5969 GI/2017
(7859)
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- 41]
ubZ fnYyh] vDrwcj 8—vDrwcj 14] 2017] 'kfuokj@vkf'ou 16—vkf'ou 22] 1939
No. 41]
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 8—OCTOBER 14, 2017, SATURDAY/ASVINA 16—ASVINA 22, 1939
bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
dk£ed] yksd f'kdk;r ,oa isa'ku ea=kky;
(dk£ed vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 3 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2371-—fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /kjk
5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj] dsjy ljdkj ds x`g (,e) foHkkx dh fnukad 19 tqykbZ]
2016 dh vf/lwpuk la[;k thvks (,e,l) la- 202@2016@x`g] fr:ouariqje] ,lvkjvks la- 488@2016 }kjk nh xbZ lgefr ls ,d
vUrjjk"Vªh; fxjksg }kjk yksxksa dks ykWVjh dh cM+h /ujkf'k dk oknk djds muls /ks[kk/M+h djus vkSj blls lacaf/r ekeyksa esa vijk/ksa ds
vUos"k.k ds laca/ esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa ,oa {ks=kkf/dkj dk foLrkj laiw.kZ dsjy jkT; ij djrh gSA
[iQk- la- 228@38@2016&,ohMh&II]
,l- ih- vkj- f=kikBh] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2017
S.O. 2371.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
7860
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
State Government of Kerala vide Home (M) Department, Notification No. G.O. (Ms.) No. 202/2016/Home,
Thiruvananthapuram dated 19th July, 2016 S. R. O. No. 488/2016 extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members
of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Kerala for the investigation of offences in
suspected cheating of people by an international gang by promising them huge lottery amounts and the matters related
thereto.
[F. No. 228/38/2016-AVD-II]
S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
foÙk ea=kky;
(jktLo foHkkx)
(¯gnh vuqHkkx&2)
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2372-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e
(4) ds vuqlj.k esa jktLo foHkkx ds v/hu eky ,oa lsok dj vk;qDrky;] iQjhnkckn dks] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us
fgUnh dk dk;Z lk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/lwfpr djrh gSA
[iQk- la- bZ&11017@3@2017&fgUnh&2 Mhvksvkj Mhvksvkj]
MkW- lrh'k pUnz] la;qDr funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
(HINDI SECTION-2)
New Delhi, the 4th October, 2017
S.O. 2372.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, herby notifies, the Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate Faridabad
under the Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-11017/3/2017-Hindi-II DOR DOR]
Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Jt. Director (OL)
(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 9 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2373-—Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe Js.kh 3 vkSj Js.kh 4 deZpkjh (lsok ds fuca/u vkSj 'krks± dk la'kks/u)
fu;ekoyh] 1985 ds fu;e 13 ds mi fu;e (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] ;g fu/kZfjr djrh
gS fd Js.kh 3 vkSj Js.kh 4 ds izR;sd deZpkjh dks fuEufyf[kr vof/ ds fy, cksul ds cnys esa Hkqxrku] mDr mi fu;e esa vU;
mica/ksa ds vè;/hu] muds osru ds 15 izfr'kr dh nj ij fd;k tk,xk %&
(i)
01 vizSy] 2014 dks vkjEHk gksus okyh vkSj 31 ekpZ] 2015 dks lekIr gksus okyh vof/ ds fy, _ vkSj
(ii)
01 vizSy] 2015 dks vkjEHk gksus okyh vkSj 31 ekpZ] 2016 dks lekIr gksus okyh vof/ ds fy, A
[iQk- la- ,l&11012@07@2013&chek&I]
Hkwfedk oekZ] la;qDr funs'kd
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7861
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 9th October, 2017
S.O. 2373.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) of rule 13 of the Life Insurance Corporation
of India Class III and Class IV Employees (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985, the Central
Government hereby determine that, subject to the other provisions of the said sub-rule, the payment in lieu of bonus for
the following periods to every Class III and Class IV employee shall be at the rate of 15 percent of his/her salary :-
i)
From 1st day of April, 2014 and ending with 31st day of March, 2015; and
ii)
From 1st day of April, 2015 and ending with 31st day of March, 2016.
[F.No. S-11012/07/2013-Ins.I]
BHUMIKA VERMA, Jt. Director
fons'k ea=kky;
(lh-ih-oh- izHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2374-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds
[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A
,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds iz/ku dksalykokl] E;wfu[k esa Jh fd'kksj dqekj lkgw] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad
29 flrEcj] 2017 ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A
¹la- Vh&4330@01@2014º
izdk'k pUn] funs'kd (dksalqyj)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2017
S.O. 2374.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Kishore Kumar Sahoo,
Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Munich to perform the Consular
services with effect from 29th September, 2017.
[No. T-4330/01/2014]
PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)
vkoklu vkSj 'kgjh dk;Z ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2375-—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk vkoklu vkSj 'kgjh dk;Z ea=kky; ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu fnYyh fodkl
izkf/dj.k dk fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80» ls vf/d vf/dkfj;ksa vkSj deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]
7862
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dks jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e 1976 (;Fkk la'kksf/r 1987) ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e (4) ds varxZr
vf/lwfpr djrh gS %
eq[; vfHk;ark (ifj;kstuk)]
fnYyh fodkl izkf/dj.k]
'kkgiqj tV] ubZ fnYyh&110049
[iQk- la- bZ&11017@5@2013&fgUnh]
lq/hj oqQekj frokjh] vk£Fkd lykgdkj
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2375.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of of Rule 10 of Official Language (Use for official purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the following office of the Delhi Development Authority,
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affair, where more than 80% of officers/employees have attained working knowledge
of Hindi :-
Chief Engineer (Project)
Delhi Development Authority
Shahpur Jat, New Delhi-110049
[F.No. E-11017/5/2013-Hindi]
SUDHIR KUMAR TEWARI, Economic Advisor
dkS'ky fodkl ,oa m|e'khyrk ea=kky;
(izf'k{k.k egkfuns'kky;)
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2376-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx fu;e 1976 ;Fkk la'kksf/r 1987 ds
fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e (2) ,ao (4) ds vuqlj.k esa ,rn~}kjk izf'k{k.k egkfuns'kky; (dkS'ky fodkl ,ao m|e'khyrk ea=kky;) dks
ftlds 80» ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/lwfpr djrh gS A
¹la- MhthVh&bZ&11012@1@2017&fganhº
Lkksuw HkkfV;k] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRAINING)
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2017
S.O. 2376.—In pursuance of sub- rule (2) and (4) rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use of official Pursoses
of the Union) Rules 1976 (As Amended 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the Directorate General of
Training (Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship), more than 80% staff whereof have acquired the
working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. DGT- E-11012/1/2017-Hindi]
SONU BHATIA, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7863
कोयला मं ालय
कोयला मं ालय
कोयला मं ालय
कोयला मं ालय
नई द ली, 12 अ ूबर, 2017
का
का
का
का.आ. . . . 2377
2377
2377
2377.—जबक कोयला धारक े (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम इसके प चात्
उ# त अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क% धारा 9 क% उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी भारत के राजप, असाधारण, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii),
तारीख 4 जुलाई, 2017 म 'कािशत, भारत सरकार के कोयला मंालय क% अिधसूचना का. आ. सं* यांक 2098(अ), तारीख 3 जुलाई,
2017 के 'काशन पर उ# त अिधसूचना से संल/ न अनुसूची म व1णत भूिम और ऐसी भूिम (िजसे इसम इसके प चात् उ# त भूिम कहा
गया है), म और उस पर के सभी अिधकार, उ# त अिधिनयम क% धारा 10 क% उपधारा (1) के अधीन, सभी िव लंगम6 से मु# त होकर,
आ8 यंितक 9प से के: ;ीय सरकार म िनिहत हो गए है;
और, जबक के: ;ीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है, क स?ल कोलफ% Aस िलिमटेड, रांची, झारखंड (िजसे इसम इसके
प चात् सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है), ऐसे िनबंधन6 और शतB का, जो के: ;ीय सरकार इस िनिम8 त अिधरोिपत करना उिचत समझे,
अनुपालन करने के िलए रजामंद है ;
अत:, अब, के: ;ीय सरकार, उ# त अिधिनयम क% धारा 11 क% उप-धारा (1) Cारा 'द8 त शि# तय6 का 'योग करते Dए, यह
िनदेश देती है, क उ# त भूिम और इस 'कार िनिहत उ# त भूिम म और उस पर के सभी अिधकार तारीख 4 जुलाई, 2017 से के: ;ीय
सरकार म इस 'कार िनिहत बने रहने के बजाए, िनF निलिखत िनबंधन6 और शतB के अधीन रहते Dए, सरकारी कंपनी म िनिहत हो
जाएंगे, अथात् :-
(1)
सरकारी कंपनी, उ# त अिधिनयम के उपबंध6 के अधीन यथा अवधाHरत 'ितकर, I याज, नुकसािनय6 और वैसी ही मद6
क% बाबत् कए गए संदाय6 क% के: ;ीय सरकार को 'ितपूJत करेगी ;
(2)
शत (1) के अधीन सरकारी कF पनी Cारा के: ;ीय सरकार को संदेय रकम6 का अवधारण करने के 'योजन6 के िलए उ# त
अिधिनयम क% धारा 14 के अधीन एक अिधकरण का गठन कया जाएगा और कसी ऐसे अिधकरण और अिधकरण क%
सहायता के िलए िनयु# त L यि# तय6 के संबंध म उपगत सभी L यय, सरकारी कंपनी Cारा वहन कए जाएंगे और इस
'कार िनिहत उ# त भूिम म या उस पर के अिधकार6 के िलए या उनके संबंध म अपील6 आद जैसी सभी िविधक
कायवािहय6 के संबंध म उपगत, सभी L यय भी, सरकारी कंपनी Cारा वहन कए जाएंगे ;
(3)
सरकारी कंपनी, के: ;ीय सरकार या उसके पदधाHरय6 क%, ऐसे कसी अ: य व् यय के संबंध म ितपूJत करेगी, जो इस
'कार िनिहत उ# त भूिम म या उस पर के अिधकार6 के बारे म, के: ;ीय सरकार या उसके पदधाHरय6 Cारा या उनके
िवMN क: हO कायवािहय6 के संबंध म आव यक हो ;
(4)
सरकारी कंपनी को के: ;ीय सरकार के पूव अनुमोदन के िबना उ भूिमय6 और उ भूिम म या उस पर िनिहत
अिधकार6 को क: हO अ: य L यि# तय6 को अंतHरत करने क% शि# त नहO होगी ; और
(5)
सरकारी कंपनी, ऐसे िनदेश6 और शतB का पालन करेगी, जो के: ;ीय सरकार Cारा, जब कभी आव यक हो, उ# त भूिम के
िविशष् ट े6 के िलए दए जाएं या अिधरोिपत कए जाएं ।
[ फा.सं. 43015/12/2017 –एलए एRड आई आर]
आर. एस. सरोज, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 12th October, 2017
S.O. 2377.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal,
number S.O. 2098 (E), dated the 3rd July, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3,
Sub-section (ii), dated the 4th July, 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 land and the all
rights in and over the said land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as
7864
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi, Jharkhand
(hereinafter referred to as the Government company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central
Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby directs that the said land and the all rights in and over the said land so vested shall, with effect
from 4th July, 2017, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, vest in the Government company,
subject to the following terms and conditions, namely:-
(1)
the Government company shall reimburse 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 said Government company under condition (1), and
all expenditure incurred in connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the said
Tribunal shall be borne by the said Government company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in
respect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc. for or in connection with the rights in or over the said
land, 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 land so vested;
(4)
the Government company shall have no power to transfer the said lands and the rights in or over the said
land so vested, to any other person 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. 43015/12/2017-LA&IR]
R. S. SAROJ, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 13 अ ूबर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2378
2378
2378
2378.—के:;ीय सरकार, कोयला धारक े (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20), िजसे इसम इसके
प चात् उ# त अिधिनयम कहा गया है, क% धारा 19 Cारा 'द8 त शि# तय6 का 'योग करते Dए कोल इंिडया िलिमटेड या उसक% सहायक
कंपिनय6 को उ# त अिधिनयम के अधीन अJजत भूिम के िलए भू-W वािमय6 या भू-वंिचत6 को 'ितकर के संदाय के िलए उ# त अिधिनयम
क% धारा 17 के अधीन उसके Cारा 'योग म लाई जा सकेगी या िनवहन क% गई सभी शि# तय6 या कतL य6 का '8 यायोजन करती है।
[फा.सं. 60014/3/2017-एलए एR ड आईआर]
राम िशरोमिण सरोज, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 13th October, 2017
S.O. 2378.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 19 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), hereinafter referred to as the said Act, the Central Government hereby delegates
all or any of the powers or duties which may be exercised or discharged by it under section 17 of the said Act for
payment of compensation to land owners or oustees for land acquired under the said Act, to Coal India Limited or its
subsidiaries.
[F. No. 60014/3/2017-LA & IR]
RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7865
isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky;
isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky;
isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky;
isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 29 flrEcj] 2017
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 2379
2379
2379
2379-—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu
tkjh dh xbZ] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 3675¼v½ rkjh[k 2-12-2016
ftldk izdk'ku Hkkjr ds jkti= la[;k 2887] Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi[k.M ¼ii½ fnukad 7&12&2016 esa fd;k x;k gSA bl
vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V jktLFkku jkT; dh rglhy teokjkex<+ ftyk t;iqj dh Hkwfe esa] jktLFkku jkT;
esa t;iqj ls gfj;k.kk jkT; esa ikuhir rd isVªksfy;e us¶Fkk ds ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk
fØ;kfUor fd, tk jgs ^^t;iqj ikuhir us¶Fkk ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk** ds lEcU/k esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy,
mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds fy, vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh %
vkSj mDr jkti= vf/klwpukvksa dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 08-04-2017 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ FkhA
vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns
nh gSA
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mDr Hkwfe
ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gSa] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gSa %
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
,rn~}kjk ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk
vf/kdkj vftZr fd;k tk,%
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k
nsrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk;
lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxkA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y
dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo:) dksbZ
okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
rglhy % teokjkex<+
ftyk % t;iqj
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
ukjniqjk
310
00
12
42
280
00
14
33
279
00
16
00
268
00
06
32
267
00
11
11
261
00
12
05
260
00
04
49
259
00
03
13
256
00
13
52
Total
00
93
37
uVkVk
719
00
08
16
615/1074
00
00
94
312
00
05
83
7866
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
311
00
23
57
307
00
17
54
267
00
01
52
262
00
06
30
257
00
02
86
256
00
07
88
215
00
07
86
216
00
02
43
217
00
02
41
218
00
00
59
219
00
03
29
Total
00
91
18
vtcx<+
114
00
04
92
114/1
00
04
92
43
00
08
41
41
00
06
45
40
00
09
86
40/120
00
01
30
22
00
10
39
13/116
00
04
78
20
00
05
35
14
00
00
89
13
00
27
16
10
00
02
53
10/122
00
02
85
10/121
00
01
41
8
00
06
02
Total
00
97
24
Vhdeiqjk
527
00
01
32
391
00
03
06
390
00
01
43
389
00
03
53
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7867
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
388/1
00
08
21
405/1
00
02
80
405 िम/1
00
05
50
404
00
04
09
427
00
09
15
424/2
00
07
09
424/5
00
05
00
424/6
00
07
30
424/7
00
05
00
420
00
00
65
421
00
00
13
446
00
03
65
445
00
08
36
443
00
12
64
464
00
11
21
469
00
01
04
463/1
00
00
82
470
00
14
81
493/2
00
08
46
492/1
00
05
21
487
00
08
24
489/1
00
03
43
489/4
00
03
43
482
00
06
75
483
00
02
41
274/803
00
00
32
273
00
13
69
Total
01
68
73
Lkk;iqjk
1
00
01
75
3
00
03
23
7
00
07
53
15
00
00
82
7868
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
19
00
09
64
20
00
03
45
21/1
00
00
19
26
00
22
47
32
00
03
14
33
00
09
47
Total
00
61
69
[फा. सं. आर-25011/3/2016-ओआर-I (पाट)]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2017
S.O. 2379.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, published in the Gazette of India No. 2887 dated 7-12-2016 S.O. No. 3675(E) 2-12-2016 Part-II, section 3, sub-
section(ii) 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), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its
intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Tehsil Jamwaramgarh District Jaipur in Rajasthan State,
specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of
petroleum Naphtha from Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan to Panipat in the State of Haryana by the Indian Oil
Corporation Limited for implementing the "Jaipur Panipat Naphtha Pipeline Project".
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 08.04.2017.
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section(1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his
report of Central Government.
And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land
is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;
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 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 of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the
Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all
encumbrances.
India Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P &
MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating
to pipeline.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Jamwaramgarh
District : Jaipur
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
Naradpura
310
00
12
42
280
00
14
33
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7869
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
279
00
16
00
268
00
06
32
267
00
11
11
261
00
12
05
260
00
04
49
259
00
03
13
256
00
13
52
Total
00
93
37
Natata
719
00
08
16
615/1074
00
00
94
312
00
05
83
311
00
23
57
307
00
17
54
267
00
01
52
262
00
06
30
257
00
02
86
256
00
07
88
215
00
07
86
216
00
02
43
217
00
02
41
218
00
00
59
219
00
03
29
Total
00
91
18
Ajabgarh
114
00
04
92
114/1
00
04
92
43
00
08
41
41
00
06
45
40
00
09
86
40/120
00
01
30
22
00
10
39
13/116
00
04
78
20
00
05
35
14
00
00
89
13
00
27
16
10
00
02
53
10/122
00
02
85
10/121
00
01
41
7870
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
8
00
06
02
Total
00
97
24
Tikampura
527
00
01
32
391
00
03
06
390
00
01
43
389
00
03
53
388/1
00
08
21
405/1
00
02
80
405M/1
00
05
50
404
00
04
09
427
00
09
15
424/2
00
07
09
424/5
00
05
00
424/6
00
07
30
424/7
00
05
00
420
00
00
65
421
00
00
13
446
00
03
65
445
00
08
36
443
00
12
64
464
00
11
21
469
00
01
04
463/1
00
00
82
470
00
14
81
493/2
00
08
46
492/1
00
05
21
487
00
08
24
489/1
00
03
43
489/4
00
03
43
482
00
06
75
483
00
02
41
274/803
00
00
32
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7871
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
273
00
13
69
Total
01
68
73
Saipura
1
00
01
75
3
00
03
23
7
00
07
53
15
00
00
82
19
00
09
64
20
00
03
45
21/1
00
00
19
26
00
22
47
32
00
03
14
33
00
09
47
Total
00
61
69
[F. No. R-25011/3/2016-OR-I (Pt.)]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 29 िसतF बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2380
2380
2380
2380.—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu
tkjh dh xbZ] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk ftldk izdk'ku Hkkjr ds jkti= la[;k
2783 fnukad 25-11-2016 dk-vk la[;k 3555¼v½] Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi[k.M ¼ii½ esa fd;k x;k gSA bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu
vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V jktLFkku jkT; dh rglhy t;iqj ftyk t;iqj dh Hkwfe esa] jktLFkku jkT; esa t;iqj ls gfj;k.kk
jkT; esa ikuhir rd isVªksfy;e us¶Fkk ds ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk fØ;kfUor fd, tk jgs
^^t;iqj ikuhir us¶Fkk ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk** ds lEcU/k esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk
vtZu djus ds fy, vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh A
vkSj mDr jkti= vf/klwpukvksa dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 02-03-2017 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ FkhA
vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns
nh gSA
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mDr Hkwfe esa
ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gSa] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gSa %
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~
}kjk ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj
vftZr fd;k tk,%
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k
nsrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,
lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxkA
7872
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y
dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbZu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeysa ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo:) dksbZ
okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
rglhy % t;iqj
ftyk % t;iqj
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
t;flagiqjk [kksj
2223
00
07
44
2226
00
04
95
2227
00
00
87
2228
00
00
43
2241
00
00
61
2243
00
01
61
2244
00
01
02
2245
00
00
87
2246
00
02
45
2247/2598
00
02
45
2247
00
00
03
2249
00
02
98
2251/1
00
00
86
2251/2
00
01
29
2200
00
04
73
2198/1
00
02
47
2198/2
00
02
47
2187
00
06
40
2201
00
00
70
2186
00
01
14
2185
00
00
89
2184
00
00
05
2183
00
01
89
2173
00
00
03
2181
00
00
37
2174
00
01
37
2177
00
01
68
2164
00
05
78
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7873
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
2162
00
05
72
2157
00
09
90
2134
00
04
40
528
00
06
32
2121
00
04
68
2113
00
05
74
2112/2582
00
02
75
2112
00
02
46
2086
00
00
42
2091
00
10
85
2092/2
00
02
50
2072
00
00
48
2093
00
03
68
2071
00
02
50
2070
00
09
01
2064
00
01
40
2065
00
00
34
2049
00
09
40
2048/2577
00
03
18
2043
00
04
40
1478
00
32
26
1477
00
06
63
1465/2413
00
05
12
1465/2412
00
05
96
1459/2392
00
03
58
1459/2391
00
03
53
1459/2390
00
01
60
1462
00
11
85
1511
1511/1
00
00
37
1510
00
05
08
1509
00
04
66
7874
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
1506
00
06
14
Total
02
34
74
[फा. सं. आर-25011/3/2016-ओआर-I (पाट)]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2017
S.O. 2380.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, published in the Gazette No. 2783 dated 25.11.2016, S.O.No. 3555(E), Part-II, section 3, sub-section(ii) 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), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the
right of user in the land situated in Tehsil Jaipur, District Jaipur in Rajasthan State, specified in the schedule appended
to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum Naphtha from Jaipur in the
State of Rajasthan to Panipat in the State of Haryana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the
"Jaipur Panipat Naphtha Pipeline Project".
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 02.03.2017.
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section(1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his
report of Central Government.
And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land
is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;
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 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 of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the
Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all
encumbrances.
India Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P & MP
Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to
pipeline.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Jaipur
District : Jaipur
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
Jaisinghpura Khor
2223
00
07
44
2226
00
04
95
2227
00
00
87
2228
00
00
43
2241
00
00
61
2243
00
01
61
2244
00
01
02
2245
00
00
87
2246
00
02
45
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7875
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
2247/2598
00
02
45
2247
00
00
03
2249
00
02
98
2251/1
00
00
86
2251/2
00
01
29
2200
00
04
73
2198/1
00
02
47
2198/2
00
02
47
2187
00
06
40
2201
00
00
70
2186
00
01
14
2185
00
00
89
2184
00
00
05
2183
00
01
89
2173
00
00
03
2181
00
00
37
2174
00
01
37
2177
00
01
68
2164
00
05
78
2162
00
05
72
2157
00
09
90
2134
00
04
40
528
00
06
32
2121
00
04
68
2113
00
05
74
2112/2582
00
02
75
2112
00
02
46
2086
00
00
42
2091
00
10
85
2092/2
00
02
50
2072
00
00
48
2093
00
03
68
2071
00
02
50
2070
00
09
01
2064
00
01
40
2065
00
00
34
2049
00
09
40
7876
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
2048/2577
00
03
18
2043
00
04
40
1478
00
32
26
1477
00
06
63
1465/2413
00
05
12
1465/2412
00
05
96
1459/2392
00
03
58
1459/2391
00
03
53
1459/2390
00
01
60
1462
00
11
85
1511
1511/1
00
00
37
1510
00
05
08
1509
00
04
66
1506
00
06
14
Total
02
34
74
[F. No. R-25011/3/2016-OR-I (Pt.)]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 29 िसतF बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2381
2381
2381
2381.—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu
tkjh dh xbZ] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk ftldk izdk'ku Hkkjr ds jkti= la[;k
2783 fnukad 25-11-2016 dk-vk la[;k 3556¼v½] Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi[k.M ¼ii½ esa fd;k x;k gSA bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu
vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V jktLFkku jkT; dh rglhy 'kkgiqjk] ftyk t;iqj dh Hkwfe esa] jktLFkku jkT; esa t;iqj ls gfj;k.kk
jkT; esa ikuhir rd isVªksfy;e us¶Fkk ds ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk fØ;kfUor fd, tk jgs
^^t;iqj ikuhir us¶Fkk ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk** ds lEcU/k esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk
vtZu djus ds fy, vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh %
vkSj mDr jkti= vf/klwpukvksa dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 02-03-2017 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ FkhA
vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns
nh gSA
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mDr Hkwfe
ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gSa] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gSa %
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~
}kjk ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj
vftZr fd;k tk,%
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k
nsrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk;
lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxkA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y
dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbZu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeysa ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo:) dksbZ
okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7877
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
rglhy % 'kkgiqjk
ftyk % t;iqj
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
f'koiqjh
8145
00
00
49
8149
00
05
22
8146
00
06
06
8147
00
06
01
8143
00
00
90
8142
00
06
68
8130
00
04
02
8131
00
11
04
8129
00
08
51
8126
00
05
90
7799
00
03
06
7800
00
02
44
7803
00
02
27
7804
00
16
27
7805
00
04
01
7830
00
00
45
7831
00
10
30
7834
00
07
75
7833
00
00
42
7847/1
00
17
68
7848
00
01
93
7849
00
00
36
7897
00
12
94
7874
00
00
12
7876
00
04
32
7882
00
05
71
7883
00
02
89
7884
00
04
24
7925
00
05
47
7926
00
05
16
7878
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
7927
00
02
44
7930
00
03
32
7931
00
05
68
5463/1
00
04
00
5471
00
02
54
5488
00
06
21
5485
00
13
15
5469
00
00
10
Total
02
00
06
euksgjiqj
5417
00
10
48
5419
00
00
93
5398
00
02
96
5393
00
03
70
5310
00
05
78
5311
00
01
57
5312
00
08
36
5312/8316
00
00
05
5324
00
05
59
5323
00
01
57
5329
00
05
10
5321
00
04
83
5319
00
05
65
5320
00
01
93
5209
00
06
99
5213
00
07
24
5223
00
04
51
5222
00
04
18
5221
00
05
09
5220
00
09
17
5219
00
00
44
5199
00
06
37
5198
00
07
45
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7879
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
5196
00
05
94
5195/8625
00
08
03
5194
00
07
47
3278
00
10
71
3279/8220
00
00
10
3279
00
05
04
Total
01
47
23
dY;k.kiqjk
3280
00
02
62
3293
00
00
78
3283
00
07
42
3291
00
01
57
3288
00
02
69
3287
00
05
23
3286
00
00
69
3284
00
04
79
3340
00
17
25
3341
00
01
98
3343
00
09
32
3361
00
09
06
3362
00
18
15
3401
00
01
01
3368
00
00
40
3400
00
07
98
3397/1
00
05
12
3397/2
00
04
20
3396
00
05
01
3395
00
05
45
3394
00
16
87
Total
01
27
59
mnkokyk
3570
00
08
72
3569
00
08
77
3567
00
18
01
7880
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
3553
00
05
19
3554
00
10
11
3560
00
04
76
3555
00
02
04
4354
00
05
80
4355/1
00
00
24
4357
00
08
95
4364/1
4364/2
00
00
87
4363
00
06
64
4361
00
07
98
4349
00
07
82
4345
00
00
84
Total
00
96
74
feJokl
3634
00
07
14
Total
00
07
14
ckMhxjksa dh <k.kh
4348
00
04
91
4347
00
04
90
4304
00
17
95
4298
00
01
86
4297
00
00
50
Total
00
30
12
fuBkjk
1054
00
00
71
1048
00
10
77
1050
00
13
38
1045
00
02
12
724
00
03
68
723
00
02
58
725
00
02
42
726
00
03
07
727
00
04
14
731
00
05
54
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7881
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
783
00
03
72
784
00
05
25
787
00
04
35
788
00
04
35
791
00
04
82
792
00
01
70
793
00
04
25
796
00
06
31
652
00
03
05
681
00
00
06
595
00
06
48
591
00
03
20
590
00
02
78
589
00
04
46
603
00
03
47
604
00
03
05
622
00
04
28
621
00
03
66
620
00
03
58
610
00
00
32
611
00
07
93
612
00
00
57
364
00
08
78
417
00
07
01
422
00
00
11
420
00
11
88
Total
01
57
83
ykspw dk ckl
4276
00
03
72
4275
00
02
52
4275/8454
00
00
27
4274
00
03
57
4270
00
03
32
7882
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
4268
00
01
81
4267
00
01
61
4266
00
01
63
4262
00
02
79
4263
00
02
26
4231
00
04
57
4219
00
06
81
4221
00
00
25
4210/8636
00
00
32
4210
00
07
24
4209
00
08
58
Total
00
51
27
ysV dk ckl
655/1446
00
03
26
655
00
14
79
665
00
08
27
666
00
08
44
668
00
03
45
669
00
03
33
671
00
05
39
534
00
06
00
535
00
07
02
536
00
04
79
540
00
10
76
448
00
07
88
447
00
03
21
436
00
01
13
446
00
01
59
440
00
03
85
445
00
04
19
441
00
00
63
444
00
01
80
443
00
04
82
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7883
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
400
00
04
50
399
00
03
99
398
00
03
94
388
00
13
51
Total
01
30
54
yk[kuh
103
00
05
10
106
00
03
56
107
00
00
97
111
00
01
25
108
00
01
68
110
00
00
06
109
00
01
35
112
00
00
05
190
00
01
58
189
00
04
38
188
00
04
65
177
00
04
28
184
00
00
93
178
00
02
63
183
00
01
38
181
00
00
97
180
00
05
88
Total
00
40
70
dkaV
448
00
08
74
470
00
04
53
471
00
04
69
475
00
07
72
472
00
00
06
473
00
01
47
474
00
03
00
379
00
03
99
380
00
04
18
7884
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
372
00
04
34
371
00
04
27
288
00
04
96
287
00
02
38
286
00
02
56
259
00
03
61
257
00
01
62
260
00
01
71
256
00
04
09
166
00
02
85
168
00
01
35
167
00
00
97
168/2096
00
01
11
167/2095
00
00
64
169
00
02
33
171
00
03
44
173
00
06
02
136
00
04
69
133
00
02
30
135
00
00
62
102
00
01
88
134
00
00
94
91
00
00
99
74
00
04
86
73
00
02
55
42
00
01
36
45
00
01
59
46
00
06
44
47
00
00
41
35
00
05
91
33
00
06
29
34
00
01
46
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7885
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
11
00
00
05
10
00
05
28
10/1
00
03
04
9
00
05
48
1/1
1
00
13
13
Total
01
55
90
'kkgiqjk
5157
00
03
10
5156
00
00
20
5155
00
00
73
5080/5637
00
02
41
5080
00
04
98
5079
00
00
57
5078
00
04
49
5084/5677
00
00
05
5077
00
02
30
5084/5676
00
03
04
5076/5674
00
01
26
5076/5673
00
00
03
5089
00
02
85
5073
00
03
48
5074
00
07
22
Total
00
36
71
tkts [kqnZ mQZ
1504
00
06
69
fo'kuiqjk
1503
00
00
97
1502
00
08
34
1490
00
01
57
1491
00
02
51
1492
00
02
84
1493
00
03
40
1494
00
05
93
1495
00
02
77
1219
00
09
50
1217
00
17
95
1229
00
02
73
1230
00
02
11
1231
00
02
34
1232
00
02
66
1233
00
02
75
7886
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
1200
00
01
94
1198
00
02
57
1195
00
02
30
1180
00
02
57
1178
00
06
43
1172
00
07
35
1159
00
10
11
1156
00
08
09
1155
00
02
10
1154
00
03
76
1038
00
06
44
1037
00
05
47
1034
00
05
46
1033
00
02
25
1030
00
02
52
1029
00
01
57
1028
00
02
78
1025
00
02
41
1024
00
05
28
1009
00
05
26
1008
00
08
38
983
00
00
61
Total
01
70
71
nsou
500
00
04
90
501
00
05
12
515
00
00
95
514/2897
00
02
53
514
00
03
51
503
00
00
60
513
00
00
05
504
00
02
74
505
00
04
43
505/2898
00
00
43
506
00
02
21
494
00
09
20
492
00
00
75
491
00
04
27
490
00
03
53
Total
00
45
22
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7887
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
ek/kks dk okl
242
00
03
04
223
00
03
99
238
00
05
25
237
00
04
36
239
00
00
70
236
00
11
44
232
00
02
58
231
00
08
05
153/1
00
05
50
153/2
00
05
49
121
00
03
84
122
00
00
05
123
00
08
33
112
00
00
93
111
00
04
28
109/3
00
01
22
75/1
00
13
57
Total
00
82
62
[फा. सं. आर-25011/3/2016-ओआर-I (पाट)]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2017
S.O. 2381.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, published in the Gazette No. 2783 dated 25.11.2016, S.O.No. 3556(E), Part-II, section 3, sub-section(ii) 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), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the
right of user in the land situated in Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur in Rajasthan State, specified in the schedule
appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum Naphtha from Jaipur
in the State of Rajasthan to Panipat in the State of Haryana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the
"Jaipur Panipat Naphtha Pipeline Project".
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 02.03.2017.
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section(1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his
report of Central Government.
And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land
is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;
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 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 of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the
Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all
encumbrances.
7888
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
India Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P &
MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating
to pipeline.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Shahpura
District : Jaipur
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
Shivpuri
8145
00
00
49
8149
00
05
22
8146
00
06
06
8147
00
06
01
8143
00
00
90
8142
00
06
68
8130
00
04
02
8131
00
11
04
8129
00
08
51
8126
00
05
90
7799
00
03
06
7800
00
02
44
7803
00
02
27
7804
00
16
27
7805
00
04
01
7830
00
00
45
7831
00
10
30
7834
00
07
75
7833
00
00
42
7847/1
00
17
68
7848
00
01
93
7849
00
00
36
7897
00
12
94
7874
00
00
12
7876
00
04
32
7882
00
05
71
7883
00
02
89
7884
00
04
24
7925
00
05
47
7926
00
05
16
7927
00
02
44
7930
00
03
32
7931
00
05
68
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7889
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
5463/1
00
04
00
5471
00
02
54
5488
00
06
21
5485
00
13
15
5469
00
00
10
Total
02
00
06
Manoharpur
5417
00
10
48
5419
00
00
93
5398
00
02
96
5393
00
03
70
5310
00
05
78
5311
00
01
57
5312
00
08
36
5312/8316
00
00
05
5324
00
05
59
5323
00
01
57
5329
00
05
10
5321
00
04
83
5319
00
05
65
5320
00
01
93
5209
00
06
99
5213
00
07
24
5223
00
04
51
5222
00
04
18
5221
00
05
09
5220
00
09
17
5219
00
00
44
5199
00
06
37
5198
00
07
45
5196
00
05
94
5195/8625
00
08
03
5194
00
07
47
3278
00
10
71
3279/8220
00
00
10
3279
00
05
04
Total
01
47
23
Kalyanpura
3280
00
02
62
7890
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
3293
00
00
78
3283
00
07
42
3291
00
01
57
3288
00
02
69
3287
00
05
23
3286
00
00
69
3284
00
04
79
3340
00
17
25
3341
00
01
98
3343
00
09
32
3361
00
09
06
3362
00
18
15
3401
00
01
01
3368
00
00
40
3400
00
07
98
3397/1
00
05
12
3397/2
00
04
20
3396
00
05
01
3395
00
05
45
3394
00
16
87
Total
01
27
59
Udawala
3570
00
08
72
3569
00
08
77
3567
00
18
01
3553
00
05
19
3554
00
10
11
3560
00
04
76
3555
00
02
04
4354
00
05
80
4355/1
00
00
24
4357
00
08
95
4364/1
4364/2
00
00
87
4363
00
06
64
4361
00
07
98
4349
00
07
82
4345
00
00
84
Total
00
96
74
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7891
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
Mishrwas
3634
00
07
14
Total
00
07
14
Badigaro Ki Dani
4348
00
04
91
4347
00
04
90
4304
00
17
95
4298
00
01
86
4297
00
00
50
Total
00
30
12
Nithara
1054
00
00
71
1048
00
10
77
1050
00
13
38
1045
00
02
12
724
00
03
68
723
00
02
58
725
00
02
42
726
00
03
07
727
00
04
14
731
00
05
54
783
00
03
72
784
00
05
25
787
00
04
35
788
00
04
35
791
00
04
82
792
00
01
70
793
00
04
25
796
00
06
31
652
00
03
05
681
00
00
06
595
00
06
48
591
00
03
20
590
00
02
78
589
00
04
46
603
00
03
47
604
00
03
05
622
00
04
28
621
00
03
66
620
00
03
58
7892
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
610
00
00
32
611
00
07
93
612
00
00
57
364
00
08
78
417
00
07
01
422
00
00
11
420
00
11
88
Total
01
57
83
Lochu Ka Bas
4276
00
03
72
4275
00
02
52
4275/8454
00
00
27
4274
00
03
57
4270
00
03
32
4268
00
01
81
4267
00
01
61
4266
00
01
63
4262
00
02
79
4263
00
02
26
4231
00
04
57
4219
00
06
81
4221
00
00
25
4210/8636
00
00
32
4210
00
07
24
4209
00
08
58
Total
00
51
27
Let Ka Bas
655/1446
00
03
26
655
00
14
79
665
00
08
27
666
00
08
44
668
00
03
45
669
00
03
33
671
00
05
39
534
00
06
00
535
00
07
02
536
00
04
79
540
00
10
76
448
00
07
88
447
00
03
21
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7893
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
436
00
01
13
446
00
01
59
440
00
03
85
445
00
04
19
441
00
00
63
444
00
01
80
443
00
04
82
400
00
04
50
399
00
03
99
398
00
03
94
388
00
13
51
Total
01
30
54
Lakhni
103
00
05
10
106
00
03
56
107
00
00
97
111
00
01
25
108
00
01
68
110
00
00
06
109
00
01
35
112
00
00
05
190
00
01
58
189
00
04
38
188
00
04
65
177
00
04
28
184
00
00
93
178
00
02
63
183
00
01
38
181
00
00
97
180
00
05
88
Total
00
40
70
Kant
448
00
08
74
470
00
04
53
471
00
04
69
475
00
07
72
472
00
00
06
473
00
01
47
474
00
03
00
7894
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
379
00
03
99
380
00
04
18
372
00
04
34
371
00
04
27
288
00
04
96
287
00
02
38
286
00
02
56
259
00
03
61
257
00
01
62
260
00
01
71
256
00
04
09
166
00
02
85
168
00
01
35
167
00
00
97
168/2096
00
01
11
167/2095
00
00
64
169
00
02
33
171
00
03
44
173
00
06
02
136
00
04
69
133
00
02
30
135
00
00
62
102
00
01
88
134
00
00
94
91
00
00
99
74
00
04
86
73
00
02
55
42
00
01
36
45
00
01
59
46
00
06
44
47
00
00
41
35
00
05
91
33
00
06
29
34
00
01
46
11
00
00
05
10
00
05
28
10/1
00
03
04
9
00
05
48
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7895
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
1/1
1
00
13
13
Total
01
55
90
Shahpura
5157
00
03
10
5156
00
00
20
5155
00
00
73
5080/5637
00
02
41
5080
00
04
98
5079
00
00
57
5078
00
04
49
5084/5677
00
00
05
5077
00
02
30
5084/5676
00
03
04
5076/5674
00
01
26
5076/5673
00
00
03
5089
00
02
85
5073
00
03
48
5074
00
07
22
Total
00
36
71
Jaje Khurd urf
1504
00
06
69
Bishanpur
1503
00
00
97
1502
00
08
34
1490
00
01
57
1491
00
02
51
1492
00
02
84
1493
00
03
40
1494
00
05
93
1495
00
02
77
1219
00
09
50
1217
00
17
95
1229
00
02
73
1230
00
02
11
1231
00
02
34
1232
00
02
66
1233
00
02
75
1200
00
01
94
1198
00
02
57
1195
00
02
30
7896
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
1180
00
02
57
1178
00
06
43
1172
00
07
35
1159
00
10
11
1156
00
08
09
1155
00
02
10
1154
00
03
76
1038
00
06
44
1037
00
05
47
1034
00
05
46
1033
00
02
25
1030
00
02
52
1029
00
01
57
1028
00
02
78
1025
00
02
41
1024
00
05
28
1009
00
05
26
1008
00
08
38
983
00
00
61
Total
01
70
71
Devan
500
00
04
90
501
00
05
12
515
00
00
95
514/2897
00
02
53
514
00
03
51
503
00
00
60
513
00
00
05
504
00
02
74
505
00
04
43
505/2898
00
00
43
506
00
02
21
494
00
09
20
492
00
00
75
491
00
04
27
490
00
03
53
Total
00
45
22
Madho Ka Bass
242
00
03
04
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7897
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
223
00
03
99
238
00
05
25
237
00
04
36
239
00
00
70
236
00
11
44
232
00
02
58
231
00
08
05
153/1
00
05
50
153/2
00
05
49
121
00
03
84
122
00
00
05
123
00
08
33
112
00
00
93
111
00
04
28
109/3
00
01
22
75/1
00
13
57
Total
00
82
62
[F. No. R-25011/3/2016-OR-I (Pt.)]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 29 िसतF बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2382
2382
2382
2382.—के:;ीय सरकार, पे?ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन) अिधिनयम
1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम इसके प[ात उ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क% धारा 3 क% उप-धारा (1) भारत के राजप,
(असाधारण) के अधीन जारी क% गयी भारत सरकार के पे?ोिलयम और 'ाकृितक गैस मंालय क% अिधसूचना सं. का. आ 405(अ),
तारीख 08 फरवरी 2017, Cारा तिमलनाडु रा]य म ए^ोर पोट से सी.पी.सी.एल, मनली एवं िविभ^ औ`ोिगक aाहक6 तक आर-
एल.एन.जी और पै?ोिलयम उ8पाद6 के पHरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कापcरेशन िलिमटेड के Cारा कॉमन कॉHरडॉर पाइपलाइन
िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और उ आिधसूचना क% 'ितयाँ जनता को तारीख 17.02.2017 को उपलIध करा दी गई थO।
और उ अिधिनयम क% धारा 6 क% उप - धारा (1) के अनुसरण म सम 'ािधकारी ने के:;ीय सरकार को अपनी Hरपोट दे दी
है।
और के:;ीय सरकार का उ Hरपोट पर िवचार करने के प[ात यह समाधान हो गया है क इस अिधसूचना से संलf अनुसूची
म िविनgदh भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन कया जाना चािहए।
अत: अब, के:;ीय सरकार,उ अिधिनयम क% धारा 6 क% उप-धारा (1) Cारा 'दi शि य6 का 'योग करते Dए यह घोषणा
करती है क इस अिधसूचना के संलf अनुसूची म िविनgदh उ भूिम म पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए उपयोग का अिधकार अJजत कया
जाता है।
7898
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
यह और क के:;ीय सरकार, उ अिधिनयम क% धारा 6 क% उप-धारा(4) Cारा 'दi शि य6 का 'योग करते Dए यह िनदnश
देती है क उ भूिम के उपयोग का अिधकार इस अिधसूचना के 'काशन क% तारीख से के:;ीय सरकार म िनिहत होने क% बजाए, सभी
िवलंगम6 से मु होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपcरेशन िलिमटेड म िनिहत होगा।
पे?ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क% धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी ितपूJत के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपcरेशन िलिमटेड पूणतया उiरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से सFबि:धत कसी भी मामले पर के:;ीय सरकार के िवMN कोई वाद
दावा या कानूनी कायवाही नहO हो सकेगी।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
तालुका : पो^ेरी
िजला : ितMवलूर
रा]य : तिमलनाडु
गाँव का नाम
सवnण सं.
उप खRड सं.
ेफल
हे#टेर
एयर
वग मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
144. वलूर
1307
1ए
00
10
40
1307
1बी
00
03
65
1309
2
00
13
00
1311
1
00
01
00
1311
2
00
03
65
1311
3
00
05
90
1317
1
00
00
65
1317
2
00
25
90
1301
1
00
04
35
[फा. सं. आर-25011/02/2016-ओआर-I (पाट)]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2017
S.O. 2382.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas number S.O. 405(E) dated: 08.02.2017 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 R-LNG and Petroleum products from
Ennore Port to CPCL, Manali and various anchor customers in Common Corridor in the State of Tamil Nadu, a
pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, for implementing the Common Corridor Pipeline
Project.
And whereas, copies of the said notifications were made available to the public from 17.02.2017;
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;
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7899
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 : Ponneri
District : Tiruvallur
State : Tamil Nadu
Name of the Village
Survey No.
Sub-Division No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Meter
1
2
3
4
5
6
144. Vallur
1307
1A
00
10
40
1307
1B
00
03
65
1309
2
00
13
00
1311
1
00
01
00
1311
2
00
03
65
1311
3
00
05
90
1317
1
00
00
65
1317
2
00
25
90
1301
1
00
04
35
[F. No. R-25011/02/2016-OR-I (Pt.)]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 29 िसतF बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2383
2383
2383
2383.—के:;ीय सरकार, पे?ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन) अिधिनयम
1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम इसके प[ात उ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क% धारा 3 क% उप-धारा (1) भारत के राजप,
(असाधारण) के अधीन जारी क% गयी भारत सरकार के पे?ोिलयम और 'ाकृितक गैस मंालय क% अिधसूचना सं. का.आ. 3368(अ),
तारीख 31 अ ूबर 2016, Cारा तिमलनाडु रा]य म ए^ोर पोट से सी.पी.सी.एल, मनली एवं िविभ^ औ`ोिगक aाहक6 तक आर-
एल.एन.जी और पे?ोिलयम उ8पाद6 के पHरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कापcरेशन िलिमटेड के Cारा कॉमन कॉHरडॉर पाइपलाइन
िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और उ आिधसूचना क% 'ितयाँ जनता को तारीख 03.11.2016 को उपलIद करा दी गई थी।
और उ अिधिनयम क% धारा 6 क% उप- धारा (1) के अनुसरण म सम 'ािधकारी ने के:;ीय सरकार को अपनी Hरपोट दे दी
है।
और के:;ीय सरकार का उ Hरपोट पर िवचार करने के प[ात यह समाधान हो गया है क इस अिधसूचना से संलf अनुसूची
म िविनgदh भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन कया जाना चािहए।
7900
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अत: अब, के:;ीय सरकार,उ अिधिनयम क% धारा 6 क% उप-धारा(1) Cारा 'दi शि य6 का 'योग करते Dए यह घोषणा
करती है क इस अिधसूचना के संलf अनुसूची म िविनgदh उ भूिम म पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए उपयोग का अिधकार अJजत कया
जाता है।
यह और क के:;ीय सरकार, उ अिधिनयम क% धारा 6 क% उप-धारा(4) Cारा 'दi शि य6 का 'योग करते Dए यह िनदnश
देती है क उ भूिम के उपयोग का अिधकार इस अिधसूचना के 'काशन क% तारीख से के:;ीय सरकार म िनिहत होने क% बजाए, सभी
िवलंगम6 से मु होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपcरेशन िलिमटेड म िनिहत होगा।
पे?ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क% धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी ितपूJत के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपcरेशन िलिमटेड पूणतया उiरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से सFबि:धत कसी भी मामले पर के:;ीय सरकार के िवMN कोई वाद
दावा या कानूनी कायवाही नहO हो सकेगी।
vuqlwph
uqlwph
uqlwph
uqlwph
तालुका : पो^ेरी
िजला : ितMवलूर
रा]य : तिमलनाडु
गाँव का नाम
सवnण सं.
उप-खRड सं.
ेफल
हे#टेर
एयर
वग मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
144. वलूर
1542
-
0
04
80
1541
-
0
04
15
1540
-
0
23
60
1538
-
0
08
10
1427
1ए
0
13
00
1427
2
0
18
75
1426
-
0
06
95
1423
1ए1
0
10
00
1423
1बी
0
02
60
1423
2
0
16
10
1423
1सी
0
02
25
1434
10
0
08
65
1434
6
0
09
10
1434
5
0
04
55
1434
3
0
03
85
1434
2
0
03
40
1435
-
0
12
10
1436
5
0
10
45
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7901
1436
4
0
03
90
1436
3ए
0
04
10
1436
2
0
04
15
1436
1
0
10
15
1452
-
0
04
20
1389
1
0
08
45
1389
21
0
02
25
1389
20
0
01
10
1389
19
0
01
10
1389
18
0
01
10
1389
17
0
01
10
1395
-
0
15
30
1451
-
0
22
00
1450
2
0
07
95
1441
2
0
28
00
1441
5
0
01
85
1380
1
0
10
80
1380
2
0
03
05
1381
1
0
03
90
1382
1
0
11
70
1382
2
0
22
10
1383
-
0
06
50
1394
-
0
26
75
1396
2ए2
0
02
15
1396
2ए1
0
08
00
1396
3
0
00
65
1399
4बी
0
17
70
1399
3बी
0
02
80
1399
4सी
0
17
00
1399
8
0
09
15
7902
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1405
0
23
05
1393
1
0
00
40
1393
6
0
00
40
1392
1ए1
0
01
05
1392
1बी2
0
01
10
1392
1बी3
0
01
30
148. एडयांचावड़ी
186
3
0
10
25
187
1
0
29
15
187
3
0
00
90
189
2
0
03
00
189
1डी
0
02
15
189
1सी
0
06
65
189
1बी
0
00
40
189
5
0
08
00
189
6
0
01
25
189
7
0
03
40
189
8
0
06
70
190
1
0
08
40
190
2
0
08
80
190
3
0
07
00
193
7
0
03
60
236
2
0
43
10
236
1
0
13
00
233
2
0
00
40
233
3
0
07
40
232
1ए
0
02
65
232
1बी
0
02
45
231
1
0
29
10
231
2
0
00
40
228
2
0
11
55
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7903
228
1ए
0
00
40
228
1बी
0
00
45
228
4
0
10
10
228
3
0
08
10
228
5ए1
0
03
10
228
5बी
0
04
65
228
6ए
0
00
40
228
6बी
0
07
10
227
1
0
09
25
227
3ए
0
12
40
227
3सी
0
00
40
224
1
0
01
80
224
2ए
0
23
50
224
2बी
0
07
80
223
-
0
09
00
238
3
0
00
40
242
1
0
30
75
242
2
0
16
80
44. सडयंकुpपम
173
1ए1
0
01
10
173
1ए2
0
06
50
[फा. सं. आर-25011/02/2016-ओआर-I (पाट)]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2017
S.O. 2383.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas number S.O. 3368(E) dated: 31.10.2016 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 R-LNG and Petroleum
products from Ennore Port to CPCL, Manali and various anchor customers in Common Corridor in the State of Tamil
Nadu, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, for implementing the Common Corridor
Pipeline Project.
And whereas, copies of the said notifications were made available to the public from
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;
7904
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 : Ponneri
District : Tiruvallur
State : Tamil Nadu
Name of the Village
Survey No.
Sub-Division
No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Meter
1
2
3
4
5
6
144. Vallur
1542
-
0
04
80
1541
-
0
04
15
1540
-
0
23
60
1538
-
0
08
10
1427
1A
0
13
00
1427
2
0
18
75
1426
-
0
06
95
1423
1A1
0
10
00
1423
1B
0
02
60
1423
2
0
16
10
1423
1C
0
02
25
1434
10
0
08
65
1434
6
0
09
10
1434
5
0
04
55
1434
3
0
03
85
1434
2
0
03
40
1435
-
0
12
10
1436
5
0
10
45
1436
4
0
03
90
1436
3A
0
04
10
1436
2
0
04
15
1436
1
0
10
15
1452
-
0
04
20
1389
1
0
08
45
1389
21
0
02
25
1389
20
0
01
10
1389
19
0
01
10
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7905
1389
18
0
01
10
1389
17
0
01
10
1395
-
0
15
30
1451
-
0
22
00
1450
2
0
07
95
1441
2
0
28
00
1441
5
0
01
85
1380
1
0
10
80
1380
2
0
03
05
1381
1
0
03
90
1382
1
0
11
70
1382
2
0
22
10
1383
-
0
06
50
1394
-
0
26
75
1396
2A2
0
02
15
1396
2A1
0
08
00
1396
3
0
00
65
1399
4B
0
17
70
1399
3B
0
02
80
1399
4C
0
17
00
1399
8
0
09
15
1405
0
23
05
1393
1
0
00
40
1393
6
0
00
40
1392
1A1
0
01
05
1392
1B2
0
01
10
1392
1B3
0
01
30
148. Edayanchavadi
186
3
0
10
25
187
1
0
29
15
187
3
0
00
90
189
2
0
03
00
189
1D
0
02
15
189
1C
0
06
65
189
1B
0
00
40
189
5
0
08
00
189
6
0
01
25
189
7
0
03
40
189
8
0
06
70
190
1
0
08
40
190
2
0
08
80
190
3
0
07
00
193
7
0
03
60
7906
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
236
2
0
43
10
236
1
0
13
00
233
2
0
00
40
233
3
0
07
40
232
1A
0
02
65
232
1B
0
02
45
231
1
0
29
10
231
2
0
00
40
228
2
0
11
55
228
1A
0
00
40
228
1B
0
00
45
228
4
0
10
10
228
3
0
08
10
228
5A1
0
03
10
228
5B
0
04
65
228
6A
0
00
40
228
6B
0
07
10
227
1
0
09
25
227
3A
0
12
40
227
3C
0
00
40
224
1
0
01
80
224
2A
0
23
50
224
2B
0
07
80
223
-
0
09
00
238
3
0
00
40
242
1
0
30
75
242
2
0
16
80
44. Sadayankuppam
173
1A1
0
01
10
173
1A2
0
06
50
[F. No. R-25011/02/2016-OR-I (Pt.)]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 29 िसतF बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2384
2384
2384
2384.—के:;ीय सरकार ने पे?ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन) अिधिनयम
1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम इसके प[ात उ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क% धारा 3 क% उपधारा (1) के अधीन जारी क% गई
भारत सरकार के पे?ोिलयम और 'ाकृितक गैस मंालय क% अिधसूचना सं*या का.आ. 1704(अ), तारीख 24 जून 2015, जो भारत के
राजप तारीख 25 जून 2015 म 'कािशत क% गई थी, Cारा उस अिधसूचना से संलf अनुसूची म िविनgदh भूिम म उiर 'देश रा]य
म भारतीय रेलवे के डी.एफ.सी. के िलये बी.के.पी.एल. क% मुगलसराय और कानपुर के बीच खंड िशqrटग हेतु े-जे ('Wथािपत
पाइपलाइन चैनेज 517.814 से 520.556 तक िजला
–
कौशाFबी ) म पे?ोिलयम पHरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपcरेशन िलिमटेड
Cारा पाइपलाइन िबछाने के 'योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार के अजन के अपने आशय क% घोषणा क% थी;
और उ राजप अिधसूचना क% 'ितयां जनता को तारीख 24 जुलाई 2015 तक उपलIध करा दी गई थी ;
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7907
और सम 'ािधकारी ने उ अिधिनयम क% धारा 6 क% उपधारा (1) के अधीन के:;ीय सरकार को Hरपोट दे दी है ;
और के:;ीय सरकार ने, उ Hरपोट पर िवचार करने के प[ात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उ भूिम पाइपलाइन
िबछाने के िलए अपेित है, उसम उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने का िविन[य कया है ;
अतः अब, के:;ीय सरकार उ अिधिनयम क% धारा 6 क% उपधारा (1) Cारा 'ti शि य6 का 'योग करते Dए यह घोषणा
करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलf अनुसूची म िविनgदh भूिम म पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन कया
जाए ;
और के:;ीय सरकार उ अिधिनयम क% धारा 6 क% उपधारा (4) Cारा 'दi शि य6 का 'योग करते Dए, यह िनदnश देती है
क उ भूिम म उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के 'काशन क% तारीख से के:;ीय सरकार म िनिहत होने के बजाए, सभी िवलंगम6 से
मु होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपcरेशन िलिमटेड म िनिहत होगी।
पे?ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क% धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी ितपूJत के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपcरेशन िलिमटेड पूणतया उiरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से सFबि:धत कसी भी मामले पर के:;ीय सरकार के िवMN कोई वाद
दावा या कानूनी कायवाही नहO हो सकेगी |
vuqlwph
uqlwph
uqlwph
uqlwph
तहसील: िसराथू
िजला : कौशाFबी
रा]य : उiर 'देश
गांव का नाम
खसरा नं.
ेफल
हे#टेयर
एयर
वग मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
गोिब:दपुर गोHरय6
650 िम.
00
03
91
293
00
03
06
[फा. सं. आर-25011/10/2017-ओआर-I/48385]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2017
S.O. 2384.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas S.O. No. 1704(E) dated the 24th June, 2015, 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), published in the Gazette of India dated the 25th June 2015; the Central Government declared its intention to
acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying
pipeline for the "Shifting of Barauni-Kanpur pipeline between Mughalsarai and Kanpur for DFCCIL of Indian Railway
in Part-J (from Existing P/L Ch 517.814 to 520.556 km. in District-Allahabad) by Indian Oil Corporation Limited for
the transportation of petroleum products;
And whereas copies of the said Gazette Notification were made available to the public up to 24th July 2015;
And whereas the competent authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to
the Central Government;
And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land
is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;
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 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 for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the
Central Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all
encumbrances.
7908
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the
P & MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter
relating to the pipeline.
SCHEDULE
TEHSIL: SIRATHU
DISTRICT : KAUSHAMBI
STATE : UTTAR PRADESH
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sq. mt.
1
2
3
4
5
GOVINDPUR GORIYON
650 िम.
00
03
91
293
00
03
06
[F. No. R-25011/10/2017-OR-I/48385]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 29 िसतF बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2385
2385
2385
2385.—के:;ीय सरकार ने पे?ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन) अिधिनयम,
1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसमे इसके प[ात उ अिधिनयम कहा गया है क% धारा 3 क% उपधारा (1) के अधीन जारी क% गयी
भारत सरकार के पे?ोिलयम और 'ाकृितक गैस मंालय क% अिधसूचना सं*या का.आ. 1375(अ), तारीख 21 मई 2015, जो भारत के
राजप तारीख 22 मई 2015, म 'कािशत क% गयी थी Cारा उस अिधसूचना से संलf अनुसूची मे िविनgदh भूिम म उiर 'देश रा]य
म भारतीय रेलवे के डी.एफ.सी. के िलये बी.के.पी.एल. के मुगलसंराय और कानपुर के बीच खंड िशqrटग हेतु े -डी ('Wथािपत
पाइपलाइन चैनेज 401.111 से 403.838 तक िजला
–
िमजापुर) म पे?ोिलयम पHरवहन के िलये इंिडयन ऑयल कापcरेशन िलिमटेड
Cारा पाइपलाइन िबछाने के 'ायोजन के िलये उपयोग के अिधकार के अजन के अपने आशय क% घोषणा क% थी ;
और उ राजप अिधसूचना क% 'ितयां जनता को तारीख 26 िसतFबर 2016 तक उपलIध करा दी गयी थी;
और सम 'ािधकारी ने उ अिधिनयम क% धारा 6 क% उपधारा(1) के अधीन क:;ीय सरकार को Hरपोट दे दी है ;
और क;ीय सरकार ने, उ Hरपोट पर िवचार करने के प[ात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उ भूिम पाइप लाइन
िबछाने के िलये अपेित है, उसम उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने का िविन[य कया है ;
अत: अब क ;ीय सरकार उ अिधिनयम क% धारा 6 क% उपधारा (1) Cारा 'दi शि य6 का 'योग करते Dये यह घोषणा
करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलf अनुसूची म िविनgदh भूिम म पाइप लाइन िबछाने के िलये उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन कया
जाये ;
और क;ीय सरकार उ अिधिनयम क% धारा 6 क% उप-धारा (4) Cारा 'दi शि य6 का 'योग करते Dए ,यह िनदnश देती है
क उ भूिम म उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के 'काशन क% तारीख से क ;ीय सरकार म िनिहत होने के बजाय, सभी िवलंगम6 से
मु होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कापcरेशन िलिमटेड म िनिहत होगी ।
पे?ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क% धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी ितपूJत के िलये इंिडयन ऑयल
कापcरेशन िलिमटेड पूणतया उiरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से सFबंिधत कसी भी मामले पर क ;ीय सरकार के िवMN कोई वाद दावा
या कानूनी कायवाही नहO हो सकेगी ।
vuqlwph
uqlwph
uqlwph
uqlwph
तहसील: सदर
िजला : िमज़ापुर
रा]य : उiर 'देश
गांव का नाम
खसरा नं.
ेफल
हे#टेयर
एयर
वग मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
यादवपुर
122
00
10
00
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7909
181
00
01
19
141
00
05
52
144
00
00
17
145
00
00
66
199
00
01
24
203
00
00
22
158
00
01
48
िबहसड़ा खुद
47
00
01
95
41
00
01
01
गोसीपुर
10
00
05
22
[फा. सं. आर-25011/06/2015-ओआर-I (पाट)]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2017
S.O. 2385.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas S.O No. 1375(E), dated the 21st May, 2015, 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) (hereinafter referred to as the said
Act) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 22nd May 2015, the Central Government declared its intention to
acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying
pipeline for the “ Shifting of Barauni –Kanpur pipeline between Mugalsarai and Kanpur for DFCCIL of Indian Railway
in Part D (from Existing P/L Ch. 401.111 to 403.838 km. In District- Mirzapur)” by Indian Oil Corporation limited for
the transportation of petroleum products ;
And whereas copies of said Gazette Notification were made available to the public up to 26th September 2016;
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said act submitted report to
the Central Government;
And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land
is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;
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 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 for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the
Central Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in 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&MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceedings would lie against the Central Government on any matter
relating to the pipeline.
SCHEDULE
TEHSIL: SADAR
DISTRICT: MIRZAPUR
STATE: UTTAR PRADESH
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sq. Mt.
1
2
3
4
5
YADAVPUR
122
00
10
00
7910
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
181
00
01
19
141
00
05
52
144
00
00
17
145
00
00
66
199
00
01
24
203
00
00
22
158
00
01
48
BIHASARA KHURD
47
00
01
95
41
00
01
01
GOSIPUR
10
00
05
22
[F. No. R-25011/06/2015-OR-I (Pt.)]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 29 िसतF बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2386
2386
2386
2386.— dsUnzh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ikjknhi ¼vksfM+'kk½ ls jk;iqj ¼NŸkhlx<+½ ,oa
jk¡ph ¼>kj[k.M½ rd isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds }kjk **ikjknhi & lEcyiqj & jk;iqj
& jk¡ph ikbiykbu** fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg;s(
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh Hkwfe esa tks blls
mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS vkSj ftlesa mDr ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus dk izLrko gS] mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk,(
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk
50½ /kkjk 3 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ml Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius
vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS(
dksbZ O;fDr tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks bl vf/klwpuk ls ;qDr Hkkjr ds jkti= dh
izfr;k¡ lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gSa] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj] Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds fy, mlesa mi;ksx
ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds lEcU/k esa Jh lUrks"k dqekj feJk] l{ke izkf/kdkjh] bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] ikjknhi & lEcyiqj &
jk;iqj & jk¡ph ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk] gksrk deIysDl] ,sUFkkikyh pkSd] ,sUFkkikyh] lEcyiqj&768004 ¼vksfM+'kk½ dks fyf[kr :Ik esa vk{ksi
Hkst ldsxk A
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
rglhy%lqanjxM
ftYyk%lqanjxM
jkT;%vksfM+’kk
Xakko dk uke
IykV ua-
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,;j
cxZ ehVj
1
2
3
4
5
dqyVk
1209
1198
00
00
10
12
71
37
[फा. सं. आर-25011/35/2017-ओआर-I/49225]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7911
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2017
S.O. 2386.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for
the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip (Odisha) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh) & Ranchi (Jharkhand),
“Paradip - Sambalpur - Raipur - Ranchi Pipeline” should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary
to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the
schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and
Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby
declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date on
which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in
writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Santosh Kumar
Mishra, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip - Sambalpur - Raipur - Ranchi Pipeline Project,
Hota Complex, Ainthapali Chawk, Ainthapali, Sambalpur, Odisha-768004.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil: SUNDARGARH
District: SUNDARGARH
State: ODISHA
Name of the Village
Plot No
Area
Hectare
Are
Sq.mtr.
1
2
3
4
5
KULATA
1209
00
10
71
1198
00
12
37
[F. No. R-25011/35/2017-OR-I/49225]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 3 अ# तूबर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2387
2387
2387
2387.—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 क mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds
v/khu tkjh dh xbZ] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 487 ¼v½ rkjh[k 08-
02-2017 ftldk izdk'ku Hkkjr ds jkti= la[;k 443] Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi[k.M ¼ii½ rkjh[k 16-02-2017 esa fd;k x;k gSA
bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V jktLFkku jkT; dh rglhy vkesj ftyk t;iqj dh Hkwfe esa] jktLFkku jkT; esa
t;iqj ls gfj;k.kk jkT; esa ikuhir rd isVªksfy;e us¶Fkk ds ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk
fØ;kfUor fd, tk jgs ^^t;iqj ikuhir us¶Fkk ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk** ds lEcU/k esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy,
mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds fy, vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh %
vkSj mDr jkti= vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 05 vizSy] 2017 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ FkhA
vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ
ns nh gSA
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mDr Hkwfe
ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gSa] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gSa %
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~
}kjk ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj
vftZr fd;k tk,%
7912
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k
nsrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk;
lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxkA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y
dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbZu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeysa ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo:) dksbZ
okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
rglhy % vkesj
ftyk % t;iqj
jkT; % jktLFkku
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
vkesj
8701
00
04
55
8703
00
01
74
8719
00
03
29
8706
00
00
03
8718
00
02
04
8717
00
01
59
8707
00
02
25
8708
00
01
82
8716
00
01
87
8711
00
04
22
8712
00
01
14
8730
00
05
54
8732
00
07
46
8733
00
00
33
8750
00
00
18
8749
00
06
70
8755
00
03
44
8746
00
02
30
8756
00
01
78
8689
00
02
48
8688
00
02
77
8687
00
02
79
8769
00
04
30
8774
00
01
91
8772
00
02
60
8773
00
03
18
8778
00
01
64
8681
00
01
59
8780
00
06
24
8663
00
04
42
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7913
8664
00
02
09
8662
00
02
09
8661
00
01
77
8642
00
02
05
8642/9681
00
00
42
8655
00
06
51
8654
00
02
42
7690
00
03
34
7671
00
01
44
7670
00
01
67
7669
00
00
28
7664
00
01
10
7665
00
01
17
7666
00
01
84
7667
00
00
57
7456
00
04
37
7457
00
02
64
7458
00
03
53
7630
00
01
50
7632
00
07
61
7841/9260
00
29
27
7841/9260/
9318
00
04
54
7841/9260/
9319
00
00
94
2961
00
03
03
2962
00
04
56
2964
00
02
04
2716
00
07
95
2719
00
02
43
2727
00
11
17
2728
00
02
02
2725
00
01
09
dqy
dqy
dqy
dqy
02
03
64
dwdl
1524
00
06
00
1524/1
00
03
00
1524/2
00
04
60
2518/1524
00
06
00
1106
00
00
36
1108
00
02
76
1107
00
05
48
1092
00
02
91
1091
00
05
13
7914
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1090
00
02
36
1089
00
02
70
867
00
05
22
663
00
03
41
661
00
00
65
662
00
04
28
664
00
02
35
656
00
02
52
654
00
02
17
649
00
04
19
644
00
03
24
643
00
00
56
dqy
dqy
dqy
dqy
00
69
89
<.M
258
00
00
54
267/1403
00
02
06
267
00
02
18
266
00
04
10
260
00
01
47
262
00
07
25
263
00
05
12
264
00
05
01
288
00
00
03
291
00
00
24
289
00
08
51
285
00
02
71
313
00
03
15
314
00
04
63
326
00
05
90
327
00
06
11
550
00
06
75
552
00
04
85
539
00
00
36
553
00
00
59
538
00
00
08
554
00
03
97
555
00
02
01
535
00
04
95
534
00
01
39
519
00
00
35
498
00
06
54
495
00
00
65
501
00
01
35
502
00
01
90
490
00
02
22
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7915
489
00
00
94
488
00
02
67
402
00
00
58
469
00
01
01
403
00
01
33
404
00
02
76
457
00
02
10
456
00
02
28
414
00
01
89
416
00
00
03
418
00
00
25
417
00
01
37
421
00
03
31
422
00
02
17
423
00
01
65
424
00
02
56
425
00
01
31
dqy
dqy
dqy
dqy
01
25
18
yckuk
1876
00
00
14
1877
00
01
59
1878
00
06
84
1870
00
06
32
1879
00
01
39
1868
00
00
62
1867
00
02
55
1865
00
02
57
1864
00
02
41
1856
00
01
96
1855
00
00
75
1857
00
00
27
1854
00
07
02
1853
00
00
44
1845
00
02
66
1844
00
00
50
1842
00
04
40
1841
00
04
19
1836/1
00
02
44
1836/2
00
02
43
1835
00
05
07
1812
00
04
58
1872
00
00
20
1811
00
03
99
1810
00
03
55
1809
00
05
09
7916
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1788
00
02
82
1789
00
02
52
1790
00
05
14
1759
00
05
27
1760
00
02
70
1763
00
03
30
1745
00
04
24
1746
00
05
85
1723
00
02
95
1722
00
06
37
1708
00
01
87
1707
00
03
16
1686
00
02
99
1685
00
03
05
1672
00
05
60
1670
00
00
50
1667
00
03
49
1666
00
03
46
1647
00
02
00
1648
00
04
45
1649
00
05
89
1651
00
00
52
1650
00
00
65
1606
00
01
78
1605
00
03
35
1604
00
04
71
1603
00
00
75
1609
00
03
55
1601
00
04
58
1599
00
04
45
1554
00
02
86
1559
00
01
49
1552
00
04
32
1551/2297
00
03
19
1551
00
03
18
1550
00
04
00
1549
00
05
69
1529
00
02
12
1528
00
01
55
1525
00
01
24
1476
00
11
23
1479
00
05
28
1473
00
01
59
1484
00
03
87
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7917
1485
00
01
93
1327
00
06
17
1326
00
02
47
1325
00
02
34
1323
00
02
00
1301
00
08
92
1302
00
00
47
1303
00
03
17
1308
00
02
48
1309
00
00
01
1306
00
04
91
dqy
dqy
dqy
dqy
02
62
41
/khaxiqj
100
00
04
48
98
00
00
62
97
00
03
02
96
00
03
36
95
00
00
52
94
00
01
30
93
00
01
69
92
00
07
60
91
00
00
97
29
00
02
18
30
00
07
96
19
00
08
02
17
00
00
75
dqy
dqy
dqy
dqy
00
42
47
v.kh
184
00
01
78
183
00
00
03
185
00
01
02
186
00
00
45
189
00
00
53
193
00
00
26
191
00
03
41
195
00
03
47
213
00
03
14
211
00
02
39
212
00
00
28
207
00
02
28
208
00
00
03
206
00
01
55
203
00
05
13
202
00
01
90
123
00
02
51
122
00
05
76
7918
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
121
00
00
28
360
00
02
14
362
00
00
57
364
00
03
08
365
00
04
82
373
00
06
10
377
00
05
73
396
00
00
85
392
00
02
79
480
00
03
69
481/1537
00
01
03
481
00
03
44
482
00
00
17
483
00
00
50
485
00
04
59
484
00
01
87
486
00
03
15
487
00
03
23
dqy
dqy
dqy
dqy
00
83
95
vpjksy
4815
00
01
14
4814
00
02
13
4813
00
02
82
4811
00
04
56
4810
00
01
80
4793
00
03
66
4796
00
01
13
4797
00
01
95
4800
00
02
46
4736
00
03
07
4735
00
04
00
4734
00
00
57
4721
00
04
21
4722
00
01
80
4719
00
01
86
4718
00
01
88
4717
00
02
04
4716
00
01
71
4702
00
02
77
4703
00
01
73
4704
00
01
31
4707
00
01
47
4692
00
02
21
4693
00
00
26
4550
00
02
05
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7919
4547
00
04
09
4478
00
04
93
4468
00
02
37
4469
00
03
44
4467
00
00
33
4421
00
00
05
4415
00
00
56
4401
00
04
86
4399
00
03
70
4373
00
02
52
4374
00
03
00
4370
00
03
52
4368
00
01
50
4129
00
02
90
4130
00
02
09
4128
00
10
15
3704/7699
00
01
61
3643
00
04
18
3635
00
01
54
3634
00
04
23
3629
00
02
86
3632
00
00
50
3631
00
01
10
3630
00
04
71
3625
00
05
69
3626
00
04
62
3584
00
00
85
3589
00
07
70
3592
00
07
90
3593
00
08
34
3567
00
07
39
3566
00
07
00
3556
00
01
11
3487
00
11
50
3486
00
05
82
3485
00
08
20
3444/6736
00
16
94
3444
00
02
39
3443
00
04
05
2813/7233
00
01
03
2828
00
02
78
2829
00
01
31
2820
00
02
27
2821
00
01
17
7920
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2839
00
00
41
2840
00
00
68
2838
00
00
20
2845
00
01
74
2846
00
02
80
2847
00
00
94
2849
00
05
91
2850
00
02
26
2606
00
04
48
2616
00
02
30
2618
00
03
98
2619
00
01
31
2615
00
04
40
dqy
dqy
dqy
dqy
02
64
80
L;kjh
593
00
17
77
582/841
00
00
04
582/840
00
01
01
582/839
00
02
44
580/838
00
05
46
581
00
01
77
580
00
04
35
579
00
00
17
577
00
00
49
578
00
04
24
572
00
01
32
574
00
06
00
559
00
01
72
558
00
02
78
557
00
00
25
556
00
01
71
555
00
02
18
554
00
03
95
552
00
03
36
551
00
02
27
504
00
02
53
505
00
00
98
502
00
01
79
508
00
01
98
510
00
00
29
509
00
04
08
512
00
00
56
515
00
00
05
514
00
03
00
391
00
04
93
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7921
392
00
04
64
400
00
01
30
394
00
07
67
395
00
02
60
237
00
03
40
236
00
05
20
235
00
00
04
154
00
07
85
159
00
00
04
153
00
06
19
140
00
03
31
138
00
03
52
137
00
02
83
134
00
01
05
dqy
dqy
dqy
dqy
01
33
11
tqxyiqjk
375
00
00
49
377
00
04
46
376
00
03
17
380
00
05
00
381
00
02
30
383
00
03
79
204
00
00
76
203
00
05
26
177
00
01
63
176
00
01
66
175
00
01
65
174
00
02
24
173
00
02
13
172
00
03
40
171
00
01
75
180
00
01
72
170
00
02
29
169
00
02
38
168
00
02
11
165
00
02
53
154
00
03
23
144
00
02
88
145
00
02
80
136
00
03
99
135
00
00
03
131/697
00
02
76
130
00
02
28
118
00
03
56
117
00
00
30
7922
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
120
00
00
87
124
00
01
30
123
00
02
86
67
00
02
77
66
00
02
80
60
00
03
09
54
00
02
83
28
00
02
59
29
00
00
95
30
00
00
96
24
00
00
23
22
00
00
04
16
00
08
16
17
00
06
67
19/663
00
00
03
9
00
12
98
8
00
03
90
3/1
00
01
20
4
00
00
20
4/2
4/3
00
08
72
2
00
01
92
dqy
dqy
dqy
dqy
01
37
62
t;flaguxj
177
00
12
63
176
00
11
04
172
00
00
78
165
00
06
87
164
00
04
22
163
00
00
18
127
00
00
47
129
00
11
66
121
00
02
82
119
00
00
77
120
00
00
27
118
00
03
28
117
00
02
54
116
00
04
82
99
00
02
49
100
00
00
73
98
00
01
72
93
00
04
15
67
00
02
70
66
00
04
06
65
00
01
74
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7923
59
00
02
59
57/339
00
01
22
56
00
01
98
38
00
04
71
39
00
00
10
13
00
06
30
9
00
01
68
10
00
00
49
8
00
06
38
7/349
00
00
58
dqy
dqy
dqy
dqy
01
05
97
pUnokth
38
00
00
27
36
00
00
29
35
00
07
57
33
00
02
45
33/158
00
03
86
33/159
00
00
02
32
00
03
74
dqy
dqy
dqy
dqy
00
18
20
lkyM+okl
456
00
07
34
454
00
02
55
453/619
00
02
96
453
00
03
13
451
00
06
74
437
00
01
85
436
00
07
09
435
00
04
59
434
00
04
32
183
00
05
04
182
00
03
62
174
00
04
89
173
00
11
07
323
00
00
15
322
00
02
78
321
00
02
06
212
00
06
45
211
00
06
06
126
00
01
25
125/2
00
02
46
122
00
03
13
123
00
03
11
113
00
02
80
113/664
00
02
62
112
00
01
00
7924
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
111
00
00
46
96
00
07
49
94
00
07
16
95
00
00
67
dqy
dqy
dqy
dqy
01
14
84
y[ksj
986
00
00
62
987
00
04
97
981
00
03
24
973
00
05
46
952
00
14
10
949
00
01
53
914/1402
00
01
69
914
00
04
90
911
00
04
54
904
00
02
41
903
00
01
99
902
00
02
65
900
00
02
11
901
00
00
14
899
00
04
26
872
00
00
40
876
00
01
97
875
00
15
33
873
00
00
50
869
00
08
83
865
00
01
78
867
00
04
55
864
00
05
55
856
00
05
85
855
00
01
47
849
00
06
26
834
00
06
61
814
00
00
19
833
00
05
87
832
00
05
95
816
00
00
57
818
00
06
33
823
00
20
66
395/1338
00
00
46
394
00
03
52
393
00
07
45
396
00
05
07
322
00
52
75
315
00
00
33
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7925
318
00
04
23
318/1298
00
01
53
317/1334
00
11
04
317/1311
00
20
55
304/1337
00
04
99
304
00
01
87
317/1355
00
00
65
303
00
05
43
300
00
00
73
dqy
dqy
dqy
dqy
02
73
88
[फा. सं. आर-25011/1/2016-ओआर-I (पाट)]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2017
S.O. 2387.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, published in the Gazette of India No. 443 Part-II, section 3, sub-section(ii) dated 16.02.2017 vide S.O. Number
487 (E) dated 08.02.2017 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), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central
Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur in
Rajasthan State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the
transportation of petroleum Naphtha from Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan to Panipat in the State of Haryana by the
Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Jaipur Panipat Naphtha Pipeline Project".
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public 05.04.2017.
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section(1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his
report of Central Government.
And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land
is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;
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 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 of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the
Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all
encumbrances.
India Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P
& MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter
relating to pipeline.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Amer
District : Jaipur
State : Rajasthan
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
Amer
8701
00
04
55
8703
00
01
74
7926
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8719
00
03
29
8706
00
00
03
8718
00
02
04
8717
00
01
59
8707
00
02
25
8708
00
01
82
8716
00
01
87
8711
00
04
22
8712
00
01
14
8730
00
05
54
8732
00
07
46
8733
00
00
33
8750
00
00
18
8749
00
06
70
8755
00
03
44
8746
00
02
30
8756
00
01
78
8689
00
02
48
8688
00
02
77
8687
00
02
79
8769
00
04
30
8774
00
01
91
8772
00
02
60
8773
00
03
18
8778
00
01
64
8681
00
01
59
8780
00
06
24
8663
00
04
42
8664
00
02
09
8662
00
02
09
8661
00
01
77
8642
00
02
05
8642/9681
00
00
42
8655
00
06
51
8654
00
02
42
7690
00
03
34
7671
00
01
44
7670
00
01
67
7669
00
00
28
7664
00
01
10
7665
00
01
17
7666
00
01
84
7667
00
00
57
7456
00
04
37
7457
00
02
64
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7927
7458
00
03
53
7630
00
01
50
7632
00
07
61
7841/9260
00
29
27
7841/9260/
9318
00
04
54
7841/9260/
9319
00
00
94
2961
00
03
03
2962
00
04
56
2964
00
02
04
2716
00
07
95
2719
00
02
43
2727
00
11
17
2728
00
02
02
2725
00
01
09
Total
02
03
64
Kukas
1524
00
06
00
1524/1
00
03
00
1524/2
00
04
60
2518/1524
00
06
00
1106
00
00
36
1108
00
02
76
1107
00
05
48
1092
00
02
91
1091
00
05
13
1090
00
02
36
1089
00
02
70
867
00
05
22
663
00
03
41
661
00
00
65
662
00
04
28
664
00
02
35
656
00
02
52
654
00
02
17
649
00
04
19
644
00
03
24
643
00
00
56
Total
00
69
89
Dhand
258
00
00
54
267/1403
00
02
06
267
00
02
18
266
00
04
10
260
00
01
47
262
00
07
25
7928
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
263
00
05
12
264
00
05
01
288
00
00
03
291
00
00
24
289
00
08
51
285
00
02
71
313
00
03
15
314
00
04
63
326
00
05
90
327
00
06
11
550
00
06
75
552
00
04
85
539
00
00
36
553
00
00
59
538
00
00
08
554
00
03
97
555
00
02
01
535
00
04
95
534
00
01
39
519
00
00
35
498
00
06
54
495
00
00
65
501
00
01
35
502
00
01
90
490
00
02
22
489
00
00
94
488
00
02
67
402
00
00
58
469
00
01
01
403
00
01
33
404
00
02
76
457
00
02
10
456
00
02
28
414
00
01
89
416
00
00
03
418
00
00
25
417
00
01
37
421
00
03
31
422
00
02
17
423
00
01
65
424
00
02
56
425
00
01
31
Total
01
25
18
Labana
1876
00
00
14
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7929
1877
00
01
59
1878
00
06
84
1870
00
06
32
1879
00
01
39
1868
00
00
62
1867
00
02
55
1865
00
02
57
1864
00
02
41
1856
00
01
96
1855
00
00
75
1857
00
00
27
1854
00
07
02
1853
00
00
44
1845
00
02
66
1844
00
00
50
1842
00
04
40
1841
00
04
19
1836/1
00
02
44
1836/2
00
02
43
1835
00
05
07
1812
00
04
58
1872
00
00
20
1811
00
03
99
1810
00
03
55
1809
00
05
09
1788
00
02
82
1789
00
02
52
1790
00
05
14
1759
00
05
27
1760
00
02
70
1763
00
03
30
1745
00
04
24
1746
00
05
85
1723
00
02
95
1722
00
06
37
1708
00
01
87
1707
00
03
16
1686
00
02
99
1685
00
03
05
1672
00
05
60
1670
00
00
50
1667
00
03
49
1666
00
03
46
1647
00
02
00
7930
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1648
00
04
45
1649
00
05
89
1651
00
00
52
1650
00
00
65
1606
00
01
78
1605
00
03
35
1604
00
04
71
1603
00
00
75
1609
00
03
55
1601
00
04
58
1599
00
04
45
1554
00
02
86
1559
00
01
49
1552
00
04
32
1551/2297
00
03
19
1551
00
03
18
1550
00
04
00
1549
00
05
69
1529
00
02
12
1528
00
01
55
1525
00
01
24
1476
00
11
23
1479
00
05
28
1473
00
01
59
1484
00
03
87
1485
00
01
93
1327
00
06
17
1326
00
02
47
1325
00
02
34
1323
00
02
00
1301
00
08
92
1302
00
00
47
1303
00
03
17
1308
00
02
48
1309
00
00
01
1306
00
04
91
Total
02
62
41
Dhingpur
100
00
04
48
98
00
00
62
97
00
03
02
96
00
03
36
95
00
00
52
94
00
01
30
93
00
01
69
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7931
92
00
07
60
91
00
00
97
29
00
02
18
30
00
07
96
19
00
08
02
17
00
00
75
Total
00
42
47
Ani
184
00
01
78
183
00
00
03
185
00
01
02
186
00
00
45
189
00
00
53
193
00
00
26
191
00
03
41
195
00
03
47
213
00
03
14
211
00
02
39
212
00
00
28
207
00
02
28
208
00
00
03
206
00
01
55
203
00
05
13
202
00
01
90
123
00
02
51
122
00
05
76
121
00
00
28
360
00
02
14
362
00
00
57
364
00
03
08
365
00
04
82
373
00
06
10
377
00
05
73
396
00
00
85
392
00
02
79
480
00
03
69
481/1537
00
01
03
481
00
03
44
482
00
00
17
483
00
00
50
485
00
04
59
484
00
01
87
486
00
03
15
487
00
03
23
Total
00
83
95
7932
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Achrol
4815
00
01
14
4814
00
02
13
4813
00
02
82
4811
00
04
56
4810
00
01
80
4793
00
03
66
4796
00
01
13
4797
00
01
95
4800
00
02
46
4736
00
03
07
4735
00
04
00
4734
00
00
57
4721
00
04
21
4722
00
01
80
4719
00
01
86
4718
00
01
88
4717
00
02
04
4716
00
01
71
4702
00
02
77
4703
00
01
73
4704
00
01
31
4707
00
01
47
4692
00
02
21
4693
00
00
26
4550
00
02
05
4547
00
04
09
4478
00
04
93
4468
00
02
37
4469
00
03
44
4467
00
00
33
4421
00
00
05
4415
00
00
56
4401
00
04
86
4399
00
03
70
4373
00
02
52
4374
00
03
00
4370
00
03
52
4368
00
01
50
4129
00
02
90
4130
00
02
09
4128
00
10
15
3704/7699
00
01
61
3643
00
04
18
3635
00
01
54
3634
00
04
23
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7933
3629
00
02
86
3632
00
00
50
3631
00
01
10
3630
00
04
71
3625
00
05
69
3626
00
04
62
3584
00
00
85
3589
00
07
70
3592
00
07
90
3593
00
08
34
3567
00
07
39
3566
00
07
00
3556
00
01
11
3487
00
11
50
3486
00
05
82
3485
00
08
20
3444/6736
00
16
94
3444
00
02
39
3443
00
04
05
2813/7233
00
01
03
2828
00
02
78
2829
00
01
31
2820
00
02
27
2821
00
01
17
2839
00
00
41
2840
00
00
68
2838
00
00
20
2845
00
01
74
2846
00
02
80
2847
00
00
94
2849
00
05
91
2850
00
02
26
2606
00
04
48
2616
00
02
30
2618
00
03
98
2619
00
01
31
2615
00
04
40
Total
02
64
80
Syari
593
00
17
77
582/841
00
00
04
582/840
00
01
01
582/839
00
02
44
580/838
00
05
46
581
00
01
77
580
00
04
35
7934
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
579
00
00
17
577
00
00
49
578
00
04
24
572
00
01
32
574
00
06
00
559
00
01
72
558
00
02
78
557
00
00
25
556
00
01
71
555
00
02
18
554
00
03
95
552
00
03
36
551
00
02
27
504
00
02
53
505
00
00
98
502
00
01
79
508
00
01
98
510
00
00
29
509
00
04
08
512
00
00
56
515
00
00
05
514
00
03
00
391
00
04
93
392
00
04
64
400
00
01
30
394
00
07
67
395
00
02
60
237
00
03
40
236
00
05
20
235
00
00
04
154
00
07
85
159
00
00
04
153
00
06
19
140
00
03
31
138
00
03
52
137
00
02
83
134
00
01
05
Total
01
33
11
Jugalpura
375
00
00
49
377
00
04
46
376
00
03
17
380
00
05
00
381
00
02
30
383
00
03
79
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7935
204
00
00
76
203
00
05
26
177
00
01
63
176
00
01
66
175
00
01
65
174
00
02
24
173
00
02
13
172
00
03
40
171
00
01
75
180
00
01
72
170
00
02
29
169
00
02
38
168
00
02
11
165
00
02
53
154
00
03
23
144
00
02
88
145
00
02
80
136
00
03
99
135
00
00
03
131/697
00
02
76
130
00
02
28
118
00
03
56
117
00
00
30
120
00
00
87
124
00
01
30
123
00
02
86
67
00
02
77
66
00
02
80
60
00
03
09
54
00
02
83
28
00
02
59
29
00
00
95
30
00
00
96
24
00
00
23
22
00
00
04
16
00
08
16
17
00
06
67
19/663
00
00
03
9
00
12
98
8
00
03
90
3/1
00
01
20
4
00
00
20
4/2
4/3
00
08
72
2
00
01
92
7936
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Total
01
37
62
Jaisinghnagar
177
00
12
63
176
00
11
04
172
00
00
78
165
00
06
87
164
00
04
22
163
00
00
18
127
00
00
47
129
00
11
66
121
00
02
82
119
00
00
77
120
00
00
27
118
00
03
28
117
00
02
54
116
00
04
82
99
00
02
49
100
00
00
73
98
00
01
72
93
00
04
15
67
00
02
70
66
00
04
06
65
00
01
74
59
00
02
59
57/339
00
01
22
56
00
01
98
38
00
04
71
39
00
00
10
13
00
06
30
9
00
01
68
10
00
00
49
8
00
06
38
7/349
00
00
58
Total
01
05
97
Chandwaji
38
00
00
27
36
00
00
29
35
00
07
57
33
00
02
45
33/158
00
03
86
33/159
00
00
02
32
00
03
74
Total
00
18
20
Salarwas
456
00
07
34
454
00
02
55
453/619
00
02
96
453
00
03
13
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7937
451
00
06
74
437
00
01
85
436
00
07
09
435
00
04
59
434
00
04
32
183
00
05
04
182
00
03
62
174
00
04
89
173
00
11
07
323
00
00
15
322
00
02
78
321
00
02
06
212
00
06
45
211
00
06
06
126
00
01
25
125/2
00
02
46
122
00
03
13
123
00
03
11
113
00
02
80
113/664
00
02
62
112
00
01
00
111
00
00
46
96
00
07
49
94
00
07
16
95
00
00
67
Total
01
14
84
Lakher
986
00
00
62
987
00
04
97
981
00
03
24
973
00
05
46
952
00
14
10
949
00
01
53
914/1402
00
01
69
914
00
04
90
911
00
04
54
904
00
02
41
903
00
01
99
902
00
02
65
900
00
02
11
901
00
00
14
899
00
04
26
872
00
00
40
876
00
01
97
875
00
15
33
7938
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
873
00
00
50
869
00
08
83
865
00
01
78
867
00
04
55
864
00
05
55
856
00
05
85
855
00
01
47
849
00
06
26
834
00
06
61
814
00
00
19
833
00
05
87
832
00
05
95
816
00
00
57
818
00
06
33
823
00
20
66
395/1338
00
00
46
394
00
03
52
393
00
07
45
396
00
05
07
322
00
52
75
315
00
00
33
318
00
04
23
318/1298
00
01
53
317/1334
00
11
04
317/1311
00
20
55
304/1337
00
04
99
304
00
01
87
317/1355
00
00
65
303
00
05
43
300
00
00
73
Total
02
73
88
[F. No. R-25011/1/2016-OR-I (Pt.)]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 3 अ# तूबर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2388
2388
2388
2388.—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu
tkjh dh xbZ] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk ftldk izdk'ku Hkkjr ds jkti= la[;k
1884 fnukad 27-7-2016 dk-vk la[;k 2542¼v½] fnukad 20-07-2016] Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi[k.M ¼ii½ esa fd;k x;k gSA bl
vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V jktLFkku jkT; dh rglhy fojkVuxj] ftyk t;iqj dh Hkwfe esa] jktLFkku jkT;
esa t;iqj ls gfj;k.kk jkT; esa ikuhir rd isVªksfy;e us¶Fkk ds ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7939
fØ;kfUor fd, tk jgs ^^t;iqj ikuhir us¶Fkk ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk** ds lEcU/k esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy,
mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds fy, vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh %
vkSj mDr jkti= vf/klwpukvksa dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 02-03-2017 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ FkhA
vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ
ns nh gSA
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mDr Hkwfe
ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gSa] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gSa %
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
,rn~}kjk ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk
vf/kdkj vftZr fd;k tk,%
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k
nsrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk;
lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxkA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y
dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo:) dksbZ
okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
तहसील : िवराटनगर
िजला : जयपुर
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
lwjiqjk
674/987
00
01
25
686
00
00
37
687
00
12
89
697
00
02
61
698
00
02
42
699
00
02
24
700
00
05
93
788
00
02
37
785
00
02
35
783
00
04
80
784
00
02
81
601/995
00
11
24
598/1002
00
12
29
596
00
14
90
555
00
08
19
554
00
05
80
551
00
00
66
553
00
01
50
552
00
08
45
7940
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
Total
01
03
07
[kkrksykbZ
1133
00
14
93
1134
00
18
93
1241
00
10
93
1240
00
09
07
1238/1
00
04
56
1237
00
04
10
1236
00
04
06
1235/1
00
03
94
1234/1
00
04
28
1233
00
03
75
1182
00
02
28
1184
00
05
37
1185
00
16
15
1173
00
06
23
1172
00
04
59
1171
00
09
30
1170
00
03
46
1146
00
09
47
1149
00
08
27
1148
00
10
36
1148/1
00
01
00
1111
00
01
09
1151
00
01
64
1110
00
00
47
1102
00
11
46
1104
00
04
04
1105
00
05
55
1097
00
09
92
1096
00
00
60
1093
00
04
72
1094
00
00
48
1091
00
03
39
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7941
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
1090
00
06
65
1056/2192
00
02
35
1052/1
00
09
56
1014
00
04
50
1015
00
07
19
1011
00
03
76
1018
00
01
26
Total
02
33
66
Hkkc:
2205
00
05
82
2230
00
08
98
2231
00
02
46
2228
00
08
16
2225
00
04
70
2223
00
00
42
2260
00
03
15
2261
00
02
16
2262
00
03
24
2264
00
05
39
2275
00
04
56
2274
00
00
94
2272
00
06
08
2271
00
03
72
2270
00
02
61
2323
00
05
98
2315
00
00
10
2326
00
01
83
2327
00
03
99
2328
00
01
75
2330
00
03
07
2329
00
01
58
2335
00
05
88
2386
00
07
00
2385
00
04
70
7942
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
2392
00
08
48
2750
00
03
20
2747
00
02
49
2745
00
06
16
1021
00
03
23
1022
00
05
13
1024
00
07
44
1025
00
04
53
1026
00
02
98
1027
00
01
94
1032
00
03
48
1031
00
01
38
1033
00
00
84
1034
00
08
36
932
00
04
77
933
00
04
33
935
00
03
99
936
00
00
11
938
00
04
78
941
00
02
90
874
00
01
11
876
00
07
42
877
00
06
89
866
00
06
01
865
00
06
14
852
00
05
16
853
00
04
88
854
00
03
30
848
00
00
25
875
00
06
35
Total
02
26
30
nksY;kiqj
2786
00
06
38
2787
00
04
35
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7943
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
2785
00
03
41
2783
00
02
89
2782
00
02
79
2780
00
05
89
2778
00
10
52
2848
00
01
23
2846
00
02
75
2845
00
01
34
2850
00
03
07
2887
00
03
76
2886
00
07
63
2884
00
06
38
2916
00
09
65
2917
00
04
30
2927
00
02
17
2925
00
03
02
2926
00
00
19
2924
00
01
54
2929
00
03
93
3012
00
13
14
3002
00
11
45
3007
00
00
84
3006
00
00
96
3003
00
00
05
2995
00
01
99
2996
00
02
08
2999
00
02
94
2978
00
05
47
2981
00
04
61
2982
00
00
25
2984
00
00
58
2983
00
04
43
2973
00
00
88
7944
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
2972
00
09
95
2968
00
05
60
2964
00
07
02
Total
01
59
43
cgMksnk
355
0
16
99
367
0
2
17
356
0
15
76
365
0
8
76
426
0
2
80
428
0
2
41
422
0
4
14
417
0
4
14
418
0
3
63
411
0
1
83
408
0
2
25
405
0
2
41
404
0
2
5
403
0
2
64
399
0
6
41
400
0
0
59
Total
0
78
98
guqeku uxj
3774
00
11
88
3777
00
09
55
3778
00
06
02
3779
00
06
75
3721
00
07
24
3745
00
01
67
3744
00
00
94
3722
00
05
99
3723
00
08
60
3726
00
03
50
3727
00
07
27
3553
00
06
16
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7945
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
3945/3553
00
06
16
3946/3553
00
12
35
3537
00
10
62
3554
00
01
91
Total
01
06
61
jke uxj
3536/3874
00
17
73
3529
00
00
60
3517
00
08
97
3519
00
03
73
3524
00
06
90
3522
00
08
16
3494
00
00
60
3485
00
07
90
3479
00
03
74
3478
00
05
36
3456
00
09
06
3455
00
09
11
3454
00
08
60
3452
00
08
53
3273
00
03
68
3272
00
03
88
3271
00
04
95
3270
00
00
71
3269
00
03
21
3262
00
11
98
Total
01
27
40
cuh ikdZ
1274
00
01
04
1279
00
04
57
1266
00
06
28
1265
00
07
76
1264
00
00
09
1281
00
01
35
1282
00
08
85
7946
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
1283
00
03
96
1284
00
06
98
1285
00
01
97
2278/1285
00
01
96
1289
00
04
58
1288
00
07
15
1291
00
01
45
1204
00
03
80
1198
00
06
24
1200
00
00
48
1171
00
06
35
1169
00
04
64
1168
00
06
12
1201
00
00
19
Total
00
85
81
rfy;kjk
1915/1
00
09
68
1916
00
03
56
1917
00
03
30
1995
00
02
90
2016
00
02
43
2015
00
05
71
2018
00
05
50
2038
00
01
60
2040
00
05
00
2042
00
00
81
Total
00
40
49
[फा. सं. आर-25011/1/2016-ओआर-I (पाट)]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2017
S.O. 2388.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, published in the Gazette No. 1884 dated 27.7.2016, S.O. No. 2542(E) dated 20.07.2016, Part-II, section 3, sub-
section(ii) 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), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its
intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Tehsil Viratnagar District Jaipur in Rajasthan State,
specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7947
petroleum Naphtha from Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan to Panipat in the State of Haryana by the Indian Oil
Corporation Limited for implementing the "Jaipur Panipat Naphtha Pipeline Project".
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 02.03.2017.
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section(1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his
report of Central Government.
And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land
is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;
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 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 of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the
Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all
encumbrances.
India Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the
P & MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter
relating to pipeline.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Viratnagar
District : Jaipur
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
Surpura
674/987
00
01
25
686
00
00
37
687
00
12
89
697
00
02
61
698
00
02
42
699
00
02
24
700
00
05
93
788
00
02
37
785
00
02
35
783
00
04
80
784
00
02
81
601/995
00
11
24
598/1002
00
12
29
596
00
14
90
555
00
08
19
554
00
05
80
551
00
00
66
553
00
01
50
552
00
08
45
Total
01
03
07
Khatolai
1133
00
14
93
1134
00
18
93
7948
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
1241
00
10
93
1240
00
09
07
1238/1
00
04
56
1237
00
04
10
1236
00
04
06
1235/1
00
03
94
1234/1
00
04
28
1233
00
03
75
1182
00
02
28
1184
00
05
37
1185
00
16
15
1173
00
06
23
1172
00
04
59
1171
00
09
30
1170
00
03
46
1146
00
09
47
1149
00
08
27
1148
00
10
36
1148/1
00
01
00
1111
00
01
09
1151
00
01
64
1110
00
00
47
1102
00
11
46
1104
00
04
04
1105
00
05
55
1097
00
09
92
1096
00
00
60
1093
00
04
72
1094
00
00
48
1091
00
03
39
1090
00
06
65
1056/2192
00
02
35
1052/1
00
09
56
1014
00
04
50
1015
00
07
19
1011
00
03
76
1018
00
01
26
Total
02
33
66
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7949
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
Bhabroo
2205
00
05
82
2230
00
08
98
2231
00
02
46
2228
00
08
16
2225
00
04
70
2223
00
00
42
2260
00
03
15
2261
00
02
16
2262
00
03
24
2264
00
05
39
2275
00
04
56
2274
00
00
94
2272
00
06
08
2271
00
03
72
2270
00
02
61
2323
00
05
98
2315
00
00
10
2326
00
01
83
2327
00
03
99
2328
00
01
75
2330
00
03
07
2329
00
01
58
2335
00
05
88
2386
00
07
00
2385
00
04
70
2392
00
08
48
2750
00
03
20
2747
00
02
49
2745
00
06
16
1021
00
03
23
1022
00
05
13
1024
00
07
44
1025
00
04
53
1026
00
02
98
1027
00
01
94
1032
00
03
48
1031
00
01
38
1033
00
00
84
7950
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
1034
00
08
36
932
00
04
77
933
00
04
33
935
00
03
99
936
00
00
11
938
00
04
78
941
00
02
90
874
00
01
11
876
00
07
42
877
00
06
89
866
00
06
01
865
00
06
14
852
00
05
16
853
00
04
88
854
00
03
30
848
00
00
25
875
00
06
35
Total
02
26
30
Daulyapur
2786
00
06
38
2787
00
04
35
2785
00
03
41
2783
00
02
89
2782
00
02
79
2780
00
05
89
2778
00
10
52
2848
00
01
23
2846
00
02
75
2845
00
01
34
2850
00
03
07
2887
00
03
76
2886
00
07
63
2884
00
06
38
2916
00
09
65
2917
00
04
30
2927
00
02
17
2925
00
03
02
2926
00
00
19
2924
00
01
54
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7951
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
2929
00
03
93
3012
00
13
14
3002
00
11
45
3007
00
00
84
3006
00
00
96
3003
00
00
05
2995
00
01
99
2996
00
02
08
2999
00
02
94
2978
00
05
47
2981
00
04
61
2982
00
00
25
2984
00
00
58
2983
00
04
43
2973
00
00
88
2972
00
09
95
2968
00
05
60
2964
00
07
02
Total
01
59
43
Bahroda
355
0
16
99
367
0
2
17
356
0
15
76
365
0
8
76
426
0
2
80
428
0
2
41
422
0
4
14
417
0
4
14
418
0
3
63
411
0
1
83
408
0
2
25
405
0
2
41
404
0
2
5
403
0
2
64
399
0
6
41
400
0
0
59
Total
0
78
98
Hanuman Nagar
3774
00
11
88
3777
00
09
55
7952
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
3778
00
06
02
3779
00
06
75
3721
00
07
24
3745
00
01
67
3744
00
00
94
3722
00
05
99
3723
00
08
60
3726
00
03
50
3727
00
07
27
3553
00
06
16
3945/3553
00
06
16
3946/3553
00
12
35
3537
00
10
62
3554
00
01
91
Total
01
06
61
Ramnagar
3536/3874
00
17
73
3529
00
00
60
3517
00
08
97
3519
00
03
73
3524
00
06
90
3522
00
08
16
3494
00
00
60
3485
00
07
90
3479
00
03
74
3478
00
05
36
3456
00
09
06
3455
00
09
11
3454
00
08
60
3452
00
08
53
3273
00
03
68
3272
00
03
88
3271
00
04
95
3270
00
00
71
3269
00
03
21
3262
00
11
98
Total
01
27
40
Bani Park
1274
00
01
04
1279
00
04
57
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7953
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
1266
00
06
28
1265
00
07
76
1264
00
00
09
1281
00
01
35
1282
00
08
85
1283
00
03
96
1284
00
06
98
1285
00
01
97
2278/1285
00
01
96
1289
00
04
58
1288
00
07
15
1291
00
01
45
1204
00
03
80
1198
00
06
24
1200
00
00
48
1171
00
06
35
1169
00
04
64
1168
00
06
12
1201
00
00
19
Total
00
85
81
Taliyara
1915/1
00
09
68
1916
00
03
56
1917
00
03
30
1995
00
02
90
2016
00
02
43
2015
00
05
71
2018
00
05
50
2038
00
01
60
2040
00
05
00
2042
00
00
81
Total
00
40
49
[F. No. R-25011/1/2016-OR-I (Pt.)]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 3 अ# तूबर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2389
2389
2389
2389.—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu
tkjh dh xbZ] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk ftldk izdk'ku Hkkjr ds jkti= la[;k
1884 fnukad 27-7-2016 dk-vk la[;k 2543¼v½ fnukad 20-07-2016] Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi[k.M ¼II½ esa fd;k x;k gSA bl
7954
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V jktLFkku jkT; dh rglhy cgjksM+ ftyk vyoj dh Hkwfe esa] jktLFkku jkT; esa
t;iqj ls gfj;k.kk jkT; esa ikuhir rd isVªksfy;e us¶Fkk ds ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk
fØ;kfUor fd, tk jgs ^^t;iqj ikuhir us¶Fkk ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk** ds lEcU/k esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy,
mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds fy, vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh %
vkSj mDr jkti= vf/klwpukvksa dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 02-03-2017 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ FkhA
vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ
ns nh gSA
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mDr Hkwfe
ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gSa] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gSa %
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~
}kjk ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj
vftZr fd;k tk,%
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k
nsrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk;
lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxkA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y
dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbZu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeysa ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo:) dksbZ
okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
तहसील : बहारोड
िजला : अलवर
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
tSuiqjokl
884
00
00
34
883
00
06
40
881
00
09
07
814/2320
00
07
27
814
00
03
13
817
00
00
04
816
00
01
23
815
00
02
97
823
00
14
30
830
00
04
49
827
00
04
33
828
00
00
92
725
00
05
28
724
00
03
74
697
00
02
28
698
00
06
59
699
00
02
51
700
00
04
91
705
00
12
56
706
00
01
92
704
00
02
74
708
00
01
72
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7955
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
Total
00
98
74
xwarh
2106
00
07
08
2104
00
06
04
2104/2370
00
06
04
2103/2261
00
13
17
2100/2260
00
00
61
2064
00
04
96
2065
00
07
34
2086
00
00
07
2085
00
05
08
2084
00
00
20
2083
00
07
82
2082
00
05
26
2081
00
03
61
Total
00
67
28
';keiqj
408
00
03
32
403
00
07
38
401
00
01
80
400
00
07
94
394
00
01
75
393
00
06
46
392
00
06
84
242
00
03
74
243
00
05
63
244
00
03
21
254
00
09
18
262
00
03
25
252
00
01
59
263
00
02
86
264
00
05
77
161
00
07
82
164
00
00
15
282
00
00
70
283
00
03
79
284
00
03
01
285
00
04
39
159
00
03
27
158
00
01
72
156
00
06
96
155
00
00
19
7956
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
142
00
02
67
134
00
04
99
135
00
04
61
133
00
03
44
Total
01
18
43
f'keyk
337
00
00
41
336
00
01
24
305
00
07
97
302
00
05
78
301
00
01
28
270
00
02
47
271/461
00
02
00
271
00
04
57
272
00
02
23
Total
00
27
95
xksdqyiqj
185
00
02
25
182
00
01
60
183
00
03
83
183/757
00
06
78
161
00
01
46
158
00
00
34
Total
00
16
26
ekseuiqj
1432
00
08
45
1431
00
02
64
1429
00
09
24
1428
00
00
83
1423
00
08
55
1425
00
08
53
225
00
03
66
226
00
02
83
229
00
05
60
227
00
00
11
228
00
01
50
234
00
04
18
235
00
00
07
237
00
14
37
Total
00
70
56
lj fcyUniqj
1403
00
10
40
1377
00
04
47
1378
00
05
03
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7957
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
Total
00
19
90
ryokM
1397
00
12
94
1396/1946
00
05
00
1396
00
06
19
273
00
05
96
272
00
02
35
271
00
05
14
256
00
01
37
255
00
01
13
254
00
00
25
222
00
02
87
223
00
04
02
224
00
03
70
Total
00
50
92
tkxqokl
208
00
03
44
209
00
03
18
210
00
03
31
211
00
06
33
202
00
02
79
212
00
05
28
151
00
11
41
152
00
01
91
149
00
08
41
148
00
06
97
104
00
06
59
105
00
02
36
106
00
00
14
107
00
04
87
100
00
02
25
99
00
00
57
Total
00
69
81
[फा. सं. आर-25011/1/2016-ओआर-I (पाट)]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2017
S.O. 2389.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, published in the Gazette No. 1884 dated 27.7.2016, S.O. No. 2543(E) dated 20.07.2016, Part-II, section 3, sub-
section(ii) 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), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its
intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Tehsil Behror District Alwar in Rajasthan State, specified in
the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum
7958
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Naphtha from Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan to Panipat in the State of Haryana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited
for implementing the "Jaipur Panipat Naphtha Pipeline Project".
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 02.03.2017.
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section(1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his
report of Central Government.
And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land
is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;
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 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 of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the
Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all
encumbrances.
India Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P
& MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter
relating to pipeline.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Behror
District : Alwar
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
Jainpurwas
884
00
00
34
883
00
06
40
881
00
09
07
814/2320
00
07
27
814
00
03
13
817
00
00
04
816
00
01
23
815
00
02
97
823
00
14
30
830
00
04
49
827
00
04
33
828
00
00
92
725
00
05
28
724
00
03
74
697
00
02
28
698
00
06
59
699
00
02
51
700
00
04
91
705
00
12
56
706
00
01
92
704
00
02
74
708
00
01
72
Total
00
98
74
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7959
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
Gunti
2106
00
07
08
2104
00
06
04
2104/2370
00
06
04
2103/2261
00
13
17
2100/2260
00
00
61
2064
00
04
96
2065
00
07
34
2086
00
00
07
2085
00
05
08
2084
00
00
20
2083
00
07
82
2082
00
05
26
2081
00
03
61
Total
00
67
28
Shyampura
408
00
03
32
403
00
07
38
401
00
01
80
400
00
07
94
394
00
01
75
393
00
06
46
392
00
06
84
242
00
03
74
243
00
05
63
244
00
03
21
254
00
09
18
262
00
03
25
252
00
01
59
263
00
02
86
264
00
05
77
161
00
07
82
164
00
00
15
282
00
00
70
283
00
03
79
284
00
03
01
285
00
04
39
159
00
03
27
158
00
01
72
156
00
06
96
155
00
00
19
142
00
02
67
7960
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
134
00
04
99
135
00
04
61
133
00
03
44
Total
01
18
43
Shimla
337
00
00
41
336
00
01
24
305
00
07
97
302
00
05
78
301
00
01
28
270
00
02
47
271/461
00
02
00
271
00
04
57
272
00
02
23
Total
00
27
95
Gokulpura
185
00
02
25
182
00
01
60
183
00
03
83
183/757
00
06
78
161
00
01
46
158
00
00
34
Total
00
16
26
Momanpur
1432
00
08
45
1431
00
02
64
1429
00
09
24
1428
00
00
83
1423
00
08
55
1425
00
08
53
225
00
03
66
226
00
02
83
229
00
05
60
227
00
00
11
228
00
01
50
234
00
04
18
235
00
00
07
237
00
14
37
Total
00
70
56
Sarvilandpur
1403
00
10
40
1377
00
04
47
1378
00
05
03
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7961
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
Total
00
19
90
Talwad
1397
00
12
94
1396/1946
00
05
00
1396
00
06
19
273
00
05
96
272
00
02
35
271
00
05
14
256
00
01
37
255
00
01
13
254
00
00
25
222
00
02
87
223
00
04
02
224
00
03
70
Total
00
50
92
Jaguwas
208
00
03
44
209
00
03
18
210
00
03
31
211
00
06
33
202
00
02
79
212
00
05
28
151
00
11
41
152
00
01
91
149
00
08
41
148
00
06
97
104
00
06
59
105
00
02
36
106
00
00
14
107
00
04
87
100
00
02
25
99
00
00
57
Total
00
69
81
[F. No. R-25011/1/2016-OR-I (Pt.)]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 3 अ# तूबर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2390
2390
2390
2390.— के:;ीय सरकार, पे?ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन) अिधिनयम
1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम इसके प[ात उ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क% धारा 3 क% उप-धारा (1) भारत के राजप,
(असाधारण) के अधीन जारी क% गयी भारत सरकार के पे?ोिलयम और 'ाकृितक गैस मंालय क% अिधसूचना का. आ. 905(अ), तारीख
20 माच 2015, Cारा तिमलनाडु रा]य म ए^ूर से मदुरै तक वाया चगलपwटु-पांिडचेरी-िची एलपीजी पHरवहन के िलए इंिडयन
7962
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ऑयल कॉपcरेशन िलिमटेड के Cारा एक पाइपलाइन िबछाने के 'योजन के िलए उ अिधसूचना से संलf अनुसूची म िविनgदh भूिम म
उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन के अपने आशय क% घोषणा क% थी।
और उ आिधसूचना क% 'ितयाँ जनता को तारीख 08.04.2015 को उपलIध करा दी गई थी।
और उ अिधिनयम क% धारा 6 क% उप- धारा (1) के अनुसरण म सम 'ािधकारी ने के:;ीय सरकार को अपनी Hरपोट दे दी
है।
और के:;ीय सरकार का उ Hरपोट पर िवचार करने के प[ात यह समाधान हो गया है क इस अिधसूचना से संलf अनुसूची
म िविनgदh भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन कया जाना चािहए।
अत: अब, के:;ीय सरकार,उ अिधिनयम क% धारा 6 क% उप-धारा (1) Cारा 'दi शि य6 का 'योग करते Dए यह घोषणा
करती है क इस अिधसूचना के संलf अनुसूची म िविनgदh उ भूिम म पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए उपयोग का अिधकार अJजत कया
जाता है।
यह और क के:;ीय सरकार, उ अिधिनयम क% धारा 6 क% उप-धारा (4) Cारा 'दi शि य6 का 'योग करते Dए यह िनदnश
देती है क उ भूिम के उपयोग का अिधकार इस अिधसूचना के 'काश क% तारीख से के:;ीय सरकार म िनिहत होने क% बजाए, सभी
िवलंगम6 से मु हो कर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपcरेशन िलिमटेड म िनिहत होगा।
पै?ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क% धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी ितपूJत के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपcरेशन िलिमटेड पूणतया उiरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से सFबि:धत कसी भी मामले पर के:;ीय सरकार के िवMN कोई वाद
दावा या कानूनी कायवाही नहO हो सकेगी।
vuqlwph
uqlwph
uqlwph
uqlwph
तालुका : पो^ेरी
िजला :ितMवलूर
रा]य : तिमलनाडु
गाँव का नाम
सवnण सं.- खRड सं.
उप खRड सं.
ेफल
हे#टेर
एयर
वग मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
140. नैदावोयाल - II
10
2ए2
0
00
40
9
3
0
00
40
9
2
0
00
60
9
1
0
30
00
7
1
0
10
10
8
0
05
40
22
0
15
70
27
0
42
50
26
1
0
06
20
84
3
0
03
40
84
2
0
03
20
84
1
0
02
85
85
2ए2
0
05
80
85
2ए1
0
03
25
85
1
0
00
50
540
2
0
00
40
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7963
540
1
0
03
50
891
0
02
45
541
0
10
30
542ए
0
01
60
544
0
07
90
549
0
20
00
550
0
06
30
553
2
0
07
50
553
1
0
14
00
554
0
09
65
589
2
0
02
20
589
3
0
22
20
586
0
25
25
603
0
13
00
585
0
11
60
583
2
0
21
20
583
1
0
12
50
582
1
0
07
50
582
2
0
09
15
832
4ए
0
03
80
832
4बी
0
01
54
92.वायलोरे - II
2049
7
0
57
60
2049
6
0
09
90
1456
0
18
80
1457
0
18
00
1400
0
00
85
1394
2
0
02
20
1394
1
0
03
20
1392
2
0
07
20
1391
2
0
14
25
1383
0
15
00
1384
0
09
60
7964
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
139.कलपxम
150
0
18
00
149
2ए
0
03
00
148
2ए
0
00
70
148
2बी
0
06
25
148
1
0
06
20
147
2
0
03
60
147
1सी
0
08
50
147
1बी
0
01
80
142
2
0
01
20
142
3
0
06
60
142
1बी
0
04
30
142
1ए
0
05
90
135
1बी
0
00
40
135
1ए
0
03
40
141
2
0
07
20
141
1
0
04
35
105
1सी
0
00
40
75
2बी
0
04
50
75
2ए
0
04
50
75
1बी2
0
00
40
75
1बी1
0
05
20
75
1ए
0
03
40
139
0
00
45
72
5ए
0
04
50
72
5बी
0
01
10
72
3ए
0
00
40
72
4
0
03
70
71
2सी
0
04
30
220
2बी
0
00
40
220
2ए
0
03
90
220
1बी
0
07
85
220
1ए
0
01
85
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7965
222
1
0
02
10
96.ठोiकाडु
48
1सी
0
11
25
48
1बी
0
16
65
48
1ए
0
06
80
48
2ए
0
00
70
49
3
0
00
80
49
2
0
10
80
49
1
0
9
90
50
0
8
85
97.वेलाpपxम
3
2
0
03
10
2
3
0
00
40
1
3
0
09
70
1
2
0
01
10
1
1
0
17
60
18
0
14
40
17
2
0
12
80
17
1
0
07
10
52
2
0
04
40
52
1
0
05
50
53
1
0
12
90
54
9ए
0
05
20
54
9बी
0
00
60
54
6बी
0
00
40
54
7
0
04
90
54
8
0
00
40
54
6सी
0
02
60
59
15
0
01
80
59
14बी
0
01
45
59
14ए
0
00
85
46
0
01
95
44
3बी
0
08
40
7966
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
44
3ए
0
00
40
44
1
0
06
70
45
1
0
02
15
43
2बी
0
01
95
43
2ए
0
00
55
40
2
0
06
70
40
1
0
09
50
41
5
0
07
00
98.नालूर- 1
6
5
0
00
40
6
4
0
04
30
6
3सी
0
02
90
6
3बी
0
01
65
6
3ए
0
02
25
6
1बी1
0
00
40
6
1बी2
0
10
40
6
1ए3
0
00
40
6
2ए
0
02
40
6
1ए2बी
0
00
40
7
1बी2
0
05
50
7
1बी3
0
03
20
7
1ए1
0
04
00
7
1बी1
0
00
45
7
1ए2
0
00
40
7
1ए3
0
00
40
8ए
5बी
0
11
70
8ए
5ए
0
02
00
8ए
2ए
0
00
40
8ए
2बी
0
04
20
8ए
3ए2बी
0
01
80
8ए
3ए2ए
0
05
40
8बी
1
0
03
80
11सी
11
0
00
40
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7967
11सी
8
0
08
00
11सी
9
0
01
00
11सी
3
0
03
85
11सी
4बी
0
04
65
11सी
5
0
04
85
11सी
6
0
04
50
11सी
7
0
02
25
338
5
0
02
90
338
6
0
04
00
268
7ए2
0
02
50
268
7ए1
0
06
50
268
5
0
10
10
268
6ए3
0
00
70
268
6ए2
0
00
40
268
6ए1
0
00
40
268
4बी
0
08
00
268
4ए
0
02
70
268
3बी
0
05
40
268
3ए
0
02
50
268
2
0
09
00
336
1बी
0
00
40
269
6
0
03
70
269
4बी
0
09
50
269
3सी
0
02
45
269
3बी
0
03
30
269
3ए
0
02
70
269
1
0
00
65
334
1सी
0
08
75
334
1बी
0
11
50
333
2सी
0
08
10
333
2ए
0
00
40
333
2बी
0
09
50
332
1
0
03
00
7968
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
280
0
26
60
303
7
0
00
40
302
7
0
18
75
302
5
0
00
40
302
4
0
02
00
302
3
0
02
90
302
2बी5
0
02
30
302
2बी3
0
02
70
302
2बी1
0
00
40
302
2बी2
0
02
10
302
1बी
0
03
80
302
1ए
0
03
50
299
1
0
36
00
299
2
0
03
00
300
5
0
09
50
300
6
0
00
40
300
3
0
07
85
300
2
0
9
40
300
1
0
5
75
78.अनुpपंपwटु - II
312
5बी
0
01
45
312
5बी2
0
17
00
313
5
0
01
35
314
6ए
0
13
50
314
2
0
7
80
314
3
0
00
40
314
1ए
0
06
00
314
1बी
0
01
45
315
2
0
04
40
315
5
0
03
60
315
3
0
00
45
315
4
0
06
40
316
8
0
08
00
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7969
316
7
0
09
40
317
1
0
00
40
296
3
0
04
20
296
1एफ़
0
00
50
296
1जी
0
11
40
296
2
0
00
40
297
6
0
07
20
297
8
0
06
85
297
7
0
03
20
300
1बी
0
02
55
299
4
0
05
20
299
2ए1
0
01
80
299
2ए2
0
05
25
299
3ए
0
08
80
299
3बी
0
00
40
299
2बी
0
05
00
459
6
0
18
75
459
3
0
08
70
457
13
0
00
40
457
14
0
00
40
457
12
0
09
00
457
8बी
0
03
45
457
8ए
0
03
15
457
5बी
0
04
90
457
6
0
00
40
457
5सी
0
00
40
457
4
0
00
40
457
5ए
0
04
80
456
15
0
02
50
456
16
0
05
00
456
14बी
0
06
85
456
12
0
01
00
456
11
0
03
30
7970
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
456
6
0
04
70
456
8
0
03
90
456
7
0
01
60
456
1ए
0
00
40
456
1बी
0
07
35
452
6
0
14
25
452
1बी
0
00
40
452
2
0
19
20
452
5
0
00
40
99.वि^पाxम
188
2
0
11
70
9
2
0
08
30
9
3
0
10
65
12
1
0
07
50
11
5
0
05
60
107
0
08
10
108
2
0
09
40
108
1
0
09
00
94
0
19
80
92
0
09
55
136
11
0
00
45
135
2
0
13
00
135
6
0
00
60
135
3ए
0
04
00
135
1बी
0
11
50
135
1ए
0
05
40
134
6
0
07
80
134
3ए
0
04
70
134
3बी
0
04
70
134
2
0
10
30
133
4
0
23
00
122
1ए
0
03
15
122
1बी
0
00
40
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7971
123
6
0
08
80
123
4
0
10
10
123
2ए
0
10
50
123
3
0
01
70
123
1ए
0
03
30
123
1बी
0
05
25
126
3ए
0
03
40
126
2ए
0
02
20
130
1डी
0
01
65
130
1सी
0
02
60
130
1ए
0
03
10
130
1बी
0
00
55
77.आमूर - II
299
11
0
06
85
299
12
0
00
40
299
10
0
02
70
299
9
0
02
35
299
7
0
08
00
299
6
0
04
35
299
5
0
04
00
299
4
0
04
00
299
1
0
02
60
298
3ए
0
00
40
297
7
0
07
50
297
2ए
0
08
10
297
1
0
06
70
296
2ई
0
00
60
296
2डी
0
01
50
296
2बी
0
00
40
296
1
0
00
40
307
3
0
05
50
295
6
0
08
00
294
3
0
05
40
7972
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
294
2
0
05
00
294
1
0
10
70
235
6
0
04
70
235
5
0
03
40
235
3
0
00
85
235
4
0
13
65
235
1
0
02
00
242
3
0
15
85
242
6
0
03
45
242
5
0
06
00
242
4
0
05
55
241
11
0
03
40
244
8
0
06
50
244
9
0
05
30
244
12
0
00
40
244
11
0
01
40
244
10
0
04
20
244
2
0
07
50
244
1
0
09
70
219
16
0
01
45
219
11
0
00
40
219
12
0
04
00
219
14
0
02
20
219
13
0
04
40
219
15
0
00
50
219
7
0
08
90
219
3
0
03
45
219
2
0
03
80
219
4
0
04
00
219
5
0
02
00
217
7
0
00
40
217
8
0
10
60
217
11
0
01
10
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7973
217
9
0
01
60
217
10
0
04
80
248
1
0
00
60
250
6
0
11
35
255
1ए
0
13
15
252
5बी
0
08
80
253
4
0
02
10
253
3
0
17
00
106.जगनाथपुरम - II
377
3
0
15
40
377
2
0
01
20
377
1
0
01
00
376
3
0
15
45
376
2
0
02
95
376
4
0
10
80
376
1
0
01
30
381
3
0
03
60
381
2
0
07
20
381
1
0
09
00
382
3
0
03
90
382
2
0
06
60
382
6ए
0
03
00
385
3
0
07
75
385
2
0
04
55
385
1
0
08
20
386
5
0
04
70
386
6ए
0
08
50
386
12
0
05
55
386
10ए
0
06
00
355
10सी
0
11
40
355
10बी
0
06
50
355
10ए
0
05
10
355
8सी
0
00
85
7974
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
355
8बी
0
02
00
355
8ए
0
04
70
355
1
0
07
20
351
11ए
0
03
45
351
11बी2
0
02
80
351
11बी1
0
02
60
351
10बी
0
03
10
351
10ए
0
03
20
351
6
0
03
00
351
3
0
02
70
351
4
0
02
90
349
12
0
06
40
349
11
0
02
50
349
10
0
01
85
349
9
0
03
80
350
3ए
0
02
35
350
3बी
0
05
25
350
1
0
04
50
347
6
0
04
70
347
8
0
00
40
347
7
0
05
50
347
3ई
0
03
25
347
2
0
06
75
345
4बी
0
03
60
345
4ए
0
03
45
345
3
0
06
15
345
2ए2
0
06
60
344
5ए
0
00
70
344
5बी
0
02
40
344
2
0
04
50
344
3
0
06
00
76.थचूर
300
8बी
0
05
70
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7975
300
9
0
01
55
300
8ए
0
02
50
300
2बी
0
01
00
290
1डी3
0
01
55
290
1डी2
0
03
30
290
1डी1
0
01
35
290
1सी1
0
18
40
290
1बी
0
15
90
290
1ए2
0
10
65
290
1ए1
0
02
30
286
2
0
08
25
286
1ए
0
15
70
286
1बी
0
00
90
259
6
0
11
90
259
5
0
08
00
259
3ए
0
00
40
259
2
0
01
85
261
2
0
06
30
261
1
0
05
30
256
5
0
02
40
256
6
0
09
10
256
2
0
00
40
256
7बी
0
01
00
256
7सी
0
06
75
256
1
0
00
40
255
7ए
0
05
00
255
1ई
0
02
40
255
1डी
0
02
00
255
1सी
0
04
60
255
1बी
0
04
00
255
1ए
0
03
05
253
1
0
11
50
253
2
0
00
40
7976
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
252
0
30
50
242
3
0
13
15
242
2
0
00
40
242
1
0
02
20
241
2
0
16
20
241
1
0
10
10
तालुका : उथुxोyई
िजला :ितMवलूर
रा]य : तिमलनाडु
गाँव का नाम
सवnण सं.- खRड सं.
उप खRड सं.
ेफल
हे#टेर
एयर
वग मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
93.कोyाकुpपम
14
1बी
0
01
85
14
1ए
0
16
00
15
0
17
10
17
2
0
03
50
17
1
0
12
30
16
1ए
0
01
00
64
0
07
50
62
1
0
00
70
63
0
17
10
60
1
0
13
30
58
1ए1
0
03
20
57
1
0
05
10
57
2
0
14
20
76
2
0
23
10
76
1
0
00
40
45
2डी
0
03
00
94.अ^दानाकाकवxम
145
0
06
10
146
0
02
90
144
2
0
02
00
143
3बी
0
09
80
143
3ए2
0
09
90
143
2सी
0
00
95
143
2बी
0
00
40
149
1
0
00
60
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7977
150
0
17
00
159
1
0
09
40
158
2
0
07
60
161
2
0
18
00
161
1बी2
0
00
40
174
1ए
0
03
80
174
1बी
0
00
40
173
1ए
0
02
00
173
1बी
0
04
10
173
2
0
09
00
177
2
0
00
40
177
1
0
14
30
178
1बी2
0
01
80
191
1बी
0
15
40
196
1बी
0
07
30
196
1ए
0
08
00
197
0
00
40
207
1ए1
0
06
00
206
0
13
45
95.मदिवलगम
47
5
0
07
30
47
6
0
01
85
47
4बी1
0
04
65
47
4बी2
0
03
50
47
4ए
0
03
10
47
3
0
10
45
47
2
0
03
95
76
1
0
15
50
77
1
0
05
40
68
1
0
09
20
68
2
0
14
20
79
2
0
01
15
67
0
07
65
85
1
0
09
00
7978
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
85
2
0
11
00
86
2
0
07
60
86
1
0
01
70
86
3
0
07
00
86
4
0
02
55
87
0
01
80
88
2
0
14
80
88
3
0
21
20
107
0
00
40
96
1
0
11
35
96
2
0
18
00
308
0
33
30
तालुका : ितMवलूर
िजला :ितMवलूर
रा]य : तिमलनाडु
गाँव का नाम
सवnणसं.- खRडसं.
उपखRडसं.
ेफल
हे#टेर
एयर
वगमीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
39.अयलचेरी
3
3
0
21
30
4
1
0
12
80
4
4
0
00
40
4
2ए
0
03
60
4
2बी
0
07
45
4
3
0
13
50
33
4बी
0
06
25
33
3बी
0
00
40
32
2ए
0
03
00
32
1
0
09
90
32
2बी
0
01
90
32
4
0
04
40
18
0
01
00
31
1
0
08
10
31
3
0
01
20
31
2
0
08
10
31
7
0
04
70
30
1
0
04
75
20
2
0
04
30
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7979
20
3बी
0
02
20
20
3सी
0
07
60
[फा. सं. आर-25011/10/2014-ओआर-I (पाट-II)]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2017
S.O. 2390.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas number S.O.No.905(E) dated: 20-03-2015 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 08.04.2015.
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 : Ponneri
District : Tiruvallur
State : Tamil Nadu
Name of the Village
Survey No.
Sub Division No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Meter
1
2
3
4
5
6
140. Neithavoyal - II
10
2A2
0
00
40
9
3
0
00
40
9
2
0
00
60
9
1
0
30
00
7
1
0
10
10
8
0
05
40
22
0
15
70
27
0
42
50
26
1
0
06
20
7980
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
84
3
0
03
40
84
2
0
03
20
84
1
0
02
85
85
2A2
0
05
80
85
2A1
0
03
25
85
1
0
00
50
540
2
0
00
40
540
1
0
03
50
891
0
02
45
541
0
10
30
542A
0
01
60
544
0
07
90
549
0
20
00
550
0
06
30
553
2
0
07
50
553
1
0
14
00
554
0
09
65
589
2
0
02
20
589
3
0
22
20
586
0
25
25
603
0
13
00
585
0
11
60
583
2
0
21
20
583
1
0
12
50
582
1
0
07
50
582
2
0
09
15
832
4A
0
03
80
832
4B
0
01
54
92. Vayalore - II
2049
7
0
57
60
2049
6
0
09
90
1456
0
18
80
1457
0
18
00
1400
0
00
85
1394
2
0
02
20
1394
1
0
03
20
1392
2
0
07
20
1391
2
0
14
25
1383
0
15
00
1384
0
09
60
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7981
139.Kalpakkam
150
0
18
00
149
2A
0
03
00
148
2A
0
00
70
148
2B
0
06
25
148
1
0
06
20
147
2
0
03
60
147
1C
0
08
50
147
1B
0
01
80
142
2
0
01
20
142
3
0
06
60
142
1B
0
04
30
142
1A
0
05
90
135
1B
0
00
40
135
1A
0
03
40
141
2
0
07
20
141
1
0
04
35
105
1C
0
00
40
75
2B
0
04
50
75
2A
0
04
50
75
1B2
0
00
40
75
1B1
0
05
20
75
1A
0
03
40
139
0
00
45
72
5A
0
04
50
72
5B
0
01
10
72
3A
0
00
40
72
4
0
03
70
71
2C
0
04
30
220
2B
0
00
40
220
2A
0
03
90
220
1B
0
07
85
220
1A
0
01
85
222
1
0
02
10
96.Thottakadu
48
1C
0
11
25
48
1B
0
16
65
48
1A
0
06
80
48
2A
0
00
70
49
3
0
00
80
7982
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
49
2
0
10
80
49
1
0
9
90
50
0
8
85
97.Vellappakkam
3
2
0
03
10
2
3
0
00
40
1
3
0
09
70
1
2
0
01
10
1
1
0
17
60
18
0
14
40
17
2
0
12
80
17
1
0
07
10
52
2
0
04
40
52
1
0
05
50
53
1
0
12
90
54
9A
0
05
20
54
9B
0
00
60
54
6B
0
00
40
54
7
0
04
90
54
8
0
00
40
54
6C
0
02
60
59
15
0
01
80
59
14B
0
01
45
59
14A
0
00
85
46
0
01
95
44
3B
0
08
40
44
3A
0
00
40
44
1
0
06
70
45
1
0
02
15
43
2B
0
01
95
43
2A
0
00
55
40
2
0
06
70
40
1
0
09
50
41
5
0
07
00
98.Nalur - I
6
5
0
00
40
6
4
0
04
30
6
3C
0
02
90
6
3B
0
01
65
6
3A
0
02
25
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7983
6
1B1
0
00
40
6
1B2
0
10
40
6
1A3
0
00
40
6
2A
0
02
40
6
1A2B
0
00
40
7
1B2
0
05
50
7
1B3
0
03
20
7
1A1
0
04
00
7
1B1
0
00
45
7
1A2
0
00
40
7
1A3
0
00
40
8A
5B
0
11
70
8A
5A
0
02
00
8A
2A
0
00
40
8A
2B
0
04
20
8A
3A2B
0
01
80
8A
3A2A
0
05
40
8B
1
0
03
80
11C
11
0
00
40
11C
8
0
08
00
11C
9
0
01
00
11C
3
0
03
85
11C
4B
0
04
65
11C
5
0
04
85
11C
6
0
04
50
11C
7
0
02
25
338
5
0
02
90
338
6
0
04
00
268
7A2
0
02
50
268
7A1
0
06
50
268
5
0
10
10
268
6A3
0
00
70
268
6A2
0
00
40
268
6A1
0
00
40
268
4B
0
08
00
268
4A
0
02
70
268
3B
0
05
40
268
3A
0
02
50
268
2
0
09
00
7984
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
336
1B
0
00
40
269
6
0
03
70
269
4B
0
09
50
269
3C
0
02
45
269
3B
0
03
30
269
3A
0
02
70
269
1
0
00
65
334
1C
0
08
75
334
1B
0
11
50
333
2C
0
08
10
333
2A
0
00
40
333
2B
0
09
50
332
1
0
03
00
280
0
26
60
303
7
0
00
40
302
7
0
18
75
302
5
0
00
40
302
4
0
02
00
302
3
0
02
90
302
2B5
0
02
30
302
2B3
0
02
70
302
2B1
0
00
40
302
2B2
0
02
10
302
1B
0
03
80
302
1A
0
03
50
299
1
0
36
00
299
2
0
03
00
300
5
0
09
50
300
6
0
00
40
300
3
0
07
85
300
2
0
9
40
300
1
0
5
75
78.Anuppampattu- II
312
5B
0
01
45
312
5A2
0
17
00
313
5
0
01
35
314
6A
0
13
50
314
2
0
7
80
314
3
0
00
40
314
1A
0
06
00
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7985
314
1B
0
01
45
315
2
0
04
40
315
5
0
03
60
315
3
0
00
45
315
4
0
06
40
316
8
0
08
00
316
7
0
09
40
317
1
0
00
40
296
3
0
04
20
296
1F
0
00
50
296
1G
0
11
40
296
2
0
00
40
297
6
0
07
20
297
8
0
06
85
297
7
0
03
20
300
1B
0
02
55
299
4
0
05
20
299
2A1
0
01
80
299
2A2
0
05
25
299
3A
0
08
80
299
3B
0
00
40
299
2B
0
05
00
459
6
0
18
75
459
3
0
08
70
457
13
0
00
40
457
14
0
00
40
457
12
0
09
00
457
8B
0
03
45
457
8A
0
03
15
457
5B
0
04
90
457
6
0
00
40
457
5C
0
00
40
457
4
0
00
40
457
5A
0
04
80
456
15
0
02
50
456
16
0
05
00
456
14B
0
06
85
456
12
0
01
00
456
11
0
03
30
7986
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
456
6
0
04
70
456
8
0
03
90
456
7
0
01
60
456
1A
0
00
40
456
1B
0
07
35
452
6
0
14
25
452
1B
0
00
40
452
2
0
19
20
452
5
0
00
40
99.Vannipakkam
188
2
0
11
70
9
2
0
08
30
9
3
0
10
65
12
1
0
07
50
11
5
0
05
60
107
0
08
10
108
2
0
09
40
108
1
0
09
00
94
0
19
80
92
0
09
55
136
11
0
00
45
135
2
0
13
00
135
6
0
00
60
135
3A
0
04
00
135
1B
0
11
50
135
1A
0
05
40
134
6
0
07
80
134
3A
0
04
70
134
3B
0
04
70
134
2
0
10
30
133
4
0
23
00
122
1A
0
03
15
122
1B
0
00
40
123
6
0
08
80
123
4
0
10
10
123
2A
0
10
50
123
3
0
01
70
123
1A
0
03
30
123
1B
0
05
25
126
3A
0
03
40
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7987
126
2A
0
02
20
130
1D
0
01
65
130
1C
0
02
60
130
1A
0
03
10
130
1B
0
00
55
77.Amur - II
299
11
0
06
85
299
12
0
00
40
299
10
0
02
70
299
9
0
02
35
299
7
0
08
00
299
6
0
04
35
299
5
0
04
00
299
4
0
04
00
299
1
0
02
60
298
3A
0
00
40
297
7
0
07
50
297
2A
0
08
10
297
1
0
06
70
296
2E
0
00
60
296
2D
0
01
50
296
2B
0
00
40
296
1
0
00
40
307
3
0
05
50
295
6
0
08
00
294
3
0
05
40
294
2
0
05
00
294
1
0
10
70
235
6
0
04
70
235
5
0
03
40
235
3
0
00
85
235
4
0
13
65
235
1
0
02
00
242
3
0
15
85
242
6
0
03
45
242
5
0
06
00
242
4
0
05
55
241
11
0
03
40
244
8
0
06
50
244
9
0
05
30
7988
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
244
12
0
00
40
244
11
0
01
40
244
10
0
04
20
244
2
0
07
50
244
1
0
09
70
219
16
0
01
45
219
11
0
00
40
219
12
0
04
00
219
14
0
02
20
219
13
0
04
40
219
15
0
00
50
219
7
0
08
90
219
3
0
03
45
219
2
0
03
80
219
4
0
04
00
219
5
0
02
00
217
7
0
00
40
217
8
0
10
60
217
11
0
01
10
217
9
0
01
60
217
10
0
04
80
248
1
0
00
60
250
6
0
11
35
255
1A
0
13
15
252
5B
0
08
80
253
4
0
02
10
253
3
0
17
00
106. Jaganathapuram-II
377
3
0
15
40
377
2
0
01
20
377
1
0
01
00
376
3
0
15
45
376
2
0
02
95
376
4
0
10
80
376
1
0
01
30
381
3
0
03
60
381
2
0
07
20
381
1
0
09
00
382
3
0
03
90
382
2
0
06
60
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7989
382
6A
0
03
00
385
3
0
07
75
385
2
0
04
55
385
1
0
08
20
386
5
0
04
70
386
6A
0
08
50
386
12
0
05
55
386
10A
0
06
00
355
10C
0
11
40
355
10B
0
06
50
355
10A
0
05
10
355
8C
0
00
85
355
8B
0
02
00
355
8A
0
04
70
355
1
0
07
20
351
11A
0
03
45
351
11B2
0
02
80
351
11B1
0
02
60
351
10B
0
03
10
351
10A
0
03
20
351
6
0
03
00
351
3
0
02
70
351
4
0
02
90
349
12
0
06
40
349
11
0
02
50
349
10
0
01
85
349
9
0
03
80
350
3A
0
02
35
350
3B
0
05
25
350
1
0
04
50
347
6
0
04
70
347
8
0
00
40
347
7
0
05
50
347
3E
0
03
25
347
2
0
06
75
345
4B
0
03
60
345
4A
0
03
45
345
3
0
06
15
345
2A2
0
06
60
7990
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
344
5A
0
00
70
344
5B
0
02
40
344
2
0
04
50
344
3
0
06
00
76. Thachur
300
8B
0
05
70
300
9
0
01
55
300
8A
0
02
50
300
2B
0
01
00
290
1D3
0
01
55
290
1D2
0
03
30
290
1D1
0
01
35
290
1C1
0
18
40
290
1B
0
15
90
290
1A2
0
10
65
290
1A1
0
02
30
286
2
0
08
25
286
1A
0
15
70
286
1B
0
00
90
259
6
0
11
90
259
5
0
08
00
259
3A
0
00
40
259
2
0
01
85
261
2
0
06
30
261
1
0
05
30
256
5
0
02
40
256
6
0
09
10
256
2
0
00
40
256
7B
0
01
00
256
7C
0
06
75
256
1
0
00
40
255
7A
0
05
00
255
1E
0
02
40
255
1D
0
02
00
255
1C
0
04
60
255
1B
0
04
00
255
1A
0
03
05
253
1
0
11
50
253
2
0
00
40
252
0
30
50
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7991
242
3
0
13
15
242
2
0
00
40
242
1
0
02
20
241
2
0
16
20
241
1
0
10
10
Taluk : Uthukkottai
District : Tiruvallur
State : Tamil Nadu
Name of the Village
Survey No.
Sub Division
No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Meter
1
2
3
4
5
6
93. Kottakuppam
14
1B
0
01
85
14
1A
0
16
00
15
0
17
10
17
2
0
03
50
17
1
0
12
30
16
1A
0
01
00
64
0
07
50
62
1
0
00
70
63
0
17
10
60
1
0
13
30
58
1A1
0
03
20
57
1
0
05
10
57
2
0
14
20
76
2
0
23
10
76
1
0
00
40
45
2D
0
03
00
94. Annadanakakavakkam
145
0
06
10
146
0
02
90
144
2
0
02
00
143
3B
0
09
80
143
3A2
0
09
90
143
2C
0
00
95
143
2B
0
00
40
149
1
0
00
60
150
0
17
00
159
1
0
09
40
158
2
0
07
60
161
2
0
18
00
7992
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
161
1B2
0
00
40
174
1A
0
03
80
174
1B
0
00
40
173
1A
0
02
00
173
1B
0
04
10
173
2
0
09
00
177
2
0
00
40
177
1
0
14
30
178
1B2
0
01
80
191
1B
0
15
40
196
1B
0
07
30
196
1A
0
08
00
197
0
00
40
207
1A1
0
06
00
206
0
13
45
95. Madavilagam
47
5
0
07
30
47
6
0
01
85
47
4B1
0
04
65
47
4B2
0
03
50
47
4A
0
03
10
47
3
0
10
45
47
2
0
03
95
76
1
0
15
50
77
1
0
05
40
68
1
0
09
20
68
2
0
14
20
79
2
0
01
15
67
0
07
65
85
1
0
09
00
85
2
0
11
00
86
2
0
07
60
86
1
0
01
70
86
3
0
07
00
86
4
0
02
55
87
0
01
80
88
2
0
14
80
88
3
0
21
20
107
0
00
40
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7993
96
1
0
11
35
96
2
0
18
00
308
0
33
30
Taluk : Tiruvallur
District : Tiruvallur
State : Tamil Nadu
Name of the Village
Survey No.
Sub Division No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Meter
1
2
3
4
5
6
39. Ayalcheri
3
3
0
21
30
4
1
0
12
80
4
4
0
00
40
4
2A
0
03
60
4
2B
0
07
45
4
3
0
13
50
33
4B
0
06
25
33
3B
0
00
40
32
2A
0
03
00
32
1
0
09
90
32
2B
0
01
90
32
4
0
04
40
18
0
01
00
31
1
0
08
10
31
3
0
01
20
31
2
0
08
10
31
7
0
04
70
30
1
0
04
75
20
2
0
04
30
20
3B
0
02
20
20
3C
0
07
60
[F. No. R-25011/10/2014-OR-I (Pt.-II)]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
7994
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 3 अ तूबर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2391
2391
2391
2391.—केीय सरकार, पेोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज#न) अिधिनयम,
1962, (1962 का 50), क% धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म और पेोिलयम एवं +कृितक गैस मं.ालय, भारत सरकार के 16 मई,
2014 के का.आ. 1310(अ) क% अिधसूचना के संशोधन म उ त अिधिनयम के अधीन उ1 तर +देश रा2 य के रा2 य3े. के भीतर
िह दु5 तान पेोिलयम काप6रेशन िलिमटेड क% रेवाड़ी कानपुर पाइपलाइन प:रयोजना के िलए स3म +ािधकारी के काय< का िनव#हन
करने के िलए =ी बाबूलाल, िड? टी कल टर/ए.सी.एम. तृतीय, उ1 तर +देश सरकार को +ािधकृत करती है। यह अिधसूचना स3म
अिधकारी के काय#भार Aहण करने क% दनांक अथा#त् 21.09.2017 से लागू है।
[फा. सं. आर-31015/07/2011-ओआर-II/15210]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2017
S.O. 2391.—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) and in modification of Notification of the Government of India in the
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. No 1310( E) dated the 16th May, 2014, the Central Government hereby
authorizes Shri Babulal, Deputy Collector/ACM-3 Kanpur, Government of Uttar Pradesh to perform the functions of
Competent Authority for HPCL’s Rewari Kanpur Pipeline Project under the said Act, within the territory of Uttar
Pradesh State. This Notification is applicable from the date of joining as Competent Authority, i.e. 21.09.2017.
[F. No. R-31015/07/2011-OR-II/15210]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 4 अ तूबर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2392.—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu
tkjh dh xbZ] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk ftldk izdk'ku Hkkjr ds jkti= la[;k
1884 fnukad 27-7-2016 dk-vk la[;k 2544¼v½ fnukad 20-07-2016] Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi[k.M ¼ii½ esa fd;k x;k gSA bl
vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V jktLFkku jkT; dh rglhy uhejkuk ftyk vyoj dh Hkwfe esa] jktLFkku jkT; esa
t;iqj ls gfj;k.kk jkT; esa ikuhir rd isVªksfy;e us¶Fkk ds ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk
fØ;kfUor fd, tk jgs ^^t;iqj ikuhir us¶Fkk ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk** ds lEcU/k esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy,
mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds fy, vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh %
vkSj mDr jkti= vf/klwpukvksa dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 02-03-2017 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ FkhA
vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ
ns nh gSA
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mDr Hkwfe
ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gSa] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gSa %
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,
,rn~}kjk ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk
vf/kdkj vftZr fd;k tk,%
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k
nsrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk;
lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxkA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y
dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbZu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeysa ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo:) dksbZ
okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7995
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
rglhy % uhejkuk
ftyk % vyoj
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
ckV[kkuh
192
00
06
91
187
00
07
18
188
00
01
29
186
00
06
24
163
00
05
89
156
00
02
90
165
00
02
80
154
00
06
58
133
00
04
32
138
00
08
39
140
00
07
97
36
00
05
85
37
00
05
92
40
00
01
55
51
00
06
15
Total
00
79
94
tudflagiqjk
237
00
08
09
235
00
03
55
236
00
07
64
229
00
00
95
228
00
05
15
227
00
00
87
222
00
00
51
226
00
04
08
165
00
07
98
199
00
09
54
198
00
08
65
171
00
08
15
188/339
00
07
10
188
00
04
38
178
00
10
33
181
00
11
28
184
00
00
50
184/382
00
02
87
183
00
07
07
152
00
00
31
Total
01
09
00
7996
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
csyuh
488
00
00
70
484
00
07
66
487
00
07
97
343
00
03
31
344/517
00
00
58
344
00
07
24
345
00
06
66
339
00
00
05
328/530
00
03
85
330
00
12
84
330/531
00
02
80
284
00
03
95
283
00
00
44
282
00
03
91
281
00
13
23
270
00
08
72
271
00
00
25
268
00
15
96
266
00
00
02
261
00
09
91
257
00
09
29
Total
01
19
34
'kkgtgkaiqj
580
00
08
00
572
00
06
10
123
00
15
76
124
00
02
00
122
00
09
02
121
00
14
34
102
00
01
15
103
00
04
66
104
00
00
86
100
00
01
86
99
00
00
18
98
00
05
88
81
00
09
22
82
00
01
31
78
00
09
43
26
00
09
97
16
00
01
91
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7997
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
15
00
04
44
14
00
02
78
19
00
07
27
Total
01
16
14
lkalsM+h
1032
00
04
63
1031
00
01
59
1034
00
05
40
1035
00
04
16
1036
00
03
63
1074
00
00
45
1041
00
02
60
1042
00
02
91
1040
00
04
96
1044
00
00
51
969
00
02
49
968
00
03
42
967
00
05
60
933
00
02
09
935
00
05
53
936
00
02
23
938
00
00
89
937
00
02
17
889
00
02
27
841
00
06
99
842
00
02
70
843
00
00
79
836
00
00
75
846
00
03
66
847
00
04
78
848
00
08
84
849
00
00
21
734
00
06
99
747
00
01
15
737
00
04
86
736
00
02
85
722
00
03
74
709
00
04
07
710
00
04
18
695
00
03
44
697
00
01
85
7998
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
685
00
01
01
698
00
01
75
684
00
01
10
680
00
04
51
669
00
04
41
670
00
00
20
659
00
03
65
654
00
03
09
649
00
03
22
645
00
03
27
507
00
03
14
505
00
03
51
504
00
03
34
502
00
03
15
503
00
00
84
Total
01
59
57
tksuk;pk [kqnZ
1242
00
01
82
1241
00
01
84
1240
00
13
15
154
00
04
55
153
00
02
50
150
00
00
45
161
00
05
65
162
00
02
87
163
00
03
20
165
00
05
03
166/1895
00
01
62
170
00
04
83
169
00
08
73
118
00
01
24
119
00
09
47
120
00
04
21
18
00
00
13
19
00
00
35
20
00
00
50
21
00
04
83
22
00
01
77
23
00
01
44
24
00
00
65
25
00
06
95
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
7999
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
Total
00
87
78
flj;kuh
661
00
05
39
662
00
05
04
652
00
03
72
656
00
00
08
651
00
00
17
653
00
04
27
650
00
04
72
642
00
03
59
641
00
02
59
640
00
02
11
Total
00
31
68
xwxy dksV
15
00
05
28
9
00
05
94
8
00
09
82
2
00
02
06
1
00
01
11
Total
00
24
21
dkadj
1097
00
06
93
1098
00
01
22
1104
00
06
68
1103
00
05
30
1102
00
05
80
1112
00
10
50
1110
00
00
87
1110/1742
00
00
62
1115
00
18
85
352
00
05
07
353
00
08
34
836
00
04
21
835
00
04
04
523
00
07
23
531
00
06
01
530
00
05
60
543
00
00
37
544
00
04
49
550
00
05
54
8000
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
549
00
01
50
594
00
08
35
593
00
04
82
592
00
04
27
588
00
04
28
585
00
00
79
584
00
04
05
580
00
04
54
577
00
08
04
572
00
07
73
574
00
00
04
571
00
01
05
570
00
08
66
Total
01
65
79
[फा. सं. आर-25011/1/2016-ओआर-I (पाट#-II)]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 4th October, 2017
S.O. 2392.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, published in the Gazette No. 1884 dated 27.7.2016, S.O. No. 2544(E) dated 20.07.2016, Part-II, section 3, sub-
section(ii) 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), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its
intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Tehsil Neemrana District Alwar in Rajasthan State, specified
in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum
Naphtha from Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan to Panipat in the State of Haryana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited
for implementing the "Jaipur Panipat Naphtha Pipeline Project".
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 02.03.2017.
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section(1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his
report of Central Government.
And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land
is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;
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 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 of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the
Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all
encumbrances.
India Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P
& MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter
relating to pipeline.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8001
SCHEDULE
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
Bathkhani
192
00
06
91
187
00
07
18
188
00
01
29
186
00
06
24
163
00
05
89
156
00
02
90
165
00
02
80
154
00
06
58
133
00
04
32
138
00
08
39
140
00
07
97
36
00
05
85
37
00
05
92
40
00
01
55
51
00
06
15
Total
00
79
94
Janaksinghpura
237
00
08
09
235
00
03
55
236
00
07
64
229
00
00
95
228
00
05
15
227
00
00
87
222
00
00
51
226
00
04
08
165
00
07
98
199
00
09
54
198
00
08
65
171
00
08
15
188/339
00
07
10
188
00
04
38
178
00
10
33
181
00
11
28
184
00
00
50
184/382
00
02
87
183
00
07
07
8002
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
152
00
00
31
Total
01
09
00
Belani
488
00
00
70
484
00
07
66
487
00
07
97
343
00
03
31
344/517
00
00
58
344
00
07
24
345
00
06
66
339
00
00
05
328/530
00
03
85
330
00
12
84
330/531
00
02
80
284
00
03
95
283
00
00
44
282
00
03
91
281
00
13
23
270
00
08
72
271
00
00
25
268
00
15
96
266
00
00
02
261
00
09
91
257
00
09
29
Total
01
19
34
Shahajahanpur
580
00
08
00
572
00
06
10
123
00
15
76
124
00
02
00
122
00
09
02
121
00
14
34
102
00
01
15
103
00
04
66
104
00
00
86
100
00
01
86
99
00
00
18
98
00
05
88
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8003
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
81
00
09
22
82
00
01
31
78
00
09
43
26
00
09
97
16
00
01
91
15
00
04
44
14
00
02
78
19
00
07
27
Total
01
16
14
Sasedi
1032
00
04
63
1031
00
01
59
1034
00
05
40
1035
00
04
16
1036
00
03
63
1074
00
00
45
1041
00
02
60
1042
00
02
91
1040
00
04
96
1044
00
00
51
969
00
02
49
968
00
03
42
967
00
05
60
933
00
02
09
935
00
05
53
936
00
02
23
938
00
00
89
937
00
02
17
889
00
02
27
841
00
06
99
842
00
02
70
843
00
00
79
836
00
00
75
846
00
03
66
847
00
04
78
848
00
08
84
849
00
00
21
8004
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
734
00
06
99
747
00
01
15
737
00
04
86
736
00
02
85
722
00
03
74
709
00
04
07
710
00
04
18
695
00
03
44
697
00
01
85
685
00
01
01
698
00
01
75
684
00
01
10
680
00
04
51
669
00
04
41
670
00
00
20
659
00
03
65
654
00
03
09
649
00
03
22
645
00
03
27
507
00
03
14
505
00
03
51
504
00
03
34
502
00
03
15
503
00
00
84
Total
01
59
57
Jonaycha Khurd
1242
00
01
82
1241
00
01
84
1240
00
13
15
154
00
04
55
153
00
02
50
150
00
00
45
161
00
05
65
162
00
02
87
163
00
03
20
165
00
05
03
166/1895
00
01
62
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8005
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
170
00
04
83
169
00
08
73
118
00
01
24
119
00
09
47
120
00
04
21
18
00
00
13
19
00
00
35
20
00
00
50
21
00
04
83
22
00
01
77
23
00
01
44
24
00
00
65
25
00
06
95
Total
00
87
78
Siryani
661
00
05
39
662
00
05
04
652
00
03
72
656
00
00
08
651
00
00
17
653
00
04
27
650
00
04
72
642
00
03
59
641
00
02
59
640
00
02
11
Total
00
31
68
Googal Kota
15
00
05
28
9
00
05
94
8
00
09
82
2
00
02
06
1
00
01
11
Total
00
24
21
Kankar
1097
00
06
93
1098
00
01
22
1104
00
06
68
1103
00
05
30
1102
00
05
80
8006
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
1112
00
10
50
1110
00
00
87
1110/1742
00
00
62
1115
00
18
85
352
00
05
07
353
00
08
34
836
00
04
21
835
00
04
04
523
00
07
23
531
00
06
01
530
00
05
60
543
00
00
37
544
00
04
49
550
00
05
54
549
00
01
50
594
00
08
35
593
00
04
82
592
00
04
27
588
00
04
28
585
00
00
79
584
00
04
05
580
00
04
54
577
00
08
04
572
00
07
73
574
00
00
04
571
00
01
05
570
00
08
66
Total
01
65
79
[F. No. R-25011/1/2016-OR-I (Pt.-II)]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 4 अ तूबर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2393
2393
2393
2393.—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu
tkjh dh xbZ] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk ftldk izdk'ku Hkkjr ds jkti= la[;k
2787 fnukad 25-11-2016 dk-vk- la[;k 3563¼v½ fnukad 22-11-2016] Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi[k.M ¼ii½ esa fd;k x;k gSA bl
vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V jktLFkku jkT; dh rglhy cgjksM+] ftyk vyoj dh Hkwfe esa] jktLFkku jkT; esa
t;iqj ls gfj;k.kk jkT; esa ikuhir rd isVªksfy;e us¶Fkk ds ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8007
fØ;kfUor fd, tk jgs ^^t;iqj ikuhir us¶Fkk ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk** ds lEcU/k esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy,
mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds fy, vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh %
vkSj mDr jkti= vf/klwpukvksa dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 02-03-2017 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ FkhA
vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ
ns nh gSA
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mDr Hkwfe
ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gSa] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gSa %
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~
}kjk ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj
vftZr fd;k tk,%
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k
nsrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,
lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxkA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y
dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbZu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeysa ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo:) dksbZ
okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
rglhy % cgjksM
ftyk % vyoj
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
f'keyk
266
00
08
80
278
00
03
17
279
00
03
44
281
00
02
54
282
00
02
51
290
00
05
26
196
00
01
26
195
00
02
71
193
00
09
31
60
00
00
32
61
00
11
57
65
00
19
01
71
00
13
63
70/432
00
08
00
75
00
09
19
76
00
00
47
Total
01
01
19
xksdqyiqj
627
00
08
17
8008
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
626
00
07
97
624
00
06
53
623
00
04
59
622
00
00
67
621
00
05
86
641
00
00
20
647
00
05
57
646
00
02
54
645
00
07
20
644
00
04
12
662
00
05
01
652/760
00
01
34
658/739
00
00
92
657
00
05
73
653
00
03
02
198
00
00
51
197
00
03
30
196
00
03
43
194
00
03
28
Total
00
79
96
tkxqokl
98
00
05
68
93
00
06
55
90
00
01
86
90/953
00
00
65
89
00
03
82
88
00
05
87
82
00
05
06
83
00
01
03
81
00
03
26
84
00
00
03
79/931
00
01
21
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8009
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
78
00
11
81
74
00
04
12
61
00
04
16
63
00
00
97
64
00
03
43
65
00
03
67
66
00
03
29
67
00
06
76
68
00
05
79
Total
00
79
02
dY;k.kiqjk
503
00
04
74
506
00
00
19
508
00
03
10
501
00
04
16
500
00
09
99
494
00
04
35
493
00
00
23
492
00
04
55
491
00
03
85
490
00
00
05
542
00
03
29
539
00
07
28
536
00
06
25
537
00
01
72
533
00
05
59
533/705
00
02
00
532
00
00
27
571
00
02
83
525
00
08
90
524
00
03
39
8010
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
523
00
03
29
522/685
00
01
00
522
00
01
60
586
00
01
60
587
00
06
85
589
00
01
57
588
00
02
89
591
00
03
77
618
00
05
45
600
00
05
11
599
00
06
43
603
00
03
71
Total
01
20
00
ukxyk :a/k
293
00
00
97
286
00
03
58
287
00
03
09
222
00
06
98
221
00
00
06
224
00
04
96
232
00
05
22
231
00
05
49
235
00
02
79
230
00
00
05
236
00
01
50
237
00
02
62
238
00
05
52
239
00
01
35
245
00
06
21
279
00
00
11
246
00
00
98
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8011
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
278
00
02
04
315/424
00
00
30
315/425
00
05
98
315/426
00
06
95
315/427
00
07
70
317
00
09
10
78
00
04
39
77
00
23
47
76
00
01
96
74
00
25
99
42
00
25
35
71
00
01
20
43
00
02
07
44
00
08
48
62
00
16
12
61
00
01
36
46
00
22
76
47
00
23
79
48
00
05
01
53
00
21
64
52
00
02
54
Total
02
69
68
getkiqj
1324
00
02
92
1326
00
05
48
1314
00
05
43
1311
00
04
62
1310
00
05
15
Total
00
23
60
[फा. सं. आर-25011/1/2016-ओआर-I (पाट#-II)]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
8012
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 4th October, 2017
S.O. 2393.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, published in the Gazette No. 2787 dated 25.11.2016 S.O. No. 3563(E) dated 22.11.2016 Part-II, section 3, sub-
section(ii) 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), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its
intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Tehsil Behror District Alwar in Rajasthan State, specified in
the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum
Naphtha from Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan to Panipat in the State of Haryana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited
for implementing the "Jaipur Panipat Naphtha Pipeline Project".
