5841 GI/2017
(7717)
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- 40]
ubZ fnYyh] vDrwcj 1—vDrwcj 7] 2017] 'kfuokj@vkf'ou 9—vkf'ou 15] 1939
No. 40]
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 1—OCTOBER 7, 2017, SATURDAY/ASVINA 9—ASVINA 15, 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)
Xk`g ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2017
का.आ
का.आ
का.आ
का.आ. 2340
. 2340
. 2340
. 2340-—के ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 (यथा
संशोिधत, 1987) के िनयम 10 के उप-िनयम (4) के अनुसरण म!, गृह मं$ालय के िन% निलिखत काया(लय म! िह दी का
काय(साधक +ान रखने वाले कम(चा.रय क सं/ या 80% से अिधक हो जाने के फल1 व2प इन, काया(लय को एतद6ारा
अिधसूिचत करती है:-
के ी
के ी
के ी
के ीय रजव पुिलस बल
य रजव पुिलस बल
य रजव पुिलस बल
य रजव पुिलस बल
1. काया(लय पुिलस उप महािनरी8क र!ज काया(लय, के.रपु बल,
रायपुर (छ; तीसगढ़)
2. काया(लय पुिलस उप महािनरी8क, िस< नल र!ज, के.रपु बल,
सॉ> ट लेक, से@ टर-5, कोलकाता (पिAम बंगाल)
3. काया(लय पुिलस महािनरी8क, कना(टक-केरल से@ टर, के.रपु बल,
7718
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Bुप के प.रसर, येलाहंका, ब!गलु2 (कना(टक)
के ी
के ी
के ी
के ीय ोिगक सुरा बल
य ोिगक सुरा बल
य ोिगक सुरा बल
य ोिगक सुरा बल
1. काया(लय पुिलस उप महािनरी8क, के.औ.सु. बल, पिAमी 8े$, एयरपोट( मु/ यालय, नवी मु% बई (महाराD E)
2. काया(लय पुिलस उप महािनरी8क, के.औ.सु. बल, डी.ए.ई. 8े$ीय मु/ यालय, हैदराबाद (आ I देश)
3. कमांड!ट का काया(लय, के.औ.सु. बल, इकाई आईओसीएल, पारादीप (ओिडशा)
[la- 11029@01@2017&fgUnh]
Lkgsyh ?kks"k jkW;] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2017
S.O. 2340.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the following office of the Ministry
of Home Affairs, wherein the percentage of the staff, having working knowledge of Hindi has gone above 80% :—
Central Reserve Police Force
1. Office of the Dy.Inspector General of Police Range office, Central Reserve Police Force, Raipur
(Chattishgarh)
2. Office of the Dy.Inspector General of Police Single Range, Central Reserve Police Force, Salt Lake (Kolkata)
3. Office of the Inspector General of Police Karnataka-Kerala Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, Group
Centre Campus, Yalhanka, Bangluru, Karnataka
Central Industrial Security Police Force
1. Office of the Dy.Inspector General of Police, CISF West Zone, Airport
headquarter, Navi Mumbai (Maharastra)
2. Office of the Dy.Inspector General of Police, CISF D.A.E Zonal
Headquarter, Hyderabad (Andra Pradesh)
3. Office of the Commandant, CISF Unit IOCL Paradip, Odisha
[No. 12029/01/2017-Hindi]
SEHELI GHOSH ROY, Jt. Secy.
dks;yk ea=ky;
dks;yk ea=ky;
dks;yk ea=ky;
dks;yk ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vDrwcj] 2017
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 2341
2341
2341
2341-&dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ ftls blesa
blds i’pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh] Hkkjr ds jkti=]
Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi&[kaM (ii)] rkjh[k] 31 vxLr] 2017 esa izdkf’kr Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh
vf/klwpuk la[;kad dk- vk- 2831¼v½] rkjh[k 30 vxLr] 2017 ds izdk’ku ij] mDr vf/klwpuk ls layXu
vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ¼ftls blesa blds i’pkr~ mDr “wfe dgk x;k gS½ vkSj Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds
Hkw&lrg vf/kdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 dh mi&/kkjk ¼a1½ ds v/khu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj]
vkR;akfrd :i ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, Fks(
vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir
jksM] Mkd?kj la[;k 60] ftyk& fcykliqj&495006]NRrhlx<+ ¼ftls blesa blds i’pkr~ mDr ljdkjh
dEiuh dgk x;k gS½] ,sls fuca/kuksa vkSj ’krksZa dk tks dsUnzh; ljdkj bl fufeRr vf/kjksfir djuk mfpr
le>s] vuqikyu djus ds fy;s rS;kj gS(
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7719
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 11 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr ’kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs’k nsrh gS fd bl izdkj fufgr mDr 467-458 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 1155-09 ,dM+
¼yxHkx½ Hkwfe vkSj ml ij ds Hkw&lrg vf/kdkj] rkjh[k 31 ekpZ] 2017 ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj
fufgr cus jgus dh ctk;] fuEufyf[kr fuca/kuksa vkSj ’krkasZ ds v/khu jgrs gq,] mDr ljdkjh dEiuh esa
fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~ %&
¼1½
ljdkjh dEiuh] mDr vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu ;Fkkvo/kkfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj
oSlh gh enksa dh ckcr~ fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ djsxh; ”
¼2½
ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk ’krZ ¼1½ ds v/khu] dsUnzh; ljdkj dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kkj.k djus ds
iz;kstu ds fy;s mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 14 ds v/khu ,d vf/kdj.k dk xBu fd;k tk,xk rFkk ,sls
fdlh vf/kdj.k vkSj ,sls vf/kdj.k dh lgk;rk djus ds fy;s fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/kkas esa mixr lHkh
O;;] ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk ogu fd;s tk;saxs vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa
ds fy;s ;k mlds laca/k esa lHkh fof/kd dk;Zokfg;ksa ftlds varxZr vihy Hkh gS] dh ckcr mixr] lHkh
O;; Hkh] blh izdkj mDr ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk ogu fd;s tk;saxs;
¼3½
ljdkjh dEiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds ink/kkfj;ksa dh] ,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/k esa]
{kfriwfrZ djsxh tks bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds ckjs esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k
mlds in/kkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo:) fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa ds laca/k esa vko’;d gks;
¼4½
ljdkjh dEiuh dks] dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk] mDr Hkwfe vkSj mlds vf/kdkj dks
fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh ’kfDr ugha gksxh; vkSj
¼5½
ljdkjh dEiuh] ,sls funs’kksa vkSj ’krksZa dk] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko’;d gks] mDr
Hkwfe ds fof’k"V {ks=ksa ds fy;s fn, tk,a ;k vf/kjksfir dh tk,] ikyu djsxhA
[ Qk- la- 43015@13@2017&,y, ,.M vkbZvkj]
vkj- ,l- ljkst] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 4th October, 2017
S.O. 2341.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal,
number S.O. 2831(E), dated the 30th August, 2017 published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii),
dated the 31st August, 2017 issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the lands and the surface rights in or over
the land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested
absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act;
And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road,
Post Box number 60, District-Bilaspur-495006, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is
willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby direct that the surface rights of 467.458 hectares (approximately) or 1155.09 acres (approximately)
in or over the said lands so vested shall with effect from the 31st August, 2017 instead of continuing to so vest in the
Central Government, shall vest in the Government Company subject to the following terms and conditions, namely:-
(1).
the Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of
compensation, interest, damages and the like as determined under the provisions of the said Act;
(2)
a Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act for the purpose of determining the amounts
payable to the Central Government by the Government Company under condition (1) and all expenditure incurred in
connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the Government
Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings, including appeals, etc. for or in
connection with the rights in or over the said lands, so vested, shall also be borne by the Government Company;
(3)
the Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other
expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its
officials regarding the rights in or over the said lands so vested;
7720
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(4)
the Government Company shall have no power to transfer the said lands and the rights to any other persons
without the prior approval of the Central Government; and
(5)
the Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the
Central Government for particular areas of the said lands as and when necessary.
[F. No. 43015/13/2017 – LA&IR]
R. S. SAROJ, Under Secy.
पेोिलयम
पेोिलयम
पेोिलयम
पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मं!ालय
और ाकृितक गैस मं!ालय
और ाकृितक गैस मं!ालय
और ाकृितक गैस मं!ालय
नई Jद> ली, 29 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2342
2342
2342
2342.—केीय सरकार, पेEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन ( भूिम म! उपयोग के अिधकार के अज(न)
अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 2 के खP ड (क) के अनुसरण म! और पेEोिलयम एवं ाकृितक गैस मं$ालय,
भारत सरकार के का.आ. 3504(अ) Jदनांक 21 Jदसंबर, 2015 क अिधसूचना के संशोधन म! उ@ त अिधिनयम के अधीन
ह.रयाणा राR य के राR य8े$ के भीतर िह दु1 तान पेEोिलयम कॉपSरेशन िलिमटेड क मुंा Jद>ली पाइपलाइन, बहादुरगढ़
.टकरीकलान पाइपलाइन, रमनमंडी बहादुरगढ़ पाइपलाइन और रेवारी कानपुर पाइपलाइन प.रयोजना के िलए स8म
अिधकारी के कायT का िनव(हन करने के िलए Uी नर!दर Vसह दलाल, तहसीलदार, बहादुरगढ़, ह.रयाणा सरकार को ािधकृत
करती है। यह अिधसूचना स8म अिधकारी के काय(भार Bहण करने क Jदनांक अथा(त् 01.09.2017 से लागू है।
[फा. सं. आर- 31015/07/2011-ओ.आर.-II/15210]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2017
S.O. 2342.—In pursuance of clause (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right
of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) and in modification of Notification of the Government of India in Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. No. 3504(E) dated the 21st December, 2015, the Central Government hereby
authorizes Shri Narender Singh Dalal, Tehsildar, Bahadurgarh, Government of Haryana to perform the functions of
Competent Authority for HPCL’s Mundra Delhi Pipeline, Bahadurgarh Tikrikalan Pipeline, Ramanmandi Bahadurgarh
Pipeline and Rewari Kanpur Pipeline under the said Act, within the territory of Haryana State. This Notification is
applicable from the date of joining as Competent Authority, i.e, 01.09.2017.
[F. No. R-31015/7/2011-OR-II/15210]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई Jद>ली, 29 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2343
2343
2343
2343.—केीय सरकार को लोकिहत म! यह आवYयक तीत होता है Jक तिमलनाडु राRय म! एZूर से
मदुरै तक वाया च!गलप[टु पांिडचेरी ि$ची एलपीजी प.रवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कापSरेशन िलिमटेड के 6ारा एक
पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और केीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आवYयक तीत होता है Jक ऐसी भूिम
म! जो इस से उपाब\ अनुसूची म! व]णत है ओर िजसम! उ^ पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने का 1ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार
का अज(न Jकया जाए;
अत: अब, केीय सरकार, पेEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइस (भूिम म! उपयोग के अिधकार का अज(न)
अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) 6ारा द_ शि^य का योग करते `ए, उस भूिम म!
उपयोग के अिधकार का अज(न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है;
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7721
कोई aि^, जो उ^ अनुसूची म! व]णत भूिम म! िहतब\ है, उस तारीख से िजसको इस अिधसूचना से यु^ भारत के
राजप$ क ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलcध करा दी जाती है, इdस Jदन के भीतर भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए
जाने के िलए उसम! उपयोग के अिधकार के अज(न के स%बध म! Uी एस. पी. मधुसूधनन, स8म ािधकारी, भूिम अज(न
अिधकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपSरेशन िलिमटेड, पाइपलाइन प.रयोजना, eलाट सं-14, जयकाश 1Eीट, वी. जी. पी नगर,
राजािजपुरम, ितfव>लुर, तिमलनाडु-602001 को िलिखत 2प म! आ8ेप भेज सकेगा I
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
तालुका :
तालुका :
तालुका :
तालुका : उि_रमेfर
िजला : कांजीपुरम
रा"य :
रा"य :
रा"य :
रा"य : तिमलनाडु
गाँव का नाम
सवg8ण सं.
उप खPड सं.
8े$फल
हे@टेर
एयर
वग( मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
116. Jकलdाड़ी
150
1
0
07
20
141
2
0
07
00
140
8
0
19
80
140
7
0
00
40
140
6
0
01
75
140
5
0
03
00
140
4
0
02
60
140
3
0
02
00
140
2
0
01
45
133
3
0
15
50
133
2
0
30
80
133
1
0
00
60
181
5
0
10
80
181
3
0
07
20
181
1
0
00
40
112
1
0
00
40
129
9
0
00
70
129
5
0
03
60
129
4
0
07
30
129
2
0
05
40
129
6
0
00
40
128
3
0
07
10
128
2
0
04
70
7722
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
128
1
0
11
20
201
11
0
02
00
201
8
0
01
60
201
10
0
07
00
201
6
0
07
80
201
5
0
08
20
201
4
0
08
70
201
3
0
07
65
201
2
0
00
40
201
1
0
06
30
201
9
0
02
95
117.पुिलeपाdम
7
-
0
03
40
8
19
0
01
80
8
20
0
09
00
8
21
0
02
45
8
16
0
02
55
8
18
0
00
40
8
15
0
01
40
8
13
0
04
00
8
12
0
02
50
8
11
0
02
45
8
10बी
0
01
70
8
1बी
0
02
00
8
1ए
0
15
60
151
1ए5
0
01
65
151
3जे
0
01
70
151
3एच
0
01
45
3
151
3आई
0
01
55
151
3बी
0
06
30
9
8
0
00
80
9
7
0
00
70
9
6
0
01
00
9
1
0
05
40
52
3बी
0
04
00
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7723
1
2
3
4
5
6
52
3ए
0
14
20
52
2
0
00
55
51
2ए
0
22
00
51
1ए
0
03
20
47
2
0
06
65
47
1
0
00
40
54
9
0
00
40
54
5
0
06
40
54
6
0
07
25
54
7सी7
0
02
30
54
7सी5
0
06
75
54
7बी7
0
00
40
54
7सी1ई
0
01
20
54
7सी1एफ़
0
01
50
54
7सी1जी
0
00
55
54
7सी1डी
0
00
40
54
7सी1ए
0
00
85
46
1
0
04
00
118.एडैयंबुदूर
135
3
0
10
35
136
21
0
09
90
136
19
0
00
40
136
15ए
0
13
70
136
12ए
0
09
25
136
10
0
01
20
136
9ए
0
01
15
136
6
0
03
60
136
5
0
06
45
136
8
0
01
40
136
7
0
00
60
136
3ए
0
04
50
136
2
0
05
60
136
1
0
03
45
158
9
0
03
30
158
8
0
03
10
158
7
0
03
80
7724
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
158
5
0
00
40
158
4
0
04
50
158
2
0
04
70
159
5
0
05
00
159
4
0
04
30
159
3सी
0
02
40
159
3बी
0
02
20
159
3ए
0
04
85
159
2
0
02
35
159
1
0
02
65
162
11
0
00
40
161
2सी
0
00
90
161
2बी
0
00
70
161
2ए
0
01
20
161
1
0
05
35
160
11
0
05
40
160
10
0
04
40
160
9
0
03
75
160
8
0
03
40
160
7
0
02
95
165
1ए
0
05
40
58
5
0
04
50
58
1बी
0
01
70
58
1ए
0
12
20
119.कैथंडलम
125
4
0
01
35
125
3
0
01
05
125
2
0
01
85
125
1
0
00
40
127
2
0
21
80
73.पाले1वरम
146
7
0
11
70
147
1सी1
0
02
80
147
1सी2
0
01
50
147
2ए
0
01
90
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7725
1
2
3
4
5
6
147
1ए
0
01
50
147
1बी
0
04
15
148
1ए4बी
0
04
15
148
1ए4ए
0
03
95
148
3बी
0
04
50
148
3ए
0
00
80
149
5
0
05
85
149
3सी
0
02
10
149
4बी
0
03
15
149
3ए
0
00
40
149
3बी
0
04
05
149
2ए
0
00
40
149
2सी
0
03
40
149
2बी
0
02
80
149
1सी
0
03
00
149
1बी3
0
01
80
160
1एच1
0
00
40
72.िवZमंगलम
117
15सी
0
00
40
117
15ए
0
02
75
117
16ए
0
08
90
117
18
0
06
30
117
19
0
18
70
117
41
0
06
55
117
42बी
0
07
60
117
43बी
0
07
25
117
44
0
05
60
117
45
0
03
60
117
46
0
03
60
117
47
0
05
00
117
28ए
0
10
50
67. आलंचेरी
1
1सी1
0
00
40
1
1सी2
0
04
50
1
1सी3
0
01
60
1
1बी1
0
00
40
7726
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1बी2
0
03
55
1
1बी3
0
03
55
122बी
-
0
37
80
122ए
2ए1
0
21
45
122ए
2ए2
0
00
40
114
1
0
77
40
114
2ए
0
02
30
115
4
0
03
05
115
10
0
04
90
115
9
0
06
70
115
8
0
01
25
115
13
0
00
50
115
12
0
05
60
115
11
0
05
10
66.सड़iीवाdम
1
3
0
02
50
129
1बी
0
00
40
129
1ए
0
07
80
117
4ए
0
03
80
117
4बी
0
01
80
117
5ए
0
01
40
117
5बी
0
06
20
117
3बी
0
05
15
117
3सी
0
00
90
117
6
0
00
45
117
2
0
08
65
119
2
0
04
05
118
1
0
09
00
118
2
0
09
75
65.तोjनावल
22
5
0
04
15
22
4
0
02
35
22
3
0
03
40
22
1बी
0
01
30
22
2
0
01
00
23
2
0
02
00
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7727
1
2
3
4
5
6
23
4ए
0
00
70
23
3डी
0
05
00
23
3सी1
0
00
60
23
3सी2
0
03
65
23
3ई
0
00
75
23
3बी2
0
00
40
23
3ए
0
01
00
24
2ए
0
00
40
24
1ए
0
04
20
25
2
0
00
90
28
6
0
02
25
28
5
0
06
00
28
4
0
02
50
28
2
0
03
75
29
2
0
03
40
42
-
0
04
65
41
2
0
07
10
41
1सी
0
00
40
41
3
0
01
80
40
4
0
04
00
40
3बी
0
06
85
40
5
0
05
15
46
1
0
01
50
47
1बी
0
05
75
47
2
0
06
10
47
1ए
0
06
45
49
2
0
02
20
49
1
0
03
20
49
3
0
04
50
50
1
0
02
40
64.कडलमंगलम
103
1बी
0
00
80
103
1ए
0
03
30
107
-
0
09
20
109
-
0
02
40
7728
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
45. मि>लयंकरनै-बी
1168
3
0
05
15
1168
2
0
01
40
1168
1
0
07
00
1169
3
0
06
85
1169
1
0
00
45
1101
2
0
00
40
1101
5बी
0
05
50
1100
5
0
05
15
1098
2ए
0
01
75
1098
2बी
0
02
80
1098
2सी
0
00
75
1098
2डी
0
01
20
1098
2ई
0
02
00
1097
2
0
08
20
1094
2सी2
0
00
40
1094
2बी3
0
01
00
1094
2बी2
0
01
00
1094
2बी1
0
05
05
1094
2ए
0
03
50
1094
1
0
07
20
1094
5
0
15
00
694
1
0
01
95
694
2
0
08
30
684
2
0
11
90
695
4बी
0
00
50
45. मि>लयंकरनै-ए
600
1
0
02
90
591
1
0
09
00
591
2
0
10
65
594
1
0
09
75
594
2ए1
0
08
70
593
3
-
02
50
595
2बी
0
00
40
595
2ए
0
07
35
582
4बी
0
06
60
582
6
0
00
70
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7729
1
2
3
4
5
6
582
7
0
04
70
582
5बी
0
07
20
596
1बी
0
01
00
596
1ए
0
04
70
569
1ए
0
00
45
571
1सी
0
09
75
571
3ए1
0
03
05
571
3ए2
0
01
65
571
3ए3
0
07
40
571
3बी2
0
08
35
573
-
0
00
90
572
-
0
00
40
511
1
0
02
00
511
2
0
03
45
512
1
0
06
10
512
2
0
00
60
513
1
0
01
45
510
-
0
04
85
514
1
0
02
75
509
-
0
04
50
233
-
0
09
55
206
3ए
0
03
15
206
3बी
0
01
90
221
1ए
0
00
40
221
1बी1
0
04
15
221
1बी2
0
06
30
221
1बी3
0
04
85
221
1बी4
0
01
40
220
-
0
11
90
222
2बी
0
06
80
222
2ए
0
02
45
217
1
0
09
55
217
2
0
13
15
216
1
0
02
70
216
2
0
02
25
216
3ए
0
00
55
7730
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
216
3बी
0
00
55
225
5
0
01
35
225
6
0
07
30
225
4बी
0
00
40
184
-
0
04
00
183
2सी1
0
04
00
185
1ए
0
02
45
185
1बी
0
04
40
182
1बी
0
00
40
182
2
0
00
40
182
1सी
0
06
00
182
3
0
00
40
167
3ए
0
09
00
167
2ए2
0
04
00
167
2ए1
0
00
40
168
2बी
0
01
90
168
2ए
0
01
35
168
1ए
0
03
90
168
1बी
0
00
50
168
1सी
0
00
75
168
1डी
0
00
55
165
1
0
00
70
165
2
0
02
55
165
3
0
00
40
160
4ए2
0
01
70
160
4ए1
0
04
55
160
5बी
0
04
85
160
8ए
0
00
40
160
8बी
0
04
05
160
8सी
0
00
80
160
12
0
01
20
160
6बी
0
10
20
161
1
0
04
55
161
2ए
0
02
00
161
2बी
0
02
55
162
-
0
04
50
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7731
1
2
3
4
5
6
112
1
0
05
00
112
3ए1
0
01
80
112
2ए
0
05
65
112
2बी
0
05
10
111
2
0
00
45
111
1
0
02
20
113
3बी
0
02
10
113
4
0
05
00
113
3ए
0
03
90
114
-
0
10
50
131
3
0
01
50
131
2
0
11
00
132
1
0
05
75
132
2
0
06
30
102
2ए1
0
00
40
102
1सी
0
02
70
102
1बी
0
05
15
102
1ए
0
05
60
101
1
0
03
70
101
2
0
00
60
100
-
0
24
80
97
-
0
15
60
98
-
0
00
75
83
1
0
07
20
90
1
0
02
20
84
2बी
0
14
75
84
2सी
0
07
10
84
3
0
01
30
89
-
0
09
40
88
2
0
06
15
40.तलवर%पूंडी
9
1
0
07
00
9
2
0
08
30
24
1बी1
0
03
20
24
1बी2
0
00
90
24
1बी3
0
05
20
7732
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
29
1
0
09
80
29
3ए2
0
00
40
29
3ए1
0
05
40
28
1
0
01
70
39. पुिलयूर
39
1ए
0
03
55
39
1बी
0
00
90
39
1डी
0
00
40
39
1सी
0
02
50
38
1बी
0
00
40
38
1सी
0
00
80
38
1डी
0
01
65
38
1ई
0
03
65
38
2ए
0
06
10
38
2बी
0
00
40
41
1
0
01
15
41
2बी
0
00
55
41
2ए
0
01
90
42
1
0
00
40
42
2
0
09
80
44
4बी
0
08
10
44
3
0
06
60
44
2
0
05
60
32
2
0
07
15
46
1ए
0
03
60
46
1बी
0
02
10
46
1सी
0
02
20
47
1
0
08
85
56
1ए
0
07
40
56
2
0
07
65
57
1ए
0
07
00
57
1बी
0
00
90
58
-
0
09
00
128
1
0
05
65
128
2
0
07
70
127
2
0
01
45
129
4
0
05
75
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7733
1
2
3
4
5
6
130
1
0
07
65
131
2
0
01
50
140
1ए
0
14
05
140
1बी
0
06
60
140
3ए
0
04
70
140
3बी
0
14
60
140
3सी1
0
03
60
140
3सी2
0
00
40
139
1
0
01
75
141
1ए1
0
06
00
141
1ए2
0
07
75
141
1बी
0
00
40
142
1
0
03
55
142
2ए
0
01
30
142
2बी
0
01
10
143
1
0
00
65
143
2
0
00
75
143
3
0
03
65
144
1ए
0
02
80
144
1बी
0
04
10
157
1सी
0
05
35
157
3
0
00
40
146
-
0
06
05
147
-
0
03
20
148
1
0
03
60
148
2
0
17
30
149
1
0
08
10
150
1ए
0
04
75
150
1बी
0
04
85
150
2
0
02
30
151
-
0
06
30
36. क%माल%पूंडी
28
1
0
03
70
27
2
0
10
50
26
-
0
01
70
25
2बी6सी
0
09
70
7734
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
25
2बी6डी
0
02
90
25
2बी4
0
03
80
25
1बी
0
00
40
25
1ए
0
01
30
25
2बी5
0
11
70
24
1
0
08
70
24
4
0
00
70
24
5
0
07
20
24
6
0
06
90
35
1बी
0
01
70
22
1
0
11
35
81
5ए
0
05
40
81
5बी2
0
08
30
81
5बी3
0
07
05
84
1
0
05
85
84
2ए
0
05
05
84
2बी
0
03
80
65
6ए
0
03
00
65
6बी
0
00
60
65
9
0
07
20
65
4
0
01
60
65
8ए
0
05
00
65
8सी
0
05
75
59
1
0
01
75
59
2
0
01
60
58
1ए
0
04
20
58
1बी
0
03
55
58
2
0
04
50
57
2
0
03
20
57
3
0
06
40
57
1एफ़
0
07
85
119
1सी
0
03
80
119
1डी
0
03
95
119
1ई
0
06
45
119
6ए
0
00
40
119
6बी
0
06
30
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7735
1
2
3
4
5
6
119
6सी
0
00
40
128
1
0
16
20
129
2बी2
0
00
40
129
2बी3
0
11
60
129
2सी2
0
09
50
129
2सी1
0
03
10
130
1ए
0
02
50
130
1बी
0
02
20
130
2ए
0
02
75
130
2बी
0
06
60
130
2सी
0
00
40
131
-
0
01
25
133
4
0
05
60
132
2बी1
0
05
05
318
1
0
29
60
318
2
0
00
40
320
1बी
0
12
50
320
2बी
0
12
00
341
1बी1
0
07
90
341
2बी
0
02
80
341
2सी
0
04
45
340
2बी1
0
18
00
340
2बी2
0
04
20
340
5
0
14
70
344
3ए2ए
0
03
10
344
3ए3ए
0
00
40
344
3सी1डी2
0
06
80
344
3सी1सी
0
07
60
349
3ए
0
00
50
349
3बी
0
05
70
349
3सी
0
04
20
349
3डी
0
12
65
349
10
0
01
30
349
6@यू
0
04
05
349
6आर
0
04
70
349
9ए
0
00
80
7736
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
350
2
0
14
45
350
4
0
03
70
तालुका :
तालुका :
तालुका :
तालुका : मदुरांतगम
िजला :
िजला :
िजला :
िजला : कांजीपुरम
रा"य :
रा"य :
रा"य :
रा"य : तिमलनाडु
गाँव का नाम
सवg8ण सं.
