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'