wfu;u jftLVMZ ,oa Hkkjrh; etnwj la?k ls lacaf/kr gS tks
fd e'kgwj ;wfu;u gS rFkk Jfedksa dY;k.k dh ekaxs j[kus ds fy, fof/k vuqlkj vf/kdkj j[krh gS A izkFkhZ ;wfu;u
ij vYier dh ;wfu;u gksus dk o vizkFkhZ ls ekU;rk izkIr ugha gksus dk vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk yxk;k x;k vk{ksi feF;k
o fujk/kkj gs ftlds leFkZu esa vizkFkhZ dh dksbZ lk{; ughas gS cfYd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ls vizkFkhZ }kjk le>kSrk fd;s
tkus dh lk{; i=koyh ij gS A ftl ;wfu;u dk le>kSrk vizkFkhZ }kjk crk;k tkdj ds mls cgqer dh ;wfu;u
crk;k x;k gS mldk rks jftLVªs'ku gh jn~n gks x;k ftldh izfr izn'kZ Mc-11 o Mc-12 i=koyh ij gS A mDr
;wfu;u dks le>kSrs dk vf/kdkj ugha Fkk A le>kSrk izn'kZ Mc-15 ,oa vU; izLrqr le>kSrs izkFkhZ ij ck/;dkjh ugha
gS A vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk vR;ar osru folaxfr;ka dj nh x;h gS ofj"Bksa dks dfu"Bksa ls de osru fn;k tk jgk gS o
osrueku ds lkFk inksa dks nf'kZr ugha fd;k x;k gS A fLdYM Jfedksa dks xzsM esa ugha fy;k x;k gS ftldh
ckj&ckj ekax mBk;h tkrh jgh gS A izkFkhZ us ekSf[kd rkSj ij ;g dbZ ckj ekax mBk;h A bu leLr rF;ksa dh
i=koyh ij izkFkhZ dh vksj ls lk{; gS rFkk vizkFkhZ lk{kh }kjk Hkh blls Li"V rkSj ij udkjk ugha x;k gS A izkFkhZ
dh ekaxs uktk;t o voS/k gks] ,slk dqN Hkh vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls ugha j[kk x;k gS A vizkFkhZ i{k rks dsoy izkFkhZ
;wfu;u ds Lo:i ij feF;k vkjksi yxkrk jgk gS tks Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gS A vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh
ekax la-2 Lohdkj dj yh x;h gS A vr,o mls izkFkhZ ;wfu;u izsl ugha djrh gS A 'ks"k ekaxs of.kZr jsQjsal izkFkhZ dh
tk;t ,oa oS/kkfud gS ftls oLrqr% vizkFkhZ }kjk ekuk ugha x;k gSA jsQjsal fof/k vuqlkj gS A le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds
le{k Hkh le>kSrk okrkZ fu"Qy jgh gS A izkFkhZ ;wfu;u o vizkFkhZ ds e/; jsQjsal esa lanfHkZr ekax la-1]3]15]16 ds
laca/k esa fookn orZeku gS A ;|fi vizkFkhZ dhs vksj ls mDr ekaxs Hkh eku fy;k tkuk viuh lk{; esa ntZ djok;k
x;k gS fdarq ;g ekaxs vizkFkhZ }kjk rks u Lohdkj dh x;h gS u ykxw dh x;h gS A vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d
n`"Vkar gLrxr izdj.k ij pLik ugha gksrs gS A var esa muds }kjk izkFkhZ dh ekaxs Lohdkj ;ksX; crkrs gq, mUgsa
4956
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vizkFkhZ }kjk ugha ekus tkuk U;k;ksfpr o U;k;laxr ugha gksuk crkrs gq, rnuqlkj izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse
Lohdkj djrs gq, pkgk x;k vuqrks"k iznku djus dh o mDr funsZ'k dk mRrj izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fn;s tkus dh izkFkZuk
dh x;h gS A
9-
mDr rdks± dk [kaMu djrs gq, fo}ku vf/koDrk vizkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ ds tokc LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse ds rF;ksa
dks nksgjk;k x;k gS rFkk rdZ fn;s x;s gS fd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds cgqer gksus dh lk{; ugha gksus o vizkFkhZ ls ekU;rk
izkIr ugha gksus ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dks funsZ'k esa of.kZr ekaxs mBkus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS A izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ls
vizkFkhZ dk dkSulk le>kSrk gqvk izkFkhZ dh vksj ls rdks± esa ughas crk;k x;k gS A jsQjsal esa of.kZr ekaxksa dk ekax i=
vizkFkhZ dk dHkh ugha fn;k x;k bldh lk{; i=koyh ij gS A fcuk ekax i= fn;s rFkk fcuk ekax i= ij vlger
gq, gLrxr fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 vuqlkj vkS|ksfxd fookn esa ugha vkrk gS A oLrqr% dksbZ
vkS|ksfxd fookn vfLrRo esa ugha gS dqN O;fDr;ksa }kjk izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds ek/;e ls vizkFkhZ dks ijs'kku fd;s tkus ds
fy, >wBh o xyr dk;Zokgh dh x;h gS A tcfd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds lk{kh gh mudh lHkh ekaxs iwjh gks tkuk viuh
ftjg dh lk{; esa ekurs gS rks fQj mDr ekaxksa dk ugha ekuk tkuk vfHkfu/kkZfjr ughas fd;k tk ldrk A le>kSrk
izn'kZ Mc-15 ij izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds jkeyky yks/kk ds gLrk{kj gS tks lHkh deZdkjksa ij ck/;dkjh gS mDr o vU;
le>krs dks izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dks QthZ crkus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS A ekaxs le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k j[kus ls igys
izkFkhZ ;wfu;u }kjk tujy ckWMh dh dksbZ ehfVax dh x;h gks bldh Hkh dksbZ lk{; ugha gS A le>kSrk izn'kZ
,e&1],e&3 o ,e&5 fVz~ikVZVkbZV le>kSrs gS A ftu ij lgk;d Je vk;qDr vtesj ds gLrk{kj gS tks oS/kkfud
izHkko j[krs gS A le>kSrk izn'kZ Mc-15 ¼,e&7½ jftLVMZ Hkh gqvk gS A ftlds iath;u dks izkFkhZ dh vksj ls udkjk
ugha x;k gS A izkFkhZ ;wfu;u }kjk j[kh x;h ekaxs vuko';d gS rFkk ekax la-3 dh ikyuk vlaHko gS D;ksafd vizkFkhZ
}kjk le>kSrs ds vuqlkj xzsM iz.kkyh ykxw dh gqbZ gS ftlesa vdq'ky Jfed dks Hkh ;ksX; gksus ij xzsM nh tkrhs gS
o nh x;h gSA ekax la-15 ds Jfed ?ku';ke ikyhoky us R;kxi= ns fn;k o I;kjk xqtZj dk;Z ij ugha vk jgk gS
,oa ek/kks tkV Bsdsnkj dk Jfed gSA bldh i;kZIr lk{; Lo;a izkFkhZ lkf{k;ksa dh ftjg esa gS A ,sls esa muds ckjs esa