उप खPड सं.
8े$फल
हे@टेर
एयर
वग( मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
45. कड़%बूर
156
2
0
39
50
158
1सी2
0
34
15
158
1ई2
0
01
55
158
2
0
04
40
158
3बी2
0
02
15
159
1ए1बी
0
08
60
159
1ए2
0
05
30
164
2
0
01
50
165
1
0
08
80
165
2
0
06
90
165
3
0
00
40
54. वैeपनै
313
4
0
02
70
313
5
0
19
10
312
1
0
09
05
312
4
0
01
50
312
5
0
00
40
310
1ए
0
00
40
310
1बी2
0
00
40
310
1बी1
0
12
10
201
-
0
08
40
200
1
0
00
80
202
1ए
0
08
40
202
1बी
0
03
20
202
3एफ़
0
00
40
307
2बी
0
05
75
307
3
0
04
15
306
1बी
0
06
00
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7737
1
2
3
4
5
6
224
7
0
13
80
224
5
0
04
20
224
4
0
00
40
225
-
0
01
35
226
3
0
01
65
230
2ए
0
04
75
230
2बी
0
02
60
230
1
0
03
55
229
1
0
01
85
229
2
0
04
40
231
-
0
00
40
228
6
0
01
60
244
1
0
01
75
244
2
0
06
10
244
3
0
00
75
244
5
0
01
05
244
6
0
05
85
244
7
0
02
20
244
9ए
0
00
40
244
9बी
0
02
90
243
-
0
09
05
235
3
0
03
45
242
1
0
00
40
250
3ए
0
03
85
250
4
0
11
15
250
5
0
06
15
251
2
0
02
25
253
4
0
00
40
253
5
0
08
45
282
4
0
00
40
282
5
0
05
80
282
6
0
05
60
282
7
0
00
90
282
8
0
04
00
278
1ए
0
10
50
278
1बी
0
00
40
7738
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
255
2बी
0
00
40
275
4
0
10
10
276
1
0
05
15
276
2
0
06
35
276
3
0
04
45
270
1
0
01
85
270
2
0
10
70
270
4
0
02
35
272
3
0
10
80
272
4
0
00
55
46. तीjालम
278
1ए
0
02
60
278
1बी
0
03
40
255
1ए2
0
00
40
276
2ए
0
01
75
276
1ए1
0
00
55
276
1ए2
0
08
40
277
1
0
06
90
277
2
0
07
10
277
3
0
07
10
277
4
0
07
00
47. लाडाकारनै
112
1बी1
0
00
90
112
1बी2
0
16
05
148
4ए1
0
00
75
148
4ए2
0
01
65
148
2
0
11
50
148
6बी
0
01
30
148
6ए1
0
12
75
149
1ए
0
00
40
149
2ए
0
09
50
149
2बी
0
03
05
133
1ए
0
03
15
133
1बी
0
00
90
133
2ए
0
01
10
133
2बी
0
10
90
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7739
1
2
3
4
5
6
133
3ए
0
00
40
133
5ए
0
02
90
133
5बी
0
00
40
133
4ए
0
03
60
133
6ए
0
03
35
133
7
0
06
60
133
8सी1ए
0
01
45
133
8सी1बी
0
02
90
133
8सी2
0
06
85
133
8डी
0
06
15
147
1
0
04
50
147
2ए
0
07
10
147
2बी
0
00
40
146
2
0
01
45
146
3ए
0
08
65
146
3बी
0
07
30
143
1सी
0
00
40
143
2ए
0
01
95
143
2सी
0
22
00
143
2डी
0
01
70
143
3
0
02
80
58. कूडeपाdम
15
2ए1
0
00
40
15
2बी
0
06
90
15
2सी3ए
0
09
55
15
3बी2
0
00
40
59.से%पूंडी
1
2
0
19
20
1
1
0
05
85
12
2
0
00
40
12
3
0
02
30
15
-
0
01
50
14
6
0
03
25
14
7
0
06
65
14
8
0
05
25
26
-
0
03
75
7740
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
20
2बी
0
01
55
20
12ए2
0
04
80
20
12ए1
0
04
80
20
13बी
0
03
40
20
14ए
0
05
85
20
14सी
0
00
60
22
2ए
0
09
55
22
2बी
0
01
85
275
1ए
0
03
45
275
3ए1ए2बी
0
00
40
275
3ए1बी2
0
01
45
271
1बी
0
00
40
271
2ए
0
05
10
271
2बी
0
02
45
270
1सी1बी1/1
0
05
00
270
1सी1बी2बी
0
01
50
289
1
0
05
10
291
1
0
12
95
291
2
0
05
95
290
-
0
00
40
294
1
0
07
05
294
2
0
07
20
293
7
0
02
15
296
1ए
0
09
50
253
1बी3
0
11
10
253
3
0
01
45
253
2
0
01
15
252
2बी
0
01
50
251
2बी
0
11
65
251
1
0
00
80
245
2
0
03
20
245
3
0
06
75
243
2
0
00
90
244
2
0
04
45
244
1
0
00
40
244
4
0
01
70
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7741
1
2
3
4
5
6
244
3बी
0
03
10
244
3ए2ए
0
00
40
244
3ए2बी
0
01
30
200
4
0
01
45
200
3
0
05
75
200
2बी2
0
00
40
199
1ए
0
00
40
199
1डी
0
10
65
199
1ई
0
02
00
[फा. सं. आर-25011/46/2017-ओआर-I]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2017
S.O. 2343.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Ennore to Madurai Via Chengalpattu, Pondicherry(UT) and Trichy, a
pipeline should be laid in the State of Tamil Nadu 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 Shri
S.P.Madhusudhanan, Competent Authority, Land Acquisition Officer Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipeline
Projects, Plot No.14, Jayaprakash Street, V.G.P. Nagar, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur, TamilNadu – 602 001.
SCHEDULE
Taluk : Uthiramerur
District : Kancheepuram
State : Tamil Nadu
Name of the Village
Survey No.
Sub Division No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Meter
1
2
3
4
5
6
116. Kilakadi
150
1
0
07
20
141
2
0
07
00
140
8
0
19
80
140
7
0
00
40
7742
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
140
6
0
01
75
140
5
0
03
00
140
4
0
02
60
140
3
0
02
00
140
2
0
01
45
133
3
0
15
50
133
2
0
30
80
133
1
0
00
60
181
5
0
10
80
181
3
0
07
20
181
1
0
00
40
112
1
0
00
40
129
9
0
00
70
129
5
0
03
60
129
4
0
07
30
129
2
0
05
40
129
6
0
00
40
128
3
0
07
10
128
2
0
04
70
128
1
0
11
20
201
11
0
02
00
201
8
0
01
60
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7743
1
2
3
4
5
6
201
10
0
07
00
201
6
0
07
80
201
5
0
08
20
201
4
0
08
70
201
3
0
07
65
201
2
0
00
40
201
1
0
06
30
201
9
0
02
95
117. Pulipakkam
7
-
0
03
40
8
19
0
01
80
8
20
0
09
00
8
21
0
02
45
8
16
0
02
55
8
18
0
00
40
8
15
0
01
40
8
13
0
04
00
8
12
0
02
50
8
11
0
02
45
8
10B
0
01
70
8
1B
0
02
00
8
1A
0
15
60
151
1A5
0
01
65
151
3J
0
01
70
151
3H
0
01
45
7744
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
151
3I
0
01
55
151
3B
0
06
30
9
8
0
00
80
9
7
0
00
70
9
6
0
01
00
9
1
0
05
40
52
3B
0
04
00
52
3A
0
14
20
52
2
0
00
55
51
2A
0
22
00
51
1A
0
03
20
47
2
0
06
65
47
1
0
00
40
54
9
0
00
40
54
5
0
06
40
54
6
0
07
25
54
7C7
0
02
30
54
7C5
0
06
75
54
7B7
0
00
40
54
7C1E
0
01
20
54
7C1F
0
01
50
54
7C1G
0
00
55
54
7C1D
0
00
40
54
7C1A
0
00
85
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7745
1
2
3
4
5
6
46
1
0
04
00
118. Edaiyambudur
135
3
0
10
35
136
21
0
09
90
136
19
0
00
40
136
15A
0
13
70
136
12A
0
09
25
136
10
0
01
20
136
9A
0
01
15
136
6
0
03
60
136
5
0
06
45
136
8
0
01
40
136
7
0
00
60
136
3A
0
04
50
136
2
0
05
60
136
1
0
03
45
158
9
0
03
30
158
8
0
03
10
158
7
0
03
80
158
5
0
00
40
158
4
0
04
50
158
2
0
04
70
159
5
0
05
00
159
4
0
04
30
159
3C
0
02
40
7746
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
159
3B
0
02
20
159
3A
0
04
85
159
2
0
02
35
159
1
0
02
65
162
11
0
00
40
161
2C
0
00
90
161
2B
0
00
70
161
2A
0
01
20
161
1
0
05
35
160
11
0
05
40
160
10
0
04
40
160
9
0
03
75
160
8
0
03
40
160
7
0
02
95
165
1A
0
05
40
58
5
0
04
50
58
1B
0
01
70
58
1A
0
12
20
119. Kaithandalam
125
4
0
01
35
125
3
0
01
05
125
2
0
01
85
125
1
0
00
40
127
2
0
21
80
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7747
1
2
3
4
5
6
73. Paleswaram
146
7
0
11
70
147
1C1
0
02
80
147
1C2
0
01
50
147
2A
0
01
90
147
1A
0
01
50
147
1B
0
04
15
148
1A4B
0
04
15
148
1A4A
0
03
95
148
3B
0
04
50
148
3A
0
00
80
149
5
0
05
85
149
3C
0
02
10
149
4B
0
03
15
149
3A
0
00
40
149
3B
0
04
05
149
2A
0
00
40
149
2C
0
03
40
149
2B
0
02
80
149
1C
0
03
00
149
1B3
0
01
80
160
1H1
0
00
40
72. Vinnamangalam
117
15C
0
00
40
117
15A
0
02
75
117
16A
0
08
90
7748
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
117
18
0
06
30
117
19
0
18
70
117
41
0
06
55
117
42B
0
07
60
117
43B
0
07
25
117
44
0
05
60
117
45
0
03
60
117
46
0
03
60
117
47
0
05
00
117
28A
0
10
50
67. Alancheri
1
1C1
0
00
40
1
1C2
0
04
50
1
1C3
0
01
60
1
1B1
0
00
40
1
1B2
0
03
55
1
1B3
0
03
55
122B
-
0
37
80
122A
2A1
0
21
45
122A
2A2
0
00
40
114
1
0
77
40
114
2A
0
02
30
115
4
0
03
05
115
10
0
04
90
115
9
0
06
70
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7749
1
2
3
4
5
6
115
8
0
01
25
115
13
0
00
50
115
12
0
05
60
115
11
0
05
10
66. Sadachivakkam
1
3
0
02
50
129
1B
0
00
40
129
1A
0
07
80
117
4A
0
03
80
117
4B
0
01
80
117
5A
0
01
40
117
5B
0
06
20
117
3B
0
05
15
117
3C
0
00
90
117
6
0
00
45
117
2
0
08
65
119
2
0
04
05
118
1
0
09
00
118
2
0
09
75
65. Thottanaval
22
5
0
04
15
22
4
0
02
35
22
3
0
03
40
22
1B
0
01
30
22
2
0
01
00
7750
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
23
2
0
02
00
23
4A
0
00
70
23
3D
0
05
00
23
3C1
0
00
60
23
3C2
0
03
65
23
3E
0
00
75
23
3B2
0
00
40
23
3A
0
01
00
24
2A
0
00
40
24
1A
0
04
20
25
2
0
00
90
28
6
0
02
25
28
5
0
06
00
28
4
0
02
50
28
2
0
03
75
29
2
0
03
40
42
-
0
04
65
41
2
0
07
10
41
1C
0
00
40
41
3
0
01
80
40
4
0
04
00
40
3B
0
06
85
40
5
0
05
15
46
1
0
01
50
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7751
1
2
3
4
5
6
47
1B
0
05
75
47
2
0
06
10
47
1A
0
06
45
49
2
0
02
20
49
1
0
03
20
49
3
0
04
50
50
1
0
02
40
64. Kadalmangalam
103
1B
0
00
80
103
1A
0
03
30
107
-
0
09
20
109
-
0
02
40
45. Malliyankaranai-B
1168
3
0
05
15
1168
2
0
01
40
1168
1
0
07
00
1169
3
0
06
85
1169
1
0
00
45
1101
2
0
00
40
1101
5B
0
05
50
1100
5
0
05
15
1098
2A
0
01
75
1098
2B
0
02
80
1098
2C
0
00
75
1098
2D
0
01
20
7752
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
1098
2E
0
02
00
1097
2
0
08
20
1094
2C2
0
00
40
1094
2B3
0
01
00
1094
2B2
0
01
00
1094
2B1
0
05
05
1094
2A
0
03
50
1094
1
0
07
20
1094
5
0
15
00
694
1
0
01
95
694
2
0
08
30
684
2
0
11
90
695
4B
0
00
50
45. Malliyankaranai-A
600
1
0
02
90
591
1
0
09
00
591
2
0
10
65
594
1
0
09
75
594
2A1
0
08
70
593
3
-
02
50
595
2B
0
00
40
595
2A
0
07
35
582
4B
0
06
60
582
6
0
00
70
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7753
1
2
3
4
5
6
582
7
0
04
70
582
5B
0
07
20
596
1B
0
01
00
596
1A
0
04
70
569
1A
0
00
45
571
1C
0
09
75
571
3A1
0
03
05
571
3A2
0
01
65
571
3A3
0
07
40
571
3B2
0
08
35
573
-
0
00
90
572
-
0
00
40
511
1
0
02
00
511
2
0
03
45
512
1
0
06
10
512
2
0
00
60
513
1
0
01
45
510
-
0
04
85
514
1
0
02
75
509
-
0
04
50
233
-
0
09
55
206
3A
0
03
15
206
3B
0
01
90
7754
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
221
1A
0
00
40
221
1B1
0
04
15
221
1B2
0
06
30
221
1B3
0
04
85
221
1B4
0
01
40
220
-
0
11
90
222
2B
0
06
80
222
2A
0
02
45
217
1
0
09
55
217
2
0
13
15
216
1
0
02
70
216
2
0
02
25
216
3A
0
00
55
216
3B
0
00
55
225
5
0
01
35
225
6
0
07
30
225
4B
0
00
40
184
-
0
04
00
183
2C1
0
04
00
185
1A
0
02
45
185
1B
0
04
40
182
1B
0
00
40
182
2
0
00
40
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7755
1
2
3
4
5
6
182
1C
0
06
00
182
3
0
00
40
167
3A
0
09
00
167
2A2
0
04
00
167
2A1
0
00
40
168
2B
0
01
90
168
2A
0
01
35
168
1A
0
03
90
168
1B
0
00
50
168
1C
0
00
75
168
1D
0
00
55
165
1
0
00
70
165
2
0
02
55
165
3
0
00
40
160
4A2
0
01
70
160
4A1
0
04
55
160
5B
0
04
85
160
8A
0
00
40
160
8B
0
04
05
160
8C
0
00
80
160
12
0
01
20
160
6B
0
10
20
161
1
0
04
55
7756
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
161
2A
0
02
00
161
2B
0
02
55
162
-
0
04
50
112
1
0
05
00
112
3A1
0
01
80
112
2A
0
05
65
112
2B
0
05
10
111
2
0
00
45
111
1
0
02
20
113
3B
0
02
10
113
4
0
05
00
113
3A
0
03
90
114
-
0
10
50
131
3
0
01
50
131
2
0
11
00
132
1
0
05
75
132
2
0
06
30
102
2A1
0
00
40
102
1C
0
02
70
102
1B
0
05
15
102
1A
0
05
60
101
1
0
03
70
101
2
0
00
60
100
-
0
24
80
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7757
1
2
3
4
5
6
97
-
0
15
60
98
-
0
00
75
83
1
0
07
20
90
1
0
02
20
84
2B
0
14
75
84
2C
0
07
10
84
3
0
01
30
89
-
0
09
40
88
2
0
06
15
40. Thalavarampoondi
9
1
0
07
00
9
2
0
08
30
24
1B1
0
03
20
24
1B2
0
00
90
24
1B3
0
05
20
29
1
0
09
80
29
3A2
0
00
40
29
3A1
0
05
40
28
1
0
01
70
39. Puliyur
39
1A
0
03
55
39
1B
0
00
90
39
1D
0
00
40
39
1C
0
02
50
38
1B
0
00
40
7758
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
38
1C
0
00
80
38
1D
0
01
65
38
1E
0
03
65
38
2A
0
06
10
38
2B
0
00
40
41
1
0
01
15
41
2B
0
00
55
41
2A
0
01
90
42
1
0
00
40
42
2
0
09
80
44
4B
0
08
10
44
3
0
06
60
44
2
0
05
60
32
2
0
07
15
46
1A
0
03
60
46
1B
0
02
10
46
1C
0
02
20
47
1
0
08
85
56
1A
0
07
40
56
2
0
07
65
57
1A
0
07
00
57
1B
0
00
90
58
-
0
09
00
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7759
1
2
3
4
5
6
128
1
0
05
65
128
2
0
07
70
127
2
0
01
45
129
4
0
05
75
130
1
0
07
65
131
2
0
01
50
140
1A
0
14
05
140
1B
0
06
60
140
3A
0
04
70
140
3B
0
14
60
140
3C1
0
03
60
140
3C2
0
00
40
139
1
0
01
75
141
1A1
0
06
00
141
1A2
0
07
75
141
1B
0
00
40
142
1
0
03
55
142
2A
0
01
30
142
2B
0
01
10
143
1
0
00
65
143
2
0
00
75
143
3
0
03
65
144
1A
0
02
80
144
1B
0
04
10
7760
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
157
1C
0
05
35
157
3
0
00
40
146
-
0
06
05
147
-
0
03
20
148
1
0
03
60
148
2
0
17
30
149
1
0
08
10
150
1A
0
04
75
150
1B
0
04
85
150
2
0
02
30
151
-
0
06
30
36. Kammalampoondi
28
1
0
03
70
27
2
0
10
50
26
-
0
01
70
25
2B6C
0
09
70
25
2B6D
0
02
90
25
2B4
0
03
80
25
1B
0
00
40
25
1A
0
01
30
25
2B5
0
11
70
24
1
0
08
70
24
4
0
00
70
24
5
0
07
20
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7761
1
2
3
4
5
6
24
6
0
06
90
35
1B
0
01
70
22
1
0
11
35
81
5A
0
05
40
81
5B2
0
08
30
81
5B3
0
07
05
84
1
0
05
85
84
2A
0
05
05
84
2B
0
03
80
65
6A
0
03
00
65
6B
0
00
60
65
9
0
07
20
65
4
0
01
60
65
8A
0
05
00
65
8C
0
05
75
59
1
0
01
75
59
2
0
01
60
58
1A
0
04
20
58
1B
0
03
55
58
2
0
04
50
57
2
0
03
20
57
3
0
06
40
57
1F
0
07
85
7762
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
119
1C
0
03
80
119
1D
0
03
95
119
1E
0
06
45
119
6A
0
00
40
119
6B
0
06
30
119
6C
0
00
40
128
1
0
16
20
129
2B2
0
00
40
129
2B3
0
11
60
129
2C2
0
09
50
129
2C1
0
03
10
130
1A
0
02
50
130
1B
0
02
20
130
2A
0
02
75
130
2B
0
06
60
130
2C
0
00
40
131
-
0
01
25
133
4
0
05
60
132
2B1
0
05
05
318
1
0
29
60
318
2
0
00
40
320
1B
0
12
50
320
2B
0
12
00
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7763
1
2
3
4
5
6
341
1B1
0
07
90
341
2B
0
02
80
341
2C
0
04
45
340
2B1
0
18
00
340
2B2
0
04
20
340
5
0
14
70
344
3A2A
0
03
10
344
3A3A
0
00
40
344
3C1D2
0
06
80
344
3C1C
0
07
60
349
3A
0
00
50
349
3B
0
05
70
349
3C
0
04
20
349
3D
0
12
65
349
10
0
01
30
349
6Q
0
04
05
349
6R
0
04
70
349
9A
0
00
80
350
2
0
14
45
350
4
0
03
70
Taluk : Maduranthagam
District : Kancheepuram
State : Tamil Nadu
Name of the Village
Survey No.
Sub Division No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Meter
7764
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
45. Kadambur
156
2
0
39
50
158
1C2
0
34
15
158
1E2
0
01
55
158
2
0
04
40
158
3B2
0
02
15
159
1A1B
0
08
60
159
1A2
0
05
30
164
2
0
01
50
165
1
0
08
80
165
2
0
06
90
165
3
0
00
40
54.Vaippanai
313
4
0
02
70
313
5
0
19
10
312
1
0
09
05
312
4
0
01
50
312
5
0
00
40
310
1A
0
00
40
310
1B2
0
00
40
310
1B1
0
12
10
201
-
0
08
40
200
1
0
00
80
202
1A
0
08
40
202
1B
0
03
20
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7765
1
2
3
4
5
6
202
3F
0
00
40
307
2B
0
05
75
307
3
0
04
15
306
1B
0
06
00
224
7
0
13
80
224
5
0
04
20
224
4
0
00
40
225
-
0
01
35
226
3
0
01
65
230
2A
0
04
75
230
2B
0
02
60
230
1
0
03
55
229
1
0
01
85
229
2
0
04
40
231
-
0
00
40
228
6
0
01
60
244
1
0
01
75
244
2
0
06
10
244
3
0
00
75
244
5
0
01
05
244
6
0
05
85
244
7
0
02
20
244
9A
0
00
40
7766
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
244
9B
0
02
90
243
-
0
09
05
235
3
0
03
45
242
1
0
00
40
250
3A
0
03
85
250
4
0
11
15
250
5
0
06
15
251
2
0
02
25
253
4
0
00
40
253
5
0
08
45
282
4
0
00
40
282
5
0
05
80
282
6
0
05
60
282
7
0
00
90
282
8
0
04
00
278
1A
0
10
50
278
1B
0
00
40
255
2B
0
00
40
275
4
0
10
10
276
1
0
05
15
276
2
0
06
35
276
3
0
04
45
270
1
0
01
85
270
2
0
10
70
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7767
1
2
3
4
5
6
270
4
0
02
35
272
3
0
10
80
272
4
0
00
55
46. Thittalam
278
1A
0
02
60
278
1B
0
03
40
255
1A2
0
00
40
276
2A
0
01
75
276
1A1
0
00
55
276
1A2
0
08
40
277
1
0
06
90
277
2
0
07
10
277
3
0
07
10
277
4
0
07
00
47. Ladakaranai
112
1B1
0
00
90
112
1B2
0
16
05
148
4A1
0
00
75
148
4A2
0
01
65
148
2
0
11
50
148
6B
0
01
30
148
6A1
0
12
75
149
1A
0
00
40
149
2A
0
09
50
149
2B
0
03
05
7768
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
133
1A
0
03
15
133
1B
0
00
90
133
2A
0
01
10
133
2B
0
10
90
133
3A
0
00
40
133
5A
0
02
90
133
5B
0
00
40
133
4A
0
03
60
133
6A
0
03
35
133
7
0
06
60
133
8C1A
0
01
45
133
8C1B
0
02
90
133
8C2
0
06
85
133
8D
0
06
15
147
1
0
04
50
147
2A
0
07
10
147
2B
0
00
40
146
2
0
01
45
146
3A
0
08
65
146
3B
0
07
30
143
1C
0
00
40
143
2A
0
01
95
143
2C
0
22
00
143
2D
0
01
70
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7769
1
2
3
4
5
6
143
3
0
02
80
58. Kudapakkam
15
2A1
0
00
40
15
2B
0
06
90
15
2C3A
0
09
55
15
3B2
0
00
40
59. Sempundi
1
2
0
19
20
1
1
0
05
85
12
2
0
00
40
12
3
0
02
30
15
-
0
01
50
14
6
0
03
25
14
7
0
06
65
14
8
0
05
25
26
-
0
03
75
20
2B
0
01
55
20
12A2
0
04
80
20
12A1
0
04
80
20
13B
0
03
40
20
14A
0
05
85
20
14C
0
00
60
22
2A
0
09
55
22
2B
0
01
85
7770
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
275
1A
0
03
45
275
3A1A2B
0
00
40
275
3A1B2
0
01
45
271
1B
0
00
40
271
2A
0
05
10
271
2B
0
02
45
270
1C1B1/1
0
05
00
270
1C1B2B
0
01
50
289
1
0
05
10
291
1
0
12
95
291
2
0
05
95
290
-
0
00
40
294
1
0
07
05
294
2
0
07
20
293
7
0
02
15
296
1A
0
09
50
253
1B3
0
11
10
253
3
0
01
45
253
2
0
01
15
252
2B
0
01
50
251
2B
0
11
65
251
1
0
00
80
245
2
0
03
20
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7771
1
2
3
4
5
6
245
3
0
06
75
243
2
0
00
90
244
2
0
04
45
244
1
0
00
40
244
4
0
01
70
244
3B
0
03
10
244
3A2A
0
00
40
244
3A2B
0
01
30
200
4
0
01
45
200
3
0
05
75
200
2B2
0
00
40
199
1A
0
00
40
199
1D
0
10
65
199
1E
0
02
00
[F. No. R-25011/46/2017-OR-I]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई Jद>ली, 29 िसत% बर ,2017
का
का
का
का.आ.