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 02.03.2017.
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section(1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his
report of Central Government.
And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land
is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;
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 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 of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the
Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all
encumbrances.
India Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P
& MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter
relating to pipeline.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Behror
District : Alwar
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
Simla
266
00
08
80
278
00
03
17
279
00
03
44
281
00
02
54
282
00
02
51
290
00
05
26
196
00
01
26
195
00
02
71
193
00
09
31
60
00
00
32
61
00
11
57
65
00
19
01
71
00
13
63
70/432
00
08
00
75
00
09
19
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8013
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
76
00
00
47
Total
01
01
19
Gokulpura
627
00
08
17
626
00
07
97
624
00
06
53
623
00
04
59
622
00
00
67
621
00
05
86
641
00
00
20
647
00
05
57
646
00
02
54
645
00
07
20
644
00
04
12
662
00
05
01
652/760
00
01
34
658/739
00
00
92
657
00
05
73
653
00
03
02
198
00
00
51
197
00
03
30
196
00
03
43
194
00
03
28
Total
00
79
96
Jaguwas
98
00
05
68
93
00
06
55
90
00
01
86
90/953
00
00
65
89
00
03
82
88
00
05
87
82
00
05
06
83
00
01
03
81
00
03
26
84
00
00
03
79/931
00
01
21
8014
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
78
00
11
81
74
00
04
12
61
00
04
16
63
00
00
97
64
00
03
43
65
00
03
67
66
00
03
29
67
00
06
76
68
00
05
79
Total
00
79
02
Kalyanpura
503
00
04
74
506
00
00
19
508
00
03
10
501
00
04
16
500
00
09
99
494
00
04
35
493
00
00
23
492
00
04
55
491
00
03
85
490
00
00
05
542
00
03
29
539
00
07
28
536
00
06
25
537
00
01
72
533
00
05
59
533/705
00
02
00
532
00
00
27
571
00
02
83
525
00
08
90
524
00
03
39
523
00
03
29
522/685
00
01
00
522
00
01
60
586
00
01
60
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8015
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
587
00
06
85
589
00
01
57
588
00
02
89
591
00
03
77
618
00
05
45
600
00
05
11
599
00
06
43
603
00
03
71
Total
01
20
00
Nagal Roondh
293
00
00
97
286
00
03
58
287
00
03
09
222
00
06
98
221
00
00
06
224
00
04
96
232
00
05
22
231
00
05
49
235
00
02
79
230
00
00
05
236
00
01
50
237
00
02
62
238
00
05
52
239
00
01
35
245
00
06
21
279
00
00
11
246
00
00
98
278
00
02
04
315/424
00
00
30
315/425
00
05
98
315/426
00
06
95
315/427
00
07
70
317
00
09
10
78
00
04
39
77
00
23
47
8016
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
76
00
01
96
74
00
25
99
42
00
25
35
71
00
01
20
43
00
02
07
44
00
08
48
62
00
16
12
61
00
01
36
46
00
22
76
47
00
23
79
48
00
05
01
53
00
21
64
52
00
02
54
Total
02
69
68
Hamzapur
1324
00
02
92
1326
00
05
48
1314
00
05
43
1311
00
04
62
1310
00
05
15
Total
00
23
60
[F. No. R-25011/1/2016-OR-I (Pt.-II)]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 4 अ तूबर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2394
2394
2394
2394.—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds
v/khu tkjh dh xbZ] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk ftldk izdk'ku Hkkjr ds jkti=
la[;k 2787 fnukad 25-11-2016 dk-vk- la[;k 3561¼v½ fnukad 22-11-2016] Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi[k.M ¼ii½ esa fd;k x;k gSA
bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V jktLFkku jkT; dh rglhy uhejkuk ftyk vyoj dh Hkwfe esa] jktLFkku jkT;
esa t;iqj ls gfj;k.kk jkT; esa ikuhir rd isVªksfy;e us¶Fkk ds ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk
fØ;kfUor fd, tk jgs ^^t;iqj ikuhir us¶Fkk ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk** ds lEcU/k esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy,
mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds fy, vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh %
vkSj mDr jkti= vf/klwpukvksa dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 02-03-2017 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ FkhA
vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ
ns nh gSA
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mDr Hkwfe
ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gSa] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gSa %
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8017
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~
}kjk ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj
vftZr fd;k tk,%
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k
nsrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk;
lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxkA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y
dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbZu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeysa ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo:) dksbZ
okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
rglhy % uhejkuk
ftyk % vyoj
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
ckV[kkuh
227
00
08
18
226
00
02
25
225
00
05
74
207
00
00
18
208
00
06
57
206
00
04
55
205
00
01
59
50
00
09
74
49
00
00
14
63
00
05
23
Total
00
44
17
dksfy;k jkcj
95
00
07
48
96
00
02
11
89
00
03
80
88
00
04
61
87
00
02
65
85
00
00
09
86
00
06
48
115
00
04
38
116
00
03
65
122
00
03
71
123
00
10
23
129
00
03
27
8018
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
130
00
00
33
128
00
00
53
137
00
09
41
138
00
08
19
151
00
05
00
150
00
06
36
149
00
02
90
148
00
01
44
147
00
01
18
146
00
08
24
Total
00
96
04
dksfyyk lkaxk
464
00
01
68
465
00
02
15
466
00
04
77
468
00
08
22
522
00
02
92
527
00
04
99
528
00
06
54
565
00
04
60
564
00
05
19
563
00
00
18
612
00
00
40
613
00
06
06
615
00
04
51
622
00
00
06
621
00
05
56
620
00
00
33
637
00
00
31
638
00
05
22
639
00
01
46
640
00
07
16
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8019
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
641
00
02
70
675
00
03
02
293
00
03
47
678
00
00
33
292
00
06
79
292/776
00
03
61
292/775
00
01
51
291
00
01
34
282
00
00
52
276
00
06
16
275
00
06
54
272
00
06
43
248
00
12
63
252
00
12
96
239
00
07
36
240
00
05
27
236
00
00
10
237
00
07
70
233
00
04
65
232
00
07
54
231
00
03
13
Total
01
76
07
dksfyyk tksxk
20
00
00
13
19
00
05
65
18
00
08
25
16
00
06
60
9
00
00
02
10
00
07
28
11
00
01
96
12
00
05
10
4
00
07
89
8020
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
2
00
00
20
3
00
08
36
Total
00
51
44
ektjk dkaB
207
00
15
18
224
00
14
46
Total
00
29
64
'kkgtgkaiqj
32
00
07
20
31
00
04
12
26
00
00
83
Total
00
12
15
lkalsM+h
407
00
00
31
406
00
01
18
405
00
02
00
404
00
02
38
403
00
02
25
402
00
03
06
401
00
00
08
396
00
01
84
399
00
00
17
398
00
00
32
397
00
01
04
392
00
03
92
391
00
02
62
390
00
03
28
388
00
04
12
389
00
01
96
220
00
06
24
217
00
05
92
Total
00
42
69
tksuk;pk [kqnZ
1297
00
02
88
1296
00
06
52
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8021
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
Total
00
09
40
xwxy dksV
2
00
02
36
Total
00
02
36
dkadj
929
00
05
76
928
00
02
23
874
00
16
28
876
00
05
26
877
00
01
07
872
00
02
96
881
00
06
11
863
00
05
25
862
00
04
80
861
00
06
40
858
00
18
60
352
00
06
05
Total
00
80
77
[फा. सं. आर-25011/1/2016-ओआर-I (पाट#-II)]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 4th October, 2017
S.O. 2394.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, published in the Gazette No. 2787 dated 25.11.2016 S.O. No. 3561(E) dated 22.11.2016 Part-II, section 3, sub-
section (ii) 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), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its
intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Tehsil Neemrana District Alwar in Rajasthan State, specified
in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum
Naphtha from Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan to Panipat in the State of Haryana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited
for implementing the "Jaipur Panipat Naphtha Pipeline Project".
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 02.03.2017.
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section(1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his
report of Central Government.
And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land
is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;
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 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 of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the
8022
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all
encumbrances.
India Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P
& MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter
relating to pipeline.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Neemrana
District : Alwar
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
Batkhani
227
00
08
18
226
00
02
25
225
00
05
74
207
00
00
18
208
00
06
57
206
00
04
55
205
00
01
59
50
00
09
74
49
00
00
14
63
00
05
23
Total
00
44
17
Kolia Rabar
95
00
07
48
96
00
02
11
89
00
03
80
88
00
04
61
87
00
02
65
85
00
00
09
86
00
06
48
115
00
04
38
116
00
03
65
122
00
03
71
123
00
10
23
129
00
03
27
130
00
00
33
128
00
00
53
137
00
09
41
138
00
08
19
151
00
05
00
150
00
06
36
149
00
02
90
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8023
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
148
00
01
44
147
00
01
18
146
00
08
24
Total
00
96
04
Kolila Sanga
464
00
01
68
465
00
02
15
466
00
04
77
468
00
08
22
522
00
02
92
527
00
04
99
528
00
06
54
565
00
04
60
564
00
05
19
563
00
00
18
612
00
00
40
613
00
06
06
615
00
04
51
622
00
00
06
621
00
05
56
620
00
00
33
637
00
00
31
638
00
05
22
639
00
01
46
640
00
07
16
641
00
02
70
675
00
03
02
293
00
03
47
678
00
00
33
292
00
06
79
292/776
00
03
61
292/775
00
01
51
291
00
01
34
282
00
00
52
276
00
06
16
275
00
06
54
8024
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
272
00
06
43
248
00
12
63
252
00
12
96
239
00
07
36
240
00
05
27
236
00
00
10
237
00
07
70
233
00
04
65
232
00
07
54
231
00
03
13
Total
01
76
07
Kolila Joga
20
00
00
13
19
00
05
65
18
00
08
25
16
00
06
60
9
00
00
02
10
00
07
28
11
00
01
96
12
00
05
10
4
00
07
89
2
00
00
20
3
00
08
36
Total
00
51
44
Majra Kadh
207
00
15
18
224
00
14
46
Total
00
29
64
Shahjahapur
32
00
07
20
31
00
04
12
26
00
00
83
Total
00
12
15
Sansedi
407
00
00
31
406
00
01
18
405
00
02
00
404
00
02
38
403
00
02
25
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8025
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
402
00
03
06
401
00
00
08
396
00
01
84
399
00
00
17
398
00
00
32
397
00
01
04
392
00
03
92
391
00
02
62
390
00
03
28
388
00
04
12
389
00
01
96
220
00
06
24
217
00
05
92
Total
00
42
69
Jonayacha Khurd
1297
00
02
88
1296
00
06
52
Total
00
09
40
Gugal Kota
2
00
02
36
Total
00
02
36
Kankar
929
00
05
76
928
00
02
23
874
00
16
28
876
00
05
26
877
00
01
07
872
00
02
96
881
00
06
11
863
00
05
25
862
00
04
80
861
00
06
40
858
00
18
60
352
00
06
05
Total
00
80
77
[F. No. R-25011/1/2016-OR-I (Pt.-II)]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
8026
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 5 अ तूबर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2395
2395
2395
2395.—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds
v/khu tkjh dh xbZ] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk ftldk izdk'ku Hkkjr ds jkti=
la[;k 2783 fnukad 25-11-2016 dk-vk- la[;k 3557¼v½ Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi[k.M ¼II½ esa fd;k x;k gSA bl vf/klwpuk ls
layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V jktLFkku jkT; dh rglhy dksViwryh ftyk t;iqj dh Hkwfe esa] jktLFkku jkT; esa t;iqj ls
gfj;k.kk jkT; esa ikuhir rd isVªksfy;e us¶Fkk ds ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk fØ;kfUor fd,
tk jgs ^^t;iqj ikuhir us¶Fkk ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk** ds lEcU/k esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds
vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds fy, vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh %
vkSj mDr jkti= vf/klwpukvksa dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 02-03-2017 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ FkhA
vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ
ns nh gSA
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mDr Hkwfe
ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gSa] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gSa %
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~
}kjk ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj
vftZr fd;k tk,%
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k
nsrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk;
lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxkA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y
dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeysa ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo:) dksbZ
okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
rglhy % dksViwryh
ftyk % t;iqj
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
ykMk dk ckl
856
00
03
78
855
00
02
50
855/1
00
06
60
853
00
01
65
853/1
00
05
21
851
00
05
10
851/1
00
06
30
763
00
07
44
760
00
01
21
724
00
02
78
759
00
12
48
725
00
12
10
725/1
00
03
67
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8027
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
700
00
23
36
697
00
11
63
692
00
12
25
Total
01
18
06
ghj dh ckoMh
2323
00
09
96
2321
00
04
39
2320
00
04
30
2319
00
05
31
2317
00
05
60
2262
00
05
13
2263
00
04
20
2257
00
07
40
2256
00
00
50
2249
00
04
25
2243/2957
00
08
92
2936/2235
00
11
63
1404
00
04
00
1405
00
04
78
1405/2
00
00
76
1407
00
07
00
1411
00
03
79
1410
00
03
40
1413
00
05
30
1281
00
05
76
1284
00
04
91
1285
00
04
59
1313
00
03
85
1310
00
02
78
1309
00
02
11
1323
00
04
80
1324
00
03
20
1325
00
00
27
8028
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
1327
00
02
72
1326
00
00
50
1334
00
06
67
1336
00
07
40
1336/2693
00
00
20
1218
00
03
92
1219
00
03
71
1213/2524
00
04
75
1179
00
05
78
1168
00
05
27
1168/2623
00
03
44
1169
00
03
68
1161
00
03
54
3036/1161
00
04
98
1160
00
06
89
1142
00
02
75
1141
00
06
92
1140
00
06
33
1133
00
07
15
3065/1133
00
00
25
1134
00
00
56
1135
00
04
25
Total
02
24
55
ikoVk
2352
00
09
61
2339
00
02
94
2335
00
06
08
2331
00
04
96
2329
00
05
18
2328
00
05
65
2320
00
07
51
2319
00
00
37
2201
00
14
34
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8029
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
2175
00
07
86
2174
00
07
47
2160
00
06
90
2160/1
00
06
50
2131
00
10
00
2129/2386
00
11
27
2123
00
02
90
930
00
04
70
929
00
01
86
925
00
08
87
909
00
10
58
906
00
11
16
Total
01
46
71
iz;kxiqjk
1897
00
09
48
1893
00
07
57
1833
00
05
84
1866
00
09
66
1865
00
00
54
1864
00
08
98
1868
00
00
03
1645
00
00
07
1646
00
03
15
1644
00
03
70
1649
00
06
44
1650
00
00
70
1654
00
00
08
1653
1653/1
1653/2
00
07
94
1652
00
00
04
1683
00
07
50
1638
00
00
50
8030
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
1686
00
00
40
1635
00
04
05
1634
00
08
46
1629
00
04
25
1626
00
04
18
1630
00
01
98
1620
00
07
68
1619
00
04
89
1617
00
00
95
Total
01
09
06
fdMkjksn
652
00
08
73
651
00
04
01
649
00
06
35
641
00
05
97
642
00
01
78
522
00
09
44
519
00
03
46
523
00
02
48
528
00
02
24
526
00
04
59
525
00
04
85
524
00
06
65
559
00
03
43
558
00
03
25
567
00
12
80
568
00
02
50
569
00
10
11
575
00
06
84
576
00
08
30
496
00
07
21
497
00
06
11
446
00
05
67
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8031
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
389
00
12
70
388
00
05
50
387
00
07
21
386
00
02
15
366
00
00
14
385
00
04
31
367
00
09
57
362
00
05
77
303
00
04
12
304
00
05
97
305
00
12
04
309
00
08
53
244/3
00
00
59
244/4
00
08
50
243
00
00
31
243/1
00
08
40
240
00
04
97
237/1
00
05
18
236
00
01
85
232
00
07
42
231
00
06
06
229
00
00
54
181
00
08
00
158
00
08
99
150
00
10
82
133
00
00
83
132
00
10
30
131
00
01
00
Total
02
88
54
ikFkjsMh
131
00
00
79
129
00
02
56
128
00
06
23
8032
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
127
00
03
24
124
00
03
11
51
00
07
62
57
00
03
87
56
00
04
03
63
00
03
88
64
00
06
83
54
00
00
88
65
00
00
05
66
00
09
10
69
00
05
33
70
00
05
13
111
00
08
51
110
00
07
60
109
00
10
68
108
00
03
06
209
00
11
73
209/2276
00
04
50
209/2277
00
00
22
210
00
01
13
211
00
14
95
212
00
02
30
Total
01
27
33
j/kqukFkiqjk
324
00
03
59
443
00
07
81
444
00
07
95
445
00
03
61
449
00
00
48
457
00
08
03
456
00
00
18
452
00
01
30
453
00
07
53
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8033
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
454
00
00
10
433
00
17
57
420
00
02
54
422
00
03
07
423
00
02
74
390
00
02
82
391
00
00
47
393
00
01
31
392
00
02
83
398
00
04
34
164
00
02
55
165
00
02
84
163
00
00
08
159
00
01
96
162
00
00
83
160
00
02
20
149
00
03
00
148
00
04
97
124
00
00
67
126
00
01
59
125
00
01
22
118
00
02
70
113
00
02
94
112
00
02
69
107
00
00
88
Total
01
09
39
xkso/kZuiqjk
1651
00
01
96
1566
00
21
82
1567
00
10
60
1565
00
06
52
1564
00
00
02
1563
00
01
90
8034
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
1562
00
01
27
1561
00
21
77
1570
00
01
93
1560
00
11
96
1535
00
04
24
1536
00
01
74
1537
00
02
76
1538/1
00
02
27
1808/1539
00
01
63
1531
00
05
48
1530
00
05
61
1526
00
05
78
1523
00
08
66
1477
00
07
92
1476
00
10
23
1446
00
05
49
1447
00
18
66
1448
00
05
29
1267
00
05
90
1257/1761
00
02
13
1266
00
01
73
1265
00
03
48
1264
00
02
97
1263
00
01
19
1259/1746
00
03
11
1240
00
10
41
1053
00
04
34
1052
00
03
85
1051
00
04
42
1060
00
04
53
1061
00
04
46
1065
00
09
06
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8035
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
1066
00
08
19
Total
02
35
28
daojiqjk
997
00
05
97
996
00
00
51
998
00
06
34
1002
00
07
64
967
00
07
26
962
00
00
04
956
00
07
18
957
00
04
99
958
00
03
19
932/2
00
07
16
929
929/1
00
03
70
928
928/1
00
04
76
925
925/1
00
08
76
830
00
06
69
826
00
03
90
767
00
11
48
764
00
07
16
754
00
04
90
755
00
04
12
758
00
04
16
Total
01
09
91
dY;k.kiqjk [kqnZ
722
00
06
15
723
00
02
80
724
00
02
39
725
00
02
24
729
00
02
21
730
00
04
59
732
00
07
12
8036
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
505
00
02
83
504
00
02
45
503
00
07
08
429
00
01
85
428/1
00
01
93
428/2
00
04
94
434
00
02
69
423
00
02
86
422
00
00
98
436/1
00
02
00
437
00
00
55
439
00
03
64
438
00
04
63
441
00
01
26
442
00
07
07
398
00
08
47
397
00
02
77
369
00
02
36
370
00
05
66
371
00
05
65
373
00
05
32
388
00
04
63
389
00
03
76
386
00
00
33
385
00
08
85
Total
01
22
06
jkgsMk
351
00
00
20
351/1
00
03
00
350
00
04
87
347
00
02
83
341
00
03
35
340
00
02
99
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8037
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
339
00
08
05
338
00
07
35
337
00
08
42
336
00
05
21
209
00
06
23
Total
00
52
50
iwryh
556
00
09
18
558
00
03
93
560
00
03
27
564
00
04
77
565
00
03
34
551
00
02
76
543
00
14
11
528
00
07
62
527
00
06
51
526
00
04
77
516
00
04
58
515
00
05
06
509
00
04
95
462
00
16
71
457
00
05
59
456
00
06
22
454
00
05
87
436
00
05
81
437
00
06
94
438
00
08
59
428
00
04
68
427
00
05
46
245
00
11
97
244
00
04
64
243
00
06
19
230
00
00
16
8038
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
77
00
01
73
76
00
03
66
75
00
04
42
61
00
01
24
62
00
03
50
60
00
05
49
59
00
10
81
32
00
11
90
28
00
15
13
20
00
04
91
21
00
04
45
14
00
05
12
13
00
03
95
12
00
01
64
4
00
00
59
5
00
05
83
Total
02
48
05
lqUnjiqjk
545
00
00
82
546
00
00
54
544
00
04
28
543
00
03
75
541
00
00
86
226
00
04
52
225
00
05
29
220
00
06
12
217
00
05
30
204
00
06
30
Total
00
37
78
cqpsM+k
65
00
04
21
68
00
04
78
70
00
09
27
134
00
04
87
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8039
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
135
00
04
59
273
00
10
35
274
00
06
39
276
00
05
19
277
00
02
94
278
00
03
15
318
00
09
24
317
00
05
17
322
00
06
22
323/1
00
06
60
328
00
08
76
Total
00
91
73
cklMh
501
00
07
18
508
00
05
42
513
00
10
42
520
00
04
90
521
00
04
85
531
00
09
19
535
00
04
00
537
00
04
26
546
00
07
89
545
00
02
60
660
00
02
08
657
00
08
56
656
00
03
23
649
00
03
99
648
00
03
99
647
00
02
12
650
00
00
18
619
00
04
13
606
00
00
97
618
00
01
55
8040
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
607
00
03
63
608
00
03
28
Total
00
98
42
cM+k ckal
323
00
00
06
352
00
03
09
324
00
01
07
351
00
06
59
353
00
01
18
350
00
07
13
349
349/1
00
07
37
356
00
05
76
357
00
05
15
345
00
00
01
Total
00
37
41
jkeflgiqjk
913
00
07
62
Total
00
07
62
[ksM+dh ohjHkku
25
00
04
64
23
00
06
62
22
00
03
28
19
00
02
95
14
00
02
82
13
00
02
54
12
00
08
43
7
00
04
35
41
00
08
40
49
00
00
95
48
00
05
56
51
00
07
22
Total
00
57
76
[kj[ksMh
557
00
05
38
558
00
02
39
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8041
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
556
00
07
57
554
00
06
62
553
00
02
05
644/553
00
02
16
647/553
00
02
14
551
00
04
98
550
00
00
50
550/617
00
04
37
545
00
00
52
548
00
01
87
547
00
04
82
546
00
04
56
423
00
08
84
422
00
07
69
421
00
02
94
405
00
03
66
404
00
05
80
403
00
01
89
637/403
00
04
09
402
00
03
92
401
00
03
60
394/629
00
01
73
344
00
05
75
342
00
00
21
346
00
03
73
347
00
03
20
348
00
01
56
349
00
09
23
333
00
01
97
331
00
04
34
332
00
02
70
316
00
08
46
8042
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
320
00
03
72
321
00
08
00
323
00
01
47
322
00
05
67
310
00
05
04
Total
01
59
14
eksykgsMk
177
00
02
68
176
00
03
42
174
00
07
62
173
00
07
02
172/968
00
11
25
172
00
00
85
Total
00
32
84
'ks[kiqjk
924
00
07
02
922
00
03
03
923
00
01
37
921
00
03
30
Total
00
14
72
lkaxVsMk
905
00
00
11
904
00
05
85
911
00
05
74
912
00
08
41
948
00
09
68
952
00
02
46
953
00
04
21
960
00
09
50
962
00
03
84
963
00
01
64
971
00
03
33
970
00
05
08
969
00
03
59
968
00
02
53
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8043
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
978
00
01
81
665
00
04
39
664
00
04
31
501
00
04
60
508
00
03
90
507
00
01
10
511
00
07
54
638
00
02
04
640
00
00
62
641
00
01
93
642
00
02
62
643
00
02
74
631
00
04
96
630
00
03
80
589
00
00
96
588
00
02
75
537
00
04
08
550
00
08
37
549
00
00
25
546
00
10
32
544
00
07
62
543
00
08
38
189
00
13
02
190
00
05
12
183
00
06
65
181
00
04
90
180
00
04
99
179
00
05
73
177
00
06
76
178
00
05
69
153
00
13
09
151
00
03
07
8044
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
1142
00
07
42
1142/1
00
00
13
1143
00
04
64
1143/1
00
03
90
1147
00
07
86
1148
00
06
16
1149
00
03
42
1150
00
05
25
1158
00
03
22
1170/5
00
05
76
1171
00
04
08
1172
00
08
41
1175/1590
00
07
47
Total
02
91
80
[ksM+dh eqdwV
919
00
05
20
922
00
02
89
923
00
02
91
925
00
03
99
926
00
06
51
927
00
05
79
928
00
06
00
929
00
04
37
930
00
01
36
931
00
04
92
932
00
04
75
944
00
03
13
978
00
03
95
945
00
07
46
948
00
07
01
951
00
07
02
952
00
01
18
880
00
08
11
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8045
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
869
00
06
23
865
00
06
76
851
00
03
28
852
00
02
54
847
00
00
03
853
00
01
16
846
00
07
47
803
00
06
08
807
00
00
32
809
00
04
59
808
00
03
00
813
00
04
40
814
00
16
34
815
00
05
95
816
00
12
85
Total
01
67
55
ifu;kyk
1131
00
02
12
1137
00
05
99
1136
00
07
23
1143
00
06
52
1144
00
06
77
1145
00
08
24
1196
00
02
92
1195
00
02
34
1197
00
07
30
1233
00
04
99
1232
00
05
98
1231
00
07
58
1251
00
06
90
1252
00
05
17
1253
2538/1253
00
09
75
8046
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
1254
00
03
85
1220
00
00
50
1255
00
01
28
1219
00
02
25
1017
00
09
71
1373
00
08
69
1374
00
04
95
1375
00
08
99
1381
00
08
41
1716
00
06
83
1738
00
07
48
1739
00
05
50
1896
00
07
66
1833
00
00
50
1834
00
03
80
1835
00
04
75
1849
00
00
14
1848
00
04
35
1847
00
05
49
1846
00
05
28
1845
00
05
19
1856
00
06
50
1858
00
04
50
1822
00
08
07
1823
00
06
16
Total
02
20
63
eksjnk
363
00
05
63
366
00
05
26
367
00
00
22
394
00
06
17
393
00
03
53
398
00
02
85
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8047
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
392
00
08
51
391
00
08
93
390
00
04
76
389
00
05
86
388
00
03
95
385
00
04
21
468
00
03
88
471
00
10
52
475
00
08
00
516
00
06
79
518
00
04
62
517
00
00
26
519
00
00
35
521
00
05
90
522
00
07
25
192
00
12
67
179
00
07
39
184
00
06
50
183
00
06
88
182
00
02
60
172
00
10
26
145
00
00
85
146
00
08
60
147
00
04
20
142
00
04
00
141
141/1383
00
10
46
139
00
00
40
140
00
04
80
577
00
01
80
132
00
07
56
131
00
07
23
8048
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
605
00
08
49
606
00
01
81
607
00
04
51
608
00
05
02
609
00
08
23
Total
02
31
71
eyiqjk
63
00
00
46
62
00
07
03
61
00
05
33
60
00
04
68
59
00
05
41
55
00
07
49
54
00
06
71
Total
00
37
11
[फा. सं. आर-25011/3/2016-ओआर-I (पाट#)]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2017
S.O. 2395.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, published in the Gazette No. 2783 dated 25.11.2016, S.O.No. 3557(E) Part-II, section 3, sub-section(ii) 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), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the
right of user in the land situated in Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur in Rajasthan State, specified in the schedule
appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum Naphtha from Jaipur
in the State of Rajasthan to Panipat in the State of Haryana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the
"Jaipur Panipat Naphtha Pipeline Project".
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 02.03.2017.
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section(1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his
report of Central Government.
And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land
is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;
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 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 of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the
Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all
encumbrances.
India Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P
& MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter
relating to pipeline.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8049
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Kotputli
District : Jaipur
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
Lada Ka bas
856
00
03
78
855
00
02
50
855/1
00
06
60
853
00
01
65
853/1
00
05
21
851
00
05
10
851/1
00
06
30
763
00
07
44
760
00
01
21
724
00
02
78
759
00
12
48
725
00
12
10
725/1
00
03
67
700
00
23
36
697
00
11
63
692
00
12
25
Total
01
18
06
Heer Ki Bawdi
2323
00
09
96
2321
00
04
39
2320
00
04
30
2319
00
05
31
2317
00
05
60
2262
00
05
13
2263
00
04
20
2257
00
07
40
2256
00
00
50
2249
00
04
25
2243/2957
00
08
92
2936/2235
00
11
63
1404
00
04
00
1405
00
04
78
1405/2
00
00
76
1407
00
07
00
1411
00
03
79
1410
00
03
40
8050
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
1413
00
05
30
1281
00
05
76
1284
00
04
91
1285
00
04
59
1313
00
03
85
1310
00
02
78
1309
00
02
11
1323
00
04
80
1324
00
03
20
1325
00
00
27
1327
00
02
72
1326
00
00
50
1334
00
06
67
1336
00
07
40
1336/2693
00
00
20
1218
00
03
92
1219
00
03
71
1213/2524
00
04
75
1179
00
05
78
1168
00
05
27
1168/2623
00
03
44
1169
00
03
68
1161
00
03
54
3036/1161
00
04
98
1160
00
06
89
1142
00
02
75
1141
00
06
92
1140
00
06
33
1133
00
07
15
3065/1133
00
00
25
1134
00
00
56
1135
00
04
25
Total
02
24
55
Pavta
2352
00
09
61
2339
00
02
94
2335
00
06
08
2331
00
04
96
2329
00
05
18
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8051
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
2328
00
05
65
2320
00
07
51
2319
00
00
37
2201
00
14
34
2175
00
07
86
2174
00
07
47
2160
00
06
90
2160/1
00
06
50
2131
00
10
00
2129/2386
00
11
27
2123
00
02
90
930
00
04
70
929
00
01
86
925
00
08
87
909
00
10
58
906
00
11
16
Total
01
46
71
Pragpura
1897
00
09
48
1893
00
07
57
1833
00
05
84
1866
00
09
66
1865
00
00
54
1864
00
08
98
1868
00
00
03
1645
00
00
07
1646
00
03
15
1644
00
03
70
1649
00
06
44
1650
00
00
70
1654
00
00
08
1653
1653/1
1653/2
00
07
94
1652
00
00
04
1683
00
07
50
1638
00
00
50
1686
00
00
40
1635
00
04
05
8052
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
1634
00
08
46
1629
00
04
25
1626
00
04
18
1630
00
01
98
1620
00
07
68
1619
00
04
89
1617
00
00
95
Total
01
09
06
Kiradodh
652
00
08
73
651
00
04
01
649
00
06
35
641
00
05
97
642
00
01
78
522
00
09
44
519
00
03
46
523
00
02
48
528
00
02
24
526
00
04
59
525
00
04
85
524
00
06
65
559
00
03
43
558
00
03
25
567
00
12
80
568
00
02
50
569
00
10
11
575
00
06
84
576
00
08
30
496
00
07
21
497
00
06
11
446
00
05
67
389
00
12
70
388
00
05
50
387
00
07
21
386
00
02
15
366
00
00
14
385
00
04
31
367
00
09
57
362
00
05
77
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8053
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
303
00
04
12
304
00
05
97
305
00
12
04
309
00
08
53
244/3
00
00
59
244/4
00
08
50
243
00
00
31
243/1
00
08
40
240
00
04
97
237/1
00
05
18
236
00
01
85
232
00
07
42
231
00
06
06
229
00
00
54
181
00
08
00
158
00
08
99
150
00
10
82
133
00
00
83
132
00
10
30
131
00
01
00
Total
02
88
54
Pathredi
131
00
00
79
129
00
02
56
128
00
06
23
127
00
03
24
124
00
03
11
51
00
07
62
57
00
03
87
56
00
04
03
63
00
03
88
64
00
06
83
54
00
00
88
65
00
00
05
66
00
09
10
69
00
05
33
70
00
05
13
111
00
08
51
8054
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
110
00
07
60
109
00
10
68
108
00
03
06
209
00
11
73
209/2276
00
04
50
209/2277
00
00
22
210
00
01
13
211
00
14
95
212
00
02
30
Total
01
27
33
Raghunathpura
324
00
03
59
443
00
07
81
444
00
07
95
445
00
03
61
449
00
00
48
457
00
08
03
456
00
00
18
452
00
01
30
453
00
07
53
454
00
00
10
433
00
17
57
420
00
02
54
422
00
03
07
423
00
02
74
390
00
02
82
391
00
00
47
393
00
01
31
392
00
02
83
398
00
04
34
164
00
02
55
165
00
02
84
163
00
00
08
159
00
01
96
162
00
00
83
160
00
02
20
149
00
03
00
148
00
04
97
124
00
00
67
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8055
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
126
00
01
59
125
00
01
22
118
00
02
70
113
00
02
94
112
00
02
69
107
00
00
88
Total
01
09
39
Gordhanpura
1651
00
01
96
1566
00
21
82
1567
00
10
60
1565
00
06
52
1564
00
00
02
1563
00
01
90
1562
00
01
27
1561
00
21
77
1570
00
01
93
1560
00
11
96
1535
00
04
24
1536
00
01
74
1537
00
02
76
1538/1
00
02
27
1808/1539
00
01
63
1531
00
05
48
1530
00
05
61
1526
00
05
78
1523
00
08
66
1477
00
07
92
1476
00
10
23
1446
00
05
49
1447
00
18
66
1448
00
05
29
1267
00
05
90
1257/1761
00
02
13
1266
00
01
73
1265
00
03
48
1264
00
02
97
1263
00
01
19
8056
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
1259/1746
00
03
11
1240
00
10
41
1053
00
04
34
1052
00
03
85
1051
00
04
42
1060
00
04
53
1061
00
04
46
1065
00
09
06
1066
00
08
19
Total
02
35
28
Kanwarpura
997
00
05
97
996
00
00
51
998
00
06
34
1002
00
07
64
967
00
07
26
962
00
00
04
956
00
07
18
957
00
04
99
958
00
03
19
932/2
00
07
16
929
929/1
00
03
70
928
928/1
00
04
76
925
925/1
00
08
76
830
00
06
69
826
00
03
90
767
00
11
48
764
00
07
16
754
00
04
90
755
00
04
12
758
00
04
16
Total
01
09
91
Kalyanpura Khurd
722
00
06
15
723
00
02
80
724
00
02
39
725
00
02
24
729
00
02
21
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8057
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
730
00
04
59
732
00
07
12
505
00
02
83
504
00
02
45
503
00
07
08
429
00
01
85
428/1
00
01
93
428/2
00
04
94
434
00
02
69
423
00
02
86
422
00
00
98
436/1
00
02
00
437
00
00
55
439
00
03
64
438
00
04
63
441
00
01
26
442
00
07
07
398
00
08
47
397
00
02
77
369
00
02
36
370
00
05
66
371
00
05
65
373
00
05
32
388
00
04
63
389
00
03
76
386
00
00
33
385
00
08
85
Total
01
22
06
Raheda
351
00
00
20
351/1
00
03
00
350
00
04
87
347
00
02
83
341
00
03
35
340
00
02
99
339
00
08
05
338
00
07
35
337
00
08
42
8058
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
336
00
05
21
209
00
06
23
Total
00
52
50
Putli
556
00
09
18
558
00
03
93
560
00
03
27
564
00
04
77
565
00
03
34
551
00
02
76
543
00
14
11
528
00
07
62
527
00
06
51
526
00
04
77
516
00
04
58
515
00
05
06
509
00
04
95
462
00
16
71
457
00
05
59
456
00
06
22
454
00
05
87
436
00
05
81
437
00
06
94
438
00
08
59
428
00
04
68
427
00
05
46
245
00
11
97
244
00
04
64
243
00
06
19
230
00
00
16
77
00
01
73
76
00
03
66
75
00
04
42
61
00
01
24
62
00
03
50
60
00
05
49
59
00
10
81
32
00
11
90
28
00
15
13
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8059
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
20
00
04
91
21
00
04
45
14
00
05
12
13
00
03
95
12
00
01
64
4
00
00
59
5
00
05
83
Total
02
48
05
Sunderpura
545
00
00
82
546
00
00
54
544
00
04
28
543
00
03
75
541
00
00
86
226
00
04
52
225
00
05
29
220
00
06
12
217
00
05
30
204
00
06
30
Total
00
37
78
Buchaheda
65
00
04
21
68
00
04
78
70
00
09
27
134
00
04
87
135
00
04
59
273
00
10
35
274
00
06
39
276
00
05
19
277
00
02
94
278
00
03
15
318
00
09
24
317
00
05
17
322
00
06
22
323/1
00
06
60
328
00
08
76
Total
00
91
73
Basdi
501
00
07
18
508
00
05
42
8060
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
513
00
10
42
520
00
04
90
521
00
04
85
531
00
09
19
535
00
04
00
537
00
04
26
546
00
07
89
545
00
02
60
660
00
02
08
657
00
08
56
656
00
03
23
649
00
03
99
648
00
03
99
647
00
02
12
650
00
00
18
619
00
04
13
606
00
00
97
618
00
01
55
607
00
03
63
608
00
03
28
Total
00
98
42
Bada Bas
323
00
00
06
352
00
03
09
324
00
01
07
351
00
06
59
353
00
01
18
350
00
07
13
349
349/1
00
07
37
356
00
05
76
357
00
05
15
345
00
00
01
Total
00
37
41
Ramsinghpura
913
00
07
62
Total
00
07
62
Khedki Veerbhan
25
00
04
64
23
00
06
62
22
00
03
28
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8061
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
19
00
02
95
14
00
02
82
13
00
02
54
12
00
08
43
7
00
04
35
41
00
08
40
49
00
00
95
48
00
05
56
51
00
07
22
Total
00
57
76
Kharkhadi
557
00
05
38
558
00
02
39
556
00
07
57
554
00
06
62
553
00
02
05
644/553
00
02
16
647/553
00
02
14
551
00
04
98
550
00
00
50
550/617
00
04
37
545
00
00
52
548
00
01
87
547
00
04
82
546
00
04
56
423
00
08
84
422
00
07
69
421
00
02
94
405
00
03
66
404
00
05
80
403
00
01
89
637/403
00
04
09
402
00
03
92
401
00
03
60
394/629
00
01
73
344
00
05
75
342
00
00
21
346
00
03
73
8062
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
347
00
03
20
348
00
01
56
349
00
09
23
333
00
01
97
331
00
04
34
332
00
02
70
316
00
08
46
320
00
03
72
321
00
08
00
323
00
01
47
322
00
05
67
310
00
05
04
Total
01
59
14
Molaheda
177
00
02
68
176
00
03
42
174
00
07
62
173
00
07
02
172/968
00
11
25
172
00
00
85
Total
00
32
84
Shaikhpura
924
00
07
02
922
00
03
03
923
00
01
37
921
00
03
30
Total
00
14
72
Sangteda
905
00
00
11
904
00
05
85
911
00
05
74
912
00
08
41
948
00
09
68
952
00
02
46
953
00
04
21
960
00
09
50
962
00
03
84
963
00
01
64
971
00
03
33
970
00
05
08
969
00
03
59
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8063
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
968
00
02
53
978
00
01
81
665
00
04
39
664
00
04
31
501
00
04
60
508
00
03
90
507
00
01
10
511
00
07
54
638
00
02
04
640
00
00
62
641
00
01
93
642
00
02
62
643
00
02
74
631
00
04
96
630
00
03
80
589
00
00
96
588
00
02
75
537
00
04
08
550
00
08
37
549
00
00
25
546
00
10
32
544
00
07
62
543
00
08
38
189
00
13
02
190
00
05
12
183
00
06
65
181
00
04
90
180
00
04
99
179
00
05
73
177
00
06
76
178
00
05
69
153
00
13
09
151
00
03
07
1142
00
07
42
1142/1
00
00
13
1143
00
04
64
1143/1
00
03
90
8064
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
1147
00
07
86
1148
00
06
16
1149
00
03
42
1150
00
05
25
1158
00
03
22
1170/5
00
05
76
1171
00
04
08
1172
00
08
41
1175/1590
00
07
47
Total
02
91
80
Kehedki Mukut
919
00
05
20
922
00
02
89
923
00
02
91
925
00
03
99
926
00
06
51
927
00
05
79
928
00
06
00
929
00
04
37
930
00
01
36
931
00
04
92
932
00
04
75
944
00
03
13
978
00
03
95
945
00
07
46
948
00
07
01
951
00
07
02
952
00
01
18
880
00
08
11
869
00
06
23
865
00
06
76
851
00
03
28
852
00
02
54
847
00
00
03
853
00
01
16
846
00
07
47
803
00
06
08
807
00
00
32
809
00
04
59
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8065
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
808
00
03
00
813
00
04
40
814
00
16
34
815
00
05
95
816
00
12
85
Total
01
67
55
Paniyala
1131
00
02
12
1137
00
05
99
1136
00
07
23
1143
00
06
52
1144
00
06
77
1145
00
08
24
1196
00
02
92
1195
00
02
34
1197
00
07
30
1233
00
04
99
1232
00
05
98
1231
00
07
58
1251
00
06
90
1252
00
05
17
1253
2538/1253
00
09
75
1254
00
03
85
1220
00
00
50
1255
00
01
28
1219
00
02
25
1017
00
09
71
1373
00
08
69
1374
00
04
95
1375
00
08
99
1381
00
08
41
1716
00
06
83
1738
00
07
48
1739
00
05
50
1896
00
07
66
1833
00
00
50
1834
00
03
80
1835
00
04
75
8066
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
1849
00
00
14
1848
00
04
35
1847
00
05
49
1846
00
05
28
1845
00
05
19
1856
00
06
50
1858
00
04
50
1822
00
08
07
1823
00
06
16
Total
02
20
63
Morda
363
00
05
63
366
00
05
26
367
00
00
22
394
00
06
17
393
00
03
53
398
00
02
85
392
00
08
51
391
00
08
93
390
00
04
76
389
00
05
86
388
00
03
95
385
00
04
21
468
00
03
88
471
00
10
52
475
00
08
00
516
00
06
79
518
00
04
62
517
00
00
26
519
00
00
35
521
00
05
90
522
00
07
25
192
00
12
67
179
00
07
39
184
00
06
50
183
00
06
88
182
00
02
60
172
00
10
26
145
00
00
85
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8067
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
146
00
08
60
147
00
04
20
142
00
04
00
141
141/1383
00
10
46
139
00
00
40
140
00
04
80
577
00
01
80
132
00
07
56
131
00
07
23
605
00
08
49
606
00
01
81
607
00
04
51
608
00
05
02
609
00
08
23
Total
02
31
71
Malpura
63
00
00
46
62
00
07
03
61
00
05
33
60
00
04
68
59
00
05
41
55
00
07
49
54
00
06
71
Total
00
37
11
[F. No. R-25011/3/2016-OR-I (Pt.)]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 5 अ तूबर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2396
2396
2396
2396.—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu
tkjh dh xbZ] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk ftldk izdk'ku Hkkjr ds jkti= la[;k
2787 fnukad 25-11-2016 dk-vk- la[;k 3562¼v½ fnukad 22-11-2016] Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi[k.M ¼ii½ esa fd;k x;k gSA bl
vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V jktLFkku jkT; dh rglhy fojkVuxj ftyk t;iqj dh Hkwfe esa] jktLFkku jkT;
esa t;iqj ls gfj;k.kk jkT; esa ikuhir rd isVªksfy;e us¶Fkk ds ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk
fØ;kfUor fd, tk jgs ^^t;iqj ikuhir us¶Fkk ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk** ds lEcU/k esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy,
mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds fy, vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh %
vkSj mDr jkti= vf/klwpukvksa dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 02-03-2017 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ FkhA
vkSj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ
ns nh gSA
8068
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mDr Hkwfe
ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gSa] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gSa %
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ,rn~
}kjk ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj
vftZr fd;k tk,%
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k
nsrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk;
lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxkA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y
dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbZu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeysa ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo:) dksbZ
okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
rglhy % fojkVuxj
ftyk % t;iqj
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
[kkrksykbZ
970
00
08
98
969
00
07
16
947
00
02
91
946
00
03
08
945
00
02
86
942
00
07
76
929
00
05
08
931
00
03
30
Total
00
41
13
Hkkc:
2141
00
01
04
2142
00
06
57
2137
00
03
40
2136
00
02
01
2133
00
08
52
2126
00
07
76
2128
00
04
47
Total
00
33
77
<k.kh xSldku
679
00
01
75
680
00
05
58
682
00
06
32
691
00
00
04
690
00
05
17
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8069
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
692
00
04
26
693
00
11
05
698
00
05
11
597
00
03
80
596
00
02
29
595
00
01
64
599
00
04
44
600
00
07
36
601
00
06
92
511
00
03
29
512
00
03
23
513
00
03
10
515
00
02
79
516
00
03
71
518
00
00
92
519
00
01
54
520
00
00
59
177
00
03
06
175
00
00
95
173
00
03
12
185
00
01
40
174
00
01
56
170
00
04
17
169
00
01
02
163
00
06
61
164
00
05
54
166
00
01
14
160
00
03
29
159
00
01
90
155
00
01
32
156
00
03
94
157
00
01
78
8070
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
151
00
07
57
146
00
01
60
144
00
01
16
145
00
01
79
115
00
00
93
116
00
07
40
119
00
03
38
120
00
03
17
124
00
06
22
123
00
01
56
Total
01
60
48
ckxkokl vfgjku
1159
00
05
53
1156
00
00
06
1158
00
02
29
1157
00
03
04
1111
00
03
65
1113
00
03
53
1109
00
00
42
1108
00
06
03
1121
00
00
96
1122
00
00
29
1098
00
01
62
1099
00
01
76
1100
00
00
45
1097
00
00
37
1096
00
01
29
1096/2233
00
06
83
1091
00
00
41
1092
00
00
13
1069
00
11
37
1032
00
08
03
1031
00
00
16
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8071
xkao dk uke
[kljk ua-
{ks=Qy
gSDVs;j
,;j
oxZ ehVj
964
00
11
20
966
00
00
82
960
00
00
66
968
00
00
18
958
00
03
30
948
00
03
57
946
00
00
68
944
00
04
10
943
00
02
08
935
00
02
33
936
00
00
58
937
00
04
29
905
00
02
42
905/2213
00
00
80
866
00
01
67
869
00
00
85
867
00
01
94
838/2202
00
00
80
838
00
03
42
839
00
01
10
840
00
02
09
837
00
01
70
841
00
01
31
842
00
01
10
843
00
00
60
830
00
06
29
829
00
01
02
828
00
07
58
823
00
03
32
Total
01
30
02
[फा. सं. आर-25011/3/2016-ओआर-I (पाट#)]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
8072
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2017
S.O. 2396.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, published in the Gazette No. 2787 dated 25.11.2016 S.O. No. 3562(E) dated 22.11.2016 Part-II, section 3, sub-
section(ii) 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), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its
intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Tehsil Viratnagar District Jaipur in Rajasthan State,
specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of
petroleum Naphtha from Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan to Panipat in the State of Haryana by the Indian Oil
Corporation Limited for implementing the "Jaipur Panipat Naphtha Pipeline Project".
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 02.03.2017.
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his
report of Central Government.
And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land
is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;
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 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 of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the
Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all
encumbrances.
India Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P
& MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter
relating to pipeline.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Viratnagar
District : Jaipur
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
Khatolai
970
00
08
98
969
00
07
16
947
00
02
91
946
00
03
08
945
00
02
86
942
00
07
76
929
00
05
08
931
00
03
30
Total
00
41
13
Bhabroo
2141
00
01
04
2142
00
06
57
2137
00
03
40
2136
00
02
01
2133
00
08
52
2126
00
07
76
2128
00
04
47
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8073
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
Total
00
33
77
Dhani Gas Kan
679
00
01
75
680
00
05
58
682
00
06
32
691
00
00
04
690
00
05
17
692
00
04
26
693
00
11
05
698
00
05
11
597
00
03
80
596
00
02
29
595
00
01
64
599
00
04
44
600
00
07
36
601
00
06
92
511
00
03
29
512
00
03
23
513
00
03
10
515
00
02
79
516
00
03
71
518
00
00
92
519
00
01
54
520
00
00
59
177
00
03
06
175
00
00
95
173
00
03
12
185
00
01
40
174
00
01
56
170
00
04
17
169
00
01
02
163
00
06
61
164
00
05
54
166
00
01
14
160
00
03
29
159
00
01
90
155
00
01
32
8074
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
156
00
03
94
157
00
01
78
151
00
07
57
146
00
01
60
144
00
01
16
145
00
01
79
115
00
00
93
116
00
07
40
119
00
03
38
120
00
03
17
124
00
06
22
123
00
01
56
Total
01
60
48
Bagawas Ahiran
1159
00
05
53
1156
00
00
06
1158
00
02
29
1157
00
03
04
1111
00
03
65
1113
00
03
53
1109
00
00
42
1108
00
06
03
1121
00
00
96
1122
00
00
29
1098
00
01
62
1099
00
01
76
1100
00
00
45
1097
00
00
37
1096
00
01
29
1096/2233
00
06
83
1091
00
00
41
1092
00
00
13
1069
00
11
37
1032
00
08
03
1031
00
00
16
964
00
11
20
966
00
00
82
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8075
Name of Village
Khasra No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Meter
960
00
00
66
968
00
00
18
958
00
03
30
948
00
03
57
946
00
00
68
944
00
04
10
943
00
02
08
935
00
02
33
936
00
00
58
937
00
04
29
905
00
02
42
905/2213
00
00
80
866
00
01
67
869
00
00
85
867
00
01
94
838/2202
00
00
80
838
00
03
42
839
00
01
10
840
00
02
09
837
00
01
70
841
00
01
31
842
00
01
10
843
00
00
60
830
00
06
29
829
00
01
02
828
00
07
58
823
00
03
32
Total
01
30
02
[F. No. R-25011/3/2016-OR-I (Pt.)]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 5 अ तूबर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2397
2397
2397
2397.—केीय सरकार, पेोिलयम एवं खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज#न) अिधिनयम,
1962, (1962 का 50), क% धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म तारीख 28 जुलाई , 2016 को भारत के राजप. मे +कािशत ,
भारत सरकार के पैोिलयम और +कृितक गैस मं.लाय क% अिधसूचना संKया का. आ. 2559 (अ) नई दली, 25 जुलाई 2016 म
िनNिलिखत Oप से संशोधन करती है , अथा#त :-
8076
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
उQ अिधसूचना क% अनुसूची म
" =ी िवSनाथ समझदार
डTलु. बी. सी. एस. ( +शासिनक ) अवकाश +ाU
स3म अिधकारी
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप6रेशन िलिमटेड
पारदीप - हिदया- दुगा#पुर एलपीजी पाइपलइन,
पारदीप - हिदया- दुगा#पुर एलपीजी पाइपलइन ऑगमटेशन एवं
पारदीप - हिदया- बरौनी पाइपलइन ऑगमटेशन योजना
डाकघर - दुईया, आदुल - मौरी, मौरीAाम
हावड़ा - 711 302 ( पिYम बंगाल )
=ी अशोक कुमार सरकार
डTलु. बी. सी. एस. ( +शासिनक ) अवकाश +ाU
स3म अिधकारी
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप6रेशन िलिमटेड
पारदीप - हिदया- दुगा#पुर एलपीजी पाइपलइन,
पारदीप - हिदया- दुगा#पुर एलपीजी पाइपलइन ऑगमटेशन एवं
पारदीप - हिदया- बरौनी पाइपलइन ऑगमटेशन योजना
डाकघर - दुईया, आदुल - मौरी, मौरीAाम
हावड़ा - 711 302 ( पिYम बंगाल ) "
शTदZ और अंकZ के 5थान पर
" =ी िवSनाथ समझदार
डTलु. बी. सी. एस. ( +शासिनक ) अवकाश +ाU
स3म अिधकारी
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप6रेशन िलिमटेड
पारदीप - हिदया- दुगा#पुर एलपीजी पाइपलइन,
पारदीप - हिदया- दुगा#पुर एलपीजी पाइपलइन ऑगमटेशन,
पारदीप - हिदया- बरौनी पाइपलइन ऑगमटेशन योजना एवं
18" हिदया बरौनी +ोड ट पाइपलइन प:रयोजना,
डाकघर - दुईया, आदुल - मौरी, मौरीAाम
हावड़ा - 711 302 ( पिYम बंगाल )
=ी अशोक कुमार सरकार
डTलु. बी. सी. एस. ( +शासिनक ) अवकाश +ाU
स3म अिधकारी
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप6रेशन िलिमटेड
पारदीप - हिदया- दुगा#पुर एलपीजी पाइपलइन,
पारदीप - हिदया- दुगा#पुर एलपीजी पाइपलइन ऑगमटेशन,
पारदीप - हिदया- बरौनी पाइपलइन ऑगमटेशन योजना एवं
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8077
18" हिदया बरौनी +ोड ट पाइपलइन प:रयोजना,
डाकघर - दुईया, आदुल - मौरी, मौरीAाम
हावड़ा - 711 302 ( पिYम बंगाल ) "
पढ़ा जाए ।
यह अिधसूचना जारी होने क% तारीख से लागू होगी |
[फा. सं. आर-25011/14/2012-ओआर-I/20748]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2017
S.O. 2397.—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. No 2559 ( E) dated 25 July
2016, published in the Gazette of India on the 28 July, 2016 namely:-
In the Said Notification, for the numbers and words,
" Shri Biswanath Samajder
W.B.C.S. (Exe.) Retd.
Competent Authority
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Paradip - Haldia- Durgapur LPG pipeline,
Augmentation of Paradip- Haldia - Durgapur LPG Pipeline,
Augmentation of Paradip- Haldia- Barauni pipeline,
P.O. Duilya, Andul - Mouri, Mourigram,
Howrah - 711 302 ( West Bengal)
Shri Asoke Kumar Sarkar
W.B.C.S. (Exe.) Retd.
Competent Authority
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Paradip - Haldia- Durgapur LPG pipeline,
Augmentation of Paradip- Haldia - Durgapur LPG Pipeline,
Augmentation of Paradip- Haldia- Barauni pipeline,
P.O. Duilya, Andul - Mouri, Mourigram,
Howrah - 711 302 ( West Bengal)"
the numbers and words
" Shri Biswanath Samajder
W.B.C.S. (Exe.) Retd.
Competent Authority
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)
Shri Asoke Kumar Sarkar
W.B.C.S. (Exe.) Retd.
Competent Authority
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 ,
8078
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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/20748]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 6 अ तूबर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2398
2398
2398
2398.—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu
tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj çkd`frd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 915 ¼v½ rkjh[k 15 ekpZ
2017] tks Hkkjr ds vlk/kkj.k jkti= rkjh[k 21 ekpZ 2017 vkSj la'kks/ku la[;k dk- vk- 2738 ¼v½ rkjh[k 18 vxLr 2017]
tks Hkkjr ds vlk/kkj.k jkti= rkjh[k 22 vxLr 2017] esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa
fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikyuiqj ls oMksnjk ikbiykbu ifj;kstukUrxZr paMhlj+ ls vklkst rd isVªksfy;e inkFk± ifjogu ds fy,
xqtjkr jkT; esa fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk
vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh (
vkSj mDr vlk/kkj.k jkti= vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 19 viSzy 2017 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh (
vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu dsUnzh; ljdkj dks fjiksVZ ns nh gS (
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us] mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds Ik'pkr~] vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mDr Hkwfe
ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS (
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g
?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj
dk vtZu fd;k tk, (
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznRr 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k
nsrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,]
lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxkA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v?;k/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, fgUnqLrku
isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
fo:) dksbZ okn] nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
rkyqdk %ma>k ftyk % esglk.kk jkT; % xqtjkr
daz-
la-
xkWo dk uke
losZ @ Cyksd ua-
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,;j
oxZ eh-
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
dg¨Mk
457@1@iSdh2
00
14
17
457@2iSdh1
1433@iSdh4
00
36
92
1433@2iSdh2
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8079
1435@iSdh1
00
01
76
1435@iSdh2
1434@iSdh2
00
28
66
1434@iSdh3
1448@iSdh1
00
11
11
1448@iSdh3
1449@iSdh1
00
18
02
1452@iSdh1
00
09
27
1453@iSdh2
00
00
40
1489@iSdh1
00
22
87
25@1@iSdh1 ¼ljdkjh & jkLrk½
25@2
00
09
48
25@3
221@1
00
12
33
266@iSdh2
00
11
46
270@iSdh1
00
12
48
332@1
00
07
47
297@1
00
02
54
294@1
00
00
40
449@1
00
07
57
449@1@iSdh1
486@2
486@3
00
00
40
486@4
1430@iSdh 1
00
09
23
1543@ 1
00
16
99
2
mi¢jk
206@iSdh2
00
01
00
207@iSdh1
00
26
99
222@iSdh2
00
19
24
218@2
00
10
12
243@1
00
13
76
243@2
324@iSdh2
00
00
80
8080
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
329@1
00
26
03
305@1iSdh1
305@1iSdh2
305@2
00
10
70
305@2iSdh
305@4
511@1@4
511@1@5
511@1@6
511@1@7
511@iSdh2
511@3iSdh2
511@3iSdh3
511@3iSdh4
00
37
12
511@3iSdh5
511@3iSdh6@iSdh1
511@3iSdh6@iSdh2
511@3iSdh6@iSdh3
511@3iSdh7
511@3iSdh 6
511@4iSdh 1
511@4iSdh2
511@4iSdh3
511@iSdh2
584@1
00
00
40
513@1
00
14
70
517@1
00
12
83
656@iSdh3
00
13
69
656@iSdh4
982@iSdh2
00
07
73
997@iSdh2
00
10
34
999@1
999@2
999@3
999@iSdh2
00
03
92
999@iSdh3
999@3@1
999@4iSdh1
999@4iSdh2
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8081
1036@iSdh1
00
11
74
1049@iSdh2
00
01
95
1068@iSdh1
00
03
22
1069@iSdh2
00
09
37
1072@4
1072@5
00
06
67
1072@6
1063@iSdh1
00
02
14
3
dj.kiqj
450@1
00
14
12
450@2
439@2
00
00
60
439@3
446@2
00
00
50
442@2
00
02
31
667@iSdh2
00
01
96
666@1
666@2iSdh2
00
10
87
666@3iSdh2
661@iSdh1
00
00
40
662@iSdh2
00
00
40
654@iSdh2
00
00
80
652@iSdh2
00
04
76
624@1
00
07
31
623@2
00
01
57
633@1
00
03
68
633@2
580@2@iSdh1
00
14
10
580@2iSdh2
541@1
00
07
45
577@1iSdh1
577@1iSdh2
00
00
40
577@3
544@iSdh2
00
10
51
545@2
00
05
00
559@1iSdh2
00
08
31
557@2@iSdh2
00
07
70
557@1@iSdh2
8082
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4
djyh
210@iSdh2
00
02
88
216@2
00
01
58
223@iSdh2
00
05
98
rkyqdk% foluxj ftyk % esglk.kk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
merk
1686@iSdh1
1686@iSdh3
00
02
73
1686@iSdh4
1686@iSdh5
1680@1
00
01
96
1680@2
1677@iSdh3
00
12
07
1579@iSdh2
00
09
45
1583@iSdh2
00
12
60
1586@1
00
00
40
1557@1
1557@3iSdh1
00
03
78
1557@3iSdh2
1387@2
00
02
77
1385@1
00
08
82
1342@1
00
00
90
1227@iSdh1
00
11
60
1226@1
00
08
53
1225@2
00
07
80
1219@1
00
15
62
475@1@1
00
06
16
475@2
525@1
00
04
00
868@1
00
30
16
868@2c
867@2
00
00
50
867@3
864@1
00
13
48
4536@1
4536@2@1
00
01
00
4536@3
4536@4
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8083
4533@2@1
00
23
47
523@iSdh1
00
04
68
903@4
00
21
13
2
xqatk
1006
00
12
69
686@iSdh2
00
12
09
1693@iSdh2
00
00
50
1694@iSdh1
00
05
94
1351@c
00
06
98
105@iSdh1
00
15
91
390@1iSdh1
00
18
29
390@1iSdh2
390@2
391@iSdh1
00
13
10
1620@iSdh2@iSdh1
00
32
57
1620@iSdh2@iSdh2
1619@1iSdh1
1619@2
00
01
31
1619@2iSdh1
1619@2iSdh2
305@iSdh1
00
08
35
3
Òkyd
1034
00
05
05
rkyqdk% fotkiqj ftyk % esglk.kk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
d¨yoMk
878@1iSdh
878@2
878@3
878@4
878@5
00
51
06
878@6
878@7
878@8
878@9iSdh1
8084
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
878@9iSdh2
878@iSdh1
878@iSdh10
878@iSdh10@iSdh1
878@iSdh11
878@iSdh13
878@13iSdh1
878@iSdh14
878@iSdh17
878@iSdh19
878@iSdh2
878@iSdh3
878@iSdh4
878@iSdh5
878@iSdh6
878@iSdh7
878@iSdh7@iSdh1
878@iSdh8
878@iSdh9
878@iSdh9@iSdh1
825@1
00
01
64
825@3
801@3
801@4
00
30
33
801@7
799@2
00
02
24
656@2
00
06
57
657@1
00
14
12
658@iSdh1
00
11
03
658@iSdh3
652
00
09
97
652@iSdh3
646@3
646@6
00
27
63
646@7
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8085
2
ihyokÃ
761@1
00
04
14
757@iSdh2@iSdh2
00
34
71
616@1
616@3
00
00
70
512@iSdh1
s
512@iSdh2@iSdh1
00
07
81
307@1
00
03
55
307@3
[फा. सं. आर-31015/09/2016-ओआर-II/43883]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 6th October, 2017
S.O. 2398.—Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas S. O. No. 915 (E) Dated 15 March, 2017, 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), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act),
published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette of India dated the 21 March, 2017, and Amendment S. O. No.2738 (E) dated
18 August, 2017, published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette of India dated 22 August, 2017 the Central Government
declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for
the purpose of laying pipeline in the State of Gujarat for transportation of petroleum product from Chandisar to Asoj
under Palanpur Vadodara Pipeline by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.
And whereas copies of the said Extra Ordinary Gazette notification were made available to the public up to
19 April, 2017.
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report
to the Central Government;
And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said
land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;
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 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 for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the
Central Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
free from all encumbrances.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section
10 of the P&MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any
matter relating to the pipeline.
SCHEDULE
TALUKA : UNJHA DISTRICT : MEHSANA STATE : GUJARAT
Sl.
No.
Name of the Village
Survey / Block No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sq.mtr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
KAHODA
457/1/P2
00
14
17
457/2P1
8086
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1433/P4
00
36
92
1433/2P2
1435/P1
00
01
76
1435/P2
1434/P2
00
28
66
1434/P3
1448/P1
00
11
11
1448/P3
1449/P1
00
18
02
1452/P1
00
09
27
1453/P2
00
00
40
1489/P1
00
22
87
25/1/P1(G/L-Road )
25/2
00
09
48
25/3
221/1
00
12
33
266/P2
00
11
46
270/P1
00
12
48
332/1
00
07
47
297/1
00
02
54
294/1
00
00
40
449/1
00
07
57
449/1/P1
486/2
486/3
00
00
40
486/4
1430/P1
00
09
23
1543/1
00
16
99
2
UPERA
206/P2
00
01
00
207/P1
00
26
99
222/P2
00
19
24
218/2
00
10
12
243/1
00
13
76
243/2
324/P2
00
00
80
329/1
00
26
03
305/1P1
305/1P2
305/2
00
10
70
305/2P
305/4
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8087
511/1/4
511/1/5
511/1/6
511/1/7
511/P2
511/3P2
511/3P3
511/3P4
511/3P5
511/3P6/P1
00
37
12
511/3P6/P2
511/3P6/P3
511/3P7
511/3P6
511/4P1
511/4P2
511/4P3
584/1
00
00
40
513/1
00
14
70
517/1
00
12
83
656/P3
00
13
69
656/P4
982/P2
00
07
73
997/P2
00
10
34
999/1
999/2
999/3
999/P2
00
03
92
999/P3
999/3/1
999/4P1
999/4P2
1036/P1
00
11
74
1049/P2
00
01
95
1068/P1
00
03
22
1069/P2
00
09
37
1072/4
1072/5
00
06
67
1072/6
1063/P1
00
02
14
8088
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3
KARANPURA
450/1
00
14
12
450/2
439/2
00
00
60
439/3
446/2
00
00
50
442/2
00
02
31
667/P2
00
01
96
666/1
666/2P2
00
10
87
666/3P2
661/P1
00
00
40
662/P2
00
00
40
654/P2
00
00
80
652/P2
00
04
76
624/1
00
07
31
623/2
00
01
57
633/1
00
03
68
633/2
580/2/P1
00
14
10
580/2P2
541/1
00
07
45
577/1P1
577/1P2
00
00
40
577/3
544/P2
00
10
51
545/2
00
05
00
559/1P2
00
08
31
557/2/P2
00
07
70
557/1/P2
4
KARLI
210/P2
00
02
88
216/2
00
01
58
223/P2
00
05
98
TALUKA : VISNAGAR DISTRICT : MEHSANA STATE : GUJARAT
1
UMATA
1686/P1
1686/P3
00
02
73
1686/P4
1686/P5
1680/1
00
01
96
1680/2
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8089
1677/P3
00
12
07
1579/P2
00
09
45
1583/P2
00
12
60
1586/1
00
00
40
1557/1
1557/3P1
00
03
78
1557/3P2
1387/2
00
02
77
1385/1
00
08
82
1342/1
00
00
90
1227/P1
00
11
60
1226/1
00
08
53
1225/2
00
07
80
1219/1
00
15
62
475/1/1
00
06
16
475/2
525/1
00
04
00
868/1
00
30
16
868/2B
867/2
00
00
50
867/3
864/1
00
13
48
4536/1
4536/2/1
00
01
00
4536/3
4536/4
4533/2/1
00
23
47
523/P1
00
04
68
903/4
00
21
13
2
GUNJA
1006
00
12
69
686/P2
00
12
09
1693/P2
00
00
50
1694/P1
00
05
94
1351/B
00
06
98
105/P1
00
15
91
390/1P1
390/1P2
00
18
29
390/2
8090
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
391/P1
00
13
10
1620/P2/P1
00
32
57
1620/P2/P2
1619/1P1
1619/2
00
01
31
1619/2P1
1619/2P2
305/P1
00
08
35
3
BHALAK
1034
00
05
05
TALUKA : VIJAPUR DISTRICT : MEHSANA STATE : GUJARAT
1
KOLVADA
878/1P
878/2
878/3
878/4
878/5
878/6
878/7
878/8
878/9P1
878/9P2
878/P1
878/P10
00
51
06
878/P10/P1
878/P11
878/P13
878/13P1
878/P14
878/P17
878/P19
878/P2
878/P3
878/P4
878/P5
878/P6
878/P7
878/P7/P1
878/P8
878/P9
878/P9/P1
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8091
825/1
00
01
64
825/3
801/3
801/4
00
30
33
801/7
799/2
00
02
24
656/2
00
06
57
657/1
00
14
12
658/P1
00
11
03
658/P3
652
00
09
97
652/P3
646/3
646/6
00
27
63
646/7
2
PILVAI
761/1
00
04
14
757/P2/P2
00
34
71
616/1
00
00
70
616/3
512/P1
00
07
81
512/P2/P1
307/1
00
03
55
307/3
[F. No. R-31015/09/2016-OR-II/43883]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 9 अ तूबर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2399
2399
2399
2399.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko’;d izrhr gksrk gS fd ikyuiqj ls oMksnjk
¼xqtjkr½ rd isVªksfy;e inkFkZ ifjogu ds fy, fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs’ku fyfeVsM }kjk ,d ikbiykbu fcNkbZ
tkuh pkfg, ;
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh
Hkwfe esa tks bl ls mikc} vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS] ftlesa mDr ikbiykbu fcNk,s tkus dk izLrko gS] mi;ksx ds
vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk, ;
vr: vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr ’kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ml
Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk’k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS ;
8092
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks bl vf/klwpuk ls
;qDr Hkkjr ds jkti= dh izfr;kWa lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj Hkwfe ds uhps
ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds fy, mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds lEcU/k esa Jh ,u- Mh- tkyk] l{ke
izkf/kdkjh] ikyuiqj&oMksnjk ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk] igyh eafty] fxfjjkt vikVZesaVZ] ua-52] Jhuxj l¨lk;Vh] mehZ
pkjjkLrk] fnus’k fey j¨M] vd¨Vk] oMksnjk fiu & 390020 dks fyf[kr #i esa vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
Rkyqdk % oMksnjk
ftyk % oMksnjk
jkT; % xqtjkr
daz-
la-
xkWo dk uke
losZ @ Cyksd ua-
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,;j
oxZ eh-
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
vkl®t
934
00
11
96
936
00
21
83
938
00
28
96
939@1
00
02
00
939@2
191@v
00
05
50
191@c
[फा. सं. आर-31015/11/2016-ओआर-II/46987]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 9th October, 2017
S.O. 2399.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for
the transportation of Petroleum Product from Palanpur to Vadodara (Gujarat), a Pipeline should be laid by Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited.
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is
necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is
described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and
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 the 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 N. D. Zala,
Competent Authority, Palanpur Vadodara Pipeline Project, 1st Floor, Giriraj Apartment, No. 52, Shrinagar Society,
Urmi Char Rasta, Dinesh Mill Road, Akota, Vadodara (Gujarat) -390020
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8093
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No.
Name of the Village
Survey / Block No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sq.mtr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
ASOJ
934
00
11
96
936
00
21
83
938
00
28
96
939/1
00
02
00
939/2
191/A
00
05
50
191/B
[F. No. R-31015/11/2016-OR-II/46987]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 9 अ तूबर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2400
2400
2400
2400.—dsUæh; ljdkj us iSVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼ Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼ 1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls bles blds i'pkr mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k ½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds
v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e ,oa xSl eU=ky; dh vf/klwpuk laŒ dkŒ vkŒ 910¼v½ rkjh[k 23 ekpZ
2015 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= laŒ 681 rkjh[k 01 vçSy 2015 dks çdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh ] }kjk ml vf/klwpuk es layXu
vuqlwph es fofufnZ"V Hkwfe es dsjy jkT; es Hkkjr iSVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM dh dksfPp fjQkujh ls lsye rd
æfor iSVªksfy;e xSl ds ifjogu ds fy, dksfPp dks;EcVwj lsye ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds ek/;e ls dksfPp lsye
ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM }kjk ,d ikbiykbu fcNkus ds ç;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu ds vius vk'k;
dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh;
vkSj mä jkti= vf/klwpuk dh çfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 13 vxLr 2015 ls 3 flrEcj 2015 ds chp miyC/k djk
nh xbZ Fkh ;
vkSj l{ke çkf/kdkjh us] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu ] dsaæh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns
nh gS ;
vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj us ] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr] vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij dh mä Hkwfe
ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS ]mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS ;
vr% vc dsanh; ljdkj] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g
?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph es fofufnZ"V Hkwfe es ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk
vtZu fd;k tkrk gS ;
vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e fd /kkjk 6 fd mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k
nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe es mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds çdk'ku fd rkjh[k dks dsaæh; ljdkj es fufgr gksus fd ctk,]
lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä ] dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM es fufgr gksxkA
vuqlwph
jkT;: dsjy
ftyk: ,sjukdqye
rkyqd: vkyqok
uke xzke
losZ uEcj
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,fj;k
oxZehVj
djqdqfV ¼[kaM la 2 ½
221@18
0
04
72
222@7
0
02
19
222@8
0
03
66
8094
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
222@9
0
00
19
222@10
0
00
21
222@11
0
00
48
223@12
0
10
42
224@2
0
06
91
224@3
0
08
05
239@10
0
06
34
239@11
0
06
97
240@3
0
05
22
240@7
0
05
52
240@8
0
00
92
240@9
0
03
77
240@10
0
05
51
245@10
0
08
85
245@14
0
06
21
246@4
0
12
59
246@9
0
06
55
246@11
0
05
00
247@6
0
05
33
247@7
0
03
11
247@8
0
02
08
358@1
0
03
08
358@3
0
07
51
358@4
0
00
99
358@5
0
02
66
358@6
0
01
24
358@7
0
00
70
358@8
0
01
97
358@9
0
02
34
358@10
0
01
59
360@2
0
02
97
360@3
0
04
01
360@5
0
08
46
360@8
0
00
06
362@4
0
03
54
362@5
0
03
98
362@6
0
03
68
363@4
0
00
27
363@5
0
01
03
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8095
363@6
0
03
05
363@7
0
02
79
363@9
0
01
02
363@10
0
05
98
363@11
0
02
79
363@12
0
03
50
365@8
0
02
58
365@9
0
03
91
365@10
0
07
42
365@16
0
02
80
366@3
0
03
90
366@4
0
02
66
366@5
0
03
88
366@6
0
00
23
366@7
0
01
76
366@8
0
00
53
366@9
0
05
26
366@12
0
05
96
391@1
0
04
42
402@2
0
16
79
402@3
0
02
78
402@4
0
14
76
403@2
0
00
07
404@1
0
02
76
404@2
0
03
05
404@3
0
02
56
404@4
0
03
76
404@5
0
01
30
404@8
0
07
78
djqdqfV ¼[kaM la 3 ½
17@4
0
02
91
35@2
0
44
74
42@1
0
04
89
42@2
0
00
30
42@5
0
06
15
42@6
0
06
40
54@1
0
08
17
54@2
0
03
94
54@3
0
02
31
54@8
0
05
18
8096
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
55@9
0
05
57
55@18
0
01
78
55@19
0
01
73
55@20
0
01
58
55@21
0
01
54
59@3
0
06
66
60@1
0
06
34
[फा. सं. आर-31015/02/2015-ओआर-II/37114]
पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 9th October, 2017
S.O. 2400.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas SO No. 910 (E), dated 23/03/2015 published in Govt. of India Gazette No. 681 dated 01/04/2015 issued
under sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the Land)
Act, 1962 (Central Act 50 of 1962) (herein after referred to as said Act), the Central Government declared its intention
to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying
pipeline for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Kochi Refinery of Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Limited in the State of Kerala to Salem in the State of Tamilnadu.
AND, Whereas, the copies of the said Gazette notifications have been made available to the public between
13/08/2015 to 03/09/2015.
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 said land specified in the schedule appended should be acquired.
Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, the
Central Government hereby declared that the Right of User in the Land specified in the schedule appended to this
notification are hereby acquired.
AND, further, in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (4) of the section 6 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said lands shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government
vest free from all encumbrances in the Kochi – Salem Pipeline Private Limited.
SCHEDULE
STATE : KERALA
DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM
TALUK : ALUVA
VILLAGE
SURVEY NUMBERS
AREA
HECTARES
ARES
SQ . MTRS
KARUKUTTY
221/18
0
04
72
(BLOCK. No. 2)
222/7
0
02
19
222/8
0
03
66
222/9
0
00
19
222/10
0
00
21
222/11
0
00
48
223/12
0
10
42
224/2
0
06
91
224/3
0
08
05
239/10
0
06
34
239/11
0
06
97
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8097
240/3
0
05
22
240/7
0
05
52
240/8
0
00
92
240/9
0
03
77
240/10
0
05
51
245/10
0
08
85
245/14
0
06
21
246/4
0
12
59
246/9
0
06
55
246/11
0
05
00
247/6
0
05
33
247/7
0
03
11
247/8
0
02
08
358/1
0
03
08
358/3
0
07
51
358/4
0
00
99
358/5
0
02
66
358/6
0
01
24
358/7
0
00
70
358/8
0
01
97
358/9
0
02
34
358/10
0
01
59
360/2
0
02
97
360/3
0
04
01
360/5
0
08
46
360/8
0
00
06
362/4
0
03
54
362/5
0
03
98
362/6
0
03
68
363/4
0
00
27
363/5
0
01
03
363/6
0
03
05
363/7
0
02
79
363/9
0
01
02
363/10
0
05
98
363/11
0
02
79
363/12
0
03
50
365/8
0
02
58
365/9
0
03
91
365/10
0
07
42
365/16
0
02
80
8098
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
366/3
0
03
90
366/4
0
02
66
366/5
0
03
88
366/6
0
00
23
366/7
0
01
76
366/8
0
00
53
366/9
0
05
26
366/12
0
05
96
391/1
0
04
42
402/2
0
16
79
402/3
0
02
78
402/4
0
14
76
403/2
0
00
07
404/1
0
02
76
404/2
0
03
05
404/3
0
02
56
404/4
0
03
76
404/5
0
01
30
404/8
0
07
78
KARUKUTTY
17/4
0
02
91
(BLOCK. No. 3)
35/2
0
44
74
42/1
0
04
89
42/2
0
00
30
42/5
0
06
15
42/6
0
06
40
54/1
0
08
17
54/2
0
03
94
54/3
0
02
31
54/8
0
05
18
55/9
0
05
57
55/18
0
01
78
55/19
0
01
73
55/20
0
01
58
55/21
0
01
54
59/3
0
06
66
60/1
0
06
34
[F. No. R-31015/02/2015-OR-II/37114]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8099
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 27 flrEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2401-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd]
iksesxzsusV jk"Vªh; vuqla/ku dsanz] lksykiqj o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ua- II, eqacbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@55
vkiQ 2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@54@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsUæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2017
S.O. 2401.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT 2/55 of 2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. II, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to the Director, National Research Centre for Pomegranate, Solapur and Others and their workmen, which were
received by the Central Government on 03.08.2017.