ekaxs fd;k tkuk vuko';d gS A leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dk Dyse [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS A var esa
muds }kjk izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dk Dyse [kkfjt fd;s tkrs gq, mDr funsZf'kr fookn dk mRrj vizkFkhZ ds i{k esa fn;s
tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gS A muds }kjk vius rdks± ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d n`"Vkar is'k fd;s x;s gS %&
1-
, vkbZ vkj ¼39½ 1952 iVuk 210 esaclZ vkWQ nk lklkewlk odZlZ ;wfu;u cuke LVsV vkWQ fcgkj o
vU;]
2-
2001 ¼3½ , vkbZ ,l ,y vkj 171 /keZohj cuke LVsV vkWQ ,u lh Vh vkWQ nsgyh o vU;]
3-
, vkbZ vkj 1975 lqizhe dksVZ 171 nh tkxz[kku dkWfyjht izk0fy0 cuke th lh vxzoky ih vks
lsaVz~y xouZesaV baMfLVz~;y fVz~C;wuy&de& yscj dksVZ] tcyiqj o vU;]
4-
vkbZ ,y vkj 2005 dukZVd 4163 nh izlhMsaV yscj cuke nh eSustesaV vkWQ fganqLrku 6-7-2005
10-
mHk;i{kdkjku~ dh vksj ls fn;s x;s rdks± ds en~ns utj rFkk vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ds
vfHkerksa ds n`f"Vxr lacaf/kr fof/k dks fopkj esa ysrs gq, i=koyh dk Hkyh&Hkkafr ifj'khyu fd;k x;k A
11-
tgka rd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds vYier ;k cgqer esa gksus dk iz'u gS] izkFkhZ ;wfu;u }kjk vius LVsVesaV vkWQ
Dyse esa mDr ;wfu;u esa djhcu 240&250 lnL; crk;s x;s gS A , Mc-1 jkeyky yks/kk lfgr izkFkhZ lkf{k;ksa }kjk
viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa Hkh ,slh gh lk{; nh x;h gS A ftjg dh lk{; esa , Mc-1 jkeyky yks/kk }kjk ;wfu;u ds
pkj lkS lnL; crk;s x;s gS A i=koyh ij izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vius lnL;ksa dh lwfp;ka Hkh is'k dh x;h gS ;|fi
mUgsa iznf'kZr ugha djok;k x;k gS A mDr lnL;ksa dh lwfp;kas esa ls izFke esa uCcs] f}rh; esa fr;kyhl] r`rh; esa
flR;klh lnL; nf'kZr gS A tks dze'k% 2011 ls 2013 ,oa tuojh 2012 ,oa 2013 dh gS A vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls vk;s
lk{kh Mh Mc-1 vfer dqyJs"B }kjk ;|fi izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dks vYi er okyh ;wfu;u gksus dh lk{; nh x;h gS fdarq
;wfu;u esa dqy fdrus lnL; gS og viuh lk{; esa ugha crkrk gS A vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa dqy fdrus Jfed dk;Z
djrs gS ,slk Hkh bl lk{kh dh vksj ls Li"V ughas fd;k x;k gS A vU; ;wfu;u Hkkjrh; [kku etnwj la?k ,oa [kku
etnwj dkaxzsl ftls og viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa cgqer okyh ;wfu;u crkrk gS esa Hkh dqy fdrus lnL; gS og viuh
ftjg dh lk{; esa Li"V ugha dj ik;k gS A lk{; dh mDr ifjfLFkfr esa ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS fd izkFkhZ
;wfu;u vYier okyh ;wfu;u gks A tgka rd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds lnL;ksa dh nksgjh lnL;rk dk iz'u gS] bl laca/k esa
izkFkhZ lk{kh , Mc-2 ek/kw tkV] , Mc-3 xksiky xqtZj] , Mc-4 dSyk'kpanz] , Mc-5 HkS: dyky] , Mc-6 j.kthr
flag us viuh viuh ftjg dh lk{; esa ;g ekuk gS fd os igys Hkkjrh; etnwj la?k ;wfu;u ds lnL; Fks ftldk
jftLVz~s'ku [kkfjt gks x;k ckn esa os izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds lnL; cu x;s A i=koyh ij Hkkjrh; [kku etnwj la?k ds
iath;u jn~nhdj.k dk vkns'k fn-9-7-10 izn'kZ Mc-11 e; layXud izn'kZ Mc-12 ds miyC/k gS ftlls ;g izdV
II
(ii)
4957
gksrk gS fd Hkkjrh; [kku etnwj la?k dk iath;u mDr fn-9-7-10 ds vkns'k }kjk jn~n dj fn;k x;k A bl laca/k
esa vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls dksbZ fojks/kkHkklh lk{; Hkh ugha gS ,sls esa ;g rF; fl) gksrk gS fd Hkkjrh; [kku etnwj
la?k dk iath;u vkns'k fn-9-7-10 izn'kZ Mc-11 ls jn~n dj fn;k x;k blls iwoZ mDr izkFkhZ lk{kh bl Hkkjrh; [kku
etnwj la?k ds lnL; Fks rFkk ckn esa os izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds lnL; cu x;s A ,d ;wfu;u dk iath;u jn~n gks tkus
ij nwljs ;wfu;u dh lnL;rk dks xzg.k djuk nksgjh lnL;rk dk ekeyk ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS A izkFkhZ ;wfu;u
}kjk Lo;a dks jftLVMZ ,oa Hkkjrh; etnwj la?k ls lacaf/kr ;wfu;u gksuk vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa crk;k x;k
gS A ftl laca/k esa vius tokc esa vizkFkhZ dhs vksj ls Li"V badkjh ugha jgh gS rFkk izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dk vizkFkhZ dh
ekU;rk izkIr ugha gksus dk gh mtz fy;k x;k gS A i=koyh ij izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh vksj ls izn'kZ Mc-16 bdjkjukek
fn-25-5-13 izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gS tks bdjkjukek vizkFkhZ i{k ds lgk;d egkizca/kd] izca/kd]
dkfeZd dk;Zdkjh o izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ,oa mlds , Mc-1 lk{kh jkeyky yks/kk] egkea=h o , Mc-5 HkS:dyky ,oa
jkeyky dks"kk/;{k ds e/; gksuk izdV gksrk gS tks fuyafcr ;wfu;u izfrfuf/k jkeyky yks/kk] HkS:yky o jkeyky
tkV ds [kku {ks= esa izos'k ugha djus o xsV ij gLrk{kj djus ds laca/k esa gS bl bdjkjukes ij vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls
lHkh izkFkhZ lkf{k;ksa ls dksbZ ftjg ugha dh x;h gS ftl dkj.k mDr bdjkjukek vudzkWLM ,oa vudaVz~ksoZVsM izdV