.
.
. 2344
2344
2344
2344.—केीय सरकार, पेEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म! उपयोग के अिधकार का अज(न)
अिधिनयम 1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम! इसके पAात उ^ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 क उप-धारा (1)
भारत के राजप$, (असाधारण) के अधीन जारी क गयी भारत सरकार के पेEोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मं$ालय क
अिधसूचना का. आ 377(अ), 03 फरवरी, 2015 तथा का. आ 3057(अ), 21
िसतंबर, 2016 6ारा तिमलनाडु राRय म!
एZूर से मदुरै तक वाया च!गलप[टु, ि$ची, पांिडचेरी एलपीजी प.रवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपSरेशन िलिमटेड के 6ारा
एक पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए उ^ अिधसूचना से संलp अनुसूची म! िविनqदr भूिम म! उपयोग के अिधकार का
अज(न के अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी।
और उ^ अिधसूचना क ितयाँ जनता को तारीख 12.02.2015 को उपल\ करा दी गई थी।
और उ^ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उप-धारा (1) के अनुसरण म! स8म ािधकारी ने केीय सरकार को अपनी
.रपोट( दे दी है।
7772
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
और केीय सरकार का उ^ .रपोट( पर िवचार करने के पAात् यह समाधान हो गया है Jक इस अिधसूचना से
संलp अनुसूची म! िविनqदr भूिम म! उपयोग के अिधकार का अज(न Jकया जाना चािहए।
अत: अब, केीय सरकार,उ^ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उप-धारा (1) 6ारा द_ शि^य का योग करते `ए
यह घोषणा करती है Jक इस अिधसूचना के संलp अनुसूची म! िविनqदr उ^ भूिम म! पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए उपयोग
का अिधकार अ]जत Jकया जाता है।
यह और Jक केीय सरकार, उ^ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उप-धारा(4) 6ारा द_ शि^य का योग करते `ए
यह िनदgश देती है Jक उ^ भूिम के उपयोग का अिधकार इस अिधसूचना के काशन क तारीख से केीय सरकार म! िनिहत
होने क बजाए, सभी िव>लंगम से मु^ हो कर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपSरेशन िलिमटेड म! िनिहत होगा।
पेEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन Jकसी भी 8ितपू]त के िलए इंिडयन
ऑयल कॉपSरेशन िलिमटेड पूण(तया उ_रदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से स%बिधत Jकसी भी मामले पर केीय सरकार के
िवf\ कोई वाद दावा या कानूनी काय(वाही नहt हो सकेगी।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
तालुका : िवरिलमलै
िजला : पुडुकोई
राय : तिमलनाडु
गाँव का नाम
सवण सं.-
खड सं.
उप खड सं.
ेफल
हैकटेर
एयर
वग" मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
36. पेरंबुर
4
0
11
70
39
22
0
00
60
39
20
0
00
40
39
21
0
11
75
39
15
0
04
90
39
14बी
0
01
40
39
14ए
0
03
05
39
7
0
17
65
38
4
0
17
00
38
1
0
14
50
7
2
0
23
80
8
6
0
04
20
8
5
0
08
65
8
16
0
03
80
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7773
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
15
0
04
30
8
14
0
04
30
8
4
0
03
50
8
2
0
01
00
8
9
0
08
20
8
1
0
00
40
9
6
0
04
30
9
4
0
01
70
9
3
0
01
00
9
1
0
19
10
20
2
0
00
40
20
1
0
01
75
11
2
0
09
30
11
1
0
19
25
12
7
0
01
00
12
6
0
14
30
12
5
0
00
60
12
4
0
09
40
12
3
0
00
40
12
2
0
08
20
12
1
0
08
80
14
12
0
01
95
14
11बी
0
00
40
14
5
0
02
00
14
6
0
05
70
14
7
0
05
40
14
8
0
08
65
472
2ई
0
12
10
472
2डी
0
09
50
472
2सी
0
00
60
470
1बी
0
12
25
16
6
0
15
30
16
5एफ
0
06
00
7774
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
16
5ई
0
00
55
16
1
0
00
50
449
1
0
22
50
437
13
0
01
00
437
6बी
0
21
00
437
6ए
0
01
70
437
9
0
03
90
446
2
0
00
45
426
0
14
50
425
4
0
07
40
425
3
0
03
10
427
1बी
0
00
40
427
1ए
0
03
25
424
8
0
00
40
424
9
0
08
00
424
10
0
08
30
424
11
0
10
80
373
2
0
05
30
372
1
0
01
80
372
2
0
00
40
372
3
0
02
80
372
4
0
02
80
372
5
0
02
20
372
6
0
00
70
375
7
0
03
20
375
2ए
0
03
90
375
3बी
0
01
90
375
2बी
0
07
40
290
10
0
00
40
377
1
0
03
65
377
3बी1
0
01
10
377
3बी2
0
03
20
376
1
0
06
50
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7775
1
2
3
4
5
6
376
5
0
00
80
378
1
0
13
30
378
2
0
01
00
281
7
0
22
00
289
2ए
0
00
40
289
2बी
0
04
80
289
1ए
0
02
70
282
1
0
00
40
282
3
0
11
00
282
4
0
03
00
282
5
0
02
80
286
3
0
02
90
286
2
0
08
65
286
1
0
02
00
286
4
0
07
40
284
1
0
04
05
284
2
0
00
40
285
1
0
00
40
272
1
0
02
80
272
3
0
17
70
35. सुरीयूर
56
6
0
04
70
56
5ए
0
00
70
56
5बी
0
09
00
56
5सी
0
00
55
56
2बी
0
02
20
57
4ए
0
00
45
55
3
0
09
10
55
1बी
0
04
40
55
1ए
0
07
60
54
3बी
0
01
00
25
12
0
12
80
25
11बी
0
00
40
7776
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
27
8ई
0
01
10
27
8डी
0
06
30
27
8बी
0
10
10
27
8ए
0
00
70
27
2ए
0
09
00
29
53ए
0
04
35
29
52
0
07
85
29
49
0
00
85
29
41
0
13
35
29
42
0
00
40
29
40ए
0
03
80
29
39बी
0
08
30
29
39ए
0
00
75
29
37
0
05
05
29
36
0
05
20
29
32
0
05
80
29
34ए
0
04
70
29
31बी
0
05
00
23
1ए
0
00
40
23
1बी
0
08
30
22
9
0
01
00
22
8
0
10
50
22
7
0
02
10
30
1
0
00
40
31
22
0
06
30
31
21
0
02
25
31
14ई
0
05
25
31
14डी
0
00
40
31
14सी
0
07
25
31
14बी
0
05
10
31
14ए
0
00
40
31
12
0
14
80
8
1जे
0
07
50
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7777
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
1के
0
05
50
6
4ए2
0
16
20
6
4ए1
0
00
80
5
1ए
0
09
65
4
3बी1
0
07
40
4
2बी
0
01
60
4
1बी
0
09
40
30. कलूर
185
39ए
0
02
00
185
38
0
04
70
185
37
0
05
40
185
36
0
03
45
185
17
0
00
50
185
18
0
07
10
185
19ए
0
01
15
185
14
0
07
60
185
12
0
03
00
128
38
0
12
25
129
6ई
0
01
60
129
6डी
0
08
45
129
6सी
0
03
30
129
6बी
0
08
00
129
6ए
0
03
65
141
3
0
04
75
141
2
0
04
75
142
3
0
09
25
142
2बी
0
04
45
142
2ए
0
04
00
152
5
0
00
55
144
4
0
06
05
144
22
0
01
30
144
23
0
07
60
144
20
0
00
75
7778
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
144
19ए
0
01
25
144
19बी
0
03
70
144
16ए
0
04
00
144
2बी
0
03
70
144
2ए
0
01
75
144
1
0
03
00
145
3
0
02
65
145
2
0
03
25
136
36बी
0
03
00
136
36ए
0
00
40
136
34
0
00
40
136
33
0
00
40
150
2
0
03
50
148
1
0
15
30
81
2
0
09
55
81
1
0
00
90
81
4सी
0
02
70
93
6
0
10
20
93
4
0
03
80
93
1
0
10
10
92
10ए
0
05
00
92
9ए
0
03
10
92
8
0
02
50
92
7
0
14
40
94
1ई
0
02
00
94
1सी
0
09
70
94
1ए
0
08
70
95
8ई
0
06
15
95
8डी
0
05
80
95
8बी
0
00
60
96
10
0
12
80
96
11सी1
0
08
90
96
11सी2
0
00
50
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7779
1
2
3
4
5
6
96
11बी
0
02
00
96
24
0
08
00
96
25
0
04
95
96
26
0
04
30
96
28
0
04
15
96
29
0
04
90
48
0
00
65
47
25
0
02
10
47
20
0
09
15
47
19
0
02
70
47
8
0
09
50
47
7बी
0
03
10
47
7ए
0
01
10
47
6
0
04
25
47
5
0
03
20
47
4
0
03
00
47
3
0
00
40
46
5ए
0
01
85
46
4बी
0
02
90
46
4ए
0
04
00
46
3
0
07
20
46
1डी
0
02
15
46
1सी
0
01
35
45
5
0
02
90
36
1डी
0
01
70
36
1सी
0
05
50
36
1ए
0
10
00
38
7
0
04
90
38
6
0
04
90
38
5बी
0
02
90
38
5ए
0
02
55
38
4बी
0
06
15
38
3बी
0
04
15
7780
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
38
2बी
0
04
50
38
1
0
04
35
39
4बी
0
13
50
39
1सी
0
05
80
39
1बी
0
06
70
40
3
0
02
90
40
2सी
0
17
55
40
2बी
0
07
20
31. मेलप$छकुडी
284
1ए
0
07
00
284
1बी2
0
04
05
284
2सी
0
16
40
284
2बी
0
14
05
284
3
0
04
70
283
5ए
0
04
00
283
6सी
0
05
65
283
6बी
0
00
40
283
6डी
0
05
40
283
7ए
0
04
50
283
7बी
0
03
00
283
6ई
0
02
20
283
6एफ
0
06
40
283
6जी
0
09
40
283
8
0
00
75
283
10
0
02
40
303
1
0
14
80
303
2ए
0
10
20
303
2बी
0
04
45
304
1जे
0
04
70
304
1एल
0
01
00
304
1के
0
05
00
173
1
0
01
50
173
4
0
05
70
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7781
1
2
3
4
5
6
173
5
0
01
10
173
9
0
06
50
174
8ए
0
11
00
174
8बी
0
02
00
171
4
0
13
30
171
5
0
07
40
170
3ए
0
01
35
170
4
0
04
45
167
1
0
05
60
167
2
0
08
30
167
3
0
03
00
167
5
0
12
80
164
1
0
07
70
164
2
0
00
40
164
4
0
08
20
164
5ए
0
05
40
159
1
0
01
80
159
2
0
00
95
159
3
0
00
40
159
4
0
04
30
159
5
0
01
70
159
6
0
00
85
159
8ए
0
00
40
159
12
0
00
50
159
13
0
05
25
159
14
0
00
40
158
0
06
50
157
2
0
00
60
156
1
0
05
00
148
2
0
05
40
148
5बी
0
01
20
148
6
0
05
50
148
7
0
00
40
7782
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
147
3
0
03
80
147
8ए
0
05
20
143
1
0
08
40
143
2
0
02
50
143
3ए
0
01
30
16. िवामपी
34
4ए
0
08
30
34
3
0
03
40
1
0
36
70
4
4बी
0
01
20
4
6बी
0
13
00
4
6ए
0
00
80
4
5
0
05
00
4
2
0
14
20
7
2के
0
05
80
7
2जे
0
02
00
7
2एच
0
06
00
7
2एफ
0
08
00
7
2डी
0
10
30
7
2सी
0
08
10
10
8ए1
0
20
10
10
7
0
00
60
12
1
0
07
40
26
1
0
22
80
13
2सी
0
01
35
16
1
0
01
00
15
2
0
34
00
15
1
0
10
60
80
2बी2
0
01
00
80
2बी1
0
09
55
80
2ए
0
03
90
80
1बी
0
00
60
[फा. सं. आर-25011/10/2014-ओआर-I/33247]
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7783
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2017
S.O. 2344.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas number S.O.No.377(E) dated: 03.02.2015 and S.O.No.3057(E) dated: 21.09.2016 issued under sub section
(1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962),
(herein after referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in
the Lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the
transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Ennore to Madurai (Via) Chengalpattu, Pondicherry (UT) Trichy in
the State of Tamil Nadu, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, for implementing the Ennore
– Trichy – Madurai Pipeline Project.
And whereas, copies of the said notifications were made available to the public from 12.02.2015.
And whereas, the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act has
submitted his report to the Central Government;
And whereas, the Central Government, after considering the said report is satisfied that the Right of User in
the Land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the said Land specified in the Schedule appended to this
notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said Land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government,
vest from the date of publication of this declaration, in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the
P & M P Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter
relating to pipeline.
SCHEDULE
Taluk : Viralimalai
District : Pudukottai
State : Tamil Nadu
Name of the Village
Survey No.
Sub Division
No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Meter
1
2
3
4
5
6
36. Perambur
4
0
11
70
39
22
0
00
60
39
20
0
00
40
39
21
0
11
75
39
15
0
04
90
39
14B
0
01
40
39
14A
0
03
05
39
7
0
17
65
38
4
0
17
00
38
1
0
14
50
7784
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
0
23
80
8
6
0
04
20
8
5
0
08
65
8
16
0
03
80
8
15
0
04
30
8
14
0
04
30
8
4
0
03
50
8
2
0
01
00
8
9
0
08
20
8
1
0
00
40
9
6
0
04
30
9
4
0
01
70
9
3
0
01
00
9
1
0
19
10
20
2
0
00
40
20
1
0
01
75
11
2
0
09
30
11
1
0
19
25
12
7
0
01
00
12
6
0
14
30
12
5
0
00
60
12
4
0
09
40
12
3
0
00
40
12
2
0
08
20
12
1
0
08
80
14
12
0
01
95
14
11B
0
00
40
14
5
0
02
00
14
6
0
05
70
14
7
0
05
40
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7785
1
2
3
4
5
6
14
8
0
08
65
472
2E
0
12
10
472
2D
0
09
50
472
2C
0
00
60
470
1B
0
12
25
16
6
0
15
30
16
5F
0
06
00
16
5E
0
00
55
16
1
0
00
50
449
1
0
22
50
437
13
0
01
00
437
6B
0
21
00
437
6A
0
01
70
437
9
0
03
90
446
2
0
00
45
426
0
14
50
425
4
0
07
40
425
3
0
03
10
427
1B
0
00
40
427
1A
0
03
25
424
8
0
00
40
424
9
0
08
00
424
10
0
08
30
424
11
0
10
80
373
2
0
05
30
372
1
0
01
80
372
2
0
00
40
372
3
0
02
80
372
4
0
02
80
372
5
0
02
20
7786
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
372
6
0
00
70
375
7
0
03
20
375
2A
0
03
90
375
3B
0
01
90
375
2B
0
07
40
290
10
0
00
40
377
1
0
03
65
377
3B1
0
01
10
377
3B2
0
03
20
376
1
0
06
50
376
5
0
00
80
378
1
0
13
30
378
2
0
01
00
281
7
0
22
00
289
2A
0
00
40
289
2B
0
04
80
289
1A
0
02
70
282
1
0
00
40
282
3
0
11
00
282
4
0
03
00
282
5
0
02
80
286
3
0
02
90
286
2
0
08
65
286
1
0
02
00
286
4
0
07
40
284
1
0
04
05
284
2
0
00
40
285
1
0
00
40
272
1
0
02
80
272
3
0
17
70
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7787
1
2
3
4
5
6
35.Suriyur
56
6
0
04
70
56
5A
0
00
70
56
5B
0
09
00
56
5C
0
00
55
56
2B
0
02
20
57
4A
0
00
45
55
3
0
09
10
55
1B
0
04
40
55
1A
0
07
60
54
3B
0
01
00
25
12
0
12
80
25
11B
0
00
40
27
8E
0
01
10
27
8D
0
06
30
27
8B
0
10
10
27
8A
0
00
70
27
2A
0
09
00
29
53A
0
04
35
29
52
0
07
85
29
49
0
00
85
29
41
0
13
35
29
42
0
00
40
29
40A
0
03
80
29
39B
0
08
30
29
39A
0
00
75
29
37
0
05
05
29
36
0
05
20
29
32
0
05
80
29
34A
0
04
70
7788
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
29
31B
0
05
00
23
1A
0
00
40
23
1B
0
08
30
22
9
0
01
00
22
8
0
10
50
22
7
0
02
10
30
1
0
00
40
31
22
0
06
30
31
21
0
02
25
31
14E
0
05
25
31
14D
0
00
40
31
14C
0
07
25
31
14B
0
05
10
31
14A
0
00
40
31
12
0
14
80
8
1J
0
07
50
8
1K
0
05
50
6
4A2
0
16
20
6
4A1
0
00
80
5
1A
0
09
65
4
3B1
0
07
40
4
2B
0
01
60
4
1B
0
09
40
30. Kattalur
185
39A
0
02
00
185
38
0
04
70
185
37
0
05
40
185
36
0
03
45
185
17
0
00
50
185
18
0
07
10
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7789
1
2
3
4
5
6
185
19A
0
01
15
185
14
0
07
60
185
12
0
03
00
128
38
0
12
25
129
6E
0
01
60
129
6D
0
08
45
129
6C
0
03
30
129
6B
0
08
00
129
6A
0
03
65
141
3
0
04
75
141
2
0
04
75
142
3
0
09
25
142
2B
0
04
45
142
2A
0
04
00
152
5
0
00
55
144
4
0
06
05
144
22
0
01
30
144
23
0
07
60
144
20
0
00
75
144
19A
0
01
25
144
19B
0
03
70
144
16A
0
04
00
144
2B
0
03
70
144
2A
0
01
75
144
1
0
03
00
145
3
0
02
65
145
2
0
03
25
136
36B
0
03
00
136
36A
0
00
40
136
34
0
00
40
7790
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
136
33
0
00
40
150
2
0
03
50
148
1
0
15
30
81
2
0
09
55
81
1
0
00
90
81
4C
0
02
70
93
6
0
10
20
93
4
0
03
80
93
1
0
10
10
92
10A
0
05
00
92
9A
0
03
10
92
8
0
02
50
92
7
0
14
40
94
1E
0
02
00
94
1C
0
09
70
94
1A
0
08
70
95
8E
0
06
15
95
8D
0
05
80
95
8B
0
00
60
96
10
0
12
80
96
11C1
0
08
90
96
11C2
0
00
50
96
11B
0
02
00
96
24
0
08
00
96
25
0
04
95
96
26
0
04
30
96
28
0
04
15
96
29
0
04
90
48
0
00
65
47
25
0
02
10
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7791
1
2
3
4
5
6
47
20
0
09
15
47
19
0
02
70
47
8
0
09
50
47
7B
0
03
10
47
7A
0
01
10
47
6
0
04
25
47
5
0
03
20
47
4
0
03
00
47
3
0
00
40
46
5A
0
01
85
46
4B
0
02
90
46
4A
0
04
00
46
3
0
07
20
46
1D
0
02
15
46
1C
0
01
35
45
5
0
02
90
36
1D
0
01
70
36
1C
0
05
50
36
1A
0
10
00
38
7
0
04
90
38
6
0
04
90
38
5B
0
02
90
38
5A
0
02
55
38
4B
0
06
15
38
3B
0
04
15
38
2B
0
04
50
38
1
0
04
35
39
4B
0
13
50
39
1C
0
05
80
39
1B
0
06
70
7792
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
40
3
0
02
90
40
2C
0
17
55
40
2B
0
07
20
31. Melapachchakudi
284
1A
0
07
00
284
1B2
0
04
05
284
2C
0
16
40
284
2B
0
14
05
284
3
0
04
70
283
5A
0
04
00
283
6C
0
05
65
283
6B
0
00
40
283
6D
0
05
40
283
7A
0
04
50
283
7B
0
03
00
283
6E
0
02
20
283
6F
0
06
40
283
6G
0
09
40
283
8
0
00
75
283
10
0
02
40
303
1
0
14
80
303
2A
0
10
20
303
2B
0
04
45
304
1J
0
04
70
304
1L
0
01
00
304
1K
0
05
00
173
1
0
01
50
173
4
0
05
70
173
5
0
01
10
173
9
0
06
50
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7793
1
2
3
4
5
6
174
8A
0
11
00
174
8B
0
02
00
171
4
0
13
30
171
5
0
07
40
170
3A
0
01
35
170
4
0
04
45
167
1
0
05
60
167
2
0
08
30
167
3
0
03
00
167
5
0
12
80
164
1
0
07
70
164
2
0
00
40
164
4
0
08
20
164
5A
0
05
40
159
1
0
01
80
159
2
0
00
95
159
3
0
00
40
159
4
0
04
30
159
5
0
01
70
159
6
0
00
85
159
8A
0
00
40
159
12
0
00
50
159
13
0
05
25
159
14
0
00
40
158
0
06
50
157
2
0
00
60
156
1
0
05
00
148
2
0
05
40
148
5B
0
01
20
148
6
0
05
50
7794
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
148
7
0
00
40
147
3
0
03
80
147
8A
0
05
20
143
1
0
08
40
143
2
0
02
50
143
3A
0
01
30
16.Vittamapatti
34
4A
0
08
30
34
3
0
03
40
1
0
36
70
4
4B
0
01
20
4
6B
0
13
00
4
6A
0
00
80
4
5
0
05
00
4
2
0
14
20
7
2K
0
05
80
7
2J
0
02
00
7
2H
0
06
00
7
2F
0
08
00
7
2D
0
10
30
7
2C
0
08
10
10
8A1
0
20
10
10
7
0
00
60
12
1
0
07
40
26
1
0
22
80
13
2C
0
01
35
16
1
0
01
00
15
2
0
34
00
15
1
0
10
60
80
2B2
0
01
00
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7795
1
2
3
4
5
6
80
2B1
0
09
55
80
2A
0
03
90
80
1B
0
00
60
[F. No. R-25011/10/2014-OR-I/33247]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई Jद>ली, 29 िसत% बर, 2017
का.
का.
का.