[No. L-42012/54/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/55 of 2014
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
(1)
NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE FOR POMEGRANATE
The Director
National Research Centre for Pomegranate
Near Solapur University
Solapur (MS).
(2)
M/s. SWADESHI SECURITIES
M/s. Swadeshi Securities
96, Salgar Vasti
Dongaon Road
Solapur (MS).
AND
THEIR WORKMAN
Shri Ranjit Nagnath Kamble
R/o. Kedgaon
Tal. North Solapur
Solapur, Maharashtra 413 002.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER NO.1
:
Mr. S.P. Chinchwadkar, Advocate.
FOR THE EMPLOYER NO.2
:
No appearance.
FOR THE WORKMAN
:
No appearance.
Mumbai, dated the 11th July, 2017.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-42012/54/2014-IR (DU),
dated 23.07.2014 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
8100
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Ranjit Nahnath Kamble for asking regularisation as an employee
of National Research Centre for Pomegranate, Solapur is legal and justified? If yes to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2.
After receipt of the Reference, notices were served on both the parties. Matter was adjourned on several
occasions for filing Statement of Claim by second party/ Workman. Second party/Workman neither appeared before
this Tribunal nor filed Statement of claim. Without Statement of claim, the Reference cannot be decided on merits and
the same deserves to be dismissed. Hence, I pass the following order:
ORDER
Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
Dated : 11.07.2017
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2402-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
fHkykbZ bLikr la;a=k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 89@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
03-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&26012@1@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th October, 2017
S.O. 2402.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 89/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Bhilai Steel Plant and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
03.10.2017.
[No. L-26012/1/2009-IR (M]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/89/2009
The President,
Metal Mines Workers Union,
Dallirajhara,
Durg (CG)
…Workman/Union
Versus
Assistant General Manager (P Mines & ES),
Bhilai Steel Plant,
Bhilai, Durg (CG)
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 6th day of July, 2017
1.
As per letter dated 22-10-2009 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
26012/1/2009-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the management of Bhilai Steel Plant in their Dalli Manual Mines, Dallirajhara is justified in not
changing the date of birth of Shri Data Ram P.No.872523 from 28-11-1955 to 15-7-1950 as demanded by
President of Metal Mines Workers Union? To what relief the workman is entitled?”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8101
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party President of Metal Mines workers Union
submitted statement of claim on behalf of workman Data Ram. Case of Union is Shri Data Ram is engaged in mine of
2nd party through contractor on 15-7-74. After departmentalization, respondent management posted workman at DPR
vide order dated 31-5-96. Workman was working as Attendant at Dalli Manual Mines. Earlier contractor had orally
engaged workman as labour on 15-7-74. The contractor had not called any documents about his educational
qualifications. Workman was appointed as DPR unskilled on regular basis on 31-5-96 and his seniority had also
been considered. At the time of absorbing workman as DPR, management did not call any documents relating to his
qualification. Workman also not submitted any documents to the management. Appointment order was issued on 31-5-
96. Then workman came to know that his date of birth was wrongly recorded 15-7-50 instead of 28-11-55. That he
passed 8th standard examination in 1970, his date of birth was mentioned 28-11-55 in marksheet as well as transfer
certificate.
3.
It is submitted that workman had immediately approached management for correction of his date of birth in
1997. He submitted middle school transfer certificate along with his representation. Management had replied that on
the basis of medical examination form filled by workman prior to departmentalization, his date of birth was mentioned
15-7-50. Said date of birth mentioned in Form B despite workman had not submitted any document to contractor. That
workman had filled medical examination form. His signature was obtained on blank form. Workman was not aware on
what basis contractor has mentioned his date of birth 15-7-1950. Workman submits that management did not give him
opportunity of hearing or prove that his date of birth was 15-7-50. Management not corrected his date of birth workman
was victimized without his fault. Procedure adopted by management amounts to victimization violating natural justice.
On such ground, workman prays for correction of his date of birth.
4.
2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. It is contented that as per terms of reference his
date of birth is 28-11-55. The statement of claim submitted by Ist party is not as per terms of reference. Workman
further submits that workman was engaged as contractual labour on 15-7-74 prior to departmentalization on 15-3-96.
Workman declared his date of birth to 18-4-50. In all the documents Form B Register, service book- same date of birth
was recorded. Age of workman would be only 14 years. It is reiterated as per his date of birth, notice of superannuation
was received on 2-2-2010 and workman superannuated on 1-6-10. That Assistant General Manager (P-Mines and ES)
impleaded as party to the reference. No such post is existing. However Written statement is submitted on behalf of
Bhilai Steel Plant. It is reiterated that Data Ram was contractual labour, he was departmentalized as DPR on 31-5-96.
Workman himself has declared his date of birth 15-7-50 at the time of departmentalization. 2nd party submits that it is
responsibility of workman to prove that date of birth at time of appointment as contract labour and departmentalization.
That Union raised dispute on behalf of workman at fag end of service on 11-4-08 is not tenable in view of circular
dated 2-8-74. 2nd party prays claim of workman be rejected.
5.
Workman filed rejoinder reiterating contentions in statement of claim.
6.
Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
(i) Whether the management of Bhilai Steel Plant in
their Dalli Manual Mines, Dallirajhara is justified in
not changing the date of birth of Shri Data Ram
P.No.872523 from 28-11-1955 to 15-7-1950 as
demanded by President of Metal Mines Workers
Union?
In Affirmative
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
REASONS
7.
The term of reference pertains to legality of not correct date of birth of Data Ram. Claim of workman is denied.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of claim that his correct date of birth is
28-10-55. He was illegally retired on 31-7-200. In his cross-examination, workman says dispute is raised for correction
of date of birth. Before working in Bhilai Steel Plant, he was not working at other place. He was working in mine from
1974 while he was working in Dalli Mines, his signature were obtained on blank paper. He not submitted document
about his date of birth during 1974 to 1996, he was working under contractor. In 1996, after departmentalization, he
received offer letter. At that time, he noticed his date of birth was incorrect. In 1997, he submitted application for his
correction of date of birth. That he produced copy of the application. That dispute was raised about his date of birth
before 2009. On medical examination, his signature was obtained, form was already filled. Document is marked
8102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Exhibit M-1. Form was filled by him and handed over to clerk Mr. Paltu. In his re-examination, document Exhibit W-2
is admitted in evidence. In his further cross, workman says before working in Bhilai Steel Plant, he was working under
contractor till 1995. He joined Bhilai Steel Plant on 31-5-96. He received Exhibit W-1,2 in 1970. Contractor did not ask
him those documents therefore he did not give those documents therefore he did not give those documents to contractor
or even Bhilai Steel Plant.
8.
Management’s witness Mahadeo filed affidavit of evidence supporting whole contentions in Written statement
filed by management. That the date of birth of workman 8-4-50 was declared by workman himself. Workman had
obtained licence on 16-2-72. His age was only 14 years. Documents Exhibit M-1 to M-11 are admitted from evidence
of management’s witness. In his cross, witness says he was appointed by management. His date of birth was recorded
by management in Form B. that Form B remains in custody of Mines Manager. Any document was not called from
management about his date of birth. After receiving Form B from contractor, any document about date of birth was not
called from workman. After workman was appointed as regular employee in 1996, documents about his date of birth
was called from him. Management’s witness claims ignorance that the date of birth of workman in Form B register was
written by oral information or on the basis of documents. Management’s witness claims ignorance whether in 1997,
workman submitted application for correction of date of birth along with School Leaving Certificate of 5th standard. He
admits that service record of workman, his date of birth was shown as per Form B Register. Management’s witness
denied copy of Form B Register shown to him. Management’s witness claims ignorance whether information in M-5
was not personally filed by workman.
9.
Workman has not proved application for correction of his date of birth in Exhibit W-1 Marksheet and transfer
certificate W-2 date of birth of workman is recorded 28-11-55. Workman had not submitted those documents either to
contractor or management of Bhilai Steel Plant.
10.
Document Exhibit M-3 Medical examination form, Service Book M-4, Attestation Form M-5 date of birth of
workman is recorded 15-7-50. PF Form M-1, M-7 vehicle advance form and M-9, M-11 notice of superannuation, M-
12 Form B. Documents produced by management Exhibit M-1 is Circular No. 87. Para 2(1) provides- Wherever the
date of birth/ age of employees has already been established on the basis of any valid documents once produced such as
Educational Certificate, Gram Panchayat Certificate or Service Certificate from the previous employer etc. the same
should not be changed at all. Para-2 provides that personal data, service book, attestation form, application for
admission to CPF etc. duly signed by the employee and accepted by the management, the same should be treated as
final and no more change be allowed at a subsequent stage. Exhibit M-2 is circular dated 10-4-04- Para 3(ii) provides-
No change in the date of birth shall be allowed if such requests are received from employees during the last 5 years of
their service for any reason whatsoever. In Exhibit M-4,5 & 7, date of birth of workman is recorded 18-4-50. In Exhibit
M-8, his date of birth is recorded 18-4-50. There is no cogent evidence that workman requested correction of his date of
birth in 1997or till his retirement. Exhibit M-11 is judgment by Civil Court in case of Kailash Nath Yadav which is not
useful for deciding dispute between parties. Considering evidence and the circulars produced by management, claim of
workman for correction of date of birth is not justified. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Affirmative.
11.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Bhilai Steel Plant is justified in not changing the date of birth of Shri
Data Ram P.No.872523 from 28-11-1955 to 15-7-1950 is legal and proper.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2403-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ eSlwj
feujYl fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] csaxywj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 11@2007] 41@2007] 70@2007] 71@2007] 155@2007 ,oa
39@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29012@04@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la- ,y&29012@50@2006&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la- ,y&29012@06@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la- ,y&29012@07@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)]
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8103
la- ,y&29012@43@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)]
la- ,y&29012@41@2008&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th October, 2017
S.O. 2403.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2007, 41/2007, 70/2007, 71/2007, 155/2007 & 39/2008) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on 03.10.2017.
[No. L-29012/04/2007-IR (M),
No. L-29012/50/2006-IR (M),
No. L-29012/06/2007-IR (M),
No. L-29012/07/2007-IR (M),
No. L-29012/43/2007-IR (M),
No. L-29012/41/2008-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 22nd September, 2017
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
COMMON AWARD
(i) C.R. No. 11/2007
I Party
II Party
Sh. Ayyanna,
The Managing Director,
S/o Late Gaude Gowda,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Govindkere Village, Oblapura Post,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk,
Bangalore-560001
Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/04/2007-IR(M) dated 27.02.2007 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the services of Sh.
Ayyanna w.e.f. 27.06.1998? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
(ii) C.R. No. 41/2007
I Party
II Party
Sh. H. Rangegowda,
The Managing Director,
S/o Sh. Huche Gowda,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
B Hoshalli Bageshwara Post,
No. 39, M G Road,
Arasikere Taluk, Gandasi Hobli,
Bangalore-560001
Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No. L-29012/50/2006-IR(M) dated 06.03.2007 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has
made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
8104
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the service of
Sh. H. Rangegowda with retrospective effect from 19.09.1998? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
(iii) C.R. No. 70/2007
I Party
II Party
Smt. Lakkamma,
The Managing Director,
W/o Javaraiah,,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Jamboor Village & Post,
No. 39, M G Road,
Nuggehalli Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk,
Bangalore-560001
Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No. L-29012/06/2007-IR(M) dated 16.05.2007 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has
made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the services/premature
superannuating of the services of Smt. Lakkamma w.e.f. 16.04.1998? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
(iv) C.R. No. 71/2007
I Party
II Party
Smt. Lakshmamma,
The Managing Director,
W/o Late M.H. Thimmegowda,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Muddanahalli Village, Jamboor Post,
No. 39, M G Road,
Nuggehalli Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk,
Bangalore-560001
Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No. L-29012/07/2007-IR(M) dated 16.05.2007 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has
made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the services/premature
superannuating of the services of Smt. Lakshmamma w.e.f. 22.05.1998? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled to?”
(v) C.R. No. 155/2007
I Party
II Party
Sh. Shankaregowda,
The Managing Director,
S/o Late Siddappa,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Holegarehalli Village & Post,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bagur Hobli, Chanarayapatna Taluk,
Bangalore-560001
Hassan District.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/43/2007-IR(M) dated 03.12.2007 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has
made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the termination of Sh. Shankaregowda by the management of Mysore Minerals Limited w.e.f.
25.05.1998 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
(vi) C.R. No. 39/2008
I Party
II Party
Smt. Nagamma,
The Managing Director,
S/o Late Jakkan Gowda,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Rajapur Village & Post,
No. 39, M G Road,
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8105
Sandur Taluk, Bellary Dist.
Bangalore-560001
Karnataka
The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/41/2008-IR(M) dated 02.04.2008 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has
made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of M/s Mysore Minerals Ltd. Bangalore in removal from service w.e.f 22.06.1998 in
respect of Smt. Nagamma, W/o Late Jakkan Gowda, is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
Appearance :
I party
:
M/s K.T. Govinde Gowda & Sh. C.G. Dileep Gowda, Advocates
II party
:
Mr. T. K. Vedamurthy & Mr. L. Venkatarama Reddy, Advocates
1. Brief details mentioned in the claim statement by I Party are as follows:-
(i)
In CR No. 11/2007, the I Party submits that on 02.05.1978, he has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Byrapura Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District,
as a Watchman. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished his age as 29 years i.e., his date of birth
being 02.05.1949. Further, the II Party, Byrapura Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I
Party to do his work w.e.f 27.06.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D. before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), and the Central Government have referred the Reference in
CR No.11/2007.
(ii)
In CR No. 41/2007, the I Party submits that during the year 1989, he has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Bageshwara Mines, Bageshwara Village and Post, Gandasi Hobli,
Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District, as a Mazdoor. At the time of joining, the I Party has furnished his date
of birth as 01.08.1966. Further, the II Party, Bageshwara Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I
Party to do his work w.e.f 19.09.1998. The I Party approached the II Party Officials of the Mines and
they stated that, they have no intimation for starting the work in the mines and there is no definite period
for continuation of Lay Off. The I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the Central Government have referred the Reference in CR No.
41/2007.
(iii)
In CR No. 70/2007, the I Party submits that on 17.05.1981, she has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Jamboor Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District,
as a Mining Worker. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished her age as 28 years i.e., her date of
birth being 17.05.1953. Further, the II Party, Jamboor Chromite Mines Officials, orally refused to allow
the I Party to do her work w.e.f 16.04.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the Central Government have referred the
Reference in CR No. 70/2007.
(iv)
In CR No. 71/2007, the I Party submits that on 12.07.1980, she has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Jamboor Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District,
as a Mining Worker. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished her age as 24 years i.e., her date of
birth being 12.07.1956. Further, the II Party, Jamboor Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party
to do her work w.e.f 22.05.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the Central Government have referred the
Reference in CR No. 71/2007.
(v)
In CR No. 155/2007, the I Party submits that on 01.07.1986, he has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Haladahalli Chromite Mines, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District, as a
Mining worker. At the time of joining the I Party has furnished his age as 30 years i.e., his date of birth
being 23.12.1956. Further, the II Party, Haladahalli Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to
do his work w.e.f. 25.05.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the Central Government have referred the Reference in CR No.
155/2007.
(vi) In CR No. 39/2008, the I Party submits that on 02.03.1982, she has joined the service of the II Party
management at its Mining Unit viz., Hublagandi Iron Ore Mines and later on transferred to
8106
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Thimmappanagudi Iron Ore Mines, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District, as a Mining worker. At the time of
joining the I Party has furnished her age as 36 years i.e., her date of birth being 15.01.1946. Further, the
II Party, Thimmappanagudi Iron Ore Mines Officials, orally refused to allow the I Party to do her work
w.e.f. 22.06.1998. The I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and
Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the Central Government have referred the Reference in CR No.
39/2008.
2.
Brief Common details mentioned on behalf of I Party are as follows:-
The date of birth of the I Party, in fact, has been entered in all the statutory records like EPF, B-register and
Service records, etc. The I Party is entitled to continue in the service with the II Party up to the reaching of the age of
superannuation i.e., 58 years in the II Party Organization. The II Party by way of an eye wash conducted the so called
illegal Medical Examination for the purpose of removing the I Party from the service before reaching the age of
superannuation. Further, the II Party has terminated the I Party on the plea that the I Party has reached the
superannuation age of 58 years as per the so called illegal Medical Examination. After illegal termination, the I Party
has faced unemployment problem and financial hardship, not only by I Party but also the family members of I Party.
The entire family has depended only upon the earnings of the I Party in the II Party Organization. The II
Party/Management similarly, has, prematurely, retired the co-workers of the I Party on the ground of Medical unfitness
and also as per the age certificate, issued by the Medical Officer. The said co-workers have challenged their pre-
matured retirement and the age certification, before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, viz.,
(i)
Writ Petition No. 5615/2001 between Smt. K.Dundamma Vs MML, and the same Management of II
Party challenged the same in Writ Appeal No. 3460/2001 C/W W.No. 3459/2001. The said Appeal has
been rejected on 12.06.2002 confirming the single Judge order dated 29.03.2001. In view of the said
decision the Management, reinstated the above mentioned pre-matured retired employee with payment of
back wages, and with continuity of service thereon.
(ii)
Writ Petition No. 26101/2001, C/W W.P. Nos.23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001 filed by Sri V.C.
Range Gowda and 8 others Vs MML, and the same have been allowed on 01.06.2006.
On account of the illegal payment and other lapses, in the Management of II Party, it has to face administrative
problems. The II Party adopted its own tactics, ways and means for terminating the Mining Workers in short cut
methods and also, in an illegal and irregular manner by adopting anti-labour and un-fair labour practice and victimized
the I Party and other co-workers by removing them enmasse by resorting to the so-called Medical Examination during
the year 1998 in illegal and irregular manner, without disclosing the true fact, to the I Party and also without notifying
the so-called Medical Examination, i.e., not by a Doctor of a Rank of Assistant Civil Surgeon as defined in Rule 29-C
of the Mines Rules 1995. Hence, the so-called Medical Examination conducted by the II Party is illegal and irregular,
and the same is not having any legal sanctity and not sustainable in law, as it is violative of Rule 29-C. The I Party has
repeatedly requested the officials of the II Party to provide the work to I Party till reaching the age of superannuation
i.e., 58 years. But all the efforts made by I Party to persuade the II Party to take the I Party, on duty, proved in vain
because of hostile and vindictive attitude on the part of the II Party. The II Party has no right to refuse the employment
to the I Party or to remove the name of the I Party from the muster rolls in the unilateral manner, without following the
due process of Law. The II Party used the above illegal, imaginary, hypothetical and unscientific Medical report, as its
tool for unilaterally deciding the age of I Party and other workers. The II Party unilaterally refused employment to the I
Party before the age of superannuation even though the I Party is hale and healthy and entitled to work, up to the
reaching of the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years. The II Party has not followed the Mandatory provision of Section
25 F, G, H & N of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Rules 78 and 79 thereon, and the action of the Management is,
therefore, void-ab-initio as laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case Sundaramani Vs State Bank of
India, Santhosh Gupta Vs State Bank of Patiala, Rober D’Souza Vs Southern Railway, K.S.R.T.C. Bangalore Vs
Boraiaha and others and also the same is violative of the Provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The II Party has
un-necessarily created hardship to the I Party by not providing employment. The II Party Management is not justified
in retrenching the services of the I Party in the summary manner without following the principals of Natural justice and
fair play. Further, apart from the violation of various provisions of the I.D. Act as stated above, the II Party violated its
own Certified Standing Orders. The II Party acted contrary to its own Certified Standing Orders/Service Rules for
effecting the prematured, superannuation by way of illegal termination. The I Party submits that, the II Party failed to
issue 3 months prior notice or tendered payment of 3 months salary to the I Party before termination of service of the I
Party under Rule 24. The I Party belongs to socially and economically weaker section and also, the I Party is the Rural
based worker and used to work in Mines, which is in a remote place of the village and the I Party is also an illiterate
worker belonging to Economically weaker section & not a matching party to fight against the II Party for the injustice
done by the II Party. The I Party is facing financial hardship and mental agony due to stoppage of his/her monthly
earnings in the II Party organization and also, due to illegal termination. Also, the I Party is not able to maintain
himself and the family with day to day, food and basic needs. The I Party has faced the financial hardship to reach the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8107
Labour Department like Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli from I Party’s place, for
raising the dispute and also, to set right the I Party’s grievances. The Officials of the II Party/Management have taken
undue advantage of I Party’s poverty, illiteracy, economic weakness and social weakness. Ultimately with great
hardship, mental agony and with the help of well wishers, the I Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli. The I Party is entitled for back wages, continuity of service and
other consequential benefits from the date of refusal of employment. The II Party has violated the Provisions of I.D.
Act as well as its own Certified Standing Orders/Service Rules as stated above. Under the I.D. Act there is no
limitation prescribed for raising the dispute and the Article 137 of Schedule to the limitation Act is not applicable to
proceedings under I.D. Act. This point is repeatedly decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High
Courts of various states namely,
(i)
LLJ-II-2001-pg788-792 [SC], Sapan kumar Pandit Vs U.P. State Electricity Board and others.
(ii)
LLJ-I-1999-pg 1260-1265 [SC], Ajaib Singh Vs Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-processing Service
Society.
(iii) LLJ-II-1999-pg-482-483[SC], Mahavir Singh Vs U.P. State Electricity Board and others.
(iv) LLJ-I-2003-pg 412-414 [MP], Ramadhar Tiwari Vs Union of India and others.
(v)
LLJ-I-1994-pg 468-471 [All], U.P. State Spinning Mills Co. Vs State of U.P & Others.
(vi) LLJ-II-2003-pg 1143-1145[Ori], Management of Aska Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Vs State of
Orissa.
(vii) LLJ-I-2002-pg-204-206 [Mad], E.E. Construction Division 2, Mannarpuram, Trichy and Another Vs
M.Gajapathy and Another
(viii) LLJ-I-2002-pg-1079-1081[Del], Mangal Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.1, Delhi and
Another
(ix) LLJ-I-2002-pg-1129-1132[Bom], Haribhau S/o. Gaman Waghchaure Vs State of Maharastra and
Another.
Therefore, the I Party prays this Court to pass an award by holding that the action of the II Party Management is
not justified in terminating the services of I Party, namely, prematured superannuation of the services of the I Party and
also to direct the II Party to reinstate the I Party, with continuity of service, with payment of Full back wages and other
consequential benefits from the date of termination till providing employment/reaching the age of superannuation as
per the date of birth details registered in the Statutory records like B-register and EPF records and Service records
maintained by the II Party and EPF Authorities and to pay the interest at the rate of 18% from the said due date and
also, up to the date of payment and further award of cost of the present proceedings, in the interest of justice and also,
equity.
3.
Brief Common submissions made on behalf of II Party in the counter statement are as follows:-
The II Party states that, the dispute raised by the I Party is time barred and belated, and filed after the lapse of
time. Further, the I Party has waited for the result in the case filed by the co-workers, who approached Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka. The success of co-worker of I Party in W.P. No. 5615/2001 and 26101/2001 before Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka inspired the I Party to file this dispute after the lapse of time. Hence, the conduct of the I Party
does not deserve any relief at the hands of this Tribunal. Further, the II Party states that, the dispute raised by the I
Party is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, since the claim made by the I Party is stale and time
barred. The II Party has conducted the Medical Examination and the said expert team have examined the I Party and
found that, the I Party is not capable to work in a mine, in view of the fact that, the I Party has already reached the age
of more than 58 years, as on the date of Medical Examination. Further, as per the decision of Management, I Party has
been terminated and also given opportunity to prefer an appeal before Appellate Medical Board within 30 days, if the I
Party is aggrieved by the said Medical Report. The I Party, who has amicably received the terminal benefits from the II
Party, has no right to raise present dispute, after the lapse of time, at the instigation, for the wrongful gain. It is relevant
to submit that, the dispute referred by Government of India is itself not maintainable in law. Hence, there is no
Industrial Dispute existed or is apprehended. The Medical Examination has been conducted in Scientific Manner on
thorough investigation. The I Party is not entitled for any benefits as per law. The I Party is happily working
elsewhere since from the date of termination. Further, the statement of the I Party that, the II Party officials failed to
consider the reasonable request of the I Party is totally incorrect and false. In fact, the I Party is employed elsewhere
and earning salary. The I Party has filed this dispute only for wrongful gain, at the instigation of well-wishers, as
admitted by the I Party in the claim statement. The II Party has not acted illegally or arbitrarily. Therefore, the II Party
prays to dismiss the dispute filed by the I Party with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
8108
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
Already this Court has passed common award dated 27.08.2014. Thereafter, in Writ Petition the Hon’ble
Karnataka High Court, has passed the following Order:- “The matter is remanded to the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal Cum- Labour Court for fresh adjudication of the dispute. The Tribunal shall decide the dispute after giving
notice to all the parties and pass an award in accordance with law. All the contentions of both the parties are left open.”
Further, notices have been sent for both sides and additional evidence recorded and arguments heard and after the
careful perusal and appreciation of material records in the proper perspective the present Common Award is passed.
5.
The crucial points/issues that arise for consideration in the present matter are as follows:-
(i)
Whether the present claim has to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches as submitted by the II
Party?
(ii) Whether the I Party has to prefer an appeal as against the medical certificate issued by the medical officer
as submitted by the II Party in the counter statement?
(iii) Whether after the receipt of the terminal benefits, the I Party cannot raise any dispute in the present case?
(iv) Whether the I Party is entitled to get the relief as claimed in the claim statement, after the careful
appreciation of the evidences adduced and documents produced by both the parties, in proper
perspective?
6.
Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 1:-
The I Party has clearly stated in the claim statement itself, and also in the deposition that, I Party belongs to
socially and economically weaker section, and the I Party is the rural based worker, and used to work in mines which is
in a remote place of a village and I Party is also an illiterate worker, belonging to economically weaker section, and not
a fit person, to fight against the II Party and the I Party has repeatedly requested the officials of II Party mines for
permitting the I Party to work and also, due to I Party’s acquit poverty, I Party has faced huge financial hardship to
reach the Labour Department like Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli from I Party’s
place, for raising the dispute and also, to set right I Party’s grievances and in such circumstances, only the delay has
happened for raising the dispute and the delay caused is not intentional and deliberate one, but only due to the above
mentioned various reasons. The II Party has not specifically denied the above mentioned statements made by the I
Party in the claim statement. Further, the I Party has also stated that, the officials of the II Party/Management have
taken undue advantage of I Party’s poverty, illiteracy, economic and social weakness by way of refusing employment,
and also, after knowing fully, that the I Party is most incapable in approaching the Labour Authority for redressal of the
I Party’s grievances. The said details are also not specifically disputed by the II Party. Further, I Party has clearly
stated in the claim statement that ultimately with great hardship, mental agony and with the help of well wishers, the I
Party has raised the I.D before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer (C), Hubli and the present
central reference has been made to this Court by the Government of India, as per the above mentioned details. The said
submissions made on behalf of I Party are also not specifically disputed on behalf of the II Party. On the other hand,
the Assistant Manager of II Party, namely MW-1, has categorically admitted in his evidence that, I Party is an illiterate
person. Further, the I Party has filed copies of Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001 dated 29.03.2001, W.A. No.
3460/01 c/w W.A. No. 3459/01 dated 12.06.2002 and W.P. No. 26101/01 c/w W.P. Nos. 23798/01, 23797/01 &
23794/01 dated 01.06.2006, as exhibits marked herein below and also MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that the
success of the said co-workers in the said Writ Petition and Writ Appeal has inspired the I Party to file the present
reference. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is seen that, the I Party is justified in claiming the legal
and statutory rights and benefits, due to the unlawful and illegal ways and means followed by the II Party to terminate
the service of I Party, without following the principles of natural justice.
7.
Further, the I Party has pointed out, in the claim statement, itself that, there is no limitation prescribed for
raising the dispute and Article 137 Schedule of the Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable to the present case. Further,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dated 03.12.2010, Mr. Hon’ble Justice. P. Sathasivam and Mr. Hon’ble Justice
B.S. Chauhan, in Civil Appeal No. 10231/2010, between Kuldeep Singh Vs G.M, Instrument Design Development and
Facilities Centre and Another, it is clearly held as follows:- “The Labour Court dismissed the claim of the appellant on
ground of delay (of five and half years) in raising the dispute. The High Court confirmed the Labour Court’s award.
Hence this present appeal. The impugned award was set aside with costs of Rs. 50,000 to be paid by respondent-
management to appellant.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, there is no time limit prescribed for reference
under section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In the present case also, on a careful perusal of above said
peculiar facts and vital circumstances and also due to the fact that, the I Party is facing poverty, illiteracy, economic
and social weakness and also in the light of the above mentioned various citations, mentioned in the claim statement, it
is seen that, the II Party is not justified in raising the objection to the effect that present reference is not maintainable,
due to the delay and latches. The I Party in the claim statement as well as in the evidence has pointed out that, the I
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8109
Party is an illiterate and the I Party has repeatedly requested the II Party officials to provide employment in the II Party
Organisation. Further, the MW-1, namely the Assistant Manager of the II Party has also admitted that I Party is an
illiterate person and it is true to suggest that in the mines there is no shelter from sun and rain and it is true to suggest
that there is no health unit and it is true to suggest that, the working conditions as per the mining act have not been
provided at the mines. In such circumstances, it is crystal clear that, II Party has not provided the basic and statutory
and also necessary facilities, for the proper working conditions and also, for the welfare of the I Party workers.
8.
Further, Industrial Dispute Act is a social legislation brought into existence after various Industrial Revolutions,
stage by stage and the said act has been enacted to provide minimum and basic facilities for workman and protect
his/her employment. Further, II Party cannot take the super technical submission of delay and latches as a protective
shield to cover up their lapses and violation of laws. Further, it is the well settled law that, I Party can initiate
proceedings for the alleged illegal termination of services of workman en-mass by the II Party. Further, for the
effective implementation of the Labour enactment and protecting the interest of workman only the Government have
created a Labour Department. Further, it is very pertinent to point out that, the present reference is made by the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour with the above mentioned schedule. Hence, this Court is bound to pass
appropriate award in accordance with law based upon the facts and circumstances of the present matter. The II
Party/Management cannot take super technical and hyper technical measures, so as to avoid payment of the legitimate
amounts, payable to the I Party/Workman. Further, it is clearly held in the judgment reported in 1995-II-LLJ 835,
between H.S. Vasantsenaiah Vs The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C & Anothers, as follows:- “Delay in approaching
the Labour Court- No ground to deny back wages and other consequential benefits.”
9.
Further, it is held in the judgment reported in 1999-LLJ-II-pg 482-483 [SC], between Mahavir Singh Vs U.P.
State Electricity Board and others, as follows:- “Delay in raising dispute – Labour Court finding termination of
workman’s service illegal-reference could not be rejected.” Also in the judgment reported in 2003-LLJ-I-pg 412-414
[MP], between Ramadhar Tiwari Vs Union of India and others, it is clearly held as follows:- “No limitation laid down
for raising dispute under statute - dispute raised after about 5 years - not one which could be refused on ground of
delay.” Again, in the judgment reported in 1994-LLJ-I-pg 468-471 [All], between U.P. State Spinning Mills Co. Vs
State of U.P and others, it is specifically held as follows:- “Lapse of 11 years between raising a dispute and making
reference does not lose the character of industrial dispute.” Further, in the judgment reported in 2002-LLJ-I-pg 1079-
1081 [Del], between Mangal Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.1, Delhi and another, it is clearly held
as follows:- “Relief under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 not to be denied to workman merely on ground of delay.”
Also, in the judgment reported in 2002-LLJ-I-pg 1129-1132 [Bom], between Haribhau S/o. Gaman Waghchaure Vs
State of Maharashtra and another, it is clearly held as follows:- “Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947- If plea of delay be raised, employer to show real prejudice caused by delay and not rely
on it as mere hypothetical defense.” In the present case also, considering the above mentioned socio-economic
conditions, poverty and illiteracy, of the I Party, it is found that, the appropriate relief, in accordance with law has to be
granted to the workman and the same cannot be denied, as per the mere hypothetical defence taken by the II Party
regarding the delay and in fact, the II Party has not established the real prejudice caused by the said delay.
10.
Further, in the judgment in the case of Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs State of U.P., (1979) 2 SCC 88, by V.
Kishna Iyer. J, it is pointed out as follows:- “Industrial Jurisprudence does not brook nice nuances and torturesome
technicalities to stand in the way of just solutions reached in a rough and ready manner. Grim and grimy life-situations
have no time for the finer manners of elegant jurisprudence.” Thus, the process of industrial adjudication is an onerous
task being guided by the constitutional mandates and aiming at settlement of the industrial dispute on a fair and just
basis, tested on the touchstone of social and economic justice. When an industrial dispute is raised, it is a commotion
to be pacified by dispensing justice. In such adjudication, not just the right to equality and other Constitutional
guarantees, but the aims and ideals of the Constitution enter into the consideration. It is the duty of the Courts to apply
directive principles in interpreting the Constitution and the laws. Also, it is reported in Lloyds Bank Ltd Vs. Bundy,
(1974) 3 All ER 757 that Lord Denning first clearly enunciated his theory of "inequality of bargaining power". His
Lordship began his discussion on this part of the case by stating (at page 763): "There are cases in our books in which
the courts will set aside a contract, or a transfer of property, when the parties have not met on equal terms, when the
one is so strong in bargaining power and the other so weak that, as a matter of common fairness, it is not right that the
strong should be allowed to push the weak to the wall.” In the present case also, it is seen that, the II Party has clearly
admitted in the counter statement that, the success of the co-workers of I Party in W.P. No. 5615/2001 dated
29.03.2001, W.A. No. 3460/01 c/w W.A. No. 3459/01 dated 12.06.2002 and W.P. No. 26101/01 c/w W.P. Nos.
23798/01, 23797/01 & 23794/01 dated 01.06.2006, has inspired the I Party to file the present reference and in fact, the I
Party has specifically pointed out in the claim statement and evidence that, the I Party is an illiterate person and the I
Party is facing poverty, economic and social weakness and the I Party has repeatedly requested the II Party officials to
provide employment to the I Party and Assistant Manager of II Party MW-1 has also admitted in his evidence that, I
Party is an illiterate person and also the II Party has not established the real prejudice caused to the II Party, by the said
delay.
8110
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11.
Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in W.P. No. 9974/2006 (L-TER) dated 07.01.2015, (Before
Mr. Hon’ble Chief Justice D.H. Waghela and Mr. Hon’ble Justice Budihal. R. B), in the case of The Management of
National Aerospace Laboratories Vs Engineering & General Workers Union and the Managing Directors, it is
particularly held as follows:- “The jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal, therefore, is expansive and creative and not
restricted to only enforcing or interpreting the contract of service or the extant legal provisions and it is not-fettered by
the limitations of contracts and can even involve extension of existing agreement of the making of a new one, or in
general, creation of new obligations or modification of old ones.” In the present case also, for the above mentioned
facts and circumstances it is found that, I Party is entitled to get appropriate relief, in accordance with law, and the II
Party is not justified in raising the objection on the ground of delay and latches, as per the said jurisdiction of the
present Court. Thus, the point is answered in favour of the I Party.
12.
Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 2:-
The MW-1 the Assistant Manger of II Party, who has given evidence on behalf of II Party has admitted that, it is
true to suggest that, there is no health unit and the working conditions as per the mining act have not been provided at
the Mines. The said admission is also clinchingly established the various above mentioned allegation made as against
the II Party. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true to suggest that, as per the provisions of the mining act there
should be a qualified doctor to attend the I Party workers at the mining site. If it is so, then there is no need for the II
Party to get the doctor from Hatti Gold Mines and to subject the I Party to medical examination. On that ground only, I
Party has clearly stated in the claim statement that, as per the illegal medical certificate, the social and economic
weaker section person of the I Party has been refused to continue the work by the II Party.
13.
Further, MW-1 namely, the Assistant Manager of II Party/Management has admitted that the II Party company
has suffered loss of 21 crores due to mis-management and it is also true to suggest that, due to the said mis-
management, the financial crisis has occurred and it is true to suggest, having suffered the said loss the management
thought of reducing the number of workers and it is true to suggest that, the Management ordered for medical
examination of all the mining workers. For the said reasons only, I Party has categorically stated in the claim statement
that, II Party has suffered huge loss due to mis-management and in the way of reducing the number of workers they
have conducted illegal medical examination and terminated several workers including I Party. Further, MW-1 admitted
that, to examine the workers doctors, have come from Hatti Gold Mines Ltd. However, he has admitted, that he does
not know the names and qualifications of those doctors.
14.
Further, in the counter statement the II Party has stated that, the I Party has been given opportunity to prefer an
appeal before Appellate Medical Board within 30 days, if the I Party is aggrieved by the Medical Report. However, the
MW-1 has categorically admitted that, it is true to suggest that, they have not produced the Medical certificate issued
by the Doctor who has examined the I Party health condition and it is also true to suggest that, the Medical From ‘O’ is
in English language. At the same time, the MW-1 has admitted that, I Party workers are illiterate workers. Hence, it is
found that the said medical certificate has not been issued in the language known to the workers/I Party and also not
understood by the I Party and in fact, the said medical certificate is also not submitted to this Court by the II Party. In
such circumstances, it is too much on the part of II Party to content that I Party has got the appeal remedy as per the
medical certificate and the workers have not availed the appeal remedy and hence they cannot file the present case
before this Court. Further, MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that, the Doctors have not conducted the medical
examination in his presence and he does not know in what respect the I Party has been found unfit to continue in
service and he has to verify in the office whether copy of notice issued to I Party after medical examination or
acknowledgement regarding service of notice on the I Party is available or not. So, the MW-1 has not produced the
relevant records to establish that, after medical examination, proper record has been issued to I Party to appeal before
30 days. On the other hand, MW-1 has categorically admitted that, II Party has not produced the Medical certificate
issued by the Doctor who has examined the I Party. Above all, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true to suggest that, I
Party has not been issued with charge sheet and no enquiry has been conducted before the termination of his service.
The said categorical admission of MW-1 shows that, II Party has not terminated the I Party as per the principles of
natural justice.
15.
Further, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true to suggest that as per the clause 18 and 24 any termination has to be
followed by enquiry along with 3 months notice pay. However, MW-1has admitted that, I Party has not been issued
with charge sheet and also, enquiry has been conducted. Hence, it is crystal clear that, II Party has not terminated the I
Party in accordance with law. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, termination order has not been attached with copy of
Medical Certificate pertaining to I Party. Furthermore, MW-1 has admitted that, he does not know in what respect the
Medical Officer opined that, the I Party is being medically unfit. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, it is true that, II
Party has not taken any permission from Labour Ministry or Labour Secretary under the provisions of I.D. Act for
terminating services of several employees on the basis of medical grounds. Further, MW-1 has specifically admitted in
his evidence that, it is true to suggest that I Party is the illiterate person and it is true to suggest that company has not
furnished to the I Party the Kannada Version/translation of Medical Certificate which is in English and the company
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8111
has enhanced the age of employees to 60 years w.e.f. 17.07.2008. In the light of the above mentioned facts and
circumstances it is found that, the II Party is not justified in submitting that, the I Party has to prefer only the appeal as
against the medical certificate issued by the medical officer. Thus, the point/issue is answered as against the II Party.
16.
Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 3:- The I Party has stated
in the claim statement that, he is entitled to work till attending the age of superannuation and the I Party’s actual date of
birth is registered in EPF, B-register and Service records, etc and suddenly, the II Party has refused to provide
employment to the I Party, as per the so-called illegal medical examination and the co-workers have challenged there
pre-matured retirements and age certification before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, viz.,
(i)
Writ Petition No. 5615/2001 between Smt. K.Dundamma Vs MML, and the same Management of II
Party challenged the same in Writ Appeal No. 3460/2001 C/W W.No. 3459/2001. The said Appeal has
been rejected on 12.06.2002 confirming the single Judge order dated 29.03.2001. In view of the said
decision the Management reinstated the above mentioned pre-matured retired employee with payment of
back wages, with continuity of service thereon.
(ii)
Writ Petition No. 26101/2001,C/W W.P. Nos. 23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001 filed by Sri V.C.
Range Gowda and 8 others Vs MML, and the same has been allowed on 01.06.2006. The MW-1, the
Assistant Manager of II Party has also admitted the said details, in his evidence. Further, the I Party has
specifically pointed out that, on account of administrative problems faced by the II Party, the II Party
adopted its own tactics, ways and means for terminating the Mining Workers in short cut methods and
also, in an illegal and irregular manner by adopting anti-labour and un-fair labour practice and victimized
the I Party and other co-workers by removing them enmasse by resorting to so-called Medical
Examination during the year 1998 in illegal and irregular manner, without disclosing the true fact, to the I
Party and also without notifying the so-called Medical Report i.e., not by a Doctor of a Rank of Assistant
Civil Surgeon as defined in Rule 29-C of the Mines Rules 1995 and hence, the so-called Medical
Examination conducted by the II Party is illegal and irregular, and the same is not having any legal
sanctity and not sustainable in law as it is violative of Rule 29-C. The MW-1, Assistant Manger of II
Party has candidly admitted in his evidence that, due to mis-management, the II Party has suffered
administrative problems, and hence, the II Party has decided to terminate the services of the I Party
workers.
17.
Further, it is specifically pointed out by the I Party that, II Party has no right to refuse the employment to the I
Party without following the due process of Law and the II Party used the illegal, imaginary, hypothetical and
unscientific Medical report as its tool for unilaterally deciding the age of I Party and other workers even though the
correct age is mentioned in the EPF, B-register and Service records, and I Party is hale and healthy and entitled to work
up to the age of superannuation. In the evidence also, I Party has stated the said details mentioned in the claim
statement. Further, in the cross examination, I Party has clearly pointed out that, it is not true to suggest that, as per the
request made by the union the II Party subjected the I Party to medical check up and found the I Party unfit to continue
in service. In the additional evidence also, the I Party has pointed out that, it is not true to suggest that as on
termination, all amounts due to I Party have been received and the I Party has filed the present case, without any
justification. Further, the II Party has also not produced any relevant records, to establish that, the II Party has paid all
the amounts due to I Party as on the date of termination. Further, it is observed in the judgment reported in 1984-I-LLJ
388(SC) as follows:- “Acceptance of retirement benefits – Acceptance of retirement benefits by the workmen
concerned – Whether precluded from raising Industrial Disputes Challenging Orders of retirement. On the materials
placed by the management, held, neither a case of acquiescence nor a case of waiver on the part of workmen was made
out – Held, the workmen were entitled to wages for the period between the dates of retirement and the dates of their
reaching the age of 58 years.” Also, in the judgment reported in 1997-II-LLJ 228(SC) it is held as follows:- “There is
no statutory estoppels in favour of the Officer.” Further, it is the settled law that, there is no estoppel as against the
statutory rights/benefits, which the I Party/workman is entitled to get under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and the II Party has also not established that, the action has been taken by the II Party as against the I Party,
as per the principles of natural justice and also, as per the procedure and practice to be followed in accordance with
law. In the light of the above mentioned reasons, facts and circumstances it is found that, the II Party is not justified in
submitting that, after the receipt of the terminal benefits the I Party cannot raise any dispute in the present case and
thus, the point/issue is answered as against the II Party.
18. Analysis, Discussion and Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 4:-
The I Party has categorically stated that, due to mis-management the II Party has suffered a loss and hence, the
II Party has found its own tactics, ways and means for terminating the mines workers in short cut methods and also in
an illegal and irregular manner by adopting anti-labour and un-fair labour practice and victimized the I Party and other
co-workers by removing them enmasse by resorting to so-called Medical Examination during the year 1998 in illegal
8112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and irregular manner. Further, MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that the II Party has entrusted the work to private
party in spite of availability of technical persons and machinery in the year 1995-1996 and hence, the II Party company
has suffered a loss of about Rs. 21 crores and it is also true to suggest that, due to said mis-management the financial
crisis occurred and also it is true to suggest that, having suffered the said loss the management thought of reducing the
number of workers. Hence, it is clear that, the MW-1 of II Party has also admitted the said submissions made by the I
Party in the claim statement. Further, MW-1 has admitted that, he cannot right now give the date, month and year of
notice served to I Party and it is true to suggest that, I Party has not been issued with charged sheet and no enquiry has
been conducted before the termination of the I Party. Further, MW-1, admitted that, it is true to suggest that as per the
clause 18 and 24 any termination has to be followed by enquiry along with 3 months notice pay. However, MW-1 has
clearly admitted that 3 months notice pay has not been paid to the I Party by the II Party.
19.
Further, MW-1 has admitted in his evidence that, it is true to suggest that, there is Statutory Report, B Register
and Provident Fund Register. Further, I Party has categorically stated that, the date of birth has been entered in the
Statutory Report, B Register and Provident Fund Register and the II Party without any valid reasons pre-maturedly
terminated the service of the I Party. Further, the date of birth of I Party mentioned in the claim statement is the same
as mentioned in the employees register, which is marked as Ex M-1. Also, the Circular relating to, enhancing the
superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years to the workers of II Party, is applicable only to persons who are in
employment as on 17.07.2008. Further, MW-1 has clearly admitted that, it is true to suggest that, as per Clause 18.3 of
CDPR rules, the changes in the date of birth, as entered in the company record, can only effected on a judgment of a
competent Court and except on a judgment of a Court, the date of birth once recorded, will not be changed at the
request of the Officer/Employee under any circumstances. For that reason only, I Party has clearly stated that, the II
Party has terminated the service of I Party pre-maturedly without any valid reasons. Further, the act of the II Party,
certainly, is not proper and legal and also, no valid reasons have been furnished by the II Party for not producing the
medical certificate issued to the I Party by the II Party and no valid reason has been furnished by the II Party, as to what
prevented the II Party in not following the principles of natural justice and also for not producing the material records,
though they are very important records, to prove the aforesaid details mentioned in the counter statement filed on
behalf of II Party. Further, on the careful perusal of material records mentioned in the Exhibits list, it is seen that, II
Party has refused to provide work to the I Party without following the due process of law. Further, it is found that,
there is discrimination and also violation of fundamental right caused to the I Party and it is not proper and also, not
legal to give forceful retirement to I Party, by the II Party, without following the due process of law.
20.
Further, it is seen that, the II Party has not terminated the service of the I Party as per the Principles of
Preponderance of Probability. Further, no injustice can be caused by the II Party to the I Party and I Party cannot be
victimized due to the actions of the II Party without any valid reasons. Further, it is relevant to mention that, the I
Party/workman has been punished by II Party without adopting the procedure known under law. Further, the
underlying aim and object of adjudication of an Industrial Dispute is, in effect, dispensation of social and economic
justice and translating fundamental rights as well as directive principles into some tangible relief. The ultimate object
is to see that industrial disputes are settled by industrial adjudication on principles of fair play and justice. Further, the
awarding of reinstatement does not amount to automatic conferment of back wages as held in 2009 (4) LLJ 667 (SC)
Malla C.N. Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir & others. Further, it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of
APSRTC Vs B.S. David Pal, reported in 2006 (2) SCC 282, that the entitlement of back wages is not automatic on
reinstatement. Awarding of back wages, depend upon other factors and circumstances. The I Party has pointed out in
the claim statement that the I Party has been thrown out of employment and is facing hardship. In the affidavit also, the
I Party has stated that with no financial income the I Party is facing great hardship. However, the claim of the
workman that, the I Party is entitled for the full back wages, cannot be considered, having regard to fact that the I Party
has not performed any work for II Party from 1998 to the date of superannuation, for the several years, and also, in
order to balance the interest of both the parties, by adopting the balancing test or balancing process in the proper
manner, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the facts and situation of the present case, 50% back wages and
other consequential benefits only can be granted to the I Party. In the claim statement, the I Party has claimed interest,
however the I Party has not enlightened the fact that the I Party is entitled to get interest also as prayed for in the claim
statement by adducing relevant evidence and appropriate records. Hence, it is found that, the I Party is not entitled to
get interest amount for the above mentioned factual reasons and also legal grounds.
21.
Further, in the judgment reported in 2010-I-LLJ-861(SC), in C.A. No. 2874/2009, dated 28.04.2009, (Before
Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu), in the case of Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs
Rajendra, it is held as follows:- “Back Wages – Entitlement for full back wages – Depends upon facts and
circumstances of each case – Employee reinstated in service – Question of termination or reinstatement not in dispute –
Employee only entitled to 50% back wages.” Also, in the judgment reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 240, in C.A.
No. 5425/2008, dated 02.09.2008, (Before Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Mr. Justice Aftab Alam), in the case of
M.P. Electricity Board & Ors Vs Maiku Prasad, it is held as follows:- “Industrial Dispute Act (14/1947), Sch. 2, Item 6
– Back wages – Curtailment – Respondents’ service terminated for unauthorised absence – Termination set aside by
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8113
Labour Court – Direction for reinstatement and payment of full back wages passed – Considering long period between
termination and reinstatement for which respondent has not worked – Back wages reduced to 50%.” Further, in the
judgment reported in 2010-I-LLJ-861(SC), in C.A. No. 2874/2009, dated 28.04.2009, (Before Mr. Justice Tarun
Chatterjee and Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu), in the case of Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs Rajendra, it is held as
follows:- “Back Wages – Not to be granted mechanically, upon termination of service being held illegal- Service of
workman terminated in 1987 – Labour Court gave its award in 2002 holding termination illegal – In circumstances of
case, 50% back wages held proper and payment thereof accordingly directed.” In the present case also, it is found that,
the I Party is entitled to get 50% of the amount, out of the total amount of the monetary benefits with continuity of
service, and other consequential benefits that I Party would have received in the absence of the impugned punishment
of refusal to provide employment, by the II Party.
22. Further, in the judgment reported in 2009-I-LLJ 1 [SC], between Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC Ltd.,
and another Vs The M. Raviselvam, it is held as follows:- “Back wages-payment of back wages questioned- On
reinstatement, full back wages is not to be paid automatically. It depends upon facts of each case. In the present case
order for payment of back wages modified to the extent of 50% to be paid by the Management.” And in the judgment
reported in 1999-LLJ-I-pg 1260-1265 [SC], between Ajaib Singh Vs Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-Cum-Processing
Service Society, it is clearly held as follows:- “Delay in seeking relief by workman against Termination of Service-
Article 137 of Schedule to Limitation Act not applicable to proceedings under I.D. Act – Workman entitled to 60% of
back wages.” Further, in the judgment reported in 1990 [61] FLR 768, between Delhi Transport Corporation Vs
D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others, it is held as follows:- “A confirmed and permanent employee-Terminated
without one month’s notice or pay in lieu of and without holding enquiry and affording any opportunity-Termination
was illegal-Principles of natural justice violated.” In the present case also, the II Party has terminated the I Party
without following the Principles of natural justice and without holding enquiry and also without offering opportunity to
the I Party to put forth his/her defence. Further, in the judgment reported in 2010-I-LLJ 682 [Bom], between Santhosh
Kumar, S/o Babulal Gupta Vs Sub-Area Manager, Western Coal Fields Ltd., Maharastra and another, it is held as
follows:- “Dismissal of workman from service – no enquiry held – termination order not served on workman –
punishment held disproportionate – deprivation of 50% back wages with warning issued to workman held would be
proper.” Further, the II Party has stated in the counter statement that, the I Party, on medical examination, has been
found to be unfit to work. However, in the same counter statement II Party has stated that, I Party is happily working
elsewhere since the date of termination and the I Party is working elsewhere also earning salary. In such
circumstances, it is seen that, the submissions made by the II Party in the counter statement are self contradictory. On
that ground also II Party is not justified in terminating the services of I Party without following the principles of natural
justice, fairness and reasonableness. Further, on the totality of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, and also,
after taking into consideration the evidences and exhibits mentioned herein below, in the proper perspective, the
following award is passed, in the best interest of justice, equity and fair play.
(i) In C R No. 11/2007 Sh. Ayyanna Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/Ayyanna with
effect from 27.06.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount, out of the total amount of back
wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I Party from the
date of termination, namely, 27.06.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 02.05.2007 to which the I Party
would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party. In computing such
benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party attains the age
of retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts
and circumstances.
(ii) In C R No. 41/2007 Sh. H. Rangegowda Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/H. Rangegowda
with effect from 19.09.1998 and II Party is directed to reinstate and also, to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount, out of
the total amount of back wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and
payable to the I Party to which the I Party would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of
service passed by II Party. In computing such benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of
II Party, and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts and
circumstances.
8114
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(iii) In C R No. 70/2007 Smt. Lakkamma Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/Lakkamma with
effect from 16.04.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount, out of the total amount of back
wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I Party from the
date of termination, namely, 16.04.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 17.05.2011 to which the I Party
would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party. In computing such
benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party attains the age
of retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts
and circumstances.
(iv) In C R No. 71/2007 Smt. T. Lakshmamma Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/T. Lakshmamma
with effect from 22.05.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount, out of the total amount of
back wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I Party from
the date of termination, namely, 22.05.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 12.07.2014 to which the I
Party would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party. In computing
such benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party attains the
age of retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar
facts and circumstances.
(v) In C R No. 155/2007 Sh. ShankaregowdaVs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of termination of I party/Shankaregowda
with effect from 25.05.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount, out of the total amount of
back wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I Party from
the date of termination, namely, 25.05.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 23.12.2014 to which the I
Party would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned termination of service passed by II Party. In computing
such benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party attains the
age of retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar
facts and circumstances.
(vi) In C R No. 39/2008 Smt. Nagamma Vs MML
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of removal of I party/Nagamma with
effect from 22.06.1998 and II Party is directed to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount, out of the total amount of back
wages and other consequential benefits, salary and allowances and all benefits due and payable to the I Party from the
date of removal, namely, 22.06.1998 till the I Party attains the age of retirement i.e, 15.01.2004 to which the I Party
would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned removal of service passed by II Party. In computing such
benefits the I Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party attains the age
of retirement and the present reference is answered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts
and circumstances.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 22nd September, 2017)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
(i) In C R No. 11/2007 Sh. Ayyanna Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management
WW 1 Sh. Ayyanna, I Party/ workman and also, additional evidence
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8115
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
9.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-2
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w
3459/2001
Ex W-3
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w
23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001
Ex W-4
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation
age from 58 years to 60 years
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex M-1
-
Register of Employees
Ex M-2
-
Service Record
(ii) In C R No. 41/2007 Sh. H. Rangegowda Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Sh. H. Rangegowda, I Party/ workman and also, additional
evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1 Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/
Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
30.04.1999
Termination order issued to I Party
Ex W-2
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-3
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w
3459/2001
Ex W-4
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w
23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001
Ex W-5
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation
age from 58 years to 60 years
(iii) In C R No. 70/2007 Smt. Lakkamma Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Smt. Lakkamma, I Party/ workman and also, additional
evidence
8116
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/
Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
-
Medical Examination Report Form ‘O’
Ex W-2
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-3
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w 3459/2001
Ex W-4
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w
23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex M-1
-
Register of Employees
(iv) In C R No. 71/2007 Smt. T. Lakshmamma Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Smt. T. Lakshmamma, I Party/ workman and also,
additional evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/
Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
-
Medical Examination Report Form ‘O’
Ex W-2
22.05.1998
Termination order issued to I Party
Ex W-3
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-4
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w
3459/2001
Ex W-5
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w
23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex M-1
-
Register of Employees
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8117
(v) In C R No. 155/2007 Sh. ShankaregowdaVs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Sh. Shankaregowda, I Party/ workman and also,
additional evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/
Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
-
Membership Application Form
Ex W-2
02.06.1998
Termination order issued to I Party
Ex W-3
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
Ex W-4
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w
3459/2001
Ex W-5
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w
23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001
Ex W-6
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation
age from 58 years to 60 years
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex M-1
-
Statement of Attendance Leave Emoluments etc.
(vi) In C R No. 39/2008 Smt. Nagamma Vs MML
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Smt. Nagamma, I Party/ workman and also, additional evidence
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager, II Party/
Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
-
Pension Payment Order
Ex W-2
30.07.1998
Termination order issued to I Party
Ex W-3
29.03.2001
Order passed in W.P. No. 5615/2001
8118
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex W-4
12.06.2002
Order passed in W.A. No. 3460/2001 c/w
3459/2001
Ex W-5
01.06.2006
Order passed in W.P. No. 26101/2001 c/w
23798/2001, 23797/2001 & 23794/2001
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex M-1
-
Register of Employees
Ex M-2
-
Medical Examination Report Form ‘O’
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2404-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ iwQM
dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k ,aM vnlZ ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ lh-vkj- la[;k 30@1989) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@61@1987&Mh&IV&chº
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2017
S.O. 2404.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. CR No. 30/1989) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Food
Corporation of India and others and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.10.2017.
[No. L-42012/61/1987-D-IV-B]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 14th September, 2017
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
COMMON AWARD
(i) C.R. No. 30/1989
I Party
II Party
Sh. K.V. Sreenivasan,
1. The Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of
Represented by Regional Chairman,
India, Zonal Office, No.2, Haddows Road,
Food Corporation of India,
Madras - 600006
Employees Union, Karnataka Region,
2. The Regional Manager,
C/o, FCI Regional Office,
Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,
No. 10, Mission Road,
No. 10, Mission Road, Pallavi Complex,
Bangalore – 560027
Bangalore – 560027
Advocate for I Party:
Advocate for II Party: Mr. N. Dinesh Rao,
Mr. Muralidara
Mr. Chowda Reddy & Ms. Chandini S
1.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-42012(61)/87-D.IV.B dated 20.03.1989 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has
made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8119
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in transferring Shri K.V.
Sreenivasan, Regional Secretary of FCI Employees Union, Karnataka Region, from Karnataka
Region to Tamil Nadu Region, is justified? If not, to what relief the said employee is entitled?”
(ii) Comp. No. 01/1989
I Party
II Party
Sh. K.V. Sreenivasan,
1. The Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of
No. 10-L, 5th Street,
India, Zonal Office, No.2, Haddows Road,
Ashok Nagar,
Madras - 600006
Bangalore – 560027
2. The Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,
No. 10, Mission Road, Pallavi Complex,
Bangalore – 560027
Advocate for I Party:
Advocate for II Party: Mr. N. Dinesh Rao,
Mr. Muralidara
Mr. Chowda Reddy & Ms. Chandini S
2.
Brief details mentioned in the claim statement are as follows:-
The I Party Union raised the Industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C), Bangalore against
the Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India, Madras and the Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India,
Bangalore, demanding to cancel the transfer orders of the Regional Secretary, FCI Employees Union, Karnataka
Region, Sri. K.V. Sreenivasan, on the ground that the said order is issued under malafide intention and to victimise the
office bearer of the union under the guise of the transfer, and to stop the question raised by the Sri. K.V. Sreenivasan,
about the alleged awarding of handling and Transport contract at a huge percentage, etc. The Zonal Management of
FCI, vide order No. 279/86-Estt.I dated 20.08.1986 has promoted Sri. K.V. Sreenivasan, from the post of Asst. Grade I
to Asst. Manager (A/cs) and also, retained in Karnataka region. Further, the intention of the Management is to remove
Sri. K.V. Sreenivasan, from Karnataka in order to coverup their lapses, in awarding the contract to their favourite
contractor, M/s. Mahatma Transport. Having so, humiliated, the Regional Manager, FCI, Bangalore went to Madras
and arranged to issue transfer orders to Sri. K.V. Sreenivasan, posting him to Tamil Nadu region and personally
brought the order on 19.01.1987 and served on him, both transfer and also, relieving orders on 20.01.1987. Since, Sri.
K.V. Sreenivasan, has taken the leave on medical ground for 10 days, the order has been pasted in the notice board of
the Regional Office as well as on the door of his residence. The General Secretary/Zonal Secretary of the Union have
taken up the matter to the management to cancel the transfer orders of Sri. K.V. Sreenivasan, but of no avail. Further,
the C.B.I. Authorities on 28.07.1987 have conducted the raids on the premises of Zonal Manager Sri. M.G.K. Murthy,
at Madras, Sri. C.S. Shivanna, Regional Manager, Bangalore and Sri. M.C. Maranna, the District Manager, FCI,
Bangalore and the same has been telecasted/appeared in all leading news papers in the Country. On the same day of
raid, Sri. M.G.K. Murthy, Zonal Manager issued telegraphic notice to Sri. K.V. Sreenivasan to report at the place of
posting, failing which, Disciplinary Action will be taken against him. Since the authorities failed to comply with the
understanding, again he has been asked to go on leave. In the meanwhile, on 08.06.1988, he has been reverted from the
post of Asst. Manager to Asst. Grade-I (A/cs), since, the said Sri. K.V. Sreenivasan deposed as witness against all the
three officers, on whom the cases have been registered by the C.B.I. The said transfer order issued to Sri. K.V.
Sreenivasan is malafide, and the same has been issued with a sole intention of keeping away from Bangalore and to
cripple the trade union function, since it is not issued under normal course. Therefore, the I Party prays this Court to
pass an award directing the II Party to cancel the transfer orders and grant appropriate relief such as full payment of
salary from 20.01.1987 to till the date of reporting at Regional Office, FCI Bangalore, restoring the position of
Assistant Manager(A/cs) with all consequential benefits that accrue, and with costs to the Union.
3.
Brief details mentioned in the counter statement are as follows:-
The II Party states that, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the above dispute. The I Party employee Sri.
K.V. Sreenivasan is not a “workman” and as such he is not entitled to raise any dispute before the tribunal under the
I.D. Act or under any other provisions of law. Further, it is true that, the I Party has been promoted from Asst. Grade-I
to Assistant Manager(Accounts) and has been retained in Karnataka Region in August 1986. Further, the II Party
states that, the averments made in the claim statement are partly true to the extent that during 1986 the F.C.I has called
for tenders for handling and transport contract for Bangalore and the said contract has been given, after following the
procedure and in accordance with law. However, the II Party is not a party to any malpractice and the imputations
made as against officers of the II Party made are false and baseless. Further, it is submitted that, the awarding of
contract to M/s. Mahatma Transport has been done, in accordance with law and safeguarding the interest of the
8120
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Corporation. In the present case, there are no malafide and transfer order has been passed in the normal course in the
interest of the Food Corporation and in Public Interest. The present proceedings is barred by Res-judicate. The
concerned authorities have passed the transfer order, considering all the facts and circumstances including public
interest and the interest of the corporation. There is no loss caused to the F.C.I in awarding the contract to M/s.
Mahatma Transport, as alleged. It is true that, on account of the misconduct of Sri. K.V. Sreenivasan, he has been
reverted to the Assistant Grade-I(Accounts). Further, there are no malafides or prejudices against the employee and the
orders of transfer has been passed in the usual course. Therefore, the II Party prays that, the reference be rejected with
costs.
4.
Brief details mentioned in Complaint are as follows:-
In the Complaint it is stated that, the opposite parties have initiated the Disciplinary proceedings against the
Complainant under section 58 of the FCI (Staff Regulation 1971) vide office memorandum dated 21.03.1989, pursuant
to the Inquiry. Further, the 1st Opposite party passed an order No. 4(1)/87 dated 27.04.1989, as per Annexure-I
imposing the penalty of Dismissal from the service of the corporation with immediate effect. The said order of
dismissal has been passed subsequent to the date of reference, i.e., 20.03.1989. No application has been filed by the
opposite parties before the Tribunal either for permission or for approval of the action of dismissal. The Complainant
has not been paid salary for one month as contemplated in section 33 sub Cl.2. Payment of one month salary and
preferring the application before the Tribunal is a condition precedent for passing the order of dismissal. The opposite
party.1 has violated sec. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The Complainant joined the service of the FCI, with
effect from 08.04.1965 as Asst. Grade III (Depot). The Complainant has been promoted to the post of Asst. Grade II
(A/cs) & transferred to Tamil Nadu in the year 1970. After serving other places in Karnataka eversince 1976 he has
been posted at Bangalore. On 20.01.1987, the Complainant has been transferred to Tamilnadu. Further, when the
Complainant has been on medical leave, but, he has been relieved, immediately. The Complainant is the Regional
Secretary, FCI Employees Union, Karnataka Region till to-day. The said Association/Union is a trade Union,
registered under the Indian Trade Union Act 1926. The Complainant is a protected workman. Instead of adhering to
the assurance given to the complainant he has been reverted to the post of Asst. Grade I (A/cs) and retained at the place,
where he has been originally transferred. Further, that the Zonal Manger issued a charge sheet to the complainant
alleging therein that he has disobeyed the order of transfer and that he has tried to influence the Management by
bringing the political pressure, and that he has exchanged his scooter by paying Rs. 3,500/- without obtaining the prior
permission and that he absented from the duty without leave. The Inquiry Officer submitted the finding holding therein
that out of four charges, three charges have been proved by the management. The Disciplinary Authority by his order
dated 27.04.1989 imposed the penalty of dismissal on the complainant with immediate effect. On 08.04.1989, the
complainant submitted a letter to the effect and also brought to the knowledge of the Inquiry Officer as well as the
Disciplinary Authority that, the Central Government has referred the dispute with regard to the transfer order dated
20.01.1989 to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Bangalore, for adjudication. Without considering all these
aspects and without affording an opportunity to the complainant to submit his written arguments and Inquiry Officer
closed the Inquiry and submitted his report as aforesaid. The complainant submits that, the report of the Inquiry Officer
is perverse. It is further submitted that, the initiation of transfer of the complainant and further proceedings there on,
are nothing but the act of malafide. The complainant continuance at Bangalore was/is absolutely necessary as he being
the Important Office Bearer and protected workman. Without considering the said aspect with a proper perspective, the
said charges have been levelled against the complainant. The exchange of scooter by paying Rs. 3,500/- more does not
amount to misconduct in as much as the permission has been already taken. With regard to absenting from the duty,
the complainant submits that, he has submitted his leave application. It is further submitted that, the complainant has
brought to the notice to Disciplinary Authority, regarding the pendency of dispute vide CR. 30/89 before the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore. However, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order
without obtaining the permission as required to under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Complainant and
his union have been treating the said transfer order as malafide and hence he has not complied with it. Thus penalty
imposed is disproportionate to the charges, levelled against the complainant. The Disciplinary Authority/Zonal
Manager South are aware that, complainant has been summoned by the CBI and he has deposed before them in
connection with the CBI raid and registration of case against the Disciplinary Authority/Zonal Manager South. The
complainant accordingly prays this Tribunal to pass an award, by setting aside the order of dismissal and reinstate the
complainant with all consequential benefits and any other order as the Tribunal deem fit to pass in the circumstances of
the case.
5(a). Brief details mentioned in the Objection are as follows:-
In the Objection to the complaint the Respondent states that, there is no valid dispute pending. It is further
submitted that, the complainant is not a workman and as such the alleged dispute is not maintainable. In view of the
same, the dismissal of the complainant without complying with section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act is in
accordance with law and there is no illegality or violation of Rules involved. It is true that, the complainant in question
has been charged with misconduct and domestic enquiry has been held against him. Further, the dispute in CR 30/89 is
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8121
neither valid nor raised in accordance with law. Hence, this Tribunal also has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
It is true that, in the dispute of CR 30/89, the question of validity of the transfer of the complainant is involved.
Further, the dismissal order is in accordance with law. Further, on 20.01.1987 the complainant, working as Assistant
Manager, has been transferred to the Tamil Nadu Region as per the orders of the Zonal Manager of FCI. However, the
complainant failed to report for duty and went on post-phoning the reporting for duty with ulterior purpose. Further,
the complainant reported for duty on 04.03.1987 only, and thereafter, absented himself from duty. The complainant
also dealt with a vehicle belonging to him and he exchanged old vespa MYL 9523 and purchased a vehicle CKD 3730
without permission of the FCI. As submitted above, the complainant also absented himself from duty without leave.
Further, the Disciplinary Authority based on the report dated 18.04.1989 and considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case, passed an order dated 27.04.1989 dismissing the said complainant. The said dismissal order
is in accordance with law, and the management is justified in dismissing the said complainant under the circumstances
of the case. It is true that, the transfer order and relieving order have been personally served on the complainant. It is
denied that, the complainant has been the Office-Bearer of the All India Central Government Employees Association in
Karnataka Region during 1972. It is denied that, the complainant is a protected workmen.
(b)
Further, it is submitted that, the transfer of the said complainant has been done in the usual course and in public
interest and in the interest of the corporation. It is also true that, on receipt of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary
Authority has passed the order of dismissal of the employee as per order dated 27.04.1989. In fact, the personal
presence of the complainant is not required and he could have sent the written arguments even by post, if he could not
go over personally to Ahmadabad for the reasons mentioned by the complainant. Further, it is submitted that, the
enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry in accordance with law and the same is proper and valid. It is false to say
that, the report of the enquiry officer is perverse, and the transfer of the complainant is malafide. It is false to say that,
the complainant appeared before C.B.I in connection with the alleged investigation of corruption charges against the
Zonal Manager and Regional Manager and for that reason, the penalty of dismissal has been passed as against the
complainant. Further, it is submitted that, the reversion of the complainant from the post of Assistant Manager to
Assistant Grade-I, has been done, on account of the charges of misconduct, existed and proved as against the said
complainant. It is submitted that, taking into account the enquiry report, only, the dismissal order has been passed
against the complainant in accordance with law. In the circumstance, the management has requested for the disposal of
the relief claimed for, by the complainant.
6. The pertinent points/issues that arise, for consideration in the present matters are as follows:-
1)
“Whether the I Party is not a “workman” and that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction as contended in para 3
of the counter statement and also, in the facts and circumstances of the present case?”
2)
“Whether the reference is barred and not maintainable as alleged in para 10 of the counter statement?”
3)
“Whether the present matter is barred by Res-judicata and hence reference is liable to be rejected?”
4)
“Whether the action of II Party in transferring Shri K.V. Sreenivasan, Regional Secretary of FCI
Employees Union, Karnataka Region, from Karnataka Region to Tamil Nadu Region, is justified? If
not, to what relief the employee is entitled to?”
5)
“Whether the I Party is entitled to get the relief as prayed for, after the careful appreciation of the
evidences adduced and documents produced by both the parties, in proper perspective?”
7. On perusal of materials brought on record by both sides, the relevant details emerge as follows:-
Sl.
No.
Date
Events
1.
16.01.1987
I Party has been transferred from Bangalore to Tamil
Nadu region. Served on him on 21.01.1987
2.
20.01.1987
I Party has been relieved from Bangalore
3.
19.08.1987
to
31.12.1987
I Party has been placed under suspension
4.
04.03.1988
I Party reported for duty at Tuticorin
5.
21.03.1988
FCI issued charge sheet to I Party on certain
allegations of misconduct
8122
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
11.04.1988
M.D. Saxena, Sr. Regional Manager has been
appointed as Enquiry Officer
7.
08.06.1988
I Party has been reverted from the post of Asst.
Manager to Asst. Grade-I
8.
20.03.1989
Government of India issued order of reference
regarding the validity of transfer for adjudication to
Central Government Industrial Tribunal – Cum –
Labour Court, Bangalore
9.
18.04.1989
Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report.
10.
27.04.1989
I Party has been dismissed from service
11.
31.05.1989
I Party filed complaint under sec. 33 A of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 before this Tribunal
12.
30.06.1992
I Party attained the age of superannuation
13.
14.09.1993
Respondent passed order by converting the order of
dismissal, into that of Compulsory Retirement of the I
Party
14.
27.05.1991
In the W.A. No. 1523/1989, the Hon’ble Division
Bench of Karnataka High Court has passed the detailed
order
in
the
said
appeal
filed
by
the
II
Party/Respondent herein.
8.
Analysis, Discussion Findings with regard to the above mentioned point/issue No. 1:-
In the CR reference itself reference has been made to this Court with following schedule:- “Whether the action
of the management of Food Corporation of India in transferring K.V. Sreenivasan, Regional Secretary of FCI
Employees Union, Karnataka Region, from Karnataka Region to Tamil Nadu Region, is justified? If not, to what relief
the said employee is entitled?” On a plain reading of the schedule enclosed to reference of the CR 30/89 dated
20.03.1989, it is clear that, the reference for adjudication is made to the effect that, whether the action of the
management in transferring K.V. Sreenivasan from Karnataka Region to Tamil Nadu Region is justified and it is also
mentioned that I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, is the Regional Secretary of FCI Employees Union, Karnataka Region.
Further, I Party has clearly explained in the claim statement and also in evidence that though he has been promoted as
Assistant Manager he has done only clerical work and he has not done any managerial or administrative capacity work.
Further, the II Party itself has reverted I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, from the post of Assistant Manager to Assistant
Grade-I as per the letter dated 08.06.1988. In such circumstances it is clear that, the I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has
established that he is the workman coming under definition of 2(s) of Industrial Dispute Act. Further, as per the
reference mentioned schedule the I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has been cited as Regional Secretary of FCI Employees
Union, Karnataka Region and infact, the Regional Chairman of FCI Employees Union, Karnataka Region has filed the
reference on behalf of the said I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan. On that ground also, it is found that as per the provisions of
sec. 2(k), the Industrial Dispute means any dispute or difference between employers or employees or conditions of
labour or any person(underlined for emphasis), and hence, it is seen that, the I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, can very well
get appropriate relief in accordance with law, in the present proceedings through the present Court.
9. Further, in the judgment reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 914, in C.A No. 1673/1982, dated 08.03.1984,
(Before Mr. Justice D.A. Desai, Mr. Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy and Mr. Justice A. Varadarajan), in the case of Ved
Prakash Gupta Vs M/s Delton Cable India (P) Ltd, it is held as follows:- “That, in these circumstances the substantial
duty of the concerned employee was only that of a Security Inspector at the gate of the factory premises and it was
neither managerial nor supervisory in nature, so as to exclude him from the definition of “workman” under section 2(s)
of the Act.” In the present case also, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has clearly established that, he has not done any
managerial or supervisory work so as to exclude him from the definition of “workman” under section 2(s) of the Act.
Further, MW-2 has admitted that, one union has been headed by the I Party. On that ground only I Party/K.V.
Sreenivasan, is claiming the right as a protected employee. Further, MW-2 has admitted that, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan,
has been reverted to Grade-I from Assistant Manager, before he has been dismissed from service. In such
circumstances also, it is clear that, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, is entitled to claim the relief under provisions of Industrial
Dispute Act. In the evidence also, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has clearly pointed out, that he used to verify the stock by
making use of the registers and books of accounts maintained in that particular godowns, and he has not performed any
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8123
supervisory or managerial jobs. Further, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has clearly pointed out in evidence that, the post of
Assistant Grade-I have been treated as workman and many Assistant Mangers are also the members of the union.
Further, in the judgement delivered in writ Appeal filed by the II Party/Management the Hon”ble Karnataka High Court
in W.A No.1523/1989 dated 27.05.1997, in the case of FCI (II party/Management here in) Vs. K.V. Sreenivasan (I
party/Complainant herein) it is clearly held as follows: “Whether, Respondent No.4 is a workman or not within the
meaning of Section 2(S)of the Industrial Disputes Act, is a question which requires to be adjudicated upon facts and
evidence. That, cannot be decided in abstract. Therefore, to say that Respondent No.4, is not a workman and therefore,
the reference is incompetent would only amount to pre-deciding the matter”. Accordingly, for the above mentioned
facts, evidence and circumstances, it is seen that the I party/complainant is a workman and the reference has to be
answered in accordance with law.
10.
Further, in the evidence, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has stated that, he has become an active member and Office
Bearer of FCI Employees Union. Further, MW2 has also admitted that, one union is headed by Sh. Sreenivasan.
Further, Industrial Dispute Act is a social legislation brought into existence after various Industrial Revolutions, stage
by stage and the said act has been enacted to provide minimum and basic facilities for workman and protect his/her
employment. Further, II Party cannot take the super technical submission as a protective shield, to cover up their
lapses and violation of laws. Further, it is the well settled law that, I Party can initiate proceedings for the alleged
illegal termination of services of workman by the II Party. Further, for the effective implementation of the Labour
enactment and protecting the interest of workman only the Government have created a Labour Department. Further, it
is very pertinent to point out that, the present reference is made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour with
the above mentioned schedule. Hence, this Court is bound to pass appropriate award in accordance with law based
upon the facts and circumstances of the present matter. The II Party/Management cannot take super technical and
hyper technical measures, so as to avoid payment of the legitimate amounts, payable to the I Party/Workman.
11.
Further, in the judgment in the case of Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs State of U.P., (1979) 2 SCC 88, by V.
Kishna Iyer. J, it is pointed out as follows:- “Industrial Jurisprudence does not brook nice nuances and torturesome
technicalities to stand in the way of just solutions reached in a rough and ready manner. Grim and grimy life-situations
have no time for the finer manners of elegant jurisprudence.” Thus, the process of industrial adjudication is an onerous
task being guided by the constitutional mandates and aiming at settlement of the industrial dispute on a fair and just
basis, tested on the touchstone of social and economic justice. When an industrial dispute is raised, it is a commotion
to be pacified by dispensing justice. In such adjudication, not just the right to equality and other Constitutional
guarantees, but the aims and ideals of the Constitution enter into the consideration. It is the duty of the Courts to apply
directive principles in interpreting the Constitution and the laws. Also, it is reported in Lloyds Bank Ltd Vs. Bundy,
(1974) 3 All ER 757 that Lord Denning first clearly enunciated his theory of "inequality of bargaining power". He
began his discussion on this part of the case by stating (at page 763): "There are cases in our books in which the courts
will set aside a contract, or a transfer of property, when the parties have not met on equal terms, when the one is so
strong in bargaining power and the other so weak that, as a matter of common fairness, it is not right that the strong
should be allowed to push the weak to the wall.” In the present case also, it is seen that, the II Party has taken, various
above mentioned actions, as against workman Sreenivasan and the said actions are not taken in accordance with the
provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
12.
Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in W.P. No. 9974/2006 (L-TER) dated 07.01.2015, (Before
Mr. Hon’ble Chief Justice D.H. Waghela and Mr. Hon’ble Justice Budihal. R. B), in the case of The Management of
National Aerospace Laboratories Vs Engineering & General Workers Union and the Managing Directors, it is
particularly held as follows:- “The jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal, therefore, is expansive and creative and not
restricted to only enforcing or interpreting the contract of service or the extant legal provisions and it is not-fettered by
the limitations of contracts and can even involve extension of existing agreement of the making of a new one, or in
general, creation of new obligations or modification of old ones.” In the present case also, for the above mentioned
facts and circumstances it is found that, I Party is entitled to get appropriate relief, in accordance with law, and the II
Party is not justified in raising the objection, as per the said jurisdiction of the present Court. Further, it is relevant to
mention that, the I Party/workman has been punished by II Party without adopting the procedure known under law.
Further, the underlying aim and object of adjudication of an Industrial Dispute is, in effect, dispensation of social and
economic justice and translating fundamental rights as well as directive principles into some tangible relief. The
ultimate object is to see that industrial disputes are settled by industrial adjudication on principles of fair play and
justice. For the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is found that the I party/Sreenivasan is a workman and
this Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass appropriate award in accordance with law.