gksrk gS ftlls bls ugha ekus tkus dk dksbZ dkj.k ughas gS ftlds en~ns utj vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls fn;k x;k ;g
rdZ ekus tkus ;ksX; ugha gS fd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dks vius vkpj.k ls vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk ekU;rk ugha nh x;h gS A mDr
bdjkukek djds vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dks ,d rjg ls ekU;rk gh ns nh x;h gS A vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr
U;kf;d n`"Vkar vkbZ ,y vkj 2005 dukZVd 4163 nh izlhMsaV yscj cuke nh eSustesaV vkWQ fganqLrku esa ekuuh;
dukZVd mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fdlh laLFkku esa dbZ Jfed ;wfu;u gksus ij ekU;rk izkIr ;wfu;u dks c<kok fn;s
tkus dk rFkk ,slh gh ;wfu;u ds deZdkjksa dh ckjxsfuax ,tsaV gksus dk vfHker fn;k x;k gS tks izFke rks lk{; ds
mDr foospu ds en~ns utj ,oa f}rh; mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds ekeys esa ;kph ;wfu;u dks vkS|ksfxd fookn mBkus
dh l{kerk ds iz'u dks Hkh funsZf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk tks iz'u gLrxr izdj.k esa funsZf'kr ugha fd;k x;kA vr,o
mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar vizkFkhZ i{k dh dksbZ enn ugha djrk gS ,oa ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS fd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dks
mDr ekaxs j[kus o fookn mBkus dk vf/kdkj ugha gks A
12-
tgka rd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u }kjk mDr ekaxksa ds ekax i= dks iwoZ eas vizkFkhZ i{k dks ugha fn;s tkus ,oa ekaxksa dks
vizkFkhZ i{k dks Kkfir fd;s ;k ugha fd;s tkus dk iz'u gS] izkFkhZ ;wfu;u }kjk vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa mDr
ekaxksa dks ekSf[kd :i ls vizkFkhZ ds le{k j[kus dk rF; ntZ djok;k x;k gS rFkk lHkh izkFkhZ lkf{k;ksa }kjk ,slh gh
lk{; viuh viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa nh x;h gS fdarq mDr laca/k esa vizkFkhZ dhs vksj ls lHkh izkFkhZ lkf{k;ksa ls dksbZ
fo'ks"k ftjg ugha dh x;h gS A vizkFkhZ lk{kh Mh Mc-1 vfer dqyJs"B }kjk viuh eq[; ijh{kk dh lk{; esa izkFkhZ
}kjk mUgsa lksyg lw=h; ekax i= ugha nsuk ntZ djokrs gq, ftjg esa ;g ekax i= le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k gh
mudh tkudkjh esa vkuk ntZ djok;k x;k gS bl ij izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vkSj dksbZ ftjg ughas gS ,sls esa fo}ku
vf/koDrk vizkFkhZ ds ;g rdZ rks ekus tkus ;ksX; gS fd mDr lksyg lw=h; ekaxksa dk fyf[kr Kkiu le>kSrk
vf/kdkjh ds le{k f'kdk;r fd;s tkus ls iwoZ rks izkFkhZ ;wfu;u }kjk vizkFkhZ dks fyf[kr rkSj ij ugha fn;k x;k
fdarq izkFkhZ lkf{k;ksa dh mDr foosfpr lk{; ds en~ns utj bl rF; ls badkjh ugha dh tk ldrh gS fd mDr ekaxksa
dk Kku vizkFkhZ i{k dks ugha Fkk ,oa vizkFkhZ i{k mDr ekaxksa ls le>kSrk vf/kdkjh dh dk;Zokgh ls iwoZ vufHkK Fkk
,oa iwoZ esa ekSf[kd :i ls vizkFkhZ ds le{k mDr ekaxs ugha j[kh x;hA oSls Hkh mDr funsZf'skr ekaxksa ds vykok 'ks"k
ekaxksa dk eku fy;s tkus dk rF; izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh vksj ls j[kk x;k gS ftldk vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ [kaMu
ughas gS tks Hkh vizkFkhZ ds fo:) bl izdkj tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ laLFkku dks izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh mDr ekaxksa dh tkudkjh
le>kSrk vf/kdkjh dh dk;Zokgh ls iwoZ Fkh A vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar , vkbZ vkj ¼39½ 1952
iVuk 210 esaclZ vkWQ nk lklkewlk odZlZ ;wfu;u cuke LVsV vkWQ fcgkj o vU; esa ekuuh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky;
}kjk izca/ku dks ekaxksa dk fyf[kr Kkiu ugha fn;s tkus o ml ij fopkj dk leqfpr le; ugha fn;s tkus vFkok
izca/ku dks vU;Fkk Hkh ekxksa dh tkudkjh ugha gksus ij funsZf'kr fookn dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2
¼ds½s vuqlkj vkS|ksfxd fookn ugha gksuk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS A mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds mDr vfHker ds
ifjizs{; esa gLrxr izdj.k ij fopkj djus ij pwafd vizkFkhZ i{k dks le>kSrk vf/kdkjh dh dk;Zokgh ls iwoZ izkFkhZ
;wfu;u dh ekaxksa dh tkudkjh mDr foospu ds vuqlkj Fkh A vr,o mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar vizkFkhZ i{k dh dksbZ
fo'ks"k enn ugha djrk gS A vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2001 ¼3½ , vkbZ ,l ,y vkj 171
/keZohj cuke LVsV vkWQ ,u lh Vh vkWQ nsgyh o vU; lsokeqfDr ds fookn ls lacaf/kr ekeys dk gS ftlesa deZdkj
dh lsokeqfDr ds ckn dbZ o"kks± rd mldh vksj ls dk;Zokgh ugha fd;s tkus ij vkS|ksfxd fookn dk vfLrRo esa
ugha gksuk ekuuh; fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS tks rF; gLrxr izdj.k ds ugha gS
vr,o mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar Hkh vizkFkhZ dh dksbZ fo'ks"k enn ugha djrk gS A vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izkFkhZ ;wfu;u }kjk
ekaxksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ iwoZ esa cSBd dj ml ij fopkj dj ldYi ikfjr ugha fd;s tkus dk vk/kkj Hkh fy;k x;k
gS vkSj ,slh dksbZ lk{; i=koyh ij izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ugha gS fdarq bl dkj.k ek= ls ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS
fd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds lnL; izkFkhZ ;wfu;u }kjk dh x;h dk;Zokgh ls lger ughas gks] ;fn dksbZ lnL;k ;k cgqer
4958
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds fojks/k esa gksrk rks ;g fLFkfr vizkFkhZ U;k;ky; ds le{k yk ldrk Fkk tks vizkFkhZ ysdj ds ugha
vk;k gS ,sls esa Hkh mDr rdks± ds vk/kkj ij vizkFkhZ i{k dks dksbZ Qk;nk ugha fn;k tk ldrk gS A
13-
vizkFkhZ laLFkku dh vksj ls i=koyh ij dqy N% le>kSrk i= lek;kuqdze esa izn'kZ ,e&4 fn-8-5-10 izn'kZ
,e&7 fn-2-6-10] izn'kZ ,e&3 fn-12-4-12] izn'kZ ,e&1 fn-28-6-12] izn'kZ ,e&5 fn-7-3-13 o izn'kZ ,e&6 fn-31-7-13
izLrqr fd;s x;s gS A izn'kZ ,e&7 le>kSrk i= fn-2-6-10 dks Lo;a izkFkhZ }kjk Hkh izn'kZ Mc-15 ds :i esa izLrqr
fd;k x;k gS A le>kSrk i= izn'kZ ,e&4 fn-8-5-10 o izn'kZ ,e&7 fn-2-6-10 dks NksM+dj 'ks"k leLr le>kSrk i=
Hkkjrh; [kku etnwj la?k ds iath;u jn~nhdj.k ds vkns'k fn-9-7-10 izn'kZ Mc-11 ds ckn ds le>kSrk i= gS rFkk
le>kSrk i= izn'kZ ,e&3 fn--12-4-12 izn'kZ ,e&1 fn-28-6-12 o izn'kZ ,e&5 fn-7-3-13 f=i{kh; gS ftu ij vejh'k
'kekZ le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds Hkh gLrk{kj gS A ftuds en~ns utj ;g ekus tkus ;ksX; gS fd mDr le>kSrk mDr
le>kSrk vf/kdkjh }kjk le>kSrk okrkZ ds nkSjku djok;s x;s gS A izn'kZ ,e&1]3 o 5 rhuksa le>kSrs [kku etnwj
dkaxzsl dh vksj ls gS A 'ks"k le>kSrs mDr le>kSrk mDr le>kSrk vf/kdkjh }kjk djk;s x;s gS izrhr ugha gksrs gS A
vizkFkhZ dhs vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar , vkbZ vkj 1975 lqizhe dksVZ 171 nh tkxz[kku dkWfyjht izk0fy0 cuke
th lh vxzoky ih vks lsaVz~y xouZesaV baMfLVz~;y fVz~C;wuy&de& yscj dksVZ] tcyiqj o vU; esa ekuuh; loksZPp
U;k;ky; }kjk le>kSrk dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku gq, le>kSrs laLFkku ds leLr deZpkjksa ,oa izca/ku ij ykxw gksuk ,oa
vU; le>kSrk i{kdkjksa ij ykxw gksus dk vfHker fn;k x;k gS A mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds mDr vfHker ds en~ns
utj le>kSrk i= izn'kZ ,e&1]3]5 dk izca/ku ,oa leLr deZpkfj;ksa ij ykxw gksuk rFkk 'ks"k le>kSrksa dk mlds
i{kdkjksa ij ykxw gksuk ekus tkus ;ksX; gS A ;|fi izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh vksj ls Hkkjrh; [kku etnwj la?k ds
j~n~nhdj.k ds vkns'k fn-9-7-10 izn'kZ Mc-11 ds i'pkr~ ds le>kSrs mDr ;wfu;u ds iath;u ds vHkko esa ,oa ncko
esa QthZ ;wfu;u }kjk QthZ rjhds ls fd;s tkus ds vkjksi vius vfHkopuksa o lk{; esa o rdks± esa yxk;s x;s gS fdarq
,sls fdlh ncko o /kks[ks ,oa QtZdkjh dh dksbZ lk{; i=koyh ij Li"V rkSj ij ughas gS rFkk iath;u jn~nhdj.k gks
tkus ek= ds vk/kkj ij mDr le>kSrksa dks ughas ekuk tk; ,slh dksbZ fof/k Hkh izkFkhZ dh vksj ls gekjs le{k m)fjr
ugha dh x;h gS ,sls esa mDr vk/kkjksa ij mDr le>kSrs dks ugha ekuk tkos ;g rdZ fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ dk ekus
tkus ;ksX; ugha gS A le>kSrk i= izn'kZ ,e&7 ¼izn'kZ Mc-15½ ds laca/k esa fo}ku vf/koDrk vizkFkhZ ds ;g rdZ ekus
tkus ;ksX; gS fd mDr izn'kZ ,e&7 le>kSrk i= fn-2-6-10 ij , Mc-1 jkeyky yks/kk egkea=h izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ,oa
izkFkhZ lk{kh , Mc-5 HkS: dyky ds gLrk{kj gS A ftl dkj.k izkFkhZ ;wfu;u mDr le>kSrs ls ijks{k rkSj ij focaf/kr
gS A
14-
izkFkhZ dhs vksj ls cgl ds nkSjku ekax i= izn'kZ Mc-10 dh ekax la-2 dk iwjk gks tkuk vfHkO;Dr fd;k x;k
gS ftldk fdlh izdkj ls [kaMu vizkFkhZ dhs vksj ls ugha fd;k x;k gS A mDr ekax iwjk gks tkus ij izkFkhZ dh vksj
ls mDr ekax izsl ugha dh x;h gS A vr,o bl ij fopkj dh vko';drk ugha jg tkrh A
15-
lHkh izkFkhZ lkf{k;ksa }kjk viuh eq[; ijh{kk dh lk{; esa mDr funsZf'kr ekaxksa dk iwjk ugha gksuk ntZ djok;k
x;k gS A var esa ftjg dh lk{; esa , Mc-2 yxk;r , Mc-6 izkFkhZ lkf{k;ksa }kjk bl rF; dks lgh crk;k x;k gS
fd gekjs lHkh ekaxs iwjh gks pqdh gS vkSj gekjh cdk;k ekaxs ughas gS ftldks vk/kkj cukrs gq, fo}ku vf/koDrk
vizkFkhZ ds rdZ jgs gS fd tc izkFkhZ dh lHkh ekxs iwjh gks tkuk mDr lHkh izkFkhZ lk{kh ekurs gS rks fQj vc mDr
laca/k esa vkSj dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha jgrk gS rFkk mDr ekaxksa dh iwfrZ ugha gks tkuk vfHkfu/kkZfjr ughas fd;k tk
ldrk gS A fdarq gekjs fouez er esa mDr lq>ko mDr izkFkhZ lk{kh , Mc-2 yxk;r , Mc-6 dks vizkFkhZ dhs vksj ls
izn'kZ Mc-15 le>kSrk gksus ckcr~ lk{; ds rqjar ckn esa fn;k x;k gS ftl dkj.k ;g lq>ko izn'kZ Mc-15 le>kSrk
ls gh lacaf/kr ekuk tk ldrk gS u fd funsZf'kr ekaxksa ds laca/k esa vkSj fQj lHkh izkFkhZ lk{kh;ksa }kjk blls iwoZ
mDr funsZf'kr ekaxksa dh iwfrZ ugha gksus ds ckjs esa Li"V lk{; nh x;h gS ftldh mis{kk ugha dh tk ldrhs gS
vr,o mDr rdks± ds vk/kkj ij vizkFkhZ i{k dks mDr funsZf'kr ekaxksa dh iwfrZ gks tkuk ekurs gq, dskbZ Qk;nk ugha
fn;k tk ldrk gS rFkk ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS fd i{kdkjksa esa vc dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha jgk gS A
16-
mHk;i{kdkjku~ dh e/; tks lk{; vk;h gS mlls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ laLFkku esa vdq'ky] v)Zdq'ky