का.आ. . . . 2345
2345
2345
2345.—केीय सरकार, पेEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म! उपयोग के अिधकार का अज(न)
अिधिनयम 1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम! इसके पAात उ^ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 क उप-धारा (1)
भारत के राजप$, (असाधारण) के अधीन जारी क गयी भारत सरकार के पेEोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मं$ालय क
अिधसूचना का. आ. 3190(अ), 06 अ^ूबर 2016, 6ारा तिमलनाडु राRय म! एZूर से मदुरै तक वाया च!गलप[टु-पांिडचेरी
ि$ची एलपीजी प.रवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपSरेशन िलिमटेड के 6ारा एक पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए
उ^ अिधसूचना से संलp अनुसूची म! िविनqदr भूिम म! उपयोग के अिधकार का अज(न के अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी।
और उ^ आिधसूचना क ितयाँ जनता को तारीख 25.10.2016 को उपल\ करा दी गई थी।
और उ^ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उप- धारा (1) के अनुसरण म! स8म ािधकारी ने केीय सरकार को अपनी
.रपोट( दे दी है।
और केीय सरकार का उ^ .रपोट( पर िवचार करने के पAात यह समाधान हो गया है Jक इस अिधसूचना से
संलp अनुसूची म! िविनqदr भूिम म! उपयोग के अिधकार का अज(न Jकया जाना चािहए।
अत: अब, केीय सरकार,उ^ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उप-धारा(1) 6ारा द_ शि^य का योग करते `ए
यह घोषणा करती है Jक इस अिधसूचना के संलp अनुसूची म! िविनqदr उ^ भूिम म! पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए उपयोग
का अिधकार अ]जत Jकया जाता है।
यह और Jक केीय सरकार, उ^ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उप-धारा(4) 6ारा द_ शि^य का योग करते `ए
यह िनदgश देती है Jक उ^ भूिम के उपयोग का अिधकार इस अिधसूचना के काश क तारीख से केीय सरकार म! िनिहत
होने क बजाए, सभी िव>लंगम से मु^ हो कर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपSरेशन िलिमटेड म! िनिहत होगा।
पैEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन Jकसी भी 8ितपू]त के िलए इंिडयन
ऑयल कॉपSरेशन िलिमटेड पूण(तया उ_रदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से स%बिधत Jकसी भी मामले पर केीय सरकार के
िवf\ कोई वाद दावा या कानूनी काय(वाही नहt हो सकेगी।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
तालुका : 'ीरंगम
िजला: ि(ी
राय : तिमलनाडु
गाँव का नाम
सवण सं.
उप खड सं.
ेफल
हे*टेयर
एयर
वग"
मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
51. कुल,ूर
763
1ए
0
00
50
762
3बी
0
04
20
340
2
0
25
10
7796
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
763
1डी
0
02
00
767
1
0
16
60
767
6
0
11
15
343
6
0
00
40
768
1
0
09
70
335
2
0
02
50
335
1बी
0
07
05
335
1ए
0
09
90
336
2
0
15
50
336
1
0
16
90
338
3
0
06
50
339
8
0
00
40
[फा. सं. आर-25011/10/2014-ओआर-I (पाट"-I]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2017
S.O. 2345.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas number S.O.No.3190(E) dated: 06.10.2016 issued under sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and
Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (herein after referred to as the said
Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the Lands specified in the Schedule
appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from
Ennore to Madurai (Via) Chengalpattu, Pondicherry (UT) Trichy in the State of Tamil Nadu, a pipeline should be laid
by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, for implementing the Ennore – Trichy – Madurai Pipeline Project.
And whereas, copies of the said notifications were made available to the public from 25.10.2016.
And whereas, the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act has
submitted his report to the Central Government;
And whereas, the Central Government, after considering the said report is satisfied that the Right of User in
the Land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the said Land specified in the Schedule appended to this
notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said Land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government,
vest from the date of publication of this declaration, in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P
& M P Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter
relating to pipeline.
SCHEDULE
Taluk : Srirangam
District : Trichy
State : Tamil Nadu
Survey No.
Sub Division No.
Area
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7797
Name of the Village
Hectare
Are
Square
Meter
1
2
3
4
5
6
51.Kulathur
763
1A
0
00
50
762
3B
0
04
20
340
2
0
25
10
763
1D
0
02
00
767
1
0
16
60
767
6
0
11
15
343
6
0
00
40
768
1
0
09
70
335
2
0
02
50
335
1B
0
07
05
335
1A
0
09
90
336
2
0
15
50
336
1
0
16
90
338
3
0
06
50
339
8
0
00
40
[F. No. R-25011/10/2014-ORI(Pt.I]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई Jद>ली, 29 िसत% बर, 2017
का
का
का
का. . . . आ.
.
.
. 2346
2346
2346
2346.—केीय सरकार, पेEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म! उपयोग के अिधकार का अज(न)
अिधिनयम 1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम! इसके पAात उ^ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 क उप-धारा (1)
भारत के राजप$, (असाधारण) के अधीन जारी क गयी भारत सरकार के पेEोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मं$ालय क
अिधसूचना का. आ 3056(अ), तारीख 21 िसत%बर 2016, 6ारा तिमलनाडु राRय म! एZूर से मदुरै तक वाया
च!गलपjि$ची एलपीजी प.रवहन के िलए इंिडयन-पांिडचेरी-ऑयल कॉपSरेशन िलिमटेड के 6ारा एक पाइपलाइन िबछाने
के योजन के िलए उ^ अिधसूचना से संलp अनुसूची म! िविनqदr भूिम म! उपयोग के अिधकार का अज(न के अपने आशय क
घोषणा क थी।
और उ^ आिधसूचना क ितयाँ जनता को तारीख 24.09.2016 को उपलcद करा दी गई थी।
और उ^ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उप - धारा (1) के अनुसरण म! स8म ािधकारी ने केीय सरकार को अपनी
.रपोट( दे दी है।
और केीय सरकार का उ^ .रपोट( पर िवचार करने के पAात यह समाधान हो गया है Jक इस अिधसूचना से
संलp अनुसूची म! िविनqदr भूिम म! उपयोग के अिधकार का अज(न Jकया जाना चािहए।
अत: अब, केीय सरकार, उ^ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उप-धारा (1) 6ारा द_ शि^य का योग करते `ए
यह घोषणा करती है Jक इस अिधसूचना के संलp अनुसूची म! िविनqदr उ^ भूिम म! पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए उपयोग
का अिधकार अ]जत Jकया जाता है।
यह और Jक केीय सरकार, उ^ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उप-धारा (4) 6ारा द_ शि^य का योग करते `ए
यह िनदgश देती है Jक उ^ भूिम के उपयोग का अिधकार इस अिधसूचना के काश क तारीख से केीय सरकार म! िनिहत
होने क बजाए, सभी िव>लंगम से मु^ हो कर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपSरेशन िलिमटेड म! िनिहत होगा।
7798
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
पैEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन Jकसी भी 8ितपू]त के िलए इंिडयन
ऑयल कॉपSरेशन िलिमटेड पूण(तया उ_रदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से स%बिधत Jकसी भी मामले पर केीय सरकार के
िवf\ कोई वाद दावा या कानूनी काय(वाही नहt हो सकेगी।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
तालुका : मदुरै नॉथ"
िजला : मदुरै
राय : तिमलनाडु
गाँव का नाम
सवण सं.
उप खड सं.
ेफल
हे*टेयर
एयर
वग"
मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
33. कुलमंगलम - िबट II
35
1ए2डी
0
03
65
98
5ए
0
03
70
98
5बी
0
09
00
98
6ए
0
09
00
98
6बी
0
00
55
99
1ए
0
00
40
तालुका : विडपी
िजला : मदुरै
राय : तिमलनाडु
गाँव का नाम
सवण सं.
उप खड सं.
ेफल
हे*टेर
एयर
वग"
मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
10. पोदीनाय2ंपी
185
2सी
0
01
10
[फा. सं. आर-25011/04/2014-ओआर-I (पाट")]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2017
S.O. 2346.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas number S.O.No.3056(E) dated: 21.09.2016 issued under sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and
Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (herein after referred to as the said
Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the Lands specified in the Schedule
appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from
Ennore to Madurai (Via) Chengalpattu, Pondicherry (UT) Trichy in the State of Tamil Nadu, a pipeline should be laid
by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, for implementing the Ennore – Trichy – Madurai Pipeline Project.
And whereas, copies of the said notifications were made available to the public from 24.09.2016.
And whereas, the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act has
submitted his report to the Central Government;
And whereas, the Central Government, after considering the said report is satisfied that the Right of User in
the Land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7799
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the said Land specified in the Schedule appended to this
notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said Land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government,
vest from the date of publication of this declaration, in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P
& M P Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter
relating to pipeline.
SCHEDULE
Taluk : Madurai North
District : Madurai
State : Tamil Nadu
Name of the Village
Survey No.
Sub Division No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
1
2
3
4
5
6
33.Kulamangalam-Bit II
35
1A2D
0
03
65
98
5A
0
03
70
98
5B
0
09
00
98
6A
0
09
00
98
6B
0
00
55
99
1A
0
00
40
Taluk : Vadipatti
District : Madurai
State : Tamil Nadu
Name of the Village
Survey No.
Sub Division No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Meter
1
2
3
4
5
6
10. Bodinayakkanpatti
185
2C
0
01
10
[F. No. R-25011/04/2014-OR-I (Pt.)]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई 3द4ली, 29 िसत5 बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2347
2347
2347
2347.—के78ीय सरकार, पे9ोिलयम एवं खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म= उपयोग के अिधकार का
अज"न) अिधिनयम, 1962, (1962 का 50), कA धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म= तारीख 16 जुलाई , 2015
को भारत के राजप मे Cकािशत , भारत सरकार के पै9ोिलयम और Cाकृितक गैस मंालय कA अिधसूचना संGया
का. आ. 1932 (अ) नई 3द4ली, 10 जुलाई 2015 म= िनNिलिखत Oप से संशोधन करती है , अथा"त्:-
उP अिधसूचना कA अनुसूची म=
" 'ी गोपाल च78 मुखजR
डSलु. बी. सी. एस. ( Cशासिनक ) अवकाश CाT
7800
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
सम अिधकारी
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड
पारदीप - हि4दया- दुगा"पुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन एवं
पारदीप - हि4दया- बरौनी पाइपलाइन ऑगम=टेशन योजना
डाकघर - दुई4या, आ7दुल - मौरी, मौरीXाम
हावड़ा - 711 302 ( पिYम बंगाल ) "
शSदZ और अंकZ के [थान पर
"'ी गोपाल च78 मुखजR
डSलु. बी. सी. एस. ( Cशासिनक ) अवकाश CाT
सम अिधकारी
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड
पारदीप - हि4दया- दुगा"पुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन,
पारदीप - हि4दया- दुगा"पुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन ऑगम=टेशन,
पारदीप - हि4दया- बरौनी पाइपलाइन ऑगम=टेशन योजना एवं
18" हि4दया बरौनी Cोड*ट पाइपलाइन प]रयोजना,
डाकघर - दुई4या, आ7दुल - मौरी, मौरीXाम
हावड़ा - 711 302 ( पिYम बंगाल ) "
पढ़ा जाए ।
यह अिधसूचना जारी होने कA तारीख से लागू होगी ।
[फा. सं. आर-25011/14/2012-ओआर-I (पाट")]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2017
S.O. 2347.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of
Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962) the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. S.O. No1932 ( E) dated 10 July
2015, published in the Gazette of India on the 16 July, 2015 namely:-
In the Said Notification, for the numbers and words,
" Shri Gopal Chandra Mukherjee
W.B.C.S. (Exe.) Retd.
Competent Authority
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Paradip - Haldia- Durgapur LPG pipeline and
Augmentation of Paradip- Haldia- Barauni pipeline,
P.O. Duilya, Andul - Mouri, Mourigram,
Howrah - 711 302 ( West Bengal) "
the numbers and words
" Shri Gopal Chandra Mukherjee
W.B.C.S. (Exe.) Retd.
Competent Authority
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7801
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Paradip - Haldia- Durgapur LPG pipeline,
Augmentation of Paradip- Haldia - Durgapur LPG Pipeline,
Augmentation of Paradip- Haldia- Barauni pipeline,
18" Haldia Barauni Product Pipeline ,
P.O. Duilya, Andul - Mouri, Mourigram,
Howrah - 711 302 ( West Bengal)"
shall be substituted.
This notification is applicable from the date of issue.
[F. No. R-25011/14/2012-OR-I (Pt.)]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
$म एवं रोजगार मं!ालय
$म एवं रोजगार मं!ालय
$म एवं रोजगार मं!ालय
$म एवं रोजगार मं!ालय
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2348
2348
2348
2348.—औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार मैसस( बी.सी.सी.एल. के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक
िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण/Uम यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 04/2012) को कािशत
करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 15.09.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-20012/40/2011-आई.आर. (सीएम- I)
एम. के. Vसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2348.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 04 of 2012) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15.09.2017.
[No. L-20012/40/2011-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 04/2012
Employer in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: None
For the workman.
: None
State : Jharkhand
Industry- Coal
Dated- 28/08/ 2017
AWARD
7802
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
By order No. L-20012/40/2011-IR(CM-I) dated 20/12/2011, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing
Sh. Bijay Bhula, M/Loader from the services of the company vide order dated 01/12/2004 is fair and
justified? To What relief the workman concerned is entitled to?
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none appears from either side. Case remains pending. It is
felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No. Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2349
2349
2349
2349.— औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार मैसस( बी.सी.सी.एल. के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक
िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण/Uम यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 06/2012) को कािशत
करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 15.09.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-20012/65/2011-आई.आर. (सीएम- I)]
एम. के. Vसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2349.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 06 of 2012) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15.09.2017.
[No. L-20012/65/2011-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 06/2012
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman
: None
State : Jharkhand
Industry- Coal
Dated- 25/08/ 2017
AWARD
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7803
By order No. L-20012/65/2011-IR(CM-I) dated 20/12/2011, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Godhur Colliery of M/s. BCCL in stopping the workman
from duty premature before the actual date of retirement is fair and justified? To what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none appears on behalf of the sponsoring
Union/workman. Management is present. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have
been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2350
2350
2350
2350.—औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार मैसस( बी.सी.सी.एल. के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक
िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण/Uम यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 35/2010) को कािशत
करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 15.09.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-20012/114/2007-आई.आर. (सीएम- I)]
एम. के. Vसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2350.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 35 of 2010) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15.09.2017.
[No. L-20012/114/2007-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 35/2010
Employer in relation to the management of Kartas Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers
: None
For the workman
: None
State: Jharkhand
Industry- Coal
Dated- 28/08/ 2017
AWARD
7804
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
By order No. L-20012/114/2007-IR(CM-I) dated 24/05/2010, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management for non-payment of 80 days of accumulated leave, at the credit
of the claimant workman, from his retirement dues for allegedly effecting the recovery of penal rent
from him for overstaying in the Company’s Quarter is legal & justified? To what relief the claimant
workman entitled to?
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none appears from either side. Case remains pending. It
is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2351
2351
2351
2351.—औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार मैसस( सी.सी.एल. के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक
िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण/Uम यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 32/2012) को कािशत
करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 15.09.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-20012/64/2011-आई.आर. (सीएम- I)]
एम. के. Vसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2351.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 32 of 2012) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15.09.2017.
[No. L-20012/64/2011-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 32/2012
Employer in relation to the management of Piparwar Project M/s. CCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: None
For the workman
: None
State : Jharkhand
Industry-Coal
Dated- 24/08/ 2017
AWARD
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7805
By order No. L-20012/64/2011-IR(CM-I) dated 27/03/2012, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the Claim of Shri Sahabuddin Mian, Who has been working as Dumper Operator (Trainee)
since, 04/11/2001 for regularization as Dumper Operator-Gr. “D” with retrospective effect and grant of
consequential benefits are legal and justified? To What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none appears from either side. Case remains pending. It is
felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2352
2352
2352
2352.— औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार मैसस( बी.सी.सी.एल. के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक
िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण/Uम यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 14/2010) को कािशत
करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 15.09.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-20012/28/2007-आई.आर. (सीएम- I)]
एम. के. Vसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2352.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 14 of 2010) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15.09.2017.
[No. L-20012/28/2007-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 14/2010
Employer in relation to the management of Regional Hospital, Bhuli, BTA of M/s BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Shri U.N.Lall, Advocate
For the workman
: None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry- Coal
Dated- 25/08/ 2017
AWARD
7806
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
By order No. L-20012/28/2007-IR(CM-I) dated 05/02/2010, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“i) Whether the action of the Management of Regional Hospital, Bhuli of M/s. BCCL in not regularzing
the services of Shri Prem Narayan Singh, General Mazdoor as Store Clerk is justified and legal? ii) To
what relief is the workman concerned entitled?
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none appears on behalf of the sponsoring
Union/workman. Management is present. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have
been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2353
2353
2353
2353.—औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 19147 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार मैसस( बी.सी.सी.एल. के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक
िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण/Uम यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 11/2012) को कािशत
करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 15.09.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-20012/60/2011-आई.आर. (सीएम- I)]
एम. के. Vसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2353.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 11 of 2012) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15.09.2017.
[No. L-20012/60/2011-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 11/2012
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman
: None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry- Coal
Dated: 25/08/2017
AWARD
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7807
By order No. L-20012/60/2011-IR(CM-I) dated 20/12/2011, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Kusunda Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not regularizing Sri Jai
Nandan Das as Fitter helper, though he has been performing the said job for the last several year with
due authorization is fair and justified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?’’
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none appears on behalf of the sponsoring
Union/workman. Management is present. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have
been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2354
2354
2354
2354.— औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार मैसस( सी.सी.एल. के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक
िववाद म! केन् ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण/Uम यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 09/2012) को कािशत
करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 15.09.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-20012/47/2011-आईआर (सीएम- I)]
एम. के. Vसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2354.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 09 of 2012) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15.09.2017.
[No. L-20012/47/2011-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 09/2012
Employer in relation to the management of Hazaribag Area of M/s. CCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: None
For the workman
: None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry- Coal
Dated: 24/08/ 2017
AWARD
7808
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
By order No. L-20012/47/2011-IR(CM-I) dated 20/12/2011, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Hazaribag Area of M/s. CCL. In terminating the services of
Sri Sheo Shankar Choudhary, LDC vide Letter dated 25/04/2008 is fair and justified? To what relief the
workman concerned is entitled to?’’
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none appears from either side. Case remains pending.
It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2355
2355
2355
2355.—औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार मैसस( बी.सी.सी.एल. के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक
िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण/Uम यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 07/2015) को कािशत
करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 15.09.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-20012/01/2015-आईआर (सीएम-I)]
एम. के. Vसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2355.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 07 of 2015) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15.09.2017.
[No. L-20012/01/2015-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1)(d) (2A) of I.D.Act, 1947
Reference No. 07/2015
Employers in relation to the management of Bastacolla Area M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
For the Employers
: Shri S.K.Behra, Asstt. Manager
For the workman
: Shri Pintu Mondal, Rep
Industry : Coal
Dated : 28/08/ 2017
AWARD
By order No . L- 20012 /01/2015 /IR (CM-1) dated 25/ 03/2015, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub – section ( 1) and sub– section ( 2A) of section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
SCHEDULE
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7809
“Whether the action of the management of Bastacolla Area of M/s. BCCL in not providing
employment to Shri Baijnath Bhuia, dependent son of Late Harilal Bhuia under the provision of
NCWA is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
2. The case is received from Ministry of Labour on 06.04.2015. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement on
03.08.2015. But the management files their written statement on 23.02.2016. Thereafter rejoinder and document filed
by the parties. One witness each side has been examined. Documents of the management marked as M-1 to M-3 and
documents of workman marked as W-1 to W-11.
3. The case of the workman is that Late Hiralal Bhuia was permanent employee of Dobari Colliery under Bastacolla
Area of M/s. BCCL who died while in service on 26.08.1995. After death of deceased employee his wife submitted an
application on 23.11.1996 before the management praying their in that her son Baijnath Bhuia is minor aged about 16
years. As per company rules he should be kept at live roster, and when her son would be major than he will apply for
his employment in place of his deceased father Harilal Bhuia. But after getting major Baijanath Bhuia applied for
employment on 19.03.1998 but after several reminders the management has not provided employment to the dependant
son of Late Hiralal Bhuia under provisions of NCWA. Hence Industrial dispute arose.
4. On the other hand the case of the management is that the sponsoring union have not come with clean hands rather
suppressed the material facts. Late Hiralal Bhuia was permanent employee as General mazdoor at Dobari Colliery died
on 25.08.1995, but neither his wife nor any claimant of late Hiralal Bhuia ever made any application after the death of
Hiralal Bhuia to keep the name of the claimant in live roaster and as such it is wrong to say that management have
violated the norms of NCWA as there was no such application at the relevant period.
5. It is further submitted by the management that as per circular of M/S BCCL no claim for compassionate appointment
shall be entertained after 18 months of the death of the employee. But the claimant has applied for job after 17 years of
death of his father sent an application for employment through post which have rightly been turned down by the
management as not maintainable.
6. It is also submitted by the management that the very purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate
relief to the family of the deceased who died in harness but due to long efflux of time the very purpose of providing
immediate relief is being frustrated after lapse of 17 years it means that the family member are not in trouble due to
death of their bread winner and the claimant is not liable for getting compassionate appointment.
7. The applicant applied for job on the ground of compassionate employment as his father died during his period of
service. In this case the workman applied for job promptly of course, without following due procedures for his
application was rejected. But the applicant applied for job by giving applications, after application and which was
regretted for which he raised the present dispute. It is also a fact that at the time of death of the father of the applicant ,
the workman was a minor. After attaining majority he applied for job. Since the applicant was minor at the time of
death of his father he be given job waiving formality, because after the death of an earning member leaving minor is a
havoc on a family.
8. considering the fact and circumstances of this case, I hold that the action of the management of Bastacolla
Area of M/s. BCCL in not providing employment to Shri Baijnath Bhuia, dependent son of Late Harilal Bhuia
under the provision of NCWA is not fair and justified, Hence he be given job waiving formality.
This is my award .
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2356
2356
2356
2356.— औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार मैसस( बी.सी.सी.एल. के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक
िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण/Uम यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 07/2012) को कािशत
करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 15.09.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-20012/61/2011-आईआर (सीएम-I)]
एम. के. Vसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2356.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
7810
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 07 of 2012) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15.09.2017.
[No. L-20012/61/2011-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 07/2012
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman
: None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry- Coal
Dated: 28/08/ 2017
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/61/2011-IR(CM-I) dated 20/12/2011, the central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL in not promoting Sri Nitab Jha
as Auto Electrician in Grade “A” (Excavation) from the year 2002 is fair and justified? To what relief
the workman concerned is entitled to? ’’
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none appears on behalf of the sponsoring
Union/workman. Management is present. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have
been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2357
2357
2357
2357.—औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार मैसस( .ट1 को िलिमटेड के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक
िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण/Uम यायालय नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 46/2010) को कािशत
करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 15.09.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-20012/105/2001-आईआर (सी- I)]
एम. के. Vसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2357.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 46 of 2010) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. Tisco Ltd., and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15.09.2017.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7811
[No. L-20012/105/2001-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 46/2010
Employer in relation to the management of M/s. TISCO, Jamadoba
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri R.K.Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Shri D. K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman
: None
State : Jharkhand.
Industry- Coal
Dated : 25/08/ 2017
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/105/2001-IR(C-I) dated 30/06/2010, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour
has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. TISCO, Jamadoba in not regularizing Shri Suraj
Kumar is legal & Justified? To what relief is the claimant entitled for.? ’’
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none appears on behalf of the sponsoring
Union/workman. Management is present. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have
been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2358
2358
2358
2358.— औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार उपाx य8, Jद> ली िवकास ािधकरण, नई Jद> ली एवं उनके कम(चारी के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके
कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण एवं Uम यायालय Jद> ली
सं. I, के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 10/2012, 12/2012, 14/2012, 15/2012) को कािशत करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को
11.09.2017 को ाe त `ए थे।
[सं. एल-42011/151/2011-आईआर (डीयू),
सं. एल-42011/153/2011-आईआर(डीयू),
सं. एल-42011/146/2011-आईआर(डीयू),
सं. एल-42011/145/2011-आईआर(डीयू)]
राज! जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2358.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 10/2012, 12/2012, 14/2012, 15/2012) of the Central Government
7812
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to the Vice President, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi and their workman, which were
received by the Central Government on 11.09.2017.
[No. L-42011/151/2011-IR (DU),
No. L-42011/153/2011-IR (DU),
No. L-42011/146/2011-IR (DU),
No. L-42011/145/2011-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. 10/2012
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-42011/151/2011-
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.1,76,066.00 for the period from 06.03.1981 to 31.12.1992 for 12 hours per day instead of 8 hours per
day to Shri Chanderpal S/o Shri Harswarup is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?’’
2.
Brief facts giving rise to the present reference are that Shri Chanderpal (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 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
from 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 2005 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.1,76,066.00 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 No.13/2006 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.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7813
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, 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.
Thereafter, the case was listed for evidence of the claimant. Despite awarding various opportunities to the
claimant, he failed to adduce any evidence. Finally, on 27.04.2017, evidence of the claimant was closed by the order of
the Court. Thereafter, case was listed for evidence of the management. However, it was stated by the A/R for the
management that the management does not want to adduce any evidence.
8.
I have heard Shri Deepak Kumar Dhingra, A/R for the management.
9.
Now, the crucial 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. 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.
10.
Claimant has also filed copy of order in LCA No.196/1993 which was filed by one Shri Lakhan Singh against
the management of DDA. A careful perusal of the said order 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.
11.
There is another order in LCA No.13/2006 titled ‘Chander 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
claiming an amount of Rs.1,76,066.00 as dues amount towards overtime wages from March 1981 to December 1992. 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 order 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 dated 23.04.2008. 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 dated 23.04.2008 of the Labour Court is eschewed from consideration, then also case of
the claimant cannot legally stand scrutiny of law inasmuch as the claimant has not adduced any evidence so as to show
that he has performed overtime work for the period 01.03.1985 to 31.12.1990. Moreover, from 1981 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.