13.
Analysis, Discussion Findings with regard to the above mentioned points/issues Nos. 2 & 3:- In the judgment
delivered in the case filed by the Management herein, the Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka,
Banagalore in W.A No. 1523/1989, dated 27.05.1991, (Before Mr. Justice S. Mohan and Mr. Justice N.Y.
Hanumanthappa), in the case of Food Corporation of India (II Party/Management herein)Vs K.V. Srinivasan (I
8124
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Party/Complainant herein), it is clearly held as follows:- “As regards the principles of resjudicata, as to how far that
principle could be invoked by the appellant – the Food Corporation of India in view of the decision in Workmen, M/s
Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs Management, M/s HL. Ltd (AIR 1984 SC 516) is one which requires careful consideration. It
cannot be said, straightaway, one way of the other.” Hence, the said judgement is answering the said points raised by
the II Party in the written arguments, in the fitting manner. Further, It is seen that, the matters directly and substantially
connected to the present dispute has not been considered by the Court after recording evidence of both sides and after
exhibiting documents filed by both sides and also after hearing the arguments of both sides. In such circumstances the
II Party cannot arise any valid objection to the effect that, I Party cannot get relief in the present matter filed before this
Court. On the other hand, it is crystal clear from the various action taken by the I Party in various times as per the
details pointed out in the Dates and Events mentioned herein above, it is clear that, II Party has adopted unfair labour
practice as pointed out in sec. 2(ra) though, the I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, is coming under sec. 2(s) of the definition of
workman as per the various actions taken by the II Party itself as pointed in the above mentioned dates and events.
Further, MW-2 namely, Assistant Manager, has admitted there are 2 trade union, one union has been headed by the I
Party. Further, MW-2 has categorically admitted that, Assistants Grade-I have been treated as workman by the
management and they are members of Trade union, by II Party.
14.
Further, MW-2 has also, admitted that, it is true that, the work of the I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, is to verify the
correctness of entries in the books of Accounts. Further, MW-2 has admitted that, I Party has been reverted to Grade-I
from Assistant Manager, before he has been dismissed from service. Further, MW-1 namely District Manager, of II
Party has admitted that, if the promoters are promoted during the academic year, they will be retained and then
transferred at the time of general transfer and in the case of I Party, he has been transferred immediately on promotion,
and the general transfer takes place generally during March-April and January is not the month of general transfer and
the I Party has been transferred in the month of January and as per Ex M-1 transfer order, places of transfer have been
shown to others except I Party and as per Ex M-6 other persons promoted are posted in the same place where they have
been working and the Ex M-7 has no relevance to the transfer of I Party. Further, MW-3 namely Manager(Internal
Audit & Physical Verification), has stated that, it is true to suggest that, consequent to the promotion as Assistant
Manager the I Party has been given posting at Bangalore only. Further, MW-3 admitted that, the post of Assistant
Manager is done away as stated in para 3 of his affidavit about 5 years back. In such circumstances only, I Party/K.V.
Sreenivasan, has specifically stated that on 27.08.1986 he has worked as Grade-I Assistant and on 28.08.1986 he has
been promoted as Assistant Manager(Internal Audit & Physical Verification), and on 08.06.1998 he has been demoted
as Grade-I Assistant and he used to verify the stock by making use of the registers and books of accounts maintained in
that particular godowns and hence, he would very much come within the provision of section 2(s) as workman of
Industrial Dispute Act and moreover the present reference has been made by the union, for and on behalf of I
Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, as per the provisions of 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act. In circumstances, the present
matter is very much maintainable before this Court.
15.
Further, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has repeatedly mentioned in the claim statement and also in the evidence that,
he has not performed any supervisory or managerial jobs and he has done only clerical job and he has no subordinate to
supervise. Further, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has stated that, he is the Regional Secretary of FCI employees union and
many Assistant Mangers are also the members of the union. For the above mentioned circumstances only, I Party/K.V.
Sreenivasan, has pointed out that, his transfer has been motivated one and the proposal of transfer has been made by
Shri. Shivanna, the Regional Manager and the same has been done, as I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has been called upon
to appear before the CBI with regard to the corruption charges made against Shri. Shivanna and M.G.K. Murthy, the
Regional Manager, FCI, Bangalore and Zonal Manager, FCI, Madras respectively, and in view of the fact, the said
K.V. Sreenivasan has been enquired by CBI regarding the corruption charges as against the above mentioned officials,
he has been transferred to Tamil Nadu, with malafide intention, and there is no public interest or the interest of the II
Party or public exigency to transfer K.V. Sreenivasan in January month and the said transfer has not been made in the
regular transfer period. Further, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has clearly pointed out that, the immediate transfer to
Madras and thereafter further postings from Madras to Tuticorin have been the motivated actions of the Regional
Manger and Zonal Manager, and even after the reversion to the post of Assistant Grade-I, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has
not been transferred to Bangalore, which confirmed the malafide actions of the concerned authorities. On a careful
perusal of material available on record, it is seen that, there is considerable force in the said submission of I Party/K.V.
Sreenivasan.
16.
Further, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has claimed that, he has acted as President of Employees Housing Co-
operative Society(R) and 4 acres of Bangalore Development Authorities have been allotted for distribution of sites to
the employees of FCI and he has been transferred when the Layout has been formed and under the protest he continued
to stay at Bangalore and distributed the sites to the employees of FCI through the society and thereafter he has obeyed
the orders of the employer and, Shri. Shivanna, Regional Manager has been ordered to appear before the Enquiry
Officer and the said order has not been obeyed and he has not appeared before the Enquiry Officer. Further, I
Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has specifically stated that, enquiry has not been conducted properly and many documents
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8125
requested by the K.V. Sreenivasan have not been supplied and Shri. Shivanna, evidence has not been recorded and the
time requested for arguments is not allowed and Enquiry Officer’s report has been given exparte. Further, I Party/K.V.
Sreenivasan, has explained that, I Party union members consists of employees of FCI upto the Assistant Managers. For
the above mentioned reasons only I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan has clearly stated that, malafide intention and motivation
are there behind his transfer to Tamil Nadu from Bangalore.
17.
Further, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan has explained that, it is true to suggest that, as per the order of Zonal Manger
(South), dated 27.04.1989 produced as Ex W-1 he has been reverted as Assistant Grade-I (Accounts) from the order of
dismissal and later on punishment of Compulsory Retirement has been passed. Further, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan has
stated that, superannuation benefits have not been given to him, fully. Further, a suggestion has been put to the effect
that, the reference is not being maintainable and hence, seeking of approval or permission for effecting subsequent
order of punishment does not arise. If the reference is not maintainable then, the II Party, very well, can approach this
Court and get appropriate orders. However, without getting appropriate order from this Court and II Party assumed and
presumed things by itself and acted as per his will and wish and hence, the same cannot be appreciated as per the law.
Further, in the evidence also, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has clearly stated that, the respondent has not filed any
application at the time of passing order of dismissal, and the transfer from Bangalore to Tuticorin has been challenged
and same is pending adjudication before this Tribunal in CR. No. 30/1989. On the cumulative consideration of above
mentioned reasons and details, the issues are answered in favour of K. V. Sreenivasan.
18.
Analysis, Discussion Findings with regard to the above mentioned points/issues Nos. 4 & 5:- In the claim
statement and evidence I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has clearly pointed out that, intention of the Management is to
remove Sri. K.V. Sreenivasan, from Karnataka in order to cover up their lapses, in awarding the contract to their
favourite contractor, M/s. Mahatma Transport and having so, humiliated, due to CBI raids and newspaper publications
regarding the malpractice, the Regional Manager, FCI, Bangalore went to Madras and arranged to issue transfer orders
to K.V. Sreenivasan, posting him to Tamil Nadu region and personally brought the order on 19.01.1987 and served on
him, both transfer and also, relieving orders on 20.01.1987 itself. The said statements made by I Party/K.V.
Sreenivasan, have not been disproved by II Party in appropriate manner. On the other hand, MW-1 namely the District
Manager, has admitted in his evidence that, general transfer takes place, generally, during March-April and January is
not the month of general transfer. However, it is seen as per the records of II Party itself, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has
only been transferred from Bangalore to Tamil Nadu during January, on 16.01.1987. Further, MW-1, has admitted
that, as per Ex M-6, 3 persons have been posted in the same places where they are working and he is not aware as to
whether I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has not been transferred in the earlier promotions and Ex M-7 have no relevance to
the transfer of I Party. Further, MW-3 namely Manager(Internal Audit & Physical Verification) of II Party has
admitted in his evidence that, it is true to suggest that, consequent to the promotion as Assistant Manager, the I Party
has been given posted at Bangalore only. Infact, I Party has been transferred to Tamil Nadu on 16.01.1987, without
any proper and valid reasons by the Management and for that reason only I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has specifically
stated that, he has been transferred to Tamil Nadu on the account of victimization and the unfair labour practice has
been adopted by II Party/Management.
19.
Further, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has particulary stated in his evidence that, his transfer has been made in the
motivated manner and the proposal has been made by Regional Manager and transfer order has been issued by Zonal
Manger, in view of the fact, that has taken part, in the investigation proceedings of the CBI, and Newspaper report
regarding malpractice of II Party, he has been transferred from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu and even after his reversion to
the post of Assistant Grade-I, he has not been retransferred to Bangalore, which confirms the malafide actions of the
Management authorities are concerned. Further, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, has specifically stated in his evidence, that
his reversion from the post of Assistant Manager to Assistant Grade-I and subsequent dismissal are all part of
victimization by the respondent and during the period from his dismissal date of 27.04.1989 to the date of
superannuation namely 30.06.1992, he has not been gainfully employed anywhere. The said details are also not
disproved by the Management in any manner.
20.
The Enquiry Officer namely MW-1 has admitted that, he has conducted a large number of enquiries and he has
admitted that, in the beginning the charge sheet has not been issued by the competent authority. Further, the Enquiry
Officer has admitted in his evidence that, he has been directed to hold a fresh enquiry. Further, Enquiry Officer also
admitted that, defence has sought 49 documents as per Ex M-11. Further, Enquiry Officer has admitted that, he is
aware of the representation dated 08.04.1989 given by the I Party to the Disciplinary Authority explaining that, he
could not submit the Written Arguments at Ahmedabad. Further, Enquiry Officer has admitted that, 2nd charge sheet
and appointment order have been issued by the competent authority as per Ex M-1 and Ex M-4. For the above
mentioned reasons only I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan has clearly stated that, adequate and sufficient time has not been
granted to I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan to submit his Written arguments in Domestic Enquiry and Enquiry Officer has
given findings without getting the written arguments of I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan and principles of natural justice has
not been followed by the Enquiry Officer and admittedly 2nd charge has been issued and enquiry procedure, and
8126
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
findings have not been submitted by the Enquiry Officer after following the principles of natural justice properly. Even
the Presenting Officer namely MW-2 has admitted that, charge sheet issued by Deputy Zonal Manger with regard to 3
charges, since he is not competent another charge sheet has been issued by the Zonal Manager and the 2nd charge sheet
contains 4 charges. However, Presenting Officer admits that, he does not know the reason for the 4 charges mentioned
in the 2nd charge sheet. Further, Presenting Officer has admitted that, he did not object to the production of documents
referred to in Ex M-11 in writing and he has not been directed by Enquiry Officer to produce those documents and he
has not produced any documents before the Enquiry Officer. Hence, it is seen, that documents asked for by I
Party/K.V. Sreenivasan have not been submitted to him to defend his case, properly. On that ground also, it is seen
that, fairness and reasonableness have not been followed by the Enquiry Officer.
21.
The pertinent question that arises for consideration is, whether the Tribunal has power to appreciate the
evidence, after holding that the Departmental Enquiry is found to be as fair and proper. The Apex Court in a judgment
reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3460 in the matter of MAVJIA C LAKUM Vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, has clearly
observed as follows:-
“After all the Tribunal has to judge on the basis of the proved misbehaviour. In this case we have already
recorded that the Tribunal was firstly correct in holding that the misbehaviour was not wholly proved and
whatever misconduct was proved, did not deserve the extreme punishment of discharge. The learned judge
seems to be of the opinion that if the enquiry is held to be fair and proper, then the Industrial Tribunal cannot go
into the question of evidence or the quantum of punishment. We are afraid that is not the correct law. Even if
the enquiry is found to be fair, that would be only a finding certifying that all possible opportunities were given
to the delinquent and the principles of natural justice and fair play were observed that does not mean that the
findings arrived at were essentially the correct findings. If the Industrial Tribunal comes to the conclusion that
the punishment given is shockingly disproportionate, the Industrial Tribunal would still be justified in re-
appreciating the evidence and/or interfering with the quantum of punishment. There can be no dispute that
power under section 11-A has to be exercised judiciously and the interference is possible only when the tribunal
is not satisfied with the findings and further concludes that punishment imposed by the Management is highly
disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. The Tribunal was justified in appreciating the
fact that the charges were not only trivial and were not so serious as to entail the extreme punishment. Though
the learned judge had discussed all the principles regarding the exercise of power under Section 11-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act as also the doctrine of proportionality and the Wednesbury’s principles, we are afraid the
learned judge has not applied all these principles properly to the present case.”
In the above case, the Apex Court has considered the scope of enquiry by the Industrial Tribunal, in the said
case, the finding of the learned Single judge of the High Court as regards to the power of the Industrial tribunal in case
of enquiry held as fair and proper that the Industrial tribunal cannot go into the question of the evidence or the quantum
of punishment. The Apex Court has held that the said law is not a correct law. Even in case the enquiry is held fair and
proper, the Tribunal has to find out as to whether the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer are correct findings and
supported by evidence and also find out as to whether the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. Accordingly in
the present case also, appropriate award has to be passed, based on the above mentioned facts and circumstances.
22.
Further, Presenting Officer has admitted that, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan wanted the summons to be issued to
Shivanna. On that ground only, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan has stated that, though Shivanna is the proper and necessary
witness and he requested for examination, the Enquiry Officer has failed to give him reasonable opportunity to cross-
examine him and defend the case properly. Further, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan has explained in his evidence that, on
10.04.1989 he could not go to Ahamedabad to submit written arguments since he could not get reservation in train and
through letters and telegram he intimated to Zonal Manager and Enquiry Officer and prayed for adjournment. Ex W-17
is the record to establish that I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan union is recognized, Ex W-18 is the copy of CBI notice and Ex
W-19 is the press cuttings and Ex W-20 is also press cuttings. Based upon the said documents only I Party/K.V.
Sreenivasan has pointed out that, on the ground of victimization he has been transferred from Bangalore to Tamil Nadu
and thereafter reverted and ultimately dismissed. Further, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan has pointed out that, Ex W-15 and
Ex W-16 will show that, he has acted as Regional Secretary and also as per Ex W-7. Further, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan
has specifically stated in his evidence that, he continued as Secretary on the basis of Ex W-16 and I Party/K.V.
Sreenivasan has rightly pointed out that, there is the difficulty for him to send written arguments by post before seeing
the records of Domestic Enquiry.
23.
Further, it has been pointed out on behalf of II Party that, on 08.06.1988 the I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan has been
reverted as Assistant Grade-I and thereafter dismissed on 27.04.1989, and thereafter,the management has converted the
dismissal order into the compulsory retirement. Further, in the judgment Before the 8th Industrial Tribunal, West
Bengal in Case No. 5/94 u/o 33(2)(b), G.O. No. 2075, I-R., dated 08.05.1978, in the case of Steel Authority of India
Limited Vs B. Yollappa, it is clearly held as follows:- “In 1979 (II) LLJ Page 194 S.C (relevant page 207) already
mentioned above, the allegation not pleaded cannot be examined.” In the present case also, the allegation not pleaded
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8127
cannot be examined and even the provisions of section 33(2)(b) has not been properly invoked by the management,
before the dismissal of the workman when admittedly the CR 30/89 is pending before this Tribunal. Further, I
Party/K.V. Sreenivasan has also particularly stated that, he is the protected workman of union and besides that, CR is
also pending, but without getting approval from this Court, the management has dismissed him from service and later
converted dismissal into compulsory retirement, without any valid reasons.
24.
Further, the I Party has filed the affidavit, and also stated that, he has been victimized as he has deposed before
CBI regarding the malpractice adopted by Higher Officials. Further, it is seen that, the II Party/Management is
adopting Super technical and hyper technical measures, so as to stop, the I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan from getting legal
benefits, as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, the intension of the legislature in enacting the
social welfare provisions of Industrial Disputes Act would be defeated, if the untenable submissions of the II
Party/Management are taken into consideration. Further, in the present case it is seen that II Party has not established
that I Party has done the alleged misconduct as per the principles of preponderance of probability. In the judgement
delivered in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan Vs J.Hussain 2013 SCC vol 10 page 106 @ paras 7&8,it is
clearly observed as follows:- “A host of factors go into the decision making while exercising such a discretion which
include, apart from the nature and gravity of misconduct, past conduct, nature of duties assigned to the delinquent,
responsibility of duties assigned to the delinquent, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained
in the department or establishment where he works, as well as extenuating circumstances, if any exists.” Also, in the
case of Indian Railway Construction Company limited Vs Ajay Kumar reported in 2003 (4) SCC page 579, it is
observed as follows:- “It will also be pertinent to mention that victimisation can be said to have occurred only when
the charge against the employee is false.” In the present case also, it is seen that the charge as against the I Party/K.V.
Sreenivasan has not been established by the II Party, in accordance with law and II Party has not strictly followed the
law and there is violation, as such. On a careful perusal of entire materials on record, it is seen that II Party has not
proved the alleged misconduct committed by the I Party, as per the principles of preponderance of probability.
25.
Further, in the judgement delivered in the case of Delhi Transport Corpn. Vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Ors,
(1991) Suppl. 1 SCC 600, it is clearly observed as follows:- “It is well settled in law that right to life enshrined under
ART.21 of the Constitution would include right to livelihood. The order of illegal termination of the service of the I
Party visits with civil consequence of jeopardizing not only livelihood but also puts an end to the career.” In the
judgment delivered in WP No. 17316 of 2005(LK), by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Kumar, dated 08.08.2005 in the
case of The Divisional Controller Vs Sh. N. Ramachandra, it is held as follows: “ As the discretion exercised by the
Labour Court cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary and when the said discretion has been exercised in a judicious
manner after taking into consideration the facts of the case and the law governing the same, I do not find any infirmity
in the award to interfere with the said discretion exercised by the Labour Court.” Also in the judgment reported in
1985-1-LLJ 101, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Civil Appeal No.4692 (NL) of 1984, dated 8th May, 1985), Mr.
Justice D.A. Desai, Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, Mr. Justice V. Khalid in the case of Anil Kukar Vs Presiding
Officer and Others, It is held as follows:- “Disciplinary enquiry has to be a quasi – Judicial enquiry – Enquiry Officer
should give reasons for the conclusion and also why he preferred Management’s evidence to that of the delinquent
employee’s – Termination order based on a report containing conclusions without reasons, is unsustainable.” In the
present case also, it is seen that there is perversity in the finding of the Enquiry Officer, for the above mentioned
reasons. Further, it is seen that this Court has to exercise the said discretion, as there is perversity in the finding of the
Enquiry officer, for the above mentioned facts and circumstances. However, the I party is not entitled to get interest, as
he has not produced the relevant and material records, regarding the said point.
26.
Further, the awarding of reinstatement does not amount to automatic conferment of back wages as held in 2009
(4) LLJ 667 (SC) Malla C.N. Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir & others. Further, it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in the case of APSRTC Vs B.S. David Pal, reported in 2006 (2) SCC 282, that the entitlement of back wages is
not automatic on reinstatement. Awarding of back wages, depend upon other factors and circumstances. The I Party
has pointed out in the claim statement that the I Party has been thrown out of employment and is facing hardship. In
the affidavit also, the I Party has stated that with no financial income the I Party is facing great hardship. However, the
claim of the workman that, the I Party is entitled for the full back wages, cannot be considered, having regard to fact
that the I Party has not performed any work for II Party from 1989 to the date of superannuation, for three years, and
also, in order to balance the interest of both the parties, by adopting the balancing test or balancing process in the
proper manner, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the facts and situation of the present case, 50% back
wages and other consequential benefits only can be granted to the I Party. In the claim statement, the I Party has
claimed interest, however the I Party has not enlightened the fact that the I Party is entitled to get interest also as prayed
for in the claim statement by adducing relevant evidence and appropriate records. Hence, it is found that, the I Party is
not entitled to get interest amount for the above mentioned factual reasons and also legal grounds.
27.
Further, in the judgment reported in 2010-I-LLJ-861(SC), in C.A. No. 2874/2009, dated 28.04.2009, (Before
Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu), in the case of Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs
8128
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Rajendra, it is held as follows:- “Back Wages – Entitlement for full back wages – Depends upon facts and
circumstances of each case – Employee reinstated in service – Question of termination or reinstatement not in dispute –
Employee only entitled to 50% back wages.” Also, in the judgment reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 240, in C.A.
No. 5425/2008, dated 02.09.2008, (Before Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Mr. Justice Aftab Alam), in the case of
M.P. Electricity Board & Ors Vs Maiku Prasad, it is held as follows:- “Industrial Dispute Act (14/1947), Sch. 2, Item 6
– Back wages – Curtailment – Respondents’ service terminated for unauthorised absence – Termination set aside by
Labour Court – Direction for reinstatement and payment of full back wages passed – Considering long period between
termination and reinstatement for which respondent has not worked – Back wages reduced to 50%.” Further, in the
judgment reported in 2010-I-LLJ-861(SC), in C.A. No. 2874/2009, dated 28.04.2009, (Before Mr. Justice Tarun
Chatterjee and Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu), in the case of Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs Rajendra, it is held as
follows:- “Back Wages – Not to be granted mechanically, upon termination of service being held illegal- Service of
workman terminated in 1987 – Labour Court gave its award in 2002 holding termination illegal – In circumstances of
case, 50% back wages held proper and payment thereof accordingly directed.” In the present case also, it is found that,
the I Party is entitled to get 50% of the amount, out of the total amount of the monetary benefits with continuity of
service, and other consequential benefits that I Party would have received in the absence of the impugned punishments,
imposed by the II Party.
28. Further, in the judgment reported in 2009-I-LLJ 1 [SC], between Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC Ltd.,
and another Vs The M. Raviselvam, it is held as follows:- “Back wages-payment of back wages questioned- On
reinstatement, full back wages is not to be paid automatically. It depends upon facts of each case. In the present case
order for payment of back wages modified to the extent of 50% to be paid by the Management.” And in the judgment
reported in 1999-LLJ-I-pg 1260-1265 [SC], between Ajaib Singh Vs Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-Cum-Processing
Service Society, it is clearly held as follows:- “Delay in seeking relief by workman against Termination of Service-
Article 137 of Schedule to Limitation Act not applicable to proceedings under I.D. Act – Workman entitled to 60% of
back wages.” Further, in the judgment reported in 1990 [61] FLR 768, between Delhi Transport Corporation Vs
D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others, it is held as follows:- “A confirmed and permanent employee-Terminated
without one month’s notice or pay in lieu of and without holding enquiry and affording any opportunity-Termination
was illegal-Principles of natural justice violated.” In the present case also, the II Party has terminated the I Party
without following the Principles of natural justice and without holding proper enquiry and also without offering
adequate opportunity to the I Party to put forth his defence. Further, in the judgment reported in 2010-I-LLJ 682
[Bom], between Santhosh Kumar, S/o Babulal Gupta Vs Sub-Area Manager, Western Coal Fields Ltd., Maharastra and
another, it is held as follows:- “Dismissal of workman from service – no enquiry held – termination order not served
on workman – punishment held disproportionate – deprivation of 50% back wages with warning issued to workman
held would be proper.” In the present case also, it is seen that 50% of backwages and consequential benefits would be
proper and also legal.
29.
Further, on perusal of material records, it is seen that, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan has been appointed on
08.11.1957 and subsequently, served in Food Corporation of India w.e.f. 08.04.1965 and on20.01.1987, the I
Party/K.V. Sreenivasan has been transferred to Tamil Nadu Region and on 08.06.1988, the I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan
has been reverted from the post of Assistant Manager to Assistant Grade-I and on 27.04.1989, I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan
has been dismissed from service, and on 14.09.1993, the Management has passed the order, converting the order of
dismissal, to that of Compulsory Retirement to the I Party/K.V. Sreenivasan, and on 31.05.1989 itself, the I Party/K.V.
Sreenivasan has filed the Complaint under section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In the said circumstances,
also, it is seen that, the said actions of the Management have not been taken, as per the principles of natural justice,
fairness and reasonableness. Further, on the totality of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, and also, after
taking into consideration the evidences and exhibits mentioned herein below, in the proper perspective, the following
award is passed, in the best interest of justice, equity and fair play.
AWARD
The II Party/Management is not justified in imposing the punishment of Dismissal of I party/ Sh. K.V.
Sreenivasan with effect from 27.04.1989 and also, the transfer of I party to Tamil Nadu Region, and II Party is directed
to pay to the I Party 50% of the amount, out of the total amount of back wages and also all other consequential benefits,
salary and allowances and all benefits and promotions due and payable to the I Party LESS already paid amount to I
Party, from the date of Dismissal, namely, 27.04.1989 till the superannuation date i.e, 30.06.1992 to which the I Party
would have been entitled in the absence of the impugned actions taken by II Party. In computing such benefits the I
Party shall be deemed have been in continuous service of II Party, till the date the I Party attains the age of retirement
and the present matters areordered, accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 14th September, 2017)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8129
In C R No. 30/1989 Sreenivasan Vs F C I
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Sh. K.V. Sreenivasan, I Party/ workman
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. V. Thyagaraj, District Manager, II Party/ Management
MW 2
Sh. S.L.N. Sastry, Assistant Manager, II Party/ Management
MW 3
Sh. D. Ravindra Kumar, Manager(Internal Audit & Physical
Verification), II Party/ Management
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
27.04.1989
Order passed by Zonal Manager
Ex W-2
06.12.1986
Letter from Regional Manager to Zonal Manager
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex M-1
16.01.1987
Posting & Transfer Order issued to I Party
Ex M-2
20.01.1987
Transfer & Posting Order issued to I Party
Ex M-3
10.02.1987
Transfer & Posting Order issued to I Party
Ex M-4
20.08.1986
Promotion order issued to I Party
Ex M-5
28.08.1986
Promotion order issued to I Party
Ex M-6
31.12.1986
Promotion order issued to other employees
Ex M-7
02.04.1987
New Transfer Policy Guidelines
Ex M-8
28.01.1987
Order passed in W.P. No. 1126/1987
Ex M-9
19.10.1987
Order passed in W.P. No. 15666/1987
Ex M-10
-
Enquiry Documents filed
Ex M-11
-
Job Descriptions
Ex M-12
18.05.1993
Adoption of IDA Pattern Scales of Pay
Ex M-13
-
Control Register of Salaries & Allowances
In Comp No. 01/1989 Sreenivasan Vs F C I
List of Witness on the side of I Party: (V)
CW 1
Sh. K.V. Sreenivasan, I Party/ workman
8130
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2405-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
lhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 79@1997) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2017
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@24@1996&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2017
S.O. 2405.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes 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. 79 of 1997) 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 28.09.2017.
[No. L-20012/24/1996-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. 79/1997
Employer in relation to the management of Tapin North Colliery, CCL
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- 07/09/2017
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/24/1996-IR(C-I) dated 19/03 /1997 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 the Union that Sh. Muneshwar Singh, Armed Guard was illegally
superannuated on 15/08/1995 instead of 15/08/1997 by the management of Tapin North Project of M/s.
CCL is correct? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled?
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently on behalf of the Sponsoring Union. 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
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2406-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8131
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 203@1997) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-
09-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@349@1996&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2017
S.O. 2406.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes 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. 203 of 1997) 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 28.09.2017.
[No. L-20012/349/1996-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. 203/1997
Employer in relation to the management of Barora 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- 05/09/2017
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/349/1996-IR(C-I) dated 25/11/1997 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 General Manager, Barora Area of M/s. BCCL in stopping the increment of
Sh. H.P. Napit, Assistant Cashier and his demotion from Clericial Grade-II to Clericial Grade-II is
justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But after filing of written statement on behalf of the
union, none appears subsequently. 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
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2407-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 202@1997) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-
09-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@350@1996&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
8132
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2017
S.O. 2407.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes 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. 202 of 1997) 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 28.09.2017.
[No. L-20012/350/1996-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. 202/1997
Employer in relation to the management of Sudamdih Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
None
For the workman
:
Shri S.C. Gour, Rep.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated- 06/09/2017
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/350/1996-IR(C-I) dated 25/11/1997 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 demand of the Union for the employment of one dependent of Sh. Bhusan Chandra
under NCWA Provision is legal and justified? If so, to what relief is the dependent entitled?”
2.
This Case is received from the Ministry on 03.12.1997. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
During the pendency of the case Ld. Counsel of the sponsoring Union submits that workman is not interested to
contest the case. It is felt that the dispute between parties is resolved. Hence “No dispute” award is passed.
communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2408-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 199@1997) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-
09-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@375@1996&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2017
S.O. 2408.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes 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. 199 of 1997) 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 28.09.2017.
[No. L-20012/375/1996-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8133
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. 199/1997
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
:
None
For the workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated- 06/09/2017
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/375/1996-IR(C-I) dated 25/11/1997 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 BCCL in not regularizing Smt. Kaushalya Devi and Smt.
Ful Kumari Bhuini in time- rated category as per the nature of work being performed by them, with
protection of last stage drawn by them as wagon Loader is legal and justified? If not, to what relief are
these workmen entitled?
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
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2409-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
lhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 188@1997) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2017
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@238@1997&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2017
S.O. 2409.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes 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. 188 of 1997) 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 28.09.2017.
[No. L-20012/238/1997-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. 188/1997
8134
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Employer in relation to the management of Sirka Colliery of M/s. CCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Shir D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman
:
None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated- 05/09/2017
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/238/1997-IR(C-I) dated 10/11/1997 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 demand of the Union for payment of wages to Sri R.K. Upadhyay, Sr. Clerk, Sirka
Colliery for one and half hours daily from April, 1981 to July, 1992 by the management of Sirka
Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd. Is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But after filing of written statement on behalf of the
union, none appears subsequently. 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
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2410-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 118@1997) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-
09-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@92@1996&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2017
S.O. 2410.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes 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. 118 of 1997) 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 28.09.2017.
[No. L-20012/92/1996-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. 118/1997
Employer in relation to the management of Bhowra (N) Colliery of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8135
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Shir D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman
:
Shri S.C. Gour, Rep.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated- 07/09/2017
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/92/1996-IR(C-I) dated 01/05/1997 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 Bhowra (N) Colliery in denial to accept the age of the
workman Shri Kartik Mahato as recording to his Mining Sirdar/ Gas Testing Certificate is justified?
If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?
2.
This Case is received from the Ministry on 03.06.1997. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed.
During the pendency of the case Ld. Counsel of the sponsoring Union submits that workman is not interested to
contest the case. It is felt that the dispute between parties is resolved. Hence “No dispute” award is passed.
communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2411-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
lhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 80@1997) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2017
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@53@1996&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2017
S.O. 2411.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes 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. 80 of 1997) 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 28.09.2017.
[No. L-20012/53/1996-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. 80/1997
Employer in relation to the management of Swang Washery of M/s. CCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Shir D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman
:
None
8136
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated- 07/09/2017
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/53/1996-IR(C-I) dated 02/04/1997 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 Swang Washery of M/s. Central Coalfields limited in
declining the departmentalization/ regularization of S/Shri Rabindra Kumar Singh, Sachidanand
Singh, Chandeshwar Singh Suresh Singh and Rajendra Singh, Plant Cleaning Mazdoors is justified?
If not, to what relief are these workmen entailed and from which date?
2.
After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But appearing for certain dates none appears
subsequently. 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
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2412-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 243@1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-
09-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&20012@80@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2017
S.O. 2412.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes 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. 243 of 1994) 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 28.09.2017.
[No. L-20012/80/1993-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. 243/1994
Employer in relation to the management of Khas Kusunda Colliery of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workmen
Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:
Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate
Shri U.N. Lall, Advocate
For the workman
:
Shri R.K. Mukherjee, Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated- 06/09/2017
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8137
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012 /80/1993/IR (C-I) dated 24/10/1994, 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
“Whether the employer-employee relationship existed between the management of Khas Kusunda
Colliery of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. and 319 General mazdoor ( list enclosed) and whether the action of the
management in denying to regularize them was legal and justified? If not, what relief are these
workmen entitled to?”
Annexure
List of workmen
Sl. No.
Name
Designation
Colliery
1
Birendra Kumar Yadav
General Mazdoor
Khas Kusunda
2
Harendra Sharma
-do-
-do-
3
Arbind Kr. Singh
-do-
-do-
4
Ramjee Mishra
-do-
-do-
5
Ramshish Pandey
-do-
-do-
6
Rajesh Kumar
-do-
-do-
7
Jawahar Lal Mishra
-do-
-do-
8
Prabhakar Kumar
-do-
-do-
9
Ram Akbal Pandey
-do-
-do-
10
Manoj Kr. Ray
-do-
-do-
11
Kameshwar Yadav
-do-
-do-
12
Kartik Yadav
-do-
-do-
13
Kamelsh Kr. Ray
-do-
-do-
14
Satish Kumar Ray
-do-
-do-
15
Jitendra Kr. Roy
-do-
-do-
16
Ashok Kr. Choudhary
-do-
-do-
17
Surendra Pd. Ray
-do-
-do-
18
Rama Shankar Prasad
-do-
-do-
19
Ravi Shankar Prasad
-do-
-do-
20
Bhuneshwar Kumhar
-do-
-do-
21
Ajay Kr. Singh
-do-
-do-
22
Lakhan Kumhar
-do-
-do-
23
Bhola Kumhar
-do-
-do-
24
Puran Mahato
-do-
-do-
25
Bishu Rawani
-do-
-do-
26
Tara Chand Rawani
-do-
-do-
27
Ram Bhajan Rawani
-do-
-do-
28
Shashi Kant Singh
-do-
-do-
29
Awadesh Prasad
-do-
-do-
8138
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
30
Shankar Kumhar
-do-
-do-
31
Kanahi Mahato
-do-
-do-
32
Nago Kumhar
-do-
-do-
33
Sharweshwar Rawani
-do-
-do-
34
Rati Rawani
-do-
-do-
35
Megal Rawani
-do-
-do-
36
Badri Thakur
-do-
-do-
37
Prabhu Bishwakiarma
-do-
-do-
38
Bhuneshwar Bhuiya
-do-
-do-
39
Babulal Bhuiya
-do-
-do-
40
Sakun Devi
-do-
-do-
41
Sabij Rajwarni
-do-
-do-
42
Suresh Pd. Verma
-do-
-do-
43
Rajendra Pd. Verma
-do-
-do-
44
Bhola Mahto
-do-
-do-
45
Tiket Mahato
-do-
-do-
46
Subal Mahato
-do-
-do-
47
Bharat Mahato
-do-
-do-
48
Narayan Mahato
-do-
-do-
49
Om Prakash Ram
-do-
-do-
50
Harindra Ram
-do-
-do-
51
Sita Ram Shaw
-do-
-do-
52
Parbhu Shaw
-do-
-do-
53
Jusan Mian
-do-
-do-
54
Mustakim Mia
-do-
-do-
55
Brajesh Kr. Singh
-do-
-do-
56
Ibrahim Mia
-do-
-do-
57
Raghubir Pandey
-do-
-do-
58
Rama Shankar Pandey
-do-
-do-
59
Radha Narayan Pandey
-do-
-do-
60
Parmeshwar Pandit
-do-
-do-
61
Durga Pandit
-do-
-do-
62
Chandra Bhushan Ray
-do-
-do-
63
Jagdish Ray
-do-
-do-
64
Binod Kumar
-do-
-do-
65
Ghanshyam Jha
-do-
-do-
66
Sri Kishori Pd. Singh
-do-
-do-
67
Sri Basant Kumar Mishra
-do-
-do-
68
Ganesh Saw
-do-
-do-
69
Ram Sundar Shaw
-do-
-do-
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8139
70
Binod Kumar
-do-
-do-
71
Dinesh Pandit
-do-
-do-
72
Dilip Kumar
-do-
-do-
73
Deo Mohan Kumar
-do-
-do-
74
Rajendra Ram
-do-
-do-
75
Dagru Mahto
-do-
-do-
76
Bishundeo Mahto
-do-
-do-
77
Satya Naraayan Yadav
-do-
-do-
78
Dhirendra Kr. Yadav
-do-
-do-
79
Baleshwar Yadav
-do-
-do-
80
Shambhu Pd. Yadav
-do-
-do-
81
Krishna Kumar
-do-
-do-
82
Binod Kumar
-do-
-do-
83
Chandradip Yadav
-do-
-do-
84
Biond Pd. Verma
-do-
-do-
85
Lalita Devi
-do-
-do-
86
Chandrabati Devi
-do-
-do-
87
Binod Pd. Yadav
-do-
-do-
88
Shibu Pd. Yadav
-do-
-do-
89
Md. Hushain
-do-
-do-
90
Md. Nasiuddin
-do-
-do-
91
Md. Irsad Alam
-do-
-do-
92
Md. Ayub Ansari
-do-
-do-
93
Md. Asgar Ansari
-do-
-do-
94
Md. Nazir Hussain
-do-
-do-
95
Md. Maqsud Ansari
-do-
-do-
96
Md. Sakur Ansari
-do-
-do-
97
Md. Islam Ansari
-do-
-do-
98
Md. Safruddin Ansari
-do-
-do-
99
Atikur Rahman
-do-
-do-
100
Md. Mustafa Ansari
-do-
-do-
101
Parmeshwar Kumhar
-do-
-do-
102
Pawan Kumar Sinha
-do-
-do-
103
Ramanuj Kr. Sinha
-do-
-do-
104
Bijay Shankar
-do-
-do-
105
Murlinagar Yadav
-do-
-do-
106
Shiv Nath Yadav
-do-
-do-
107
Bhikhari Yadav
-do-
-do-
108
Bijulia Yadav
-do-
-do-
8140
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
109
Laxman Yadav
-do-
-do-
110
Kumar Gwala
-do-
-do-
111
Jawahir Gope
-do-
-do-
112
Jamalin Yadav
-do-
-do-
113
Kumar Yadav
-do-
-do-
114
Raj Kumar Pandey
-do-
-do-
115
Rajesh Kr. Yadav
-do-
-do-
116
Malti Kamin
-do-
-do-
117
Chandra Bhushan Roy
-do-
-do-
118
Ram Balak Singh
-do-
-do-
119
Rajesh Yadav
-do-
-do-
120
Jogendra Yadav
-do-
-do-
121
Md. Israil
-do-
-do-
122
Chand Molik Pd.Sharma
-do-
-do-
123
Ram Prasad Ram
-do-
-do-
124
Sharban Kumar
-do-
-do-
125
Shanti Devi
-do-
-do-
126
Umesh Prasad
-do-
-do-
127
Govind Jee Pandey
-do-
-do-
128
Bhaju Rawani
-do-
-do-
129
Lakhan Yadav
-do-
-do-
130
Deonath Yadav
-do-
-do-
131
Kelash Ram
-do-
-do-
132
Kailash Yadav
-do-
-do-
133
Jaldhar Yadav
-do-
-do-
134
Misri Yadav
-do-
-do-
135
Preman Yadav
-do-
-do-
136
Ram Balak Yadav
-do-
-do-
137
Baleshwar Yadav
-do-
-do-
138
Diwakar Yadav
-do-
-do-
139
Sundar Yadav
-do-
-do-
140
Shankar Yadav
-do-
-do-
141
Bisheswar Paswan
-do-
-do-
142
Dipak Paswan
-do-
-do-
143
Laxman Pd. Yadav
-do-
-do-
144
Prakash Thakur
-do-
-do-
145
Prakash Sharma
-do-
-do-
146
Mahendra Sharma
-do-
-do-
147
Prahlad Sharma
-do-
-do-
148
Anil Rajak
-do-
-do-
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8141
149
Hira Yadav
-do-
-do-
150
Masudan Yadav
-do-
-do-
151
Ram Sarup Yadav
-do-
-do-
152
Baidhu Yadav
-do-
-do-
153
Siyaram Chorasiya
-do-
-do-
154
Raj KIumar Shaw
-do-
-do-
155
Jamuna Yadav
-do-
-do-
156
Satya Narayan Ray
-do-
-do-
157
Karu Roy
-do-
-do-
158
Arbind Roy
-do-
-do-
159
Mithilesh Ray
-do-
-do-
160
Niranjan Yadav
-do-
-do-
161
Madan Jha
-do-
-do-
162
Krishna Kant Bajpayee
-do-
-do-
163
Gandhi Yadav
-do-
-do-
164
Shankar Yadav
-do-
-do-
165
Manoj Kr. Singh
-do-
-do-
166
Brajendra Yadav
-do-
-do-
167
Umesh Thakur
-do-
-do-
168
Pramod Kumhar
-do-
-do-
169
Shambhu Mahato
-do-
-do-
170
Nago Singh
-do-
-do-
171
Munna Kumhar
-do-
-do-
172
Subash Chand Bhandari
-do-
-do-
173
Rajendra Mishra
-do-
-do-
174
Rabi Shankar Singh
-do-
-do-
175
Mahadeo Yadav
-do-
-do-
176
Lalan Yadav
-do-
-do-
177
Ramesh Kr. Gupta
-do-
-do-
178
Ram Borai Prasad
-do-
-do-
179
Jatendra Gupta
-do-
-do-
180
Sri Prasad
-do-
-do-
181
Strughan Twari
-do-
-do-
182
Dhananjay Mahto
-do-
-do-
183
Falo Mahato
-do-
-do-
184
Mithilesh Singh
-do-
-do-
185
Parmanand Jha
-do-
-do-
186
Angad Pd. Verma
-do-
-do-
187
Suresh Pd. Yadav
-do-
-do-
8142
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
188
Binod Mandal
-do-
-do-
189
Shiv Narayan Singh
-do-
-do-
190
Anil Sharma
-do-
-do-
191
Manoj Kr. Sharma
-do-
-do-
192
Rajendra Shaw
-do-
-do-
193
Prasadi Bhuiya
-do-
-do-
194
Ambika Pd. Singh
-do-
-do-
195
Umesh Mahato
-do-
-do-
196
Murai Jha
-do-
-do-
197
Rama Shankar Jha
-do-
-do-
198
Binod Singh
-do-
-do-
199
Manoj Rama
-do-
-do-
200
Rameshwar Mahto
-do-
-do-
201
Rajendra Shaw
-do-
-do-
202
Rameshwar Mahtao
-do-
-do-
203
Shiv Narayan Mahato
-do-
-do-
204
Radheshyan Mahato
-do-
-do-
205
Dinesh Mahato
-do-
-do-
206
Indradeo Mahato
-do-
-do-
207
Kaleshwar Mahato
-do-
-do-
208
Ram Mahato
-do-
-do-
209
Shyam Mahato
-do-
-do-
210
Madan Ray
-do-
-do-
211
Pudo Roy
-do-
-do-
212
Kishan Mahtao
-do-
-do-
213
Bishun Mahato
-do-
-do-
214
Raman Mahato
-do-
-do-
215
Suleman Mian
-do-
-do-
216
Uday Narayan Singh
-do-
-do-
217
Lakhan Pandit
-do-
-do-
218
Surendra Pd. Singh
-do-
-do-
219
Shiv nand Singh
-do-
-do-
220
Jamun Sharma
-do-
-do-
221
Umesh Pd. Singh
-do-
-do-
222
Bijay Prasd
-do-
-do-
223
Tahbuti Mian
-do-
-do-
224
Kishori Singh
-do-
-do-
225
Vijay Kumar
-do-
-do-
226
Diwakar Pd. Yadav
-do-
-do-
227
Buthu Shaw
-do-
-do-
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8143
228
Ganesh Yadav
-do-
-do-
229
Ganesh Yadav
-do-
-do-
230
Dinbandhu Yadav
-do-
-do-
231
Suresh Verma
-do-
-do-
232
Dasrath mahato
-do-
-do-
233
Laxmi Mahato
-do-
-do-
234
Brajendra yadav
-do-
-do-
235
Ram balak yadav
-do-
-do-
236
Rajendra mandal
-do-
-do-
237
Nandlal mandal
-do-
-do-
238
Ganesh Prasad
-do-
-do-
239
Askhileshwar Shaw
-do-
-do-
240
Surendra Shaw
-do-
-do-
241
Ram naresh Shaw
-do-
-do-
242
Janardhan Pandey
-do-
-do-
243
Baleshwar Pandit
-do-
-do-
244
Ramu Yadav
-do-
-do-
245
Sanu Mahato
-do-
-do-
246
Ajay Kr Singh
-do-
-do-
247
Pramod Narayan Singh
-do-
-do-
248
Dulal Chand mahato
-do-
-do-
249
Sudodhan mahato
-do-
-do-
250
Dahru Mahato
-do-
-do-
251
Kartik Yadav
-do-
-do-
252
Yadunandan Prasad
-do-
-do-
253
Bishwanath Prasad
-do-
-do-
254
Mahesh Thakur
-do-
-do-
255
Rajesh Kumar yadav
-do-
-do-
256
Gotam Banerjee
-do-
-do-
257
Mohan Yadav
-do-
-do-
258
Jwala Pd. Yadav
-do-
-do-
259
Jay Prakash Yadav
-do-
-do-
260
Md. Shirajuddin
-do-
-do-
261
Bhukhan Turi
-do-
-do-
262
Alakhdeo Pd. Yadav
-do-
-do-
263
Indra Bhushan Pd.
-do-
-do-
264
Umesh Pathak
-do-
-do-
265
Shambhu Ojha
-do-
-do-
266
Raju Kumhar
-do-
-do-
8144
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
267
Ganesh Kumhar
-do-
-do-
268
Vidyanand Mahato
-do-
-do-
269
Upendra nath Singh
-do-
-do-
270
Subal Pd. Verma
-do-
-do-
271
Bharath Pd. Verma
-do-
-do-
272
Naresh Pd. Verma
-do-
-do-
273
Hamin Mahato
-do-
-do-
274
Bidya Nath Dutta
-do-
-do-
275
Ram Praye Yadav
-do-
-do-
276
Shiv Govind Prasad
-do-
-do-
277
Shankar Yadav
-do-
-do-
278
Hawal Yadav
-do-
-do-
279
Naresh Yadav
-do-
-do-
280
Bhuneshwar Thakur
-do-
-do-
281
Krishnadeo Prasad
-do-
-do-
282
Vijay Choudhary
-do-
-do-
283
Vijoy Kumar
-do-
-do-
284
Dinesh Kr. Shaw
-do-
-do-
285
Sudhir Mahato
-do-
-do-
286
Raj Kumar Yadav
-do-
-do-
287
Shiv Kr. Yadav
-do-
-do-
288
Rajiv Kumar
-do-
-do-
289
Anandi Pd. Verma
-do-
-do-
290
Mithilesh Kumar
-do-
-do-
291
Mahesh Paswan
-do-
-do-
292
Surendra Pd. Singh
-do-
-do-
293
Binod Kumar Mishra
-do-
-do-
294
Rajiv Kr. Ray
-do-
-do-
295
Shioji Ray
-do-
-do-
296
Brahmdeo Pd.
-do-
-do-
297
Bhairab Pd. Verma
-do-
-do-
298
Rajendra Ravidas
-do-
-do-
299
Binay Kumar
-do-
-do-
300
Sanjay Kumar
-do-
-do-
301
Mahendra Shaw
-do-
-do-
302
Shankar Ram
-do-
-do-
303
Ganesh Rawani
-do-
-do-
304
Sunil Rawani
-do-
-do-
305
Binod Rawani
-do-
-do-
306
Sahdeo Paswan
-do-
-do-
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8145
307
Bhola Ram
-do-
-do-
308
Ajay Kumaresh
-do-
-do-
309
Ajit Kumar
-do-
-do-
310
Ram Rewani
-do-
-do-
311
Gorakh Ram Pandit
-do-
-do-
312
Anil Pandit
-do-
-do-
313
Rajesh Kumar
-do-
-do-
314
Jay Prakash Tiwari
-do-
-do-
315
Bhola Ram
-do-
-do-
316
Ajay Kumaresh
-do-
-do-
317
Deo Prakash Ojha
-do-
-do-
318
Ajit Kumar
-do-
-do-
319
Bijay Choudhary
-do-
-do-
2.
The case is received from Ministry of Labour on 31.10.1994. The Sponsoring Union files written statement on
08/12.12.1994 and the management files their written statement on 25/27.04.1995. One witness examined on behalf of
the management but three witnessess examined on behalf of the workman. Documents of the workman marked as W-1
to W-11
3.
The case of the workman is that all the concerned workmen have been working as General Mazdoor in Khas
Kusunda Colliery of M/S BCCL and they are performing the jobs of permanent nature and is such the said jobs are
available throughout the years without any break under direct control and supervision of the said management.
4.
It is further submitted by the workmen that the job performed by the concerned workmen are essentially
management’s job and the said management only to deprive the concerned workmen of their legitimate rights of
regularization have not certain intermediaries for some limited purpose like disbursing their payment and branding
them as contractor workers whereas they are actually not the contractor workers but direct employees of the
management.
5.
It is also submitted by the sponsoring Union that various statutory records and registers are not maintained by
the management in respect of the said workmen. it is asked to the management to regularize the concerned workmen
and to pay proper wages on various occasions but the management has always ignored their genuine demand and has
utterly failed to comply with the relevant provisions of law.
6.
On the other hand the case of the management is that the demand of sponsoring Union before the ALC ( C) for
regularization of Birendra Kumar Yadav and 318 others asserting that they were working as General Mazdoor in west
Godhur Section IX and X seam working of Khas Kusunda Colliery of the management. It is also submitted by the
management before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner that none of the concerned persons were on the role of the
company at any point of time and it was absurd to claim that they had worked as General Mazdoor in IX and X seam
working of Khas Kusunda Colliery
7.
It is further submitted by the management that the sponsoring Union did not cite the name of any contractor
under whom son or any of them ever worked as contract labour . By the dilatory tactis adopted by the sponsoring Union
by not giving the name of the contractor /intermediary , who gave payment to the concerned persons , it is clear that the
concerned persons are merely job seekers and they have approached the sponsoring Union for providing them job
under the management . They were never the genuine workmen working under any contractor at any period of time.
8.
It is also submitted by the management that the management has got sufficient number of workmen on its role to
carry on the jobs of General mazdoors. It is absurd to imagine that 300 or more workmen could be employed as
general mazdoor in a one coal mine like Khas Kusunda Colliery. The General Mazdoor are time rated workers carrying
on miscellaneous jobs of unskilled nature of job.
9.
The jobs of unskilled nature and the scope for their employment under any contractor did not exist. The Jobs are
to be carried on under ground on contract basis are always given to persons possessing with specialized skill on some
jobs and such contractors always engage the specialized workers for such jobs, They did not engage General Mazdoor
on the specialized contract job.
8146
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10.
It is further submitted by the management that the sponsoring union has not come forward with the work order
under which the concerned persons have worked so that the nature of jobs performed by them could be known . Thus
is view of the vagueness of the present case which has been initiated with the sole aim of providing employment by job
seekers.
11.
The case received for regularization of contract workers in the BCCL management subsequently a corrigendum
received to read contract workers as General Mazdoor. Initially the reference was not referred by the conciliation
officer and after a writ the reference has been received. Parties are noticed, written statement and document filed by the
parties. And thereafter 3 witnessess examined from the said of the workman .
12.
The Sponsoring Union in their written statement stated that they are the general mazdoor of the BCCL . But the
BCCL management is treating them as contractor workers. The management submitted in their written statement that
general mazdoor are regular employee of the management.
13.
As per management submission the workman are neither the general mazdoor nor the contractor workman under
the management. The attendance register filed in the case, has been marked with objection. Certain attendance register
have been filed which are also photo copy.
14.
WW-3 is the union president who was not among the concerned workman. But being the president of the
sponsoring union he says that “ I can not says who was the contractor/intermediaries. I have not filed the appointment
letter of the workman as there was not provisions for casual employee” again says that “ I do not remember whether
mentioned in written statement or deposition in chief mentioned that the workmen were casual workers. No ID card of
workmen filed by me.”
15.
WW-1 and WW-2 are concerned workman ., WW-1 says that they have been working in the colliery from 1976,
From 1976 to 93. The workman is aged about 43 as on 13.03.13 as per his affidavit That means he was a baby at the
time of 1976. And he also says that my work was supervised by the contractor’s supervisor and they were also signing
the register of contractor.
16.
WW-2 is aged 40 as on 05.08.2011 as per affidavit filed, his condition is same . It is also admitted by WW-2
that “ I have no paper to show that, I was engaged by BCCL or worked.” It means they are not engaged by BCCL or
not contract workers as per own admission of witness and Union.
17.
Perusing the evidence of all witnesses it appears that the persons are fake. Accordingly the persons neither
entitled to regularization as general mazdoor nor contractor workmen.
18.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that there is not employer-employee relationship
existed between the management of Khas Kusunda Colliery of M/S B.C.C.Ltd and 319 General mazdoor hence the
action of the management in denying to regularize them is justified, claim refused. And they were not entitled to get
any relief.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2413-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;
LVsV cSad ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 42@1994) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-10-2017
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@28@1994&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2017
S.O. 2413.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/1994) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.10.2017.
[No. L-12012/28/1994-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8147
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI
PRESENT : JUSTICE SURENDRA VIKRAM SINGH RATHORE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/42 OF 1994
Parties :
Employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India
And
Their workmen (R.N.Patil)
Appearances :
For the Management
:
Mr. S.V. Alva, Adv.
For the workman
:
Mr. Abhay Kulkarni, Adv.
State
:
Maharashtra
Mumbai, dated the 10th day of April, 2017
AWARD
1.
As per the Schedule of this Reference, the following Industrial dispute was referred to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Dondaicha Branch, in discharging
R.N.Patil, Clerk-Cashier from service w.e.f. 25.7.1991 is justified? If not, what relief is the said workman
entitled to?”
2.
The facts giving rise to this Industrial dispute, in brief are that the workman R.N.Patil, was working as
Clerk/Cashier in State Bank of India at Dundaicha Branch in Dhulia District, Maharashtra for the last 14 years. He
was initially given chargesheet on 6.10.1989. Enquiry proceedings from 16.1.90 to 16.2.1990 remained exparte and
the Enquiry Officer submitted its finding to the Disciplinary Authority on 26.3.1990. During pendency of this enquiry
on 15.1.1990, the Bank issued another chargesheet against the workman with different charges. Subsequently, it was
agreed between the parties that one single consolidated enquiry shall be held on both the charges on day to day basis
and Mr.M.M.Deshpande was appointed the Enquiry Officer. This enquiry commenced on 22.5.1990 and concluded on
14.8.1990. The charges were found to be proved and on the basis of the same, R.N.Patil was dismissed from service.
This Tribunal vide its Award Part – I dated 23.10.2002 reached the conclusion that enquiry held against the workman
was in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the same was set aside and the Bank was directed to lead
evidence to prove the charge. The main charge against R.N.Patil was that he on three occasions used very filthy
language against S.T.Pawar, the then Branch Manager. Apart from it he was in the habit of remaining absent from
duty and was irregular in attending in coming to the bank. There were some other charges that he purchased property
and was indulged in other business without permission. During the course of argument mainly the two charges were
pressed first is of the grave misconduct of using filthy and abusive language against the then Bank Manager and the
second was of his irregular presence on duty.
3.
The defence of the workman was that he was the Secretary of the local unit. He used to bring business for the
Bank and in that connection he has to remain out of the Bank. His behavior was very cordial with all Staff members
and also with the customers. One Mr.Bhoge took charge as Cash Officer in 1988. His behavior with the lady staff was
very offending. He used double meaning language with them. Being the Secretary of the local unit of the Union such
complaints were made to him by the lady staff personnel. He took such complaints to Branch Manager, S.T.Pawar for
redressal but S.T.Pawar took no action and such incidents continued. It has also been argued that all the staff Officers
Union united against him and gave a notice of strike that they shall not work if R.N.Patil is directed to work in the same
Branch when his suspension was withdrawn after ex parte enquiry. The case of the workman was that under the
pressure of the Staff Officers Union, created by giving notice of strike, he was victimized by the Management and was
removed from service.
3.
After the first part of the Award in order to prove its case on behalf of the Management, Management has filed
affidavit of evidence of S.T.Pawar, the then Branch Manager. Mr.Navin who worked as Accountant in the said Branch
and Mr.Vasudev Balwant Rao who also worked in the said Branch at the relevant time. In his defence, on behalf of
the workman, 8 witnesses have been examined. WW-1 is Nana S.Patil who was a customer. He has stated about the
good and honest behavior of the workman R.N.Patil and also stated that he used to bring business and he has never
seen R.N.Patil using filthy or abusive language in the Branch. WW-2 Vijay C.Agrawal who is also a customer. His
evidence is similar to the evidence of WW-1. WW-3 is Chetan G. Shirsat who was a Cashier-Clerk in the said Bank.
8148
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
He has stated that Patil used to bring business. His behavior was cordial. He assisted customers. He used to approach
Branch Manager S.T.Pawar for solving grievances of the staff. Pawar used to create stressful atmosphere and used to
victimize the staff persons by issuing memos to them. He has stated that no incident of misbehavior as alleged took
place. WW-4 Subhash G.Jain, another customer has also given similar evidence as stated above. WW-5 is Vinita
B.Joshi who was Agricultural Assistant in the Bank. Her evidence also corroborates the evidence of other two staff
members. WW-6 is Lata D. Thakur, Head Messenger in the Branch. She has stated that in the year 1988 Mr. Bhoge
took charge of Cash Office. His behavior towards lady staff was offending. He used double meaning language while
communicating with the lady staff. She complained to the branch Manager in writing (copy of the same has been
filed)and also to the Secretary of the local unit Mr.R.N.Patil. She has also stated that behavior of R.N.Patil was good
with the Staff persons. He used to help the staff members and bring business to the Bank. WW-7 Pratibha Jayant
Thomre, another lady staff personnel, who has also supported the statement of WW-6 Latha Dongre Thakur and has
stated that she was also a victim of ill behavior of Mr.Bhoge. WW-8 Rajedra Bhika Chavan who joined the Bank in the
year 1986 as Cashier-cum-Clerk. His statement corroborates the statement of other staff members mentioned above.
4.
The argument of the learned counsel for the State Bank of India is that the witnesses MW-1 and MW-2 have
given first hand evidence of the misbehaviour and of using of filthy language by R.N.Patil . MW-1 S.T.Pawar was the
victim of such bad behavior. In his evidence he has narrated the actual words which were used by workman R.N.Patil
against him. Apart from these witnesses they have stated about the irregular attendance of the workman. MW-3
Vasudeo Rao has also stated that R.N.Patil was not punctual in attending his duties. He had quarreled with him and
threatened him because he had made a complaint of R.N.Patil to the Bank Manager. He has also stated that the
behavior of R.N.Patil with the customers was arrogant. However neither the name of any such customer was disclosed
nor any customer was examined in support of such charge.
5.
On the strength of this evidence it has been argued that the Management has successfully proved its case of
misbehavior and irregular attendance of Mr.R.N.Patil. He has also argued that R.N.Patil has already attained the age of
superannuation perhaps in the year 2010. So there is no question of his reinstatement. He was only discharged from
service with all retiral benefits. Keeping in view his serious misconduct the punishment awarded to him cannot be said
to be disproportionate or shocking. He has also argued that there is no evidence of victimization of R.N.Patil under the
pressure of the Staff Officers’ Association.
6.
In support of his argument learned counsel for the Management has placed reliance on the pronouncement of
Honourable Apex Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited versus N.B. Naravade Etc. 2005 (0) AIJEL
– SC 16758 and has drawn attention towards para 20 which reads as under:
It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount of
discretion is vested with the labour court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment
awarded by the Management where the concerned workman is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of
discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of this Court referred to herein above and it
is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The discretion
which can be exercised under Section 11-A is available only on the existence of certain factors like
punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the court,
or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which requires the reduction of the sentence, or the past
conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. In the absence of
any such factor existing, the Labour Court can not by way of sympathy alone exercise the power under
Section 11-A of the Act and reduce the punishment. As noticed herein above atleast in two of the cases cited
before us, i.e. Orissa Cement Ltd. (supra) and New Shorrock Mills (supra), this Court held: "punishment of
dismissal for using of abusive language cannot be held to be disproportionate." In this case all the forums
below have held that the language used by the workman was filthy. We too are of the opinion that the
language used by the workman is such that it cannot be tolerated by any civilized society. Use of such
abusive language against a superior officer, that too not once but twice, in the presence of his subordinates
cannot be termed to be an indiscipline calling for lesser punishment in the absence of any extenuating factor
referred to herein above.
Reliance has also been placed on pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of M.P.Electricity Board v.
Jagdish Chandra Sharma (2205 3 Supreme Court cases 401 and attention was drawn towards para 9 of this
judgement which is reproduced below:
In the case on hand, the employee has been found guilty of hitting and injuring his superior officer at the
work place, obviously in the presence of other employees. This clearly amounted to breach of discipline in
the organization. Discipline at the work place in an organization like the employer herein, is the sine qua non
for the efficient working of the organization. When an employee breaches such discipline and the employer
terminates his services, it is not open to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal to take the view that the
punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved. We have already referred to the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8149
views of this Court. To quote Jack Chan, "discipline is a form of civilly responsible behaviour which helps
maintain social order and contributes to the preservation, if not advancement, of collective interests of
society at large." Obviously this idea is more relevant in considering the working of an organization like the
employer herein or an industrial undertaking. Obedience to authority in a workplace is not slavery. It is not
violative of one's natural rights. It is essential for the prosperity of the organization as well as that of its
employees. When in such a situation, a punishment of termination is awarded for hitting and injuring a
superior officer supervising the work of the employee, with no extenuating circumstance established, it
cannot be said to be not justified. It cannot certainly be termed unduly harsh or disproportionate. The Labour
Court and the High Court in this case totally misdirected themselves while exercising their jurisdiction. The
Industrial Court made the correct approach and came to the right conclusion.
On point of appropriate punishment he has also placed reliance on the pronouncement of the Honourable
Apex Court in (2009) 10 SCC 32 Biecco Lawrie Limited and another vs. State of West Bengal and
another. Paragraph 54, 55, 56, 57 and 59 reads as under:
54.
Moreover, in our view, the punishment was not harsh in comparison to the charges leveled against
the respondent. In this connection, reference can be made to a decision of this Court in UP State Road
Transport Corpn. v. Subhash Chandra Sharma and Others [AIR 2000 SC 1163]. Here the charge against the
respondent was that he in a drunken state along with the conductor went to the Assistant Cashier in the cash
room of the appellant and demanded money from him. When the Assistant cashier refused, the respondent
abused him and threatened to assault him.
55.
On these facts, this Court observed as follows -
"It was certainly a serious charge of misconduct against the respondent. In such circumstances, the Labour
Court was not justified in interfering with the order of removal of respondent from the service when the
charge against him stood proved. Rather we find that the discretion exercised by the Labour Court in the
circumstances of the present case was capricious and arbitrary and certainly not justified. It could not be said
that the punishment awarded to the respondent was in any way "shockingly disproportionate" to the nature of
the charge found proved against him. In our opinion, the High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution and did not correct the erroneous order of the Labour Court which, if allowed
to stand, would certainly result in miscarriage of justice."
56.
Similarly in L.K.Verma v. H.M.T. Ltd (2006) LLR 296 (SC), it was observed that -
"as regards the quantum of the punishment is concerned suffice it to say that verbal abuse has been held to be
sufficient for inflicting a punishment of dismissal. Once the appellant accepted that he had made utterances
which admittedly lack civility and he also threatened a superior officer it was for him to show that he later on
felt remorse therefore and should have tendered an apology".
57.
From a perusal of these observations, made in the aforesaid decisions of this Court as noted herein
above, it is crystal clear that the general trend of judicial decisions is to minimize the interference when the
punishment is not harsh and definitely for charges that are leveled against the respondent and in the instant
matter, dismissal is absolutely not shocking to the conscience of the court.
59.
The argument that the work assigned to the respondent was not a part of his job even, if accepted
does not entitle him to abuse his superiors and create an unhealthy atmosphere where the remaining might
just take a clue from the unruly behaviour and subsequently use it to the detriment of the company. Further
the letter by which he accepted all the charges sets up a strong proof against the respondent beyond which
nothing remains to be analyzed.
Reliance has also been placed on pronouncement in the case of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Balwant
Singh Vs . New Sutlej Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1988 (0) AIJ-PH 1608394 and our attention was drawn
towards para 7 which reads as under:
“7.
Equally devoid of merit was the other point canvassed, namely, that raising of provocative and
abusive slogans in the premises of the workshop could not be held to be misconduct. It was claimed that this
had been so held by the Supreme Court as a matter of law and in such wide general terms. Counsel, of
course, failed to point out the case or the occasion for the Supreme Court to have so ruled. On the face of it,
the proposition urged is too far-fetched to be countenanced.”
7.
On behalf of workman it has been argued that behavior of the workman with the customers and staff members
was very cordial. He used to bring business for the bank and for that purpose he had to go out of bank. There is
evidence of customers and staff members on this point while the management could not disclose even the name of any
customer who was misbehaved by the workman. Branch Manager was not taking any action for redressal of grievances
8150
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of the staff members. Under pressure of staff Officers Association created by giving notice of strike he was victimized.
On behalf of the workman reliance has been placed on the pronouncement of Honourable Apex Court in the case of
Colour Chem Limited vs. A.L. Alaspurkar. Relevant part of this judgment is being reproduced as under:
The term `victimisation' is not defined by the present Act. Sub-section (18) of Section 3 of the Act which is
the Definition Section lays down that, `words and expressions used in this Act and not defined therein, but
defined in the Bombay Act, shall, in relation to an industry to which the provisions of the Bombay Act
apply, have the meanings assigned to them by the Bombay Act; and in any other case, shall have the
meanings assigned to them by the Central Act'. Bombay Act is the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. 1946
and the Central Act is the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as laid down by Definition Section 3(1) and 3(2) of
the Act. The term `victimisation' is defined neither by the Central Act nor by the Bombay Act. Therefore, the
term `victimisation' has to be given general dictionary meaning. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, 7th Edn., the
term `victimisation' is defined at Page 1197 as follows :
"make a victim; cheat; make suffer by dismissal or other exceptional treatment"
Thus if a person is made to suffer by some exceptional treatment it would amount to victimisation. The term
`victimisation' is of comprehensive import. It may be victimisation in fact or in law. Factual victimisation
may consist of diverse acts of employers who are out to drive out and punish an employee for no real reasons
and for extraneous reasons.”
8.
In the light of the aforesaid pronouncement, it has to be considered whether the Management has been
successful in bringing the charges against him and whether the punishment awarded to the workman R.N.Patil was
proportionate or there exist any extenuating circumstances in favour of the workman..
9.
So far as charge of using filthy language is concerned all the witnesses of the Management have fully
supported the case. First 2 witnesses of the Management have given first hand evidence of this incident and have also
quoted the words used by R.N.Patil. Nothing material could be ilicited in their cross—examination to show that their
evidence is unreliable.
10.
It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian
Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is
no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities
and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly
speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act.
11.
The evidence of the workman’s witnesses shows that they have given the evidence regarding general good
behavior of the workman R.N.Patil. They have also stated that he used to bring business to the Bank and for that
purpose he used to visit town. The submission of the learned counsel for the workman has substance that in connection
with bringing business for the Bank he used to visit the town which was within the notice of his Officers but simply in
order to victimize him chargesheet was filed against him. The evidence of the workman’s witnesses shows that though
they have stated that no incident of using filthy language by R.N.Patil to the Branch Manager S.T.Pawar took place but
specific date and time was not stated by any of the witness that on the said date they were present at the relevant place.
The evidence of the two lady staff members goes to show that the behavior of Mr. Bhoge was very offending with the
lady staff member and being the Secretary of the local unit, R.N.Patil was informed about such behavior and request
was made to him for redressal of their grievances. Thus, after going through the entire evidence and material available
on record, I am fully satisfied that though the Management has been successful in proving the charge of using filthy
language against the workman but so far as other charges are concerned, the Management has failed to prove the other
charges as virtually there is no sufficient evidence to prove the other charges. Nor the said charges have been pressed
during course of argument.
The argument of the learned counsel for the Management is that this charge of using filthy language itself calls
for Major punishment of discharging from service. On the contrary, the argument of the learned counsel for the
workman was that keeping in view peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the punishment inflicted on the
workman R.N.Patil was disproportionate. His argument is that R.N.Patil was Secretary to the local unit. Mr. Bhoge
used to misbehave with the lady staff. Being the Secretary, he was contacted by the lady staff members for redressal of
their grievances. He met several times with the Branch Manager but no action was taken. The argument of Mr.Abhay
Kulkarni that these circumstances actually provoked him to use such filthy language. In view the evidence of other staff
members and the customers there was no complaint against R.N.Patil regarding his general misbehavior with Staff
members or with customers rather there is evidence that his behavior was good with staff and customers and was
helpful. There are eight witnesses who have given such evidence. Therefore, it is only an exceptional incident which
was the outcome of provocation caused by the inaction of S.T. Pawar, in taking action against Mr. Bhoge. Past good
behavior, bringing business to the bank, helping the customers in their bank dealings are really extenuating
circumstances in the peculiar facts of the present case. Keeping in view the pronouncement relied upon by learned
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8151
counsel for the Management though such type of conduct calls for the punishment of removal from service but the
competent authority was also obliged to consider the extenuating circumstances existing in favour of the workman
which have not been considered.
12.
After going through the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, the submission of Mr. Abhay
Kulkarni has much force. So while on one hand the charge of using of filthy language stands proved on the contrary,
there are circumstances which justifies that it was the result of provocation caused by the inaction of S.T.Pawar against
Mr.Bhoge and also for the redressal of the grievances of other staff members. There is sufficient evidence on record
that the general behavior of R.N.Patil with the customers and staff members was very cordial. He was helpful to the
customers and also used to bring business to the Bank. Thus in this perspective when the quantum of punishment is
examined, I am of the considered view that the punishment of discharging from service was on the higher side and
deserves to be set aside keeping in view the above mentioned extenuating circumstances. Since the workman R.N.Patil
has already attained the age of superannuation and has already been paid the retiral benefits, therefore, the damage
caused to the workman R.N.Patil may be compensated by awarding a lumpsum compensation which is quantified to
the tune of Rs.1.25 lakhs.
Thus to conclude that as per the evidence of charge of using filthy language stands proved but as stated earlier it
was the result of inaction of S.T.Pawar towards redressal of the grievances of the lady staff members. Therefore, the
sentence of discharging from service is hereby set aside. Keeping in view that he has already attained the age of
superannuation therefore, he shall be paid a sum of Rs.1.25 lakhs as one time damages.
13.
Award is passed accordingly.
Justice S.V. S. RATHORE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2414-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;
LVsV cSad ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 02@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-10-2017
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@212@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2017
S.O. 2414.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank
of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.10.2017.
[No. L-12012/212/2004-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 07th September, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 02/2005
1.
The Chief Manager,
State Bank of India,
Ankleshwar Industrial Estate Branch,
GIDC, Ankleshwar (Gujarat)
8152
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Bharuch Branch,
Bharuch (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
Shri Kanchanbhai P. Parmar,
At P.O. Kapodra, Tal. Ankleshwar,
Bharuch (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri D.C. Gandhi Associates
For the Second Party
:
Shri Dinesh V. Dongre
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/212/
2004-IR(B-I) dated 29.12.2004 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Industrial Estate Branch, Ankleshwar in
terminating the services of Mr. Kanchanbhai Premjibhai Parmar w.e.f. 08.07.2003 is legal, proper and
justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which dated and what other
directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 29.12.2004. The second party workman Kanchanbhai Premjibhai Parmar submitted
the statement of claim Ex. 5 wherein he alleged that he was appointed by the first party State Bank of India, Main
Branch, Ankleshwar as Faras-cum-Messenger on 16.12.1987 after going through a recruitment process of an interview
and worked there till 08.07.2003 for more than 15 years in a satisfactory manner doing the job of sweeper, messenger,
peon and as subordinate staff. But the Branch Manager of the aforesaid branch of the first party terminated his services
on 08.07.2003 without issuing him any notice and paying allowances/pay without giving any reasons. Since then he is
jobless but the persons who were appointed later to him through the same process of interview and appointment letter
are still serving as permanent employee in other branches of the first party bank. He was not given any benefit due to
his illegal termination by the Branch Manager of the first party bank. On 14.07.2003, his advocate issued a notice to the
first party but to no reply. Therefore he has prayed to declare his termination as illegal and also prayed for
reinstatement with back wages along with other benefits as the tribunal deems fit.
2.
The first party in his written statement Ex. 6 has submitted that the averments made in the statement of claim are
false and the reference is not legally maintainable, therefore, deserves to be rejected. The second party workman was
given work on casual/daily rated basis depending upon the needs of the branch on various dates. He was not appointed
or engaged on any permanent vacancy. The bank issued an advertisement on 01.08.1988 for inviting applications for
preparing waiting list. In pursuance to the said advertisement, the workman moved an application for appointment to
the post of subordinate staff. He attended the interview on 17.11.1989. After the said process of interview, a waiting
list of eligible candidates were prepared depending upon the working days and under the terms of the settlement, some
of the wait listed candidates were absorbed in the bank wherever the vacancies arose in different branches of the bank
from the said wait list till remained in force for filling up the vacancies and which was scrapped w.e.f. 01.04.1997 in
terms of the settlement arrived between the management of the State Bank of India and Employees Federations before
the Regional Labour Commissioner Central, Ahmedabad under Section 18 (1) and (2) (P) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Dispute Central Rules, 1957. This second party workman could not get
permanent appointment as a wait listed candidate because of the scrapping of the wait list on 01.04.1997. However the
workman was engaged from April 1997 to May 1997 for some working days and was also engaged from 18.07.1997 to
23.05.1999 and 24.05.1999 to 11.12.1999 for some working days as and when need arose. It is also submitted that he
was also engaged from January 2001 to April 2001 and October 2001 to December 2001 for some working days as and
when need arose.He was also engaged during the year 2002 and 2003 for some days in the aforesaid manner. Thus as
the permanent vacancies were not available and the wait list was scrapped, therefore, he could not be appointed.
However he worked till 05.07.2003 as and when the need arose. He has further submitted that the workman was given
appointment orders of temporary work for 83 days from 16.12.1987 to 25.03.1988 for which a separate appointment
letter was given to him. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, the first party bank prayed for rejection of the prayers
made by the second party workman.
3.
On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, following issues arise:
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8153
i.
Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Industrial Estate Branch, Ankleshwar in
terminating the services of Mr. Kanchanbhai Premjibhai Parmar w.e.f. 08.07.2003 is legal, proper and
justified?
ii.
If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which dated and what other
directions are necessary in the matter?
4.
The second party workman submitted number of documents vide list Ex. 14. All the documents were admitted
by the first party bank. Therefore, they can be read in evidence.
5.
The first party submitted the number of documents vide list Ex. 17 which are not denied by the second party,
therefore, these documents can also be read in evidence.
6.
Issue No. (i): The burden to prove this issue was lying on the second party workman who in support of his case
submitted the affidavit Ex. 15 and the documents Ex. 14/1 to 14/11 vide list Ex. 14. The workman in his affidavit has
reiterated the averments made in the statement of claim Ex. 5. In his cross examination, he has stated that he is 40 years
old and has not stated anything contrary to his statement of claim.
7.
In support of his written statement, the first party submitted the affidavit Ex. 21 of his witness Anil Bhasker
Nayar who in his affidavit has reiterated the averments made in the written statement but in his cross examination, he
stated that he does not know the workman personally nor he saw him while working in the bank. His deposition is
based on the bank’s record which says that this workman joined the bank on 01.08.1988. He also applied and was
interviewed in pursuance of an advertisement of employment dated 01.08.1988. On the basis of the interview, a wait
list was prepared wherein this workman was placed at Sr. No. 58 in the wait list on the basis of recruitment process.
Therefore, he could not absorb as the wait list was scrapped. He further stated that he never saw the wait list. He did not
see any documents or wait list regarding this case. It is true that this workman worked in the bank from 16.12.1987 to
05.07.2003 intermittently. He never worked for 240 days in any calendar year. It is wrong to say that he was
deliberately not permitted to work for more than 240 days in any year. He was never victimised. It is wrong to say that
the documents which may favour the workman are deliberately being not filed.
8.
From the perusal of the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties, there is nothing on record to show
that the workman has ever served the bank for more than 240 days in any calendar year after the scrapping of the wait
list. It is also noteworthy that the workman has also failed to prove that he ever served the bank for more than 240 days
in any calendar year prior to the scrapping of the wait list.
9.
The advocate for the second party workman submitted the written argument Ex. 23 and referred the judgement
of the Gujarat High Court in GSRTC V/s Workman of State Transport Corporation, 2000 LLR 182 wherein it has been
held that continued employment on casual or temporary basis and denial of permanent employment not withstanding
existence of permanent work would amount to unfair labour practice and also a denial of right to life and livelihood
with dignity. He has also referred DAV College V/s Presiding Officer and another, 2016 LLR 537wherein Punjab and
Haryana High Court held that workman, Security Guard issued letters of appointment again and again with an artificial
break of service would amount to unfair labour practice and his termination without complying the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was illegal and attracts reinstatement with back wages and the award of compensation by
the tribunal in lieu of reinstatement is improper. He also referred Rajkumar V/s Director of Education and others, 2016
LLR 561 wherein the Apex Court has held that retrenchment of a workman without compliance of the provisions of
Section 25 F (c) and Rule 76 A, being mandatory, is illegal and attracts reinstatement with full back wages with
consequential benefits. He has also referred The State of Haryana V/s Dilbaug Singh, 2006 AIR SCW 5435 wherein the
Apex Court held that in a case of retrenchment, last come first go principle shall be followed. Respondent who was
senior terminated retaining juniors is improper and illegal. He has also submitted number of judgement of various High
Courts on the same point.
10.
The first party State Bank of India has also submitted written arguments Ex. 24 and referred State of Bihar V/s
Chandreshwar Pathak, 2014 Volume III CLR 3 wherein the Apex Court has held that temporary appointments do not
confer any right on the appointees and in such cases, appointments made without following due procedure as per
mandate of the constitution or the relevant rules for appointment. In such cases, the Court or tribunal cannot direct the
employer for grant of benefits like absorption, regularisation or re-engagement. Similar law was laid down by the Apex
Court in Union of India V/s Arulmozhi Iniarasu, 2011 (103) FLR 1076 and in Nandkumar V/s State of Bihar, 2014
Volume IV SC C 300. He has also referred number of judgements of various High Courts on similar point.
11.