o dq'ky deZdkjksa dh Jsf.k;ka Hkh cuk;h x;h gS ,oa xzsM flLVe Hkh cukdj osrueku fn;k tk jgk gS D;ksafd lHkh
izkFkhZ lkf{k;ksa us vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls ftjg esa mudks fn;s x;s lq>ko esa ;g ekuk gS fd deZpkjh tSlk dke dj jgs
gS mlds vuqlkj mls oSlk osru fey jgk gS vFkkZr~ fLdYM dks fLdYM dk o lsehfLdYM dks lseh fLdYM dk A
vizkFkhZ lk{kh Mh Mc-1 vfer dqyJs"B }kjk viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa Jfedksa pkgs fdlh Hkh Js.kh ds gks mUgsa xzsM esa
inksUufr fn;s tkus ,oa dqN o"kks± i'pkr~ xzsM dk ykHk fn;s tkus ds rF; ntZ djok;s x;s gS A blls ;gh rkRi;Z
fudyrk gS fd vdq'ky] v)Zdq'ky o dq'ky Jsf.k;ksa ds deZdkjksa ds j[ks tkus ds lkFk&lkFk dq'ky deZdkjks dks
dqN o"kks± i'pkr~ xzsM fn;k tkrk gS A dqN o"kZ fdrus gS ;g mDr lk{kh dh lk{; ls Li"V ugha gS A le>kSrk
izn'kZ ,e&1 vkdfLed deZdkjksa ds alaca/k esa gS rFkk le>kSrk izn'kZ ,e&3 Jfed I;kjsyky ds laca/k gS tks gLrxr
izdj.k ls dksbZ fo'ks"k laca/k ugha j[krs gS A le>kSrk i= izn'kZ ,e&4 tks fd Hkkjrh; [kku etnwj la?k ,oa dqN
II
(ii)
4959
deZdkjksa ,oa vizkFkhZ laLFkku ds e/; fn-8-5-2010 dks fu"ikfnr gqvk gS ds en ua-3 esa xzsM okys deZpkfj;ksa dks
fLdYM ds orZeku U;wure osru ls de osru ugha fn;k tkuk ,oa dsanz ljdkj }kjk le;≤ ij fLdYM Js.kh
ds egaxkbZ HkRrs dks fn;k tkuk r; ik;k x;k gS A iwoZ esa fd;s x;s foospukuqlkj mDr le>kSrk vizkFkhZ izca/ku
lfgr mDr le>kSrs ds i{kdkjksa ij ck/;dkjh gS D;ksafd ;g le>kSrk okrkZ ds nkSjku dk le>kSrk ughas gS A izn'kZ
,e&7 ¼izn'kZ Mc-15½ le>kSrk i= fn-2-6-10 tks fd mDr foospukuqlkj izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ,oa vizkFkhZ laLFkku nksuksa ij
ck/;dkjh gS ds Hkh en ua-4 esa mDr foosfpr le>kSrk i= izn'kZ ,e&4 dh gh mDr foosfpr 'krZ of.kZr gS rFkk
lkFk esa en ua-6 esa ;g Hkh of.kZr gS fd Jfed i{k bl le>kSrs ds ckn dsanz ljdkj }kjk ?kksf"kr fLdYM lseh
fLdYM] vufLdYM dh Js.kh dks deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, Hkfo"; esa ykxw djus dh dksbZ ekax ugha mBk;sxk rFkk en la-10
esa ;g Hkh of.kZr gS fd ?ksofj;k ekbal ij eSdsfudy foHkkx esa dk;Zjr fLdYM deZpkfj;ksa dks xzsM esa ysus ds laca/k
esa nks ekg ckn ppkZ dj yh tkosxh ftlls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd mDr le>kSrs ds ek/;e ls Js.kh [kRe djrs gq,
fLdYM Js.kh ds deZpkfj;ksa dks xzsM esa ysus dh ppkZ djuk r; ik;k x;k fdarq iwoZ esa foosfpr vuqlkj mDr Jsf.k;ka
vdqy'ky] v)Zdq'ky o dq'ky Jfed dh vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa vc Hkh fo|eku gS A izn'kZ ,e&5 le>kSrk i= fn-
7-3-13 f=i{kh; tks le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k gqvk gS ftlls vizkFkhZ izca/ku o izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds lnL;ksa lfgr
leLr deZdkj mDr foospukuqlkj ikcan gS ds en la-5 dh 'krZ la-5 esa ;g of.kZr gS fd izca/ku tks deZpkjh
dalksfyMsVsM osru dhs ctk, xzsM i)fr esa osru ikuk pkgrk gS }kjk mUgsa fn-31-3-13 rd vkosnu fn;s tkosaxs rFkk
en la-7 vuqlkj xzsM Hkh fu/kkZfjr dh x;h gS A izn'kZ ,e&6 le>kSrk i= fn-31-7-13 ds en la-1 ds Jfedksa dh
leku dk;Z ds fy;s leku osru ,oa osru folaxfr;ksa dks nwj djus dh ekax ds loZizFke dk;Z ds vuqlkj in
fu/kkZfjr djus ds mijkar rnuqlkj xzsM esa in fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk ,oa en ua-7 esa vizSy 2007 vFkok ikap o"kZ ls
tks Jfed LFkkbZ deZpkjh jgrs gq, v)Zdq'ky ;k dq'ky Js.kh dk osru izkIr dj jgs Fks@gS dks v)Zdq'ky ls dq'ky
,oa dq'ky ls xzsM dh Js.kh fn- 1-7-13 ls fn;s tkus ij lgefr izca/ku }kjk nh x;h gS ftl le>kSrs ls vizkFkhZ
mDr foospukuqlkj ikcan gS A
17-
mDr le>kSrks ds n`f"Vxr izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh ekaxksa ij fopkj djus ij ekax la-1 tks fd Jfed xksiky
deZpkjh lfgr lkoy vkWijsVj dks leku dk;Z ds fy, leku osru fn;s tkus o iwoZ ds osru ls de osru ugha
fn;s tkus ls lacaf/kr gS tk;t ,oa oS/kkfud Bgjk;s tkus ;ksX; gS D;ksafd leku dk;Z ds fy, leku osru ikuk
Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 esa varfuZfgr lerk ds vf/kdkj ds vuqlkj Jfedksa dk ewy vf/kdkj gS rFkk leku
dk;Z gsrq leku osru fn;s tkus o iwoZ osru ls de xzsM ugha fn;s tkus ds laca/k esa mDr izdkj le>kSrs Hkh gS A
ekax la-3 esa izkFkhZ ;wfu;u }kjk osrueku ds le{k in vafdr fd;s tkus dh ekax dh x;h gS A izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh
vksj ls rdZ jgk gS fd bl dkj.k ls Hkze iSnk gksrk gS tks okLrfod izdV gksrk gS A vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls mDr ekax
ij dk;Zokgh vlaHko gksuk crk;k x;k gS tks ekus tkus ;ksX; ughas gS D;ksafd mDr foospukuqlkj izn'kZ ,e&6
le>kSrk i= esa Lo;a vizkFkhZ }kjk mlds en ua-1 esa leku dk;Z ds fy, leku osru ,oa osru folaxfr;ksa dks nwj
djus dh ekax dks fopkj esa ysdj dk;Z vuqlkj in ,oa xzsM esa in fu/kZkfjr fd;k tkuk r; ik;k x;k gS A ftl
le>kSrs ls vizkFkhZ izca/ku ck/; gS A ;fn izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fn;s x;s rdkZuqlkj xzsM ds le{k in vafdr ughas fd;s
tkus ds dkj.k Hkze ,oa osru folaxfr;ka ughas gksrhs rFkk vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls fn;s x;s rdkZuqlkj ;g vlaHko gksrk rks