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.1,76,066.00 for the period from 06.03.1981 to 31.12.1992
for 12 hours per day instead of 8 hours per day to Shri Chanderpal S/o Harswarup 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 : September 8, 2017
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
7814
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 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. 12/2012
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-42011/153/2011-
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 Jaipal Singh S/o Shri Desh Raj Singh is legal and justified? What relief the workman is
entitled to?’’
2.
Brief facts giving rise to the present reference are that Shri Jaipal Singh (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 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
from 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 2005 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.176066.00 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 No.16/2006 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, 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.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7815
7.
Thereafter, the case was listed for evidence of the claimant. Despite awarding various opportunities to the
claimant, he failed to adduce any evidence. Finally, on 27.04.2017, evidence of the claimant was closed by the order of
the Court. Thereafter, case was listed for evidence of the management. However, it was stated by the A/R for the
management that the management does not want to adduce any evidence.
8.
I have heard Shri Deepak Kumar Dhingra, A/R for the management.
9.
Now, the crucial question before this Tribunal is as to whether the claimant is entitled for payment of overtime
wages of Rs.176066.00 for the period 06.03.1981 to 31.12.1992. 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.
10.
Claimant has also filed copy of order in LCA No.196/1993 which was filed by one Shri Lakhan Singh against
the management of DDA. A careful perusal of the said order 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.
11.
There is another order in LCA No.16/2006 titled ‘Jaspal Singh 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.1,76,066.00 as dues amount towards overtime wages from March 1981 to December 1992. 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 order 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 dated 23.04.2008. 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 dated 23.04.2008 of the Labour Court is eschewed from consideration, then also case of
the claimant cannot legally stand scrutiny of law inasmuch as the claimant has not adduced any evidence so as to show
that he has performed overtime work for the period 01.03.1985 to 31.12.1990. Moreover, from 1981 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.
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.1,76,066.00 for the period from 06.03.1981 to 31.12.1992
for 12 hours per day instead of 8 hours per day to Shri Jaipal Singh S/o Shri Desh Raj 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 : September 8, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
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. 14/2012
Shri Ramdas Yadav, authorized representative,
Delhi State General Mazdoor Union (Regd.),
House No.F-235, Vijay Vihar, Phase I,
Delhi – 110 085
…Workman
Versus
7816
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-42011/146/2011-
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.1,76,066.00 for the period from 06.03.1981 to 31.12.1992 for 12 hours per day instead of 8 hours
per day to Shri Charitra S/o late Shri Ramkishan is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?’’
2.
Brief facts giving rise to the present reference are that Shri Charitra (in short the claimant) has been working
as security guard since 1981 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 from 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 2005 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.1,76,066.00 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 No.17/2006 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 Suraksha Rakshak. 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,
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.
Thereafter, the case was listed for evidence of the claimant. Despite awarding various opportunities to the
claimant, he failed to adduce any evidence. Finally, on 27.04.2017, evidence of the claimant was closed by the order of
the Court. Thereafter, case was listed for evidence of the management. However, it was stated by the A/R for the
management that the management does not want to adduce any evidence.
8.
I have heard Shri Deepak Kumar Dhingra, A/R for the management.
9.
Now, the crucial 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. 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.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7817
10.
Claimant has also filed copy of order in LCA No.196/1993 which was filed by one Shri Lakhan Singh against
the management of DDA. A careful perusal of the said order 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.
11.
There is another order in LCA No.17/2006 titled ‘Charitra 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
claiming an amount of Rs.1,76,066.00 as dues amount towards overtime wages from March 1981 to December 1992. 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 order 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 dated 23.04.2008. 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 dated 23.04.2008 of the Labour Court is eschewed from consideration, then also case of
the claimant cannot legally stand scrutiny of law inasmuch as the claimant has not adduced any evidence so as to show
that he has performed overtime work for the period 01.03.1985 to 31.12.1990. Moreover, from 1981 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.
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.1,76,066.00 for the period from 06.03.1981 to 31.12.1992
for 12 hours per day instead of 8 hours per day to Shri Charitra S/o late Shri Ramkishan S/o Shri Desh Raj 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 : September 8, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
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. 15/2012
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
7818
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-42011/145/2011-
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.45,640.00 for the period from 1974 to 1990 for 12 hours per day instead of 8 hours per day to
Shri Sunder Lal S/o Shri Hira Lal is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?
2.
Brief facts giving rise to the present reference are that Shri Sunder Lal (in short the claimant) has been
working as security guard since 1974 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 from
1984 to December 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 2005 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.45,640.00 as overtime wages
for which the claimant has rendered from 1974 to December 1990. 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.33/2006 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 1974. In fact,
the claimant was engaged on muster roll, i.e. daily wages as well as work charge establishment. 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
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.
Thereafter, the case was listed for evidence of the claimant. Despite awarding various opportunities to the
claimant, he failed to adduce any evidence. Finally, on 27.04.2017, evidence of the claimant was closed by the order of
the Court. Thereafter, case was listed for evidence of the management. However, it was stated that the management
does not want to adduce any evidence.
8.
I have heard Shri Deepak Kumar Dhingra, A/R for the management.
Findings on Issue No. (i)
9.
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.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7819
10.
Now, the crucial question before this Tribunal is as to whether the claimant is entitled for payment of overtime
wages of Rs.45,640.00 for the period 1974 to December 1990. Claimant has filed order in LCA No.33/2006 titled
‘Sunder Lal vs DDA’ which the claimant had earlier filed and which was decided on 23.04.2008. 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 claiming an amount of Rs.45,640 as dues amount towards overtime wages from 1974 to1990. 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
dated 23.04.2008. 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 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.
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.45,640.00 for the period from 1974 to December 1990 for
12 hours per day instead of 8 hours per day to Shri Sunder Lal S/o Shri Hira Lal 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 : September 8, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2359
2359
2359
2359.—औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार मैसस( साई टेलीमै.ट@ स, साई e लाजा, उ_र देश एवं उनके कम(चारी के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके
कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण एवं Uम यायालय, Jद> ली
सं. II पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 120/2015) को कािशत करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 07.09.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-40012/28/2015-आईआर (डीयू)]
राज! जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2359.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 120/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
M/s. Sai Telematics, Sai Plaza, Uttar Pradesh and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on
07.09.2017.
[No. L-40012/28/2015-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.2, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
7820
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ID No. 120/2015
Shri Dhirender Pratap Singh,
Village Khelawali, PO Pahasu,
Distt. Bulandshahr,
Bulandshahr,
Uttar Pradesh – 202 396
…Workman
Versus
M/s. Sai Telematics,
Represented by Shri Atul Saxena,
Proprietor,
Sai Plaza, Commercial Market,
Govindpuram,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 013
…Management
In the present case, matter was referred to this Tribunal vide letter No.L-40012/28/2015-IR(DU) dated
29.07.2015 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 has not been paid the due wages and denied justice as per his lawful rights under the
given circumstances? If so, the management of M/s Sai Telematics should clear his dues and his PF accrues in
a given time-frame with compensation together with certain directions to BSNL?”
2.
Claim statement was filed by Shri Dhirender Pratap Singh, the claimant herein, with the averments that he
joined services of the management in the month of August 2012. No appointment letter was issued to him deliberately
with malafide intention. He performed his duties satisfactorily, punctually, honestly, diligently and full dedication &
devotion even on Sundays as well as other holidays and there was no complaint of any nature against him. He was not
given provident fund, bonus and other facilities under the industrial law. The claimant was made to work for 10-14
hours a day but the management did not pay him overtime wages, bonus, etc. The claimant was not allowed to
perform his duties. When demand was made for raise in salary, the claimant was threatened . On 21.07.2014, a
representation was made for payment of salary for the months of February 2014 to July 2014, PF contribution etc., as
he was in dire need of money on account of his sister’s marriage, but the management misbehaved, quarreled and beat
up the claimant. Finally, claimant approached the Conciliation Officer, who called the management for conciliation.
However, due to adamant attitude of the management, no conciliation could be arrived at and hence this reference.
Finally, it has been prayed that an award may be passed in his favour.
3.
Thereafter the case was listed for filing of statement of defence by the management. However, it was stated
by the management that there are chances of settlement.
4.
The learned A/R for the claimant filed an application dated 02.02.2015 wherein it is averred that the
management agreed to pay a sum of Rs.80,000.00 as full and final settlement of the claim and as such nothing remains
due from the management. The management also filed compromise/settlement deed dated 14.01.2016 Ex.C-1. In view
of the fact that the parties had settled their dispute amicably, there remains no occasion to adjudicate the issue referred
above.
5.
Claimant made a statement to the effect the matter has been settled vide settlement agreement/deed Ex.C-1,
which is acceptable to them. Hence, their claim would stand satisfied by way of mutual settlement agreement Ex C-1,
which shall form integral part of the award. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate
Government for publication.
Dated : 24.08.2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2360
2360
2360
2360.— औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार मैसस( Jद> ली मेEो रेल कॉपSरेशन, सीसी – 02 ोजे@ ट, Jद> ली एवं उनके कम(चारी के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक
और उनके कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण एवं Uम
यायालय Jद> ली सं. II के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 109/2015) को कािशत करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 07.09.2017 को
ाe त `आ था।
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7821
[सं. एल-42025/03/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]
राज! जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2360.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 109/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, CC – 02 Project, Delhi and other and their workman, which were received by the
Central Government on 07.09.2017.
[No. L-42025/03/2017-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.2, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 109/2015
Shri Vinod Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ram Piyare Yadav
Through
Rashtriya Mazdoor Shang (Regd.)
157, Pratap Khand, Vishwakarma Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi – 110 095
…Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation CC-02 Project,
Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi – 110 042
2.
M/s. J Kumar Infraproject Ltd.,
Sewage Pumping Station,
Rohini Sector 19, Delhi 110 085
3.
M/s. J. Kumar Infraproject Ltd.
16-A, Andheri Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road,
Andheri(West), Mumbai – 400 053
…Managements
AWARD
Present dispute has been raised by Shri Vinod Kumar Yadav (in short the claimant) under the provisions of
sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired
from the date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act
empowers him to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His
contention stands substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Claimant has been given
a right by the Act to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of
her service, without a dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the
Act. Since dispute was within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of
sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for
adjudication by the appropriate Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.
2.
It has been averred in the statement of claim that the claimant was working with Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
(in short the management) through M/s J Kumar Infraproject Ltd.(in short the contractor) since 14.11.2011 on the post
of driver. His last drawn wages was Rs.11,300.00. The claimant worked continuously with the contractors upto
24.12.2013 and he gave no chance of complaint to them. The contractor failed to pay wages for the overtime work
performed by the claimant. In fact, the contractors had also misrepresented facts in his service book inasmuch as his
date of joining was shown as 09.06.2012. The claimant approached the contractors several times for payment of
overtime wages as well as various other legal facilities, which annoyed the contractor and out of vengeance pressurized
the claimant to submit his resignation letter. He was not allowed to perform his duties from 25.12.2013 without
assigning any reason. His earned wages for November 2014 to 24.12.2013 has not been paid by the contractor. No one
months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof was given to the claimant. No seniority list was ever prepared or displayed by the
contractors. It is further averred in the statement of claim that fresh hands have been hired thereafter and juniors to the
7822
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
claimant have been retained in service. The contractor refused to pay the claimant his wages or even take him back on
duty despite making several visits to the office of the contactor. Demand notice was served on the contractors on
03.03.2014 to which no reply was received from the contractors. Aggrieved by the action of the management, the
claimant filed a case before the Conciliation Officer, but due to the adamant attitude of the management/contractor,
conciliation ended in a failure. Finally the claimant was constrained to approach this Tribunal for justice. The claimant
prays for reinstatement with full back wages.
3.
Written statement was filed by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation taking preliminary objections of non-existence
of relationship of employer and employee between them and the claimant, not specifically mentioning as to from
which management he is claiming relief etc. The management has denied the other material averments contained in the
statement of claim. Finally, it has been prayed that the claim may be rejected
4.
Written statement was filed by the contractors also, taking preliminary objection of suppressing of material
information and not approaching the Tribunal with clean hands, claimant being a temporary employee and remaining
absent without intimation, resigning from the job due to better prospects etc. The contractors have denied the material
facts contained in the statement of claim. Finally, it has been prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
5.
Rejoinder was filed by the claimant to the written statement filed by the managements, wherein the claimant
has reiterated the stand taken in the claim statement and denied the material facts contained in the written statements.
6.
Based on the pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal, vide order dated 09.02.2017 framed the following issues
and the case was listed for evidence of the claimant:
(i)
Whether termination of the claimant is illegal and unjustified? It so, its effect.
(ii)
Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the claim petition if monthly salary of the claimant
was more than Rs.10,000.00 per month?
(iii)
Whether the job of the claimant/workman was of temporary nature or of permanent nature? If so, its
effects.
(iv)
Whether the job of the claimant was terminated by management No.2 and 3 without giving him any
prior notice or he himself left the job of management No.2 & 3 without giving any intimation and if
he has left the job of management No.2 & 3, he should be provided any relief. If so, its effect?
(v)
Whether the claimant has received final settlement of amount? If so, its effects.
(vi)
To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?
7.
In the meanwhile, parties stated that they intended to take steps for settlement. Good sense prevailed and the
dispute was settled between the parties amicably. In view of the fact that the parties had settled their dispute amicably,
there remains no occasion to adjudicate the issues referred above.
8.
Claimant made a statement to the effect that he was willing to accept Rs.35,000.00 from M/s. J Kumar
Infraprojects Ltd. towards full and final settlement of his claim. Now, the claimant does not have any surviving dispute
with any of the managements and the matter has been disposed of amicably between the parties. Statement of the
claimant Shri Vinod Kumar Yadav as well as Shri Dvijendra Kumar Pandey, A/R for M/s. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd.
separately recorded. Joint application filed on behalf of the claimant and the managements for recording compromise
marked Ex.C-1 shall form integral part of the award. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate
Government for publication.
Dated : August 30, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2361
2361
2361
2361.— औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार मैसस( Jद> ली मेEो रेल कॉपSरेशन, मेEो भवन, नई Jद> ली व उनके कम(चारी के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और
उनके कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण एवं Uम यायालय
Jद> ली सं. II के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 59/2014) को कािशत करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 07.09.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]
राज! जोशी, उप िनदेशक
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7823
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2361.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 59/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, Metro Bhawan, New Delhi and other and their workman, which were received by
the Central Government on 07.09.2017.
[No. L-42025/03/2017-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.2, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 59/2014
Shri Mohd. Samshad Ahmed,
S/o Shri Abdul Rehman,
R/o S-189/225, JJ Camp,
Okhla Phase II,
New Delhi – 110 020
Through
Akhil Bhartiya Karamchari Trade Union (Regd. 4366)
E-169, Indira Kalyan Vihar, opposite C-173,
Okhla Phase I, New Delhi – 110 010
…Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation,
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi
2.
M/s. All Services Globe Pvt. Ltd.,
Camp Industrial Estate, Village Pahadi,
Near HUB, opposite Kusum, Masala,
Gora Gaon, East Mumbai – 400 063
…Managements
AWARD
Present dispute has been raised by Shri Mohammad Samshad (in short the claimant) under the provisions of
sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired
from the date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act
empowers him to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His
contention stands substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Claimant has been given
a right by the Act to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of
her service, without a dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the
Act. Since dispute was within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of
sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for
adjudication by the appropriate Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.
2.
Claim statement was filed by the claimant herein averring therein that he was engaged by M/s. All Services
Globe Pvt. Ltd.(in short the contractor) to work in the premises of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (in short the
management ) on 15.04.2011 as safai Karamchari. His last drawn wages were Rs.5000.00. He worked honestly and
diligently and never gave chance of complaint to his superiors. The claimant was not paid minimum wages as per the
Minimum Wages Act not were the provisions of Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 adhered to. The
claimant was deprived of genuine benefits as per the labour laws, i.e appointment letter, attendance card, overtime,
dearness allowance, wage slip, identity card, ESI , PF casual leaves and off on gazetted holidays were not given to him.
When he raised demand for the same, management felt offended and started exploitation of the claimant and issued
notice, charge sheet and his services were terminated on 30.05.2013 without conducting domestic enquiry/notice. A
demand notice dated 15.07.2013 was sent to the management but the management neither responded to the same nor
7824
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
took back the claimant in service. He is unemployed since the date of his termination. He claims reinstatement in
service of the contractor/principal employer with continuity and full back wages.
3.
Written statement was filed by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation taking preliminary objections of non-existence
of relationship of employer and employee between the them and the claimant, claimant not being a workman etc. The
management has denied the other material averments contained in the statement of claim. Finally, it has been prayed
that the claim may be rejected.
4.
M/s. All Service Globe Pvt. Ltd. also filed statement of defence wherein various preliminary objections, inter
alia of the claim not being maintainable as the same is not an industrial dispute as defined under the Act and has been
filed without following the procedure and claimant abandoning his job on 30.05.2013 etc. The contractor has also
denied the other material averments contained in the statement of claim. Finally, a prayer has been made for
dismissing the claim made by the claimant.
5.
Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the claimant wherein the material averments contained in the statement of
defence of the management and the contractor have been denied and the facts contained in the statement of claim have
been reiterated.
6.
Against this factual background, my learned predecessor, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the
following issues:
(i)
Whether the workman Shri Shamshad Ahmed S/o Shri Abdul Rehman has been terminated illegally
and unjustifiably by the management? If so, its effects?
(ii)
Whether the workman himself abandoned service of the management? If so, its effects.
(iii)
Whether the management is ready to reinstate the service of the workman without any prejudice? If
so, its effects.
(iv)
Whether claim of the workman is maintainable? If so, its effects.
(v)
To what relief workman is entitled and from which date as well as what directions are necessary to
be issued to management in this regard?
7.
In the meanwhile, claimant stated that the matter has been settled amicably between the parties by accepting
an amount of Rs.40,000.00 as full and final settlement and his statement was recorded to the effect that he has settled
his dispute with the management/contractor as full and final settlement and nothing remains to be paid to him by the
management/contractor.
8.
In view of the statements made by the claimant, case stands finally settled between the parties and no
controversy survives between the parties. Statement made by the claimant and receipt of full and final settlement
Ex.C-1 shall form integral part of the award. 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 : August 24, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2362
2362
2362
2362.—औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार महाबंधक, मैसस( एसआईएस इंिडया िलिमटेड व अ य उनके कम(चारी के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके
कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण एवं Uम यायालय Jद> ली
सं. II के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 128/2013) को कािशत करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 07.09.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-14011/76/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]
राज! जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2362.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 128/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. II, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
General Manager, M/s. SIS India Ltd. and others and their workman, which were received by the Central Government
on 07.09.2017.
[No. L-14011/76/2013-IR (DU)]
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7825
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO-II,
KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032
I.D. No. 128/2013
Sh. Md. Tabrez Alam
C/o Ishaque 3 Lakra Room No.35,
Master Net Ram Complex,
Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur,
New Delhi - 3
…Workman
Versus
1.
The General Manager,
M/s. SIS India Ltd,
A-28, 29 Okla Industrial Area Phase-I,
Nagpur (MS), New Delhi
2.
The Director,
All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi
…Management
EX-PARTE AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi- 110001 has referred the following dispute for
industrial adjudication to this Tribunal vide its notification No. L-14011/76/2013-IR(DU) Dated 25.10.2013.
“Whether the Action of the management of SIS India Ltd in refusing to employ which tantamount to
termination of employment of the workman Shri Tabrez Alam with effect from 22.10.2012 is legal and/or
justified and, if no, to what relief is the workman is entitiled to; and what directions are necessary in this
respect?”
On 18.11.2013 reference was received in this Tribunal. Which was registered as ID. No. 128/2013 and
claimant/workman was called upon to file claim statement within fifteen days from date of service of notice. Which
was required to be accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
After service of notice workman/claimant filed claim statement on 27.12.2013. Wherein he prayed as follows:-
“ It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to:-
(i)
Direct the respondent no.1 and 2 to reinstate the claimant instantly.
(ii)
Direct the respondent no.1 to pay the pending wages of the claimant of total Rs. 1,23,748/- alongwith
the interest @ 18% per year.
(iii)
Any other relief as may deem fit and proper in the right of the abovesaid facts and circumstances.
As prayed accordingly.”
Against claim/statement management No. 1 filed its written statement on 13.03.2014. Wherein he prayed as follows:-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this hon’ble Tribunal may be please to:-
(i)
Direct the workman/claimant to settle the case under your guidelines and accept the permanent job
based on vacant position in all units where security and intelligence services India Limited provide
Security services, in delhi.
(ii)
Request to Hon’ble Tribunal please look in to the case on Sympathy ground and settle the case on
Emmloymees & Employers benefits seems fit.”
Workman filed rejoinder against written statement of management No.1. Where-in he re-affirmed the contents of
claim statement.
On 10.06.2014 on the basis of pleadings of parties following issues have been framed:-
7826
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1.
Whether the action of the management of SIS India Ltd. in refusing to employ which tantamount to
termination of employment of the workman Sh. Tabrez Alam with effect from 22.10.2012 is legal
and/or justified and, if no to what relief is the workman is entitled to? If so its effect?
2.
To what relief the workman are entitled to and from which date?
Fixed 30.06.2014 for workman evidence.
Workman filed his affidavit in his evidence. Which was tendered by him. Fixed 24.01.2017 for management evidence.
On 24.01.2017 management had not adduced any evidence. Hence evidence of management has been closed. And case
was proceeded ex-parte against management. Fixed 01.02.2017 for ex-parte arguments of workman.
On 01.02.2017 none turn up. Hence in the interest of justice case was adjourned to 23.03.2017.
On 23.03.2017 advocate are on strike. Hence case was adjourned to 11.04.2017.
On 11.04.2017 workman sought adjourned. Hence case was fixed for 25.04.2017 for ex-parte argument of workman.
On 25.04.2017 ex-parte written argument of workman had been filed on behalf of workman. Hence Award was
reserved.
In the light of ex-parte written argument of issue no.1 is to be decided.
It is admitted fact that management of SIS India during conciliation proceedings before Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central) filed following parawise reply of allegations of workman Mohd. Tarbez Alam:-
1.
As per Md. Tarbej Alam demand for duty 12 hrs, Sis India limited Management are not approve for
12 hrs duty for any of his employees due to compliances issue.
2.
As per deduction of Rs. 750/- as uniform cost, sir Our Company are issued 2 set of uniforms on
concession rate to his employees in which 2 set of shirts, pants, and 1 set of belt, shoes, cap. Tie,
jackets, belt, cap are issued on non returnable basis. All the deduction shall be made proper receiving
duly stamped & sign by the company auth signatory and handed over to employees.
3.
As per salary slip issue we provide salary slip to our employees on monthly basis in which amount of
net salary are shown after deduction EPF & ESIC this based on fare basis and every employees are
quite aware in what amount are credited in his bank account.
4.
As per quit from the job without any intimation individual are absent from duty without any
information. Our company unit in charge try to call him so many time but his cell phone (Available in
company records) is switch off. Sir Company dealing in Security Sector and commit their Customers
to secure their property on 24X7 basis, itt not possible for company to vacant a post of any security
guard who is on leave or absent.
Sir As per our 1st hearing on dated 18th December 2012, we called to Md. Tarbez Alam to our Companies Regional
office and offer him to retain his job on same term and conditions who is mutually agreed between Employees and
Company. But Individual are demand for two month salary in which he is not performing duty. But sir Company
management not liable to do so.
Sh. Pankaj Dubey Assitant Labour Commissioner, New Delhi submitted his failure report on 01.03.2013 to the
Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Sharam Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi.
Wherein he mentioned that the issue regarding non-payment of dues and unauthorized deductions was referred to
LEO(C) for needful action vide letter dated 21.12.2012 under intimation to the workman concerned.
But workman filed his claim/statement on 27.12.2013 suppressing these facts. So contents of claim/statement is false
and fabricated and evidence of workman based on which is unworthy of credit.
Which is neither corroborated by oral nor by documentary evidence.
Moreover workman has not furnished information to this Tribunal that what was done by LEO(C) in compliance of
order passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner in respect of non-payment of dues and unauthorized deduction. Which
materially affects the claim/statement of workman. In want of which claim/statement is not genuine.
Moreover claim/statement is devoid of merits in want of reliable, credible, and required evidence of workman claim of
workman is liable to be dismissed.
In this background reference is liable to be decided against workman and in favour of management.
Which is accordingly decided and claim/statement is dismissed.
Award is accordingly passed.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7827
Dated: 19.06.2017
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2363
2363
2363
2363.—औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार महाबंधक, अशोक होटल, नई Jद> ली एवं उनके कम(चारी के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके कम(कार के
बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण एवं Uम यायालय Jद> ली सं. I के पंचाट
(संदभ( सं. 93/2014) को कािशत करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 1.09.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-42011/86/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
राज! जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2363.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 93/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
I, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager,
Ashok Hotel, New Delhi and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 01.09.2017.
[No. L-42011/86/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR
COURT No. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, SHAHDRA, DELHI
ID NO. 93/2014
Shri Jagdeep Singh,
S/o Shri Rishal Singh, & 61 others
Through
The President
Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union,
Ashok Hotel Staff Quarter No.C-47/48,
Chankyapuri,
New Delhi – 110021
…Workman
Vs.