I considered the evidences of both the parties and the law laid down by the Apex Court in number of aforesaid
judgements. It is settled law that a person who has not been appointed on the basis of due process of service law, does
not entitle him for regularisation or re-employment. In the present case, the workman was not given for permanent
employment and he was put at Serial No. 58 in the wait list which was scrapped on 01.04.1997. There is nothing on
record that any person in the waiting list junior to the workman, was given permanent employment, therefore, his
8154
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
termination on 08.07.2003 cannot be said to be illegal because he has failed to prove that he ever served the bank for
more than 240 days in any calendar year after 01.04.1997 or in the preceding calendar year of the date of his
termination. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he is earning Rs. 60/- per day from the date of termination of
his employment for sustaining his livelihood. Thus in the said circumstances, the workman has failed to prove that his
termination order dated 08.07.2003 was illegal, improper and unjustified. Thus this issue no. (i) is decided accordingly.
12.
Issue No. (ii): In the light of the evidence of the workman that he served the bank as a daily wager till the date of
his termination depending on the exigency but never served the bank for more than 240 days in any calendar year.
Therefore, it would be proper that he may be awarded compensation of Rs. 50000/- as a concession to his services
rendered in the bank for a long period from 16.12.1987 to 08.07.2003.
13.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2415-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;
LVsV cSad ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 186@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-10-
2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@82@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2017
S.O. 2415.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 186/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank
of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.10.2017.
[No. L-12011/82/2013-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 12th September, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 186/2013
The Regional Manager,
State Bank of India,
1st Floor, K.F.T.Z. Branch, Near KASEZ,
Administrative Office, Kandla Special Economic Zone,
Gandhidham,
Kutch(Gujarat) – 370230
…First Party
V/s
The Secretary,
New Gujarat Mazdoor Manch,
28-B, Narayan Park,
B/h Chandkheda Railway Station,
Chandkheda
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 382424
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri B.B. Gogia
For the Second Party
:
Shri Prabhatsinh Parmar
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8155
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/82/
2013-IR(B-I) dated 30.10.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, KFTZ Branch,
Gandhidham in not provding the compassionate appointment to Shri Niraj P. Gianchandani in place of his
deceased father, Shri Parmanand Gianchandani, Assistant (Cash) of Kandla Port Branch is justified? To what
relief Shri Niraj P. Gianchandani is entitled?”
1.
The reference dates back to 30.10.2013. Both the parties were served by registered post. In pursuance of the
notice, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 3 on 16.12.2013 alleging that the union challenged denial
of appointment on compassionate ground before the Conciliation Officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Adipur who
submitted the failure report to the government on 30.08.2013 and the central government referred the dispute to this
tribunal by way of this reference. The brief facts of this case alleged in the statement of claim Ex. 3 are that workman
Parmanand Gianchandani was working as Assistant(Cash) of Kandla Port Branch of State Bank of India who died on
26.01.2001 in Earthquake at Gandhidham. Number of officers from the aforesaid branch of the bank visited the
workman’s place for assisting his families and concerning payment of retirement benefits at number of times. The
officers of the bank received number of applications for compassionate appointment but the union is not aware
regarding the details of the said application. The union has also alleged that the family of the deceased workman was
not made aware as to what was mentioned in the application obtained by the bank officers as blank. Later, on
24.09.2003, the branch manager informed that the competent authority has not considered the application for
compassionate appointment favourably. Therefore, the son of the deceased workman Niraj P. Gianchandani approached
the bank for redressal of dispute for grievance but to no result. Thereafter, he approached the Labour Commissioner
that too without any result. It has been further alleged that after number of correspondence with the bank, it came into
the notice of the son of the deceased workman Niraj P. Gianchandani that the application for compassionate
appointment was declined by the bank on the ground of non-penurious conditions and blemished service record of the
deceased workman. It has been further alleged that the officers of the bank visited for several times for getting
signatures of the wife of the deceased workman for settlement of the retirement dues and also for compassionate
ground. The bank did not ask the family at any point of time regarding the financial condition of the family of the
decease workman. Signatures on all the applications concerning the aforesaid matters were received as blank. Thus the
rejection of the application for compassionate appointment was illegal and against the principle of natural justices.
Thus the union has prayed for setting aside the order dated 16.09.2003 denying the compassionate appointment to Niraj
P. Gianchandani, the son of the deceased workman and appoint him on compassionate ground along with any other
relief as the tribunal deems fit.
2.
The first party State Bank of India submitted the written statement Ex. 7 on 04.04.2014 submitting that the
reference is not maintainable because the demand of the union to grant compassionate appointment to the son of the
deceased employee does not come within the definition of the Industrial Dispute and the person who is claiming
appointment on compassionate ground also does not come within the definition of the workman under Industrial
Disputes Act. It is also submitted that it is a settled law that an appointment on compassionate ground is not a right of
the employee or his family member and further the reference is bad on the ground of limitations, delay and latches. The
first party bank has further submitted that the deceased workman Parmanand Gianchandani was lastly working as
Kandla Port Branch as an Assitant. He died while in service on 26.01.2001 leaving his wife, son and two daughters.
The son Niraj P. Gianchandani applied for appointment in bank on compassionate ground after death of his father on
23.03.2001 through Kandla Port Branch of State Bank of India. He was denied appointment as the total income of the
deceased family was over Rs. 10000/- per month taking into the account of the income from terminal benefits and
investment amounting to Rs. 7.5 lakhs and family pension of Rs. 6032/- per month and interest income thereon. In
terms of Government guidelines on the ground which can justify compassionate appointment is penurious condition of
the deceased family. Thus with a monthly income of Rs. 10000/- per month, the condition of the family of the deceased
Parmanand Gianchandani cannot be said to be penurious. It has also been submitted that a disciplinary action was taken
against Parmanand Gianchandani wherein he was awarded punishment for gross misconduct. A criminal case was also
pending against him on account of charge-sheet filed by Gandhidham Police. Thus as per the provision of the scheme,
the dependant of an employees whose service record was blemished on account of disciplinary action having been
taken against him are ineligible for compassionate appointment. The bank has enclosed the copy of the letter no.
AGM/IV/19/856 dated 17.02.1999 at Ex. 11 regarding revocation of suspension order of deceased workman and on the
basis of the aforesaid reasons, a decision by speaking order denying compassionate appointment was passed on
16.09.2003, same is also enclosed at Ex. 12 and Ex. 13.
8156
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
The bank in his written statement has referred number of judgement of the Apex Court which are reproduced as
under:
a.
State Bank of India V/s Somvir Singh 2007 GLHEL – 38649
7. Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens equality of opportunity in
matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State Article 16(2) protects
citizens against discrimination in respect of any employment or office under the State on grounds only of
religion, race, caste sex, descent. It is so well settled and needs no restatement at our ends that
appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved out to the general rule that recruitment to
public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner providing opportunity to all
eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process. Such appointments are required to be
made on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. Dependants of employees died in harness
do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one conferred, if any, by the
employer.
12 The competent Authority while considering the application had taken into consideration each one of
those factors and accordingly found that the dependants of employee who died in harness are not in
penury and without any means of livelihood. The authority did not commit any error in taking the
terminal benefits and the investments and the monthly family income including the family pension paid
by the bank into consideration for the purposes of deciding as to whether the family of late Zile Singh
had been left in penury or without any means of livelihood. The scheme framed by the appellant - Bank
in fact mandates the authority to take those factors into consideration. The authority also did not commit
any error in taking into consideration the income of the family from other sources viz the agricultural
land.
13 In our considered opinion the High Court itself could not have undertaken any exercise to decide as
to what would be the reasonable income which would be sufficient for the family for its survival and
whether it had been left in penury or without any means of livelihood. The only question the High Court
could have adverted itself is whether the decision making process rejecting the claim of the respondent
for compassionate appointment is vitiated? Whether the order is not in conformity with the scheme
framed by the appellant – Bank? It is not even urged that the order passed by the competent authority is
not in accordance with the scheme. It is well settled that the hardship of the dependant does not entitle
one to compassionate appointment de hors the scheme or the statutory provisions as the case may be. The
income of the family from all sources is required to be taken into consideration according to scheme the
High Court altogether ignored while remitting the matter for fresh consideration by the appellant – Bank.
It is not a case where the dependants of the deceased employee are left without any means of livelihood
and unable to make both ends meet. The High Court ought not to have disturbed the finding and the
conclusion arrived at by the appellant – Bank that the respondent was not living hand to mouth. As
observed by this court in General Manager (D&PB) and others V/s Kunti Tiwary and others, 2004 7 SSC
271, the High Court cannot dilute the criteria “of penury to one of” “not very well to do”. The view taken
by the Division Bench of the High Court may amount to varying the existing scheme framed by the
appellate – Bank. Such a course is impermissible in law.
b.
State Bank of India V/s Jaspal Kaur 2007 (0) GLHEL – S.C. 38597
27 Hence a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate ground should be the financial
conditions of the family the deceased person left behind. Unless the financial condition is entirely
penury, such appointments cannot be made. In the present case the financial condition of the respondents
family is not one of destitution, the appellants have already paid a sum of Rs. 457607/- as terminal
benefits (after deducting Rs. 19183/- towards liabilities); a sum of Rs. 2055/- per month was being paid
towards family pension and monthly income under Staff Mutual Welfare Scheme and in addition the
total monthly income of the family comes to Rs. 5855/- (monthly pension of Rs. 2055/- + Rs. 3800 per
month as notional interest on the investment of Rs. 457607/-). The competent fact finding authority on
the basis of the above financial details had arrived at the conclusion that the financial condition of the
family is not penurious and that the family earns sufficient income to maintain themselves. Hence
appointment on compassionate ground was not granted to the respondent. We however, do not feel the
necessity to interfere with this order of the Bank Authority on the fact situation of this case.
29 Also we are of the view that the specially constituted authorities in the rules or regulations like the
competent authority in this case are better equipped to decide the cases on facts of the case and their
objective finding arrived on the appreciation of the full facts should not be disturbed. Both the Benches
of the High Court that heard this present matter have erred in entertaining the claim of the respondent and
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8157
allowing the claim of the respondent. This was the view taken in a recent decision of this court in Union
Bank of India and others V/s M.T. Latheesh (Supra), where the court observed that, “Learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench by directing appointment has fettered the discretion of the appointing and
selecting authorities. The Bank had considered the application of the respondent in terms of the statutory
scheme framed by the Bank for such appointment”.
c.
The General Manager, State Bank of India V/s Anju Jain 2008 (0) GLHEL – SC 42064
22 In our opinion, the submission is well founded and must be upheld. The learned counsel for the State
Bank also referred to the scheme for compassionate appointments as framed in 1979 and amended in
1998 which was further amended in 2003. The said scheme reads as “Scheme for compassionate
appointments amendments in respect of cases where the deceased employee/employees retired on health
grounds had been involved in major/gross misconduct”.
23 Certain new provisions were added in the scheme for compassionate appointments. A clause relating
to ‘exclusions’ was inserted in Para 5 dealing with eligibility. Clause (f) relating to misconduct of an
employee who died in harness or retired on health ground which was added, reads as under:
(f) The dependents of an employee who has died or who has retired on health grounds and whose
service record was blemished on account of disciplinary action having been taken against him will
be ineligible for compassionate appointment in the Bank.
24 Bare reading of the above clause makes it abundantly clear that the dependent of an employee who
had died or retired on medical ground but whose service record was blemished on account of disciplinary
action having been taken against him will not be considered eligible for compassionate appointment in
the Bank.
29 We are of the view that both the Courts were wrong in granting relief to the writ petitioner.
Appointment on compassionate ground is never considered a right of a person. In fact, such appointment
is violative of rule of equality enshrined and guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. As per
settled law, when any appointment is to be made in Government or Semi-Government or in public office,
cases of all eligible candidates must be considered alike. That is the mandate of Article 14. Normally,
therefore, State or its instrumentality making any appointment to public office cannot ignore such
mandate. At the same time, however, in certain circumstances, appointment on compassionate ground of
dependents of deceased employee is considered inevitable so that the family of the deceased employee
may not starve. The primary object of such scheme is to save the bereaved family from sudden financial
crisis occurring due to death of sole bread earner. It is thus an exception to the general rule of equality
and not another independent and parallel source of employment.
30 In our opinion, therefore, if disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against an employee and the
charges levelled against such employee are proved and he is punished, it is indeed a relevant
consideration for not extending the benefit to dependent of such employee on the ground that he was
punished. To us, it cannot be said that it is a case of double jeopardy or a dual punishment.
Compassionate appointment is really a concession in favour of dependents of deceased employee. If
during his career, he had committed illegalities and misconduct is proved and he is punished, obviously
his dependent cannot claim right to the appointment, with respect, the learned Single Judge was wholly
wrong in observing that such an action would be violative of principle of natural justice.
34 Dismissing the petition and rejecting the argument on behalf of the widow, a Single Judge of the
High Court stated;
“I am unable to accept this submission. While it is true that the prime object is to provide succour
and immediate relief, yet the deceased’s service record or the factum of disciplinary proceedings
and punishment meted out to him cannot be said to be an irrelevant factor. The possibility of
denial of compassionate appointment to the LRs of deceased on account of deceased employee
having a tainted service record, would serve as a deterrent to employees from indulging in
misconduct. It can act as an incentive for those maintaining discipline and probity. Besides, when
the availability of appointment and opportunities is limited, there is nothing wrong in preferring
LRs of those employees with clean record over the LRs of those, who have had a tainted record.”
35 In our opinion, the above observations lay down correct proposition of law and we approve them.
37 Even on second ground, the submission of the Bank is well-founded. As notes earlier, the learned
Single Judge issued direction to the Bank to appoint the wit petitioner – widow of the deceased employee
8158
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
within one month. As per settled law, a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the authority to
consider the case of the petitioner for an appointment or promotion as the case may be but no direction
can be given to appoint or promote a person.
4.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues arise:
i.
Whether the action of the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, KFTZ
Branch, Gandhidham in not provding the compassionate appointment to Shri Niraj P. Gianchandani in
place of his deceased father, Shri Parmanand Gianchandani, Assistant (Cash) of Kandla Port Branch is
justified?
ii.
To what relief, if any, Shri Niraj P. Gianchandani is entitled?
5.
The second party union did not submit any documentary evidence however the first party State Bank of India
has submitted number of documents vide list Ex. 8, the application for appointment on compassionate ground Ex. 11,
revocation of suspension order Ex. 12, scheme for appointment of dependent of deceased employee Ex. 14, copy of the
plaint of Civil Suit Number 186/2009 filed by son of the deceased Niraj P. Gianchandani along with application for
interim relief and order of the Civil Judge. The first party State Bank of India further submitted the number of
documents vide list Ex. 18 regarding statement of provident fund Ex. 19, pay slip of P. Gianchandani for the month
January 2001 Ex. 20, reminder application for compassionate appointment Ex. 21, rejection of application Ex. 22,
deceased workman’s certificate regarding settlement of loan account and death certificate of workman Ex. 25 and an
information under RTI Act, 2005 regarding appointment of 38 persons on compassionate ground.
6.
Issue No. (i): The burden to prove this issue was lying on the second party union New Gujarat Mazdoor
Manch. The second party submitted an affidavit Ex. 9 of Niraj Permanand Gianchandani, the son of the deceased
workman who stated on oath that his father was working as Assistant (Cash) at Kandla Port Branch of State Bank of
India. He died on 26.01.2001 in a severe earthquake. The officers of the first party bank visited his house on number of
times assuring the assistance to his family for getting the retiral and other benefits as admissible to the family of the
deceased employee of the bank and also assured him compassionate appointment in the bank. On 24.09.2003, the
Branch Manager of the Kandla Port Branch of the bank informed him that the competent authority did not find his
application for appointment in the bank on compassionate ground, fit to be accepted. He approached the officials that
too no result. His application was declined by the bank on the ground of non-penurious condition of his family and
blemished service record of his father. None of the officers of the bank ever visited his house to ascertain the financial
condition of his family. The bank officers themselves got his blank application for compassionate appointment after
getting his signatures thereon. He and his family did not know as to what was mentioned or written in the blank
application by the officers regarding the financial condition of his family. The application was alleged to be submitted
on 23.03.2001 which was rejected by the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, LHO, Ahmedabad on
16.09.2003 keeping it undecided for 6 months and he was informed the decision on 24.09.2003. He was not asked to
submit the details of the assets and liabilities and his application was rejected without considering the assets and
liabilities of his family in an arbitrary manner. He has not said anything contrary in his cross-examination.
7.
The first party submitted affidavit Ex. 16 of a Manager (HR) Mukeshkumar Chimanlal Shah who admitted all
the facts of the statement of claim regarding employment and service conditions of deceased workman P. Gianchandani
and also admitted that Niraj P. Gianchandani, the son of the deceased workman, applied for his appointment which was
rejected by the competent authority on the ground of non-penurious conditions of the deceased family as the total
income was more than Rs. 10000/- per month with a family pension of Rs. 6032/- per month and investment of
Rs. 7.54 lakh. He has also referred the documents filed by the bank. In his cross-examination, he stated that he does not
the rules or law regarding the appointment on compassionate ground but he admitted that Niraj P. Gianchandani
applied for compassionate appointment on 23.03.2001. He does not know the eligibility and disqualification regarding
compassionate appointment. He does not know regarding the assets and liabilities of the family of the deceased
workman. He does not remember what the bank interest was in 2001.
8.
The first party submitted the written argument Ex. 29 on the same line, explaining as under:
“A. The request of second party is considered strictly in accordance with the scheme:
The first party bank has framed the scheme for appointment of dependents of deceased employees on
compassionate grounds, which was modified on the basis of guidelines issued by the Government of India. The
bank submits that as per the scheme,
(i)
Dependants of deceased employee were not in penury condition and without any means of livelihood:
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8159
That, as per the Para 10 of the scheme determining the financial condition of the family is an important
criterion for deciding the proposals for compassionate appointment. The factors to be taken into account
for determining the financial condition of the family are:
I)
Family Pension
II)
Gratuity amount received
III)
Employee’s / Employer’s contribution to provident fund
IV)
Any compensation paid by the bank or its welfare fund
V)
Proceeds of LIC Policies and other investments of the deceased employees
VI)
Income of family from other sources
VII)
Income of other family members from employment or other sources
VIII) Size of the family and verifiable liabilities, if any.
The second party was not living hand to mouth and the family of the deceased employee was left with the net
liquid assets of more than Rs. 7.54 lakh approximately. The family was getting family pension of Rs. 6032/- per
month. The family was also getting interest of compound amount and was getting Rs. 10000/- per month as such
the condition of family was not considered as penurious.
ii. Blemished Record of the deceased employee:
That, there were some criminal cases and departmental proceeding against the deceased employee, the father of
Niraj P. Gianchandani and as per the policy of compassionate appointment of the bank, as framed in 1979 and
amended in 1998 which was further amended in 2003 a clause relating to ‘exclusions’ was inserted in Para 5
dealing with eligibility.
Clause (f) relating to misconduct of an employee who died in harness or retired on health ground which was
added, reads as under:
“(f) Who has died or who has retired on health grounds and whose service record was blemished on account of
disciplinary action having been taken against him well be ineligible for compassionate appointment in the
bank.”
That, as per the scheme if disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against an employee and the charge
levelled against such employee are proved and he is punished, it is indeed a relevant consideration for not
extending the benefit to dependent of such employee on the ground that he was punished. That, deceased’s
service record or the factum of disciplinary proceedings and punishment imposed cannot be said to be an
irrelevant factor. The possibility of denial of compassionate appointment to the legal representatives of deceased
on account of deceased employee having tainted service record, would serve as deterrent to employees from
indulging in misconduct. It can act as incentive for those maintaining discipline and probity.
The first party bank invites the kind attention of this Hon’ble Tribunal to the findings of Civil Court
(2nd additional senior civil judge) in Para 8 of its order dated 29.01.2011, which is at Ex. 15 that the financial
condition of the family of the deceased employee cannot be considered penurious and that plaintiff i.e. second
party herein has not suffered any loss behind his father.
It is submitted that the hardship of the second party, if any, does not entitle one to compassionate appointment
de-horse scheme on the statutory provision as the case may be. The bank had considered the application of the
respondent in terms of the statutory scheme framed by the bank for such appointment.
B. The purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to provide immediate help:
That, in this case, more than 16 years have passed to the death of employee and the family has been able to live
without such appointment. The very purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to provide immediate
help to familythat,compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.
It cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crises is over.
C. Maintainability of the reference:
The grounds of maintainability of the reference may also be taken into consideration. The demand as raised does
not fall in any of the schedule either in second schedule or in third schedule or in any other schedule so as to
8160
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
give jurisdiction to this tribunal, u/s 7-A of I.D. Act. As such the case is not covered by the Industrial Dispute
Act. Therefore, this Hon’ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
Thus, according to the submissions, it is clear that the second party is not living hand to mouth. It is further
stated that the hardship of the defendant does not entitle one to compassionate appointment de-horse scheme on
the statutory provision as the case may be and it is clear that the income of family from all sources is required to
be taken into consideration according to scheme and that, the appointment on compassionate ground is not a
right of a person. It is submitted that bank has provided appointment to persons in compassionate grounds when
they fulfil the norms of the policy/scheme of the bank. As such, the case of Shri Niraj Gianchandani does not
fulfil the norms and was rejected therefore.
For all the above said reasons, grounds and the legal position, the reference deserves to be rejected.”
9.
In support of the argument, the first party referred the Apex Court judgement in General Manager, State Bank of
India V/s Anjuben 2008 Law Suit (SC) 1312 wherein it has been held that deceased employee is found guilty of
misconduct and punished therein with major penalty for reduction of basic pay by two stages with a stoppage of 5
annual future increment with cumulative effect then in such a case, the dependent of deceased workman will not have a
right to be considered as eligible candidate and it will not be violative of principle of equality under Article 14 of the
Constitution. It was also held that appointment on compassionate ground is considered as inevitable so that the family
of the deceased employee ought not to starve. The primary object of appointment on compassionate ground is to save
the bereaved family from sudden financial crises occurring due to death of soul bread earner. It is an exception to the
general rule of equality and not another independent and parallel source of employment. However punishment of
deceased employee in department proceeding is indeed a relevant consideration for not extending the benefit to the
dependant and it cannot be a matter of double jeopardy or dual punishment.
10.
The learned counsel for the first party also referred Life Insurance of India V/s Asharamchandar Ambekar 1994
Law Suit (SC) 279 wherein it was held that relaxation of appointment on compassionate could be given only when
none of the members of the family is gainfully employed. He further referred State Bank of India V/s Sombir Singh
2007 Law Suit (SC) 141 wherein it has been held that High Court cannot direct to reconsider the case of the applicant
regarding the financial condition of the family. However High Court could have adverted itself is whether the order
was in conformity with the scheme framed by the bank.
11.
The first party has further referred MGV Gramin Bank V/s Chakarvarti Singh 2013 Law Suit (SC) 706 wherein
the Apex Court has held that the family member of the deceased employee do not have a vested right to be appointed
on compassionate ground. Government has to see financial condition of the family whether it is graved and the person
claiming employment possesses required qualification, if yes, employment can be offered. The Apex Court under
article 142 ought not to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction to direct giving compassionate appointment. He has further
referred the judgement of the Delhi High Court in IFCI Ltd. V/s The General Secretary, All India IFC Employees
Association 2013 Law Suit (DEM) 1537 and Local Administration Department V/s M Sclvanayagam @ Kumara Valve
2011 Law Suit (SC) 324. He has also submitted the scheme of the State Bank of India regarding compassionate
appointment.
12.
I perused the paper Ex. 13 regarding order of rejection of Niraj P. Gianchandani on compassionate ground
wherein it has been stated that disciplinary authority vide order dated 25.08.1999 imposed punishment of warning as
per Clause 21 (5) (f) of the Sastri Award for the misconduct on the part of the deceased employee and it has also been
stated that the criminal case is pending into the matter in the court wherein the penalty was awarded and secondly the
family of the deceased employee was having a net assets of Rs. 7.54 lakh and on the basis of the same, the condition of
the family cannot be said to be penurious.
13.
I would like to high light that the State Bank of India vide order dated 17.02.1999 (Ex. 12) revoked the
suspension of the deceased employee who was suspended because of the FIR loused against him under Section
306/323/342/504 IPC read with Section 3 (1) (10) and read with Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (prevention of Atrocities
Act 1986) subject to the final decision of the criminal case by the competent court. The first party has not submitted
any evidence as to whether the deceased employee was terminated in the aforesaid case or not. The first party has also
not submitted the any document as to whether the deceased employee was ever awarded aforesaid penalty of warning
in any disciplinary proceedings on the basis of any gross misconduct. Secondly it has also not been proved by the bank
that the aforesaid criminal case was arisen due to any misconduct of the deceased employee while on duty. I would like
to mention that any criminal case registered while not on duty and if the employer has failed to prove that the
misconduct was of such a grave nature which may have dis-reputed the bank then such anallegation cannot be
considered while considering the appointment on compassionate ground. Thus in the absence of the evidence regarding
criminal case on record, the denial of compassionate appointment is arbitrary and violative of principle of natural
justice.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8161
14.
Secondly, the competent authority in his order 16.09.2003 (Ex. 13) has stated that the family of the deceased
employee was having the net liquid assets of Rs. 7.54 lakh. I may include the pension of Rs. 6032/- per month but the
application Ex. 11 filed by the bank which relates to the application of Niraj P. Gianchandani discloses that the
deceased employee ParmanandGianchandani left behind him his widow Smt. Chetna P. Gianchandani, a son Niraj P.
Gianchandani and two unmarried daughters Deepa P. Gianchandani and Pinki P. Gianchandani all appears to be
unemployed and studying at the time of the death. I am surprised on the wisdom of the competent authority The Chief
General Manager, State Bank of India, Ahmedabad who considered the liquid assets of Rs. 7.5 lakh and family pension
of Rs. 6032/-,converting these amounts into Rs. 10000/- per month as income but he did not consider the fact that the
deceased employee left a widow along with unemployed and unmarried son and two unmarried daughters which
requires a heavy expenditure for their studies as well as their marriage. No doubt the scheme of compassionate
appointment states that while considering the compassionate appointment, the competent authority has to consider the
following factors for determining the financial condition of the bereaved family.
i.
Family Pension
ii.
Gratuity amount received
iii.
Employee’s / Employer’s contribution to provident fund
iv.
Any compensation paid by the bank or its welfare fund
v.
Proceeds of LIC Policies and other investments of the deceased employees
vi.
Income of family from other sources
vii.
Income of other family members from employment or other sources
viii.
Size of the family and verifiable liabilities, if any.
15
Considering the aforesaid factors, I may definitely say that the competent authority was very much blind while
considering the financial condition of the family because he has not showed or mentioned any other income besides
family pension and liquid assets of Rs. 7.54 lakh converting into income of Rs. 10000/- per month which no same
person can say that the widow of the deceased employee can manage the studies and marriage expenditures of two
unmarried and still studying daughters out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10000/- per month and pension.
16.
The advocate for the first party argued on the basis of the written statement that Niraj P. Gianchandani was not a
workman and the dispute does not fall in second or third or any other schedule of the I.D. Act. He contended that the
present is not an industrial dispute as defined under Section 2 (k) of I.D. Act and not there any dispute between the
employer and the workman, as such, the Labour Court ought not to have decided the same. On this point, the advocate
has not referred any judgement of any higher court. However I would like to refer the judgement of Delhi High Court
in Management of Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) V/s Government of NCT of
Delhi wherein the Delhi High Court observed and held that the Division Bench of this court in Delhi Development
Authority V/s Sudesh Kumar and others 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 96 after referring the judgements in (1) workmen of
Dimakuchi Tea Estate V/s Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate: AIR 1958 SC 353 and (2) Kyas Construction
Company (Pvt.) Limited V/s Its workmen: (1958) 2 LLJ 660 and various other judgements on the subject, has held that
dispute relating to compassionate appointment of a son of deceased employee would be clearly covered by the
definition of “Industrial Dispute”.
17.
Thus on the basis of the aforesaid reasons, it can rightly be said that the competent authority, The Chief General
Manager, State Bank of India, Ahmedabad without applying his mind and wisdom, wrongly rejected the application of
appointment on compassionate ground of Niraj P. Gianchandani which deserves to be set aside because no widow in
the present time can manage the marriage of their two unmarried and still studying daughters in the circumstances that
the son is also umemployed. Thus the Issue No. (i) is decided in the favour of the second party and declares the action
of the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, KFTZ Branch, Gandhidham in not providing
the compassionate appointment to Shri Niraj P. Gianchandani in place of his deceased father, Shri Parmanand
Gianchandani, Assistant (Cash) of Kandla Port Branch unjust. Thus this issue is decided accordingly in favour of the
second party Niraj P. Gianchandani, the son of the deceased workman.
18.
Issue No. (ii): On the basis of the findings of the Issue No. (i), the first party The Chief General Manager, State
Bank of India, Ahmedabad is directed to issue appointment letter to Niraj P. Gianchandani on the post for which he is
justly eligible within 60 days from the publication of this award. However Niraj P. Gianchandani will not be given any
back wages.
19.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
8162
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2416-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe
jsyos ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1228@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-10-2017
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&41012@70@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2017
S.O. 2416.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1228/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western
Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.10.2017.
[No. L-41012/70/2003-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 08th September, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1228/2004
1.
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Divisional Office, Bhavnagar Division,
Bhavnagar (Gujarat) - 392001
2.
The Chief Permanent Way Inspector,
Western Railway, Jetalsar Junction,
Jetalsar,n Rajkot (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
The President,
Saurashtra Employees Union,
City Shops, 3rd Floor,
Jagnath Police Chowky, Dr. Yagnik Road,
Rajkot (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri N.J. Acharya
For the Second Party
:
Shri B.B. Gogia
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/70/
2003-IR(B-I) dated 20.06.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the union that Shri Tarunkumar M. Bhatt who worked as Casual Labour from
21.12.1982 to 20.03.1984 continuously be reinstated and his name be included in the live Register is
justified? If so, what relief he is entitled to?”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8163
1.
The reference dates back to 20.06.2003. The second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6 on
22.12.2008 alleging that he has been working as casual labour under the Permanent Way Inspector in the Western
Railway from 21.12.1982 to 20.03.1984 but the first party Western Railway terminated his services on 20.03.1984
without of his any mistake. He was again engaged by the first party Western Railway in August 1984 for a period of
3 months but thereafter, no work was given to him. He approached the first party for a number of times for employment
but to no result. His services were terminated without giving any notice or paying the notice pay. An attendance
register and seniority register were maintained in the Bhavnagar Division, Western Railway. He ought to have been
given regular employment. He has produced the documentary evidence relating to the other workmen namely Bhoza
Pacha, Jagdish L. Raval, Mansukh Murli and Jayanti Magan of Bhavnagar Division at Ex. 84 who were re-engaged on
the basis of the attendance and seniority list and still they are working despite the fact that they were junior to him and
served the Western Railway for lesser days. They have also been made permanent. He has further alleged that as per
the rules of the Indian Railway Establishment, a workman having served for 120 days becomes automatically entitled
for a status of temporary employee and his services can only be terminated after serving a notice with one month pay.
Thus on the basis of the aforesaid submissions, he has prayed for reinstatement.
2.
The first party did not prefer to submit the written statement despite the fact that Shri N.J. Acharya submitted his
vakalatpatra on behalf of the first party on 22.12.2008/24.07.2009. Thereafter, after expiry of 13 years, when the first
party did not prefer to file the written statement, on 15.07.2016, the reference was ordered to proceed ex-parte against
the first party Western Railway, Divisional Office, Bhavnagar.
3.
The second party submitted his affidavit Ex. 6 in support of the statement of claim which is unrebutted.
Therefore, this tribunal has no option but to order appointment of the second party workman Tarunkumar M. Bhatt on
the post on which Leelaben Ravjibhai and others are appointed.
4.
Thus in the light of the aforesaid observations, the reference is accordingly disposed of and the first party is
directed to appoint the second party workman Tarunkumar M. Bhatt on the aforesaid post within 60 days from the
publication of the award with a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50000/-.
5.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2417-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
bf.M;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 18@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@15@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th October, 2017
S.O. 2417.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.10.2017.
[No. L-30011/15/2016-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
CASE No. ID No. 18 of 2016
The Pradhan, Panipat Refinery Contractors Sharamik Sangathan,
B.M.S. Office, Mal Godam Road, Panipat (Haryana)-132103
…(Petitioner)
Versus
8164
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1)
The Executive Deirector, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Panipat Refinery, Panipat (Haryana)-132140
2)
M/s. R.K. Garg Contractor, Bajrang Bhawan,
Near UCO Bank Building, G.T. Road,
Panipat (Haryana) -132103
…(Respondents)
Nemo For Workman :
Mr. Mohit Garg for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Paul S. Saini for IOC
AWARD
22/08/2017
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No.L-30011/15/2016-IR (M) dated 09.08.2016 has
referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management M/s R.K. Garg Contractor, Panipat in terminating the services of the
workman Sh. Dharambir on 30.11.2015 and not paying terminal benefits are just & legal? If not, then what
benefits the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
The workman is absent. The case was repeatedly called but no one appeared on behalf of workman. The record
bears testimony to the fact that right from 15.09.2016 the workman has been absenting continuously and even after
being served through registered post he has not bothered to ensure his presence in the Court to pursue his claim.
During the pendency of this case an application has been submitted by management on 15.05.2017 stating their
in that the workman has settled the dispute with the respondent No. 1, which fact is established by his admission letter
dated 04.05.2016, wherein he appears to have admitted that he has settled the claim out of Court with the contractor
and so there is no purpose in pursuing this litigation. Given the facts stated above, it appears that the workman has lost
interest in the matter probably because of the that he has received his dues and so it is mere wastage of the time of the
Court to wait any further for the workman to appear. So the case is dismissed for the non prosecution. Copy of the
Award be forwarded to Central Govt. for further necessary action.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
A. K. KOUL, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2418-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
bf.M;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 19@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@16@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th October, 2017
S.O. 2418.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.10.2017.
[No. L-30011/16/2016-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8165
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
CASE No. ID No. 19 of 2016
The Pradhan, Panipat Refinery Contractors Sharamik Sangathan,
B.M.S. Office, Mal Godam Road, Panipat (Haryana)-132103
…(Petitioner)
Versus
1)
The Executive Director, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Panipat Refinery, Panipat (Haryana)-132140
2)
M/s. R.K. Garg Contrator, Bajrang Bhawan,
Near UCO Bank Building, G.T. Road,
Panipat (Haryana) -132103
…(Respondents)
Nemo For Workman :
Mr. Mohak Garg for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Paul S. Saini for IOC
AWARD
22/08/2017
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No.L-30011/16/2016-IR (M) dated 09.08.2016 has
referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management M/s. R.K. Garg Contractor, Panipat in terminating the services of
the workman Sh. Dinesh Kumar on 30.11.2015 and not paying terminal benefits are just & legal? If not, then
what benefits the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
The workman is absent. The case was repeatedly called but no one appeared on behalf of workman. The record
bears testimony to the fact that right from 15.09.2016 the workman has been absenting continuously and even after
being served through registered post he has not bothered to ensure his presence in the Court to pursue his claim.
During the pendency of this case an application has been submitted by management on 15.05.2017 stating their
in that the workman has settled the dispute with the respondent No. 1, which fact is established by his admission letter
dated 08.09.2016, wherein he appears to have admitted that he has settled the claim out of Court with the contractor
and so there is no purpose in pursuing this litigation. Given the facts stated above, it appears that the workman has lost
interest in the matter probably because of the that he has received his dues and so it is mere wastage of the time of the
Court to wait any further for the workman to appear. So the case is dismissed for the non prosecution. Copy of the
Award be forwarded to Central Govt. for further necessary action.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
A. K. KOUL, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2419-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
bf.M;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@17@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th October, 2017
S.O. 2419.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
8166
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.10.2017.
[No. L-30011/17/2016-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
CASE No. ID No. 20 of 2016
The Pradhan, Panipat Refinery Contractors Sharamik Sangathan,
B.M.S. Office, Mal Godam Road, Panipat (Haryana)-132103
…(Petitioner)
Versus
1)
The Executive Director, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Panipat Refinery, Panipat (Haryana)-132140
2)
M/s. R.K. Garg Contractor, Bajrang Bhawan,
Near UCO Bank Building, G.T. Road,
Panipat (Haryana) -132103
…(Respondents)
Nemo For Workman :
Mr. Mohak Garg for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Paul S. Saini for IOC
AWARD
22/08/2017
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L-30011/17/2016-IR (M) dated 09.08.2016 has
referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management M/s R.K. Garg Contractor, Panipat in terminating the services of
the workman Sh. Sultan Singh on 30.11.2015 and not paying terminal benefits are just & legal? If not, then
what benefits the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
The workman is absent. The case was repeatedly called but no one appeared on behalf of workman. The record
bears testimony to the fact that right from 15.09.2016 the workman has been absenting continuously and even after
being served through registered post he has not bothered to ensure his presence in the Court to pursue his claim.
During the pendency of this case an application has been submitted by management on 15.05.2017 stating their
in that the workman has settled the dispute with the respondent No. 1, which fact is established by his admission letter
dated 17.09.2016, wherein he appears to have admitted that he has settled the claim out of Court with the contractor
and so there is no purpose in pursuing this litigation. Given the facts stated above, it appears that the workman has lost
interest in the matter probably because of that he has received his dues and so it is mere wastage of the time of the
Court to wait any further for the workman to appear. So the case is dismissed for the non prosecution. Copy of the
Award be forwarded to Central Govt. for further necessary action.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
A. K. KOUL, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2420-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
bf.M;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 21@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@18@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8167
New Delhi, the 6th October, 2017
S.O. 2420.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.10.2017.
[No. L-30011/18/2016-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
CASE No. ID No. 21 of 2016
The Pradhan, Panipat Refinery Contractors Sharamik Sangathan,
B.M.S. Office, Mal Godam Road, Panipat (Haryana)-132103
…(Petitioner)
Versus
1)
The Executive Director, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Panipat Refinery, Panipat (Haryana)-132140
2)
M/s. R.K. Garg Contractor, Bajrang Bhawan,
Near UCO Bank Building, G.T. Road,
Panipat (Haryana) -132103
…(Respondents)
Nemo For Workman :
Mr. Mohak Garg for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Paul S. Saini for IOC
AWARD
22/08/2017
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L-30011/18/2016-IR (M) dated 09.08.2016 has
referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management M/s R.K. Garg Contractor, Panipat in terminating the services of
the workman Sh. Ravinder on 30.11.2015 and not paying terminal benefits are just & legal? If not, then
what benefits the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
The workman is absent. The case was repeatedly called but no one appeared on behalf of workman. The record
bears testimony to the fact that right from 15.09.2016 the workman has been absenting continuously and even after
being served through registered post he has not bothered to ensure his presence in the Court to pursue his claim.
During the pendency of this case an application has been submitted by management on 15.05.2017 stating their
in that the workman has settled the dispute with the respondent No. 1, which fact is established by his admission letter
dated 17.09.2016, wherein he appears to have admitted that he has settled the claim out of Court with the contractor
and so there is no purpose in pursuing this litigation. Given the facts stated above, it appears that the workman has lost
interest in the matter probably because of that he has received his dues and so it is mere wastage of the time of the
Court to wait any further for the workman to appear. So the case is dismissed for the non prosecution. Copy of the
Award be forwarded to Central Govt. for further necessary action.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
A. K. KOUL, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2421-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
bf.M;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
8168
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@19@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th October, 2017
S.O. 2421.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.10.2017.
[No. L-30011/19/2016-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
CASE No. ID No. 22 of 2016
The Pradhan, Panipat Refinery Contractors Sharamik Sangathan,
B.M.S. Office, Mal Godam Road, Panipat (Haryana)-132103
…(Petitioner)
Versus
1)
The Executive Director, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Panipat Refinery, Panipat (Haryana)-132140
2)
M/s. R.K. Garg Contractor, Bajrang Bhawan,
Near UCO Bank Building, G.T. Road,
Panipat (Haryana) -132103
…(Respondents)
Nemo For Workman :
Mr. Mohak Garg for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Paul S. Saini for IOC
AWARD
22/08/2017
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L-30011/19/2016-IR (M) dated 09.08.2016 has
referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management M/s R.K. Garg Contractor, Panipat in terminating the services of
the workman Sh. Sonu Kumar on 30.11.2015 and not paying terminal benefits are just & legal? If not, then
what benefits the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
The workman is absent. The case was repeatedly called but no one appeared on behalf of workman. The record
bears testimony to the fact that right from 15.09.2016 the workman has been absenting continuously and even after
being served through registered post he has not bothered to ensure his presence in the Court to pursue his claim.
During the pendency of this case an application has been submitted by management on 15.05.2017 stating their
in that the workman has settled the dispute with the respondent No. 1, which fact is established by his admission letter
dated 17.09.2016, wherein he appears to have admitted that he has settled the claim out of Court with the contractor
and so there is no purpose in pursuing this litigation. Given the facts stated above, it appears that the workman has lost
interest in the matter probably because of the that he has received his dues and so it is mere wastage of the time of the
Court to wait any further for the workman to appear. So the case is dismissed for the non prosecution. Copy of the
Award be forwarded to Central Govt. for further necessary action.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
A. K. KOUL, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8169
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2422-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
bf.M;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 23@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@21@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th October, 2017
S.O. 2422.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.10.2017.
[No. L-30011/21/2016-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
CASE No. ID No. 23 of 2016
The Pradhan, Panipat Refinery Contractors Sharamik Sangathan,
B.M.S. Office, Mal Godam Road, Panipat (Haryana)-132103
…(Petitioner)
Versus
1)
The Executive Director, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Panipat Refinery, Panipat (Haryana)-132140
2)
M/s. R.K. Garg Contractor, Bajrang Bhawan,
Near UCO Bank Building, G.T. Road,
Panipat (Haryana) -132103
…(Respondents)
Nemo For Workman :
Mr. Mohak Garg for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Paul S. Saini for IOC
AWARD
22/08/2017
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L-30011/21/2016-IR (M) dated 09.08.2016 has
referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management M/s R.K. Garg Contractor, Panipat in terminating the services of
the workman Sh. Jaipal on 30.11.2015 and not paying terminal benefits are just & legal? If not, then what
benefits the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
The workman is absent. The case was repeatedly called but no one appeared on behalf of workman. The record
bears testimony to the fact that right from 15.09.2016 the workman has been absenting continuously and even after
being served through registered post he has not bothered to ensure his presence in the Court to pursue his claim.
During the pendency of this case an application has been submitted by management on 15.05.2017 stating their
in that the workman has settled the dispute with the respondent No. 1, which fact is established by his admission letter
dated 17.09.2016, wherein he appears to have admitted that he has settled the claim out of Court with the contractor
and so there is no purpose in pursuing this litigation. Given the facts stated above, it appears that the workman has lost
interest in the matter probably because of the that he has received his dues and so it is mere wastage of the time of the
8170
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Court to wait any further for the workman to appear. So the case is dismissed for the non prosecution. Copy of the
Award be forwarded to Central Govt. for further necessary action.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
A. K. KOUL, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2423-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
bf.M;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 24@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@25@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th October, 2017
S.O. 2423.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.10.2017.
[No. L-30011/25/2016-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
CASE No. ID No. 24 of 2016
The Pradhan, Panipat Refinery Contractors Sharamik Sangathan,
B.M.S. Office, Mal Godam Road, Panipat (Haryana)-132103
…(Petitioner)
Versus
1)
The Executive Director, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Panipat Refinery, Panipat (Haryana)-132140
2)
M/s. R.K. Garg Contractor, Bajrang Bhawan,
Near UCO Bank Building, G.T. Road,
Panipat (Haryana) -132103
…(Respondents)
Nemo For Workman :
Mr. Mohak Garg for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Paul S. Saini for IOC
AWARD
22/08/2017
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L-30011/25/2016-IR (M) dated 09.08.2016 has
referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management M/s R.K. Garg Contractor, Panipat in terminating the services of
the workman Sh. Shafiq on 30.11.2015 and not paying terminal benefits are just & legal? If not, then what
benefits the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
The workman is absent. The case was repeatedly called but no one appeared on behalf of workman. The record
bears testimony to the fact that right from 15.09.2016 the workman has been absenting continuously and even after
being served through registered post he has not bothered to ensure his presence in the Court to pursue his claim.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8171
During the pendency of this case an application has been submitted by management on 15.05.2017 stating their
in that the workman has settled the dispute with the respondent No. 1, which fact is established by his admission letter
dated 09.09.2016, wherein he appears to have admitted that he has settled the claim out of Court with the contractor
and so there is no purpose in pursuing this litigation. Given the facts stated above, it appears that the workman has lost
interest in the matter probably because of the that he has received his dues and so it is mere wastage of the time of the
Court to wait any further for the workman to appear. So the case is dismissed for the non prosecution. Copy of the
Award be forwarded to Central Govt. for further necessary action.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
A. K. KOUL, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2424-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
bf.M;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 25@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@26@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th October, 2017
S.O. 2424.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.10.2017.
[No. L-30011/26/2016-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
CASE No. ID No. 25 of 2016
The Pradhan, Panipat Refinery Contractors Sharamik Sangathan,
B.M.S. Office, Mal Godam Road, Panipat (Haryana)-132103
…(Petitioner)
Versus
1)
The Executive Director, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Panipat Refinery, Panipat (Haryana)-132140
2)
M/s. R.K. Garg Contractor, Bajrang Bhawan,
Near UCO Bank Building, G.T. Road,
Panipat (Haryana) -132103
…(Respondents)
Nemo For Workman :
Mr. Mohak Garg for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Paul S. Saini for IOC
AWARD
22/08/2017
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No.L-30011/26/2016-IR (M) dated 09.08.2016 has
referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
8172
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of the management M/s R.K. Garg Contractor, Panipat in terminating the services of
the workman Sh. Ajit Kumar on 30.11.2015 and not paying terminal benefits are just & legal? If not, then
what benefits the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
The workman is absent. The case was repeatedly called but no one appeared on behalf of workman. The record
bears testimony to the fact that right from 15.09.2016 the workman has been absenting continuously and even after
being served through registered post he has not bothered to ensure his presence in the Court to pursue his claim.
During the pendency of this case an application has been submitted by management on 15.05.2017 stating their
in that the workman has settled the dispute with the respondent No. 1, which fact is established by his admission letter
dated 17.09.2016, wherein he appears to have admitted that he has settled the claim out of Court with the contractor
and so there is no purpose in pursuing this litigation. Given the facts stated above, it appears that the workman has lost
interest in the matter probably because of the that he has received his dues and so it is mere wastage of the time of the
Court to wait any further for the workman to appear. So the case is dismissed for the non prosecution. Copy of the
Award be forwarded to Central Govt. for further necessary action.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
A. K. KOUL, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2425-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
bf.M;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 35@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@20@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th October, 2017
S.O. 2425.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 35/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.10.2017.
[No. L-30011/20/2016-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
CASE No. ID No. 35 of 2016
The Pradhan, Panipat Refinery Contractors Sharamik Sangathan,
B.M.S. Office, Mal Godam Road, Panipat (Haryana)-132103
…(Petitioner)
Versus
1)
The Executive Director, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Panipat Refinery, Panipat (Haryana)-132140
2)
M/s. R.K. Garg Contractor, Bajrang Bhawan,
Near UCO Bank Building, G.T. Road,
Panipat (Haryana) -132103
…(Respondents)
Nemo For Workman :
Mr. Mohak Garg for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Paul S. Saini for IOC
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8173
AWARD
23/08/2017
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L-30011/20/2016-IR (M) dated 06.09.2016 has
referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management M/s R.K. Garg Contractor, Panipat in terminating the services of
the workman Sh. Vijay Kumar on 30.11.2015 and not paying terminal benefits are just & legal? If not, then
what benefits the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
The workman is absent. The case was repeatedly called but no one appeared on behalf of workman. The record
bears testimony to the fact that right from 25.10.2016 the workman has been absenting continuously and even after
being served through registered post he has not bothered to ensure his presence in the Court to pursue his claim.
During the pendency of this case an application has been submitted by management on 16.05.2017 stating their
in that the workman has settled the dispute with the respondent No. 1, which fact is established by his admission letter
dated 12.09.2016, wherein he appears to have admitted that he has settled the claim out of Court with the contractor
and so there is no purpose in pursuing this litigation. Given the facts stated above, it appears that the workman has lost
interest in the matter probably because of the that he has received his dues and so it is mere wastage of the time of the
Court to wait any further for the workman to appear. So the case is dismissed for the non prosecution. Copy of the
Award be forwarded to Central Govt. for further necessary action.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
A. K. KOUL, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2426-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
bf.M;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 36@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@22@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th October, 2017
S.O. 2426.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.10.2017.
[No. L-30011/22/2016-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
CASE No. ID No. 36 of 2016
The Pradhan, Panipat Refinery Contractors Sharamik Sangathan,
B.M.S. Office, Mal Godam Road, Panipat (Haryana)-132103
…(Petitioner)
Versus
1)
The Executive Director, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Panipat Refinery, Panipat (Haryana)-132140
2)
M/s. R.K. Garg Contractor, Bajrang Bhawan,
Near UCO Bank Building, G.T. Road,
Panipat (Haryana) -132103
…(Respondents)
8174
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Nemo For Workman :
Mr. Mohak Garg for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Paul S. Saini for IOC
AWARD
23/08/2017
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No.L-30011/22/2016-IR (M) dated 06.09.2016 has
referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management M/s R.K. Garg Contractor, Panipat in terminating the services of
the workman Sh. Pawan on 30.11.2015 and not paying terminal benefits are just & legal? If not, then what
benefits the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
The workman is absent. The case was repeatedly called but no one appeared on behalf of workman. The record
bears testimony to the fact that right from 25.10.2016 the workman has been absenting continuously and even after
being served through registered post he has not bothered to ensure his presence in the Court to pursue his claim.
During the pendency of this case an application has been submitted by management on 16.05.2017 stating their
in that the workman has settled the dispute with the respondent No. 1, which fact is established by his admission letter
dated 09.09.2016, wherein he appears to have admitted that he has settled the claim out of Court with the contractor
and so there is no purpose in pursuing this litigation. Given the facts stated above, it appears that the workman has lost
interest in the matter probably because of the that he has received his dues and so it is mere wastage of the time of the
Court to wait any further for the workman to appear. So the case is dismissed for the non prosecution. Copy of the
Award be forwarded to Central Govt. for further necessary action.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
A. K. KOUL, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2427-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
bf.M;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 37@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@23@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th October, 2017
S.O. 2427.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.10.2017.
[No. L-30011/23/2016-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
CASE No. ID No. 37 of 2016
The Pradhan, Panipat Refinery Contractors Sharamik Sangathan,
B.M.S. Office, Mal Godam Road, Panipat (Haryana)-132103
…(Petitioner)
Versus
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8175
1)
The Executive Director, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Panipat Refinery, Panipat (Haryana)-132140
2)
M/s. R.K. Garg Contractor, Bajrang Bhawan,
Near UCO Bank Building, G.T. Road,
Panipat (Haryana) -132103
…(Respondents)
Nemo For Workman :
Mr. Mohak Garg for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Paul S. Saini for IOC
AWARD
23/08/2017
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No.L-30011/23/2016-IR (M) dated 06.09.2016 has
referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management M/s R.K. Garg Contractor, Panipat in terminating the services of
the workman Sh. Jitender on 30.11.2015 and not paying terminal benefits are just & legal? If not, then what
benefits the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
The workman is absent. The case was repeatedly called but no one appeared on behalf of workman. The record
bears testimony to the fact that right from 25.10.2016 the workman has been absenting continuously and even after
being served through registered post he has not bothered to ensure his presence in the Court to pursue his claim.
During the pendency of this case an application has been submitted by management on 16.05.2017 stating their
in that the workman has settled the dispute with the respondent No. 1, which fact is established by his admission letter
dated 19.05.2016, wherein he appears to have admitted that he has settled the claim out of Court with the contractor
and so there is no purpose in pursuing this litigation. Given the facts stated above, it appears that the workman has lost
interest in the matter probably because of the that he has received his dues and so it is mere wastage of the time of the
Court to wait any further for the workman to appear. So the case is dismissed for the non prosecution. Copy of the
Award be forwarded to Central Govt. for further necessary action.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
A. K. KOUL, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2428-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
bf.M;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 38@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@24@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th October, 2017
S.O. 2428.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.10.2017.
[No. L-30011/24/2016-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
8176
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
CASE No. ID No. 38 of 2016
The Pradhan, Panipat Refinery Contractors Sharamik Sangathan,
B.M.S. Office, Mal Godam Road, Panipat (Haryana)-132103
…(Petitioner)
Versus
1)
The Executive Director, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Panipat Refinery, Panipat (Haryana)-132140
2)
M/s. R.K. Garg Contractor, Bajrang Bhawan,
Near UCO Bank Building, G.T. Road,
Panipat (Haryana) -132103
…(Respondents)
Nemo For Workman :
Mr. Mohak Garg for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Paul S. Saini for IOC
AWARD
23/08/2017
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No.L-30011/24/2016-IR (M) dated 01.09.2016 has
referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management M/s R.K. Garg Contractor, Panipat in terminating the services of
the workman Sh. Satbir on 30.11.2015 and not paying terminal benefits are just & legal? If not, then what
benefits the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
The workman is absent. The case was repeatedly called but no one appeared on behalf of workman. The record
bears testimony to the fact that right from 25.10.2016 the workman has been absenting continuously and even after
being served through registered post he has not bothered to ensure his presence in the Court to pursue his claim.
During the pendency of this case an application has been submitted by management on 16.05.2017 stating their
in that the workman has settled the dispute with the respondent No. 1, which fact is established by his admission letter
dated 17.09.2016, wherein he appears to have admitted that he has settled the claim out of Court with the contractor
and so there is no purpose in pursuing this litigation. Given the facts stated above, it appears that the workman has lost
interest in the matter probably because of the that he has received his dues and so it is mere wastage of the time of the
Court to wait any further for the workman to appear. So the case is dismissed for the non prosecution. Copy of the
Award be forwarded to Central Govt. for further necessary action.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
A. K. KOUL, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2429-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
bf.M;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 39@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@27@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 6th October, 2017
S.O. 2429.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8177
management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.10.2017.
[No. L-30011/27/2016-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
CASE No. ID No. 39 of 2016
The Pradhan, Panipat Refinery Contractors Sharamik Sangathan,
B.M.S. Office, Mal Godam Road, Panipat (Haryana)-132103
…(Petitioner)
Versus
1)
The Executive Director, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Panipat Refinery, Panipat (Haryana)-132140
2)
M/s. R.K. Garg Contractor, Bajrang Bhawan,
Near UCO Bank Building, G.T. Road,
Panipat (Haryana) -132103
…(Respondents)
Nemo For Workman :
Mr. Mohak Garg for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Paul S. Saini for IOC
AWARD
23/08/2017
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L-30011/27/2016-IR (M) dated 06.09.2016 has
referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management M/s. R.K. Garg Contractor, Panipat in terminating the services of
the workman Sh. Jyoti Lal on 30.11.2015 and not paying terminal benefits are just & legal? If not, then what
benefits the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
The workman is absent. The case was repeatedly called but no one appeared on behalf of workman. The record
bears testimony to the fact that right from 25.10.2016 the workman has been absenting continuously and even after
being served through registered post he has not bothered to ensure his presence in the Court to pursue his claim.
During the pendency of this case an application has been submitted by management on 16.05.2017 stating their
in that the workman has settled the dispute with the respondent No. 1, which fact is established by his admission letter
dated 17.09.2016, wherein he appears to have admitted that he has settled the claim out of Court with the contractor
and so there is no purpose in pursuing this litigation. Given the facts stated above, it appears that the workman has lost
interest in the matter probably because of the that he has received his dues and so it is mere wastage of the time of the
Court to wait any further for the workman to appear. So the case is dismissed for the non prosecution. Copy of the
Award be forwarded to Central Govt. for further necessary action.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
A. K. KOUL, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2430-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
bf.M;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 40@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@14@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º
jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo
8178
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 6th October, 2017
S.O. 2430.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 06.10.2017.
[No. L-30011/14/2016-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
CASE No. ID No. 40 of 2016
The Pradhan, Panipat Refinery Contractors Sharamik Sangathan,
B.M.S. Office, Mal Godam Road, Panipat (Haryana)-132103
…(Petitioner)
Versus
1)
The Executive Director, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Panipat Refinery, Panipat (Haryana)-132140
2)
M/s. R.K. Garg Contractor, Bajrang Bhawan,
Near UCO Bank Building, G.T. Road,
Panipat (Haryana) -132103
…(Respondents)
Nemo For Workman :
Mr. Mohak Garg for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Paul S. Saini for IOC
AWARD
23/08/2017
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No.L-30011/14/2016-IR (M) dated 12.09.2016 has
referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management M/s. R.K. Garg Cotractor, Panipat in terminating the services of the
workman Sh. Majal Singh on 30.11.2015 and not paying terminal benefits are just & legal? If not, then what
benefits the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
The workman is absent. The case was repeatedly called but no one appeared on behalf of workman. The record
bears testimony to the fact that right from 25.10.2016 the workman has been absenting continuously and even after
being served through registered post he has not bothered to ensure his presence in the Court to pursue his claim.
During the pendency of this case an application has been submitted by management on 16.05.2017 stating their
in that the workman has settled the dispute with the respondent No. 1, which fact is established by his admission letter
dated 17.09.2016, wherein he appears to have admitted that he has settled the claim out of Court with the contractor
and so there is no purpose in pursuing this litigation. Given the facts stated above, it appears that the workman has lost
interest in the matter probably because of the that he has received his dues and so it is mere wastage of the time of the
Court to wait any further for the workman to appear. So the case is dismissed for the non prosecution. Copy of the
Award be forwarded to Central Govt. for further necessary action.
Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the
Central Govt. for publication.
A. K. KOUL, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8179
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2431-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-
,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 32@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@25@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Lkehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2431.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which were received by the Central
Government on 09.10.2017.
[No. L-30012/25/2013-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 28thAugust, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No- 32/2014
1.
The Asset Manager,
ONGC Ltd.,
Ankleshwar Asset,
Ankleshwar (Gujarat)
2.
The Proprietor,
M/s. Sachin Construction,
At and PO Baluja,
Tal. And Distt. Vadodara,
Vadodara (Gujarat)
… First Party
V/s
Mr. PunjabhaiVarrambhaiParmar,
32, Rambaug Society,
Makarpura Road, Vadodara,
Vadodara (Gujarat)
… Second Party
For the First Party : Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party : None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-30012/25/2013-IR(M) dated 19.02.2014 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., through its contractor in terminating the services of
Shri Punjabhai Vasarambhai Parmar w.e.f. 09.09.2010 without complying the provisions of Section 25-F and
25-G of the I.D. Act 1947 is legal, proper and just? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled
to?”
8180
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1. The reference dates back to 19.02.2014. Despite service of notice to both the parties, the second party failed to
submit his statement of claim. However the first party submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 3 on 05.11.2015.
Therefore, a fresh notice Ex. 4 was issued to the first party No. 2 and the second party to appear on 21.06.2016
but neither of the aforesaid parties appeared on 21.06.2016 nor they send their statement of claim or written
statement by post. Despite default of the parties, the tribunal gave them dates on 15.11.2016, 24.01.2017,
21.03.2017, 15.05.2017, 12.06.2017 and 28.08.2017 to file their statement of claim or written statement as the
case may be, even in the form of last opportunity, but to no result. Thus it appears that the second party is not
willing to prosecute the case.
2. Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party, is finally disposed of with the
observation as under: “the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., through its contractor in terminating the
services of Shri Punjabhai Vasarambhai Parmar w.e.f. 09.09.2010 without complying the provisions of
Section 25-F and 25-G of the I.D. Act 1947 is legal, proper and just.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2432-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
us'kuy ba';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 62@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&17012@14@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Lkehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2432.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 09.10.2017.
[No. L-17012/14/2015-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT- cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 06th September, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No- 62/2015
The Deputy General Manager,
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Hajubhai Chambers,
Near Town Hall Mill,
Ellice Bridge,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380006
…First Party
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8181
V/s
Shri Dilip Kumbali Rana,
New Sunderpuri,
Talawadi Vistar,
Near Deepak Floor Mill,
Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201
…Second Party
For the First Party : None
For the Second Party : None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-17012/14/2015-IR(M) dated 21.07.2015 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of National Insurance Company Ltd., Ahmedabad in terminating the
services/engagement of Shri Dilip Kumbaji Rana is just, fair, proper and legal? If so, to what relief is the
concerned workman Shri Dilip Kumbaji Rana entitled?”
1. The reference dates back to 21.07.2015. Notices were issued to both the parties. The acknowledgement of the
service of the notice to the first party National Insurance Company Ltd. is received on 13.04.2017. However
the notice send to the second party workman by registered post Ex. 4 is received as unserved on 17.04.2017
without any remark which indicates that the second party workman does not reside on the address mentioned
in the reference.
2. Thus in the said circumstances, the reference is disposed of/dismissed in non-prosecution of the reference by
the second party workman.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2433-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-
,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 70@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
09-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@27@2015&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Lkehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2433.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 70/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
09.10.2017.
[No. L-30012/27/2015-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
8182
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer,
CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 6th September, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No- 70/2015
The Executive Director,
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.,
Ahmedabad Asset, Avani Bhavan, Chandkheda,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380005
…First Party
V/s
Shri Niktesh N. Solanki,
41, Shaktikunj Society,
Behind Sumjuba Hospital,
Bapunagar,
Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) – 380024
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party : None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/27/2015-IR(M)
dated 02.11.2015 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the
matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Ahmedabad in disengaging/discontinuing the services
of Shri Niktesh N. Solanki, Pharmacist (on contract basis) and victimizing him by way of non-renewal of
contract through non-selection during recruitment process by the Selection Committee of the management, is
legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief Shri Niktesh N. Solanki is entitled to and from which date and
what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 02.11.2015. Both the parties were served by registered post and the first party
submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 5 of his advocate on 10.05.2016. But the second party did not prefer to submit
their statement of claim despite giving half a dozen opportunities from the date of service of notice to him on
09.02.2016, the date of the acknowledgement of the service of the notice.
2.
Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the reference.
3.
Therefore, the reference in the absence of the pleadings of the workman, is disposed of with the observation as
under: “the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Ahmedabad in disengaging/discontinuing the services of
Shri Niktesh N. Solanki, Pharmacist (on contract basis) and victimizing him by way of non-renewal of
contract through non-selection during recruitment process by the Selection Committee of the management, is
legal, proper and justified
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8183
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2434-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-
,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 206@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@15@1999&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Lkehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2434.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 206/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
09.10.2017.
[No. L-30011/15/1999-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 06th September, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No- 206/2004
1.
The Group General Manager,
ONGC Ltd., KDM Bhawan, Palavasana, Mehsana (Gujarat)
2.
M/s. Public Powe Mazdoor Kamdar Sahakari Mandli Ltd.,
Opp. Dudhsagar Dairy, Highway Road, Mehsana (Gujarat)
3.
M/s. Swastik Mazdoor Kamgar Sahakari Mandli Ltd.,
Sardar Shopping Centre, Near Congressh House, Mehsana (Gujarat)
4.
M/s. Multipurpose Manpower Management Services Pvt.,
1st Floor, Tapasvi Chambers, Opp. Sagar Diary, Highway, Mehsana (Gujarat)
5.
M/s. Adarsh Majdoor Sahakari Mandli Ltd.,
Near Gayatri Temple, Highway Road, Mehsana (Gujarat)
6.
M/s. Chanasma Taluka Majdoor Kamdar Sahakari Mandli Ltd.,
C/o Gandhi Printers, Opp. B.K. Cinema,
S.T. Workshop Road, Mehsana (Gujarat)
… First Party
V/s
The Secretary,
ONGC Labour Union,
8, Samarpan Shopping Complex, Highway Road,
Mehsana (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party : Shri A.S. Kapoor
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/15/99-
IR(M) dated 16.06.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule:
8184
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether ONGC Labour Union is justified in demanding absorption/regularisation of 18 workmen w.e.f. the
date of the appointment since working on prohibited category in terms of Notification No. U-23013/4/92 LW
dated 08.09.1994 and S.O. No. 779 (E) dated 09.12.1976 issued by Government of India? If so, to what relief
the concerned workmen are entitled to?”
3. The reference dates back to 16.06.1999. The second party workman submitted the claim Ex. 5 on
15/16.10.2001 along with the application for interim relief Ex. 6. The first party submitted the written
statement Ex. 27 on 22.01.2009 along with the reply to the application of interim relief. Since then the second
party workman has not been leading evidence despite giving dozens of opportunities to lead evidence. On
25.01.2017, advocate Shri Yogen Pandya submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 29 on behalf of the second party
workman with a request to give last opportunity to lead evidence. Thereafter, the case was listed on
15.03.2017, 05.07.2017 and 30.08.2017. On neither of the aforesaid dates, the workman or Shri Yogen Pandya
appeared to lead evidence. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the reference.
4. Therefore, the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman, is disposed of with the
observation as under: “ONGC Labour Union is unjustified in demanding absorption/regularisation of 18
workmen w.e.f. the date of the appointment since working on prohibited category in terms of Notification No.
U-23013/4/92 LW dated 08.09.1994 and S.O. No. 779 (E) dated 09.12.1976 issued by Government of India.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2435-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
,fol eSfju bathfu;lZ izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 609@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&37011@13@1994&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Lkehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2435.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 609/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Avis Marine Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 09.10.2017.
[No. L-37011/13/1994-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad,
Dated 05th September, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No- 609/2004
M/s. Avis Marine Engineers Private Limited,
Plot No. 53, Sector – 10/A,
Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201
…First Party
V/s
The President,
Kandla Port Karamchari Sangh,
T.C.X. – S – 94,
Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201
…Second Party
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8185
For the First Party :
For the Second Party : Shri S.N. Gandhi
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/13/94-
IR(M) dated 10.02.1995 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the termination/retrenchment of Shri Navin Kharva, Helper, R.H. Gupta, Welder, Jagdish B.
Chauhan, Driver and M. Jairaj, Helper by the management of M/s Avis Marine Engineers, Gandhidham w.e.f.
17.03.1994 is valid, just and legal? If not to what benefits the workmen are entitled for and what directions are
necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 10.02.1995. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 on
02.02.1997 and the first party M/s Avis Marine Engineers Private Limited submitted the written statement Ex.
6 on 11.11.1998 along with number of documents vide list Ex. 8. Since then the second party has not been
leading evidence despite the fact that the advocate Shri S.N. Gandhi submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 10 on
25.03.2009. It is also noteworthy that this tribunal issued fresh notice to both the parties on 04.03.2011 to
appear on 18.04.2011. The notice sent to the second party was not received as unserved and the second party
has also not appeared since then. Thus it appears that the second party workman has not been leading to
prosecute the case.
2.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation
as under: “the termination/retrenchment of Shri Navin Kharva, Helper, R.H. Gupta, Welder, Jagdish B.
Chauhan, Driver and M. Jairaj, Helper by the management of M/s Avis Marine Engineers, Gandhidham w.e.f.
17.03.1994 is valid, just and legal.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2436-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-
,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 68@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@43@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Lkehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2436.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 68/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
09.10.2017.
[No. L-30012/43/2007-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 31st August, 2017
8186
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reference: (CGITA) No- 68/2010
1.
M/s. Guardwell Security Services,
217, Omkar Chambers,
Opp. Railway Station,
Surat (Gujarat)
2.
The Executive Director – Basin Manager,
ONGC Ltd., Western Sector,
Makarpura Road,
Baroda (Gujarat) – 390009
3.
The Manager/Security Officer,
UP Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd.,
114/115, Vibhuti Khand Gomtinagar,
Lucknow (U.P.)
4.
M/s. Trig Guard Force Ltd.,
Trig House, 10th Floor, JVPD Scheme,
Juhu, Mumbai
5.
The Area Manager,
Flash Security and Intelligence Services,
96/1718, Samta Nagar, Kandivali (East),
Mumbai – 400101
…First Party
V/s
Shri Shashikant Tukaram Malode,
702, Vishalnagar, Tarsali,
Baroda (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri C.S. Naidu
For the Second Party : Shri J.I. Shah
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-30012/43/2007-IR(M) dated 13.05.2008 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Baroda through its contractor M/s U.P. Purva Sainik
Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Shashikant Tukaram Malode, Ex-Security
Guard w.e.f. 20.03.2006 without compliance of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during
the pendency of industrial dispute for regularisation of service of contract workmen before the CGIT,
Ahmedabad in ITC Reference No. 1417/2004 is legal, proper and just? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 13.05.2008. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on
31.07.2008 along with the documents vide list Ex. 7. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 14 on
16.10.2008 along with the reply Ex. 12 to the interim relief application moved by the second party. Later the
application for interim relief was later not pressed but the second party moved an application Ex. 19 for
production of documents. Therefore, same was allowed and the case was fixed for evidence of the second
party. On 16.03.2017 and 06.07.2017, twice last opportunities were given to the second party to lead evidence
but the second party did not prefer to lead evidence today on 31.08.2017. The second party has also been
absent since last number of dates.
2.
Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.
3.
Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party, is finally disposed of with the
observation as under: “the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Baroda through its contractor M/s U.P.
Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Shashikant Tukaram Malode,
Ex-Security Guard w.e.f. 20.03.2006 without compliance of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8187
1947 during the pendency of industrial dispute for regularisation of service of contract workmen before the
CGIT, Ahmedabad in ITC Reference No. 1417/2004 is legal, proper and just.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2437-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-
,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 69@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@44@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Lkehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2437.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
09.10.2017.
[No. L-30012/44/2007-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 31st August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No- 69/2010
1.
M/s. Guardwell Security Services,
217, Omkar Chambers,
Opp. Railway Station,
Surat (Gujarat)
2.
The Executive Director – Basin Manager,
ONGC Ltd., Western Sector,
Makarpura Road,
Baroda (Gujarat) – 390009
3.
The Manager/Security Officer,
UP Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd.,
114/115, Vibhuti Khand Gomtinagar,
Lucknow (U.P.)
4.
M/s. Trig Guard Force Ltd.,
Trig House, 10th Floor, JVPD Scheme,
Juhu, Mumbai
5.
The Area Manager,
Flash Security and Intelligence Services,
96/1718, Samta Nagar, Kandivali (East),
Mumbai – 400101
…First Party
V/s
Shri Vijaykumar Bhailalbhai Patel,
Opp. Tarsali Talav, Tarsali,
Baroda (Gujarat)
…Second Party
8188
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
For the First Party : Shri C.S. Naidu
For the Second Party : Shri J.I. Shah
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-30012/44/2007-IR(M) dated 13.05.2008 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Baroda through its contractor M/s. U.P. Purva Sainik
Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Vijaykumar Bhailalbhai Patel, Ex-Security
Guard w.e.f. 20.03.2006 without compliance of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during
the pendency of industrial dispute for regularisation of service of contract workmen before the CGIT,
Ahmedabad in ITC Reference No. 1417/2004 is legal, proper and just? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 13.05.2008.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on
31.07.2008 along with the documents vide list Ex. 7. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 12 on
16.10.2008 along with the reply Ex. 14 to the interim relief application moved by the second party. Later the
application for interim relief was later not pressed but the second party moved an application Ex. 19 for
production of documents. Therefore, same was allowed and the case was fixed for evidence of the second
party. On 16.03.2017 and 06.07.2017, twice last opportunities were given to the second party to lead evidence
but the second party did not prefer to lead evidence today on 31.08.2017. The second party has also been
absent since last number of dates.
2.
Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.
3.
Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party, is finally disposed of with the
observation as under: “the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Baroda through its contractor M/s. U.P.
Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Vijaykumar Bhailalbhai Patel,
Ex-Security Guard w.e.f. 20.03.2006 without compliance of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 during the pendency of industrial dispute for regularisation of service of contract workmen before the
CGIT, Ahmedabad in ITC Reference No. 1417/2004 is legal, proper and just.”
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2438-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-
,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 70@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@36@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Lkehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2438.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 70/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
09.10.2017.
[No. L-30012/36/2007-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8189
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 31st August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No- 70/2010
1.
M/s. Guardwell Security Services,
217, Omkar Chambers,
Opp. Railway Station,
Surat (Gujarat)
2.
The Executive Director – Basin Manager,
ONGC Ltd., Western Sector,
Makarpura Road,
Baroda (Gujarat) – 390009
3.
The Manager/Security Officer,
UP Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd.,
114/115, Vibhuti Khand Gomtinagar,
Lucknow (U.P.)
4.
M/s. Trig Guard Force Ltd.,
Trig House, 10th Floor, JVPD Scheme,
Juhu, Mumbai
5.
The Area Manager,
Flash Security and Intelligence Services,
96/1718, Samta Nagar, Kandivali (East),
Mumbai – 400101
…First Party
V/s
Shri Bharatkumar Bhulabhai Parmar,
A/18, R.K. Puram,Opp. Tarsali Talav, Tarsali,
Baroda (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri C.S. Naidu
For the Second Party : Shri J.I. Shah
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-30012/36/2007-IR(M) dated 13.05.2008 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Baroda through its contractor M/s. U.P. Purva Sainik
Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Bharatkumar Bhulabhai Parmar, Ex-Security
Guard w.e.f. 20.03.2006 without compliance of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during
the pendency of industrial dispute for regularisation of service of contract workmen before the CGIT,
Ahmedabad in ITC Reference No. 1417/2004 is legal, proper and just? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 13.05.2008.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on
31.07.2008 along with the documents vide list Ex. 7. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 12 on
16.10.2008 along with the reply Ex. 14 to the interim relief application moved by the second party. Later the
application for interim relief was later not pressed but the second party moved an application Ex. 19 for
production of documents. Therefore, same was allowed and the case was fixed for evidence of the second
party. On 16.03.2017 and 06.07.2017, twice last opportunities were given to the second party to lead evidence
but the second party did not prefer to lead evidence today on 31.08.2017. The second party has also been
absent since last number of dates.
8190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.
3.
Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party, is finally disposed of with the
observation as under: “the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Baroda through its contractor M/s. U.P.
Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Bharatkumar Bhulabhai
Parmar, Ex-Security Guard w.e.f. 20.03.2006 without compliance of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 during the pendency of industrial dispute for regularisation of service of contract workmen
before the CGIT, Ahmedabad in ITC Reference No. 1417/2004 is legal, proper and just.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2439-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-
,u-th-lh fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 71@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@41@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Lkehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2439.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
09.10.2017.
[No. L-30012/41/2007-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 31st August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No- 71/2010
1.
M/s. Guardwell Security Services,
217, Omkar Chambers,
Opp. Railway Station,
Surat (Gujarat)
2.
The Executive Director – Basin Manager,
ONGC Ltd., Western Sector,
Makarpura Road,
Baroda (Gujarat) – 390009
3.
The Manager/Security Officer,
UP Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd.,
114/115, Vibhuti Khand Gomtinagar,
Lucknow (U.P.)
4.
M/s. Trig Guard Force Ltd.,
Trig House, 10th Floor, JVPD Scheme,
Juhu, Mumbai
5.
The Area Manager,
Flash Security and Intelligence Services,
96/1718, Samta Nagar, Kandivali (East),
Mumbai – 400101
…First Party
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8191
V/s
Shri Aslam Abdulkarim Qureshi,
Mehbobpura, Behind Temple,
Baroda (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri C.S. Naidu
For the Second Party : Shri J.I. Shah
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-30012/41/2007-IR(M) dated 13.05.2008 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Baroda through its contractor M/s. U.P. Purva Sainik
Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Aslam Abdulkarim Qureshi, Ex-Security
Guard w.e.f. 20.03.2006 without compliance of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during
the pendency of industrial dispute for regularisation of service of contract workmen before the CGIT,
Ahmedabad in ITC Reference No. 1417/2004 is legal, proper and just? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 13.05.2008.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on 31.07.2008
along with the documents vide list Ex. 7. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 12 on 16.10.2008
along with the reply Ex. 14 to the interim relief application moved by the second party. Later the application for
interim relief was later not pressed but the second party moved an application Ex. 19 for production of
documents. Therefore, same was allowed and the case was fixed for evidence of the second party. On 16.03.2017
and 06.07.2017, twice last opportunities were given to the second party to lead evidence but the second party did
not prefer to lead evidence today on 31.08.2017. The second party has also been absent since last number of
dates.
2.
Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.
3.
Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party, is finally disposed of with the observation
as under: “the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Baroda through its contractor M/s. U.P. Purva Sainik
Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Aslam Abdulkarim Qureshi, Ex-Security Guard
w.e.f. 20.03.2006 without compliance of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during the
pendency of industrial dispute for regularisation of service of contract workmen before the CGIT, Ahmedabad in
ITC Reference No. 1417/2004 is legal, proper and just.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2440-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-
,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 72@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@40@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Lkehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2440.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
09.10.2017.
[No. L-30012/40/2007-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
8192
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 31st August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No- 72/2010
1.
M/s. Guardwell Security Services,
217, Omkar Chambers,
Opp. Railway Station,
Surat (Gujarat)
2.
The Executive Director – Basin Manager,
ONGC Ltd., Western Sector,
Makarpura Road,
Baroda (Gujarat) – 390009
3.
The Manager/Security Officer,
UP Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd.,
114/115, Vibhuti Khand Gomtinagar,
Lucknow (U.P.)
4.
M/s. Trig Guard Force Ltd.,
Trig House, 10th Floor, JVPD Scheme,
Juhu, Mumbai
5.
The Area Manager,
Flash Security and Intelligence Services,
96/1718, Samta Nagar, Kandivali (East),
Mumbai – 400101
…First Party
V/s
Shri Kanaksinh A. Jadav,
Danteshwar, Vachalia Falia, Pratapnagar,
Baroda (Gujarat)
… Second Party
For the First Party : Shri C.S. Naidu
For the Second Party : Shri J.I. Shah
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-30012/40/2007-IR(M) dated 13.05.2008 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Baroda through its contractor M/s. U.P. Purva Sainik
Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Kanaksinh A. Jadav, Ex-Security Guard
w.e.f. 20.03.2006 without compliance of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during the
pendency of industrial dispute for regularisation of service of contract workmen before the CGIT, Ahmedabad
in ITC Reference No. 1417/2004 is legal, proper and just? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 13.05.2008.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on
31.07.2008 along with the documents vide list Ex. 7. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 12 on
16.10.2008 along with the reply Ex. 14 to the interim relief application moved by the second party. Later the
application for interim relief was later not pressed but the second party moved an application Ex. 19 for
production of documents. Therefore, same was allowed and the case was fixed for evidence of the second
party. On 16.03.2017 and 06.07.2017, twice last opportunities were given to the second party to lead evidence
but the second party did not prefer to lead evidence today on 31.08.2017. The second party has also been
absent since last number of dates.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8193
2.
Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.
3.
Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party, is finally disposed of with the
observation as under: “the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Baroda through its contractor M/s. U.P.
Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Kanaksinh A. Jadav, Ex-
Security Guard w.e.f. 20.03.2006 without compliance of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 during the pendency of industrial dispute for regularisation of service of contract workmen before the
CGIT, Ahmedabad in ITC Reference No. 1417/2004 is legal, proper and just.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2441-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-
,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 73@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@39@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Lkehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2441.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
09.10.2017.
[No. L-30012/39/2007-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 31st August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 73/2010
1.
M/s. Guardwell Security Services,
217, Omkar Chambers,
Opp. Railway Station,
Surat (Gujarat)
2.