vizkFkhZ izca/ku mDr 'krZ dks mDr le>kSrs esa ughas r; ikrk A ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh ekax la-3 Hkh
tk;t ,oa oS/kkfud ekus tkus ;ksX; gSA tgka rd ekax la-15 dk iz'u gS ;g izkFkhZ lkf{k;ksa dk Lohd`r rF; gS fd
?ku';ke ikyhoky R;kxi= ns pqdk gS rFkk I;kjk xqtZj fdlh QkStnkjh dsl esa fu:) gksus ds dkj.k dk;Z ugha
dj jgk gS rFkk ek/kw tkV Bsdsnkj dk Jfed gS A 'ks"k Jfed izoh.k 'kekZ] jkedqekj xqtZj] dkuk xqtZj] uVoj
lqokydk tks fd ekbal ij dke dj jgs gS dks fLdYM eku dj LFkkbZ fd;s tkus dh ekax Hkh izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh
tk;t ,oa oS/kfud izrhr gksrhs gS D;ksafd bl ekax ds fo:) vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ ,sls rF; ugha j[ks x;s gS
ftuds dkj.k mDr ekax dks voS/kkfud o uktk;t ekuk tk lds A ekax la-16 ftlesa fd ?kksofj;k ekbal esa ,p-
,e- vkWijsVj dk dk;Z djus okys lHkh Jfedksa dks leku osru fn;s tkus dh ekax j[kh x;h gS Hkh mDr leku dk;Z
ds fy, leku osru ds fl)kar rgr oS/kkfud ,oa mDr le>kSrksa ds vuq:i gS A oSls Hkh vizkFkhZ lk{kh Mh Mc-1
vfer dqyJs"B }kjk viuh eq[; ijh{kk dh lk{; ds 'kiFk i= ds en la-13 esa mDr ikapksa ekaxksa dks ekuuk ntZ
djok;k x;k gS ftlls ;gh rkRi;Z fudyrk gS fd mDr ekaxs ekus tkus ;ksX; gS rFkk ftldks ekuus esa izca/ku dks
dskbZ ,rjkt ugha jgk gS A
18-
QyLo:i izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse mDrkuqlkj Lohdkj fd;s tkrs gq, mDr fookn dk mRrj mDrkuqlkj
gh fn;k tkuk U;k;laxr gSA
vkns'k
19-
vr% ,rn~}kjk izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse mijksDrkuqlkj Lohdkj fd;k tkdj mDr funsZf'kr fookn dk
mRrj bl izdkj ls fn;k tkrk gS fd izca/ku mn;iqj feujy flaMhdsV izkbZosV fyfeVsM HkhyokMk ds }kjk [kfut
4960
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
/kkrq etnwj la?k dh ekax la- 1] 3] 15] 16 dks ugha ekuuk mijksDrkuqlkj U;k;ksfpr rFkk U;k;laxr ugha gS rFkk
ekax la-2 ds iwjh gks tkus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ ;wfu;u }kjk mls izsl ugha fd;k x;k gS A QyLo:i vizkFkhZ laLFkku ls
mlds ekStwnk deZdkj mDr ekax i= dh ekax la- 1] 3] 15 o 16 ykxw djok muds vuqlkj ifj.kkfed ifjykHk
izkfIr ds vf/kdkjh gS A
,l- ,u- Vsyj] U;k;k/kh'k
ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1859
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad
vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k
ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye] dksphu ds iapkV (lanHkZ la
-
28@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 0
8
-
08
-
2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[
la
-
,y&12012@50@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II
)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
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)
4961
3.
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 not
4962
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
ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1860
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯lfMdsV
cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds d
eZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] caxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la
-
134@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08
-
08
-
2017 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[
la
-
,y
&12011@70@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&
II
)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
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 Officer
II
(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
Sh. S.D Thammaiah,
The Assistant General Manager,
S/o Sannadurgappa,
Syndicate Bank,
Milagatta II Cross, Bovi Colony,
Head Office,
Durgammanakeri,
Manipal - 576104
Shimoga – 577201
Represented by :
(Represented by M/s Ramesh
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 Party
4966
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 II
4968
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 Manager
II
(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)
ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1861
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk cSad
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdk
sa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la
-
57@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08
-
08
-
2017 dks izkIr
gqvk
FkkA
[
la
-
,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II
)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
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 Officer
II
(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 of
4972
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 such
II
(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 the
II
(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
ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxL
r] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1862
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkiksZjs
'k
u
cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksf
xd
vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la
-
496
@200