The General Manager,
Ashok Hotel, 50-B, Chanakyapuri,
Mew Delhi
New Delhi – 110021.
…Management
AWARD
1.
In the present case, reference was received from the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, vide a letter
No.L-42011/86/2014-IR(DU) dated 14.10.2014 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-Section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. In short, the reference are for the adjudication of the industrial dispute, the terms of
the reference are as under :-
“Whether Non-regularization of service of Sh.Jagdeep Singh S/o Shri Rishal Singh & 61 others by the
management of Ashok Hotel is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”
2.
Both the parties were put to notice and it is clear from the statement of claim filed by the claimants that
claimants ere working with Ashok Hotel as Security Guards for the last many years and details of the workmen are
given in Annexure A. The case of regularization of the claimants herein was taken up by their Union in its meeting held
on 27.2.2013 and demand notice was served upon on 13.12.2013 on the basis of the resolution passed by the working
committee of the union.
7828
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
The union later on took up the matter with Labour Department on 19.12.2013 and in view of failure of the
conciliation proceedings reference was made by the appropriate government as mentioned above to this Tribunal for
adjudication of the industrial dispute.
4.
It is the case of the claimants that initially the management used the services of the workmen through
contractors i.,e. M/s. Brave Heart Security Services, M/s. D.S.S. Security Services, M/s. TQSS Contractors and now
M/s MESCO. There has been an agreement between Ashok Hotel and the so called contractors to pay the salary to the
workmen by the management of Ashok Hotel through the said contractors and the claimants are working in the
premises of Ashok Hotel and management of Ashok Hotel is the beneficiary of the workmen and the claimants. The job
of the claimants is of perennial nature and same could not be done through the contractual employees. It is also alleged
that Ashok Hotel is a government organization and the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Gujrat Electricity Board Vs.
Hind Mazdoor Sabha, held that no public sector/Govt Organization should use the services of contractual employees
which is unfair labour practice. The so called contractors are alleged to be the middleman and the management has
been paying salary to the workmen through them for which they are paid commission by the management of Ashok
Hotel. The officials of the management of Ashok Hotel such as Manager, Security Department, DSO used to assign the
duty to the claimants/workmen from time to time and their attendance was also marked by them. Their work was also
supervised by the officers of the management of Ashok Hotel. The claimants have completed 240 days in each calendar
year and they are gully entitled to regularization on permanent basis against permanent post which are vacant in the
Hotel. The contracts between the management of Ashok Hotel and contractors are alleged to be sham and artificial as
well as not genuine.
5.
It is also the case of the claimants that they have been performing 8 hours of duty in all shifts, morning,
evening and night ay all the gates alongwith permanent staff working as security guards. The claimants were also paid
the benefit of golden jubilee i.e. Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- on account of good business in Ashok Hotel. It is further
alleged in Para 19 of the statement that now the management in the hotel is paying salary to the employees through M/s
Maharashtra Ex-Servicemen Corporation Ltd. Contractor on commission basis. There is also reference to the judgment
of Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it is held that workmen are entitled to equal pay at par with the permanent
employees.
6.
The claim was contested by the Management who filed reply thereto and took preliminary objections that
claim is totally misconceived and not legally tenable against the management. The claimants herein are employees of
M/s Total Quality Security & Surveillance Systems Private Limited whereas regularization is being sought from the
management. The management had entered into an agreement with the contractor on principle to principle basis and
claimants are alleged to be the employees of the contractor and not that of management of Ashok Hotel. The
management, on merits, denied most of the averments. However, it has not been categorically and specifically denied
that claimants herein are not doing service for the benefit of the management of Ashok Hotel. There is reference to M/s
Total Quality Security & Surveillance Systems Private Limited to whom the contract was given by the management for
a period of one year for the commencement of the work. It is denied that the contractor is a middleman or contractor
was being paid any kind of commission by the management. The management has denied the other averments made in
the statement of claim and further alleged that rulings cited by the workmen in the plaint are not applicable to the facts
of the present case as there is no relationship of employer and employee between the management of Ashok Hotel and
claimants herein. Finally, prayer has been made for dismissal of the plaint.
7.
The claimants filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the management and reiterated the stand already
taken in the statement of claim.
8.
Against the factual background, this Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed the following
issued on 01.10.2015.
(1)
Whether the claimants were employees of Total Quality Security and Surveillance Pvt. Ltd. as
alleged?
(2)
As in terms of reference.
9.
The claimants in order to prove their case against the management, examined Sh. S.S.Upadhyay as WW-1
who has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1/A alongwith documents Ex.WW1/1 to 11. Claimants also
examined 25 other claimants whose affidavits were duly admitted and proved on record. The management in the
present case was proceeded ex parte vide order dated February 3, 2017. Both the parties have filed written submissions
in support of the stand taken in their respective pleadings.
ISSUE NO. 1 & 2
10.
Both these issues are taken up together for the purpose of discussion as they are inter-related and can be
conveniently disposed of.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7829
11.
It is clear from the pleadings of the parties that claimants herein have specifically alleged that they were
working in the employment of the management of Ashok Hotel as Security Guards and management has used the
services of so called contractors who are simply middlemen. The management is having direct control over the working
of the claimants whereas the management has alleged that the claimants are not the employees of the management of
Ashok Hotel and they were engaged by the contractor. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to Para 2 of the
preliminary objections taken by the management wherein it is specifically alleged the claimants herein are employees
of M/s Total Quality Service System and Surveillance Pvt. Ltd. and over all examination of the written statement by the
management shows that there is no mention of the year i.e. date, month and year when management of Ashok Hotel
entered into a contract with the contractor M/s. Total Quality Service Systems and Surveillance Pvt. Ltd. There is no
mention of the name of the contractor who was exercising any kind of supervisory control over the claimants. There is
no mention if any supervisor was engaged by the said Contractor on the spot so as to give any kind of any direction to
the claimants herein.
12.
Admittedly, the management had not examined any contractor so as to prove its stand taken in the written
statement. The management has also not filed any certified copy of the contract between the management of Ashok
Hotel and private contractor. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the oral evidence adduced by the claimant. Shri
S.S.Upadhyay, while appearing as WW-1, has clearly stated in his affidavit Ex.WW1/A that he is President of Ashok
Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union. He has further alleged that Shri Jagdeep Singh and 61 other security guards were working
in the premises of Ashok Hotel and they are also members of above Union of which he is the President. The affidavit is
almost repetition of statement of claim. He has also filed copy of the demand notice Ex.WW1/2 wherein there is a
mention of the fact that Ashok Hotel is using the service of about 132 security guards/supervisors in the security
department. He had also tendered in evidence various judgments of Hon’ble High Court. There is also letter Ex.WW1/7
wherein a complaint regarding less payment of wages to the security staff is lodged with the management. The
claimants have also filed and tendered in evidence copy of manual Ex.WW1/8 issued by the Indian Tourism
Development Corporation (ITDC) which contains various guidelines regarding paying of wages, rest days, holidays
and over time etc.
13.
The claimants have also filed duty roaster Ex.WW1/9 which bears the names of claimants and there is also
mention of their duty hours. Letter Ex.WW1/10 also shows that Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALT) tried to
amicably solve the dispute between the parties regarding the demand made by the claimants herein but of no heed.
14.
Now, the vital question before this Tribunal is whether in the absence of any evidence adduced by the
management in the form of production of contract agreement, examination of contractor etc., whether it can be said that
claimants herein are in the employment of private contractor. It is clear from the written submissions made on behalf of
management that management has been taking services of various contractors from time to time in connection with the
security services of Ashok Hotel through private contractors. However, the stand of the management is that onus to
prove that claimants herein are employees of the management is upon the claimants. In this regard, in the W.S. there is
reference to admission made by the claimants in the statement of claim that they have been working in security
department of Ashok Hotel through contractor.
15.
The management has referred in written submissions that Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. vs.
State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2004 SC 1639), wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the person who
takes a plea of existence of relationship of employer-employee, the burden would be upon him. There is also reference
to the case Steel Authority of India vs. National Union Waterfronts Workers & Ors. (AIR 2001 S.C. 3527).
16.
The management has also annexed some other judgments of Hon’ble High Court and I would be referring the
same in subsequent Paras while drawing my conclusions.
17.
There is hardly any doubt with proposition of law that onus to prove that workmen are in the employment of a
particular employer is always upon the workmen and it is for the workmen to lead reliable evidence to prove the said
fact.
18.
It is necessary to note here that in the subsequent judgment i.e. Director Fisheries Terminal Division Vs.
Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda (AIR 2010 SC 1236) while referring to the earlier judgment in case of R.M.Yellatti
vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer [2006 SCC 9 (L& S)] page 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under :
“17 … However, applying general principles and on reading the (aforesaid) judgments, we find that
this court has repeatedly taken the view that burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had
worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping up in
the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and
documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily waged earners, there will be no letter of
appointment of termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus, in most cases, the
workman ( the claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the court the nominal
muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the
attendance register, etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on the facts
of each case.”
7830
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“17. Applying the principles laid down in the above case by this Court, the evidence produced by the
appellants has not been consistent. The appellant claims that the respondent did not work for 240 days.
The respondent was a workman hired on a daily wages basis. So it is obvious, as this court pointed out
in the above case that he would have difficulty in having access to all the official documents, muster
rolls etc. in connection with his service. He has come forward and deposed, so in our opinion the burden
of proof shift to the appellant employer to prove that he did not complete 240 days of service in the
requisite period of constitute continuous service.”
19.
In the case in hand, so far as factum of taking service from the claimants herein is concerned, during hearing
of the case, management admitted that claimants are working as supervisors/security guards in the premises of Ashok
Hotel. It was also not denied that from time to time management is contractors and majority of the workmen remain the
same despite the change of the contractors. It is also clear from the perusal of the duty roaster Ex.WW1/9 that the
claimants herein were working in the establishment of Ashok Hotel and performing their duties in rotation under the
supervision and control of the management of Ashok Hotel. There is also copy of Ex.WW1/10 i.e. gate pass of the
claimants which further shows that claimants were working in Ashok Hotel and the said gate passes were valid for the
gates mentioned therein. The management has also made payment to the claimants on account of golden jubilee
celebration. As discussed above, in the present case, the management has not turned in the witness box so as to state
any material facts on oath nor management has taken due care to file copy of any contract agreement which was
entered between the management of Ashok Hotel and the private contractor. In such circumstances, version of the
claimants who have entered into the witness box and also made statement in support of the stand taken in the plaint
cannot be ignored. Evidence adduced by the claimant remains unrebutted and even the cross-examination of the
witness by the management has not revealed anything so as to help the case of the management. In such circumstances,
this Tribunal is going to draw an adverse inference against the management.
20.
I have carefully gone through the ratio of the case Steel Authority of India Vs. National Union Waterfront
Workers & Ors., AIR (2001) 7 SCC 3527, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court considered extensively various
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as Contract Labour Act 1970 alongwith relevant notification
issued under section 10 of the Contact Labour Act,1970. A critical appraisal of the above judgment would show that
the Hon”ble Apex Court has taken into consideration the entire spectrum of the case law on the subject and held in Para
107 and under :
“107.
An analysis of the cases discussed above, shows that they fall in three classes: (i) where contract
labour is engaged in or in connection with the wok of an establishment and employment of contract
labour is prohibited either because the industrial adjudicator/court ordered abolition of contract6
labour or because the appropriate Government issued notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA
Act, no automatic absorption of the on contract labour working in the establishment was ordered; (ii)
where the contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which case the
contract labour working in the establishment of the principal employer were held, in fact and in reality
the employees of the principal employer were held, in fact and in reality, the employees of the principal
himself. Indeed, such cases do not relate to abolition of contract labour but present instances wherein
the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct position as a fact at the stage after employment of
contact labour stood prohibited; (iii) where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a
canteen in an establishment the principal employee availed the services of a contractor the courts have
held that the contact labour would indeed be the employees of the principal employer.”
21. Ratio of the above judgment has been cited with approval in all the subsequent pronouncements by the various
High Courts as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court and while making various conclusions, ratio of the law in
Hussanbhai case (the judgments decision) was approved and ratio of the judgment in Air India Statutory
Corporation Vs. United Labour Union (1997) 9 SCC 377 was partly overruled prospectively. I was also made clear
that neither Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act nor any other provisions under the Act, where expressly or by
necessary implication provides for automatic absorption of the contract labour on issuance of notification by the
appropriate government under sub-Section 1 of Section 10 prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment. Matter is to be decided judiciously by the Industrial Adjudicator where a
contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the
establishment or for supply of contract labour for the work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is merely a
ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislation so as to deprive the workers of the benefit
thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contact labour will be treated
as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize services of the labour in the establishments
concerned, subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of Para 6 hereunder :
“(6) if the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the
C.L.R.A,.Act in respect of the concerned establishment has been issued by the appropriate Government,
prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7831
establishment and where in such process, operation or other wok of the establishment the principal
employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour,
if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age
appropriately taking into consideration the age of the worker at the time of their init6ial employment by
the contractor and also relaxing he condition as to academic qualifications other than technical
qualifications.”
22.
This Tribunal has to keep one thing in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act as well Contract Labour Act are
essentially social and beneficial legislations. The scheme of the Contract Labour Act 1970 is to regulate conditions of
workers under the contract labour system and prohibit engagement of contract labour when notification has been issued
under Section 10 of the said Act. Section 12 of the said Act bars a contactor from undertaking or executing any work
through contract labour, except under and in accordance with a licence issued. Section 23, 24 and 25 of the Act makes
contravention of provisions of the Act punishable thereunder. There is also requirement for the principal employer of
the establishment to get itself registered under Section 7 of the Act so as to avail the benefit of provisions of the Act.
Similarly, contractor has to obtain licence as required under section of 12 of the Act.
23.
It is clear from the pleadings of the parties in the present case that there is no issuance of prohibition
notification under section 10 Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, (hereinafter stated as CLR.A Act).
However, Shri S.S.Upadhyay, Ld. A/R for the workmen referred to Ex.WW1/3 which is the standing order of Ashok
Hotel. Section 3 of the said order deals with classification of the employees and it was urged that condition of service
of claimants herein is to be governed by the said management. It is also not in dispute that most of the claimants herein
are working with the management of the Ashok Hotel for the last several years and evidence led by the claimants also
suggests that supervisor as well as administrative control of such claimants is that of the officials of the management of
the Ashok Hotel. There is no evidence on record to suggest that any supervisor was appointed by him who was issuing
any kind of direction to such workers or was exercising any control upon them. The management has not produced any
license as required u/s 12 of CLRA Act, in respect of any of the contractor who were engaged from time to time by the
management, nor there is any proof filed by the management that it was duly registered in terms section 7 of the CLRA
Act with the appropriate Govt. In such circumstances, this Tribunal is of the clear view that the claimants herein cannot
be held to be in the service of private contractor.
24.
In fact, the CLRA Act primarily deals with the abuses of the contract labour and also to provide security to the
contract labour engaged through the private contractor. This approach is clearly discernible from the provisions of
CLRA Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case partly over ruled the ratio of the case in AIR India Statutory
Corporation case and held that it is not possible to perceive in Section 10 of the CLRA Act any implicit requirement of
automatic absorption of contract labour by the principal employer in the establishment concerned on issuance of
notification by the appropriate government u/S 10(1) CLRA Act prohibiting s employment of contract labour in a given
establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour
working in the establishment concerned.
It was also held in the above case as under :-
“The word “workman” is defined in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a
species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms “establishment” and “workman” shows that a
workman engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a
servant of master. But what I true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. Then
circumstances under which contract labour could be treated as direct workman of the principal
employee have been held to be only the following ones :
(i)
Where the contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which case
the contract labour working in the establishment of the principal employer were held, in fact
and in reality, the employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed, such cases do not relate
to abolition of contract labour but present instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and
declared the correct position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood
prohibited, and
(ii)
Where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a canteen in an establishment the
principal employer availed of the services of a contractor and the court held that the contract
labour would indeed be the employees of the principal employer.
25.
It is not necessary to mention here the question whether the particular agreement or contract entered between
the principal employer and private contractors is bogus, sham, nominal etc. is to be decided by the Industrial
Adjudicator who can probe into the matter so as to ascertain the terms and conditions of the agreement or contract.
26.
But as discussed above in the case on hand, the management has neither filed certified copy of the agreement
of contract which was entered between the management and the private contractor nor any step was taken by the
management to examine the contractor or any supervisor who was deployed by the contractor, if any. The ratio of Steel
7832
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Authority of India has been subsequently followed in almost every case by the Hon’ble Apex Court and it is clear that
there are number of factors which are taken into consideration by the Industrial Adjudicator so as to come to the
conclusion where workmen in establishment are employees of the principal employer or that of the contractor. The
relevant factors are who is having actual and immediate control over such workmen, who is paying the salary to such
workmen, the place where the workmen are working and who is exercising supervisory control over such workmen
including directions given to such workmen regarding performance of duty.
27.
Another relevant factor is who is marking attendance of the workmen during the office hours. All these factors
could have been ascertained by this Tribunal, steps were taken to produce any of the witness from the management so
as to prove that claimants herein are in the employment of the contractor and not the management. The evidence
adduced in the present case by the workmen is explicit and it is clear from the evidence on record that workmen were
being given directions regarding performance of duty by the officials of management of Ashok Hotel who were
directing and having the supervisory control over them. The workmen are working in the premises of Ashok Hotel and
performing their duties and it is clear from the evidence on record that their attendance was also being marked by the
officials of Ashok Hotel. Not only this, the workmen were being directed to perform duty in the particular manner and
at a particular place on the directions of officials of Ashok Hotel. Simply because the salary to the claimants herein is
being paid through so-called contractor would not be conclusive proof of relationship of employer and employee
between the contractor and the claimants. The contractor in fact simply allowed his name to be used by the
management so as claimants herein put a claim themselves directly in the employment of Ashok Hotel. The so-called
contractor is simply the name lender who is not having any kind of supervisory or disciplinary control over the
management. In fact, the workmen are in the employment of management from the very beginning and from time to
time as is clear from the W.S. and written submissions of the management.
28.
The Tribunal cannot ignore the vital factor that the work performed by the workmen claimants herein is of
regular and perennial nature. It is not a seasonal work or a temporary work so as to engage contract labour for the
performance of the same. The extract of the contract manual filed by the claimants Ex.WW1/3 also shows that the
management can employ the workmen whose classification is given in Section of the certified standing orders. The
union of the workmen from time to time has also raised this issue with the management for permanent absorption of the
workmen and also committal of unfair practices by the management. There is long line of judgments of the Hon’ble
Apex Couirt wherein the Court has strongly deprecated the practice of engaging contract labour in such an
establishment where the work is of regular and perennial nature but this has no impact on the management who is
following the policy of hire and fire regarding engagement of so called contract labour who in fact are doling jobs with
the management for several years.
29.
The reference in the present case has been received from the government to the effect whether non-
regularization of the service of the claimants herein by the management of Ashok Hotel is just and fair. The ld. A/R for
the workmen has also relied upon various judgments so as to show that claimants herein are in the employment of
management of Ashok Hotel. In view of above discussion, it is held that claimants are not employees of M/s. Total
Quality Security & Surveillance Systems Private Limited who has neither been examined nor any contract/agreement
has been proved by the management. Resultantly, both these issues are decided in favour of claimants and against the
management.
30.
The result of the above discussion is that claimants herein cannot be said to be in the employment of
contractor and they are held to be employees of the management. As a sequel to this, it is further held that claimants are
entitled to be considered for regularization as per the policy/rule or regulations applicable to their regular counter parts,
who are performing the similar job.
31. Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under section 17 of the Act.
Dated : 31.08.2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2364
2364
2364
2364.—औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार भारत सरकार, िव+ान और ौuोिगक मं$ालय, नई Jद> ली के माx यम से एवं उनके कम(चारी के बंधतं$ के
संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण
एवं Uम यायालय, Jद> ली सं. I के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 83/2014) को कािशत करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को
31.08.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7833
राज! जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2364.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 83/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Union of India, through Ministry of Science and Technology, New Delhi and their workman, which were received by
the Central Government on 31.08.2017.
[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT No. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, SHAHDRA, DELHI
ID NO. 83/2014
Shri Rajinder
S/o Shri Mang Daya Ram,
R/o P-1/117, T-Huts,
Sultan Puri,Park,
New Delhi – 110086
…Workman
Vs.
Union of India (UOI)
Through Ministry of Science and Technology
Having office at
Department of Science & Technology,
Technology Bhawan,
New Mehrauli Road,
New Delhi – 110016.
…Respondent/Management
AWARD
1.
This is a claim petition directly filed under sub-Section 2 of Section 2A of the Industrial Tribunal Act (in short
the Act) by the claimant Sh. Rajinder with the averments that he was employed for conservancy work as a daily wager
by the management on 01.12.2009. The last drawn salary of the claimant was Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimant was
discharging his duties regularly, honestly and diligently. He never gave any chances to the management for any
complaint. He was not issued any I-card by the management. However, he was given regular passes by the
management for entering the premises of the management. The claimant has worked for more than 240 days in the
calendar year with the management during the preceding year and copy of the attendance sheet is also attached with the
claim petition. The attendance of the claimant was marked by the designated official of the management. The
management never provided any salary slip, casual leave or medical leave etc despite demand being made by the
claimant.
2.
It is the case of the claimant that his service was terminated on 04.09.2012 without assigning any reason and
without following any procedure under the Act. The management did not give any salary to the claimant for the month
of September, 2012.
3.
Thereafter, the claimant served the management with a legal notice demanding reinstatement of the services
but the management did not reply the said notice. It was thereafter that the claimant filed a complaint with the Asstt.
Labour Commissioner (ALC) on 6.5.2014 and management also appeared before the ALC but did not give any reply to
the claim of the claimant. After about three months of the proceedings by the ALC, no solution could be worked out as
a result of which failure report was prepared by the ALC on 26.8.2014. Claimant has made a prayer for his
reinstatement with full back wages.
4.
The claim was refuted by the management who filed reply thereto and took preliminary objections. It is
alleged that claimant Rajinder Kumar was engaged as a daily wager from market in DST premises w.e.f. 01.12.2009
and he was entrusted with conservancy work which was earlier carried out by CPWD contractor. The claimant was not
engaged against any Group ‘D’ post of the department nor he was performing duty of regular nature. He was paid
wages as per the notification issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi under the provision of the Act. He was
engaged on need basis only and was not engaged through Distt. Employment Exchange.
7834
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
On merits, the management has denied the other averments. It is alleged in para 5 of the W.S. that the
workman has left the job on his own and his service was not terminated by the management. A prayer has been made
for the dismissal of the claim filed by the claimant.
6.
Claimant filed rejoinder to the W.S. filed by the management and reasserted his stand taken in the claim
petition.
7.
Based on these facts, this Tribunal vide order dated 12.1.2015 raised the following issues.
“Whether the services of the workman has been terminated illegally and in violation of the provisions of the
Act.”
8.
The claimant in order to prove the case against the management examined himself as WW1 and tendered in
evidence his affidavit as Ex.WW1/A alongwith documents Ex.WW1/1-4.
9.
The management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined Shri Saumitra, Under Secretary, as MW1
who has also tendered in evidence documents Ex.MW1/1-4.
10.
I have heard Shri Brahmanand Gupta A/R for the claimant and Shri Ramanand Kashyap A/R for the
management.
Issue No. 1:
11.
It is clear from the pleadings of the parties that claimant herein was engaged as daily wager with the
management on 01.12.2009. This fact is duly admitted by the management in its W.S. and in affidavit Ex. MW1/A. It is
further clear from the pleadings that he was given the conservancy service which was earlier carried out by the CPWD
contractor. The case of the claimant is that his service was illegally terminated by the management on 04.9.2012
without assigning any reason or service of any notice.
12.
It is clear from the perusal of the document Ex.WW1/1 that claimant was engaged alongwith other three daily
wagers by the management and this letter clearly shows that these four daily wagers were permitted to enter
Technology Bhavan premises for scavenging work for the period from 03.1.2011 to 15.2.2011. The other document
annexed with Ex.WW1/1 also shows that such passes were issued by the management from time to time to claimant
Rajinder Kumar as well as other co-workers. There is also mention of conservancy service in some other letter filed by
the claimant.
13.
The claimant has also filed extracts of the attendance Ex.WW1/2 which clearly shows that management has
engaged the service of the claimant during December, 2009 onwards. The claimant has also filed the failure report copy
of which is Ex.WW1/4.
14.
It is necessary to mention here that sole witness of the management namely Saumitra while appearing as MW1
has admitted in his cross examination that claimant used to perform his daily duty of conservancy work which includes
the dusting etc. He was normally working five days in a week like the regular employees. He however, admitted that no
notice was issued to the claimant when he stopped attending office after 17.5.12. He further admitted that I-cards were
also issued as such Ex.WW1/1. It is thus clear from the documentary evidence on the record that claimant was
performing his duty regularly with the management since 2009.
15.
There is no merit in the contention of the management that claimant stopped attending the office since
17.5.2012. It is pertinent to mention here that attendance register of the claimant Ex.WW1/2 clearly shows that till
August, 2012 his presence has been marked by the management. Thus, it falsifies the stand taken by the management
that claimant stopped attending the office after 17.5.12.