The Executive Director – Basin Manager,
ONGC Ltd., Western Sector,
Makarpura Road,
Baroda (Gujarat) – 390009
3.
The Manager/Security Officer,
UP Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd.,
114/115, Vibhuti Khand Gomtinagar,
Lucknow (U.P.)
4.
M/s. Trig Guard Force Ltd.,
Trig House, 10th Floor, JVPD Scheme,
Juhu, Mumbai
5.
The Area Manager,
Flash Security and Intelligence Services,
96/1718, Samta Nagar, Kandivali (East),
Mumbai – 400101
…First Party
8194
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
V/s
Shri Chatrasingh Shivabhai Parmar,
Nr. Temple Steel Company, Vishwamitri Road, Sona Tekri,
Baroda (Gujarat)
… Second Party
For the First Party : Shri C.S. Naidu
For the Second Party : Shri J.I. Shah
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-30012/39/2007-IR(M) dated 13.05.2008 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Baroda through its contractor M/s U.P. Purva Sainik
Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Chatrasingh Shivabhai Parmar, Ex-Security
Guard w.e.f. 20.03.2006 without compliance of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during
the pendency of industrial dispute for regularisation of service of contract workmen before the CGIT,
Ahmedabad in ITC Reference No. 1417/2004 is legal, proper and just? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 13.05.2008.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on
31.07.2008 along with the documents vide list Ex. 7. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 12 on
16.10.2008 along with the reply Ex. 14 to the interim relief application moved by the second party. Later the
application for interim relief was later not pressed but the second party moved an application Ex. 19 for
production of documents. Therefore, same was allowed and the case was fixed for evidence of the second
party. On 16.03.2017 and 06.07.2017, twice last opportunities were given to the second party to lead evidence
but the second party did not prefer to lead evidence today on 31.08.2017. The second party has also been
absent since last number of dates.
2.
Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.
3.
Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party, is finally disposed of with the
observation as under: “the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Baroda through its contractor M/s U.P.
Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Chatrasingh Shivabhai Parmar,
Ex-Security Guard w.e.f. 20.03.2006 without compliance of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 during the pendency of industrial dispute for regularisation of service of contract workmen before the
CGIT, Ahmedabad in ITC Reference No. 1417/2004 is legal, proper and just.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2442-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-
,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 74@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@38@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Lkehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2442.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
09.10.2017.
[No. L-30012/38/2007-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8195
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 31st August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No- 74/2010
1.
M/s. Guardwell Security Services,
217, Omkar Chambers,
Opp. Railway Station,
Surat (Gujarat)
2.
The Executive Director – Basin Manager,
ONGC Ltd., Western Sector,
Makarpura Road,
Baroda (Gujarat) – 390009
3.
The Manager/Security Officer,
UP Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd.,
114/115, Vibhuti Khand Gomtinagar,
Lucknow (U.P.)
4.
M/s. Trig Guard Force Ltd.,
Trig House, 10th Floor, JVPD Scheme,
Juhu, Mumbai
5.
The Area Manager,
Flash Security and Intelligence Services,
96/1718, Samta Nagar, Kandivali (East),
Mumbai – 400101
…First Party
V/s
Shri Pareshbhai Ambalal Patel,
A/26, R.K. Puram, Opp. Tarsali Talav, Tarsali,
Baroda (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri C.S. Naidu
For the Second Party : Shri J.I. Shah
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-30012/38/2007-IR(M) dated 13.05.2008 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Baroda through its contractor M/s U.P. Purva Sainik
Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Pareshbhai Ambalal Patel, Ex-Security
Guard w.e.f. 20.03.2006 without compliance of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during
the pendency of industrial dispute for regularisation of service of contract workmen before the CGIT,
Ahmedabad in ITC Reference No. 1417/2004 is legal, proper and just? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 13.05.2008.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on
31.07.2008 along with the documents vide list Ex. 7. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 12 on
16.10.2008 along with the reply Ex. 14 to the interim relief application moved by the second party. Later the
application for interim relief was later not pressed but the second party moved an application Ex. 19 for
production of documents. Therefore, same was allowed and the case was fixed for evidence of the second
party. On 16.03.2017 and 06.07.2017, twice last opportunities were given to the second party to lead evidence
but the second party did not prefer to lead evidence today on 31.08.2017. The second party has also been
absent since last number of dates.
8196
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.
3.
Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party, is finally disposed of with the
observation as under: “the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Baroda through its contractor M/s U.P.
Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Pareshbhai Ambalal Patel, Ex-
Security Guard w.e.f. 20.03.2006 without compliance of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 during the pendency of industrial dispute for regularisation of service of contract workmen before the
CGIT, Ahmedabad in ITC Reference No. 1417/2004 is legal, proper and just.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2443-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-
,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 75@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@42@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Lkehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2443.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 75/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
09.10.2017.
[No. L-30012/42/2007-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 31st August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No- 75/2010
1.
M/s. Guardwell Security Services,
217, Omkar Chambers,
Opp. Railway Station,
Surat (Gujarat)
2.
The Executive Director – Basin Manager,
ONGC Ltd., Western Sector,
Makarpura Road,
Baroda (Gujarat) – 390009
3.
The Manager/Security Officer,
UP Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd.,
114/115, Vibhuti Khand Gomtinagar,
Lucknow (U.P.)
4.
M/s. Trig Guard Force Ltd.,
Trig House, 10th Floor, JVPD Scheme,
Juhu, Mumbai
5.
The Area Manager,
Flash Security and Intelligence Services,
96/1718, Samta Nagar, Kandivali (East),
Mumbai – 400101
…First Party
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8197
V/s
Shri Mansuri Kalubhai Noorbhai,
78, Rajivnagar, Tarsali,
Baroda (Gujarat)
… Second Party
For the First Party : Shri C.S. Naidu
For the Second Party : Shri J.I. Shah
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/42/
2007-IR(M) dated 13.05.2008 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Baroda through its contractor M/s. U.P. Purva Sainik
Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Mansuri Kalubhai Noorbhai, Ex-Security
Guard w.e.f. 20.03.2006 without compliance of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 during
the pendency of industrial dispute for regularisation of service of contract workmen before the CGIT,
Ahmedabad in ITC Reference No. 1417/2004 is legal, proper and just? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 13.05.2008.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on
31.07.2008 along with the documents vide list Ex. 7. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 12 on
16.10.2008 along with the reply Ex. 14 to the interim relief application moved by the second party. Later the
application for interim relief was later not pressed but the second party moved an application Ex. 19 for
production of documents. Therefore, same was allowed and the case was fixed for evidence of the second
party. On 16.03.2017 and 06.07.2017, twice last opportunities were given to the second party to lead evidence
but the second party did not prefer to lead evidence today on 31.08.2017. The second party has also been
absent since last number of dates.
2.
Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.
3.
Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party, is finally disposed of with the
observation as under: “the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Baroda through its contractor M/s. U.P.
Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Mansuri Kalubhai Noorbhai,
Ex-Security Guard w.e.f. 20.03.2006 without compliance of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 during the pendency of industrial dispute for regularisation of service of contract workmen before the
CGIT, Ahmedabad in ITC Reference No. 1417/2004 is legal, proper and just.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2444-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-
,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 76@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@37@2007&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Lkehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2444.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 76/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
09.10.2017.
[No. L-30012/37/2007-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
8198
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 31st August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 76/2010
1.
M/s. Guardwell Security Services,
217, Omkar Chambers,
Opp. Railway Station,
Surat (Gujarat)
2.
The Executive Director – Basin Manager,
ONGC Ltd., Western Sector,
Makarpura Road,
Baroda (Gujarat) – 390009
3.
The Manager/Security Officer,
UP Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd.,
114/115, Vibhuti Khand Gomtinagar,
Lucknow (U.P.)
4.
M/s. Trig Guard Force Ltd.,
Trig House, 10th Floor, JVPD Scheme,
Juhu, Mumbai
5.
The Area Manager,
Flash Security and Intelligence Services,
96/1718, Samta Nagar, Kandivali (East),
Mumbai – 400101
…First Party
V/s
Shri Sureshbhai Mansinghbhai Parmar,
C-44, Priya Darshini, Makarpura Road,
Baroda (Gujarat)
… Second Party
For the First Party : Shri C.S. Naidu
For the Second Party : Shri J.I. Shah
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-30012/37/2007-IR(M) dated 13.05.2008 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Baroda through its contractor M/s. U.P. Purva Sainik
Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Sureshbhai Mansinghbhai Parmar, Ex-
Security Guard w.e.f. 20.03.2006 without compliance of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 during the pendency of industrial dispute for regularisation of service of contract workmen before the
CGIT, Ahmedabad in ITC Reference No. 1417/2004 is legal, proper and just? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 13.05.2008.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on
31.07.2008 along with the documents vide list Ex. 7. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 12 on
16.10.2008 along with the reply Ex. 14 to the interim relief application moved by the second party. Later the
application for interim relief was later not pressed but the second party moved an application Ex. 19 for
production of documents. Therefore, same was allowed and the case was fixed for evidence of the second
party. On 16.03.2017 and 06.07.2017, twice last opportunities were given to the second party to lead evidence
but the second party did not prefer to lead evidence today on 31.08.2017. The second party has also been
absent since last number of dates.
2.
Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8199
3.
Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party, is finally disposed of with the
observation as under: “the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Baroda through its contractor M/s U.P.
Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Lucknow in terminating the services of Shri Sureshbhai Mansinghbhai
Parmar, Ex-Security Guard w.e.f. 20.03.2006 without compliance of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 during the pendency of industrial dispute for regularisation of service of contract workmen
before the CGIT, Ahmedabad in ITC Reference No. 1417/2004 is legal, proper and just.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2445-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-
,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 110@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@10@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Lkehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2445.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 110/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
09.10.2017.
[No. L-30011/10/2013-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 31st August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 110/2013
1.
The Security Manager (I/C),
ONGC Ltd., Avani Bhavan,
Chandkheda, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
2.
The Dy. General Manager (HR),
ONGC Ltd., Avani Bhavan,
Chandkheda, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
3.
M/s. Vishwambi Security Agency Pvt. Ltd.,
406, MV House, Opp. Hathising Wadi,
Nr. Swamy Narayan Chawk, Shahibaug,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
… First Party
V/s
The President,
Glorious Petroleum Mazdoor Sangh,
A-3, Priya Darshani Society,
Nr. New Railway Colony, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380019
…Second Party
For the First Party No. 1 : Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the First Party No. 3 : Shri Chetan R. Vyas
For the Second Party : Shri R.S. Sisodia (Union Representative)
8200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-30011/10/2013-IR(M) dated 22.05.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the President, Glorious Petroleum Mazdoor Sangh, Ahmedabad for regularisation of
the workman Shri Kanji Sagarbhai Desai, Security Guard is legal, fair and justified? What relief the workman
is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 22.05.2013. The reference was fixed for submitting statement of claim and written
statement by both the parties but today on 31.08.2017, the second party’s representative Shri R.S. Sisodia did
not press the reference.
2.
Hence the reference is finally disposed of as not pressed.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2446-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-
,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 140@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
09-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30011@29@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Lkehj dqekj nkl] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2446.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 140/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on
09.10.2017.
[No. L-30011/29/2013-IR (M)]
SAMIR KUMAR DAS, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 23rd August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 140/2013
The Executive Director,
ONGC Ltd., IRS, Chamdrelekha,
Avani Bhawan,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
The President,
Glorious Petroleum Mazdoor Sangh,
28/B, Narain Park, B/h Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380007
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party : Shri R.S. Sisodia
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8201
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-30011/29/2013-IR(M) dated 26.07.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the President, Glorious Petroleum Mazdoor Sangh, Ahmedabad for (i) regularization
of workmen Shri Mahesh Parikh and 21 others, (list enclosed) and (ii) change of category of workmen after
change of every contractor, are legal and justified? If so, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 26.07.2013. Both the parties submitted their respective statement of claim Ex. 4
and written statement Ex. 6 but despite giving number of dates to the second party, no evidence was lead by
the second party workman and on 23.08.2017, Shri R.S. Sisodia, President, Glorious Petroleum Mazdoor
Sangh stated that he does not want to prosecute the reference.
2.
Thus the reference is disposed of as not pressed.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2447-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mkd vkSj
vkj,e,l deZpkjh lgdkjh cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;-II, paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 279@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12025@01@2017&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2447.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 279/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of The Postal and
RMS Employees Cooperative Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.10.2017.
[No. L-12025/01/2017-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
LCA No.279/2012
Registered on 19.09.2012
Sh. Subhash Chand S/o Sh. Hans Raj,
Village Kardhan, PO Industrial Area, Ambala Cantt.
… Petitioner
Versus
1.
The Senior Manager, The Postal and
RMS Employees Cooperative Bank Ltd.6070/10-14,
Idgah Road, Ambala Cantt.
…Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman
:
Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Subhash Karkara, Adv.
8202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed on: 06.04.2017
Sh. Subhash Chand has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), pleading that he was employed as Group ‘D’ employee on 22.07.1987 by the respondent-
management and his services were retrenched. He was reinstated in service w.e.f. 14.03.1989 by the order of Tribunal.
He was directed to perform duties of Daftri vide reference No.PRB 2629 dated 11.07.2005(Annexure ID-1) and he
rendered the service till 2008. As per Rule 14(C) of the Service Rules, if an employee work on higher post for a period
of more than 90 days, he may be promoted to that cadre. That he worked on the post of Daftri for more two years and
he is to be absorbed against the Post of Daftri. He has raised the dispute for absorbing him in service as Daftri.
Respondent-management filed written statement, controverting the averments and further pleaded that the
application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 is not maintainable and this is also barred by
limitation and the workman was never discharged from the service.
Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.
In support of his case, Sh. Subhash Chand, workman has appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit
reiterating the stand as taken in the claim petition.
On the other hand, Sh. Ashwani Aggarwal was examined by the respondent-management.
It was vehemently argued by Sh. Mehra that the workman worked as Daftri for more than two years and as per
Service Rules, he is to be absorbed as such in the service and he is entitled for the relief claimed. It is not disputed that
the workman is still in service. Section 2-A of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 read as follow:-
“[(00) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any
reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not
include-
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or superannuation if the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
[(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of
employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being
terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or]
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;]”
Thus, Section 2-A is applicable only when the employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or terminates the
service of the workman and a procedure has been prescribed for such a dispute under the Act. The workman has neither
been discharged or dismissed from service, nor the present dispute has been raised as per the provisions of the Law.
Being so, the present application is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer,
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2448-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mkd vkSj
vkj,e,l deZpkjh lgdkjh cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;-II, paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 280@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12025@01@2017&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2448.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 280/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of The Postal and
RMS Employees Cooperative Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.10.2017.
[No. L-12025/01/2017-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8203
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
LCA No.280/2012
Registered on 19.09.2012
Sh. Subhash Chand S/o Sh. Hans Raj,
Village Kardhan, PO Industrial Area, Ambala Cantt.
… Petitioner
Versus
1.
The Senior Manager, The Postal and
RMS Employees Cooperative Bank Ltd.6070/10-14,
Idgah Road, Ambala Cantt.
…Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman
:
Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Subhash Karkara, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on: 06.04.2017
Sh. Subhash Chand has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), on the averments that he was appointed by the respondent-bank on 22.07.1987 and his
services were retrenched on 14.11.1988 and he was reinstated only on the orders of Industrial Tribunal. That his pay
was fixed in the scale of Rs.950-1110-1200 vide order dated 27.3.1996 which is as follow:—
1/3/1990
970/-
1.3.1991
990/-
1.3.1992
1010/-
1.3.1992
1030/-
1/3/1993
1050/-
1.3.1994
1070/-
However, he was entitled to increment w.e.f. 1.7.1988 as he joined the service on 22.7.1987 and he is entitled
to the following pay:-
1/7/1988
970/-
1/7/1989
990/-
1/7/1990
1010/-
1/7/1991
1030/-
1/7/1992
1050/-
1/7/1993
1070/-
1/7/1994
1090/-
1/7/1995
1110/-
1/7/1996
In 3050-80-4650 and so on and so
forth
8204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
That his pay be fixed and the arrears be paid to him along with interest.
Respondent-management filed written reply, controverting the averments and pleaded that the workman has
no existing right and therefore, this application is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that the applicant has filed this
application at a very belated stage and therefore no relief can be given to the applicant.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.
In support of his case, Sh. Subhash Chand, workman has appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit,
reiterating the stand taken in the claim statement.
On the other hand, respondent-management has examined Sh. Ashwani Aggarwal, who filed his affidavit
supporting the stand taken by the respondent-management.
I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Subhash Karkara for the management and perused the
file.
It is not disputed that the workman was appointed on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs.20/- per day as is clear
from the copy of the order Exb.M-1. His services were dispensed with and he was reinstated w.e.f. 7.8.1990 in the pay-
scale of Rs.950-1110-1200. However, one person junior to him was appointed on regular basis w.e.f. 14.3.1989 and
accordingly the authority fixed the seniority of the workman vide order dated 27.3.1996 which reproduced as follow:-
“Shri Subhash Chandm Peon was reinstated in the service of the Bank w.e.f. 7.8.1990 vide memo No.G-
477/7230 dated 26.11.1990. He was also allowed benefit of back wages and continuity of
service(seniority)w.e.f. the date of removal to the date of reinstatement as per settlement between the parties.
He was also paid Rs.17,000/- in lieu of his back wages etc. and nothing was due against the management for
the service upto 7.8.1990.
Shri Ravi Kant was also working in the bank on daily wages and was junior to Shri Subhash Chand. He was
appointed as Chowkidar w.e.f. 14.3.1989. Had Sh. Subhash Chand worked in the bank he would have been
confirmed on the day Sh. Ravi Kant was appointed on regular basis w.e.f. 14.3.1989.
I, therefore, fix the seniority of Shri Subhash Chand, Peon w.e.f. 14.3.1989. He will rank senior to Shri Ravi
Kant and his pay is brought at par with Sh. Ravi Kant, Peon as under:-
1.3.1990
Rs.970-00
1.3.1991
Rs.990-00
1.3.1992
Rs.1010-00
1.3.1993
Rs.1030-00
1.3.1994
Rs.1050-00
1.3.1995
Rs.1070-00
Thus, it is clear that the workman was reinstated in service and was granted regular pay-scale when he was
reinstated in service in February 1990. He cannot claim increment for the period he worked on daily wages at the rate
of Rs.20/- per day. Thus, he is not entitled to increment w.e.f. 1.7.1988. It may also be added that pay was fixed in the
year 1996 and he has agitated the matter for the first time by filing the present application in September 2012 and on
that account also he cannot be given the relief as claimed which otherwise is not admissible to him.
In result, there is no merit in the application and the same is dismissed.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2449-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mkd vkSj
vkj,e,l deZpkjh lgdkjh cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;-II paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 271@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12025@01@2017&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8205
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2449.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 271/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of The Postal and
RMS Employees Cooperative Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.10.2017.
[No. L-12025/01/2017-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
LCA No.271/2012
Registered on 25.04.2012
Sh. Subhash Chand Group ‘D’ Employee in the services of
The Postal and RMS Employees Cooperative Bank Ltd. 6070/10-14,
Idgah Road, Ambala Cantt.,
R/o Village Kardhan PC Industrial Area Ambala.
… Petitioner
Versus
1.
The Senior Manager, The Postal and RMS Employees Cooperative Bank Ltd. 6070/10-14, Idgah Road, Ambala
Cantt.
2.
The Chairman, The Postal and
RMS Employees Cooperative Bank Ltd. 6070/10-14,
Idgah Road, Ambala Cantt.
…Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the workman
:
Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Subhash Karkara, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on: 06.04.2017
Sh. Subhash Chand has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), claiming arrears of pay and allowance along with interest w.e.f. 22.07.2002; pleading that
he was employed as Group ‘D’ employee on 22.07.1987 on daily wages and was confirmed on 14.11.1988. However,
his services were retrenched and he was reinstated as Peon w.e.f. 07.08.1990.
According to the workman, Rule 14 of the Staff Service Rules 2003 provides for stagnation grade which is to
be given on completion of 15 years of service if failed to get promotion. That he has completed 15 years of service on
21.07.2002 and as such he is entitled to stagnation grade from that date along with interest @ 12% per annum.
Respondent-management filed written reply, controverting the averments and pleaded that the workman has
no existing right and therefore, this application is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that the applicant has filed this
application at a very belated stage and therefore no relief can be given to the applicant.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.
In support of his case, Sh. Subhash Chand, workman has appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit,
reiterating the stand taken in the claim statement.
On the other hand, respondent-management has examined Sh. Ashwani Aggarwal, who filed his affidavit
supporting the stand taken by the respondent-management.
I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Subhash Karkara for the management and perused the
file.
The admitted facts are that the workman was appointed as part time worker on daily wages at the rate of
Rs.20/- per day w.e.f. 22.07.1987. However his services were dispensed with and he was reinstated w.e.f. 7.8.1990 and
was paid back wages as per settlement order dated 28.11.1990(Exb.M2). The seniority was fixed as Peon w.e.f.
8206
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14.3.1989 vide order dated 27.3.1996(M-3). There is an admitted statement of Sh. Ashwani Aggarwal that the
workman was granted stagnation grade on completion of 15 years of service w.e.f. 14.03.2004. The workman again
admitted the fact during cross-examination that stagnation grade was given by counting the service from the year 1989.
Thus, the workman was working on daily wages basis and was regularized w.e.f. 14.3.1989 as per order dated
27.3.1979(Ex.M-3) and as per the statement of Sh. Ashwani Aggarwal, he has been given stagnation grade w.e.f.
14.3.2004 and his statement remain unrebuted on the file. Thus, the stagnation grade has been duly given to the
workman and he cannot claim the stagnation grade w.e.f. 22.7.2002.
In result, there is no merit in the application and the same be dismissed.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2450-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mkd vkSj
vkj,e,l deZpkjh lgdkjh cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;-II paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 278@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12025@01@2017&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2017
S.O. 2450.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 278/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of The Postal and
RMS Employees Cooperative Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10.10.2017.
[No. L-12025/01/2017-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
LCA No.278/2012
Registered on 19.09.2012
Sh. Subhash Chand S/o Sh. Hans Raj, Village Kardhan,
PO Industrial Area, Ambala Cantt.
… Petitioner
Versus
1.
The Senior Manager, The Postal and
RMS Employees Cooperative Bank Ltd. 6070/10-14,
Idgah Road, Ambala Cantt.
…Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman
:
Sh. R.P. Mehra, Adv.
For the Management
:
Sh. Subhash Karkara, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on: 06.04.2017
Sh. Subhash Chand has filed this application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the ‘Act’), on the averments that he joined the respondent-management on 22.07.1987 and was
retrenched but was reinstated only on the orders of the Industrial Tribunal. That as per MACP Rules, an employee is
entitled to financial upgradation for 10/20/30 years of service and since he was appointed on 22.07.1987, he is entitled
to get his pay notionally fixed w.e.f. 22.7.2007 when he completed 20 years of service but claimed the arrears w.e.f.
1.9.2011. Accordingly his pay be fixed and the arrears be paid to him along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8207
Respondent-management filed written reply, controverting the averments and pleaded that financial
upgradation was given to the workman and nothing has due. It is further pleaded that since there is no existing right
vesting the workman, the present application is not maintainable.
Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.
In support of his case Sh. Subhash Chand, workman has appeared in the witness-box and filed his affidavit,
reiterating the stand as taken in the claim statement.
On the other hand, respondent-management has examined Sh. Ashwani Aggarwal, who filed his affidavit and
further pleaded that the workman was entitled to financial upgradation on completion of 20 years of service and the
same was given to him w.e.f. 14.03.2009.
I have heard Sh. R.P. Mehra for the workman and Sh. Subhash Karkara for the management and perused the
filed.
The respondent-management framed rules and regulations for financial upgradation of its regular staff and
these rules are called Financial Upgradation Rules, 2011 and Rule 2-A read as follow:-
“(a) An employee who has completed 10 years of service will be eligible for the First Financial Up
gradation only if he has not any type of statutory promotion during the said period.
(b) An employee who has completed 20 years of service will be eligible for Second Financial Up gradation
only if he has not got two statutory promotions.”
Thus, the workman is entitled to Second Financial Up gradation on completion of 20 years of service.
It is not disputed that the workman was appointed on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs.20/- per day w.e.f.
22.7.1987 as is clear from the order Exb.M-1. It is also not disputed that he was retrenched from service and he was
reinstated as Peon w.e.f. 7.8.1990 in the pay-scale of Rs.950-1235 on the basis of settlement arrived at between the
parties as is clear from the copy of the order Exb.M2. However, the authorities found that one Ravi Kant, who was
junior to the workman was confirmed in service and as such, his seniority was fixed w.e.f. 14.03.2009 vide order dated
27.3.1996(Exb.M-3) and the entire order is reproduced as follow:-
“Shri Subhash Chandm Peon was reinstated in the service of the Bank w.e.f. 7.8.1990 vide memo No.
G-477/7230 dated 26.11.1990. He was also allowed benefit of back wages and continuity of
service(seniority)w.e.f. the date of removal to the date of reinstatement as per settlement between the
parties. He was also paid Rs.17,000/- in lieu of his back wages etc. and nothing was due against the
management for the service upto 7.8.1990.
Shri Ravi Kand was also working in the bank on daily wages and was junior to Shri Subhash Chand. He
was appointed as Chowkidar w.e.f. 14.3.1989. Had Sh. Subhash Chand worked in the bank he would have
been confirmed on the day Sh. Ravi Kant was appointed on regular basis w.e.f. 14.3.1989.
I, therefore, fix the seniority of Shri Subhash Chand, Peon w.e.f. 14.3.1989. He will rank senior to
Shri Ravi Kant and his pay is brought at par with Sh. Ravi Kant, Peon as under:-
1.3.1990
Rs.970-00
1.3.1991
Rs.990-00
1.3.1992
Rs.1010-00
1.3.1993
Rs.1030-00
1.3.1994
Rs.1050-00
1.3.1995
Rs.1070-00
Thus, the services of the workman were regularized w.e.f. 14.3.1989. When calculated, he rendered 20 years
of service on 14.3.2009 and there is a statement of Sh. Ashwani Aggarwal that workman was given 2nd time Financial
Up gradation from the said date. He was not cross-examined regarding in this respect. It is to be taken that the
workman was given 2nd Time Up gradation from the due date i.e. 14.3.2009.
In the circumstances, the workman cannot claim any arrears of pay etc. as pleaded by him and the application
being without merit is dismissed.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
8208
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2451-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lfpo o
izeq[k (lkekU; iz'kklu)] jk"Vªh; fMtkbu laLFkku] vgenkckn] xqtjkr ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 88@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@84@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsanz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2451.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (CGITA No. 88/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad as shown in Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employes in relation to the Secretary
and Head (General Administrative), National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad, Gujarat and their workman, which
received by the Central Government on 09.10.2017.
[No. L-42011/84/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 04th September, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 88/2014
The Secretary and Head (General Administrative),
National Institute of Design,
Near Deewan Ballubhai School, Paldi,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
… First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Gujarat Kamdar Mandal,
402/403, Shilp-II, Near Sales India, Income Tax,
Ashram Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
… Second Party
For the First Party : Shri Bhadresh K. Soneji
For the Second Party : None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-42011/84/2014-IR(DU) dated 14.10.2014 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad removing the services of
Shri Bhanubhai S. Vaghela from service w.e.f. 12.11.2013 by way of compulsory retirement is legal, proper
and just? If not, to what relief the workman Shri Bhanubhai S. Vaghela is entitled to?”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8209
1.
The reference dates back to 14.10.2014. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 alleging that
the workman Bhanubhai S. Vaghela was working faithfully and honestly with the first party organisation since
1978. He has been leader of the Employees’ Union, therefore, was not liked by the first party. Every employee
is given promotion on completing the 5 years of services, he requested the same but he was not promoted.
Performance and Evaluation Committed appreciated his working instead of promotion to him. He was
designated as Guardner which he objected but to no result and on 12.11.2013, he was removed from service
by way of compulsory retirement which was illegal, improper and unjustified.
2.
The first party National Institute of Design moved an application Ex. 7 raising preliminary objections
regarding the maintainability of the reference on the ground that National Institute of Design was created by
way of National Institute of Design Act, 2014 enacted by the Parliament. The Section 32 of the aforesaid
statuted provides as under:
“i.
Any dispute arising out of a contract between the Institute and any of its employees shall, at the
request of the employee concerned or at the instance of the Institute, be referred to an Arbitral
Tribunal consisting of one member appointed by the Institute, one member nominated by the
employee and an umpire appointed by the Visitor.
ii.
The decision of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court.
iii.
No suit or proceeding shall lie in any court in respect of any matter which is required by sub-section
(i) to be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal.
iv.
The Arbitral Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure.
v.
Nothing in any law for the time being in force relating to arbitration shall apply to arbitration under
this section.
3.
The workman despite service did not prefer to submit the reply despite giving number of opportunities. Thus
in the light of the provisions of the Section 32 of the aforesaid act, the reference is not maintainable.
3.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of as not maintainable.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2452-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj v/h{kd
jsyos esy lsok] jktdksV fMohtu] jktdksV o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
977@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&40012@124@93&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsanz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2452.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (CGITA No. 977/2004) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employes in
relation to the Superintendent of Railway mail Service, Rajkot Division, Rajkot and others and their workman, which
received by the Central Government on 09.10.2017.
[No. L-40012/124/93-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 01st September, 2017
8210
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reference: (CGITA) No. 977/2004
1.
The Supdt. of Railway Mail Service,
Rajkot Division,
Rajkot – 360001
2.
The Head Record Officer,
Head Record Office,
Rajkot – 360001
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Association of Railway and Post Employees,
F/2, Allap Flats, Opp. Anjalee Cinema, Vasna Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380007
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri P.M. Rami
For the Second Party : Shri R.C. Pathak
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-40012/124/93-IR(DU) dated 17/29.11.1994 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Association of Railway and Post Employees, Ahmedabad to regularise Smt.
Bhartiben Sureshkumar Buddhbhatti, Water Woman working at the office of the Head Record Office, Rajkot
for 8 ½ hours per day w.e.f. 07.05.1983 to 19.06.1987 and thereafter for 5 hours per day justified and legally?
If so to what benefits the employees is entitled for?”
1.
The reference dates back to 17/29.11.1994. After service of the notice on the parties, the second party
submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 alleging that the second party work-woman was initially engaged as a
Water Woman w.e.f. the year 1980 by the first party management for working 2 hours a day. Thereafter she
was assigned the work for 5 hours a day and 8 ½ hour per day w.e.f. 01.05.1983. Thus the work-woman
namely Bhartiben Sureshkumar Buddhbhatti had been performing her duties for 8 ½ hours per day till
19.06.1987, thereafter, suddenly the first party management realised that providing 8 ½ hours work a day will
entitle her for absorption as well as regularisation on moving an application by the work-woman. Therefore,
the first party management reduced her working hours from 8 ½ hours to 5 hours. It has been further alleged
that as Bhartiben Sureshkumar Buddhbhatti performed the aforesaid working hours on a clear vacant post,
therefore, she was entitled to be regularised as per the department rules. Despites making number of
submissions, the first party management did not pay any heed to her demand, therefore, the dispute was raised.
2.
The first party in his written statement denied the averments made in the statement of claim and submitted as
under:
“Smt. Bhartiben was appointed for 2 hours vide HRO Memo No. J.21/PT/HRO/81.82 dated 28.12.1981 as
part-time water carrier of HRO Rajkot w.e.f. 01.12.1981 on purely temporary basis. The working hours of this
post extended for 3 ½ hours w.e.f. 16.05.1983 vide SRM’RJ’DN. Memo No. E.3/PT/81.82 dated 04.05.1983.
There were two post of part time water carrier, one post of 3 ½ hours from 08:30 to 12:00 hours and second
post of 13:00 to 18:00 hours. Smt. Bhartiben was appointed in first post from 08:30 to 12:00 hours and Smt.
Madhuben was appointed from 13:00 to 18:00 hours on second post but Smt. Madhuben part time sweeper-
cum-water carrier was failed to attended her duty from May 1983 to June 1985 and Smt. Bhartiben was
ordered to look after the work of Smt. Madhuben and extra enumeration was paid to her for addition duty.
Thus, she was working for (3 ½ + 5) = 8 ½ hours daily during the period for this work, she got payment on
two vouchers as there are two separate post with different nature of work.
Smt. Bhartiben was appointed as part time sweepers-cum-water carrier vide HRO Rajkot Memo No.
J.21/PT/HRO/85.86 dated 21.06.1985 on purely temporary basis for five hours (13:00 to 18:00 hours) and
Smt. Jayaben Devraj Budhbhatti (Mother in law of Smt. Bhartiben) appointed as part time water carrier from
08:30 to 12:00 hours in HRO Rajkot vide HRO Rajkot Memo No. J.21/PT/HRO/II/85.86 1447 dated
10.07.1985 with a view to give more wages to senior P/T i.e. Smt. Bhartiben and on absence of Smt.
Madhuben.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8211
On filling up the post of 3 ½ hours by her mother in law as part time water carrier and Smt. Bhartiben was
appointed on 5 hours post from 3 ½ hours, the said work and as such she was asked to carry out her regular
work of 5 hours for which she is appointed w.e.f. 11.07.1985.
Thus, she is not correct she was engaged for 8 ½ hour on one post but she was appointed for 3 ½ hours, part
time initially and then after on the post of 5 hours, look after the work for 5 hours/ 3 ½ hours on vacant post
and she had got extra remuneration for her that additional work on different bills.
She was appointed only for 3 ½ hours and she was looking after the work for 5 hours in the absence of Smt.
Madhuben. The both posts are separate and she gets the extra remuneration for look after the work of second
post.
Smt. Bhartiben was appointed as EDMM with effect from 28.01.1994 vide HRO Rajkot Memo
No. OA.5/6616 dated 27.01.1994 along with her charge report as per her seniority in P/T according to rules,
she will also get her regular appointment in Group D cadre in her turn as per Departmental rules as such the
saying of the second party is correct that there is no scheme for regularisation. The service of Smt. Bhartiben
is taken into account in considering EDMM appointment and will be considered in Group D cadre.
The steps have already been taken to regularise the service of Smt. Bhartiben by appointing her as EDMM but
it is not possible to regularise her service w.e.f. 01.05.1983 as she had worked for 8 ½ hours on two different
post including her regular post.”
3.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues arise for the just decision of the reference:
i.
Whether the demand of the Association of Railway and Post Employees, Ahmedabad to regularise Smt.
Bhartiben Sureshkumar Buddhbhatti, Water Woman working at the office of the Head Record Office,
Rajkot for 8 ½ hours per day w.e.f. 07.05.1983 to 19.06.1987 and thereafter for 5 hours per day justified
and legally?
ii.
To what relief, if any, is Smt. Bhartiben Sureshkumar Buddhbhatti entitled?
4.
Issue No. (i): The burden to prove this issue is lying on the work-woman who reiterated the averments of the
statement of claim in his examination recorded on 04.12.2001. There was nothing contrary in his cross-
examination made by the first party advocate.
5.
On behalf of the first party, B.B. Bhatt was examined and he also reiterated the averments in the written
statement Ex. 5 and have also filed the documents vide list Ex. 5 which supports the averments of the second
party work-woman regarding the fact that the work-woman initially was appointed in 1980 for doing work of
providing water to the postal employees for 2 hours a day. Later she was assigned a work of providing water
to the post employees for 5 hours a day and later she was assigned a work of providing water to the post
employees for 8 1/2 hours a day till 19.06.1987. It has also been admitted in the examination that she used to
work for the whole financial year till she worked in the postal department with the first party.
6.
As appears from the examination of the work-woman done on 14.12.1998 at Ex. 8, she was recorded as 44
years old and now, it is year 2017, thus at the time of the passing of the award, she is 62 years old. Therefore,
it is not possible as per the service rules to be regularised as regular and permanent employees. However, it is
admitted fact from the evidence and pleadings of both the parties that no one was appointed as a regular or
permanent employee in the said office for providing water to the postal employees and it was a permanent
phenomenon that this work-woman was doing this job since her appointment to till the date she worked in the
said office.
7.
The advocate of the second party work-woman made the following written submissions vide Ex. 33 which are
reproduced as under:
“P & T is Government office but the same was exploiting its employees since years. The department was
rotating its employees as a daily wagers since years and depriving them from the pay scale of regular
employee and other benefits with it. The daily wagers were retired or died as a daily wagers only and other
daily wagers were appointed by the department. Such practice is an unfair labour practice under Section 25 –
T of the I.D. Act. Therefore, various litigations were going on and ultimately the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
directed and declared that the department should frame a scheme for daily wagers for regularisation of their
services. Thus the department has prepared sachem and passed a resolution also and declared that daily wagers
those who have completed the services of more than 360 days, will be regularised in the department. The
second party work-woman was/is entitled for the same but the department has not granted the benefits with a
view to victimize the work-woman. Therefore, the work-woman has requested the management to grant the
benefits of regularisation but such request was not granted by the management and this second party union
was constrained to raise this dispute. Thus the present dispute is raised in the year 1992. The demand notice of
the union is below Ex. 10.
8212
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Thereafter, adjudication has taken long time and all the party were helpless. In the mean while the concerned
work-woman has completed the age of 60 year and she is declared as retired without any benefits of
regularisation and judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court is also not considered by the department. It is
pertinent to note here that the first party management has admitted that the second party concerned work-
woman was entitled for the benefits of regularisation as per the resolution and as per seniority. The
management has said that concerned party work woman was at Sr. No. 53 and she has completed the age of 60
year and retired before she approach her turn. Thus the management has not considered the judgement of
Supreme Court and exploited the concerned work-woman in modern fashion which is not legal and proper.
Such admission of the management is in its written argument and in other documents also.
Recently in the case of State of Gujarat V/s. PWD Employees Union & Others (SLP–Civil–13619-
13620of2012) the said criteria or ration is repeated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said judgement is
reported in 2013(12)SSC–417.
Other judgement is in the case of Nandkumar V/s. State of Bihar which reported in 2014(5)SSC-300 and it is
held in the said judgement that when the benefits of rules and regulations are required to be granted then such
rules cannot be de hors for granting of regularisation/absorption.
Moreover in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. V/s. Engineering Mazadoor Sangh and in the
case of Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees’ Union V/s. Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. and
others, same guideline is given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said judgements are reported in
2007-1-LLJ-704 and in 2006-SSC(L&S)1318.
It is submitted that the management has not produced the entire relevant record but produced the pieces of
record which cannot be said to be legal and proper. Hon’ble Court or any impartial person cannot come to the
conclusion on such documents. The department (management) has suppressed the material facts which are not
legal and proper.
The work woman concerned has deposited on oath and supported the contention of work-woman and there is
no contradiction even after cross-examination. Thus the second party has proved his case and the management
has not proved the defence but supported the contention of the work-woman as mentioned above. Therefore,
the present demand of the union is just to be accepted and granted in the interest of justice.”
8.
The advocate for the first party argued that as she cannot be appointed and regularised as a permanent
employee because of exceeding the age of superannuation, however as she was deprived deliberately by the
first party management from the benefit of regularisation.
9.
As she cannot be appointed and regularised as a permanent employee because of exceeding the age of
superannuation, however as she was deprived deliberately by the first party management from the benefit of
regularisation, therefore, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50000/- is fit to be awarded to this second party
work woman.
10.
The issue No. (i) is decided accordingly. The issue no. (ii) is also decided in the light of the finding of the
issue no. (i) with an order that the second party work-woman shall be entitled for a lump sum compensation of
Rs. 50000/-.
11.
The first party management is directed to pay Rs. 50000/- as a lump sum compensation to the second party
work-woman within 60 days from the publication of the award.
12.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2453-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phi iksLV
ekLVj tujy] xqtjkr ldZy] [kkuiqj] vgenkckn] xqtjkr o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 500@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gq, FksA
¹la- ,y&40012@50@2002&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsanz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2453.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (CGITA No. 500/2004) of the Central Government Industrial
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8213
Tribunal/Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employes in
relation to the Chief Post Master General, Gujarat Circle, Khanpur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat and others and their workman,
which were received by the Central Government on 09.10.2017.
[No. L-40012/50/2002-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad,
Dated 23rd August, 2017
Reference : (CGITA) No. 500/2004
1.
The Chief Post Master General,
Gujarat Circle, Khanpur,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001
2.
The Supdt. Of Post Offices,
Deptt. Of Posts, Surendranagar Division,
Near Tower, 2nd Floor,
Surendranagar (Gujarat) – 363001
…First Party
V/s
The Org. Secretary,
The Association of Railway and Post Employees,
15, Shashi Apartment, Nr. Anjalee Cinema,
Vasna Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380007
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri P.M. Rami
For the Second Party : Shri R.C. Pathak
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-40012/50/2002-IR(DU) dated 24.07.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the union for reinstatement of Shri Jasabhai Satabhai Khachar, Branch Pot Master in
service with full back wages is legal, proper and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled to and from which date?”
1.
The reference dates back to 24.07.2002. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 7 on
25.03.2004 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 9 on 12.09.2007. Since then the second
party failed to lead evidence. Therefore, a fresh notice was issued to both the parties to appear on 29.06.2011
to lead evidence but to no result. The advocate of the first party Shri P.M. Rami moved applications Ex. 14 on
14.02.2012, Ex. 15 on 16.08.2012 and Ex. 16 on 13.08.2013 to close the evidence of the second party
workman. Suddenly on 15.03.2016, the advocate of the second party Shri R.C. Pathak submitted some
documents vide list Ex. 17. Therefore, on 15.03.2016, he was given time to lead evidence but he failed to lead
evidence on 19.07.2016, 07.12.2016, 08.02.2017, 05.04.2017 and 11.04.2017 despite moving adjournment
applications Ex. 18 on 19.07.2016 and Ex. 19 on 07.12.2016.
2.
Shri Chintan Goyal, the junior advocate to Shri R.C. Pathak stated in the court that the workman has not been
in their contact. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.
3.
Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party, is finally disposed of with the
observation as under: “the demand of the union for reinstatement of Shri Jasabhai Satabhai Khachar, Branch
Pot Master in service with full back wages is illegal, improper and unjustified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
8214
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2454-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd]
{ks=kh; LVs'ku] iQksjst mRiknu o izn'kZu ds fy,] xka/h/ke] xqtjkr ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/ra=k ds lalc¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 105@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gq, FksA
¹la- ,y&42012@177@2005&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsanz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2454.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (CGITA No. 105/2005) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employes in relation
to the Director, Regional Station for Forage Production and Demonstration, Gandhidham, Gujarat and their workman,
which were received by the Central Government on 09.10.2017.
[No. L-42012/177/2005-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 05thSeptember, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 105/2005
The Director,
Regional Station for Forage Production and Demonstration,
CH – 128, Sector- 30,
Gandhidham (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
All Gujarat Karmachari Union (AITUC),
Ashapuri Nagar, Bhilwada Road,
Amaiwadi,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri N.V. Dixit
For the Second Party : Shri G.K. Parmar
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-42012/177/96-IR(DU) dated 07.11.2005 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of All Gujarat Kamdar Karamchari Union, Ahmedabad for the reinstatement of Smt.
Gangaben Laxmanbhai and 6 others with full back wages and continuity of service is justified? If yes, to what
relief the workmen are entitled to and from which date?”
1.
The reference dates back to 07.11.2005. The second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on
27.02.2006 along with the vakalatpatra Ex. 5. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 7 on
06.11.2008. Since then the applicant has been absent. Therefore, on 30.11.2010, a fresh notice was sent to the
second party union to appear on 07.03.2011. The said notice was not received back as unserved. Despite the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8215
same, the second party union did not respond till date for leading evidence. Thus it appears that the second
party union has not been leading to prosecute the case.
2.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party union with the
observation as under: “the demand of All Gujarat Kamdar Karamchari Union, Ahmedabad for the
reinstatement of Smt. Gangaben Laxmanbhai and 6 others with full back wages and continuity of service is
not justified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2455-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVs'ku
funs'kd] vkWy bafM;k jsfM;ks] uojaxiqjk] vgenkckn] xqtjkr ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
353@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gq, FksA
¹la- ,y&42012@178@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsanz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2455.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (CGITA No. 353/2004) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the Station Director, All India Radio, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat and their workman, which were
received by the Central Government on 09.10.2017.
[No. L-42012/178/2000-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 24th August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 353/2004
The Station Director,
All India Radio, Navrangpura,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
…First Party
V/s
Sh. Rafiq Md. Hussain Shaikh,
C/o Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha,
104, 1st Floor, Maharana Pratap Complex,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
… Second Party
For the First Party :
For the Second Party : Shri Amrish Patel
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-42012/178/2000-IR(DU) dated 31.10.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
8216
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Sh. Rafiq Mohammed Hussain Shaikh in demanding reinstatement as
Helper/Electrician/Pump-operator by the management of All India Radio along with full back wages,
continuity of service, consequential benefits is justified? If so, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 31.10.2000. The second party submitted the statement of claim on 22.11.2001 and
the first party submitted the written statement Ex 10 on 23.10.2002. Thereafter on 29.01.2005, the second
party moved an application Ex. 14 for production of documents which appeared to have not been disposed of
by the State Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad on account of non-appearance of the parties. By Government of
India dated 19.10.2010, the reference was received in this tribunal and a notice Ex. 15 was issued to both the
parties to appear on 13.04.2011. Both the parties appeared in this tribunal but failed to lead evidence despite
giving number of dates for leading evidence. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute
the case.
2.
Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party, is finally disposed of with the
observation as under: “the demand of Sh. Rafiq Mohammed Hussain Shaikh in demanding reinstatement as
Helper/Electrician/Pump-operator by the management of All India Radio along with full back wages,
continuity of service, consequential benefits is unjustified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2456-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fizafliy
tujy eSustj] ch,l,u,y] vgenkckn VsyhdkWe ftyk] vgenkckn] xqtjkr ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 126@2006) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gq, FksA
¹la- ,y&40012@103@2005&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsanz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2456.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (CGITA No. 126/2006) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the Principal General Manager, BSNL, Ahmedabad Telecom District, Ahmedabad, Gujarat and their
workman, which were received by the Central Government on 09.10.2017.
[No. L-40012/103/2005-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 21st August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 126/2006
The Principal General Manager,
BSNL, Ahmedabad Telecom District,
Gulbai Tekra, Telephone Exchange Bldg.,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
Smt. U.P. Garasia,
B/2, Sangath-1,
Behind Muktidham Society,
Motera Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
...Second Party
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8217
For the First Party : Shri N.K. Trivedi
For the Second Party :
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-40012/103/2005-IR(DU) dated 18.05.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of the Ahmedabad Telecom District, Ahmedabad in terminating the
services of Smt. U.P. Garasia w.e.f. 17.12.1997 from the post of Telephone Operator, is legal and justified? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled to and to what extent?”
1.
The reference dates back to 18.05.2006. The second party workman submitted his statement of claim Ex. 10
on 25.08.2009 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 13 on 22.08.2010 while pending in the
Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad. On 19.10.2010, the record was received in this tribunal. Both the parties
appeared in the tribunal. On 02.08.2011, the first party submitted the documents vide list Ex. 14. The second
party continued to appear on 20.10.2011 and 12.01.2012 thereafter the second party stopped coming to
appear to lead his evidence. Suddenly, on 30.07.2013, the second party again appeared but did not lead his
evidence on 30.07.2013, 25.11.2013, 21.02.2014, 27.08.2014, 24.12.2014 then again the second party stopped
to appear to lead evidence on 05.03.2015, 27.10.2015, therefore, on 15.12.2015, the second party was given
last opportunity to appear and to lead evidence but on 18.04.2016, 23.06.2016, 17.11.2016, 30.01.2017,
27.03.2017 and 10.07.2017, the advocate for the second party appeared but he failed to lead evidence on
account of non-availability of the second party workman. Despite the said circumstances, the advocate of the
second party requested the tribunal on 27.03.2016 and 10.07.2017 to give last opportunity to contact the
second party workman but to no result.
2.
Thus it appears that the second party workman as not available to his advocate, appears to have not been
willing to prosecute the case.
3.
Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman, is finally disposed of with the
observation as under: “the action of the management of the Ahmedabad Telecom District, Ahmedabad in
terminating the services of Smt. U.P. Garasia w.e.f. 17.12.1997 from the post of Telephone Operator, is legal
and justified.”
4.
Thus no relief can be granted.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2457-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMohtuy
eSustj (VsyhdkWe)] bafM;u iksLV vkSj VsyhxzkiQ fMikVZesaVy] vgenkckn] xqtjkr o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 74@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gq, FksA
¹la- ,y&40012@24@97&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsanz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2457.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (CGITA No. 74/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
Divisional Manager (Telecom), Indian Post and Telegraph Department, Ahmedabad, Gujarat and others and their
workman, which were received by the Central Government on 09.10.2017.
[No. L-40012/24/97-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
8218
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 01st September, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 74/2004
1.
The Divisional Manager (Telecom),
Indian Post and Telegraphs Department,
Coaxial Cable Project, Navrangpura,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
2.
The Chief General Manager,
Telecom Project, Fonix Village Compound, No. 862,
S.V. Road, Lower Parel, Bombay – 400013
…First Party
V/s
Shri Rameshbhai Bhathibhai Patel,
C/o Dinesh S. Gohil,
66, Jantanagar, Odhav Village, Odhav,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 382415
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri N.K. Trivedi
For the Second Party : None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/24/97-
IR(DU) dated 09.03.1998 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Department of Telecom in denying temporary status to
Shri Rameshbhai Bhathibhai Patel, Muster Roll Casual workman of Coaxial Cable Project is legal and
justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 09.03.1998. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on
14.12.1998 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 6 on 10.02.2000 along with number of
documents. The workman in his statement of claim Ex. 4 has alleged that he was engaged on 20.04.1990 as a
casual worker in Coaxial Cable Project but he was denied the temporary status in the department without any
cogent reason despite the fact that he worked for 215 days in the year 1987, 90 days in the year 1988 and more
than 240 days in the year 1989.
2.
The first party in his written statement denied all the averments made in the statement of claim on the ground
that he did not work for 240 days in any preceding year.
3.
On the basis of the pleadings, following issues arise:
iii.
Whether the action of the management of Department of Telecom in denying temporary status to
Shri Rameshbhai Bhathibhai Patel, Muster Roll Casual workman of Coaxial Cable Project is legal and
justified?
iv.
If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?
4.
Issue No. (i) : The burden of prove of this issue lied on the second party workman who reiterated the
averments made in the statement of claim Ex. 4 but he failed to prove the documentary evidence filed by him
regarding working of 215 days in 1987, 105 days in the year 1988, 365 days in the year 1989 and 105 days in
the year 1990 as the documents are the zerox copies which are not admitted by the first party. It is also
noteworthy that the General Secretary of the union Shri S.N. Adishwar did not press the reference and the
second party in person has been absent since the reference received from the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat. Thus
in the light of the aforesaid observations, the issue is decided in negative against the workman.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8219
5.
Issue No. (ii): In the light of the finding of the issue no. (i), no relief can be granted.
6.
The reference is disposed of as not pressed.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2458-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj v/h{kd]
vkj,e,l] MCY;w fMohtu] cMksnjk] xqtjkr ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 32@2016)
dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gq, FksA
¹la- ,y&40011@04@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsanz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2458.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (CGITA No. 32/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
Superintendent, RMS, W Division, Vadodara, Gujarat and their workman, which were received by the Central
Government on 09.10.2017.
[No. L-40011/04/2016-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 21st August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 32/2016
The Superintendent,
RMS, W Division,
Pratapganj,
Vadodara (Gujarat) – 390002
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Vadodara Jilla General Kamdar Union,
Salatvada Vanikar ni Paga,
Vinobabhave Road,
Vadodara (Gujarat) – 390001
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri P.M. Rami
For the Second Party : None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-40011/04/2016-IR(DU) dated 02.05.2016 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Postal Department W Division, Baroda in not giving appointment
to Shri M. J. Parmar, Part-time Casual Labour in the cadre of Group D in RMS W Division, Baroda through
Mr. M.N. Pathan and Mr. N.R. Desai both juniors to Shri M.J. Parmar were selected in the cadre of Group D
8220
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vide Memo No. B1/3/IV/2007 dated 29.02.2008 is legal, just and proper? If not to what relief Shri M.J.
Parmar is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 02.05.2016. After receiving the reference from the Government of India, both the
parties were issued notice to appear. The first party submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 4 on 16.11.2016 but the
second party workman did not respond to the notice on 11.08.2016, 16.11.2016 and 25.01.2017. Therefore, a
fresh notice was issued to the second party workman on 06.02.2017 for to appear on 15.03.2017. The said
notice was received back as un-served because of non-availability of the second party on the said address.
Thus the second party is deemed served and also failed to submit the statement of claim by appearing in
person or sending the statement of claim by post.
2.
Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case. Thus the reference in the absence of
the second party workman, is finally disposed of with the observation as under: “the action of the management
of Postal Department W Division, Baroda in not giving appointment to Shri M. J. Parmar, Part-time Casual
Labour in the cadre of Group D in RMS W Division, Baroda through Mr. M.N. Pathan and Mr. N.R. Desai
both juniors to Shri M.J. Parmar were selected in the cadre of Group D vide Memo No. B1/3/IV/2007 dated
29.02.2008 is legal, just and proper.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2459-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
mi&foHkkxh; vf/dkjh (VsyhxzkiQ)] ch,l,u,y] VsyhiQksu ,Dlpsat] ikyuiqj o vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 25@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks çkIr gq, FksA
¹la- ,y&40012@5@2003&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsanz tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2459.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (CGITA No. 25/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad as shown in Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Sub-
Divisional Officer (Telegraph), BSNL, Telephone Exchange, Palanpur and others and their workman, which were
received by the Central Government on 09.10.2017.
[No. L-40012/5/2003-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 23rd August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 25/2005
1.
The Sub-Divisional Officer (Telegraph),
BSNL, Telephone Exchange, Nr. Bus Stand,
Palanpur (B.K.) – 385001
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8221
2.
The Telecom District Manager,
BSNL, Ganj Market,
Palanpur (B.K.) – 385001
3.
The Chief General Manager,
Telecom Deptt., Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Khanpur, Ahmedabad – 380001
…First Party
V/s
The Org. Secretary,
Association of Railway and Post Employees,
15, Shashi Apartment, Nr. Anjalee Cinema, Vasna Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri N.K. Trivedi
For the Second Party : Shri R.C. Pathak
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.
L-40012/5/2003-IR(DU) dated 15.02.2005 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Sub-Divisional Officer (Telegraph), Palanpur in terminating the
services of Shri Akbarali Mohmad Isha w.e.f. 01.06.1990 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled?”
1.
The reference dates back to 15.02.2005. After service by registered post on both the parties, the second party
submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on 28.10.2006 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 6
on 25.08.2007. Since then the second party has failed to lead evidence. But suddenly on 14.09.2011, the
second party submitted the number of documents vide list Ex. 9 and also moved an application Ex. 10 for
production of documents by the first party. Same was rejected on 24.01.2017 on the ground that all the
documents demanded by the second party were more than 15 years old which cannot be made available as per
the version of the first party. Thereafter numbers of dates were given on 12.03.2017, 11.07.2017 and
23.08.2017. In the said circumstances, the second party is avoiding to lead evidence.
2.
Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party, is finally disposed of with the
observation as under: “the action of the management of Sub-Divisional Officer (Telegraph), Palanpur in
terminating the services of Shri Akbarali Mohmad Isha w.e.f. 01.06.1990 is just and legal.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
8222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2460-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vk;qDr]
lkmFk fnYyh uxj fuxe] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 258@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2017 dks çkIr gq, FksA
¹la- ,y&42012@192@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2460.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 258/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi and their workman, which were received by the Central
Government on 28.09.2017.
[No. L-42012/192/2015-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. 258/2015
The General Secretary,
MCD General Mazdoor Union,
Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,
Jam Nagar House, Shah Jahan Road,
New Delhi – 110 001
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
9th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi – 110 002
…Management
AWARD
This award shall dispose of a reference received from Ministry of Labour and Employment vide Order No.L-
42012/192/2015-IR(DU) dated 03.12.2015 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
‘Whether Shri Satish Kumar S/o late Shri Gyashi Ram, Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma S/o late Ram Gopal
Sharma are entitled to be promoted as Garden Chaudhary under promotional quota as their juniors are
promoted in the said with effect from 04..03.2014? If so, what directions are necessary in this respect?’
Whether the action of the management of North Delhi Municipal Corporation in not granting the pay scale of
Rs.3050-4590 revised from time to time with all consequential benefits to Shri Satish Kumar S/o late Gyashi
Ram with effect from 15.01.2000 and Shri Radehy Sham Sharma with effect from 01.07.1996 is fair and
justified? If not, what relief the workmen entitled to?’
2.
Claim statement was filed by the claimant herein averring that Shri Satish Kumar was regularized on the post of
mali on 16.02.1993 and has been working as acting Chaudhary with effect from 15.01.2000 and Shri Radhey Shyam
Sharma has been regularized on the post of mali on 01.04.1989 and has been working as acting Chaudhary with effect
from 01.07.1996. The claimants have not been allowed to participate in the promotion to the post of Garden
Chaudhary on the grounds that the claimants are not 10th pass with Agriculture as one of the subjects. As per un-
notified recruitment rules, claimant is entitled to promotional post of Chaudhary and no minimum qualification is
prescribed. Some acting chaudharies similarly situated were allowed grant of pay of Chaudhary from the date when
they were performing their duty as Garden Chaudhary as per the direction of Hon’ble Tribunal in TA No.1317/2009 in
the matter of Sultan Singh Vs. MCD and further direction of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi titled Sultan Singh & others
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8223
in WP(C) No.7947/2010 and dismissed as withdrawn by Hon’ble Supreme Court of Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No.20069/2011 on 09.04.2012. In another writ petition No.5453/2012 titled Sultan Singh Vs MCD Divison Bench of
Hon’ble High Court directed the management to comply with the writ petition. Management vide order 04.06.2013
directed for payment of duties of higher post (Garden Chaudhary). The claimant was not allowed to participate in the
promotion process due to wrong interpretation of the unnotified recruitment rules, that the claimants are not 10th pass
with Agriculture. Juniors to the claimant were promoted to the post of Garden Chaudhary with effect from
04.03.2014. Hence the management has not only violated the un-notified recruitment rules but also violated Article 14
& 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence the management has indulged in unfair labour practice and non-grant of
promotion to the claimant is totally illegal, unfair, unjust and discriminatory. Even Hon’ble High Court in a bunch of
writ petitions No.7669/2002 has held on 26.02.2004 that 50% promotional posts in which the educational qualification
are not required. Juniors to the claimants were promoted as Chaudhary with effect from 04.03.2014 under promotion
quota.
3.
Claim was demurred by the management taking various preliminary objections, inter alia Management has
demurred claim of the claimants 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. On merits, management has admitted the factum of regularization of the claimant as mali on
15.01.2000 and 01.04.1989. As per the existing rules for the post of Garden Chaudhary, malis having eight years of
regular service in the grade and possessing qualification of 10th pass with Agriculture are eligible for promotion to the
next post. The management has denied the remaining material facts contained in the statement of claim.
4.
Against this factual background, based on pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal vide order dated 03.08.2016
framed the following issues:
(i)
Whether the reference is not legally maintainable in view of the various preliminary objections?
(ii)
In terms of reference
(iii)
Relief
5.
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.WW2/3 respectively. Management, in order to rebut the case of the claimant, examined Shri
Shashi Kant Sharma, Assistant Director as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A and also relied on documents
Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.MW1/2.
6.
I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Ms.Savita Chauhan Legal Retainer, A/R for the
management.
Findings on Issue No. (i)
7.
Admittedly, in the present case, reference has been made under Section 10 sub-section (2A) of the Act for
adjudication. It is now well settled position in law that when a reference has been made for adjudication to the Tribunal
or Labour Court, as the case may be, it is paramount duty of the court to decide the same on merits, irrespective of the
pleas taken by the management. The dispute in the case in hand cannot be said to be stale for the simple reason that
there is no previous adjudication of the matter between the parties from a competent court nor that there is inordinate
delay in approaching this Tribunal by the claimants.
8.
It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager (2014) Lab.I.C.
4266 = (2014) 10 SCC 301 that a reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal can be made by the appropriate
Government at any time and provisions of Limitation Act does not apply. There are clear observations in the above
judgement that industrial dispute is to be decided by the Tribunal or Labour Court on merits, irrespective of the
pleadings on limits. Therefore, ratio of law in the case of ‘Nedungadi Bank Limited Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty & ors’
(supra) and State Co-op Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand as there is no
inordinate delay nor workman is guilty of delay and laches in approaching the court.
9.
It is clear from the preliminary objections taken in the written statement by the management that the
management has raised objection that no demand notice has been served upon the management nor the MCD General
Mazdoor Union has any locus standi to raise the present dispute as the union is not a recognized union of the
management. To my mind, there is no requirement of law that a dispute can be raised only by a recognized union. In
this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kripa
Shankar Jaiswal (AIR 1961 (2) SC Report 1) wherein also objection was taken on behalf of the management that the
union was not a registered under the Trade Union Act on the date of the settlement and said plea was rejected by
observing as under:
8224
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
‘Held, that for a dispute to constitute an industrial dispute it is not a requisite condition that it should be
sponsored by a recognized union or that all the workmen of an industrial establishment should be
parties to it. A settlement arrived at in course of conciliation proceedings falls within Section 18(3)(a) and (d)
of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such binds all the workmen though an unregistered union or only some
of workmen may have raised the dispute. The absence of notice under Section 11(2) by the Conciliation
Officer does not affect the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer and its only purpose is to apprise the
establishment that the person who is coming is the conciliation officer and not a stranger. Any
contravention of Section 12(6) in not submitting the report within 14 days may be a breach of duty on the part
of the conciliation officer ; it does not affect the legality of the proceedings which terminated as provided in
Section 20(2) of the Act.
10.
There is also ample evidence on record that the workmen herein were performing duty as officiating Chaudhary.
It is clear from perusal of office order dated 25.11.2012 Ex.WW1/1 (colly) that that name of the claimants finds
mention in the list where copy of the office is endorsed to all the Chaudharies, at serial Nos.12 and 20. WW1/2 is the
identity card issued by the management where the designation of the claimant is shown as Mali (supervisor).
Claimants, in order to prove their case, have tendered in evidence affidavit of Shri Satish Kumar, whose affidavit is
Ex.WW1/A, wherein material averments contained in statement of claim has been reiterated. It is specifically alleged
in the affidavit that Shri Satish Kumar and Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma were doing work of acting Chaudhary with
effect from 15.01.2000 and 01.07.1996 respectively. There are also averments in his affidavit that one Shri Jai Chand
has also been granted pay scale of Chaudhary by the management of MCD and Sultan Singh and others vs. MCD, who
were doing work of acting Chaudhary , vide judgement of the Hon’ble High Court, i.e. in the case of MCD vs. Sultan
Singh & others and necessary orders for implementation of the said judgement were issued by MCD.
11.
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.’
12.
In view of the ratio of the judgement discussed above, it is clear that espousal of a dispute by majority members
of 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 claimants and against the management.
Findings on Issue No.(ii)
13.
It was strongly contended on behalf of the claimants that juniors to the claimants were allowed to participate in
the promotional quota on regular basis but he was denied on the grounds that he was not possessing the requisite
qualification of 10th Agriculture.
14.
The main attack of the management is that the claimants herein were not having requisite qualification, as such,
there is no question of grant of pay scale of Garden Chaudhary to Shri Satish Kumar from 15.01.2000 and Shri Radhey
Shyam Sharma from 01.04.1989. There is no merit in the stand taken by the management in its reply, that the claimants
herein is not entitled for promotion to the post of Chaudhary inasmuch as he does not possess the requisite
qualification. 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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8225
are not claiming appointment to the post of Garden Chaudharies on account of having worked on ad-hoc basis
on the post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that some of them not having the requisite qualifications
are entitled for relaxation.
29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to
make out any such grounds which will impel this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution to set aside the orders of the Tribunal dated 29th January, 2010 and 7th October, 2010 as no
illegality or un- sustainability or perversity in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out.
30. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.”
15.
It is further clear that SLP was also filed by MCD before the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 claimants
herein does not possess requisite qualification is without any merit and has no relevance so far as question of grant of
promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary is concerned.
16.
It is not out of place to mention here that even if the claimants 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.
17.
As a sequel to my above discussion, it is held that Shri Satish Kumar and Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma, the
claimants herein, are entitled to the pay scale of Garden Chaudhary with effect from 15.01.2000 and 01.07.1996
respectively 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 04.03.2014.
Further the claimants are also entitled to be promoted to the post of Garden Chaudhary from 04.03.2014, i..e the date
when their juniors were promoted as regular 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 : September 22, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2461-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vk;qDr]
mÙkj fnYyh uxj fuxe] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 97@2015]
220@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2017 dks çkIr gq, Fks A
¹la- ,y&42011@06@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]
la- ,y&42011@122@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2461.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 97/2015, 220/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi and their workman, which were received by the
Central Government on 28.09.2017.
[No. L-42011/06/2015-IR (DU),
No. L-42011/122/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
8226
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 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. 97/2015
Shri Jasbir Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh through
The President,
MCD General Mazdoor Union,
Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,
Jam Nagar House,
New Delhi
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (North),
9th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi 110 002
…Management
Reference under Section 10 sub-section (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) was received
from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide it orders No.L-42011/06/2015-IR(DU) dated
05.03.2015 for adjudication of the industrial dispute with the following terms:
‘Whether Shri Jasbir Singh is entitled to the status of Chaudhary in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 with effect
from 01.04.1994 revised from time to time alongwith all consequential benefits? If so, what directions are
necessary in this respect?
2.
Both the parties were put to notice and the workman Shri Ashok Kumar filed his statement of claim, wherein it
is alleged that he has been allotted work of Chaudhary with effect from 01.01.1994 by the competent officers of
Horticulture Department and was posted under Civil Lines Zone and thereafter he was transferred to Rohini Zone in the
month of July 2009. Presently, he is working with Civil Lines zone of Horticulture Department. However, he has
been denied pay scale of Chaudhary, revised from time to time. No qualification is prescribed for promotion to the post
of Garden Chaudhary. The workman has got payment of salary in the lower pay scale of mali, i.e. Rs.2550-3200
revised from time to time and has been denied the scale of Chaudhary, i.e. for his performing the duty of Chaudhary
with effect from 01.01.1994 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. Duties
of mali is presently of an unskilled workman whereas duties of Chaudhary is skilled in nature belonging to Group C
category of employees. Action of the management is alleged to be illegal & unjustified and amounts to unfair labour
practice.
3.
It is also averred in para 7 of the statement of claim that Hon’ble High Court, Delhi, in the matter of Jai Chand
vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (CW 6514/2001) has disapproved the non-payment of wages for those malis who
are working on the post of Chaudhary vide its judgement dated 02.05.2003. After the above judgement of the Hon’ble
Court, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Horticulture Department) has also issued order No.ADC(Hor.)/AO(Hort)/DA-
VII/05/457 dated 04.03.2005.
4.
Management has demurred claim of the workman by taking preliminary objections, inter alia, present dispute
has not been espoused by the union, is not an industrial dispute as no demand notice has been served upon the
management, delay and laches etc. The claimant cannot be designated as Garden Chaudhary as he has never worked
on the said post. 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. No such office order has been issued by the competent authority for assigning duties of garden chaudhary.
As per provisions of FRSR, no higher pay scale is payable for looking after the work on current duty charge. The
claimant being a regular employee of the management, is governed by the CCS rules and the efficacious remedy lies
with CAT, who is prescribed authority for adjudicating the dispute related to Government employees. Management
has denied the other material averments contained in the statement of claim. Accordingly, it is prayed that claim of the
workman herein is liable to be dismissed, being devoid of merits.
5.
From the pleadings of the parties, vide a order dated 15.02.2016, following issues were framed:
(i)
Whether the reference in question is not legally maintainable in view of the preliminary objections?
(ii)
As in terms of reference
(iii)
Relief
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8227
6.
Claimant, in order to prove his case against the management examined himself as WW1 whose affidavits is
Ex.WW1/A. He has 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 Harbir Singh as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A and he has relied on documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ed.MW1/3.
7.
I have heard Shri B.K.Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri Nitin Soam, A/R for the management.
Issue No.(i)
8.
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.
9.
It is also clear from espousal certificate Ex.WW1/4 that a meeting of MCD General Mazdoor Union was held on
26.12.2013 wherein issue of promotion and grant of pay scale of Chaudhary to the claimant herein, Shri Jasbir Singh
was adopted. In view of this, it is held that there was espousal of the case of the claimant. Hence, issue No.(i) is
answered in favour of the claimant and against the management.
Issue No. (ii) and (iii)
10.
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
01.04.1988. Case of the claimant is that he is performing duties of officiating Chaudhary since 01.01.1994 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 01.04.1988. 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 malis looking after the work of Garden Chaudhary employed with Horticulture Department of Civil Lines Zone,
that 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.16. There is also a column ‘Working Since and in the same is mentioned as
‘April 1994’.
11.
The main attack of the management is that the claimant herein was not having requisite qualification, as such,
there is no question of grant of pay scale of Garden Chaudhary to the claimant from 1994. 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 neither has the requisite qualification nor has he 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
8228
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.”
12.
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.
13.
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 ad hoc 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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8229
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.”
14.
Similarly, 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.
15.
Since the claimant is officiating on the post of Garden Chaudhary since 01.04.1994, as such, he is entitled to the
pay scale of Garden Chaudhary with effect from 01.04.1994. 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 : September 21, 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. 220/2015
Shri Surender Kumar S/o late Shri Vikram Singh through
The President,
MCD General Mazdoor Union,
Room No.95, Barrack No.1/10,
Jam Nagar House,
New Delhi – 110 001
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
4th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi 110 002
…Management
Reference under Section 10 sub-section (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) was received
from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide it orders No. L-42011/122/2015-IR(DU) dated
05.10.2015 for adjudication of the industrial dispute with the following terms:
‘Whether Shri Surender Kumar S/o Shri Vikram Singh is entitled to the status of Chaudhary in the pay scale
of Rs.3050-4590 with effect from 01.01.2004 revised from time to time alongwith all consequential benefits?
If so, what directions are necessary in this respect?
2.
Both the parties were put to notice and the workman Shri Surender Kumar filed his statement of claim, wherein
it is alleged that he has been allotted work of Chaudhary with effect from 01.01.2004 by the competent officers of
Horticulture Department and was posted under Civil Lines Zone and thereafter he was transferred to S.P. Zone.
However, he has been denied pay scale of Chaudhary, revised from time to time. No qualification is prescribed for
promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary. The workman has got payment of salary in the lower pay scale of mali,
i.e. Rs.2550-3200 revised from time to time and has been denied the scale of Chaudhary, i.e. Rs.3050-4590 for his
performing the duty of Chaudhary with effect from 01.01.2004 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. Duties of mali is presently of an unskilled workman whereas duties of Chaudhary is skilled
in nature belonging to Group C category of employees. Action of the management is alleged to be illegal & unjustified
and amounts to unfair labour practice.
3.
It is also averred in para 7 of the statement of claim that Hon’ble High Court, Delhi, in the matter of Jai Chand
vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (CW 6514/2001) has disapproved the non-payment of wages for those malis who
are working on the post of Chaudhary vide its judgement dated 02.05.2003. After the above judgement of the Hon’ble
Court, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Horticulture Department) has also issued order No.ADC(Hor.)/AO(Hort)/DA-
VII/05/457 dated 04.03.2005.
8230
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
Management has demurred claim of the workman by taking preliminary objections, inter alia, present dispute
has not been espoused by the union, is not an industrial dispute as no demand notice has been served upon the
management, delay and laches etc. The claimant cannot be designated as Garden Chaudhary as he has never worked
on the said post. 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. No such office order has been issued by the competent authority for assigning duties of garden chaudhary.
As per provisions of FRSR, no higher pay scale is payable for looking after the work on current duty charge. The
claimant being a regular employee of the management, is governed by the CCS rules and the efficacious remedy lies
with CAT, who is prescribed authority for adjudicating the dispute related to Government employees. Management
has denied the other material averments contained in the statement of claim. Accordingly, it is prayed that claim of the
workman herein is liable to be dismissed, being devoid of merits.
5.
From the pleadings of the parties, vide a order dated 11.05.2016, following issues were framed:
(i)
Whether the reference is not legally maintainable in view of the preliminary objections?
(ii)
As in terms of reference
(iii)
Relief
6.
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 and have also tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW1/1 to
Ex.WW1/3 and Ex.WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/3 respectively. Management, in order to rebut the case of the claimant,
examined Shri Harbir Singh as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A and he has 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 Harbans Kaushal, A/R for the management.
Issue No. (i)
8.
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 allthe 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.
9.
It is also clear from espousal certificate Ex.WW2/3 that a meeting of MCD General Mazdoor Union was held on
20.10.2012 wherein issue of grant of pay scale of Chaudhary to the claimant herein, Shri Surender Kumar was adopted.
In view of this, it is held that there was espousal of the case of the claimant. Hence, issue No.(i) is answered in favour
of the claimant and against the management.
Issue No. (ii) and (iii)
10.
Case of the claimant is that he is performing duties of officiating Chaudhary since 01.01.2004 on the directions
of officials of Horticulture Department. 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 malis looking
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8231
after the work of Garden Chaudhary employed with Horticulture Department of Civil Lines Zone, that 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.31. There is also a column ‘Working Since and in the same is mentioned as ‘2004’.
11.
The main attack of the management is that the claimant herein was not having requisite qualification, as such,
there is no question of grant of pay scale of Garden Chaudhary to the claimant from 2004. 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 neither has the requisite qualification nor has he 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.”
12.
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.
13.
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
8232
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.”
14.
Similarly, 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.
15.
Since the claimant is officiating on the post of Garden Chaudhary since April 2004, as such, he is entitled to the
pay scale of Garden Chaudhary with effect from 01.01.2004. As a corollary, management is liable pay the difference of
wages of mali vis-a-vis Garden Chaudhary from the date when Shri Surender Kumar, 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 : September 21, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2462-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vk;qDr]
bZLV fnYyh uxj fuxe] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 145@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-09-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@54@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2462.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 145/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. I, Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi and their workman, which were received by the Central
Government on 28.09.2017.
[No. L-42011/54/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8233
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. 145/2015
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-
42011/54/2015-IR(DU) dated 18.06.2015 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 Shri Rohtas S/o Shri Prem Raj is entitled to the promotion of Garden Chaudhary 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.
Claim statement was filed by the claimant herein averring that he has been performing duties of regular mali
with effect from 1995 and has completed more than 18 years of service. As per un-notified recruitment rules, claimant
is entitled to promotional post of Chaudhary and no minimum qualification is prescribed. The claimant was allowed to
sit in the Trade Test and he had secured 78% marks but due to wring interpretation of the unnotified recruitment rules,
the claimant was not promoted as he is not 10th pass with Agriculture. Juniors to the claimant were promoted to the
post of Garden Chaudhary with effect from 04.03.2014. Hence the management has not only violated the un-notified
recruitment rules but also violated Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence the management has indulged
in unfair labour practice and non-grant of promotion to the claimant is totally illegal, unfair, unjust and discriminatory.
3.
Claim was demurred by the management taking various preliminary objections, inter alia of the claim being
without any cause, not possessing requisite qualification, policy decision being taken by North Delhi Municipal
Corporation etc. On merits, management has admitted the factum of appointment of the claimant as mali on
01.04.1995. As per the existing rules for the post of Garden Chaudhary, malis having eight years of regular service in
the grade and possessing qualification of 10th pass with Agriculture are eligible for promotion to the next post. The
management has denied the remaining material facts contained in the statement of claim.
4.
Against this factual background, based on pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal vide order dated 03.08.2016
framed the following issues:
(i)
Whether the claim is not legally maintainable in view of the preliminary objections?
(ii)
As in terms of reference
5.
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.WW2/4 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.
6.
I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri Sandeep Kaushik, A/R for the management.
7.
Issue No.(i) and (ii) are being taken up together as the same are inter-related and can be disposed of together.
8.
It was strongly contended on behalf of the workman that juniors to the claimant were allowed to participate in
the promotional quota on regular basis but he was denied on the grounds that he was not possessing the requisite
qualification of 10th Agriculture.
8234
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9.
The main attack of the management is that the claimant herein was not having requisite qualification, as such,
there is no question of grant of pay scale of Garden Chaudhary to the claimant from 04.03.2014. 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 does not possess the requisite qualification though he has appeared in the trade test
conducted by the department and secured 78%. 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.”
10.
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 does not possess requisite qualification is without any merit and has no relevance so far as question of grant of
promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary is concerned.
11.
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.
12.
Further, position of the claimant herein is far better than those malis who were working as acting Chaudhary or
officiating as Chaudhary but were still granted benefit of pay-scale of Chaudhary in view of the judgement passed by
Hon’ble High Court in the case of Sultan Singh case (supra), as discussed above. In the present case, admittedly
claimant has passed the trade test. However, he was not considered for promotion by the management for the reason
that he is not matric pass with Agriculture as one of the subjects. To my mind, there is no question of denial of
promotion to the claimant herein inasmuch as qualification of matric with Agriculture as one of the subjects is not
necessary in the case of departmental candidates as is clear from the extract of the recruitment rules for the post of
Chaudhary:
‘Hedgeman and machineman with 5 years regular respective grade in mali, chowkidar and Bullockman with 8
years regular service in the respective grade.’
13.
Since the claimant has passed trade test conducted by the department, therefore, absence of his qualification of
matric with Agriculture as one of the subjects, cannot stand in his way for promotion as the same is not sine qua non for
promoting a mali to the post of Chaudhary.
14.
As a sequel to may above discussion, it is held that Shri Rohtas, the claimant herein, is entitled to be promoted
to the post of Garden Chaudhary from 04.03.2014, i.e. the date when his juniors were promoted as regular 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 : September 21, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8235
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2463-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 12@2000) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-10-2017
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@311@1999&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2463.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Asansol as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06.10.2017.
[No. L-22012/311/1999-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 12 OF 2000
PARTIES :
The management of Victoria West Colliery of M/s. BCCL
Vs.
Shri Ajit Kumar Paul
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the management
:
Sri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate
For the union (Workman)
:
None
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated: 12.09.2017
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter NO. L-22012/
311/99–IR(CM-II) dated 24.01.2000 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Victoria West Colliery under M/s. BCCL in denying
regularization of the service of Sh. Ajit Kumar Paul as Typist is justified? If not, to what relief Sh. Paul is
entitled ?”
1.
Having received the Order NO. L-22012/311/99–IR(CM-II) dated 24.01.2000 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 12 of 2000 was
registered on 07.02.2000. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to
the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along
with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by
the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their
representative.