4
) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
08
-
08
-
2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[
la
-
,y&12012@
25
@200
2
&vkbZvkj (ch&
II
)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
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/s
II
(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
ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1863
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad
vkWiQ
cM+kSnk
ds iz
ca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;]
vgenk
ckn
(xqtjkr)
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la
-
130
@200
6
) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; lj
dkj dks
08
-
08
-
2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[
la
-
,y&
12012
@
151
@20
05
&vkbZvkj (ch&
II
)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
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, 2017
4978
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
ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1864
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk
17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯lMhdsV
cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksf
xd
vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la
-
51@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
08
-
08
-
2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[
la
-
,y&12012@18@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&II
)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
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 Officer
II
(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
ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1865
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
¯lMhdsV
cSad
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdk
sa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la
-
95
0@200
4
) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
08
-
08
-
2017 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[
la
-
,y&12012@1
65
@
1993
&vkbZvkj (ch&
II
)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
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 Officer
II
(ii)
4981
ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1866
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
¯lMhdsV
cSad
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr)
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la
-
595@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08
-
08
-
2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[
la
-
,y&12012@208@1994&vkbZvkj (ch&II
)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
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
ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1867
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
lSaVªy
cSad
vk
WiQ
bafM;k
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la
-
06
@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
08
-
08
-
2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[
la
-
,y&1201
1
@1
24
@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&
II
)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
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)
4983
AWARD
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
ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1868
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
cM+kSnk ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la
-
20@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08
-
08
-
2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[
la
-
,y&12
012@40@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&
II
)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
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 Party
4984
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
ubZ fnYyh] 8 vxLr] 2017
dk
-
vk
-
1869
-
—
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e
] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
bafM;k
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] v
genkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la
-
64
@200
5
) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08
-
08
-
2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[
la
-
,y&12012@
25
@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&
II
)]
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
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, 2017
II
(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 अगस् त, 2017
का.आ. 1870.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, कर्मचारी राज्य बीर्ा अधिधनयर्, 1948 (1948 का 34) की िारा 91-क के साथ पठित
िारा 88 द्वारा प्रित्त शधियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद्द्वारा ह िंिुस्तान कीटनाशकों धलधर्टेड, रासायधन (र् ाराष्ट्र), भटटिंडा (पिंजाब)
यूधनट्स के कारखानों/स्थापनाओं के धनयधर्त कर्मचाठरयों को इस अधिधनयर् के प्रवतमन से छूट प्रिान करती ै। य छूट, अधिसूचना जारी
ोने की तारीख से एक वर्म की अवधि के धलए लागू र ेगी A
2.