16.
Admittedly, in the present case no show cause notice was issued to the claimant before terminating his service
nor one month salary was paid to the claimant in lieu of such notice as required under Section 25 F of the Act.
17.
Section 25 F lays down the conditions precedent to the retrenchment of the workman and require the employer
to give one month notice to the workman in writing or one month wages in lieu of such notice as well as retrenchment
of compensation to such workman. This provision is mandatory and violation of the same would render action against
the management under the law. The Hon’ble Apex court in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industies Ltd.
(2014 LAB.I.C. 2643 Supreme Court) interpreted the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act and observed 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 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 to the workman at the time of retrenchment,
compensation equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service of any
part thereof in excess of six months. This Court has repeatedly held that Section 25F(a) and (b) of the Act is
mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee nullity.”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7835
18.
It is thus clear from the ratio of the above authorities that compliance of provisions of Section 25 F is
mandatory under the law and violation of the same would render action against the management to be illegal or void
under the law.
19.
The claimant has in his affidavit clearly stated that he was not gainfully employed after his termination nor
there is any evidence on record to show that claimant was doing any kind of job after his termination. Under such
circumstances, it is reasonable to presume that claimant was out of job after his termination. The hon’ble Apex Court in
case “Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya” has held as under :
20.
The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
i)
In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages
is the normal rule.
ii)
Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting
back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority
or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser
wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead
cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting
wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because
it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who
makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to
prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the
employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting
the same or substantially similar emoluments.”
21.
The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of
termination of a workman’s service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the
mandate of Section 25F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se,
sometime 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 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering
the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not
terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
22.
It is clear from the evidence on record that no evidence has been adduced by the management to the effect that
claimant was in employment after termination since the nature of the work of the claimant is regular in nature as sujch
the workman deserves to be reinstated with full back wages.
Relief:
23.
As a sequel to my above discussion, it is held that termination of the service of the claimant by management is
totally illegal and against the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act.
24.
Since the job of conservancy or dusting etc. is regular in nature and even today the workman is required to
perform such duty, as such this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that service of the claimant is liable to be
reinstated with full back wages.
25.
Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under section 17 of the Act.
Dated : 24.08.2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2365
2365
2365
2365.—औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार आयु@ त, पूव( Jद> ली नगर िनगम, नई Jद> ली एवं उनके कम(चारी के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके
कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण एवं Uम यायालय Jद> ली
सं. I के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 8/2016) को कािशत करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 28.08.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-42011/170/2015-आईआर (डीयू)]
7836
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
राज! जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2365.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 8/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. I, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi and their workman, which were received by the Central
Government on 28.08.2017.
[No. L-42011/170/2015-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. 8/2016
The General Secretary,
MCD General Mazdoor Union,
Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,
Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Udyog Sadan, Plot No.419,
Patparganj Industrial Area,
Shahdara,
New Delhi 110 092
…Management
AWARD
By this award, I shall be disposing of the reference received vide letter No.L-42011/170/2015-IR(DU) dated
21.12.2005 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in
short the Act) from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment for adjudication of an industrial
dispute, terms of which are as under:
‘Whether the action of the management of East Delhi Municipal Corporation, by not granting the status of
Chaudhary to Shri Shyam Singh S/o Shri Ran Singh and the applicable scale of Rs.950-1500 revised from
time to time with effect from 01.05.1993 is fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and
from which date?’
2.
Both the parties were put to notice and it is clear from perusal of statement of claim filed by Shri Shyam
Singh, the claimant herein, that he was employed on muster roll in the year 1981 and with effect from 06.03.1984 he
was employed as regular mali. Thereafter, he has being doing the job of officiating Chaudhary since 01.05.1993 as per
orders issued to him by the Horticulture Department. He was posted under Shri Mahavir Singh, AD((Horticulture and
Shri P.S. Harit, Deputy Director (Horticulture ), Shahdara North Zone but he was denied pay scale of chaudhary as
revised from time to time. Claimant has also annexed list of officiating Chaudhary which is Annexure A.
3.
It is the case of the claimant that there was no qualification prescribed for making promotion to the post of
Chaudhary. Management has fixed different pay scales of mali, Chaudhary etc. in accordance with their job and non-
grant of pay scale to the claimant herein amounts to forced labour and unfair labour practice. Claimant has got
payment in the lower pay scale of Rs.750-940 revised from time to time and he has been denied pay scale of Rs.950-
1500, which is the pay scale of Chaudhary and claimant is performing duties of the same since 01.05.1993. Duties of
mali is presently of an unskilled workman whereas duties of Chaudhary is skilled in nature belonging to Group C
category of employees.
4.
There is also reference to the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Jai Chand Vs
MCD wherein pay scale of Chaudhary has been granted to such malis who were officiating as Chaudhary in
compliance to the directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court. In the above writ petition, management has issued
order dated 04.03.2005 . In the recent judgement, Hon’ble High Court vide judgement dated 27.07.2011 has settled the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7837
matter in MCD Vs. Sultan Singh as well as in the case of MCD vs. Mahipal vide which plea of the management for
non grant of pay scale of officiating Chaudhary has been considered and rejected by the Hon’ble High Court in the
above writ petition. In view of this, claimant is entitled for pay scale of Chaudhary i.e. Rs.950-1500 revised from time
to time with effect from 01.05.1993.
5.
The claim of the claimant was contested by the management who filed reply and took various preliminary
objections regarding delay and laches etc. It is alleged that the claimant herein was regularized on the post of mali with
effect from 06.03.1984 and is not entitled for status of Chaudhary with effect from 06.03.1984. Claimant was required
to pass the trade test and he appeared in the trade test in 2014 but the claimant did not secure appropriate marks for
promotional post and hence his name did not figure in the merit list. Recruitment to the post of Chaudhary is totally
different from that of the mali and only persons having qualification of 10th pass with Agriculture coupled with clearing
of trade test can be considered for the post of Chaudhary as mentioned in Annexure B. Management has denied the
other material averments made in the statement of claim. It is also been alleged that on account of delay and laches,
claimant is not entitled for the same.
6.
Rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the claimant wherein the stand taken in the written statement
has been reiterated and the material facts given in the written statement have been refuted.
7.
Against his factual background, this Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following
issues vide order dated 03.01.2017:
(i)
Whether no demand notice has been served as alleged and whether the claim is not legally
maintainable due to delay & latches?
(ii)
In terms of reference
(iii)
Relief
8.
Claimant, in order to prove his case against the management examined himself as WW1 and Shri B.K. Prasad
as WW2 and their affidavits are Ex.WW1/A and Ex.WW2/A respectively. They have also tendered in evidence
various documents and I would be referring to the same during the course of my discussions in the subsequent paras.
Management, in order to rebut the case of the claimant, examined Shri Vijay Pal Sharma as MW1, whose affidavit is
Ex. MW1/A and he has relied on documents Ex.MW1/1 and Ed.MW1/2.
9.
I have heard Shri B.K.Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri Narender Singh, A/R for the management.
Issue No. (i)
10.
It is clear from the preliminary objections taken in the written statement by the management that the
management has raised objections 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.
11.
Hence, issue No.(i) is answered in favour of the claimant and against the management.
Issue No. (ii) and (iii)
12.
It is clear from the plea of the parties that the claimant has joined services of the management in the year 1984.
During the course of arguments it was not denied that the claimant was appointed as regular mali with effect from
06.03.1984. Case of the claimant is that he is performing duties of officiating Chaudhary since 01.05.1993 on the
directions of officials of Horticulture Department. It was strongly urged on behalf of the claimant that he joined
services with the management in the year 1981. During the course of arguments, it was not denied that the claimant was
7838
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
appointed as regular mali with effect from 06.03.1984. The case of the claimant is that he is performing duties of
Garden Chaudhary on the directions of Horticulture Department. It was strongly urged on behalf of the claimant that in
view of decision given by Hon’ble High Court in the case of MCD vs Sultan Singh as well as MCD vs Mahipal Singh
there is hardly any scope for the plea being raised by the management that the claimant was not having requisite
qualification so as to promote him to the post of Garden Chaudhary. It is clear from perusal of Ex.WW1/1 which is the
list of Garden Chaudhary employed with Horticulture Department of Shahdara, they are regular Garden Chaudhary
who were performing duties as regular/officiating Chaudhary. In the said list, name of the claimant appears at serial
No.18. There is also a column ‘Date from which functioning as officiating Chaudhary’ and in the same is mentioned
as ‘1999’ and in the ‘Qualification’ column, there is mention of ‘8th pass.’ He is having experience on the said post
since 1990.
13.
The main attack of the management is that the claimant herein was not having requisite qualification and that
he has passed the requisite trade test in 2014, as such, there is no question of grant of pay scale of Garden Chaudhary to
the claimant from 1999 and from the date of his having passed the trade test in 2014, he is entitled for the scale of
Garden Chaudhary. 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.”
14.
It is further clear that SLP was also filed by MCD before the Hon’ble Apex Court vide IA No.2 WP for special
leave 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 trade 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.
15.
It is not out of place to mention here that even if the workman 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 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:
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7839
(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.”
16.
Similar contention of delay and laches and not having requisite qualification, including passing of trade test
was raised in the case of MCD Vs. Rajbir Singh . The workman, in the contention of the management, was not entitled
to the pay scale of Garden Chaudhary from the date from which he was officiating as Garden Chaudhary. The above
contention of the management was out-rightly rejected by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by upholding the decision
of the learned Tribunal by putting reliance on the case of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh which was decided on 27.07.2011.
17.
Since the claimant is officiating on the post of Garden Chaudhary since 1998, as such, he is entitled to the pay
scale of Garden Chaudhary with effect from 01.05.1993 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. 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 : August 22, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2366
2366
2366
2366.—औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार Jद> ली मेEो रेल िनगम, मेEो भवन, नई Jद> ली व अ य एवं उनके कम(चारी के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके
कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण एवं Uम यायालय Jद> ली सं.
I के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 148/2015) को कािशत करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 12.07.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]
राज! जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2366.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 148/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, Metro Bhawan, New Delhi and other and their workman, which were received by the
Central Government on 12.07.2017.
[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
7840
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 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. 148/2015
Shri Jagat Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh,
R/o RZ 163, Q Extension, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi through
Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor Union (Regd. No. 4479)
Head Office, D-2/24, Sultanpuri Delhi
…Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation,
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi
2.
The Managing Director,
M/s. PLN-9 Security Pvt. Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Sun Tower, Sukhrail,
MG Road, Gurgaon,
Haryana 122 001
…Managements
AWARD
A porter was employed by M/s. PLN-9 Security Pvt. Ltd. (in short the contractor) to carry out its contractual
obligations towards Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (in short the principal employer). He joined his duties on
07.02.2013. His services were dispensed with on 01.12.2014. He raised a demand for reinstatement in service, which
demand was not conceded to. Constrained by that fact, he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer
through Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor Union. Managements contested his claim, hence no settlement
could be arrived at before the Conciliation Officer. Since 45 days from the date of moving an application before the
Conciliation Officer expired, the porter opted to file his dispute before this Tribunal for adjudication, using provisions
of sub-section (2) of section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act).
2.
The porter, Shri Jagat Singh (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) projects in the claimant that he was
working continuously with the managements since 07.02.2013 on a salary of Rs.7000.00. He was working under the
control and supervision of the principal employer. The work being performed by was perennial in nature. The principal
employer was getting the work through the contractor in blatant violation of rule 7, 10 and 12 of the Contractor Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the contractor was un-licenced and the principal employer was not registered
under the CLRA Act. Appointment letter, attendance card, overtime, dearness allowance, wage slip, identity card, ESI,
PF casual leaves and off on gazetted holidays were not given to him. When he raised demand for the same,
contractor/principal employer felt offended and his services were terminated on 01.12.2014 without any notice. Neither
one months’ notice nor pay in lieu thereof was given to him. Retrenchment compensation, as contemplated by
provisions of 25-F of the Act, was not paid to him. Provisions of section 25-G and 25-H of the Act were also violated.
He claims reinstatement in service of the contractor/principal employer with continuity and full back wages.
Complaint was made to the Labour Inspector, but there was no fruitful result. A demand notice dated 05.01.2015 was
sent to the management but the management neither responded to the same nor took back the claimant in service.
Finally it has been prayed that an award be passed in his favour with continuity and full back wages.
3.
The principal employer filed written statement wherein certain preliminary objections, inter alia of non-
existence of employer-employee relationship between the claimant and the principal employer etc. On merits,
management has denied the other averments contained in the statement of claim.
4.
The contractor also contested the claim by filing written statement, taking various preliminary objections, inter
alia of maintainability, absence of any cause of action, non-existence of employer/employee relationship, not
approaching the court with clean hands etc. However, factum of the appointment of the claimant has been admitted.
Contractors had entered into an agreement with the principal employer for one year for carrying out or to manage the
trolleys, porter services, cloak room/baggage strapping alongwith stationery etc. Minimum wages were being paid to
the claimant and he was being given all the benefits under various labour enactments. The work and conduct of the
claimant was found wanting. The management had served one months’ notice to the claimant, which was duly
received by him and he tendered his resignation. Thereafter, he was given full and final payment by the contractor.
Finally, it has been prayed that the claim petition may be dismissed.
5.
Against this factual background, this Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed the following
issues vide order dated 10.02.2016:
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7841
(i)
Whether there is no relationship of employer and employee between the Management No.1 and the
claimant?
(ii)
Whether services of the claimant was terminated illegally and wrongfully on 01.12.2014?
6.
The case was then listed for evidence of the claimant. The claimant filed his affidavit in evidence on
15.07.2016. Thereafter, the case was listed for examination of the claimant on five subsequent dates. However, the
claimant failed to put in his appearance. Learned A/R for the claimant stated at the bar that despite his best efforts, the
claimant could not be contacted. Hence, it is apparent that the claimant is no more interested in progress of the case on
merits. Hence, this Tribunal is left with no other alternative but to pass a ‘No dispute/no claim’ award. However, it is
made clear that there is no adjudication of the case on merits and as such, the 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 10, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2367
2367
2367
2367.— औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार आयु@ त, पूव( Jद> ली नगर िनगम, नई Jद> ली एवं उनके कम(चारी के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके
कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण एवं Uम यायालय Jद> ली
सं. I के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 146/2015) को कािशत करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 22.09.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-42011/53/2015-आईआर (डीयू)]
राज! जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2367.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 146/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi and their workman, which were received by the Central
Government on 22.09.2017.
[No. L-42011/53/2015-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. 146/2015
The General Secretary,
MCD General Mazdoor Union,
Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,
Jam Nagar House, Shah Jahan Road,
New Delhi
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Udyog Sadan, Plot No.419,
Patparganj Industrial Area,
Shahdara,
New Delhi -110 092
…Management
AWARD
This award shall dispose of a reference received from Ministry of Labour and Employment vide Order
No. L-42011/53/2015-IR(DU) dated 18.06.2015 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
7842
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as
under:
‘Whether Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri Babu Lal is entitled to the pay scale of Garden Chaudhary with effect
from 01.04.1995 as well as promotion from the date when his juniors were promoted as regular Garden
Chaudhary with effect from 04..03.2014? If so, what directions are necessary in this respect?’
2.
Shri Om Prakash, the claimant, filed his statement of claim, wherein it is alleged that he has been allotted
work of Chaudhary with effect from 01.04.1995 by the competent officers of Horticulture Department. He was
transferred to South District Shahdara Horticulture Wing on 22.06.2009 and he is still performing duties of Chaudhary.
However, he has been denied pay scale of Chaudhary, revised from time to time with effect from 01.04.1995. Some
acting chaudharies who are similarly situated were allowed grant of pay of Chaudhary from the date when they were
performing duties as Garden Chaudhary as per directions of Hon’ble Tribunal in TA No.1317/2009 in the matter of
Sultan Singh & others vs. MCD and further direction of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi titled Sultan Singh & Others in
Writ Petition (C) No.7947/2010 and dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Special Leave to Appeal
(C) No. 20069/2011 on 09.04.2012.
3.
Yet in another writ petition titled Sultan Singh Vs. MCD, Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court dated
15.03.2013 again directed the management comply with order dated 12.11.2010 and relevant part of the order is
reproduced:
‘Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition quashing the order dated November 12, 2010 passed by the
Director (Horticulture). We direct the Director (Horticulture) to pass a fresh order after considering the
relevant evidence strictly within the directions issued by the Tribunal in para 5 of the opinion dated January
29, 2010 disposing of TA No.1317/2009.’
4.
It is necessary to mention here that order dated 12.11.2010 issued by the management was quashed by the
Hon’ble High Court on 15.03.2013 in which management has taken stand as under:
‘As per Recruitment Regulations for the post of Garden Chaudhary, the method of recruitment to the said
post is by selection to be made on the basis of a Trade Test. The RRs also envisage minimum educational
qualifications as Matric or High School pass with agriculture as one of the subjects. Garden Chaudhary is a
Grade C post and the Commissioner, MCD is the Appointing Authority for such posts. The applicants
would be considered for promotion as Garden Chaudhary in accordance with Recruitment Regulation.’
5.
It is also averred in para 12 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. 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.
6.
Similarly 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. Juniors to the claimant were promoted as
Chaudhary with effect from 04.03.2014 under promotion quote in pay band of Rs.5200-20200 + 1900 grade pay +
usual allowances without providing opportunity to the claimant to participate in the promotional quota without
educational qualification of 10th pass with Agriculture as one of the subjects. Finally, it is prayed that an award may be
passed in his favour by awarding pay scale of Garden Chaudhary with effect from 01.04.1995 and also award
promotion from the date when his juniors were promoted as regular Garden Chaudhary with effect from 04.03.2014,
with all consequential benefits.
7.
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 does not
possess the requisite qualification. 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 Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in State of
Punjab vs. Shri Kalidas & another’ (1997) LLR 349. Management, on merits, have denied material averments.
Management has admitted the fact that the claimant is presently working in South District Zone. However, it is denied
that the workman herein was performing duties of Chaudhary. Factum of recruitment regulation for the post of
Chaudhary not being notified and the management unlawfully not allowing the claimant to participate in the promotion
is also denied. Management have further denied that juniors to the claimant were promoted with effect from
04.03.2014 under the promotion quota. Accordingly, it is prayed that claim of the workman herein is liable to be
dismissed, being devoid of merits.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7843
8.
Against this factual background, based on pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal vide order dated 29.04.2016
framed the following issues:
(i)
Whether the claim is not maintainable, in view of the preliminary objections?
(ii)
As in terms of reference
9.
Claimant, in support of his case, examined himself as WW1 and Shri B.K. Prasad as WW2 and tendered in
evidence their affidavit Ex.WW1/A & Ex.WW2/A and also tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW1/1 & Ex.WW1/2
and Ex.WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/5 respectively. Management, in order to rebut the case of the claimant, examined Shri
Vijay Pal Sharma, Assistant Director as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. No documents were relied by the
management witness.
10.
I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri Sandeep Kaushik, A/R for the management.
Findings on Issue No. (i)
11.
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.
12.
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.
13.
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.
14.
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.’
7844
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15.
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)
16.
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 Garden Chaudhary 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 regular mali.
17.
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 27.11.2008 Ex.WW1/1 that that name of the claimant finds
mention at serial No.1 in the list of acting chaudharies attached with the letter and in the column ‘Karyavahak
Chaudhary ke roop me kab se karya kar raha hai’, it is mentioned April 1995. 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
01.04.2015.
18.
It was strongly contended on behalf of the workman that juniors to the claimant was allowed to participate in
the promotional quote on regular basis but he was denied on the grounds that he was not possessing the requisite
qualification of 10th Agriculture. Learned A/R for the claimant also urged that in Sultan Singh vs. MCD, Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi has already issued clear cut directions that workmen who are officiating as acting Chaudhary are
entitled to be considered for promotional post and they are also entitled to the promotion of the said post. Management
instead of following the dicta laid down in the above judgement, framed recruitment rules for promotion to the post of
Chaudhary. In this regard, attention of the Tribunal was invited to letter Ex.WW2/2, which was submitted to the
Commissioner of MCD. In this letter, union has clearly clarified that recruitment rules shall not be applicable in case
of those departmental candidates who are already holding post of mali, hedgeman machineman and chowkidar on
regular basis. Order issued by the management to the contrary to their own procedure.
19.
There is no merit in the stand taken by the management in its reply, that the claimant herein is not entitled for
promotion to the post of Chaudhary as he does not possess the requisite qualification and qualifying of trade testis
mandatory. 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.”
20.
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 does not possess the requisite qualification and 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.
21.
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7845
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 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.”
22.
It is also the case of the claimant that juniors to him were promoted as Chaudhary with effect from 04.03.2014
under promotion quota without providing an opportunity to participate in the promotion process as he does not possess
the requisite educational qualification.
23.
In view of the discussions made herein above, it is held that the workman herein, Shri Om Prakash is entitled
to the pay scale of Garden Chaudhary with effect from 01.04.1995 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, i.e. from 01.04.1995 till 03.03.2014 and is entitled to be promoted as Garden
Chaudhary under the quota with effect from 04.03.2014, the date when juniors to the claimant was promoted in the said
category. 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 : September 21, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2368
2368
2368
2368.— औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार आयु@ त पूव( Jद> ली नगर िनगम, नई Jद> ली व अ य एवं उनके कम(चारी के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके
कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण एवं Uम यायालय, Jद> ली
सं. I के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 231/2015) को कािशत करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 22.09.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
7846
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
[सं. एल-42011/131/2015-आईआर (डीयू)]
राज! जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2368.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 231/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi and other and their workman, which were received by
the Central Government on 22.09.2017.
[No. L-42011/131/2015-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. 231/2015
Shri Ravinder Kumar S/o late Shri Raj Pal,
Represented by:
The President,
MCD General Mazdoor Union,
C/o Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,
Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Udyog Sadan, Plot No.419,
Patparganj Industrial Area,
Shahdara,
New Delhi - 110 092
The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
4th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110 002
…Management
AWARD
By this award, I shall be disposing of the reference received vide letter No.L-42011/131/2015-IR(DU) dated
27.10.2015 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in
short the Act) from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment for adjudication of an industrial
dispute, terms of which are as under:
‘Whether the action of the management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, by not granting promotion of
Garden Chaudhary in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 revised from time to time with effect from 01.07.1993 to
Shri Ravinder Kumar S/o late Shri Raj Pal is fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to
and from which date?’
2.
Later on East Delhi Municipal Corporation was impleaded as a party to the dispute as the claimant was earlier
posted in North Delhi Municipal Corporation.
3.
Both the parties were put to notice and it is clear from perusal of statement of claim filed by Shri Ravinder
Kumar, the claimant herein, that he was employed as regular mali on 01.04.1990. Thereafter, he has being doing the
job of officiating Chaudhary since 01.07.1993 as per orders issued to him by the competent officers of Horticulture
Department. He was posted under Rohini Zone with effect from 01.09.1993 and later on his services were transferred
to City Zone in September 1997 where he worked upto 16.07.2009. At present he is working as acting Chaudhary with
Shahdara North Horticulture but he was denied pay scale of chaudhary as revised from time to time. The claimant is
12th pass and posses X class with Agriculture as one of the subjects. Claimant has also annexed list of officiating
Chaudhary which is Annexure A.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7847
4.
Management has fixed different pay scales of mali, Chaudhary etc. in accordance with their job and non-grant
of pay scale to the claimant herein amounts to forced labour and unfair labour practice. Claimant has got payment in
the lower pay scale fixed for unskilled workman, i.e. mali but he is denied pay scale of Rs.950-1500, which is the pay
scale of Chaudhary and claimant is performing duties of the same since 01.07.1993. Duties of mali is presently of an
unskilled workman whereas duties of Chaudhary is skilled in nature belonging to Group ‘C’ category of employees.
5.
There is also reference to the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Jai Chand Vs
MCD wherein pay scale of Chaudhary has been granted to such malis who were officiating as Chaudhary in
compliance to the directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court. In the above writ petition, management has issued
order dated 04.03.2005 . In the recent judgement, Hon’ble High Court vide judgement dated 27.07.2011 has settled the
matter in MCD Vs. Sultan Singh as well as in the case of MCD vs. Mahipal vide which plea of the management for
non grant of pay scale of officiating Chaudhary has been considered and rejected by the Hon’ble High Court in the
above writ petition. In view of this, claimant is entitled for pay scale of Chaudhary i.e. Rs.950-1500 revised from time
to time with effect from 01.07.1993.
6.
The claim of the claimant was contested by the management who filed reply and took various preliminary
objections regarding non service of demand notice etc. It is alleged that the claimant herein was regularized on the post
of mali with effect from 01.04.1990 and is not entitled for status of Chaudhary with effect from 01.07.1993. Claimant
was required to pass the trade test, which he has passed only in 2014 and claimant was assigned work of Chaudhary on
current duty charge. He has also given consent to the said post and at present the claimant is working is working on the
said post under the control of Horticulture Shahdara North Zone. Recruitment to the post of Chaudhary is totally
different from that of the mali and only persons having qualification of 10th pass with Agriculture coupled with clearing
of trade test can be considered for the post of Chaudhary as mentioned in Annexure B. Management has denied the
other material averments made in the statement of claim. It is also been alleged that on account of delay and laches,
claimant is not entitled for the same.