8236
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
The workman Shri Ajit Kumar Paul has filed written statement through union representative, has alleged in his
written statement that he was offered employment in place of his father Shri Dwija Pada Paul who was declared
medically unfit as per provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement. Shri Ajit Kumar Paul was initially appointed as
Typist (Trainee) in category - I subject to verification of Educational Certificate vide Ref. No. M/s. BCCL-PA/VI-3(8)
A-XIII/41/91/33156-59 dated 03.11.1991 / 03.12.1991, Employment No. GM/PM/XII/03/A7/Disability/92/1551 dated
19/22.05.1992. As per approval sheet it was mentioned that Shri Ajit Kumar Paul who was offer the job of Typist
(Trainee) will be regularized in Clerk Grade - II after completion of period of training. As per offer of appointment
period of probation was 1 (One) year. On receipt of Appointment Letter Shri Ajit Kumar Paul reported for duty as
Typist (Trainee) but he was not allowed to join the duty on ground of non-availability of vacancy. The designation of
Shri Ajit Kumar Paul was changed from Typist (Trainee) to Underground General Mazdoor vide amended Letter No.
BCCL/PA-VI-3(8) Ar.XII/41/91/21785-88 dated 18/19.08.1992 issued by the Headquarter. Shri Ajit Kumar Paul left
with no alternative, joined as Underground General Mazdoor in category - I on 12.09.1992. In the mean time a
permanent vacancy for the post of Typist has arisen at Victoria West Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited.
Applications ware invited from serving employees. The applicant, Shri Ajit Kumar Paul applied for the said post and
claimed preference. The then G.M. on the application of applicant passed the order that - “He may be authorized to
work as Typist (Trainee)”. Shri Ajit Kumar Paul continued to work as Typist independently from 21.07.1997 to
25.11.1999 i.e. continuously for a period of 2 (Two) years and 4 (Four) months. He was stopped from working as
Typist and was directed to work as General Mazdoor Category - I w.e.f. 21.12.1999 vide Letter No. 1569 dated
21.12.1999 with vindictive attitude. He has been working as General Mazdoor under protest since 22.12.1999. He
has requisite qualification for appointment as Typist (Trainee). He has worked to the entire satisfaction of his superiors
for more than 2 (Two) years continuously against the vacant post of Typist. The applicant has prayed that the Tribunal
may kindly direct the management of Victoria West Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited to regularize the
services of Shri Ajit Kumar Paul, General Mazdoor category - I as Typist in Clerical Grade - II w.e.f. 21.07.1997 and
fix his pay accordingly from July, 1997 till date. And he was also prayed that he should be paid arrears arising out of
the said regularization.
3.
The Agent of Victoria West Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited has alleged in his written statement
that reference is misconceived one. Shri Ajit Kumar Paul was offered employment in place of his father Shri Dijopada
Paul who was declared unfit during employment at Damagoria Colliery under C. V. Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal
Limited. The concerned workman was appointed as Underground General Mazdoor in Category - I. Previous approval
of Shri Ajit Kumar Paul regarding his appointment as Typist (Trainee) was changed by the Competent Authority form
Typist (Trainee) to Underground General Mazdoor and the same was also accepted by Shri Ajit Kumar Paul, hence his
question of his regularization as Typist in Grade - II doesn’t arise as the terms of employment was changed. He worked
as Underground General Mazdoor in Category - I. Shri Ajit Kumar Paul was deployed to work as Typist (Trainee) in
Category - I on the basis of his application for a period of 3 (Three) months and with the clear terms that he will be paid
wages of Category - I and this deployment was for a temporary period for exigency of the mine. Such authorization
cannot confer any legal right for automatic regularization as Typist. The concerned workman was directed to work as
Underground General Mazdoor in his existing category i.e. Category - I by the Project Officer of Victoria West
Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited by his letter dated 21.12.1991. The concerned workman complied with
the said direction and he joined duty as Underground General Mazdoor and was deployed on the job of the Pump
Operator. There is no violation of Section - 33 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Agent of Victoria West Colliery of
M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited has prayed that the workman was not entitled to any relief in the matter of
regularization as Typist.
4.
The workman has alleged in his rejoinder written statement that the management has admitted that the initial
appointment of Shri Ajit Kumar Paul as Typist (Trainee) was changed by M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited on the
ground of no vacancy. Finding no alternative Shri Ajit Kumar Paul accepted the job of Underground Mazdoor. Due to
permanent vacancy Shri Ajit Kumar Paul was directed to work as Typist. The statement of management is incorrect
that on the basis of application of Shri Ajit Kumar Paul he was directed to work as Typist (Trainee). The statement of
management is also incorrect that the applicant Shri Ajit Kumar Paul was allowed to work for 3 (Three) months. The
fact is that Shri Ajit Kumar Paul was continued to work as Typist from 21.07.1997 to 21.12.1999 i.e. for a period of 2
(Two) years and 4 (Four) months. The claim of difference of wages cannot be denied by the management. The
workman has denied the statement of management that the post of Typist (Trainee) Category - I was a temporary post.
5.
The workman has filed the following documents :-
(i) Photocopy of the Head Quarter’s approval for employment as Typist (T) Bearing No. BCCL-PA-VI-
3(8)/Ar.Xii/411/91/33156-59 dated 03.11.1991 / 03.12.1991, (ii) Photocopy of the Offer of Employment issued
by GM of CV Area bearing No. GM/Pm/Xii/03/A7/Disability/92/1551 dated 19/22.05.1992, (iii) Photocopy of
the Amendment Order issued by the Head Quarter for changing the designation from Typist(T), (iv) Photocopy
of the Application of the workman for the post of Typist dated 21.05.1997, (v) Photocopy of the Dy.CPM’s
Order No. 1688 dated 30.07.1997 for absorption of Shri Ajit Kumar Paul as Typist, (vi) Photocopy of the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8237
Order No. 946 dated 01.08.1997 of Project Officer of Victoria West Colliery, (vii) Photocopy of the Letter No.
1659 dated 21.012.1999 of Project Officer of Victoria West Colliery, (viii) Photocopy of the Union’s Letter
raising I.D. before ALC(C), Asansol dated 21.10.1998, (ix) Photocopy of the FOC Report of ALC(C), Asansol
dated 22.03.1999, (x) Photocopy of the Certificate from West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education,
(xi) Photocopy of the Proficiency Certificate in Type Writing, (xii) Photocopy of the Relevant provision of S.O.
of BCCL regarding re-classification of workers, (xiii) Photocopy of the Protest Letter of person concerned dated
25.12.1999, (xiv) Photocopy of the Order of Desk Officer of MOL&E dated 24.01.2000.
The workman, Shri Ajit Kumar Paul has filed affidavit in his oral evidence and he has been cross-examined by
the Learned Advocate of the management.
The management of Victoria West Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited has not filed any oral or
documentary evidence.
6.
The learned advocate of the workman Shri M. Mukherjee remained unturned for many years. He last appeared
on 20.03.2012. Even after service of notice, the Tribunal fixed 26 (Twenty Six) dates, but the learned advocate of the
workman Shri M. Mukherjee never appeared. I have heard the argument of Shri P. K. Das, learned advocate of the
management of Victoria West Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited.
7.
It is not disputed that the workman has been appointed on compassionate ground in place of his father Shri
Dwija Pada Paul who was declared medically unfit. It is also admitted fact that initially Shri Ajit Kumar Paul was
appointed on the post of Typist (Trainee) for the period of 1 (One) year. In this regard various documents have been
filed by the workman. The Deputy Personnel Manager by Letter No. BCCL/PA-VI/3(8)/Ar.XII/41/91/21785-88 dated
18/19.08.1992 has modified the appointment of Shri Ajit Kumar Paul and change his category from Typist (Trainee) to
Underground General Mazdoor in Category - I and posted him at C.V. Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited. The
workman has admitted that since then he has been working as General Mazdoor Category - I from 12.09.1992. There is
no doubt that initial Appointment Letter was issued to Shri Ajit Kumar Paul as Typist (Trainee) but subsequently
modifying the previous order his cadre was changed and he was appointed as Underground General Mazdoor in
Category - I. The Project Officer vide Letter No. VW/1204/Agent/946 dated 30.07.1997 / 01.08.1997 has directed the
workman to work as Typist (Trainee) for 3 (Three) months.
8.
From perusal of documents, pleadings and evidences of workman it is apparent that though initial Appointment
Letter was issued as Typist (Trainee) but by modifying the Appointment Order the designation of the workman has
been changed to Underground General Mazdoor in Category - I. The applicant who was appointed on compassionate
ground willingly and voluntarily accepted the job and began to function as Underground General Mazdoor in Category
- I. Mere possession of qualification will not create any right to be appointed or to be regularized on the post of Typist.
Mere functioning on the post of Typist or even for 2 (Two) years or more will not create any right on the post of Typist
(Trainee) because the applicant was not appointed on the post of Typist (Trainee).
The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka and Others v/s M. L. Kesari and Others reported in 2010
(127) FLR page 12 has held that :
“where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed
does not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal.”
9.
In view of the above discussion the action of management of M/s. Victoria West Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking
Coal Limited in denying the regularization of service of Shri Ajit Kumar Paul as Typist is justified. Shri Ajit Kumar
Paul is not entitled to any relief
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2464-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 35@1997) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-10-2017
dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@129@1996&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
8238
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2464.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 35/1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. ECL and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06.10.2017.
[No. L-22012/129/1996-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Sri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 35 OF 1997
PARTIES :
The management of Madhabpur Colliery of M/s. ECL
Vs.
Shri Prabhu Narayan Harijan
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the management
:
None
For the union (Workman)
:
Shri Rakesh Kumar, Learned Union Representative
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated: 22.09.2017
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter NO. L-
22012/129/96–IR(C-II) dated 20.05.1997 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the management of Madhabpur Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. ECL denial in considering the
matriculation certificate for the purpose of correction of recorded age in service record of Sh. Prabhu Narayan
Harijan, Timber Mazdoor is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to ? ”
1.
Having received the Order NO. L-22012/129/96–IR(C-II) dated 20.05.1997 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 35 of 1997 was
registered on 02.06.1997. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to
the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along
with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by
the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their
representative.
2.
The workman Shri Prabhu Narayan Harijan has filed written statement through his Union Representative, has
alleged in written statement that he was appointed as P/R Underground Loader and posted at Naba Kajora Colliery of
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited vide Appoint Letter No. KAJ/PM/C-6/18L/650 dated 27.08.1990. His age has been
determined by the company’s Medical Officer / company’s Medical Board as 25 years as on 22.02.1990. According to
this his date of birth is determined as 22.02.1965. Shri Prabhu Narayan Harijan had appeared at Intermediate
examination conducted by the Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P. in March / April 1989 and he was
declared successful. His date of birth is recorded as 13.06.1972 in the Transfer Certificate. The Matriculation
Certificate is treated to be statutory certificate in terms of provisions contained in Implementation Instruction No. 76 of
JBCCI. The date of birth recorded in Matriculation Certificate should be treated as authentic and accepted by the
management for all practical purposes. The same date of birth has also been shown in the Character Certificate of Shri
Prabhu Narayan Harijan issued by the Head Master of Shri Shri Sheopujan Inter College, Malsa / Gazipur. In case of
employment in year 1990 as per provisions of Implementation Instruction No. 76 of JBCCI age recoded in
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8239
Matriculation Certificate shall prevail over other records because said certificate is statutory. The management is at
liberty to get contents of the certificate verified by the board and accept his date of birth as recorded in Matriculation
Certificate. The union has prayed that management be directed to accept the date of birth as recorded in Matriculation
Certificate of Shri Prabhu Narayan Harijan.
3.
The Agent of Madhabpur Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has alleged in his written statement that
Shri Prabhu Narayan Harijan son of Shri Ganga Harijan was appointed as P/R Underground Loader in Madhabpur
Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited w.e.f. 21.09.1990. At the time of appointment his date of birth as assessed
by the Medical Officer in Medical Examination as 25 years on 22.02.1990. Same has been recorded in B-Form
Register. It has been accepted to be correct by the workman. He had put his signature thereon. The workman did not
raise any dispute for several years, nor did he submit any Matriculation Certificate during his appointment. He is now
stopped from challenging it. The employer seriously doubt and dispute the authenticity of the Certificate and reserved
their right to comment on the same after inspection of the same and original. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
4.
The workman has filed rejoinder written statement, has alleged in his rejoinder written statement that Admit
Card, Mark Sheet as well as Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education / U.P. bears the date of birth of
workman and it has to be relied upon. In case the employer has any doubt with regard to the genuineness of the
Certificate they are at liberty to verify the same. Matriculation Certificate is a statutory certificate in terms of provisions
contained in 1.1.76 of the JBCCI. Age record had to be established on the basis of Matriculation Certificate. In this
instant case there is only a matter of correction of date of birth on the basis of Matriculation Certificate. The workman
was appointed in August, 1990. But he passed the Matriculation Examination in the year 1989. Therefore the
Matriculation Certificate is prior to his date of Appointment. Therefore there can not be any doubt in the veracity of the
document.
5.
The workman has filed the following documents :-
(i) Photocopy of the Letter of Appointment, (ii) Photocopy of the Admit Card for Intermediate Examination,
1989, (iii) Photocopy of the Mark sheet of Inter College, (iv) Photocopy of the Affidavit, (v) Photocopy of the
Letter regarding Age Dispute addressed to the G.M. of Kajora Area, (vi) Photocopy of the Letter of Asst. Gen.
Secy. addressed to the ALC(C), Raniganj, (vii) Photocopy of the Letter from Dy. CME of Madhabpur Colliery
addressed to the ALC(C), Raniganj, (viii) Photocopy of the Letter of Asst. Gen. Secy. addressed to the ALC(C),
Raniganj dated 30.07.1996, (ix) Photocopy of the High School Certificate, (x) Photocopy of the Certificate
issued by the Principle of the Intermediate College, (xi) Photocopy of the Character Certificate, (xii) Photocopy
of the Admit Card, (xiii) Photocopy of the Transfer Certificate, (xiv) Photocopy of the Intermediate Certificate,
(xv) Photocopy of the Implementation Instruction No. 76 issued by JBCCI.
The workman Shri Prabhu Narayan Harijan has filed affidavit in his oral evidence but he has not been cross-
examined.
The Agent of Madhabpur Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has filled the following documents :-
(i) Photocopy of the Relevant Page of B-Form Register, (ii) Photocopy of the Appointment Letter of Shri Prabhu
Narayan Harijan.
The management of Madhabpur Colliery have not filed affidavit in their oral evidence.
6.
Earlier Shri Prasanta Banerjee was representing the case of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, but for a long
period he has been absent. The Tribunal sent notice to the Agent of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited on 09.09.2014
which was served on him. Though Sri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate of the management has often appeared before the
Tribunal, but Sri P. K. Das never filed authorization, therefore he was unable to argue the case. The Tribunal had no
option left except to proceed ex-parte. The Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against the Madhabpur Colliery of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited on 23.08.2016.
7.
I have heard the argument of Shri Rakesh Kumar, union representative on behalf of the workman, Shri Prabhu
Narayan Harijan.
8.
Shri Rakesh Kumar, representative for the workman argued that as per Matriculation Certificate the age of
concerned workman Shri Prabhu Narayan Harijan is 13.06.1972, but his date of birth has been assessed in the Medical
Examination as 25 years which is incorrect. His date of birth recorded in Matriculation Certificate should be accepted
by the management. He has passed the Matriculation Examination prior to his appointment. He has relied on Section
No. 76 of JBCCI.
9.
It is not disputed that Shri Prabhu Narayan Harijan has been appointed by M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited on
27.08.1990. His date of birth has been assessed by the Medical Officer of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited as 25 years
on 22.02.1990. According to this assessment his date of birth is determined as 22.02.1965. The argument of Shri
Rakesh Kumar, representative of the workman Shri Prabhu Narayan Harijan is that as per certificate of High School his
8240
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
date of birth is 13.06.1972 same should be accepted by the management. As per the implementation of the Section No.
76 of JBCCI, there is guideline for determining the age of the employees. In case if the appointee had passed the
Matriculation or equivalent exam the date of birth recorded in the certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and
the same will not be altered under any circumstances.
10.
The then General Manager of Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited had issued appointment letter to
Shri Prabhu Narayan Harijan on 27.08.1990 vide Ref. No. KAJ/PM/C-6/18(L):/650. His date of birth has been assessed
by the Medical Officer as 25 years on 22.02.1990. The workman has filed copy of High School Certificate. The
applicant Shri Prabhu Narayan Harijan has passed High School Examination in the year 1987. His date of birth has
been record as 13.06.1972. The name of workman in High School certificate mentioned as ‘PRABHU NARAIN’ son
of ‘GANGA RAM’, whereas in the appointment letter his name is mentioned as ‘Shri Prabhu Narayan Harijan’. There
is discrepancy in the name recorded in the High School Certificate, Intermediate Certificate and the Appointment
Letter. The applicant has passed the High School Examination in 1987. This certificate has been issued on 22.06.1987,
whereas his Appointment Letter has been issued in 27.08.1990. He has passed his Matriculation Examination three
years before the date of appointment. He has stated in his affidavit filed in his oral evidence :
“ That I submitted and Produced my Matriculation Certificate and T.C. issued from the school but the doctor
not accepted the same and decided my age as per their choice.
That the reason of not accepting the certificate was that my name is written in my School certificate as
PRABHUNARAYAN, S/o. Ganga Ram. My Surname Harijan is not written in certificate issued by the board. ”
This statement indicates that he was aware at the time of appointment that there is discrepancy in his name.
Therefore, at the time when he received the Appointment Letter before the joining the service, he ought to have been
requested to Appointing Authority for correction of his name, but he willingly accepted the name recorded in the
Appointment Letter. Though the workman has filed the affidavit in this regard, but on the basis of the affidavit it can
not be held that ‘Shri Prabhu Narayan Harijan’ is the same as ‘Prabhu Narain’ as recorded in the Matriculation
Certificate. It is relevant to note that the workman has not requested for change of his name in his official records. If the
management is suspicious about the veracity of the certificate then how the management can be directed to accept the
date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate.
11.
In the light of above discussion the action of management of Madhabpur Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited in denying for considering the age record in the Matriculation Certificate for purpose of correction of recorded
age in service record of Shri Prabhu Narayan Harijan Timber Mazdoor is justified. The workman is not entitled to any
relief.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2465-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ iwQM
dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 294@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 03-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22011@3@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2465.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. CR No. 294/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No.1, New Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Food
Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.10.2017.
[No. L-22011/3/2011-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8241
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. 294/2011
The Joint Secretary,
Food Corporation of India (Handling)
Workers Union, 8654,
Arakshan Road, Paharganj,
New Delhi – 110055
…Workman
Versus
The Deputy General Manager:IR (Labour),
Food Corporation of India,
HQR, 16-20, Barakhamba Road,,
New Delhi
…Management
AWARD
A reference was received in the present case from the Ministry of Labour vide letter No.L-22011/3/2011-
IR(CM-II) dated 08.08.2011 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 demand of the Food Corporation of India Handling Workers Union for withdrawal of order of
transfer of 15 gangs from FCI FSD Narela (Delhi Region) to Rajasthan State is just, fair and legal? To what
relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?
2.
Claim statement was filed by the claimant union averring therein that Union is duly registered under the Trade
Union Act 1926 vide registration No.4900 and is having its registered office at 8654 Arakashan Road, Paharganj, New
Delhi being represented through its General Secretary Shri Maheshwar Mahto who is well conversant with the facts
and circumstances of the case. The union consists of workers employed by Food Corporation of India (in short the
management) or by contractors for the management in various depots, railheads and offices of the FCI throughout the
country to do the handling operations of foodgrains. The affairs of the union are governed its constitution which has
cast an obligation amongst others to espouse the cause of its members for the betterment and amelioration of their
service conditions. The management is a corporation set up by the Central Government under Section 2 of the FCI Act
1964 for the purpose of procurement, storage, preservation, salvaging, weighment, standardization, transportation and
distribution of foodgrains through the PDS system in the entire country.
3.
Departmental workers and direct payment system workers are regular/permanent workers of the management
and service benefits like wages, ex-gratia, bonus, incentive, overtime allowance, fixation of duty hours and norms,
medical facility etc. are all rendered to the workers by way of bipartite settlements between the management and
workers union.
4.
Management vide its letter No.IR-i(1)/2006-08/NZ/Vol.I dated 05.05.2009 addresed to the General Manager
(Region) directed 15 junior most gangs to be relieved from Delhi Region to Rajasthan Region. The General
Manager(Region) vide letter dated 20.05.2009 directed the Area Manager, District Office Shakti Nagar to relieve 15
junior most departmental labour gangs from Delhi to Rajasthan region. Accordingly District Office Shakti Nagar vide
order dated 28/29.05.2009 transferred 15 labour gangs to different depots in Rajasthan Region in accordance with their
seniority.
5.
It is pertinent to mention that no seniority list was prepared at Regional level though it was decided at the
meeting held with the management on 23.07.2009 to sort out matters regarding merger of gangs, fixation of seniority,
appointment on compassionate grounds, promotions and transfers etc. The management does not have any transfer
policy for the transfer of departmental and DPS workers of the management and transfer of 15 gangs is not based on
just and fair policy and is discriminatory and is liable to be quashed. It appears that management of FCI is seized with
the wrong notion as the 15 gangs of Narela depot have been declared junior most as their seniority has been reckoned
from the date of joining Narela depot instead of the date of joining the management as DPS/Departmental labour. Prior
to 1973, workers were workingunder contract labour system in Naraina, Shakti Nagar, CTO, Shahdara, RP Bagh and
Okhla in Delhi Region, Out of these Depots, Shahdara was a hired depot. In 1972\3 vide settlement dated 23.05.1973
Naraina, Shakti Nagar and CTO was departmentalised with effect from 15.06.1973 along with many other depots. In
1975 during agitation launched by workers union departmental workers from Shakti Nagar and Shahdara were shifted
to Naraina. In Shahdara and Shakti Nagar food handling operations were carried out through workers engaged by
contractors. In 1980 contract workers from Shahdara were shifted to Shaktinagar. In 1981 contract labour system was
done away with and Trhee Member Committee System (Mate system) was introduced.
8242
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
In 1986 vide agreement dated 03.07.1986 between the management and the workers union, Shakti Nagar,
Ghaziabad, Sahibabad along with other depots was brought under direct payment system. In 1984 a new depot at
Ghevra was built up and contract labour system was introduced. In 1986-87 and depot was set up in Narela and good
handling operations were got carried by contract workers and some workers started leaving the gang. In 1988 and 1991
some gangs were transferred from Sahibabad to Narela. In 1991-92 some labour gangs were transferred from Shakti
Nagar to Narela. All labour gangs presently working in Narela depot were either transferred or shifted from other
depots. Details of transfer/shifting of labour gangs from other depots are as under:
Date
From
To
Gang Nos.
17.11.1988
Sahibabad (UP)
Narela
1 to 8
26.12.1988
-do-
-do-
9, 11 to 13
09.04.1991
Shakti Nagar
-do-
17 to 23
26.04.1991
Sahibabad (UP)
-do-
1B
30.05.1991
-do -
-do-
2B, 3B & 11B
02.07.1992
Shakti Nagar
-do-
9B, 10B, 11C, 12B,
13B, 15 & 16
16.04.1993
R.P. Bagh
-do-
10A
1993
CTO (New Delhi)
-do-
7B & 14
7.
In 1991, 8 labour gangs were transferred/shifted to CTO and all departmental workers working in CTO were
shifted to Naraina depot. In 1994 vide settlement dated 01.11.1994 Shakti Nagar/CTO and Narela depots were
departmentalized with effect from 01.01.1994. However, pay of DPS workers was fixed from 01.01.1998. Thus,
seniority of the workers of Narela depot should atleast be reckoned from 01.01.1998. However, seniority of labour
gangs of Narala has to be reckoned from the date when they were brought under direct payment system, i.e.
01.05.1986.
8.
Ghevra depot was departmentalized in 1991 and the gangs working therein were accorded seniority from 1991
wherein they were brought under departmental system from ‘no work no pay system’. Ghevra depot was never brought
under direct payment system. Hence, it is clear that 15 gangs of Narela depot ordered to be transferred permanent
Delhi to Rajasthan Region are not junior most gangs as alleged by the management and is illegal and unjust. There are
many labour gangs in Ghevra depot which are junior to the 15 labour gangs in Narela depot.
9.
Workers working in Depots/godowns of the management under one appointing authority cannot be transferred
to depots/godowns under another appointing authority. Area managers are appointing authority of departmental/direct
payment system/No work no pay system labourers in the godowns owned and/or operated by the management. Hence,
departmental/DPS workers can only be transferred from one depot to another within the same FCI District office.
Finally, it has been prayed that the reference may be decided in their favour.
10.
Statement of defence was filed on behalf of the management taking preliminary objections that it is settled legal
principle that liability to be transferred is a condition of service of workmen. Departmental workers are liable to be
transferred to depots of the management anywhere in India therefore the claimant union cannot assail the transfer order
and the management has a right to re-organize its work in the manner it pleases. Further from the statement of claim it
is also clear that in the past also workers from one depot was transferred to another. The 15 junior most gangs from
Narela Depot were transferred to Rajasthan Region due to administrative exigency. The transferred workmen retain
their service conditions intact to which they are transferred. Management has denied the other material averments
contained in the statement of claim.
11.
Based on the pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor vide order dated 11.07.2011, opined that no issue,
other than those referred for adjudication is made out.
12.
Claimant, in order to prove his case against the management, examined Shri Hari Kant Sharma as WW1 and his
affidavit is Ex.WW1/A. Shri Sharma also relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/9.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8243
12.
In the meanwhile, Shri Hari Kant Sharma, ceased to be President of FCI Handling Workers Union and hence
claimant union filed affidavit of Shri Madan Singh in evidence. However, in the meanwhile it was stated by authorized
representatives of the respective parties that the controversy in the present case is regarding transfer of the claimants
herein and the oral evidence is not required to appreciate the controversy in the matter and the same can be appreciated
by documentary evidence. Hence, parties were granted opportunity to file documentary evidence in support of their
respective pleadings.
13.
In the meanwhile, claimant filed letter No.IR(L)/9(1)/2016/NZ dated 12.05.2017 wherein the management has
cancelled transfer orders of the labourers from Delhi Region to Punjab, Rajasthan and Haryana, which is also cause of
action in the present dispute. With the withdrawal of the transfer orders by the management, the claim of the claimant
union stands satisfied and nothing survives for consideration. 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 : 21 August, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2466-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ iwQM
dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 173@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 03-10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@9@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2466.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. CR No. 173/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No.1, New Delhi as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Food
Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.10.2017.
[No. L-22012/9/2006-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section 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. 173/2011
The General Secretary,
Food Corporation of India (Handling)
Workers Union, 8654,
Arakshan Road,
New Delhi – 110055
…Workman
Versus
The Deputy General Manager:IR (Labour),
Food Corporation of India,
HQR, 16-20, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi
…Management
AWARD
A reference was received in the present case by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No.2 from the Ministry of Labour vide letter No. L-22012/9/2006-IR(CM-II) dated 10.05.2007 under clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of
an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
8244
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
‘Whether the demand of the Union against the management of FCI for the action of transferring the Ancillary
Labour from Delhi Region to Punjab Region on Depot-wise seniority basis in place of Regional seniority
basis is legal and justified? If so, to what relief are the workmen entitled?
2.
Claim statement was filed by Food Corporation of India (Handling) Workers Union (in short the claimant union)
averring therein that the Union is duly registered under the Trade Union Act 1926 vide registration No.4900 and is
having its registered office at 8654 Arakashan Road, Paharganj, New Delhi being represented through its General
Secretary Shri Maheshwar Mahto who is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. The union
consists of workers employed by Food Corporation of India (in short the management) or by contractors for the
management in various depots, railheads and offices of the FCI throughout the country to do the handling operations of
foodgrains. The affairs of the union are governed its constitution which has cast an obligation amongst others to
espouse the cause of its members for the betterment and amelioration of their service conditions. The management is a
corporation set up by the Central Government under Section 2 of the FCI Act 1964 for the purpose of procurement,
storage, preservation, salvaging, weighment, standardization, transportation and distribution of foodgrains through the
PDS system in the entire country.
3.
The union wrote a letter dated 15.12.2003 to the Zonal Manager (North) now called Executive Director, Food
Corporation of India Sector 24, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh expressing therein the apprehension of mass transfer of
Ancillary Labourers from Delhi Region. The Union through the said letter made a request to the management not to go
on with any move if contemplated by them to transfer the ancillary labourers from Delhi Region to any other region,
due to various reasons including the fact that their children are studying here, inability to maintain two establishments
etc. The Senior Regional Manager (now General Manager: Region) intimated the District Manager(Now Area
Manager) District Office Shakti Nagar/Mayapuri to withhold transfer orders of two departmental labour gangs and 196
ancillary labours from Delhi Region to Rajasthan/Punjab Region . Zonal Office: North of the management at NOIDA
issued letter to the Senior Regional Manager Regional Office: New Delhi informing him that transfer orders of 196
ancillary labourers which were kept in abeyance would be released on or from 31.03.2004 itself. Thereafter the Senior
Regional Manager also write letter to the District Manager(Area Manager) District Office, Mayapuri/Shakti Nagar
making reference to letter dated 25.02.2004 issued from Zonal Office. The Union thereafter sent a letter dated
15.03.2004 to the Zonal Manager(North) NOIDA requesting therein to prepare seniority list of ancillary labourers of
the entire Region of Delhi before effecting mass transfer of the ancillary workers from Delhi to Punjab Region.
4.
Pursuant to the letter issued from Zonal Office and Regional Office, District Office Shakti Nagar issued an order
for transfer of 113 ancillary labourers from Narela Depot to Punjab Region. The transfer order was to be released or nor
from 31.03.2004.
5.
Workers of the management are divided into two categories: handling workers and Ancillary Workers. Handling
workers are workers who perform the job of loading, loading, stacking, de-stacking , restacking, weighment of bags of
foodgrains, standardization, weighment, salvaging of foodgrains etc. Ancillary workers are engaged in sticking gunny
bags, collecting the spilled foodgrains, cleaning the floor, opening and closing of shutters, making clay, mounting
covers, bringing to and from electric department the ladder and climbing electric poles, serving water to various depot
officials, cutting grass, posting letters. Ancillary workers are further divided into categories of departmental ancillary
labours and direct payment system ancillary labours in Delhi Region. Management has declared 196 ancillary labour to
be surplus for reasons best known to them. As per the statement of the Senior Regional Manger (now General
Manager(Region), Delhi region, strength of departmental ancillary labours in the month of April 2004, there was
shortage of 46 ancillary labour in FCI Mayapuri, Delhi, shortage of 3 ancillary labour in CTO Depot, excess of 19
ancillary labour in Ghevra Depot and shortage of 25 ancillary labour in Narela Depot. Therefore, adjusting the excess
19 ancillary labour there still remains an overall shortage of 55 ancillary labour in Delhi Region. Management during
conciliation stated that seniority of ancillary workers declared surplus in Delhi Region has been prepared depot wise.
However, the union stated that seniority list of ancillary labour of Delhi Region is not just and logical and hence not
acceptable as the 196 ancillary labour have been declared surplus taking into account all ancillary labour of Delhi
Region. Further surplus workers may face consequences of retrenchment and hence the act of declaring surplus
warrants observance of the rule of ‘First come last go’ or ‘last come first go’. If the ancillary labour are transferred as
per seniority list, senior ancillary labour will be transferred, which is unjust, illegal and against the principles. Thus the
transfers are arbitrary and malafide and deserves to be discouraged and castigated. Finally, it has been prayed that
order/letter No.IR-3/96 NZ/Vol.I.II/Pt.II dated 28.04.2002 be quashed and decide the reference in the claimants favour.
6.
Claim was demurred by the management by filing statement of defence wherein it is averred that the workmen
who were juniors were proposed to be transferred whereas the union demanded transfer on the basis of seniority at
regional level despite knowing the fact that there is no provision to maintain seniority region wise in respect of
department level. 196 ancillary workers were transferred for their gainful utilization and to save expenditure as non-
utilisation of ideal labourers gainfully may lead to their retrenchment. There was administrative requirement 15 years
back and now seniority of the workmen is being maintained depot wise as per MOU dated 25.05.1984 signed by the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8245
union. The date of departmentalization and date of birth of workers have been taken into consideration while preparing
the seniority list. Labourers were transferred from some of the depots which were closed but seniority was determined
as above. Transfers of workers were made on their request and on humanitarian grounds. Further, there is no practice
of maintaining seniority list on the basis of regional office particularly in North Zone. Handicapped workers and ladies
have not been transferred. There is no justification to accommodate the surplus workers without useful utilization of
their service. Other employees, including Class IV of the management ancillary labour face the same problems when
transferred from one State to another. Transfer orders regarding 196 ancillary labourers have been revised on the basis
of fresh requirements from Haryana and Punjab region to 52 ancillary labourers labourers vide letter No.IR-3/96-
NZ/Vol.IV dated 15.12.2005, hence the dispute does not survive. The other material averments contained in the
statement of claim have been denied by the management. Finally it has been prayed that the reference be decided in
favour of the management.
7.
Vide order No.Z-22019/6/2007-IRC-II dated 30.03.2010 the appropriate Government transferred the case to this
Tribunal for adjudication.
8.
Based on the pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor vide order dated 11.07.2011, opined that no issue,
other than those referred for adjudication is made out.
9.
Claimant union, in order to prove their case, examined Shri Hari Kant Sharma as WW1 whose affidavit is
Ex.WW1/A. He relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/16. Management, in order to rebut the case of the
claimant union, examined Shri Tapas Ranjan Sethi as MW1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A and he also relied on
documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/9. Shri Tapas Ranjan Sethi was thereafter transferred to Guwahati and management
filed affidavit of Shri Devendra Chaumal. In the meanwhile, claimant filed letter No.IR(L)/9(1)/2016/NZ dated
12.05.2017 wherein the management has cancelled transfer orders of the labourers from Delhi Region to Punjab,
Rajasthan and Haryana, which is also cause of action in the present dispute. With the withdrawal of the transfer orders
by the management, the claim of the claimant union stands satisfied and nothing survives for consideration. 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 : 23 August, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2467-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkaMyk
iksVZ VªLV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 32@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
11-10-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&37011@01@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2467.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Kandla Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.10.2017.
[No. L-37011/01/2015-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 06th September, 2017
8246
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reference: (CGITA) No. 32/2015
The Chairman,
Kandla Port Trust,
Administrative Office,
Post Box No. 50, Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201
…First Party
V/s
The President,
Kandla Port and Dock Employees’ Union,
A-157, Shakti Nagar, Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party
:
None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/01/
2015-IR(B-II) dated 20.03.2015 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham in terminating the services of
these daily rated 13 workmen listed below with effect from 24.04.2009 and not considering them for further
employment under Section 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act is just, fair and legal? If so, to what relief are
these workmen entitled?”
List of Workmen: S/Shri (1) Prakash Mohan, (2) Devilal Bherulal Tak, (3) Dinesh Mera, C (4) Dharmendra
Jetha, (5) Rajendra Tarachand, (6) Ramesh Kewalram, (7) Manoj Ramesh, (8) Umar Siddiq, (9) Haji Daud,
(10) Mangjlal Venaram, (11) Jusuf Kara, (12) Kana Bhima Koli and (13) G. Gangaiya.
1.
The reference dates back to 20.03.2015. Both the parties were served by registered post and the first party
submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 5 of his advocate on today. But the second party union did not prefer to submit their
statement of claim despite giving half a dozen opportunities from the date of service of notice to him on 09.02.2016,
the date of the acknowledgement of the service of the notice.
2.
Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the reference.
3.
Therefore, the reference in the absence of the pleadings of the workman’s union, is with the observation as
under: “the action of the management of Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham in terminating the services of these daily rated
13 workmen listed below with effect from 24.04.2009 and not considering them for further employment under Section
25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act is just, fair and legal.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2468-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkaMyk
iksVZ VªLV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 51@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
11-10-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&37011@04@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2468.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8247
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Kandla Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.10.2017.
[No. L-37011/04/2012-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 06th September, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 51/2013
The Chairman,
Kandla Port Trust,
Administrative Office,
Post Box No. 50, Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Transport and Dock Workers Union,
21, Yogesh Building, Plot No. 586,
12-C, Gandhidham,
Kutch(Gujarat) – 370201
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party
:
Shri N.H. Rathod
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/04/
2012-IR(B-II) dated 31.01.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Kandla Port Trust by taking unilateral decision to handover the
port activity to Private Operator either under so called PPP/BOT Model is justified? What relief the union is
entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 31.01.2013.Both the parties appeared but did not prefer to submit their submissions.
Shri N.H. Rathod, advocate for the second party workman, today on 06.09.2017 did not press the reference.
2.
Therefore, the reference is finally disposed of as not pressed.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2469-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkaMyk
iksVZ VªLV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 46@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
11-10-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&37011@8@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
8248
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2469.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Kandla Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.10.2017.
[No. L-37011/8/2009-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 06th September, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 46/2010
The Chairman,
Kandla Port Trust,
Administrative Office,
Post Box No. 50, Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Transport and Dock Workers Union,
21, Yogesh Building, Plot No. 586,
12-C, Gandhidham,
Kutch(Gujarat) – 370201
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party
:
Shri N.H. Rathod
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/8/2009-
IR(B-II) dated 15.02.2010 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, P.O. Box No. 50, Gandhidham in not filling up the lying
vacant posts in Electrical Department of Kandla Port Trust and awarding existing works of regular nature to contractors
is legal and justified? To what relief the workman of Department are entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 15.02.2010. Both the parties appeared but did not prefer to submit their submissions.
Shri N.H. Rathod, advocate for the second party workman, today on 06.09.2017 did not press the reference.
2.
Therefore, the reference is finally disposed of as not pressed.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2470-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkaMyk
iksVZ VªLV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8249
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 45@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
11-10-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&37011@09@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2470.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Kandla Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.10.2017.
[No. L-37011/09/2009-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 06th September, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 45/2010
The Chairman,
Kandla Port Trust,
Administrative Office,
Post Box No. 50, Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Transport and Dock Workers Union,
21, Yogesh Building, Plot No. 586,
12-C, Gandhidham,
Kutch(Gujarat) – 370201
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party
:
Shri N.H. Rathod
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/09/
2009-IR(B-II) dated 15.02.2010 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham in illegal posting of the Pump Driver
(Booster) against the post of Pump Operator in FCI Colony at Gopalpuri is legal and justified? To what relief
the workman is entitled for?”
1.
The reference dates back to 15.02.2010.Both the parties appeared but did not prefer to submit their submissions.
Shri N.H. Rathod, advocate for the second party workman, today on 06.09.2017 did not press the reference.
2.
Therefore, the reference is finally disposed of as not pressed.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
8250
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2471-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkaMyk
iksVZ VªLV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 06@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
11-10-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&37011@9@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2471.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Kandla Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.10.2017.
[No. L-37011/9/2012-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 04th September, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 06/2013
The Secretary,
Kandla Port Trust,
Administrative Office,
Post Box No. 50, Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Transport and Dock Workers Union,
21, Yogesh Building, Plot No. 586,
12-C, Gandhidham,
Kutch(Gujarat) – 370201
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party
:
None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/9/2012-
IR(B-II) dated 31.01.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Kandla Port Trust in not booking piece rates gangs with full settled manning
strength against bagged cargo brought at wharf is justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 31.01.2013. Both the parties appeared but did not prefer to submit their respective
statement of claim or written statement.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8251
2.
On 04.09.2017, the advocate for the second party union did not press the reference.
3.
Thus the reference is disposed of as not pressed.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2472-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkaMyk
iksVZ VªLV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 198@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
11-10-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&37011@16@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2472.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 198/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Kandla Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.10.2017.
[No. L-37011/16/2013-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 22nd August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 198/2013
The Chairman,
Kandla Port Trust,
Administrative Office,
Post Box No. 50, Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201
…First Party
V/s
The Vice President,
Kandla Port & Dock SC/ST Employees Union,
S.G. X. 36-37, Ward 2B, Adipur,
Kutch (Gujarat) – 370205
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
None
For the Second Party
:
None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/16/
2013-IR(B-II) dated 20.11.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Kandla Port Trust in not providing regular appointment to S/Shri
Gulabram Doulram and Jeetu Shyam Nariyani instead of daily rated Khalasi as per their qualification and
practice in KPT is justified? What relief, S/Shri Gulabram Doularam and Jeetu Nariyani are entitled to?”
8252
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1.
The reference dates back to 20.11.2013. Both the parties were served by registered post on 09.02.2016 but
neither of the parties appeared and also failed to submit their respective statement of claim and written statement
despite giving them number of dates on 10.05.2016, 20.09.2016, 29.11.2016, 10.01.2017, 06.03.2017, 09.05.2017,
06.06.2017 and today on 22.08.2017. However the first party advocate appeared on 10.01.2017 but did not prefer to
submit his vakalatpatra. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.
2.
Thus the reference in the absence of the second party, is finally disposed of with the observation as under: “the
action of the management of Kandla Port Trust in not providing regular appointment to S/Shri Gulabram Doulram and
Jeetu Shyam Nariyani instead of daily rated Khalasi as per their qualification and practice in KPT is justified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2473-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkaMyk
iksVZ VªLV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 120@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
11-10-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&37011@12@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2473.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 120/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Kandla Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.10.2017.
[No. L-37011/12/2008-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 29th August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 120/2010
The Chairman,
Kandla Port Trust,
Post Box No. 50, Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Transport and Dock Workers Union,
Kandla, 21, Yogesh Building, Plot No. 586,
12-C, Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party
:
None
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8253
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/12/
2008-IR(B-II) dated 25.03.2009 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, P.O. Box No. 50, Gandhidham, Kutch in not
providing higher grade salary to Shri Atulkumar Ranpara, Junior Engineer Civil Gr. I with effect from
01.07.2007 to 09.09.2007 is legal and justified? What relief the concerned workmen is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 25.03.2009. Despite service on the parties by registered post, the second party failed
to appear and submit his statement of claim despite giving him dozens of opportunities. However the first party
submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 4 on 22.08.2012. Therefore, a fresh notice Ex. 5 was issued to the second party to appear
on 18.07.2016 but to no result despite waiting on 18.07.2016, 06.12.2016, 07.02.2017, 18.04.2017, 16.05.2017 and
13.06.2017 on the request of advocate Shri N.H. Rathod who claimed himself the advocate of the second party but he
did not prefer his vakalatpatra. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.
2.
Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party, is finally disposed of with the observation
as under: “the action of the Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, P.O. Box No. 50, Gandhidham, Kutch in not providing higher
grade salary to Shri Atulkumar Ranpara, Junior Engineer Civil Gr. I with effect from 01.07.2007 to 09.09.2007 is legal
and justified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2474-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 1443@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
11-10-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@52@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2474.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1443/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.10.2017.
[No. L-12012/52/2003-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 04th September, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1443/2004
The Branch Manager,
Bank of India,
Shahibaug Branch,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Party
8254
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
V/s
Shri Bhoilal D. Solanki,
1/9, Municipal Health Quarters,
Girdharnagar,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380016
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Kum. Meenaben Shah
For the Second Party
:
Shri N.H. Rathod
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/52/
2003-IR(B-II) dated 29.06.2004 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in terminating/discontinuing the service of Shri
Solanki Bhogilal Dalpatbhai w.e.f. 18.02.2002 without following the provisions of Section 25 is legal and
justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman entitled to and from which date?”
1.
The reference dates back to 29.06.2004. The second party workman Solanki Bhogilal Dalpatbhai submitted the
statement of claim Ex. 3 on 26.07.2004 alleging that he had been working as Budlee Supoy since 21.11.1992 in the first
party Bank of India, Shahibaug Branch, Ahmedabad where there were neither complaint against him regarding his
conduct nor any memo or notice was issued to him and also no inquiry was also conducted against him into his, if any,
misconduct. But his services were orally terminated on 18.02.2002 without issuing any notice or holding any
departmental inquiry against him. Thus the termination of his service was in violation of the principle of natural justice
and also against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been alleged that he served the Bank of India for
2063 days from his appointment on 21.11.1992 till the date of termination of his service on 18.02.2002. He has also
alleged that he served for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the date of termination. He has also
alleged that he was appointed on a regular post/vacancy. Thus he has prayed that the oral order of termination dated
18.02.2002 be declared illegal and he be reinstated with all service benefits of a regular employee.
2.
The opposite party Bank of India submitted the written statement Ex. 7 on 03.12.2008 denying the basic
allegations of the statement of claim and submitted that the second party workman Solanki Bhogilal Dalpatbhai was
engaged as casual labour for a temporary period and for temporary increase in work of casual labour in exigencies of
service for fraction of a day in the morning hour. As per the Bank’s guidelines, branch manager was not empowered to
appoint any service either as Badlee or otherwise including Badlee Sepoy. He was neither appointed as Badlee Sepoy
nor was any appointment letter issued to him. There was no employer-employee relationship between Bank and the
workman. As the engagement was not done in accordance with the recruitment terms, therefore, the demand of
reinstatement in service does not arise as per the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Secretary of State of
Karnataka V/s Uma Devi and others 2006(2)CLR261. The workman was engaged as casual labour on exigency basis.
He never served for 2063 days during the period of engagement from 21.11.1992 to the date of termination of his
service on 18.02.2002 nor did he serve for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months. Therefore, the allegations of
the workman alleged to be engaged as Badlee Sepoy are misconceived, baseless and deserved to be rejected.
3.
On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, following issues arise:
i.
Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in terminating/discontinuing the service of Shri
Solanki Bhogilal Dalpatbhai w.e.f. 18.02.2002 without following the provisions of Section 25 is legal
and justified?
ii.
If not, what relief the concerned workman entitled to and from which date?
4.
Issue No. (i) : The burden to prove this issue was lying on the workman who in the support of his allegations,
submitted his affidavit Ex. 11 wherein he stated on oath that he was serving as Badlee Sepoy in the Shahibaug Branch
of the Bank of India since 21.11.1992 and was doing work of taking out ledgers from the cupboard and put them in
case cabins daily in the morning and also put them at its original place in the evening, putting paper rolls, water
punching, stamp pads, staplers and pins in the case cabin daily in the morning, to pass on customer’s cheques received
for withdraw of money to the case cabins, to sort out the transfer cheques and clearing cheques after stamping, to stamp
the clearing and sorting as well as sort the transfer cheques and vouchers after 03:00 PM, to go for returning the
counter-returned cheques to any bank in Ahmedabad and reimburse the rickshaw charges to do the work given by the
superiors, to get the papers photocopies given by the officers and to bring the heavy cash box in the branch in the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8255
morning and return it back at its original place in the evening. He has also stated that his appointment was made on a
regular post in a regular vacancy and completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the date of termination. He
was paid the wages by way of vouchers. He served the bank for more than 9 years in the aforesaid manner. Thus her
oral termination of service is victimization, illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
In his cross-examination, he has not been asked to reply any question which may refute or rebut the statement of the
workman given by him in his examination in chief. Though he has failed to submit the copies of the bank’s record
which may establish that he would have served the bank for 2063 days in 9 years and 240 days in the preceding
12 months from the date of termination. But it is noteworthy the workman moved an application Ex. 12 for asking the
bank to provide the copies of the muster roll for the period from 1992 to 2002 and pay vouchers of the aforesaid period.
5.
To rebut the oral evidence of the workman, the first party did not prefer to lead any oral or documentary
evidence in support of the written statement.
6.
The second party submitted the written argument Ex. 18 making the following arguments which are as under:
i.
It is most respectfully states that, the second party had continuously worked with the bank for almost
10 years. The said contention of the second party had admitted by the first party in written statement
particular in Para-5 and 9. Thereafter, considering entire written statement of the first party, it is only
contended that, the second party was not appointed as per norms of recruitment rules. It is not
controverted by the first party that, the second party had not worked for almost 10 years, meaning
thereby, the second party had continuously worked for 10 years with the bank.
ii.
It is stated that, while dealing with the principal and main contention of the first party in entire written
statement that, the second party was not appointed as per norms of recruitment or not duly recruited
employee. With the said contention of the bank, the Hon’ble Apex Court have been pleased to
examined the identical issue in reported decision in case of Ajaypal Singh Versus Haryana
Warehousing Corporation, reported in (2015) 6 SSC – 321. In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court
have been examined the identical case and contention of the management in relevant Para – 19 of the
judgement. In another case of Anoop Sharma Versus Executive Engineer, Public Health Division
No. 1, Panipat (Haryana) reported in 2010 (2) CLR – (SC). In the said case also, the similar aspect has
been examined by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is states that, the very same aspect has been examined
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Devinder Singh Versus Municipal Counsel, Sanaur, reported in
2011 AIR SCW – 3455.
It is states that, in the above mentioned both the cases, which was detailed examined by the Hon’ble
Apex Court, the only contention raised by the Bank Authority that, the appointment of the second party
was not as per the norms of recruitment rules is not applicable in case of illegal terminated which is
violated Section 25 (F) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
iii.
It is further state that, the bank has not produced any single documentary evidences before this Hon’ble
Tribunal, not only that but the bank had not examined any witness or oral evidence before this Hon’ble
Tribunal. On the contrary, the second party had produced an application of production of documentary
evidences below Ex. 8 supported by an affidavit, which was also not complied by the bank. It is
undisputed fact that, the best evidences were in the possession of the bank authorities, which were
demanded by the second party but undisputedly it is not produced before this Hon’ble Tribunal,
therefore, it is a fit case to draw adverse inference against the first party bank by not producing relevant
documents before this Hon’ble Tribunal. The said aspect is examined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
cases of R.M. Yellati Versus Assistant Executive Engineer, reported in (2006) 1 SSC – 106, the relevant
observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court is quoted as under:
“Analyzing the above decisions of this court, it is clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in
terms do not apply to the proceeding under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However,
applying general principles and on reading the afore-stated judgements, we find that this court has
repeatedly taken the view that the 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 in the witness
box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidences, both oral and
documentary. In cases of termination of service of daily waged earner, there will be no letter of
appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in most cases,
the workman (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
facts of each case.”
8256
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It is stated that, the very aspect has also been examined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Director, Fisheries
Terminal Division Versus Bhukhubhai Meghajibhai Chavda, reported in 2010 AIR SCW – 542. In the said decision the
relevant observations made in Para– 15.
Further, the very aspect has been examined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in reported case of Gauri Shanker
Versus State of Rajasthan, reported in (2015) 12 SCC – 754, wherein, the relevant observations have been made in Para
– 20 of the judgement, which is quoted as under:
“It is not in dispute that the workman was employed with the respondent – Department in the year
1987 and on the basis of material evidence adduced by both the parties and in the absence of the
non-production of muster rolls on the ground that they are not available, which contention of the
respondent – Department is rightly not accepted by the Labour Court and it has recorded the
finding of the fact holding that the workman has worked from 01.01.1987 to 01.04.1992. The labour
court has drawn adverse inference with regard to non-production of muster roll maintained by
them, in this regard, it would be useful to refer to the judgement of this court in the case of Gopal
Krishanji Ketkar V/s Mohammad Haji Latif and others (6) wherein it was held thus:
“5…… Even if the burden of prove does not lie on a party, the court may draw an adverse inference
if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It
is noted in our opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely on a certain state of facts to
withhold from the court, the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon
the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof. In Murugesam
Pillai V. V/s Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, lord show observed as follow:
“A practice has grown up in Indian procedure of those in possession of important documents or
information lying by, trusting to the abstract doctrine of the onus of proof, and failing, accordingly,
to furnish to, the, Courts the best material for its decision. With regard to third parties, this may be
right enough, they have no responsibility for the conduct of the suit but with regard to the parties to
the suit it is, in their Lordship’s opinion and inversion of sound practice for those desiring to rely
upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the written evidence in their possession
which would throw light upon the proposition.”
This passage was cited with approval by this Court in a recent decision – Biltu Ram and others V/s
Jainandan Prasad and others. In that case, reliance was placed on behalf of the defendants upon
the following passage from the decision of the Judicial Committee in Mt. Bilas Kunwar V/s Desraj
Ranjit Singh:-
“But it is open to a litigant to refrain from producing any documents that he considers irrelevant; if
the other litigant is dissatisfied it is for him to apply for an affidavit of documents and he can obtain
inspection and production of all that appears to him in such affidavit to be relevant and proper. If
he fails so to do, neither he nor the Court at his suggestion is entitled to draw any inference as to
the contents of any such documents.”
Further, the very aspect has been examined by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in reported case of Patel Salt and
Marine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., V/s Manguben Premabhai Waghela and Anr. Reported in 2016(3)CLR-375.
It is stated that, considering the above mentioned judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is crystal clear that,
the first party bank had not produced any documentary evidences in spite of demand has been made by the second party
by way of filing an application for production of documentary evidences, the second party had stated on oath that, he
had completed 240 days in providing year of termination, which is not controverted/rebutted by the other side bank by
any type of evidences, and therefore, as per the settled law, the second party had discharged his burden for proving 240
days continuous service on oath, and the bank had not produced or controverted such aspect, therefore, adverse
inference is required to be drawn against the first party bank by this Hon’ble Tribunal in the interest of justice.
iv.
It is further stated that, it is a clear case of violation of mandatory Section 25 (F) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. Admittedly, the bank had not followed the due procedure contemplated under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, it is a case of violation of mandatory Section 25 (F) of the I.D.
Act, and therefore, the action of oral termination of the management is considered to be ab-inio void and
the second party is entitle for relief of reinstatement with continuity of service along with full back wages
of interim period. When, the violation of Section 25 (F) of the I.D. Act, 1947 is established the relief of
reinstatement with continuity of service along with back wages is entitle by the second party. The said
aspect has been examined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various cases.
In case of Jasmer Singh V/s State of Haryana and Another reported in (2015)4SSC-458.
In case of Ramesh Kumar V/s State of Haryana reported in 2010(1) SCALE-432.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8257
In case of Raj Kumar Dixit V/s Vijay Kumar Gauri Shanker, Kanpur Nagar reported in (2015)9SSC-345.
In case of State of U.P. V/s Charan Singh, reported in 2015Lab.I.C.-2347(SC).
v.
It is also stated that, considering the above mentioned settled law, the second party is entitled for
reinstatement with continuity of service along with full back wages of interim period.
Because of
•
The first party bank had not produced any single evidence before this Hon’ble Tribunal though the best
evidence is in their possession, therefore, adverse inference drawn against the bank.
•
The first party bank had raised only contention in written statement that, the second party was not
appointed as per recruitment rules, in the said contention the Hon’ble Apex Court have been pleased to
examined and observed that, in case of reinstatement or violation of Section 25 (F) of I.D. Act, 1947 such
contention of management is negative.
•
The second party had established his case by way of filing an affidavit on oath, wherein, he was
categorically stated that, he had worked for 240 days in preceding year of termination, which was cross
examined by the bank but not contraverted it.
•
The first party bank has not leaded any oral evidence against the affidavit of the second party and
therefore, the evidence of the second party is remained proved 240 days continuous service.
•
The bank had absorbed/reinstated the two co-employees in the employment though the case of the second
party was not considered due to overage. The bank management can made relaxation in case of the
second party.
vi.
Therefore, the second party is humble praying that, this Hon’ble Tribunal may be please to grant the
relief of reinstatement with continuity of service along with full back wages of interim period in the
interest of justice.
7.
The first party filed the written arguments Ex. 19 submitting that the second party workman challenged his
termination from service on the ground of violative of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act but these provisions
does not apply. But this argument has no force because the second party workman by way of his oral evidence, has
proved that he completed 240 working days during the preceding 12 months from the date of his termination and also
served for 2063 days from the date of his joining dated 21.11.1992 to the date of termination dated 18.02.2002. The
workman has also moved an application Ex. 12 for production of documents to be filed by the first party and the first
party objected to file the reply but no reply was filed and the first party did not prefer to submit the documents as
demanded by the second party workman. It is also noteworthy that the second party has also not examined any witness
to rebut the oral evidence of the second party workman regarding that the second party has completed 240 working
days during the preceding 12 months from the date of his termination and also served for 2063 days from the date of his
joining dated 21.11.1992 to the date of termination dated 18.02.2002. Thus the oral evidence of the second party
workman in this regard is unrebutted; therefore, this tribunal has no option but to believe the oral evidence of the
workman.
8.
The first party advocate referred the judgements of Gujarat High Court in Saurashtra Shramik Sangh V/s Amreli
Municipality, 2017 (I) CLR 132, Prantij Municipal Borough V/s Chauhan Prabhudas Shankarlal 2010 (2) CLR 759,
R.N. Chauhan V/s Morvi Nagar Palica 2011 Volume 4 LLN 205, Rain Forest Officer V/s Vitthalbhai Babubhai 2016
Volume 3 CLR 533, Deputy Executive Engineer V/s Kishorebhai D. Joshi 2014 Volume 3 JLR 2409, Indian Oil
Corporation V/s Vadodara Kamdar Union 2010 Volume 124 FLR 727 which deals with the entitlement of
reinstatement, continuity, back wages and regularisation which are not applicable because the second party workman
has proved by way of his oral evidence that he was a workman within the definition of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act as he has completed 240 working days during the preceding 12 months from the date of his termination
and also served for 2063 days from the date of his joining dated 21.11.1992 to the date of termination dated 18.02.2002
and first party bank did not prefer to rebut the oral evidence of the workman even by way of examining any bank
official.
9.
He has also referred the Apex Court judgement in Nandkumar V/s State of Bihar 2014 (2) SC C (L&S) 171
wherein it has been held that the appellant daily wagers were never appointed through a proper procedure and hence,
are not appointees in the strict sense of the term “appointment”. They do not hold a post. The scheme of alternative
appointment framed for regular employees of abolished organisation cannot, therefore, confer a similar entitlement on
the daily wagers of abolished organisation to such alternative employment. Appointment on daily wage basis in not an
appointment to a post according to the rules. Usually, the projects in which the daily wagers were engaged, having
8258
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
come to an end, their appointment is necessarily terminated for want of work. Therefore, the status and rights of a daily
of a government concern are not equivalent to that of a government servant and his claim to permanency has to be
adjudged differently. Their claim to regularisation/absorption is not a matter of course. Besides, the consequences of
temporary appointment were within their knowledge. Thus, they cannot have a right to invoke the theory of legitimate
expectation for being confirmed in the post.
10.
He has also referred the Apex Court judgement in M.P. Housing Board V/s Manoj Shrivastav 2006 SC C (L&S)
422 wherein it has been held that the respondent was appointed on daily wages as a Sub-Engineer (Civil) on the
premise that his services might be terminated, he filed a writ petition whereupon the High Court directed the appellant
Board to consider his case in the light of the purported circulars issued by the State Government for scrutiny of daily-
rated employees. Upon the said direction, a Scrutiny Committee was appointed which found that there was no vacancy
nor there existed any sanctioned post.
The respondent thereafter filed an application before the Labour Court purported to be in terms of Section 31 (3)
read with Section 64-A of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (“the 1960 Act”) praying that he be
classified in the permanent category on the ground that he had satisfactorily worked for more than 6 months and, thus,
became eligible therefore, as provided under clause 2 (vi) of the Standard Standing Orders. The Labour Court allowed
the application holding that the respondent was entitled to be categorised in the permanent category on the post of Sub-
Engineer (Civil). It was further held that the respondent was entitled to claim the pay scale of the permanent category
from the date of submitting the application before the Labour Court. Supreme Court reversed the orders in under
challenge.
11.
The present case is distinguishable from the aforesaid judgement because the first party has not come with the
clean hands because the first party withheld the documents demanded by the workman, the bank has not been abolished
as said in Nandkumar V/s State of Bihar 2014 (2) SC C (L&S) 171 and second, the workman is not a Sub-Engineer, the
recruitment of which requires a tedious process of recruitment by Public Service Commission, third, the bank has not
explained by way of evidence as to why the workman was permitted to continue from 21.11.1992 to 18.02.2002 and
why he was removed without paying notice pay or retrenchment compensation as he served for 240 days during
preceding 12 months from the date of oral termination.
12.
Thus this is a case where the first party bank has deliberately evaded to contest the second party workman’s
claim, thus on the ground of the aforesaid reasons, the issue is decided in negative and against the first party bank with
the observation as under: “the action of the management of Bank of India in terminating/discontinuing the service of
Shri Solanki Bhogilal Dalpatbhai w.e.f. 18.02.2002 without following the provisions of Section 25 is illegal and
unjustified”.
13.
Issue No. (ii) : The second party workman has not been examined by the bank on the point as to whether he
gained any other employment after his termination; therefore, the second party workman shall be entitled to be
reinstated within 60 days from the date of the publication of this award with 10% back wages.
14.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2475-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 651@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
11-10-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@107@1997&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2475.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 651/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.10.2017.
[No. L-12012/107/1997-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8259
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 04th September, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 651/2004
The Manager,
Bank of India,
Ellora Park Branch, Subhanpura,
Baroda (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
Shri Sailesh Kantibhai Wanker,
Tharsali, Wankerwas,
Behind Gujarati School,
Baroda (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri D.C. Gandhi Associates
For the Second Party : Shri A.A. Trivedi
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/107/97-
IR(B-II) dated 26/27.11.1997 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Sailesh
Kantibhai Wanker is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled?”
1.
The reference dates back to 26/27.11.2004. The second party workman vide his statement of claim Ex. 3 has
alleged that he worked for 2 years from November 1992 to 06.10.1994 as a daily wager workman on a daily wages of
Rs. 35 per day by way of vouchers and his services were orally terminated on 06.10.1994 without giving notice or
notice pay despite the fact that some of the workman were regularised as permanent employee. Thus he has prayed for
reinstatement in service and back wages.
2.
The first party Bank of India, Ellora Park, Baroda vide his written statement Ex. 8 denied the averments of the
statement of claim that he was a regular employee as a peon of the Bank. The reference is based on false facts. The
workman was never employed as regular or permanent employees. He was engaged as a casual employee on temporary
basis. He never served the Bank for 240 days in the preceding year of the alleged termination of the services. Thus the
reference has no force and liable to be dismissed.
3.
On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:
i.
Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Sailesh
Kantibhai Wanker is legal and justified?
ii.
If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled?
4.
Neither of the parties filed any documentary evidence which may be read in the evidence.
5.
Issue No. (i): The second party workman in his statement on oath Ex. 10 reiterated the averments made in the
statement of claim but the first party bank did not prefer to examine any bank employee as a witness on oath.
6.
The bank has made written arguments Ex. 27 which are reproduced as under:
“i.
The bank had narrated the cases of the bank vide Para 4A to 4C and specifically mentioned the duties
performed by the worker concerned and the procedure for the recruitment of permanent employees of the
bank. The bank had also stated that, as the worker concerned was not employed as permanent employee,
8260
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
he had not put continuous service nor he had completed 240 days and therefore, he is not entitled to any
of the relief prayed for in the statement of claim or otherwise.
ii.
The bank begs to submit that, vide Ex. 10 the oral deposition of the worker concerned was recorded
before the Hon’ble Tribunal in which he had stated that, “he was paid on voucher, as he has claimed to be
made permanent, his services were terminated (which was not stated in the statement of claim)”. He has
also stated that, “one RameshbhaiKhalubhaiChimanbhaiParmar and Ramesh Dolanki are made
permanent” but immediately he had admitted that, “all the employees named are senior to him. In the
cross examination, he had admitted that he was engaged for temporary work and he was also deputed in
the other branches. He had also admitted that he had not completed 240 days in the year 1992. He has
also not completed 240 days in the year 1993 but he has completed 240 days in the year 1994. (He has
shown willingness to produce the documentary evidence to prove the services of 240 days but during the
proceeding, he had not produced that and therefore, it was not proved by the worker concerned.) On the
point of gainful employment, he had admitted that w.e.f. 1994; he is working with the Labour Contractor
as an electrician and getting Rs. 1000/- per month.” It is submitted by the bank that, from the date of
termination of the services, the worker concerned was employed in gainful employment and therefore
also, he is not entitled to any monetary benefits as he had claimed in the statement of claim or otherwise.
iii.
Vide Ex. 12, the worker concerned had produced some documentary evidence, but from the record also it
can be seen that he had failed to prove the services of 240 days but from the voucher it can be established
his designation.
iv.
Vide Ex. 13, the pursis filed by the worker concerned to close his evidence.
v.
Vide Ex. 15, the oral evidence of bank was closed.
vi.
To prove the case of the bank, that the worker concerned is not entitled to any of the reliefs, the bank
relies upon the following judgements:
a.
Mohanbhai Karmanbhai Sorala and others V/s Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation (Gujarat High
Court) reported in 2011 (131) 854.
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has specifically held that, “when the appointment not made
pursuant to advertisement in newspaper, cannot be said that initial appointment was through a
regular known as legal mode”, not entitled to be regularised in service. Relevant Para 9 on Page
856, Para 18 on Page 858 and Para 22 on Page 859.
b.
In the case of Union of India and others V/s VArtak Labour Union reported in 2011 (2) LLN Page
330 of Supreme Court.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that, the temporary or casual worker even engaged beyond
period of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be in regular service or made permanent. If
original appointment was not in terms of process envisaged by relevant rules, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court also held that, one appointed with a clear stipulation that such appointment will not confer
any right on appointees to seek regularisation or absorption in regular cadre. Relevant Para 13, 18
and 19 on Page 334 and 336 respectively.
c.
In the case of Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow (UP) V/s Akhilesh Kumar Kher and
another reported in 2015, LLR, Page 1121.
In the said case, this Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that when casual or temporary workers are
aware of the consequences of their such appointment, they cannot invoke the theory of legitimate
expectation for the regularisation as their selection was not made by following due process as laid
down by the provision of the law. Relevant Para 11 and 13 on Page 1123 and 1124 repectivley.
(In this case the Hon’ble SC has directed to pay monetary compensation of Rs. 400000/- as the
concerned workman of the case was out of employment for more than 20 years but in the present
case, the worker concerned had put services of only 2 years and immediately after his so called
discontinuation, he got employed gainfully and therefore, he will not be entitled for any
compensation).
7.
Though the second party workman has submitted the zerox copies of the vouchers as well as the payment of
wages from 30.11.1992 to 06.10.1994 but he did not move any application for production of the original copies of the
aforesaid working days and payment of wages by the first party which may vindicates the evidence by way of
producing the zerox copies of the vouchers as well as the payment of wages. As the first party bank has denied the facts
of working for 240 days in the preceding year, therefore, it was necessary from the part of the second party workman to
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8261
prove the said facts. However, as the first party has not fully denied that the workman did not serve the bank for the
aforesaid period and as he has admitted in his cross-examination that after his removal from service, he used to earn Rs.
1000/- per month by way of otherwise employment and D.C. Gandhi Associates, Solicitor Firm for the first party bank
sent the written arguments to the workman which is received as unserved. It appears that the workman is not traceable
and might have sought alternative employment.
8.
It is noteworthy that in the absence of the clinching documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the workman
served the bank for more than 240 days in the preceding year of the removal of the employment, this issue is decided in
affirmative in the favour of the first party bank.
9.
Issue No. (ii) : On the basis of the aforesaid findings, no relief can be granted.
10.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2476-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSUVªy cSad
vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 876@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 11-10-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@142@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2476.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 876/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Central Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.10.2017.
[No. L-12012/142/2000-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 05th September, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 876/2004
The Dy. General Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Lal Darwaja,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
Miss Y.S. Vanzara,
170, Shreenathji Nagar – 3,
Bharatnagar,
Bhavnagar (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri P.S. Chari
For the Second Party
:
8262
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/142/
2000-IR(B-II) dated 18/24.01.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Rajkot in discharging
Miss Y.S. Vanzara from Bank’s service w.e.f. 31.03.1999 is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief the
concerned employee is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 18/24.01.2001. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on
15.06.2001 along with number of documents vide list Ex. 6. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 34 on
10.09.2012 along with fresh vakalatpatra of his advocate Ex. 35. Since then the second party workman has been absent
and has also not been leading his evidence despite the fact that the copy of the written statement was served on the
workman on 04.10.2012. Thus it appears that the second party workman has not been leading to prosecute the case.
2.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman with the
observation as under: “the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Rajkot in discharging
Miss Y.S. Vanzara from Bank’s service w.e.f. 31.03.1999 is legal and justified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2477-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk cSad
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 700@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
11-10-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12012@261@1999&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2477.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 700/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Dena Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.10.2017.
[No. L-12012/261/1999-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 07th September, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 700/2004
The Regional Manager,
Dena Bank, Regional Office,
Nanpura,
Surat (Gujarat) – 395001
…First Party
V/s
Shri N.B. Chauhan,
Bapa Vas, Behind Laxmi Talkies,
At. Navsari,
Valsad (Gujarat)
…Second Party
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8263
For the First Party
:
Shri J.M. Patel
For the Second Party
:
Shri Yogen Pandya
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/261/99-
IR(B-II) dated 15.02.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Dena Bank, Regional Office, Surat in terminating the services of
Shri Narsinhbhai B. Chauhan w.e.f. 19.10.1995 treating voluntary cessation of employment in terms of Para-
17 of bipartite settlement dated 10.04.1989, is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to and from which date?”
1.
The reference dates back to 15.02.2000. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 3 on 04.12.2000
and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 8 on 29.11.2001 along with the number of documents vide list
Ex. 9. Since then the second party has not been leading evidence despite the fact that on 08.01.2011, Shri Yogen
Pandya filed a fresh vakalatpatra Ex. 21 on behalf of the second party and sought adjournment. After giving dozens of
opportunities, the second party advocate was given last opportunity on 30.03.2017 to lead evidence on 13.07.2017. On
13.07.2017, he moved an application Ex. 22 for giving one more last opportunity and the same was allowed to lead
evidence on 07.09.2017. Today on 07.09.2017, Shri Bharat, junior advocate to Shri Yogen Pandya is present but unable
to lead his evidence. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the reference.
2.
Therefore, the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party, is disposed of with the observation
as under: “the action of the management of Dena Bank, Regional Office, Surat in terminating the services of Shri
Narsinhbhai B. Chauhan w.e.f. 19.10.1995 treating voluntary cessation of employment in terms of Para-17 of bipartite
settlement dated 10.04.1989, is legal, proper and justified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2478-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wukbVsM
cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 344@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
11-10-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@128@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2478.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 344/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
United Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.10.2017.
[No. L-12011/128/2000-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 23rd August, 2017
8264
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reference: (CGITA) No. 344/2004
The Chief Regional Manager,
United Bank of India,
Western Region, 5th Floor, 25,
sir Pheroz Shah Mehta Road,
Mumbai – 400001
…First Party
V/s
The Joint Secretary,
United Bank of India Sramik Karmachari Samity,
C/o UBI, Manekchawk Branch, Manekchawk,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party
:
Shri B.M. Joshi
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/128/
2000-IR(B-II) dated 29.09.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India in denying pensionary benefits to Shri B.H.
Chaudhary employed as permanent part-time Sweeper by rejecting his option for pension dated 29.09.1994 is
legal and justified? If not then to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 29.09.2000. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on 20.11.2000
along with number of documents and Solicitor Firm K.V. Gadhia Associates submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 8 on
19.02.2011 but did not prefer to submit the written statement. Since the submission of vakalatpatra Ex. 8 by the first
party, the second party union failed to appear in person to lead his evidence. The advocate of the second party stated in
the court on 23.08.2017 that he tried to contact his client by writing a letter but he has not responded. It is also
noteworthy that on 06.02.2017, a notice was issued to the second party union to appear and lead evidence on
21.03.2017 but on 21.03.2017 and thereafter on 11.05.2017, 07.06.2017 and 23.08.2017, the second party union did not
appear. Thus in the light of the statement of the advocate and non-appearance of the second party union on aforesaid
dates, indicates that the second party union is not willing to prosecute the case.
2.
Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party, is finally disposed of with the observation
as under: “the action of the management of Union Bank of India in denying pensionary benefits to Shri B.H.
Chaudhary employed as permanent part-time Sweeper by rejecting his option for pension dated 29.09.1994 is legal and
justified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2479-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn (xqtjkr) ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 262@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
11-10-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@138@1999&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2479.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 262/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.10.2017.
[No. L-12011/138/1999-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8265
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 31st August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 262/2004
The Regional Manager,
Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Bhadra,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
…First Party
V/s
The General Manager,
Bank of India Staff Union,
C/o Bank of India,
Ahmedabad and Gujarat Branches,
Bhadra, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri P.S. Chari
For the Second Party
:
None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/138/99-
IR(B-II) dated 21.01.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in terminating the service of the employee Smt.
Urvashi Kiritbhai Dave, Staff Clerk, Ellis bridge Branch, Ahmedabad on the ground of voluntary cessation
from service under clause 17 (a) of the Bi-partite Agreement dated 16.08.1989 and also denying here the
benefit of pension under Rule 29 of Pension Regulation is legal and justified? If not then to what relief the
concerned employee is entitled to and from which date?”
1.
The reference dates back to 21.01.2000. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 3 on 14.03.2000
along with the documents vide list Ex. 6. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 9 on 28.08.2001 along
with the documents. The case was fixed for evidence of the second party since then. But the second party has been
absent and has not preferred to lead his evidence. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the
case.
2.
Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party, is finally disposed of with the observation
as under: “the action of the management of Bank of India in terminating the service of the employee Smt. Urvashi
Kiritbhai Dave, Staff Clerk, Ellis bridge Branch, Ahmedabad on the ground of voluntary cessation from service under
clause 17 (a) of the Bi-partite Agreement dated 16.08.1989 and also denying here the benefit of pension under Rule 29
of Pension Regulation is legal and justified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2480-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eS- ,u-
vkj- bUVjus'ky fy- ,aM ikjknhi iksVZ VªLV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 26@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 11-10-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh
8266
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 14, 2017/ASVINA 22, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017
S.O. 2480.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. N.R.
International Limited & Paradip Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.10.2017.
[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
Present :
Shri B.C. Rath,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 26/2016
Date of Passing Award – 12th July, 2017
Between:
1.
M/s. N.R. International Ltd., Registered office at
3rd Floor, Draupadi Mansion, 11, Brabourne Road,
Kolaktta – 700 001, West Bengal.
2.
M/s. N.R. International Ltd., represented by the
Chairman, Shri Nirmal Modi, Plot No. 1050, N.R.
House, in front of Bombay Hotel, College Square,
Cuttack – 03.
3.
Director, N.R. International Ltd., at N.R. House,
Plot No. 52, O.S.H.B. Colony, Jagannath Mandir
Road, Madhuban, Paradip – 754 142.
4.
Chairman, Administrative Building, Paradip Port
Trust, At./Po. Paradip, Dist. Jagatsinghpur
…1st Party-Managements
(And)
Shri Abhimanyu Mahakud,
S/o. Damodar Mahakud, Qrs. No. MA-205,
Madhuban, Paradip – 754 142,
Dist. Jagatsinghpur
…2nd Party-Workman
Appearances :
None
…
For the 1st Party-Managements
Shri A. Mahakud
…
For himself the 2nd Party-Workman
AWARD
The award is directed against an application under sub-clause (2) and (3) of Section 2-A of the Industrial
Dispute Act (herein-after referred to as “the Act”).
2.
The case of the applicant as emerging from his pleadings is that being appointed by the Management No. 1 he
was posted in the office of the Management No. 3 at Paradip as an Executive (Port Operation) and he joined in the said
establishment in the year October, 1994. The applicant was working under the active control and supervision of one
Shri U. Venkata Rao, Branch Manager of the Management-Company. He was also allotted a company’s quarters
bearing No. MA/2005 and provided with an entry pass to the Paradip Port complex area at the instance of his employer.
Besides, he was allotted with E.P.F. code number and his monthly wage was being remitted to his Saving Pass Book
Account. As his monthly wage was not paid timingly he raised a grievance before his authority. He is stated to have
incurred an expenditure of Rs. 50,000/- towards certain ancilliary works of the Management-Office in April, 2014.
When he asked for early clearance the above expenditure and his other dues including monthly wages the officer of the
Management became annoyed with him. According to him he brought his grievances to the notice of labour machinery
as a result of which a conciliation proceeding was initiated and the office of the Managements was requested to attend
the said conciliation proceeding scheduled to be held on 3.7.2015, 19.8.2015 and 8.10.2015. The Management did not
participate in the said proceedings. On the other hand the Management No. 3 refused employment to him 13.6.2015
despite his reporting to the duty. According to him provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G were not complied with while
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 14] 2017@vkf'ou 22] 1939
8267
refusing employment to him. Such employment amounting to retrenchment in violation of provisions of Section 25-F
and G is illegal and unjustified. Hence, prayer has been made for his reinstatement with effect from 13.6.2015 with all
back wages and all consequential service benefits and also a direction to the Managements to clear the arrear dues of
Rs. 50,000/- of the workman. It is alleged by the workman that he was drawn an amount of Rs. 18,600/- towards his
monthly wage at the time of his dismissal.
3.
Despite notice to the Managements when it failed to make appearance it has been set exparte. The applicant has
examined himself as W.W.-1 and filed copy of the experience certificate, copies of the Bank pass book, E.P.F.,
Electricity duty payment receipt of company’s quarter and port entry pass, copies of the representations dated
21.4.2015 and 15.6.2015, copies of the complaints made to the L.E.O. (C) on different dates, copy of the reply of the
Director of the Management, copy of the complaint letter made to the Labor machinery and copy of the certificate
issued by the labour machinery which are marked as Ext.- 1 to 8 in support of his claim.
4.
The oral testimony of the applicant workman is nothing more or less than re-iteration of his pleadings advanced
in his application. On a close scrutiny of the papers/documents filed by the applicant it is seen that he was issued with
a conduct certificate in Nov., 1996 by the Branch Manager of the Management office at Paradip Port and the same
reveals that he was working as Executive (Port Operation) at that time. It has been explained by the workman that he
had lost his appointment letter for which he is relying on other documents to establish his employment in the
establishment of the Management No. 3. There are also Xerox copies of correspondences between the office of the
Management No. 3 and labour machinery, Paradip, from which it is emerging that the applicant who was working in
the organization of the Management No. 3 at Paradip. The Management has alleged in its correspondences that the
workman had abandoned the service voluntarily. Gate pass of Paradip Port Trust issued in favour of the applicant also
reveals that the same was issued at the instance of Management No. 3 and the same was valid from April, 2015 to
March, 2016. The statement/entries of savings pass book reveals that certain amounts were transferred to his S.B.
Account by the Management from time to time. The above papers filed by the applicant clearly indicate that the
applicant was employed with the Management No. 3 for a long period and there is nothing adverse to disbelieve the
uncontroverted pleadings and oral evidence of the applicant. The Managements being remained exparte nothing
adverse is available before the Tribunal to disbelieve the version of the applicant. The Managements are stated to be
operating as Stevedors for loading and unloading materials in the Paradip Port. The applicant workman having worked
for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to his alleged refusal of employment and he being in employment
of the workman from the year 1994 is required to be paid notice pay an compensation as provided under section 25-F
of the Act. Refusal of employment to the applicant amounts to retrenchment as defined under section 2(oo) of the Act.
The said retrenchment being made without compliance of Section 25-F is apparently illegal and unjustified. The
workman having been in service in the establishment of the Management No. 3 for more than 22 years shall be
reinstated in the present facts and circumstances of the case in view of his retrenchment being found illegal and
unjustified.
5.
It is, therefore, directed that the applicant shall be reinstated immediately within one month of this award being
notified and he is also entitled to receive 50% of his back wages for the period of his disengagement and consequential
service benefits, if any, failing which the applicant is entitled to receive 8% interest on his back wages. The application
under section 2-A(2) is disposed of accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, 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: 2017.11.17
15:16:49 +05'30'