उि छूट धनम्नधलधखत शतों के अिीन ै; अथामत्:-
(1) पूवोि स्थापना धजसर्ें कर्मचारी धनयोधजत ैं, एक रधजस्टर रखेगी, धजसर्ें छूट प्राप्त कर्मचाठरयों के नार् रर पिनार्
दिखाये जायेंगे;
(2)
इस छूट के ोते हुए भी, कर्मचारी उि अधिधनयर् के अिीन ऐसी प्रसुधविाएिं प्राप्त करते र ेंगे धजनको पाने के धलए वे इस
अधिसूचना द्वारा िी गई छूट के प्रवृत्त ोने की तारीख से पूवम सिंित्त अिंशिानों के आिार पर किार ो जाते ैं;
(3)
छूट प्राप्त अवधि के धलए, यदि कोई अधभिाय प ले ी दकए जा चुके ों, तो वे वापस न ीं दकए जाएिंगे;
(4)
उि कारखाने/स्थापना का धनयोजक उस अवधि की बाबत धजसके िौरान उस कारखाने/स्थापना पर उि अधिधनयर्
(धजसे इसर्ें इसके पश्चात उि अवधि क ा गया ै) प्रवतमर्ान था ऐसी धववरधययािं, ऐसे प्रारूप र्ें रर ऐसी धवधशधियों
सध त िेगा जो कर्मचारी राज्य बीर्ा (सािारय) धवधनयर्, 1950 के अिीन उसे उि अवधि की बाबत िेनी अपेधित
ोती थीं;
4986
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 12, 2017/SRAVANA 21, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(5)
धनगर् द्वारा उि कर्मचारी राज्य बीर्ा अधिधनयर् की िारा 45 की उप-िारा (1) के अिीन धनयुि दकया गया कोई
धनरीिक या धनगर् का इस धनधर्त्त प्राधिकृत कोई अन्द्य पििारी;
(i)
िारा 44 की उप-िारा (1) के अिीन, उि अवधि की बाबत िी गई दकसी धववरय की धवधशियों को सत्याधपत
करने के प्रयोजनाथम; अथवा
(ii)
य अधभधनधश्चत करने के प्रयोजनाथम दक कर्मचारी राज्य बीर्ा (सािारय) धवधनयर्, 1950 द्वारा यथाअपेधित
रधजस्टर रर अधभलेख उि अवधि के धलए रखे गये थे या न ीं; या
(iii)
य अधभधनधश्चत करने के प्रयोजनाथम दक कर्मचारी, धनयोजक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायिों को, धजसके फलस्वरूप
इस अधिसूचना के अिीन छूट िी जा र ी ै, नकि र्ें रर वस्तु रूप र्ें पाने का किार बना हुआ ै या न ीं; या
(iv)
य अधभधनधश्चत करने के प्रयोजनाथम दक उस अवधि के िौरान, जब उि कारखाने के सिंबिंि र्ें अधिधनयर् के
उपबिंि प्रवृत्त थे, ऐसे दकन्द् ीं उपबिंिों का अनुपालन दकया गया था या न ीं, धनम्नधलधखत कायम करने के धलए
सशि ोगा:-
(क) प्रिान या आसन्न धनयोजक से अपेिा करना दक व उसे ऐसी जानकारी िे धजसे उपरोि धनरीिक या अन्द्य
पििारी आवश्यक सर्झता ै ; अथवा
(ख) ऐसे प्रिान या आसन्न धनयोजक के अधिभोगािीन, दकसी कारखाने, स्थापना, कायामलय या अन्द्य पठरसर र्ें
दकसी भी उधचत सर्य पर प्रवेश करना रर उसके प्रभारी से य अपेिा करना दक व व्यधियों के
धनयोजन रर र्जिूरी के सिंिाय से सिंबिंधित ऐसे लेखा, बध यािं रर अन्द्य िस्तावेज, ऐसे धनरीिक या
अन्द्य पििारी के सर्ि प्रस्तुत करें रर उनकी परीिा करने िें या ऐसी जानकारी िें धजसे वे आवश्यक
सर्झते ैं; या
(ग)
प्रिान या आसन्न धनयोजक की, उसके अधभकताम या सेवक की, या ऐसे दकसी व्यधि को, जो ऐसे
कारखाने, स्थापना, कायामलय या अन्द्य पठरसर र्ें पाया जाए, य धवश्वास करने का युधियुि कारय ै
दक व कर्मचारी ै, परीिा करना; या
(घ)
ऐसे कारखाने, स्थापना, कायामलय या अन्द्य पठरसर र्ें रखे गए दकसी रधजस्टर, लेखा, ब ी या अन्द्य
िस्तावेज की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरय लेना;
(ङ)
यथाधनिामठरत अन्द्य शधियों का प्रयोग करना ।
(6)
धवधनवेश/धनगर्ीकरय के र्ार्ले र्ें, प्रित्त छूट स्वत: रद्द ो जाएगी रर तब नए प्रधतष्ठान को छूट ेतु सर्ुधचत सरकार
की अनुर्धत लेनी ोगी।
[सिं. एस-38014/12/2013-एस.एस.-I]
अजय र्धलक, अवर सधचव
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.
RAKESH SUKUL
Digitally signed by RAKESH
SUKUL
Date: 2017.09.07 18:56:39
+05'30'