7.
Rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the claimant wherein the stand taken in the written statement
have been reiterated and the material facts given in the written statement have been refuted.
8.
Against his factual background, this Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following
issues vide order dated 28.11.2017:
(i)
Whether the petition filed is not legally maintainable in view of the preliminary objections?
(ii)
In terms of reference
(iii)
Relief
9.
Claimant, in order to prove his case against the management examined himself as WW1 and Shri B.K. Prasad
as WW2 and their affidavits are Ex.WW1/A and Ex.WW2/A respectively. They have also tendered in evidence
various documents and I would be referring to the same during the course of my discussions in the subsequent paras.
Management, in order to rebut the case of the claimant, examined Shri Vijay Pal Sharma as MW1, whose affidavit is
Ex.MW1/A and he has relied on documents Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.MW1/2.
10.
I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri Narender Singh, A/R for the management.
Issue No. (i)
11.
It is clear from the preliminary objections taken in the written statement by the management that the
management has raised objections 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 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.
12.
Hence, issue No.(i) is answered in favour of the claimant and against the management.
7848
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Issue No. (ii) and (iii)
13.
It is clear from the plea of the parties that the claimant was regularized on the post of mali on 01.04.1990.
During the course of arguments it was not denied that the claimant was appointed as regular mali with effect from
01.04.1990. Case of the claimant is that he is performing duties of officiating Chaudhary since 01.07.1993 on the
directions of officials of Horticulture Department. During the course of arguments, it was not denied that the claimant
was appointed as regular mali with effect from 01.04.1990. The case of the claimant is that he is performing duties of
Garden Chaudhary on the directions of Horticulture Department. It was strongly urged on behalf of the claimant that in
view of decision given by Hon’ble High Court in the case of MCD vs Sultan Singh as well as MCD vs Mahipal Singh
there is hardly any scope for the plea being raised by the management that the claimant was not having requisite
qualification so as to promote him to the post of Garden Chaudhary. It is clear from perusal of Ex.WW1/1 which is the
list of Garden Chaudhary employed with Horticulture Department of Shahdara, they are regular Garden Chaudhary
who were performing duties as regular/officiating Chaudhary. In the said list, name of the claimant appears at serial
No.15. There is also a column ‘Date from which functioning as officiating Chaudhary’ and in the same is mentioned as
‘1993’.
14.
The main attack of the management is that the claimant herein was not having requisite qualification and that
he has passed the requisite trade test in 2014, as such, there is no question of grant of pay scale of Garden Chaudhary to
the claimant from 1993 and from the date of his having passed the trade test in 2014, he is entitled for the scale of
Garden Chaudhary. There is no merit in the stand taken by the management in its reply, that the workman herein 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.”
14.
It is further clear that SLP was also filed by MCD before the Hon’ble Apex Court vide IA No.2 WP for special
leave 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, a 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 Education Consultant India Limited is without any merit and has no
relevance so far as question of grant of salary against the post of Garden Chaudhary is concerned.
15.
It is not out of place to mention here that even if the workman 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:
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7849
“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 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.”
16.
Similar contention of delay and laches and not having requisite qualification, including passing of trade test
was raised in the case of MCD Vs. Rajbir Singh. The workman, in the contention of the management, was not entitled
to the pay scale of Garden Chaudhary from the date from which he was officiating as Garden Chaudhary. The above
contention of the management was out-rightly rejected by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by upholding the decision
of the learned Tribunal by putting reliance on the case of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh which was decided on 27.07.2011.
17.
Since the claimant is officiating on the post of Garden Chaudhary since 01.07.1993, as such, he is entitled to
the pay scale of Garden Chaudhary with effect from 01.07.1993 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 September 2014 when he was assigned the work of Chaudhary on Current Duty
Charge. 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 : September 20, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2369
2369
2369
2369.—औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार आयु@ त पूव( Jद> ली नगर िनगम, नई Jद> ली व अ य एवं उनके कम(चारी के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और उनके
कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण एवं Uम यायालय Jद> ली
सं. I के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 36/2015) को कािशत करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 15.09.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-42011/129/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
राज! जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2369.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 36/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
7850
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Commissioner, East Municipal Corporation of Delhi and other and their workman, which were received by the Central
Government on 15.09.2017.
[No. L-42011/129/2014-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. 36/2015
The President,
MCD General Mazdoor Union,
Room No.95, Barracks No.1/10,
Jam Nagar House, Shah Jahan Road,
New Delhi
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (East),
Udyog Sadan, near Patparganj,
Shahdara, Delhi
…Management
AWARD
A reference under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947(in short the Act) was received from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment for
adjudication vide letter No.L-42011/129/2014-IR(DU) dated 13.01.2015 for adjudication of an industrial dispute with
the following terms:
‘Whether Smt. Rekha Devi widow of late Shri Ramesh Kumar is entitled to be appointed on compassionate
grounds on Group D post as regular Mali instead of daily rated mali with effect from 25.09.2009? If so, what
directions are necessary in this regard?
2.
Claim statement was filed by Ms.Rekha Devi (in short the claimant) averring therein that her husband Shri
Ramesh Kumar was performing his duty as regular mali under Deputy Director (Horticulture), Shahdara zone, now
under East Delhi Municipal Corporation,. He went missing on 08.10.2003 and despite best efforts, their family could
not locate him. The claimant herein filed complaint with police station Bhajanpur vide DD No.17A dated 18.11.2003.
Civil Judge (Judicial) Karana, Janpath, Muzaffarnagar declared Shri Ramesh Chand, S/o Shri Surjan Sharma, vide
order 03.09.2012, as dead. Copy of the judgement is Annexure A.
3.
It is averred that as per para 11 of chapter 32 of compassionate appointment of missing Government servant,
there is clear mention of the fact that any Government servant missing for two years, his/her legal heir is entitled for
employment on compassionate grounds on regular basis. The procedure is also prescribed by the Department of
Personnel and Training, Government of India and is binding on all Government departments, including Municipal
Corporation of Delhi. However, management preferred to appoint Ms.Rekha Devi, the claimant herein as muster roll
worker on 16.09.2009 instead of on regular basis. The claimant is unable to sustain her family. Smt. Rekha Devi is
entitled to regular pay scale with all allowances with effect from 25.09.2009. Denial of payment of equal pay for equal
work amounts to discrimination as the other male counterparts are performing similar duties and amounts to violation
of Equal Remuneration Act. Finally, it has been prayed that the claimant herein may be appointed as regular mali
instead of daily rated mali with effect from 25.09.2009 with all consequential benefits.
4.
Claim was contested by the management wherein various preliminary objections, inter alia of non service of
demand notice etc., her case having been considered by the Committee thrice and rejected etc. Regularization of the
claimant was considered by the compassionate appointment committee. However, while considering the cases for
compassionate appointment, there are some relaxation in recruitment rules as per the posts. Further there are limited
post available for regularization of service, ie. 5% quota. Hence as per policy/rules applicable for such appointment,
management has evolved criteria for assessment of hardship faced by the heirs vide circular No.AO(H)/CG/RP/2008-
09/1768 dated 16.01.2009. Management has denied the material averments contained in the statement of claim.
Finally, it has been prayed that the claim of the claimant may be dismissed.
5.
Against this factual background, based on the pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal vide order dated
04.08.2016 framed the following issues:
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7851
(i)
Whether the reference is not legally maintainable in view of the preliminary objections?
(ii)
As in terms of reference
6.
Claimant in order to prove her case against the management examined herself as WW1 and Shri B.K. Prasad
as WW2 whose affidavits are Ex.WW1/A and Ex.WW2/A respective. The claimant relied on document Ex.WW1/1
and Shri Prasad relied on documents Ex.WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/5. Management, in order to rebut the case of the claimant
examined Shri Krishna Kant Prasad as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A and he relied on documents Ex.MW1/1
and Ex.MW1/2.
7.
I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri Narender Singh, A/R for the management.
Findings on issue No. 1
8.
It is clear from stand of the management in the written statement that the management has taken the plea of
espousal in the preliminary objections. During the course of arguments it was pointed out by the learned A/R for the
claimant that the case of the claimant was duly considered by the MCD General Mazdoor Union in its meeting and
copy of the espousal certificate is Ex.WW2/2. Bare perusal of the certificate would show that meeting of the union was
held on 25.06.2009 wherein it was resolved to espouse/sponsor the case of the claimant for appointment on
compassionate grounds in Group D post as regular mali instead of daily rated mali with effect from 25.09.2009. Shri
Praswad has stated that meeting had taken place on the date mentioned in the above espousal certificate i.e. 25.06.2009.
He has agreed that there is a typographical error in para 11 of the statement of claim, date of sponsorship is 24.03.2013
instead of 31.01.2013. It was also agreed by the learned A/R for the claimant that the matter was considered by the
Assistant Labour Commissioner but the management did not agree to provide regular appointment of Group D mali.
Law is fairly settled that under the Act, Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate only the industrial dispute, cause of
which has been duly espoused in the meeting of the trade union. However, having regard to the provisions of the Act
as well as various rulings rendered from time to time by the Hon’ble High Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court, it is
clear that these are procedural prescription to be followed by the claimant union before the case is finally taken up by
the Industrial Adjudicator for decision in accordance with law. In the case of Shri Pratap Singh Vs Municipal
Corporation of Delhi WP(C) 676 of 2013, Hon’ble High Court vide judgement dated 04.02.2013 dealt with the
question of espousal under the law. In the said case also, the case was decided by the Labour Court against the
workman on the grounds that there was no proper espousal of the dispute. Reason given by the learned Labour Court
for upholding objection of the management was that espousal is dated 28.10.2005 Ex.WW3/4 which precedes in point
of time of demand notice. In the said case also Shri B.K. Prasad has alleged himself to be President of the union and
demand notice was dated 16.09.2005, which was issued even prior to the meeting of the managing committee of the
union held on 22.10.2005. Logically, it was only after decision has been taken by the union on 22.10.2005 that demand
notice should have been issued. Hon’ble High Court held that this is not fatal to the case of the workman and Labour
Court has taken a hyper technical view of the matter. Fact of the matter was that meeting, in fact, was held on the
given date wherein issue was discussed. Same is the position in the case on hand. There is no evidence on record to
suggest that meeting of the union has not taken place on the date mentioned in the pleadings.
9.
Courts have gone to the extent of observing that issuance of demand notice is not essential for raising an
industrial dispute and said notice can even be given orally to the management. This view has been taken in Workmen
of MCD vs. MCD in WP(C) 13023/2005 decided on 06.08.2007 wherein above view was taken after putting reliance
upon the case of Shambunath Goyal vs Bank of Baroda (1978 (2) SCR 793), wherein it was observed as under:
“A bare perusal of the definition would show that where there is a dispute or difference between the parties
contemplated by the definition and the disputes or difference is connected with the employment or non-
employment or the terms of employment or, with the conditions of labour of any person there comes into
existence an industrial dispute. The Act nowhere contemplates that the dispute Would come into existence in
any particular, specific or prescribed manner. For coming into existence of an industrial dispute a written
demand is not a sine ,qua non, unless of course in the case of public utility service, because s. 22 forbids going
on strike without giving a strike notice. The key words in the definition of industrial dispute are 'dispute' or
'difference'. What is the connotation of these two words. In Beetham v. Trinidad Cement Ltd.(1). Lord
Denning while examining the definition of expression 'Trade dispute' in s. 2(1) of Trade Disputes (Arbitration
and Inquiry) Ordinance of Trinidad observed:
"by definition a 'trade dispute' exists whenever a 'difference" exists and a difference can exist long
before the parties become locked in a combat. It is not necessary that they should have come to
blows. It is sufficient that they should be sparring for an opening".
Thus the term 'industrial dispute' connotes a real and substantial difference having some element of
persistency and continuity till resolved and likely if not adjusted to endanger the industrial peace of the
Undertaking or the community. When parties are at variance and the dispute or difference is connected with
the employment, or non- employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour there
7852
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
comes into existence an industrial dispute. To read into definition the requirement of written demand for
bringing into existence an industrial dispute would tantamount to re-writing the section.”
10.
In the wake of legal position discussed above, even if there is discrepancy in the dates of demand notice or
espousal, which took place in the meeting of the union held by Shri B.K. Prasad, the same is not fatal. In fact, there is
no precise definition of espousal under the law and it simply means that the dispute of an individual workman is
adopted by the union as its own dispute or majority of workmen present has given support to the cause of the individual
workman. It was held in the case of Workmen Union vs Industrial Tribunal (1994 (68) FLR 710 Calcutta) that once a
dispute is referred to the Tribunal by the appropriate Government, presumption of it being an industrial dispute is there
and court can draw inference and legitimately hold that there has been proper espousal of the case through the union.
Further, no evidence to the contrary has been led by the management so as to controvert the certificate of espousal. In
view of this, issue No.(i) is decided in favour of the claimant and against the management.
Findings on issue No. 2
11.
Now the other vital question which requires determination is whether the claimant is entitled to be appointed
on Group D post as regular mali instead of daily rated mali with effect from 25.09.2009. In this regard, it is appropriate
to refer to the pleadings as well as evidence adduced by theparties. Ms. Rekha while appearing as WW1 has filed I
tender my affidavit in evidence, which is Ex.WW1/A. Alongwith this affidavit, I rely on documents Ex.WW1/1 to
Ex.WW1/. These documents may be read in support of my affidavit which is on the same lines as the averments made
in the statement of claim. She has clarified in her cross examination that her case for regular appointment was rejected
three times by the management but no intimation regarding this was given to her.
12.
Management has examined Shri Krishan Kant as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. He has stated in his
affidavit that regularization of services of the claimant is a policy matter which is framed by the management and
depends upon availability of post. It is further averred in para 5 of the affidavit that case of regularization of the
claimant was placed before the Compassionate Appointment Committee to examine the same under 5% quota on
06.04.2010, which has been rejected three times. As per rule, case of a candidate can be considered for regularization
only thrice. Hence, name of the claimant herein now cannot be considered. Minutes of the meeting of the Committee
for appointment under 5% quota, are Ex.MW1/2. It is further clear from perusal of the above document that as many as
170 cases were placed before the Committee for consideration and name of the claimant finds mention at serial No.30
of the list. This witness has admitted in his cross examination that husband of the claimant was a regular mali
whereas the claimant was engaged as daily wager with effect from 25.09.2009. He has further proved in evidence
Ex.MW2/1 which is copy of the manual of Central Government employees. It is clear from perusal of the said
document that objective of the scheme is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family
member of a Government servant dying in harness or who has retired on medical grounds etc. Definition of dependent
family member includes spouse, son, daughter, brother or sister etc. It was argued with much vehemence on behalf of
the management that the case of the claimant herein is not covered by the guidelines contained in manual Ex.WW2/1,
as such, the case of the claimant was rejected. As per Note D of para 6 of the manual, a widow who is appointed on
compassionate grounds to a Group D post, shall be exempted from the requirement of possessing the educational
qualifications prescribed in the rules and the only condition attached in the said rule is that the she should be in a
position to perform duties on the said post satisfactorily without possession of such qualification.
13.
In the case on hand, this Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that husband of the claimant was admittedly regular
mali in group D post and there is no legal justification much less a legal/valid reason not to consider the case of the
claimant herein for such a regular post. It is not the case of the management that regular post was not available when
the case of the claimant for compassionate appointment was considered by the management. Rather, it was pointed out
that there were sufficient posts of regular mali available at the time of such appointment. During the course of
arguments, A/R for the claimant placed reliance upon the case of MCD Vs. Shri Rajesh in WP(C) No.12996/2009 and
CM No.13932/2009 decided on 09.11.2009 by the Hon’ble High Court wherein also challenge was made to award
passed by Industrial Tribunal who directed the management to consider/grant regular pay scale to the widow from the
date of her initial appointment. Similar contention was also raised in the said case by the management that the case is
not covered by the policy or manual discussed above, meant for such compassionate appointment. The same was
rejected by the Hon’ble High Court as under:
‘On being repeatedly asked, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, could not show that the
rules for appointment on compassionate grounds provide for appointment on daily wage basis. Once the
petitioner had appointed the respondent on compassionate grounds it amounts to an admission on the part of
the petitioner that the respondent was entitled for compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment
could have been made only on regular basis and not on daily wage basis.’
14.
In the said case also it was proved on record that the workman who was given compassionate grounds was
performing her duties satisfactorily and was possessing necessary qualification etc. so as to get regular time-scale.
Contention of the management was rejected and award of the Tribunal to grant regular pay scale was upheld. It is clear
from perusal of Ex.MW1/1 that policy of compassionate appointment on contractual basis on compassionate grounds
and she was not considered for the post of group D mali.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7853
15.
In the light of the discussion made herein above, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant herein is
entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground on Group D post as regular mali instead of daily rated mali with
effect from 25.09.2009 and as a corollary, management is liable pay the difference of wages of daily rated mali vis-a-
vis regular mali from 25.09.2009 till date. 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 : September 12, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई Jद> ली, 26 िसत% बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2370
2370
2370
2370.— औuोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म!, के ीय
सरकार आयु@ त उ_र Jद> ली नगर िनगम, नई Jद> ली व अ य एवं उनके कम(चारी के बंधतं$ के संबं\ िनयोजक और
उनके कम(कार के बीच, अनुबंध म! िनqदD ट औuोिगक िववाद म! के ीय सरकार औuोिगक अिधकरण एवं Uम यायालय
Jद> ली सं. I के पंचाट (संदभ( सं. 7/2016) को कािशत करती है, जो के ीय सरकार को 28.08.2017 को ाe त `आ था।
[सं. एल-42011/169/2015-आईआर (डीयू)]
राज! जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 26th September, 2017
S.O. 2370.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 7/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. I, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi and other and their workman, which were received by
the Central Government on 28.08.2017.
[No. L-42011/169/2015-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. 7/2016
The General Secretary,
MCD General Mazdoor Union,
Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,
Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi
…Workman
Versus
1.
The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
4th Floor, Civic Centre,
Minto Road, New Delhi
2.
The Commissioner,
East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Udyog Sadan, Plot No.419,
Patparganj Industrial Area,
Shahdara, New Delhi 110 092
…Management
AWARD
By this award, I shall be disposing of the reference received vide letter No.L-42011/169/2015-IR(DU) dated
21.12.2015 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in
short the Act) from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment for adjudication of the industrial
dispute, terms of which are as under:
7854
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
‘Whether the action of the management of North Delhi Municipal Corporation, by not granting the status of
Chaudhary to Shri Munna Lal S/o Shri Inder Singh and the applicable scale of Rs.3050-4590 revised from
time to time with effect from 1998 is fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from
which date?’
2.
Both the parties were put to notice and it is clear from perusal of statement of claim filed by Shri Munna Lal,
the claimant herein, that he was employed on muster roll in the year 1984 and with effect from 01.04.1990 he was
employed as regular mali. Thereafter, he has being doing the job of officiating Chaudhary since 1998 as per orders
issued to him by the Horticulture Department. He was posted under Shri Satinder Kumar, SO((Horticulture), Shri LL
Chauhan, AD(Horticulture) and Shri Ranvir Singh Deputy Director (Horticulture ), Shahdara North Zone but he was
denied pay scale of chaudhary as revised from time to time. Claimant has also annexed list of officiating Chaudhary
which is Annexure A.
3.
It is the case of the claimant that there was no qualification prescribed for making promotion to the post of
Chaudhary. Management has fixed different pay scales of mali, Chaudhary etc. in accordance with their job and non-
grant of pay scale to the claimant herein amounts to forced labour and unfair labour practice. Claimant has got
payment in the lower pay scale of Rs.2550-3200 revised from time to time and he has been denied pay scale of
Rs.3050-4590, which is the pay scale of Chaudhary and claimant is performing duties of the same since 1998. Duties
of mali is presently of an unskilled workman whereas duties of Chaudhary is skilled in nature belonging to Group C
category of employees.
4.
There is also reference to the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Jai Chand Vs
MCD wherein pay scale of Chaudhary has been granted to such malis who were officiating as Chaudhary in
compliance to the directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court. In the above writ petition, management has issued
order dated 04.03.2005 . In the recent judgement, Hon’ble High Court vide judgement dated 27.07.2011 has settled the
matter in MCD Vs. Sultan Singh as well as in the case of MCD vs. Mahipal vide which plea of the management for
non grant of pay scale of officiating Chaudhary has been considered and rejected by the Hon’ble High Court in the
above writ petition. In view of this, claimant is entitled for pay scale of Chaudhary i.e. Rs.3050-45900 revised from
time to time with effect from 1998.
5.
The claim of the claimant was contested by the management who filed reply and took various preliminary
objections regarding non service of demand notice etc. It is alleged that the claimant herein was regularized on the post
of mali with effect from 01.04.1990 and is not entitled for status of Chaudhary with effect from 1998. Claimant was
required to pass the trade test, which he has passed only in 2014 and claimant was assigned work of Chaudhary on
current duty charge. He has also given consent to the said post and at present the claimant is working is working on the
said post under the control of Horticulture Shahdara North Zone. Recruitment to the post of Chaudhary is totally
different from that of the mali and only persons having qualification of 10th pass with Agriculture coupled with clearing
of trade test can be considered for the post of Chaudhary as mentioned in Annexure B. Management has denied the
other material averments made in the statement of claim. It is also been alleged that on account of delay and laches,
claimant is not entitled for the same.
6.
Rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the claimant wherein the stand taken in the written statement
have been reiterated and the material facts given in the written statement have been refuted.
7.
Against his factual background, this Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following
issues vide order dated 03.01.2017:
(i)
Whether no demand notice has been served as alleged and whether the claim is not legally maintainable
due to delay & latches?
(ii)
In terms of reference
(iii)
Relief
8.
Claimant, in order to prove his case against the management examined himself as WW1 and Shri B.K. Prasad
as WW2 and their affidavits are Ex.WW1/A and Ex.WW2/A respectively. They have also tendered in evidence
various documents and I would be referring to the same during the course of my discussions in the subsequent paras.
Management, in order to rebut the case of the claimant, examined Shri Vijay Pal Sharma as MW1, whose affidavit is
Ex.MW1/A and he has relied on documents Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.MW1/2.
9.
I have heard Shri B.K.Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri Narender Singh, A/R for the management.
Issue No. (i)
10.
It is clear from the preliminary objections taken in the written statement by the management that the
management has raised objections 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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 7] 2017@vkf'ou 15] 1939
7855
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.
11.
Hence, issue No.(i) is answered in favour of the claimant and against the management.
Issue No. (ii) and (iii)
12.
It is clear from the plea of the parties that the claimant has joined services of the management in the year 1984.
During the course of arguments it was not denied that the claimant was appointed as regular mali with effect from
01.04.1990. Case of the claimant is that he is performing duties of officiating Chaudhary since 1998 on the directions
of officials of Horticulture Department. It was strongly urged on behalf of the claimant that he joined services with the
management in the year 1984. During the course of arguments, it was not denied that the claimant was appointed as
regular mali with effect from 01.04.1990. The case of the claimant is that he is performing duties of Garden
Chaudhary on the directions of Horticulture Department. It was strongly urged on behalf of the claimant that in view of
decision given by Hon’ble High Court in the case of MCD vs Sultan Singh as well as MCD vs Mahipal Singh there is
hardly any scope for the plea being raised by the management that the claimant was not having requisite qualification
so as to promote him to the post of Garden Chaudhary. It is clear from perusal of Ex.WW1/1 which is the list of Garden
Chaudhary employed with Horticulture Department of Shahdara, they are regular Garden Chaudhary who were
performing duties as regular/officiating Chaudhary. In the said list, name of the claimant appears at serial No.18.
There is also a column ‘Date from which functioning as officiating Chaudhary’ and in the same is mentioned as ‘1999’
and in the ‘Qualification’ column, there is mention of ‘8th pass.’ He is having experience on the said post since 1990.
13.
The main attack of the management is that the claimant herein was not having requisite qualification and that
he has passed the requisite trade test in 2014, as such, there is no question of grant of pay scale of Garden Chaudhary to
the claimant from 1999 and from the date of his having passed the trade test in 2014, he is entitled for the scale of
Garden Chaudhary. 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.”
14.
It is further clear that SLP was also filed by MCD before the Hon’ble Apex Court vide IA No.2 WP for special
leave 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
7856
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 7, 2017/ASVINA 15, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
15.
It is not out of place to mention here that even if the workman 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 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.”
16.
Similar contention of delay and laches and not having requisite qualification, including passing of trade test
was raised in the case of MCD Vs. Rajbir Singh . The workman, in the contention of the management, was not entitled
to the pay scale of Garden Chaudhary from the date from which he was officiating as Garden Chaudhary. The above
contention of the management was out-rightly rejected by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by upholding the decision
of the learned Tribunal by putting reliance on the case of MCD Vs. Sultan Singh which was decided on 27.07.2011.
17.
Since the claimant is officiating on the post of Garden Chaudhary since 1998, as such, he is entitled to the pay
scale of Garden Chaudhary with effect from 1999 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 September 2014 when he was assigned the work of Chaudhary on Current Duty Charge. 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 : August 22, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
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.
ALOK
KUMAR
Digitally signed
by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2017.11.10
14:52:42 +05'30'